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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Concerns regarding BrownHairedGirl

I have today noticed many very concerning incidents involving the admin BrownHairedGirl. I think the simplest thing to do is break it down into sections of everything that is wrong here.

Threats of admin abuse

• and while I am bemused to see that you disagree, I am pleased to find in a re-reading WP:CSD, I find that WP:CSD#A10 agrees. So In future I'll just delete this sort of junk on sight. That's a simple, quick non-bureaucratic solution to Boleyn's practice of creating of non-articles to bulk out her "articles I created" list
• Anyway, I'll repeat what I said above: if I find any further sub-stubs which simply duplicate list entries, I will delete them on sight per WP:CSD#A10. That applies to nearly all of the articles listed above.

Now I'm sorry, but this is blatant abuse of tools, BHG has already attempted to take these articles to AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fox (1622–1666)) and failed miserably. Since she didn't get her own way she is now openly stating that she will just delete them on sight. The consensus from the AFD is that the articles which are being created *are* notable and suitable, so if she were to carry out her threats she would be acting against consensus to push her own agenda, thus abusing her tools

Actual admin abuse

• I have therefore blocked User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. You are of course free to continue editing under your main account, User:Boleyn

Last time I checked, admin's should not use their power in situations in which they are involved, yet BHG has gone ahead and blocked two accounts regardless, despite the fact that the use of multiple accounts in this instance has been investigated several times and has been deemed to be OK.

Luckily someone with common sense stepped in and unblocked these accounts. This does not excuse the fact that BHG has acted in a massively inappropriate way.

Dodgy edit summaries

While these may not be classed as uncivil, you must remember this user is an admin, what sort of example is this setting?

• This sort of crappy and completely un-researched sub-stub should really be speedy-deleted, but I have the sources so I'll expand it. Tag it as {{inuse}}
• I would much prefer to spend my time doing what I usually do, which is to write and expand articles, but when I encountered this flood of rubbish I realised that something had to be done to stop it
• Just as well we're not here to create an encyclopedia, Duncan, or you'd be on very shaky ground
• go away
• stay off my talk page
• expand a bit. Even after tweaks by other editors, this was still one of a long series of abysmal sub-stubs created by an experienced but lazy editor who didn't even look for any sources

Bullying

You'll notice that everything above is aimed at User:Boleyn, who BrownHairedGirl seems to have some sort of vendetta against for some reason.

Proposal

I propose that BrownHairedGirl is banned from interacting with User:Boleyn until such a point that she accepts that her actions today have been grossly unacceptable. I have tried to include everything here, but the best way to get a feel for her actions today is to check her recent contributions. The behaviour is absolutely shocking. Jeni ^(talk) 00:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like WP:OWB#37 to me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, I did not agree with the blocks, and I did also notice that BHG was very much "involved" with this user. However, I don't feel that her "behavior is absolutely shocking." I would suggest that BHG consider herself an "involved party" with regard to Boleyn and articles created by her, and should not take further admin actions in this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWB#37. Read it, move on. N419BH 01:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC) My apologies, see comment below. N419BH 02:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - calling someone with over 100,000 edits a "lazy editor" seems at the very least, somewhat disingenous. I'm also unhappy with attempts to shut down the discussion with the OWB references - not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni. Exxolon (talk) 01:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I believe you have misattributed the author of the OWB reference. –xeno^talk 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I thought I was being clear but will clarify. I believe Jeni posted this report in good faith and I'm unhappy that at least two other editors have responded by linking to an "Observation on Wiki Behaviour" that essentially says that complaints about an admin are likely to be instigated maliciously. To quote the full text - "When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. If there's a block involved, expect to see a battalion of sockpuppets in short order, making even more shrill cries of admin wrongdoing." - that seems not to follow WP:AGF at all. Exxolon (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Rereading my initial comment I can see how it might be misparsed "not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni" was a comment on the other two editors actions, i.e they did not seem to be assuming Jeni was acting in good faith, so they were "not very assuming of good faith on the part of Jeni". Apologies for any confusion. Exxolon (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  I see what you meant now. Thanks for clarifying, –xeno^talk 02:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, maybe I should read things twice before posting them. My intent was to say the majority of cases of alleged admin abuse are not anything of the sort. However, as I have now been called out for this lax approach, I will now proceed to review in detail the concerns raised. Again, my apologies to all. N419BH 02:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• The Only thing I really notice is that the editor shouldn't have blocked Boleyn's alternative accounts. It's not as if Boleyn uses them for anything more than watchlists- and he/she discloses it. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  The alternative accounts have lots of edits. A little clarification may be in order there - I'm assuming that Boleyn logs into alternate accounts, checks their watchlists and then edits articles on that account's watchlist using the alternate account, so strictly speaking they are not just for extra watchlists. Ideally I suppose only the main account should edit but I can see why it's far easier to edit from the alternate account rather than Login to alternate-->Check watchlist-->Check article on watchlist-->See edit required-->Logout of alternate-->Login to main-->Perform edit under main account. Exxolon (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is embarrassing. I will now eat my hat. I feel like I need a WP:TROUT. While I don't see anything corresponding to blatant abuse, I do see a good number of instances of very edgy edit summaries and a possible vendetta against a particular editor. My apologies for not adhering to WP:AGF. A valid point has been raised here. Sheepishly, N419BH 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I just wanted to make sure Jeni's concerns were at least given a fair hearing. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Unindent - I think Beeblebrox's suggestion is sensible. If Brownhairedgirl feels any of Boleyn's future actions/edits require administrative action bring it here for an uninvolved admin to review and act if required. Exxolon (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, though naturally Brownhairedgirl should be given the opportunity to respond here. N419BH 03:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also slightly confused about BHG's comment "AFD is not supposed to be an article-improvement device" from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Fox (1622–1666) - I thought that WAS one of the purposes of AFD - to bring an article to the attention of the community and if it is an article that can be improved so it passes AFD for that to occur. Exxolon (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find that in the documentation at WP:AFD (Frankly I can't find a definitive "what AFD is for" anywhere, but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. However, I did find the following at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion:

"You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones)."

I'll keep looking to see if I can find something more definitive. N419BH 03:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, from Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process:

"Remember that deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved."

Don't know if the behavior currently under discussion falls afoul of this guideline, but it's worth mentioning. N419BH 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I took those comments to mean that although she thought the articles should be deleted, in the end the AFD did cause them to be fixed up, whether that was her intention or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Beeblebrox, that was what I meant. Articles which look shaky at AFD are often massively improved whilst under scrutiny there, but I am aware that many editors rightly deplore the misuse of AFD as an article-improvement cugdel, so in the comments I made when withdrawing the AFD nomination, I wanted to stress that was not what I was trying to do.

As Dsp13 noted at the bottom of the AFD, huge amounts of work are required to check and expand these error-prone sub-stubs. Sources on MPs from the 17th century and earlier are hard to find on the web or in general reference books, and there are no newspaper archives from that period, so the stub concept is much less useful for this type of article than for others where sources are more readily available.

Rather than creating lots of mal-formed, error-ridden sub-stubs on relatively minor people from 500 years ago, it would be much better to leave them as redlinks until an editor with at least some substantial sources can make a start on an article which isn't synthesised from passing mentions found in google searches. I intend no criticism of those who generously give their time to try to expand articles in this way, but while the end results may include several references, they are often a bit of a scrapbook collection of snippets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I'm afraid I do feel this is a personal vendetta. BrownHairedGirl objected to me creating very short stubs on people who meet the notability guidelines, preferring that they had no article to one with little information. Personally, I would rather there was something than nothing, and many of the other 700 articles I've created have been expanded to good or reasonable articles. Some notable but quite obscure politicians are unlikely to get beyond a stub, but I still think if they meet wp:politician then creating an article is good for Wikipedia. I'm surprised how many MPs lack articles still. I don't agree, but I understand and accept BHG's point and have gone back over the articles she highlighted, expanding and referencing with the sources I could find. I feel that mass deletion nominations were unhelpful, and the block on me meant that it was difficult to continue improving them. I've been on here a while and haven't even been threatened with a ban before, so I was upset, naturally. However, I've tried to respond politely and have not responded to the rude comments on the AfD discussion and in edit summaries.

Previously, BHG objected to my use of Template:db-disambig for disambiguation pages with two entries, where one is at the primary page. BHG was right that sometimes I should have moved the primary to a disambiguator and the dab to the primary page, rather than delete the dab and use a hatnote. However, I make two or three hundred edits a day. Finding areas where my edits meet the guidelines but could have been better, or where I have made a mistake, won't be impossible when I give such a large portion of my time to Wikipedia. During this previous objection, BHG also flooded my Talk page with critical and angry comments, to the point at which I deleted some of her messages and asked her to stop contacting me about four times. She didn't.

I really feel that there is no need for personal attacks or following an editor's edits in this manner. BHG has addressed the feeling that I am 'playing at' something and have some kind of agenda, but my agenda is simple: improve the style and content of disambiguation pages and increase the amount of articles on notable subjects. There are many editors where I don't like the way they do things, and some where I spend a bit of time cleaning up their edits on a regular basis, but I don't bite them because I appreciate that overall, mistakes or differences of opinion aside, they are helping improve Wikipedia. I really feel that BHG should cease to track my edits looking for things to correct and should not contact me further, regarding this or any future issues (as she also makes valuable contributions to politician and disambiguation pages, she is bound to be annoyed by an edit I make in the future). Any serious concerns she has could be dealt with by her referring it to another admin. I do feel harassed and bullied by this - I am meant to be enjoying my holiday! - and feel that this behaviour puts off people editing Wikipedia. I hope that my proposal will be agreed to by BHG. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not acceptable. As noted in my recent post below (written before I saw the one above, but there was an e/c when I posted), I made a suggestion on Boleyn's talk to which I hope for a response, and I think that provides a better way forward.

For the record, I have no vendetta against Boleyn; AFAICR, I had a disagreement with her last year, and one this year, and that's it. Two encounters 13 months apart does not a vendetta make.

However, on both the two occasions when I have tried of discuss concerns with her, there has been the same pattern: I post an carefully-written explanation of my concerns which Boleyn ignores and carries on editing. I post a few followup msgs , and eventually Boleyn replies to a trivial point ignoring most of initial concern ... and when I express frustration she either stops responding at all or claims she is being harassed. There is a very simple solution to this: try to discuss problems as they arise. It's how WP:CONSENSUS works. Stonewalling, and then claiming that the resulting frustration of the other editor is "bullying". ... well, that's not a reasonable description of what happens after a sustained failure to try to discuss disagreements.

That's what happened last year, when I tried to discuss with Boleyn some problems with her edits to dab pages. Not wildly complicated issues, but I found the same unwillingness to try to reach agreement, and the same complaints about "critical and angry comments" after repeated polite attempts had been ignored and the problem continued.

It's what happened this time, when I wrote what I intended to be a helpful-and-explanatory msg of why her proliferation of malformed of sub-stubs was inappropriate: ignore the messages until the other editor gets frustrated, and then complain about "rudeness" and "bullying". This is pattern of ignore-the-polite-and-informative-messages is no way to work collaboratively, and following that up with a "bullying" complaints about the subsequent-for-goodness-sake-please-stop-messages is an unhelpful form of passive aggression. That may or may not be intentional, but it's no way to resolve disagreements, and it would set a very bad precedent for an editor who refuses to discuss disagreements to thereby be able to insist on no contact with anyone they disagree with. If we go down that road, bye-bye consensus.

Boleyn is right that many MPs still lack articles. But there have been over 10,000 of them since the Act of Union in 1800, and another 15K or 20K so before that. We currently have articles of some form on about 85-90% of the post-1800 MPs, about 50% of the 18th-century MPs, and a much lower proprtion before then, partly due to recentism and partly because readily accessible sources are much scarcer as we go back in time. The gaps are steadily being filled, but it's a big task and won't be done overnight. A large part of my very long contribs list has been creating or expanding or tweaking such articles, and it's great if more editors want to fill in the gaps. My concern was and remains that rapid-fire creation of huge numbers of malformed subs does not assist the creation of well-formed articles and just makes a lot of work for other editors to tidy up. Fewer and better stubs from Boleyn would be a massively more useful addition to wikipedia. (Boleyn's claim that blocking her 2nd and 3rd accounts made improving the existing sub-stubs it more difficult is nonsense: her main account was not blocked, so she was as free to edit as any other editor).

This isn't just a matter of the sub-stubs. As I noted here (in exasperation, after much futile attempt at engagement), creating a stub which looks well-formed but misrepresents its references is arguably more problematic. Boleyn is asking that as one of the most prolific and experienced editors of these articles, I be debarred from checking for this sort of thing, even tho I appear to be one of the few editors who has a near-complete set of the reference books on 19th and 20th-century parliamentary elections in the UK and Ireland (Walker for Ireland, Craig for the UK). If I hadn't been tracking Boleyn's edits, those glitches might well have gone un-noticed for a long time, since articles on Irish MPs @ Westminster appear not be heavily scrutinised by editors. That does not sound to me like a good idea.

Rather than insisting "leave me alone", why doesn't Boleyn do what other editors do, and discuss problems as they arise? If she'd responded to my initial post yesterday and tried to reach agreement (or at least understand my concerns), then we could all have avoided a lot of aggravation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick response

I had a big disagreement with Jeni about 13 months ago, and ever since then she's been taking whatever opportunities she can to allege that I am engaged in dastardly deeds, and show how I am the most wicked person ever. So I was expecting a re-run of the periodic Jeni-demands-BHG's-head-on-a-plate show, and there it is.

Jeni's having fun ripping quotes out of context and ignoring the chronology, but the reality is much more mundane. In a nutsehell, it's all about:

a) repeated efforts to try to communicate with Boleyn (talk · contribs), an uncommunicative editor who flips at random between between multiple accounts

b) Boleyn's creation of dozens of malformed sub-stubs which other editors will have to tidy up

c) trying to delete some of these pointless ten-seconds-to-create pages which add no new content to wikipedia

When I was looking at the article on Chatham (UK Parliament constituency), I found that one article this MP was a abysmal sub-stub. Then I looked at another "article" on a Chatham MP and saw that it was also an abysmal sub-stub. So I checked the creator, found it was the same in both cases, and looked at the creator's contribs Boleyn (talk · contribs)/Boleyn2 (talk · contribs)/Boleyn3 (talk · contribs). There turned out to be dozens of similar articles from the last 2 months, which the contribs history showed to have been mostly created by copy-pasting the text from a dab page into the article page, and adding simply {{UK-politician-stub}}.

Boleyn/2/3 had created dozens of "articles" which:

1. usually contained less info that the corresponding entry in the list in the constituency article
2. Were placed in one of the categories in which MPs would usually be placed
3. Were not tagged with any of the stub tags which are usually applied to MPs: {{UK-MP-stub}} and its sub-cats
4. Were wholly unreferenced

So these "stubs" failed every test of usefulness:

• They were less informative than the constituency articles, even wrt the MP in question (e.g. this one omits 2 of the 3 most crucial bits of info a political office-holder: the party and when he left office)
• They were not in any of the relevant categories, so were unlikely to be found by an editor looking for such stubs. That makes it improbable that would be found and expanded.
• They were nearly all unreferenced, so the reader had no clue whether they were genuine factoids or patent nonsense

I was going to write a long response about how this developed, but saw a post from Boleyn on her talk page and replied there. After a lot of evasion, Boleyn acknowledges that this was all done "so that they don't come up as redlinks on disambiguation pages", which per WP:DABRL is unnecessary. I think that that discussion may have found a resolution to this mess, so I'll leave off posting anything else here until the morning, and see where we get to.

The only issue which does not appear to be near resolution Boleyn's use of multiple accounts. That is nothing like anything I have seen done by another editor. Many editors have one or more bot accounts, and others have a second account used for specific purposes, such as editing from a public place, to avoid risk of compromising their main account. However, Boleyn uses the three accounts interchangeably, frequently editing the same article from difft accounts. This makes it hard to track her contribs, and impedes communications because when using two of the accounts she gets no warning of a message on her talk. This is disruptive and serves no useful purpose; she claims that it's because each a/c has a watchlist of over 10,000 pages, but my watchlist well exceeds 30,000 and works fine, so that's no problem.

Since my block of her two subsidiary accounts was overturned, I'll open an RFCU on that matter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do a lot of stub-sorting, and had come across a lot of Boleyn's minimal stubs. I'd commented to him/her variously ([here], [here, here and here (which s/he did resolve). I was relieved to see that an admin was raising the issue, as this editor has been contributing a torrent of unreferenced stubs which as far as I can see do not improve Wikipedia. The editor and I have previously interacted amicably as two of the stalwarts of the Wikipedia:Suggestions for disambiguation repair project. PamD (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of the multiple accounts, there is no problem with these they are within the guidelines for use of multiple accounts. BrownHairedGirl should not have blocked them. And a RFCU is also unneeded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

the actual blocking comment I have not checked because so many other users are checking, but for my two cents: I find nothing in any edit summary or comment quoted that breaches either WP:CIVIL or the "comment on content not editors" summary. I have found BHG a competent user, and in my one interaction with Jeni she assumed bad faith and use warning templates inappropriately. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• About those blocks: I agree with BHG that the three account thing is annoying and the point of them is unclear as there is not really an upper limit on a watchlist (or if there is they haven't hit it yet). However, being annoying and pointless are not policy violations, Boleyn is open an honest about the use of multiple accounts and does not seem to have used them to create false consensus or other underhanded things like that, and the matter was looked into twice before and no violation was found then either. I'm not seeing a lot of support here for those blocks, if you want to pursue an RFC/U on this it's going to be tough to say the least. Having recently done one myself, I recall you are required to cite which policies the user is ignoring or violating. Making it "hard to track her contribs" is not a policy violation that I am aware of. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up and expanded a large number of Boleyn's articles before giving way to exhaustion. Unfortunately, I am forced to substantively endorse BrownHairedGirl's general assessment of the quality of these articles and their value to Wikipedia. As best I can tell, Boleyn appears to go to redlinks for various political figures, click "What links here", and convert the list of links into prose. This results in substubs which, if they were correct, would be neither particularly useful nor particularly harmful to Wikipedia. However, there is a distinct problem with getting inaccurate information into these articles. Some of the instances I can recall are: baronets being described as peers (which by definition they are not), titles of nobility being placed in the wrong peerage (Peerage of England instead of Peerage of Ireland, say), people being described as Members of Parliament for a constituency when in fact they were linked from that constituency's page for some other reason (because they controlled the borough or lost an election). There are some more involved content issues as well: a little background research suggests that there was only one Baron Dynham and the first redlink is due to an old error in one of our articles, and I suspect Battle of Spearhead may be the result of taking someone's copyright trap at face value. Ultimately, I think BrownHairedGirl's description of the editor as "experienced but lazy" is, if blunt, also uncomfortably accurate. Knowing that a baronet is not a peer is very, very basic; all you have to do is look at the title of the article you're creating. Many of the other content problems I've described could be solved by actually following the links in Special:Whatlinkshere and looking at them before creating the article. This is basic intellectual due dilligence, and it's very frustrating to me and others who have worked to improve these articles (see PamD above) that it is not being done.

As regards the article deletions, I haven't looked at the CSD for a while, so I took a look expecting to find that BrownHairedGirl was invoking something like A1 or A3 and that it would be very much pushing it to apply to these stubs. Having actually read A10, it is much more applicable than I initially expected, and I think it would be overreach to call applying it to these "admin abuse". As far as the wishes expressed in the AFD, as one of the people who has, in fact, been expanding and referencing these stubs, I guarantee that I and the others with the resources and volition to fix these cannot keep pace with their present creation, nor would it significantly slow down such expansions if we had to create the article from a redlink instead of a substub.

I don't think there's any reason to block Boleyn's alternate accounts or initiate an RFCU; this is, I believe, the third time someone has taken issue with them, and each time there's been consensus for their legitimacy. However, three separate incidents suggest the situation is a bit of an attractive nuisance. ISTR that they're maintained for the purpose of distributing Boleyn's watchlist; might I suggest she ask at, perhaps, the Village Pump, describing the problem she has with using one long watchlist in the hopes of an alternate technical solution? In the long run, that might be easier than having to defend the use of multiple accounts every few months when someone new runs across them.

I think Boleyn is editing in good faith and means to help Wikipedia, but something needs to change; as Berzelius said to Wöhler, "Doctor, that was quick but bad". A very high rate of article creation + little substantive content + a measurable error rate + non-responsiveness to concerns = trouble. I think if she tries to make, say, fifty edits a day that bring in new content from outside Wikipedia, instead of "two or three hundred" that add no new information, she'll find that BrownHairedGirl and others are lauding her work on early British MPs instead of condemning it. Choess (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

My $0.02: As I've alluded to earlier (and after reviewing the specific links above), I see no admin abuse here. I see edgy edit summaries and some blunt, edgy rhetoric. This possibly dances toward WP:CIVIL issues, but I don't think admins are required to sugarcoat everything. As for the other editor, I can see why these articles are being deleted, though I wonder why second opinions are not being sought. With these points in mind, and with an eye toward getting back to editing, I therefore propose the following:

Proposal: BrownHairedGirl is reminded of WP:CIVIL and that admins are regarded as role models by the community at large. It is also suggested that she seek second opinions via CSD tags for articles which she feels should be speedy deleted.

Boleyn is asked to engage in discussion regarding ways he/she can make improved contributions to the Encyclopedia.

Thoughts? N419BH 00:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That would take away my major concern amongst all of this, if it were to be adhered to. BHG has threatened to delete Boleyn's articles on sight without warning. Seeking a second opinion using a CSD tag is much more appropriate than leaving it to the judgement of a single editor, especially when recent AfD nominations made by this user on the topics in question have resulted in predominately !keep votes. Jeni ^(talk) 02:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The articles which were kept at AFD had all been expanded (at least to some extent) by other editors, as often happens at AFD; that's why I was happy to withdraw the group nomination at AFD Thomas Fox (1622–1666). But per the discussion above, all the editors who have extensively engaged with these sub-stubs (Choess, PamD, etc) agree that these stubs are a bad idea.

It seems to me to be a poor outcome to continue in with Boleyn creating abysmal sub-stubs which are either speedy-deleted or require huge amounts of work by others to turn into viable stubs. I suggest that the recommendation is strengthened a little to ask Boleyn to refrain from creating further stub articles in mainspace until she has demonstrated an ability to make viable stubs. In other words, create them in her userspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. N419BH 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• These are all, or almost all, notable subjects. So is Boleyn's editing actually a problem? I'm not convinced that every eighteenth century MP should actually be deemed notable, and while I'd like to see policy change both on the notability of obscure historic figures and on sourcing. I'm not sure I'd go as far as the DE wiki policy of requiring all new articles to have a source, though I'm warming to the idea of setting a rule that anyone who has been here long enough to have created 50 articles should have learned to include a source. But unless we change policy to limit such good faith but unsourced editing, is there anything Boleyn has actually done wrong? ϢereSpielChequers 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

  It might be possible to read the guidelines to find support for Boleyn's actions, but the result of that approach is not commonsense.

  Notability is not policy, it's a guideline. The relevant guideline here is WP:POLITICIAN, part of WP:BIO#Additional_criteria, whose intro says "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included".

  So the guideline is explicitly flexible, and in any case every guideline has a header which says "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". Using Common sense is actually policy, and is anyone suggesting that it really is common sense to create all these error-ridden, malformed, uncategorised sub-stubs merely (as Boleyn acknowledged) to remove valid redlinks from dab pages? As WP:COMMON says, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this thread because this instance also affects the contributions of another prolific editor who has a history of creating stubs with minimal content yet are on notable subjects in good faith, yet has received a lot of grief for his well-intentioned contributions. And he has almost quit Wikipedia because of this hostility on one occasion. (I don't see a need to name names here; I'm dealing in generalities, not specifics.) As I understand the problem, someone is starting stubs for articles which there is general consensus to write; what is created may not have any usable content, but we can expect that it will eventually -- unless further research shows there is nothing more to be said on the topic, in which case the stub gets merged. While it would be nice to have sources in every article, I don't see how these articles harm anything. (Anyone who bases her/his research on a bunch of Wikipedia one-sentence stubs deserves a failing grade.) Either (1) we accept that stubs on otherwise notable subjects should be kept until it is proven that they are ether hoaxes, gibberish, or nothing more can be written on the individual, or (2) we establish a minimum content requirement for new articles. And either choice requires a discussion which is widely advertised & everyone is welcomed to comment in. -- llywrch (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an RFC would be the way to go here, though I'd prefer not to do this for a few months so we can iron out some of the problems with sticky prods. We've largely accepted the principle that new BLPs need a source, I suspect our more deletionist editors would regard it as commonsense to extend that to all new articles. Those of a more inclusionist bent will continue to argue that these articles are going to be written eventually, so its commonsense to them that a one line article is a foundation from which others can build, remembering that IP editors can expand a one line article but not create a new one. I'm not greatly concerned which way we go on this, providing we make a decision and communicate that clearly - what I don't want is to continue the current confusion where two camps of good faith editors are in such conflict. As for starting stuff in userspace, I've seen too many attack pages in userspace to promote such a non-wiki solution, where is the cooperative editing in a userspace draft? ϢereSpielChequers 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I can only partially accept llywrch's premise that these stubs are being created in good faith; that may have been the case initially, but it now seems that long before I raised concerns, others had done so. An editor acting in good faith should by now have accepted that there is grounds for rethinking the approach.

As to the inclusionist argument that the articles will be written eventually, I support that view with more recent topics; in the case MPs, for those since the Reform Act 1832. Provided that the stubs add to existing list content, and are properly categorised etc, they can form a suitable basis for expansion. But even when Boleyn creates stubs of more recent people, they so abysmally poor that others have to do a lot of work; Fences and windows is right to call them a make-work. Over 4 years of working on this field I have seen many other editors who start out by making very poor stubs, all of them have taken who take care to learn how do better. That's not the case with Boleyn, whose stubs are created with absolute bare minimum of effort to allow the save button to be pressed. This is a new phenomenon for me: I have never before seen an editor churn out stubs with absolutely no concern for quality, and with no effort to improve over time. Boleyn herself prioritises the numbers: see herarticle-i-have created list.

However, a significant number of these stubs are for people whose notability relates to a few years of their lives 400 or 500 years ago. Sources for such topics are a specialised issue, and not something which can be easily expanded anyone except an editor using specialist sources ... so it's hard to see how those stubs help. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the average wikipedian regular would not be able to google these and add much, but we allow offline sources and there are people out there who are interested in these subjects and do have access to sources. Quite apart from local history enthusiasts making sure that all their past MPs have articles, I think there is a big opportunity for Wikipedia to collaborate with the fashion for genealogy. There are lots of amateur genealogists out there, and while many may struggle with our ideas on notability they tend to be quite hot on sourcing. Many of these notable dead people are so far back in history that they could appear in huge numbers of family trees, whilst being recent enough that there are records that exist. So it will be interesting to see how these expand in future years - remembring that as soon as they are started they will appear in Google searches by those who are interested in them. That said I'm not averse to changing policy to be more restrictive about the creation of unsourced articles. One of these days I intend to create articles for all the redlinks on this list, I could of course start the whole lot "Boleyn style" in a matter of minutes, but I'd rather start each one off with rather more than that. However I am opposed to setting policy on this by making examples of individual editors who follow our written rather than unwritten rules. If you don't want Wikipedia to accept new unsourced articles, or you want to tighten our policies on notability, then I suggest you seek consensus for policy changes that would raise the threshold for article creation, rather than trying to restrict someone who seems to be happy with the current rules. So please get consensus to change Wikipedia:Your first article and similar pages, and clearly communicate the new rules before treating unsourced articles as badfaith edits. ϢereSpielChequers 10:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I propose an editing restriction. I think we need an editing restriction on Boleyn that disallows her from creating unsourced stubs. She's shown that her unsourced creations are repeatedly inaccurate, so we simply cannot trust her creating new articles without verification. WP:N might not be policy, but WP:V is. Creating these stubs is make-work; they have no value and only create work for other editors in cleaning up behind Boleyn. Fences&Windows 21:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Boleyn is still creating make-work stubs

Despite this discussion, Boleyn is still creating make-work stubs (even tho she said she was off on holiday).

The latest is John Pritchard, which features all the usual problems:

1. No categories
2. Non-specific stub tag
3. Basic biographical details missing (dates of birth and death)

Another editor stepped in to add some categories, and I'll do some more work on it now ... but I'm astonished that this is still going on. There's still no sign of any effort to even add the correct stub tags, and those aren't hard to find: just browse the stub categories or look at similar articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, this thread has called into question Boleyn's article creation methodology, and she's creating the exact same thing? N419BH 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That's it: business as usual :(

Didn't someone suggest editing restrictions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggested you seek out second opinions before CSDing her stubs and suggested she seek advice on improving her articles. I believe someone else suggested she be restricted from creating stubs. Assuming she's read this thread and proceeded to ignore it, I believe restrictions are possibly in order. Opinions? N419BH 00:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What I see there is a perfectly acceptable stub, even with a reference. Yes, a category would be nice, but nobody is perfect! What I also now definitely see is bullying. Jeni ^(talk) 01:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

John Pritchard This is"Perfectly acceptable"? Are you serious??? Without at least some of the appropriate categories or stub tags, the article is unlikely to even be spotted by editors looking for stubs to expands. That's why it's a make-work: it needs immediate attention from other editors even to make a useful minimal stub.

The bullying going on here is from Boleyn/2/3: by repeatedly creating these abysmal stubs, and making no effort to even make them findable, she's bullying others into tidying up after her.

I suggest that she be a) restricted for a period from creating new stubs in mainspace, and b) offered mentorship on how to create stubs which don't need work from others to reach a bare minimum standard of usefulness (e.g. how to find and add categories, and how to add appropriate stub tags). The mentor could guide her on when to move them to mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so now you are suggesting that Boleyn is bullying you? Do you have anything there to back that up? Going through their contributions I certainly can't see a shred of evidence to suggest they are bullying you. You do realise exactly what the term bullying means, don't you? Jeni ^(talk) 02:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Jeni.

I didn't suggest that Boleyn is "bullying me", rather that she is bullying anyone who checks for minimal standards of contributions, by persistently creating make-work sub-stubs. There are a number of wikignomes who look out for things like uncategorised articles, and Boleyn is knowingly dumping sub-standard work into mainspace rather than finishing the job herself. Repeatedly throwing a mess into other editors in-trays despite requests to desist is some sort of abuse; call it something other than bullying if you prefer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Wikignome who has done thousands of hotcat edits I would like to put it on record, that whilst I appreciate it if people notice the categorisation I've done to their articles and start to categorise articles themselves, I do not consider myself bullied if a fellow editor has not yet grasped categorisation. Boleyn seems to have responded to recent flak by adding references to her latest articles. I would like to suggest that we now respond by stepping back and watching how her latest articles develop over time. ϢereSpielChequers 12:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that sub on John Pritchard is fine. It has a source, and lacks only categories. We do not require that articles come into existence perfectly. That said, due to the massive number of stubs being created by the one user I'd favor an editing restriction that requires all new articles created by this person A) have a source and B) have reasonable categories before they create another such stub. I'd also suggest BHG not use admin tools with respect to Boleyn or nominate for deletion any of the articles created by Boleyn (baring BLP or blatant copyright problems). Would that be acceptable to all involved? Hobit (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The stub on John Pritchard was fine. Hobit has a good suggestion, in that Boleyn should at least provide at least one source and and at least one category when creating an article or stub. I would recommend (but not require) that Boleyn develop the articles a little more, but there is nothing in Wikipedia that requires an editor to do anything more than she has when creating a stub article. I think that BHG should avoid taking any admin actions in this case as it has obviously developed into a conflict between the two individuals. The reason BHG should avoid admin actions is that the blocks on the alternate accounts was a misuse of admin tools, IMO, as the alternate accounts appeared to be within policy. They may be a problem to watch that way, but as far as I can tell that is not a policy violation. Further, as an admin, making a statement that all of Boleyn's stubs would be deleted on site is not appropriate, although I do understand that BHG was frustrated. GregJackP Boomer! 15:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hobit's suggestion looks good to me, though I'm not keen on GregJackP's narrowing of it to one category. Plenty of editors (maybe most us!) start off by creating very inadequate stubs, and nobody should be in any way bitten for that, but the distinguishing feature of Boleyn's sub-stubs is that they she continues to produce so many poor ones. However, I do want to repeat my earlier suggestion that she should be encouraged (or required) to seek mentorship, because I'm not sure that she has found it easy to learn how to improve the quality. Having someone to help her would help to avoid the feeling of attack she experiences when her edits are criticised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with BHG's comment, and probably need to clarify my one category suggestion. By one category, I mean a substantial category, not one created by a stub-template. In other words, you would have the stub cat, then at least one manually added cat for each stub. I also don't have a problem with the mentorship suggestion, and I applaud BHG's approach to Hobit's suggestion. GregJackP Boomer! 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could she also be asked to ensure that her references are reasonably formatted, not bare URLs as here - it just again leaves work for someone else to tidy up after her, though she could easily add a decent reference while she's got the source in front of her. PamD (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That diff which Pam posted illustrates another of the problems with this rapid-fire google-a-reference-and-hey-presto-I've-satisfied-WP:V approach. It's a link to the index of http://hansard.millbanksystems.com which is an experimental website of digitised Hansard. The Hansard text looks quite robust, but the index is an opensource work-in-progress and is still very pathchy; I have lost count of the number of times I have found major errors in the index's assertion about when an MP served for which constituencies. Boleyn's if-its-crap-then-someone-else-can-fix-it approach also leaves others to weed out these plausible-but-unreliable refs, as well as the blatantly unreliable stuff such as the paranormal website referenced for this MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst Boleyn is clearly trying to create valid articles, the continuing "throw a load of info at an article so it must be valid" approach isn't helping. It's just making work for others, whether they be NP patrollers or those with an interest in the subject. If this continues, I'd have to suggest that Boleyn creates them in userspace and consults another editor with sufficient knowledge about the subject before they're chucked into mainspace. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that adding a reference and adding reasonable cats is more than enough of an editing restriction. Of course I'm of the opinion that such an article is actually useful at that point (good starting point for a stub, points to a reference if anyone needs anything else). Bare URLs may not be pretty, but they work. Has anyone asked her if this is acceptable? Hobit (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for Boleyn having myself created inadequate stubs, hoping that somebody else (generallky Phoe or BHG) would improve them. Phoe has now left <sad>. I am sure the best solution lies in a 3 month restriction against creation of fresh main space articles unless first approved by a mentor. Boleyn has 3 principle goals here namely to improve disambiguation, to turn red links blue and to increase her "new articles created" tally. A mentor or two could help her learn how to improve her factoidal sub-stubs. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

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

Withdrawn by proposer, with numerous opposes. Sandman is correct: ANI does not have unlimited power, and this is not an incident - it's a content dispute over stubs. Comments about mentoring or otherwise collaborating should be noted positively. TFOWR 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

---

1. That Boleyn does not create any articles that do not have at least one properly formated reference and one manually added category (not including any stub-categories) for the next three months. 2. That BrownHairedGirl will not take any admin action towards Boleyn during the next three months, but will refer all such actions that she believes are necessary to an uninvolved admin. 3. That in order for everyone concerned to have an opportunity to comment, this proposal will stay open for a minimum of 24 hrs, or until both parties agreed to these conditions, whichever occurs first. GregJackP Boomer! 02:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Struck !vote per Sandman's points. GregJackP Boomer! 02:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose -- places restrictions on one user beyond what is expected or required of the community in general, and the editor has not been engaged in vandalism and has not violated any rules or policies. She creates stubs, which is perfectly ok, and yes it "makes work" for other editors, but it's all voluntary and no one is required to make any article better, even the creator of the article. I think BrownHairedGirl should distance herself from taking admin actions against her though and seek counsel from a neutral admin if she thinks there is a violation or if she believes some kind of action needs to be taken on a particular article, unless it is blatant vandalism. Minor4th • talk 03:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant but firm oppose. This is fine in spirit, and I have no objection to accepting the restraint urged on me, but unfortunately it doesn't go far enough in addressing the huge deficiencies in Boleyn's stubs, and would still leave masses of stuff for others to clear up. The category requirement could be satisfied by adding a vague categ such as Category:English politicians rather than Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for English constituencies; there are about 3 steps in between those two categs, and the vague categ makes the stub less likely to be spotted. Similarly, she can can continue to add vague stub tags, and the restriction does not address the gross inaccuracies present in so many of her stubs: her recent collection included at least 2 stubs with two major factual errors in less than 20 words of text, e.g. [James Christopher Flynn was not British and was not MP for West Cork, yet that stub would be absolutely fine under these restrictions. Nor does it address her use of unreliable sources on the occasions when she does add refs.
  Sorry, but if this all that's adopted, we'll be revisiting this again soon. Something more is needed, and rather than specifying in great detail what's required, I really think that some combination of mentorship and/or restraint on creating stubs in mainspace is much more likely to produce a satisfactory outcome for everyone, including Boleyn herself, who clearly would not be comfortable with a situation where she meets the letter of these restrictions, but is still facing criticism for creating miscategorised, inaccurate sub-stubs with unreliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is going to sound odd, but why don't you offer to mentor her. Instead of your previous, sometimes testy approach, spend a little time introducing her to various sources and ways of creating articles that are materially useful to the community at large. If she creates a stub-sub, you'll no doubt see it, and you can make edits to help it. Then show her how you made those edits so she can make them herself on the next one. Of course, Boleyn might not want your help after your previous interactions with her, but that's for her to say here. Would you be willing to do that, as the person who originally took issue with her in the first place? Oppose btw, as I don't think it will solve the problem. N419BH 04:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I did think of that, but I doubted that I would be acceptable to her; but if she's willing to give it a go, I'm willing to help. The difficulty I have found before is that any comment which even questions what she did has been taken as unwelcome criticism and ignored, which has set off a spiral of (BHG)you've-done-it-again → (Boleyn) more silence → (BHG) please-stop-and-discuss-this → (Boleyn) I-don't-like-your-tone → (BHG) we-do-have-a-problem → (Boleyn) you're-attacking-me-and-my-edits-are-within-policy-so-don't-post-on-my-talk-again. I'm very willing to try to help, but I can't do it unless Boleyn genuinely wants to try to improve her edits. But if she'll take the offer, let's both push the reset button on what's gone before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Opppose This goes well beyond the mandate of ANI (which perhaps believes it has unlimited power): creating stubs is perfectly legit, and it is not up to this fora to say it isn't. An request for comment on the talkpage of stubs or whereever, is the only place such a preposterous proposition has any relevance. I suspect the only reason it is included is to make the suggestion more favourable to the involved admins outrageous behavior. Boleyn has a right, like anyone else, to edit wikipedia without any sanction placed upon her by the almighty administrators' noticeboard, to only create featured articles. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean that Boleyn complies with the current sticky prod proposal, except with dead people too? This is too much bureaucracy for me. I'm not pleased with either editor's persistence, particularly since both have the skills and perspective to resolve this much better than this clusterfuck. I'd like to give some time for this to work itself to a reasonable compromise. Perhaps someone with a little more subtlety can propose some possible resolutions. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• A reasonable suggestion wd be that the admin does not pester the editor anymore. Admins must keep to handling vandalism, that's what they're for, not this very improper inference with article content. Sandman888 (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Response from Boleyn

I just wanted to quickly add a note (if it's not too late), as a user seemed to think I was ignoring this thread; I'm not, I'm on holiday and trying not to continue my WP addiction too much, and had read through this. There were a couple of things I wanted to clarify. I don't create articles to 'improve' dabs (I don't really think they do, I'm happy with valid redlinks being on dabs). I enjoy creating articles and keep a list so people can see at a glance what type of articles I edit, and it also helps me keep track of and improve articles I've created. I don't create articles, however, just to add to the list. There will always be debate about whether to create stubs or wait until a more substantial article is ready before creating it; I personally like to start them and I do keep an eye on those I create and add to them if I can (usually over the coming weeks/months rather than days, but I keep track). I do understand the concerns raised here and have only created one article since, which was referenced and which I spent more time over. I have no intention of creating further unreferenced stubs. Boleyn3 (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's only a few days since you wrote that And is it so that they don't come up as redlinks on disambiguation pages, that is often where I first noticed that they lacked an article and so created on ... so if you now think that "I'm happy with valid redlinks being on dabs", then it's good to see a change of heart.

But as discussed at length, the problems are not just referencing, e.g. there's fact-checking and categories too. If you'd like help, my offer of mentorship (see below) is still open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No change of heart. I sometimes notice on a dab that a notable person is lacking an article and create one - that is very different to creating an article in order to 'improve' a dab. I didn't say that the only issue raised was referencing, the other issues I alluded to in mentioning that I'd spent more time over it. I appreciate the offer of mentorship, but after all the personal attacks I can't see that that would work. As it stands, I'm unsure if I'll continue to edit WP at all, certainly not at the moment. Boleyn3 (talk) 06:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I find the rejection of BHg's offer depressing. AGF. Any other volunteers pretty please? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think acromonious editors mentoring and being mentored by each other will end in much useful good. This discussion is largely closed, so let's not rehash this all again. Seems like a stub/notability issue that should be addressed at those places. Shadowjams (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not only me noting serious and ongoing problems here. For example, the article John Hunter (British politician) was created by Boleyn on 19 June, and expanded yesterday including this edit adding a reference, on which another editor commented Previous referee clearly had not read work cited which has five volumes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban of user:WillBildUnion?

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

I was asked to look at this with a view to summing up consensus. There seems to be a consensus to impose a topic ban on WillBildUnion from making edits related to Christian, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics—broadly construed, and to include talk pages—for six months, to be reviewed after three months if Will wants a review. That topic ban should now be considered in effect. Uninvolved admins may use their discretion regarding how best to enforce it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia often attracts cranks. WillByuildUnion's only purpose is to use Wikipedia to promote his own original reearch. He is remarkably consistent, so you can learn it all [here]. He is an SPA POV-pushing violator of NOR and all he does is waste other editors' time. Can we just be rid of him? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoo, after reviewing some of his edits, at the very least, I think this warrants a topic ban from Christianity and related articles. Verbal chat 14:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) More disruptive editing: [1], (this is particulalry funny), [2], [3], [4]

A topic ban would be fine, but include Hebrew and Roman and Egyptian related topics too, please .... Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Has he made any constructive edits? Looking into it further I'm leaning towards full ban. Verbal chat 14:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to try something short of full-ban. Would it be sufficient to ban him from topics relating to Caesarion, loosely construed? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

WBU Proposal

Topic ban for Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics.

• "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." wording revised for procedural issue Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, c'mon, do not ban, anything. I promise to shape up, stop talk page talk of over excessiveness, and do editing with RS. No ban of any kind needed. I'm here to make Wikipedia better by the standards of it and assume good faith. WillBildUnion (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Show us you can do this by working on something else constructively.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support per my comments above. Verbal chat 14:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

For at least six months, then review. Verbal chat 18:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I stop editing Christianity, Hebrew, Rome and Egypt articles. I beg and apply for a no-ban.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that a ban won't stop you from editing the encyclopedia otherwise -- if you're going to stop editing those articles, a ban won't affect you at all, even if it's active. BTW, Todd, would you like to amend your proposal to include an end date? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - request that the ban be considered extensive, and that it be extended to topics and edits related to Christianity, Hebrews, Romans, and Egyptians. (I'm thinking of Son of God — OK, that one's Christian, but a generic article on the topic "son of (a) god" might not be.) Also note that, if he agrees, it won't effect his editing. I suggest a 6 month ban, with review after 3 months. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

  Agree with Ncmvocalist's phrasing: "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural point (no view on substantive issue) - we need to have a wording to make this workable, if it is to be enacted. "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to the Christianity, Hebrew, Roman and Egyptian topics, broadly construed." is one way of doing it. Can the proposer and commentators specify their preference(s) please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I really don't know if this can be done or how easily it might be enforced, so feel free to mercilessly reject this proposal; however, after taking a look at this user's contribution, I'm not sure I see his edits as disruptive (except the one about Nero's faked death). I do agree, though, that they are unsourced and, most probably, original research and, as such, should be removed. So, my proposal is simple: would it be possible to enact some sort of an editing restriction by which this user is to refrain from inserting unsourced material into articles, restriction to be enforced through progressively increasing blocks? As I've said, I don't know if it's feasible, but it might be worth a try... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Bans and blocks should never be punitive. In this case the point would be to prevent conflict (tedious but predictable reverts) and to give the user time to watch how seriou editors work together to write encyclopedic articles, and to study our policies. So for me that would be the rationale. The idea of a topic ban is, as advice in one of our policies or essyas says, that tthe best way to learn how to be an effective editor is to edit article utterly unrelated to one's interests and beliefs. If all this ever applied to a user, it is this one. So for term: One week? Two weeks? A month? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, durations which are shorter than 3 months are likely to be too short for any community restriction; staying away from the topic means ensuring you don't keep looking back at the topic to the point that you are tempted to return (upon the timer running out) to the behavior that resulted in the restriction in the first place. Some people have compared it to a type of detox, though I think it's just a way of establishing good editing habits for the long term - even in contentious topics. Note - this is a general observation rather than one that is necessarily specific to this or any particular case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an ongoing over exaggeration concerning my time here on Wikipedia. I perhaps am guilty of minor rule breaking (3RR), but vandalism is totally out of the question. I haven't provided sources enough for some of my edits. Some of my edits were not likened by "the cabal". Even though: be bold! And mi were. Because of personal reasons that some supporters of megaban here seem to have, I cannot be banned major or minor. However I restrict myself from editing said articles, I wont edit articles unless I have refs to stock up with. Let's not let crap unfold anymore. I thank you and wish well. I beg and apply for less, I beg and apply to for none.WillBildUnion (talk) 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a violation of the topic ban? Will someone please step in and do something? It is clearly an example of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I add a source. And even without a source it's not disruptive. Talk pages are not articles, but of course are articles talk pages.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that the wording we supported above states "edits", not "edits on articles". I'd really suggest not pushing the limits before the ban discussion even closes.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. I beg pardon.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support "WillBildUnion is prohibited from making edits which relate to Chrisitianity, Hebrew, Roman, and Egyptian topics for a period of 6 months, with review after 3 months." and this will be broadly construed.--Adam in MO Talk 06:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as written by Adamfinmo Dougweller (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this guy gets it. this edit is not appropriate, and I suspect it is incorrect. Surely this is a Roman/Egyptian topic. Surely he is flauting the prohibition. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey c'mon now. I restrict myself from editing ancient said articles.WillBildUnion (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - as written by Adamfinmo, support an indef block if repeated violations. Time to find other Wikipedia interests. It is important to learn to contribute instead of violate WP:SOAP. And please review WP:NPOV. Jusdafax 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24

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

---

Resolved

 – Banned, WP:SNOW. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Information

• User notified

• Sugar Bear (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed_suspected | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• Ibaranoff24 (talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks ^confirmed | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive

• User talk:Sugar Bear/Archive 5

• Original thread that resulted in original indef block

Summary of Events

Some of you may remember this user, others may not. Let me start off by saying that recently, back to the end of 2009, Ibaranoff24 (talk · contribs) changed his username through a request to Sugar Bear. It may be bad faith for me to assume this, but this may have been so he could abandon the history of the original username.

This user has a bad history. During the last few months of 2009, they were blocked for edit warring, after when the were subsequently unblocked, then reblocked again, this time indefinitely. This indef occurred because this user abusively used multiple accounts to edit war across a few, if not a single page. See the archive of the Ibaranoff24 spi case page for more details.

During the entire escapade, they denied that they had created and used any socks. The blatantly lied in the face of undeniable evidence. This is when the indef block was put in place. This block was eventually removed, the user unblocked after they admitted to the socking, promised not to personally attack, and most of all, edit war or sock.

Fast-forward to present, what do we have? They are not only edit warring, they are socking to achieve that goal, all the while denying it to the end. The indef block has been reinstated, due to this fact, but that is not what this thread is about.

Despite undeniable evidence to the contrary, along with several admins telling them they are wrong, they choose to still evade their block. Due to their continued evasion, their continued denial of said evasion, and of their broken promises to never do either again, I propose we ban Ibaranoff24/Sugar Bear from wikipedia.

If you wish me to go more in-depth, I shall, but be warned, it will like extend into tl;dr territory.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

In depth

For any in-depth discussion, whether I am explaining things, or others are.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Torchiest
Sugar Bear has a long history of tendentious editing on a number of articles related to nu metal. He seems to have something against the genre, and has been trying to remove as much information about it from Wikipedia as possible. He has twice nominated the main article for deletion, despite the fact that it was speedily kept the first time. He has been fighting over that article for at least two years, mostly against consensus.

He has been involved in a major dispute on the List of nu metal bands article, removing bands against consensus, until the article had to be protected due to edit warring. Even after two full months of arguing against six other editors, he continued to edit against consensus. That was eventually settled, whereupon he took his tendentious editing back to the Nu metal article itself.

He refused to accept the consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard here, and continued to remove sourced information from the article, which he has been doing on and off for, again, the last two years, throughout his various blocks for edit warring.

He was recently blocked one week for edit warring, and then came right back and started up again, whereupon he was blocked again, with his initial one month block being extended to an indefinite block after socking twice. I don't see him stopping with the edit warring, as least not when it comes to anything related to nu metal. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 01:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Response

Below is a section transcluded from Sugar Bear's talk page. Substitute when thread is archived.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Ban Discussion

• Support - As proposer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment + Oppose - If you want to ban someone from Wikipedia, take the discussion to the ArbCom, no discussion like that should take place here. However, if it matters, I oppose this, not because the user is a good editor, but because there have been far more grand WP:SOCK cases that have had month long blocks instead of bans. Also, it is assuming bad faith to think he wanted to "abandon history". Even if he wanted to, he could just create a new account and remove any ties with his past account per WP:CLEANSTART. The user is already indefinitely blocked, I think that is enough for now. Plus, he can't even participate in this discussion because of his block. If you want to go ahead and propose to ban the guy from Wikipedia, then you should definitely take it to the ArbCom. Feedback ^☎ 00:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Well now he can. As to the 'well he's already indef blocked', here's the thing, that doesn't really matter. He got out of an indef block before with promises not to do what he's been doing. A ban also allows us to give him very strict conditions, such as if caught socking again, he would be reblocked indef without further warning.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, just FYI, individuals are regularly banned by the community without ArbCom's involvement. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support- Sugar Bear is consistently sockpuppeting, edit warring, POV pushing, block evading, and is always uncivil. In my time here, I have found no editor more difficult to work with then him. Seeing as short blocks as well as long blocks have done nothing to stop this behavior and the fact that we need to put an end to this problem, banning him is the only solution.RG (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't think banning from all of Wikipedia is the answer, but I would strongly support a topic ban from anything related to nu metal. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 01:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Support ban per Daedalus969 and Rockgenre. The community is capable of enacting and empowered to initiatine bans without taking it to ArbCom for the mandatory lengthy dramafest and lengthy bureaucratic nonsense. ArbCom is for complex disputes among editors, not obviously disruptive sockmasters. Also, a ban enables us to revert all of his socks edits on sight without fear of violating 3RR. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I italicized "should". This should be taken to ArbCom, because this is a controversial ban. And "being able to revert his socks on site" isn't a good enough reason for a ban. Its not even a slightly good reason. Read what a ban is about. You want to exile an editor so he never edits on Wikipedia again and you're happy to be able to blindly revert, bravo. Feedback ^☎ 02:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You clearly do not know much about this case. A user who has flippant disregard for policy is harmful to the project, especially one that denies he's done anything wrong, despite much evidence to the contrary. Secondly, this ban is not controversial. A single oppose doesn't make it so, this user has had plenty of chances to get his act together, and then when he fails to do so, he lies about it, and tries to use his FAs as some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. Arbcom is not the only body that issues bans. Ban threads are typically found on ANI, because it is typically the community that decides to ban a user.

This isn't about exile, and this isn't about reverting, this is about disruptive behavior, and this editor has a long history of disruptive behavior.

Do us all a favor, and do not 'commend us' on what you think is happening and why you think it is happening.

I have read full and well what a ban is about, I've been here for a very long time, and I have seen my fair share of ban threads. This ban isn't about his socks, it isn't about his lies, it's about patterns. This editor, as said, and as pointed out, has a history of disruption, and it is obvious from his socks, that longer blocks will not do.

Before he has had slack, despite the promises he has made, he wasn't immediately blocked indef when found to be socking. Now he will have none.

If he has no care for our rules, then we have no care for him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Feedback, I've read the banning policy. I don't see anything controversial about wanting to ban a disruptive sockmaster who has already been given chances to redeem himself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, WP:TLDR. Skimming your rant, I'm not commending or forcing anything, just expressing a view thinking it should go to ArbCom instead of being here. But by all means, keep it here, it was just my view on the matter. And you seem to be "involved" because of the ranting, so I strongly suggest you leave the discussing to the rest. Feedback ^☎ 03:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If you aren't going to take the time to read it, then don't comment on it and call it a rant when it isn't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - If you can't talk civilly amongst other editors and respect the consensus of the community, you're going to do much more harm than good. A formal ban is in order. N419BH 02:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this editor was almost the first-ever banned/restricted at WP:FAC (history at User:SandyGeorgia/Bakshi proposal). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's becoming clearer and clearer that his problems aren't just in one small area of editing. He has trouble everywhere. —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 03:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support, due to a long history of counterproductive and bad-faith editing practices. My main experiences with him have been over List of nu metal bands, where he has basically alternated between (a) attempting to win content disputes by attrition, ignoring points made and a complete lack of support for his position over an extended period, and (b) simply edit-warring. He is a definite net negative to the project at this time. ~ mazca ^talk 10:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Uninformed/weak support I only became aware of this user following a 3RR break, but I have read this thread and I trust User:SandyGeorgia's calls. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban -- After looking at this users talk page history, it's obvious he needs to go away. The last thing we need are "I know more than you do no matter what" liars and their bullshit here  – Tommy [message] 12:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban User has a long history acting against consensus, personal attacks, sock puppetry, bad faith AfD noms and probably other stuff I've forgotten about or was unaware of. His block log demontrates that temporary blocks have been ineffective and that their promises of reform have been empty. For evidence of his attitude towards consensus and other editors and their contributions, I simply suggest people look at the nu metalarticle talk pages. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban for reasons given above: this is a disruptive, tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus and even common sense. And maybe someone with a higher pay grade than me will go to the editor's talk page and remove that incredibly offensive image. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Ban process

I've split this section off, since it isn't about this single user, but as it came from this ban, it's still grouped under them, especially since it references them. This split off is also to make it easier for editing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Did you seriously just ban someone after only 15 hours of discussion and without a reply from the user? Feedback ^☎ 20:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you seriously comment on a case without reading all relevant material, a case you know nothing about?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I remember Ibaranoff, and not fondly. He became Sugar Bear around the first of the year. But it's hard for any leopard to change its stripes, so I'm not surprised it's come to this. He's free to comment at any time, but I'm guessing he won't, based on the old adage, "Never sue anyone, because they might prove it." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at his block history[5] I see that at least twice he was unblocked after a promise not to edit war, but apparently he just can't help himself. Hence, he be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap Daedalus. Even if the guy is the worst sockpuppeteer around, how can you close the discussion and ban a user for life in 15 hours? Seriously, discussions about with such a drastic ruling should at least take 7 days to achieve a consensus. Closing a discussion after a little more than half a day is ridiculous. Move discussions take far more time than this to accomplish a consensus. Even if the banning was inevitable, that is just more reason to give more time to the discussion and let the ban take place after a 7 day period. Feedback ^☎ 19:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Banning some one who's already indefinitely blocked is hardly "drastic". The proposal had full support (with 11 !votes in favour of the ban), save for one oppose from you, which did not demonstrate why the user should not be banned. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of WP:SNOW and WP:CONSENSUS. I don't quite follow your comment "Even if the banning was inevitable, that is just more reason to give more time to the discussion and let the ban take place after a 7 day period", Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and process for the sake of process seems futile. The ban was inevitable, and thus WP:IAR (via WP:SNOW) applied. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your position and I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying I just have another opinion on the matter. I have posted a comment on User talk:Jimbo Wales to discuss the matter. This just doesn't seem right to me. Even convicted mass murderers get to go to trial and plead their cases. Their life sentences or even death sentences are most inevitable, but they at least get to plead their case. It seems very unfair to the banned user that proper discussion wasn't being held. If we ban him, we could at least argue that we took a week to discuss the matter and within those 168 hours, everyone agreed that he should have been banned. There should be policy for this, and as I have seen, the only thing similar is that WP:BAN says that discussions normally take place in at least 24 hours. There should be a minimum time limit (which I propose be 7 days) for a ban discussion to take place. This is a serious matter that shouldn't be taken as lightly as 16 hours. Feedback ^☎ 19:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

This user was caught red handed socking before. What did he do? He utterly lied, denying it until he was blue in the face in front of undeniable checkuser evidence. The block was then upped to indef. He was only unblocked after admitting to his block evasion attempts, and on the promise to never do so again. But what do we have here? Blatant attempts to sock again. Your oppose is meaningless, as you have not provided a single good reason why this user should be unbanned.

You clearly think they should be, so let's hear it already.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Cut the crap? There's nothing to cut. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about in regards to this user. Do some homework before you decide to comment. There is nothing drastic or controversial about banning someone who has a history of disruptive behavior, along with disruptive socking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is little need for this drama, Feedback. I pointed Sugar Bear to the banning policy and he's followed the directions for appealing his ban there by emailing arbcom. Fighting about it here is pointless. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of this discussion when the user in question appealed to ArbCom (the editor has indicated this on their talk page). I'm not commenting here as an arbitrator (I am going to recuse on any formal decision that ArbCom make on this), but I'm dropping in here to make a comment or two.

• (1) If WP:BAN says discussions should run for a minimum of 24 hours, it would be good if the letter of that suggestion was followed, as otherwise you typically see so-called WP:SNOW closes being done earlier than 24 hours. The point is not WP:SNOW, but to allow people who are asleep (and may only edit once every 24 hours) to see the discussion and say something that might just reverse the tide of opinion or bring new evidence to the discussion.
• (2) If the user in question turns up and wants to say something in their defence, then it seem rather bureaucratic to insist that they go via ArbCom rather than reopen the ban discussion and let them say something to the community that is voting to ban them. It would seem simpler to let the ban discussion run for longer and let the user say something in their defence.
• (3) When assessing a ban discussion such as this, you need to distinguish between those that have history with the user and those who are independently making an assessment (coming 'cold' to the discussion). In particular, some of those who have a history with the user at nu metal and WP:FAC did correctly declare that history above (but some may have not). My view is that it really does help to have supports and opposes segregated into 'I know this user' and 'never heard of this user' sections (if the only people commenting are those who have interacted with the user, that risks the assessment not being objective). The ideal ban discussion will have a mixture of opinions from those who know someone and those who have never heard of them before, but if people don't make that clear then that aspect of the ban discussion cannot be assessed.
• (4) It would be nice if a fuller history of the user that a ban is proposed for is provided. Daedalus says "This user has a bad history" and then proceeds to give details of the socking history and the history at nu metal. That is true enough, but that completely ignores the featured article work that has also been done by this user. Of course, no amount of good work will ever excuse bad conduct, but no ban discussion should present an incomplete picture of an editor's contributions! My view is that a reasonably complete overview of en editor's contributions must be given if the editor themselves is not here to give such a summary. That overview seems to have been missing or incomplete here.

For the record, my history with the user is that I first became aware of them through the featured article work they do on films (primarily films directed by Ralph Bakshi and specifically the The Lord of the Rings (1978 film)), and I later became aware of the repeated (and ultimately disruptive) attempts to nominate Ralph Bakshi for featured article. I'm aware that people can have a bad side and a good side, and I see that the socking and behaviour at nu metal is the bad side of this editor that I was unaware of (I was also unaware of the name change). For the record, the good side is six successful featured article nominations (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). If the ban discussion had still been open, I would have declared the above and opposed a site ban in favour of a topic ban from nu metal and related articles (with a site ban following if the socking continued), though having looked in more detail at the socking, I am wavering towards neutral as anyone who socks like that should be indeffed without the need for a community ban discussion. The only thing keeping me opposing the ban is the fact that an incomplete presentation was made concerning this editor's history on Wikipedia, and I would even suggest that a fuller overview be presented and the ban discussion re-run to see if opinions would change.

Anyway, that's a rather long comment, but I hope that some of the points above made sense and will be considered both here and in future ban discussions, even if opinion weighs against changing what has been decided here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think there are 3 active issues here:

1. Discussion on ANI vs AN (best practice is AN)
2. Discussion less than 24 hrs and without obvious need to truncate it due to hostility etc
3. Lack of historical depth in the proposal itself.

I agree that the ban was probably called for, and that the location and duration of the discussion were probably harmless errors in the bigger picture. But I am going to open up a new discusson on WP:AN regarding lingering process issues for bans. We're seeing a lot more now, and having process too sloppy on them is not a good thing.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If possible, would it be possible to get some opinions on whether the lack of historical depth in the specific ban that was proposed, discussed and enacted had any effect here? In particular, it would be good to hear from the editor who opened the ban discussion, so they can say whether they were aware of the entire history or just focused on the bits they wanted to present here. I can see arguments that you don't need to present an entire history (the editor for whom the ban is proposed can do that themselves, if they are not blocked, that is), but clearly it is easier to get support for a ban if you only present part of the editing history. Carcharoth (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no one general interest. Looking through my contribs, you will see my actual edits to articles are here and there. This is because I only look up what interests me at the time of the thought, and correct any errors I see. I typically involve myself on disputes on ANI if sockpuppets are the primary concern, because that is what I know how to do, hunt sockpuppets, look up diffs, gather evidence.

What I knew of this user only concerned his abuse of multiple accounts in the past and present, aside from what I found out regarding his previous afd nominations and FAC nominations reading this thread.

Although I didn't delve in-depth, I did provide links, such as the link to the previous in-depth discussion that resulted in the original indef block on his account, and an archive in his talk page history where he was caught socking red handed and even then lied. It was at this point the indef was put in place, and any admins were advised against unblocking unless the user outright admitted to his evasion attempts. The information regarding these previous attempts was compiled at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ibaranoff24/Archive, where an uninvolved admin was emailed because Ibaranoff read something wrong; this admin happened to be a CU, and he used it on Ibaranoff, which lead him to confirm that he had indeed been socking.

I have also laid out some 'new' evidence at the latest SPI, which concerns the fact that SB never edits at the same time his IP socks do, thus implying abuse of multiple accounts, aside from the fact that the IPs demonstrate knowledge of wikipedia jargon, edit at the same time as as him(the same log on time), and edit the same pages as him, where any previous unrelated edits mean that the IPs could not have found the page otherwise. And not to mention, of course, these IPs only started editing around the time of SB's block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That does look more and more convincing. I think the ban discussion was closed before Sugar Bear turned up, but as the only real purpose of the ban discussion was to allow reversion-on-sight of edits, do you think that once Sugar Bear turned up and asked to be unblocked, he should be allowed a hearing by the community? In effect, he turned up late to the ban discussion, and community ban discussions where the banned person was not present during the ban discussion should really be appealed to the community first before going to ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Only if he admits to the obvious block evasion through IP socks, used in his local library, and his college/university. I have been in email conversation, and even now he calls me a vandal, a lier, that my evidence is false.. despite the fact that everyone has minds of their own, and can make them up on their own concerning the similarities that were presented.

On the other face, if he posted to his talk page the same time that an IP editor was posting, and I do mean the same time, I might be convinced that the IP edits were not him. Of course, there is the chance it could be a meatpuppet.. but that aside, he was caught red handed and lied even then. I wouldn't put it past him to attempt again. He has of late been stalking my edits, as he mentions them constantly in his emails to me.

But back to an earlier point, I only say might, as I still wouldn't believe him. His previous lieing has plainly scarred me. The only thing that would shed any doubt I might still have, is if a CU confirmed it was not him, after he had posted the message to his talk page. This is in light of the fact that if he was indeed editing from his local library, CU would link him to the IP edits, making the evidence irrefutable.

My idea regarding this is that he is trying to hide himself, only logging in to his account at home, instead of logging in at the library, which would enable CUs to see what was really going on.

I'm sorry if I'm redundant, but that is the way I see things. Too many coincidences to be a coincidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I find it odd that he only writes to me in email when what I think are his IP socks are editing. That is a pattern I've noticed; it would also account how he knows of my edits reverting those IPs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The bit about the e-mails? I can't explain that either. The general and specific evidence of socking, I agree looks incontrovertible now. Clearly the editor is banned and the only way back is for them to either provide a convincing explanation of the socking (as you say) or to take up the standard offer (which was made on his talk page I think), which is after a period of no socking (six months, I think) he could ask to be allowed back (I would support this on the basis that he can do good work in some areas, but details would have to be thrashed out at the time). You make a point that he needs to own up to the socking and apologise for it, and that is an approach that many people support, but I've always been a bit wary of it. Forcing people to admit and repent as a condition for unblocking only tends to encourage false promises. Such admissions should be unforced, and I tend to think that it is better to have unrepentant people in sight and under control, rather than causing mayhem and work for others. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the repentance, it isn't so much a promise not to sock, but an understanding that we know, per the evidence, that he has. Continued denial just shows he thinks he can get away with it. We need to make it understood that he can't, and that he hasn't. That is the point, in my view, of the apology, and owning up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Carcharoth, I think there are some valid points in this case. There's no need to let it run for less than 24 hours in this case, especially when it is a requirement. The community does not impose bureaucratic requirements and that is what makes this process distinct from something else; the subject should be allocated a section to comment in. As for the third point, I agree, however, I think this will be a constant dispute between editors - instead, it should be a requirement that those users disclose their involvement/uninvolvement, knowledge or unawareness, etc. Those users who don't can be requested to be clear about their position, but if they're not, those opinions may need to be discounted. I don't agree with #4 completely; this could simply undermine the outcome and purpose of the community imposing measures for disrupting the project in some form or another. No amount of good contributions can excuse puppetry - a topic ban is insufficient for that purpose. Had it been something else, a topic ban may have been more appropriate. The community should consider an appeal if it is made, but BASC should be able to advise the subject as to the likely outcome in light of the conduct issues (if it is made too early). Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (1) Not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing about the 24 hours as you say it is a requirement then say we shouldn't impose bureaucratic requirements; (2) the subject did have a section to comment in, but they turned up on their user talk page around 8 hours after the ban discussion was closed (clearly not everyone that a ban proposal is started for will be around in that 24-hour period - some common sense on waiting for the subject of the ban proposal to turn up should be possible - it would be simpler to unarchive and restart the ban discussion with comments by the user added when they turn up, rather than insist on bureaucratic appeals to ArbCom); (3) All that is really needed is for everyone participating in ban discussions to answer the following question: "is your opinion based solely on what you have read here, or is your opinion informed by previous encounters with this user?" (if the latter, that would be valuable information to add to the discussion); (4) The reason for (ideally) giving a more complete history of a user being proposed for banning is not to hold up their good edits to excuse their bad ones, but to avoid people presenting a one-sided picture of someone and getting them banned merely by pointing out the bad stuff (especially if the user is not around to correct a one-sided history themselves). Let those participating in the discussions judge for themselves what the history is here, or demonstrate by their comments that they have bothered (or not bothered) to look into the history of the user in question. You can't force this sort of thing, but those participating in ban discussions should always look further than just what the ban proposer is saying, especially if the editor is not present themselves. Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was agreeing with the 24 hours requirement. The note about bureaucracy was a sound of agreement with you in this case - appeals are not limited to only one method (ArbCom) in such instances. I don't know about restarting the discussion (which might mean doing it all the way from the beginning when users are capable of changing their comments accordingly) - instead, continuing from where the discussion let off is certainly not an unreasonable expectation. This responds to both 1 and 2. I agree with 3, though when coming to a conclusion, one doesn't need to limit their view to a previous encounter with the user - looking through the user's contributions can say a lot. For example, if I were to pick out the minority comments from the current GoRight SPI (that relates to a case that is currently being heard), and look through their contributions, I come to a conclusion that their input is not just broadly unhelpful and uneeded, but they are SPAs - they should not be allowed to edit (even in discussions) related to the area, or even the users involved. That might need looking into, but I'm digressing as this example is more of a case matter that needs to be looked into by arbs). 4 would be ok; agree you can't force it, and users should look beyond the obvious or what is presented. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am pushing I am sorry, but are you/could you address what I most recently said above?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied above. Carcharoth (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Pedophilia#That_may_have_been_the_most_ham-handed_thing_I.27ve_ever_seen...

I'm getting the feeling that our rules don't matter, but could someone apply our rules to this (I guess they require a wheel war, or else you're part of the silent majority who agree. Which is the part that makes me think they need opposition)? Or, if someone knows how to get admins to follow their rules, drop me a line. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Alison and GWH. Full-protection was necessary here to stop the imminent edit war Peregrine Fisher was going to engage in. You are supposed to discuss on the talk page and not through edit summaries on the main page. –MuZemike 07:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

...and this is coming from an administrator who has full-protected The Wrong Version of WP:AN. –MuZemike 07:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think the process we have for the creation of policy WP:PROPOSAL was even remotely followed? If not, should it be marked as policy? Do you think an admin involved in the discussion should protect a version he's been arguing for? I know a lot of people want this to be policy, but we are now in a place where arguing it shouldn't be policy can in theory get you blocked. Welcome to 1984 Hobit (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care how this came along, but not liking the circumstances behind the "now policy" (or not liking the proposed policy, as demonstrated in the past such as WP:NOT#PLOT, which is also currently undergoing review) does not give valid excuse to edit war over it. –MuZemike 15:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Erb? Are you claiming that if I create a policy, label it as such, edit war over it and then get an admin to protect it, I can claim it is "now policy" and everyone else needs to live with that? That's pretty much what has happened to this point. Policy creation requires a significant consensus. This has _no_ demonstrated consensus and should not be treated as policy. Heck, _our_ policy says exactly that. "Adding the {{policy}} template to a page without the required consensus does not mean that the page is policy, even if the page summarizes or copies policy." That is policy, so this isn't, no matter how it's labeled at the moment... Hobit (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what I said one bit. That being said, if I had to full-protect the page because of an edit war, I probably would have chosen more neutral wording than what GWH had used (such as "edit warring"). Problem here is that so many people in that flame war discussion are so emotionally enraged they are not able to think rationally. –MuZemike 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then do you disagree with any of A) WP:PROPOSAL wasn't followed in this case B) the protecting admin protect the version he'd been arguing for C) A&B are something of a problem. The net effect is that scenario I described is exactly what happened--someone labeled something as policy without following the normal protocol for doing so, people edit warred over it and an involved admin protected his preferred version (with an edit summary that made it plain he'd done so on purpose). I'd love to hear why that's acceptable or why people thing that's not what happened. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The policy as it is was not enacted by the community following the community policy process. There is no disagreement about that point. It came from the external policy mechanism we've had established for some time. The internal policy development process doesn't apply here. This is what it is. It's there, it has been for years, and that's the way it is.

With that said - the community has every right to discuss the policy and propose alternatives or come to a consensus to overturn the existing externally developed policy, within the internal community policy process. I don't know what outcome we'd see if there were such a community consensus - we haven't really got a tiebreaker in our policy or precedent for "community policy" vs "external policy".

If someone wants to create a new header tag for labeling policies which came from outside rather than via community policy development process that's fine. Nobody is disagreeing with a truth-in-labeling effort.

But conversely, it's false advertising to claim it's not a policy. It's the rule. It's what admins will do, Jimbo will do, Arbcom will do, the Foundation will do. We finally have it written out for all to see, but it's been a very consistent unwritten policy for many years now.

No, this didn't follow the normal protocol. I said it didn't when I did it. Nobody is disputing that. But if you believe that the normal protocol covers the totality of how Wikipedia works then you're wrong.

If you believe that my stabilizing the policy to accurately reflect the current and historical reality - outside of the normal policy process, but in line with what the rule has been for years - was an abuse of my power as an admin you should feel free to file a behavioral RFC or file an arbcom case. You could even convince a majority of other admins to simply unprotect the article. I don't think either is likely to succeed, but nobody's stopping you from trying. Nothing about what I did here is secret.

It would in my opinon be more productive to hold the conversations to see if community consensus has changed in the last nine or so months; last time we had this discussion the policy (not formally labeled as such at the time) was supported by a 90% plus majority of the community who bothered to comment. That could have changed. If it has changed then the community can act with its new consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I found it helpful. Could you A) point that that discussion from 9 months ago and B) explain what this "external policy" mechanism is? If it's going to exist, it should be at least documented. For the record, I still think protecting the page in this case was a pretty clear violation of WP:PROTECT. No it won't get you de-admined, but I do think asking for a neutral admin to do so would have been the proper thing to do. And in any case, explaining this clearly before it got labeled as policy would probably have been a good idea. Not sure I buy this should be policy at this point, but the explanation helped. Thanks Hobit (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a side note, WMF legal probably needs to look at this before it is accepted as a policy. If you ban someone as a pedophile without solid, beyond all doubt evidence, you are looking at a defamation lawsuit AND it is not limited to the laws of Florida. In other words, if the banned editor lives in Texas, a Texas court will hear the case, New York, etc. Not only is WMF at risk, but each and every editor that supported the ban could be brought into the case as a party. This is extremely ill-advised. Figure out another way to ban 'em, but you don't want to go down the road of calling them a pedophile - in all 50 states that would be per se defamation. (Note, this is not a legal threat - it is pointing out possible liabilities only). GregJackP Boomer! 01:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Just to note: this is precisely the point of the policy having evolved the way it is - to prevent wild accusations of outrageous things from being posted on-wiki as a part of ordinary workings. Block with a neutral block summary, refer them to ArbCom, and don't make a huge public witch hunt out of it. The ArbCom can handle it quietly and with dignity and respect, either letting the person no that, no, they can't edit, or unblocking if the block was wrong. The last thing anyone needs is a culture where we have huge public votes on whether or not someone is advocating for pedophilia. That's just ugly and risky for a number of reasons.
  • It is important to note that the existing customs have been the same for years, and it has functioned quite well.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by 212.85.12.187

Resolved

 – Sock blocked per WP:DUCK N419BH 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I many of the edits today by 212.85.12.187 as personal attacks, including this one at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change. I will notify the user of this ANI request within the next few minutes. Jc3s5h (talk) 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, I would like to mention Chris Bennett's description of me "all pretence of reason is cast aside and the pitiful, naked troll beneath is revealed". 212.85.12.187 (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Duck reblocked 6 months. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's noon British Summer Time on Friday, 2nd July, 2010. Having made a post to ANI I called up the user page of the person mentioned to notify them as per rules, only to discover that Elockid had blocked me from editing one minute before. Administrators should allow users to give the required notices before blocking. They should also only block after discussion (e.g. on ANI or SPI). There are outstanding discussions on ANI and SPI but in neither case has Elockid posted his/her reason for blocking. The block notice states "Block evasion - see SPI" which seems to me deliberately vague. As a minimum the notice should state the date of the block, expiry date and account, with an explanation of why it is considered that this block is being evaded. Meletian (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid's explanation for protecting Talk:Gregorian calendar and Talk:Julian calendar indicates that (s)he does not understand what a sockpuppet is - it's someone pretending to be someone else. The carefully - worded explanation makes it clear that the pages are not being protected as a result of any misbehaviour on my part. 212.85.7.14 (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Duck reblocked 3 months. You have a clear misunderstanding of the sockpuppetry policy. See WP:ILLEGIT especially the circumventing policies or sanctions part. You are blocked, meaning that you can't edit until the block is lifted on your main account. Disruptive editing is misbehaviour. The talk pages have shown that reverts such as this and this are other users apart from the "usual" editors that are reverting you. At least 3 admins have protected the talk pages you've been editing. However, you keep trying to make the same kinds of edits that got you blocked and continue to circumvent policy, so yes this is misbehaviour. So where's your support because I've seen no one reverting their edits except for you and you haven't gained any support in the last thread either? Elockid ^(Talk) 12:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of offensive images posted on Jimbo Wales talk page

Someone has listed a large number of images which may have serious legal issues, even if they do not they are deeply disturbing and more admin attention is needed. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Nude_children_photo_in_Commons BritishWatcher (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Now archived here Buddy431 (talk) 03:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a slightly better link. Graham87 08:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do. The images are on Commons. The Commons equivalent of this noticeboard is commons:Commons:AN. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

While the images are pretty controversial, I would say that "offensive" is very subjective in this case. They are certainly not pornography, and many would argue that they are artistic (though it has to be said that I'm not one of them). I don't particularly want to look at them, but as far as I can tell they are neither legally nor morally objectionable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

See below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Geiremann

This editor is pushing the "Obama is the Antichrist" theme pretty heavily. He's also taking his Wiki-rants off-wiki and into a fringe news outlet indexed by Google News.[REDACTED URL] It's not a subject I particularly care about one way or another, but since it's indexed by Google News, and since he's making all the usual accusations, it's worth bringing to admin attention. Rklawton (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've had to redact the above URL as it's a malware site, just downloaded something called AV Security Suite on my PC. My work PC, crap. It's visible in the source if you really need to see it. Rehevkor ✉ 16:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He continues to edit war. He might be happy to be a martyr, but this is one time I'm willing to please him. He is not here to improve the encyclopedia but only to push his viewpoint. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The off-wiki rants don't seem to have drawn any edits yet. That said, the edits are problematic in numerous ways. Yes, the editor is determined to get their viewpoint in somewhere (see their edit history, including the deleted article, Illinois Lottery 666). More to the point, the editor been repeatedly told that their edits simply don't belong where they have been adding them (for example, Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories: it hits Barack Obama, religion and theories, but misses the boat on "conspiracy" (as does the currenly included bit about Victoria Jackson...)). Also, they have yet to recognize that the lone source doesn't say what they claim it says. The source says someone contacted a fringe group with the theory, not that the fringe group supports the theory. Long story short (too late), the bit the editor is extracting from the source is one anonymous person's theory. I don't expect the editor in question to recognize that anytime soon... - SummerPhD (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Several other editors, as well as myself, have tried talking to G in good faith, but it's now obvious that's not going to help. He's here to push one insane viewpoint, regardless of any consensus or policy. He has not helped this encyclopedia in any way in his time here. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome, I'm a demonic minion! Finally! Man, my parents are going to be so proud of me. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal for Geiremann

Resolved

 – Banned by Rklawton (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I propose a topic ban on posting to any articles or talk pages dealing with Obama or 666. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's absolutely correct, and I cannot see a situation coming from this that doesn't wind up with a ban or block. This isn't much doubt that the editor is not here to improve the project, but is here to push this fringe "anti-Christ" stuff. Dave Dial (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban if that's what everyone wants, but that amounts to a full ban since he doesn't seem interested in building an encyclopedia. He's placed his little post-it notes of truth on at least four different pages by now. Dayewalker (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - full ban. This account is an obvious example of a WP:SPA with all edits aimed at promoting a made up conspiracy theory. He doesn't seem to understand what an encyclopedia is all about - or our five pillars. I'm neutral in this matter. The editor's off-wiki rants indexed by Google News were what first drew my attention to this matter, and I don't think I've ever edited any of the articles he's touched. Rklawton (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full ban. This is completely ridiculous; a topic ban seems useless here, as Geiremann does not wish to constructively contribute to Wikipedia. Reading his off-wiki "articles", he seems intent on disrupting Wikipedia. We do not need Geiremann disrupting Wikipedia with some "anti-Christ" theories about Obama. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a full ban per WP:SOAP. We need to give this dude the boot asap. Topic ban is not the answer as it seems clear this person will keep looking for ways to push an agenda. Looking through the edit history and talk page is convincing. Jusdafax 19:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned per AN/I

The block log says "Banned per AN/I". There may be many valid reasons for banning this editor, but three support votes for a ban after 1 hour 13 minutes doesn't really qualify as "banned per AN/I". I would suggest a more accurate block reason is given (for example, an indefinite block done by an admin as an individual action without referring to ANI). In reality, there was no need to have any ban discussion. Just an indefinite block with the reason given would have been sufficient Carcharoth (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you read the section above carefully, you'll see there are three "votes" for banning and three additional editors nominating or agreeing with the nomination in the first place. But yes, stating the reason more explicitly would have been a better idea. Rklawton (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and one of those supporting the ban was you, who filed the ANI report and carried out the block. I don't disagree with the block, but it was a 4-day-old account. Ban discussions are for a specific purpose, and they are not really designed for dealing with 4-day-old accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, six people, including me. The case was pretty obvious, but I thought a second opinion would be useful. If you can point me to information about banning v. indef blocking and the age of an account, I'd appreciate it. I'm not so old that I can't learn. Rklawton (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Given his actions off-wiki, I'm thinking that attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning applies. However, I agree with your point that we could have waited 24-hours (WP:SNOW notwithstanding). Rklawton (talk) 05:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this could all be sorted out if users here were just a little more circumspect with the use of the word ban. This looks more like a simple indef block to me, which seems warranted under the circumstances. It would be highly unusual to ban a user after this little process and without any post-block shenanigans. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have made that clearer. This was a (relatively simple) indef block, and there was no need to use the word "ban". Carcharoth (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'd have given it more thought, I would have used the word "indef", too. Rklawton (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This would appear, based on off-wiki evidence, to be a sock of indef-blocked user Geir Smith, who was responsible for additions to Siege of Baghdad (1258) Kafka Liz (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And that was a good block too. Note that he's been editing both that user and talk page. Clear sock puppetry. And is it normal for talk pages of indef blocked users to be deleted after a month? If it is, I'm not convinced that's a good idea and am tempted to restore it. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain those IPs are all him... He seems to have attracted a small group of, uh, fans, beyond the wiki. I've not seen deletions of other indef-blocked users' talkpages; I'm not what the precedent is for this. I'd be interested to see the talkpage restored, if no one minds. Kafka Liz (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

X-romix

Resolved

 – I removed his editing rights Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User X-romix (talk · contribs), who was previously banned from Russian Wikipedia for pushing different fringe theories and harassment of different users, now came to Jimbo's talk page complaining about reverts of his image nominations for deletion on Commons. In his complain he accused putnik (SUL) and me (SUL) of being "gay activists" and being "controlled" by another user. He also linked to a LiveJournal community where libelous and offensive statements are regularly published (it was blacklisted locally for that reason). Besides, he started totally off-topic advocacy of himself being "unfairly blocked" on Russian Wikipedia. I find claims of me being gay activist and controlled by some other user totally inacceptable; I also believe his behvior on Jimbo's talk page should be regarded as disruptive. vvv^t 18:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, when you discuss someone on this noticeboard, you must inform them that they are being discussed here. I have done this for you in this case, but in the future, you must make certain to do it yourself. I haven't looked at the actual issue you raised; I am just making certain you understand this requirement. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually aware of that fact. Thanks anyway. vvv^t 18:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting sensitive personal information about Wikipedia users without their consent on Wikipedia pages is a blockable offence regardless of whether this information is true or false. One of those users is actually a minor, which makes this case much more serious. I am inclined to indefblock X-romix. Ruslik_Zero 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that would be an excellent idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I was following the discussion on Jimbo's page and agree. Dougweller (talk) 21:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at most of it, and agree also; in addition to it being an WP:OUTING, I found some of the comments homophobic and generally offensive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal; I confirm that X-romix keeps slandering these two and other ru.wp users in Russian LiveJournal community (consisting mostly of banned ru.wp users), this time he simply "extended" this into en.wp. — AlexSm 22:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Per this response to my ANI notification, I have to agree with the above editors. I suspect that allowing X-romix to continue editing on the English Wikipedia will only result in his repeating the same unacceptable behavior. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User Mo ainm's alternate account status

Mo ainm (talk · contribs) states on his user page he is a legitimate alternate account of an established user, but as far as I can see, he has not declared the name of the previous account. There's no harm in that I hear you cry...but I have my doubts over the truthfulness of this statement. But this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI. So I recently queried the situation as to whether this lack of disclosure was intentional, and whether he knew the conditions under which this was and was not allowed. He responded by stating he is invoking WP:CLEANSTART, and asserted his previous account had no blocks or bans, and that he had informed at least one admin what his previous account was. So I decided just to ask who this admin was to see if I could verify this claim for myself, however, I had missed the fact that in his reply he told me to stay off his talk page, for what reason I have no idea, so he simply reverted this question restating his desire to have no contact with me. I've no wish to contact him further if he doesn't want me to, but I think it is a fair question to ask who this admin is, and whether it can or cannot be verified if this is a legitimate alternate account. So, some advice please, on where to next, if at all. Or, if the admin in question is reading, please make yourself known. I've no wish to know the name of his previous account if it is not the one I am thinking of, which is declared as retired, but if it is, then it would most definitely not be the case that this is a legitimate CLEANSTART. I've also no wish to sully Mo ainm's reputation here by stating who that account was, if it is not him, but without confirmation from this admin...well, I will then probably have to reveal it to see if anyone else agrees with my suspicions. Yes, AGF and all that, but the topic area this previous editor was involved with was a highly charged one, and Mo ainm is also editing in this same area, although he's not doing anything disruptive or blockable at this time that I can see. That said, editors with records of having done so are not permitted to make a CLEANSTART, and then resume in the same area, whether the previous account is retired or not. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Mo ainm of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 19:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You edit conflicted me in doing so infact. MickMacNee (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry :( Basket of Puppies 19:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would highly suggest NOT revealing your suspicions per WP:OUTING. The admin they made aware of the previous account will be along shortly. N419BH 19:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope he is, because 'beware of OUTING' is always the most useless of cautions when you have no idea wtf is going on. It's almost as pointless as the old chestnut of 'don't reinstate this sourced material, per a complaint on OTRS', when you have no OTRS access. The previous account I'm thinking of did not retire because their identity was compromised that I'm aware of, but then again, if it was, it's hardly something you would announce is it? MickMacNee (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound rude. If I did, I apologize. I'm just saying caution is necessary. If they do in fact want to make a legitimate clean start, it wouldn't do much good to out their old identity. If however they're using WP:CLEANSTART as a cover for abusive sockpuppetry or block/ban evasion, of course that must be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Perhaps they will tell us which administrator they told. N419BH 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I took your reply to mean you actualy knew what's going on, and you knew the particular admin was coming along shortly. Even if you don't know what's going on, as said, it's a bit of a useless caution to just say beware of outing, as the issue involves, as far as I'm aware, two anonymous accounts. I certainly didn't get the impression from Mo ainm that the restart was the result of having been outed on his old account. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I don't know exactly what's going on, and after reading WP:OUTING again I've come to the realization that in this particular situation it doesn't apply. What I'm getting at is we shouldn't publicly disclose a potential previous account of his if the intention is to make a clean start. In other words, we shouldn't "out" his previous wiki-identity.

On a related note, it looks like he has no intention of contributing here. I will ask on his talk page who the admin was so we can make them aware of this thread and get it resolved. N419BH 20:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to be seen here; WP:Multiple Accounts makes it clear when you can use an alternate account. If you really believe it has been abused, then file an SPI, but as you conclude "this is based on anecdotal evidence, which is not enough to not be rejected as 'fishing' at SPI." then looks like you have to wait till such time as you have evidence that will stand up in a SPI or just leave it and carry on editing. Codf1977 (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm well aware of what can and can't be done with alternate accounts, but the issue I had hoped would be addressed here is this claim that the use has been verified by an admin as legitimate already, which is starting to look suspect in of itself. Frankly, why have I got to fuck about filing an SPI if a user claims an admin has already verified he is not abusing the policy? Do admins just not care about this sort of evasion? Why have I got to fuck about stalking this guy's every single edit to get better evidence than what I have, when he presumably can with one word clear the issue up right here right now? MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't have to clear anything up. At all. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing, (and I can see absolutely zero evidence of wrongdoing), then it isn't his problem that you are paranoid. Unless you have evidence of connection to a blocked account or other shenanigans, no one has to do anything, especially him. --Jayron32 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you even know what to be looking for? You don't know the block log of the user I suspect this is, so how would you know if he is or isn't doing anything wrong? I have reasonable evidence, which is based on my knowledge of this other editor's history, otherwise I wouldn't have raised it in the first place. But let's get one thing straight here - he doesn't need to be doing anything evidently wrong with this account right now to still be breaking the policy, unless you sign up to the theory that editors are allowed to periodically drop their history but return to the same areas with an apparently clean record. They are not as far as I'm aware, but do feel free to correct me if I am, and I'll drop it right now. If not, all I want is for the name of the admin that he referred to himself, to be able to confirm this user has no prior blocks on their previous account. I don't even want the name of the prior account, a simple assertion of lack of blocks would be enough to drop this and preserve his legitimate clean start. I don't happen to think it is showing good faith by forcing me to publicly link him with a user with a bad record by filing a detailed SPI which would show some rather odd coincidences, which if the evidence is not strong enough for a CU result to show positive clearance, merely leaves it up in the air, but publicly known and suspected. He is claiming to be wanting a clean start, so why would he not want to avoid that if they could? AGF gets you so far, and then you have to engage your brain, and ask exactly why a user who has said an admin can prove he is not breaking the policy, would then not name that admin when asked? It's not paranoia to be questioning the situation outlined here. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If you have a specific other account to tie this one to, then presumably there's evidence of the connection. You could publish that evidence right here, or you could do so at WP:SPI. If it is so clear to you that this is a specific other editor, then it should be clear to everyone. Care to explain how you are so sure? --Jayron32 03:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

@Mick: My experience is that while socking while blocked is a cardinal sin on paper, rather frequently admins will refuse to block on that basis if there's no evidence of disruption in the new account, even when the behaviorial evidence is compelling. In a way, that's good, because it does allow for people to change and turn over a new leaf without there being a lot of bureaucracy and confrontations with past antagonists. Given that, it's a crapshoot whether an SPI would be worth the hassle. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The previous account I suspect he is, is not blocked currently, but retired. The violation here is that Mo ainm is claiming he has a legitimate right to have a clean start, yet if he is who I think he is, he has returned to the same area of conflict as that suspected account, without revealing prior blocks. That is as far as I know, not permitted under the policy of having a clean start. Rather, it is called evading scrutiny, which just wastes everybody's time if the new start turns out not to be so new after all, even it the intentions are good to begin with. Mo ainm claims he has no blocks on his previous account, and has already told an admin who it was, so he cannot possibly be this other used, but he is not willing to reveal the name of this admin who can verify this. I just want to know why admins don't find this something to do anything about. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, why do I need to publish the evidence here or at SPI, if he is claiming he is innocent, and can prove it? The evidence is pretty good - registration of the new account within hours of the old one, and editting in two distinct areas that the old account also editted in. Plus some anecdotal behavioural evidence. But like I said, the issue here is that he claims this other account cannot possibly be him, and there is a way to verify this without an SPI check, if only he would reveal the name of this admin he says he has revealed his previous identity to. And to look at this on the flip side, if the account I suspect he is, really isn't him, then it's not fair to label that account as a suspected sock puppet if that person really has just retired and is no longer editting at all, just because Mo ainm won't come through with this admin's name. MickMacNee (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anything in the "retired" account's history preclude a WP:CLEANSTART? If the answer is no, then there's nothing more to be done here. N419BH 13:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, their block log. A CLEAN START cannot be invoked to whitewash a block log in a prior area of conflict, which is btw an area which is under several active arbitration remedies. Although the issue here is that Mo ainm denies being that user anyway, as he has already insisted he has no prior blocks and is thus invoking a legitimate CLEAN START, but just doesn't want to prove it, even though he says he can. MickMacNee (talk) 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLEANSTART does not say you can't have any blocks, it only says you can't have any ACTIVE blocks, as making a clean start while blocked would of course be block evasion. Is the specific user under any specific arbitration remedies? If they are, take this to arbcom by e-mail in confidence. If there are general arbitration remedies in the area, then I don't think that precludes cleanstart. N419BH 14:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not my reading of it. Returning to an area of past conflict if you have a history of blocks in that area is straight up evasion of scrutiny. Maybe an admin might bother to comment here on that pretty soon? What with this being the Administrator's Incidents Board.... The other user may well be under active sanctions, he certainly has been in the past, but like I said, why is it up to me to start stalking this guy big time, if he can clear himself with one word? And general remedies are surely also relevant - if a specific user racks up some blocks in an area under a general sanction, they can hardly be allowed to discard those and return to the same area - that is double plus evasion of scrutiny because the remedies exist precisely because the area is a major disaster zone with multiple bad editors that normal admins cannot handle. MickMacNee (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The active arbcom sanctions are listed here. If he's on that list, take this to arbcom. If he isn't, I hope an admin sees this too. N419BH 14:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to comment here but seeing as Mick is now not telling the truth, my previous account has NO bans, blocks or active sanctions in place against the old account. I have done what is required per WP:CLEANSTART and this is just a fishing exercise because Mick doesn't agree with what I have said on an article so I must be a POV pusher. Hopefully soon an admin I emailed will be along to show that there is no disruptive socking going on.Mo ainm~Talk 18:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, where have I LIED in this thread exactly? I have consistently said in here that you stated you had no prior blocks or bans on your old account, and that you could prove it, but just didn't want to. This is the truth, and it struck me as odd behaviour for someone claiming to be making a genuine and legitimate clean start. That is the only reason for this thread existing, the issue wouldn't even come here had you not refused to do what you now apparently are OK with doing. I could care less about the recent interaction, dealing with that is easy enough whoever you are - but I won't waste my time on doing so if I suspect, with good reason, that I'm dealing with someone who has been there, done that and got the T-Shirt already under a previous account name which has been retired with a less than stellar record in that regard. I quite rationally and normally, wish to have that concern cleared up first. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg L

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

No one is going to be banned today. If needed, take this back to WP:WQA, but I, like Mazca, feel that the best thing to do is to mutually disengage and let the matter drop. Nothing for admins to do here except watch the two of your fight for entertainment value. --Jayron32 00:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Before an issue goes any further I thought I'd take it take it here first. Greg L comes to a page where I was attempting to get an image recognized as FP. He posts something about a sort of blindness and offers NO constructive criticism or anything relevant or of value, probably his first shot at me, then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility, his userpage even has profanity on it and a "non political correctness" userbox declaring he doesn't care about civility. He should be banned, even though I know this isn't the main board to discuss that.

The page in question: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Auguste_Mayer's_"Battle_of_Trafalgar"#Lost-titled_painting_of_the_Battle_of_Trafalgar

His userpage (scroll down): User:Greg_L

--I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Quoting IdLoveOne: probably his first shot at me: he confuses not liking a picture with a personal attack. Quoting him further: then responds to a comment I posted trying to get feedback with hostility. In fact, I wrote as follows:

• Quoting you: Too bad for you then. Please try to not take these things personally and react in that vein. Your post seems inappropriately combative and we don’t need that here. Greg L (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote there was hostile so that allegation is not true. I was correctly pointed out that he shouldn’t be combative and personalize things in his posts when others don’t see things his way.

The user box does not endorse incivility so that is yet another thing that isn’t true.

My user page features a link to a sub-page treatise on a subject on which Wikipedia has an article: F*ck

IdLoveOne is simply misrepresenting every single fact and is wikilawyering here to exact some retribution while he/she escalates molehills into mountains. It’s just that simple. It seems petty and childish and IdLoveOne probably needs an enforced cooling off period if he/she can’t control his/her temper any better. Such silliness. Greg L (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• Moved. This can't wait, this guy just won't stop, so I've moved it here. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• IdLoveOne started this as a Wikiquette alert and the editor moved the entire contents to here now. This editor is proving to be disruptive and might benefit from a 48-hour break. Greg L (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

• All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day, so I moved this here in hopes of getting mediation since Wikiquette is slow and you just continue to harrass me. Two other people were able to politely and without hostility point out their problems and we have no disputes, but you're different. I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now, and have NEVER had to report another Wikipedia user or even an anonymous vandal's IP and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin, but you've called me blind, a liar and implied threats: "We don't need that here" like you're going to block me; and this userbox about about being "politically incorrect" is what that is. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Parsing this one:

• “All you've done is attack and cyber bully me all day”: Writing that you should refrain from personal attacks isn’t “bullying”. Also, your “all day” is quite the exaggeration; your taking offense to my not liking your nomination started at 22:11 and you posted the Wikiquette at 22:36. Thus, it took a grand total of 25 minutes for you to spin up.

• “I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now”: That is irrelevant to what the facts are here.

• “you've called me blind”: No, I wrote that the muddy, near-black picture you nominated is better suited for illustrating Macular degeneration than Battle of Trafalgar.

• “[I called you] a liar”: No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true.

• “implied threats: ‘We don't need that here’ like you're going to block me”: Uhhm… no, it means we don’t need that here (personalizing things and getting combative).

• “and I have never been even been warned by an WP admin”: There’s a first time for everything and I suggest you stop wikilawyering and misrepresenting every single thing to which you take offense.

Note that WP:Civility, here states that it is uncivil to “mislead, including deliberately asserting false information”. Your allegations here are entirely untrue. You were very politely advised to not personalize things and refrain from using hostile language like “Too bad for you then”. Indeed, we don’t need that kind of thing over there. Rather than take that spot-on advise to heart, you spin out sideways over the course of 25 minutes and start a Wikiquette and then move it to here.

Maybe you’ve had a rotten day over on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates because J Milburn reverted a whole bunch of pictures you recently added to some of Wikipedia’s articles. He had this comment on FPC: “[T]hose articles are already very over-illustrated, and, having worked with editors on articles very like them (if not them, I don't remember) concerning images, I can assure you that every image is carefully chosen. Additionally, I am not wild about the EV in any of the uses.” I can’t help what J Milburn does but it’s clear that your tenor was getting increasingly combative and less collegial with each let-down on that thread. Now your behavior is simply disruptive. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be, at best, a minor civility issue - I see absolutely no evidence of any seriously disruptive behaviour or anything warranting immediate admin action. I'd strongly advice IdLoveOne to disengage - a disagreement over a featured picture candidacy is all this should be, and doesn't need to be personalised. ~ mazca ^talk 00:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Mazca. This is the last thing I have to say to you, Greg L, I know that it is probably pointless but I feel I must anyway:
1. I don't care if you don't like Auguste Mayer, he died over a century ago and I have no reason to defend him. The FPC and Wikipedia guidelines are clear, if you dislike a image or don't feel it is FP-worthy you have to post a valid reason why. I don't know much about Macular degeneration, but it has nothing to do with art, the quality guidelines of Wikipedia and no one in the section cares about it, but if you really felt it was an interesting fact somehow connected to the image you could've explained, and it's not about if you like the image or not, there are specific things that must be considered to decide what is feature-worthy, not just if you don't like a certain type of artwork - I'm not interested in portraits right now, so I don't comment on them and you could just as easily have passed over the image I suggested and we wouldn't be here.
2. You failed to follow policy and assume good faith and took an innocent comment out of proportion, that is why we're here and it is disruptive, ban-worthy behavior that needs no, as you put it, "Wikilawyering". Now my nomination is cluttered up with hostile notes and attacks on me that might scare people off from contributing valuable feedback that I could've used to develop my ability to understand what Wikipedia sees as feature-worthy and tips I could've used to fix up the image and possibly restore it to where it should be.
3. "'I've been using Wikipedia for 4 YEARS now': That is irrelevant to what the facts are here." Yes, it is, you've attacked my character, called it into question and are trying to spin a block on me, so I do think that 4 years good behavior shows that I have good character and wouldn't be doing this if I really didn't find it necessary.
4. "'[I called you] a liar': No, I wrote that things you allege aren’t true." *crickets* I don't have anything else to say, I'll let the administrators make their decisions. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Mazca, I don't have a problem with a disagreement about the image, it's the fact that he turned something simple into an argument. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• From what I can see the argument that developed absolutely resulted from both of you taking each other's comments more personally than they were initially intended. In neither case was anything seriously wrong done - nobody needs banning. ~ mazca ^talk 00:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

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

IP user 184.59.77.102

This started when per wp:blp, I reverted some of the user's unsourced additions of contentious info to Jim Bowden and Gary Majewski [6], [7]. After explaining the blp policy to user on my talk page [8] and explaining why the content was removed, user argued but (after disruptive edit [9]) eventually added content back to article properly sourced with refs. I helped out and encouraged [10]

You would think that would be the end of it. However, user has again continued the trend of disruptive edits with borderline personal attack edit summaries ([11], [12]), and keeps on un-archiving my talk page and removing info [13], [14], [15]. User was warned [16] before restoring archive on my talk page again. I'm not looking for drama, but the aggressive editing on my talk page/removal of article content/edit summaries led me to post here. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you report a user to ANI, you should notify said user. No problem, however; I've just notified them. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Sorry, my bad. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I encourage anyone who has say in any decisions to read the back and forth between omarcheesboro and myself. He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced.

I tried to discuss with omarcheeseboro on his talk page the idea that perhaps he had options in how he chose to enforce wikipedia's rules concerning unsourced material; specifically that he *could* have sourced the added content *himself* (thereby both adding to the completeness of the articles in question). Instead of acknowledging that the option was available to him, he repeatedly pasted in boilerplate or links concerning sourcing.

Instead of having a discussion with me, he chose to try to paint my argument as an argument against wikipedia policy. At no time did I criticize or say I disagreed with wikipedia's sourcing rules. I specifically and repeatedly said that my beef was with HIS choices on how to enforce them.

I don't like being treated the same as someone who is deliberately trying to defame a living person with unverifiable charges disguised as verified information.

This is what omarcheeseboro *should* have done:

He should have sourced and corrected the most potentially libelous addition: Jim Bowden arrested for DUI. You type "Jim Bowden dui" (without the quotes) into google and you get MANY returns.

Once he saw that this had been a good faith effort to contribute, he should have sent me a message directing my attention to what needed to be sourced and cited his correction to the Bowden DUI addition as an example of how to do it properly. Perhaps giving me a day or two before he was reluctantly forced to revert the additions.

I'm all about results - the result of omarcheeseboro's actions (while seemingly in line with wikipedia policy) was that accurate and contextually important information was removed from the pages of wikipedia whilst simultaneously putting off someone who was only trying to contribute.

He compounded this by taking a smug position that he was constrained by the rules and could do nothing else - even though that is clearly a load of bull.

Maybe omarcheeseboro doesn't think much of the effort involved; perhaps this is all very easy for him. For me it is not. I have been very ill for years and I simply have very little energy to completely dot every i and cross every t.

Considering the effort I have to muster to write this sort of material, it is infuriating when someone lazily wipes it away - not because it is wrong - but because some attention to proper etiquette was missed.

On top of that he went looking through all of my recent additions and reverted them all. For me to think this was done out of his concern for following the rules, I would only have to be shown that he was consistent in his fervor for the sourcing of all of wikipedia.

So, I just to the first article I could think of to check for the many sourcing errors I knew would be there. I randomly chose the Enola Gay article and immdiately found that of the 11 citations, 6 were broken, missing, or hopelessly vague.

I told omarcheeseboro of this and instead of deleting the sections he completely ignored the issue. If he had any real concern for the letter of the law that he is holding fast to - he would have wasted no time making the needed deletions. Instead he allowed the idea to for and take hold that perhaps a zealous attention to the rules was not his motivation - perhaps he had some personal reason to dig up all my edits and revert them.

There is no way to know because he refuses to explain himself; instead copying and pasting canned responses in a dismissive and offensive manner.

Personally I do not think that omarcheeseboro can really defend his actions in any other way than to claim his actions are by the rules. My attempts to discuss it with him (including undoing him deleting all conversations on his talk page) was my way of making him examine what his choices truly were. He side-stepped that quite nicely and he remains unexamined by himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.59.77.102 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h, repeatedly deleting uncontroversial info in retaliation for someone else reverting his controversial additions is disruptive. ~ mazca ^talk 00:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, per our policy — especially, when it comes to WP:BLPs —, all bits of info, especially if negative, must be sourced. Otherwise, they can be challenged and removed at any time. Any user can choose not to remove them and try to look for references, instead, but that's a matter of preference, as per WP:BURDEN. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, but doing so in a way to disrupt is absolutely a pointy tactic. Deleting non-controversial information about when an NFL player was drafted just because there's no specific source there is just trying to get a rise out of another editor. Dayewalker (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Of the deletions by omarcheeseboro that 184.59.77.102 was complaining about, the only one that could be construed as potentially damaging was the bit about Jim Bowden getting arrested for DUI; which is easily verified with the most trivial of effort. It seems to me that omarcheeseboro caused this situation by his actions on the rest of this user's edits. Fixing one possibly imflamatory edit is one thing, going through and reverting multiple edits of a particular user is bound to anger them. To quote from WP:BURDEN: "Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." Looking at the work of 184.59.77.102, I see no reason to think that he is anything but an asset to wikipedia. Obviously he needs to learn the proper way to do things. Zilla1126 (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I was referring to Omarcheeseboro's edits, but Mazca blocked him before I could type my answer. ^_^

I had warned the IP editor that he was heading for a block... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Caution: Zilla1126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is no friend of ours, and unlikely to be a good-faith editor. He was one of a group of Freepers who trolled us in November 2005; it was quite unpleasant, and I deleted their nastiness from my talk page and from his (check the deletion history, as well as that of Wikipedia liberal bias, which gives the IPs he or his friends -- I believe "meatpuppets" is not inappropriate here -- used before he registered his account). Preferring to be lenient, I didn't block him. In dealing with these people, put on your thickest skin, and remember they already know our policies, and have known them for almost five years. See here (change the "x" to and "f") for a sample of their off-wiki coordination/comment.

On editing articles on sports figures, perhaps we can AGF and all shall be well -- and indeed maybe he's changed -- but I just needed to give a heads-up. Antandrus (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Antrandrus, do you have some basis for saying that the person contributing anonymously from IP address 184.59.77.102 and myself (zilla1126) are the same person? I can state categorically that we are not the same person. I for one don't like my name being included in a group that you call "meatpuppets". I certainly did not add any nastiness to your talk page; hopefully you are not saying that I did. It just so happens that "184.59.77.102" is Chris, my Son. I think you and this omar fellow should cut him a bit of slack. Chris suffers from Myotonic Dystrophy DM1 and is barely functional for a couple of hours a day due to his hypersomnia, physical fatigue, and executive dysfunction. It takes a lot for him to build up the steam to focus long enough to get something like editing a wikipedia page done - omar going through Chris's work and seemingly destroying it was a little too much for him. I'm sorry he reacted in a anti-social manner, but that sort of thing is one of the effects of this disease and it will only get worse. His considerable intellect is and will remain unaffected by his illness; however his ability to use his gifts is being stolen from him day by day. You and the other editors might want to think about what might be going on the other side of the keyboard before you pass judgement. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this assertion by the IP:

"He says he "encouraged" me when refs were added by zilla1126; however the form of that "encouragement" was to delete information that zilla1126 *had* properly sourced."

This is totally inaccurate. I added some refs to his contributions, expanded, and copyedited a little bit. I didn't delete information, and left a positive note in the edit. See the diff [17]. One would think that this would've resolved the situation, but no. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Chris was inaccurrate is stating that; omar did not delete information after *I* sourced it. What he did do however was immediately go right in a move things around and make other "improvements" which Chris took to be a purposeful affront. Whether it was intended that way or not, it was a little odd considering what had already transpired between them. I may be not entirely impartial when it comes to my Son, but I think that omar should apologize to him for what anywhere else in the world would be unimaginable rudeness. In the future anything Chris does on wikipedia will go through me first - I'm not sure how many of these sort of "corrections" he can take without completely giving up. I can't let him lose hope. Zilla1126 (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Emergency confirmation of user needed

Resolved

 – User directed to commons N419BH 05:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Please confirm me or autoconfirm me so that I can give Wikipedia a picture. I promise that I am not a joker making trouble. The picture is electricity related. When I tried to, it said the function is limited to autoconfirmed and confirmed users. It also said that administrators can do it but I'm not asking to be that high ranking. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You could e-mail the photo to an admin and see if it's acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is very acceptable and better than some pictures I see. It is not porno, borderline porno, or dumb. It is electricity related. If I don't get an answer soon, I will not pursue the matter and you can close my account. Electricity Shocks (talk) 23:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL... Just wait a few days for autoconfirmation. Adding a picture is not life-or-death. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

lol? Email it to me. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 23:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) If it is a picture that you took yourself or is licensed under a free license such as the GNU Free Documentation License or a Creative Commons license, you could instead upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. There is no autoconfirmed/confirmed requirement to upload images there, and images uploaded there can be used on Wikipedia. FunPika 23:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the idea that adding a supposedly benign pic related to electricity is an emergency caused me to laugh out loud. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Funpika. You are a big help! Electricity Shocks (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x6 For future reference: Files for Upload. sonia^♫♪ 00:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when do admins get to decide what is acceptable or not? Anyone can make that decision.--Adam in MO Talk 08:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't you heard? Since last Thurday when an admin-led coup overthrew Jimbo and the Fouundation and set up a revolutionary government in its place. I believe there's a knock-down drag-out fight going on right now on IRC to determine which of the most radical (or reactionary, depending on your viewpoint) admins will be given the honorary rank of "Colonel" and join the ruling junta. To complicate matters, Giano, Malleus Fatuorum and Jack Merridew have put together a counter-revolutionary underground which is gathering in disaffected editors left and right. The USA is standing off, waiting to see which faction to support, but the French have sold arms to both sides, all the while shouting something about "Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite", but no one is quite sure what they mean (least of all the French themselves). Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Power rests with those that are closest to the server power supply. :)--Adam in MO Talk 11:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins get to assign the "confirmed user" right. In this case the image could have been emailed to anyone (or, indeed, linked to from here); however, an admin would still have been needed to fulfil the original request ("Emergency confirmation of user needed"). The commons solution is the most appropriate, however, as it neatly avoids the unlimited and frequently abused power of The Admin (that, and I'm sufficiently lazy to prefer solutions that don't involve me having to get off my backside...) TFOWR 12:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone other than me feel this whole thread fails the sniff test? This editor has no other edits than to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Abusive comments

Resolved

 – Gabagool (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely for making personal attacks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

i've just deleted a pretty abusive comment from my user page from a Norwegian IP address. It came shortly after I had reverted another personal attack from a Norwegian editor here. I have no idea if they are the same but its a bit odd, especially as the time lapse between the two is short and well after midnight in Norway (i.e its not likely that any casual user would have come across the material. Is it possible for someone with the right user rights to check it out? Its not really an SPI report (although I am happy to be corrected). A suspicion is not an accusation but if it could be checked it might clear the air --Snowded ^TALK 01:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Blocked for that particularly egregious personal attack. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for picking it up so quickly --Snowded ^TALK 01:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a side note, but aren't transclusion of signature templates banned? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

Resolved

 – Commuted to time served. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He is currently requesting an unblock on his talk page. I am inclined to grant it, given his contrition, and long history without prior problems. Mayhap we can take this as "lesson learned" in a time of stress. Perhaps an unblock with agreement to disengage from Snowded and have no further interaction with them, along with strict civility parole; a sort of "one more outburst and its another block" sort of deal? --Jayron32 02:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose.I'd keep on ice a little longer, but that's only my opinion, because his personal attack was quite egregious. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 02:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutral I have no real objections, or need for him to disengage with me provided he follows normal rules of civility. Admin decision, hence my neutrality, looks like he has learnt a lesson and he admitted the fault straight away.--Snowded ^TALK 02:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to just change the block to last a week. It seems like an adequate period. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with a Just This Once pass. Commuting to time served would be appropriate, given his history and contrition. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Modify I think this should be adjusted to 24 hours. This will give time for the involved editor to further calm down and chill out. I am not usually one for amnesty but I think given the user's history 24 hours would suffice. I am not of the opinion that a week is appropriate. Blocks shouldn't be punitive they should only serve to prevent further disruption and I think the problem has probably solved itself at this point.--Adam in MO Talk 08:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose History without problems? A week at least to get the message across and prevent further disruption. Verbal chat 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Support commuting to time served. EVIL? Hitler? Stalin? Far-left SCUM OF THE EARTH, and EVIL again? I love it. I've been a wikipedia admin for five years or whatever, and have never received such a ludicrous (yet fine) distillation of insult. You should be proud, Snowded, I wish it was me! Bishonen | talk 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC).

After the initial surprise I must admit I took it with a sense of wry humour. --Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Aargh! I apparently added an unreferenced period...

...and User:Matthew hk saw fit to give me a level 3 warning for it. The edit in question is here. Matthew left me a warning here. Part of the discussion is on my talk page, but I also responded on his talk page, comments removed by Matthew hk. I will apologize to the community at large for calling them a bad word on my talk page (I probably shouldn't have called them a moron, and if someone wants to give me an incivility warning for it, I accept that), but this is approaching surreal proportions. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the editor. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a possible language problem. Quick, everyone find a run-on sentence and add a period, then revert yourself and give yourself a level 3 warning for no reliable source! We must ensure every period is sourced! N419BH 04:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yours edit is unhelpful. ip user and newbie keep on adding transfer rumour and/or with citing it with reliable source and someone personal attack me after receive warning. I am patrolling A.S. Roma, Genoa CFC, F.C. Internazionale Milano, Giulio Donati, Francesco Toldo, Jonathan Biabiany, Júlio César and many other page.

If you had look at the page history, the Juve content is re-added after the first one receive warning, whatever you went to that page Marco Motta via recent change or a Juve fans, you did not find what happened and edited the Juve content, you agreed the juve content exist. JUve later announced Motta passed the medicals, but the official announcement still said the deal is pending to finalize. Matthew_hk tc 04:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You're both making mountains out of molehills. I recommend ending this issue entirely. A corrolary of "Do Not Template The Regulars" is "Regulars Should Not Escalate a Templating Into A Rediculously Long Discussion Which Spills Off Of Their Talk Page And Onto ANI". Not an easy to use acronym for a shortcut, I know, but a vital corrolary. Yes, he should not have templated you. No, you should have not raised this much of a stink over it. This ends the exact second when either one of you stops commenting on it. If either of you just let it drop, the matter goes away forever, with no problems for anyone. The same goes for the other one. --Jayron32 04:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my attempt at injecting WP:HUMOR into the situation was taken as an insult. I am now going to close this thread as no admin action needed. Misunderstandings happen. N419BH 04:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment was directed at the two combatants in this silly dispute, not you. You are funny as shit, and this situation is so stupid that it needed the levity your comments provided. If the two combatants had your lighter attitude, it'd have never made it here. --Jayron32 05:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

N419BH. RUN AWAY. It is commonly known that staying at ANI for prolonged periods/making many editssucks the life out of you. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually kind of enjoy ANI. Maybe keeps some of the content contributors...you know...creating content. I've always edited in the more vandalism/cleanup role. I did apologize (sincerely) at Matthew's talk page in the hopes that maybe he'd actually read it and realize what's going on. Since it's already archived...idk.

Of all things, I think a period is a teeny tiny little dot of a thing......to bring to ANI. N419BH 05:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

@Native Foreigner: I am so disapppointed, I thought your link was going to lead to WP:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU, and I was looking forward to reading the essay! Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I do what I can. Wikipedia:AN/ISUCKSTHELIFEOUTOFYOU -- ۩ Mask 13:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got to wonder if the English wikipedia is the best place for Matthew HK, I still can't make sense of his explanation and editors need to be able to communicate in understandable english if they're going to be editing here, especially if they're going to be throwing around inappropriate templates. I'm not sure I'd entirely consider this resolved since it's shown us a larger issue. Not to mention the instant archiving of talk makes it even more difficult to follow the flow of the conversation and has in the past with other users been seen as inappropriate, abrasive and even uncivil.--Crossmr (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I can make sense of his explanation, and it's just wrong: according to this, he feels that adding the period is a de facto approval of the content and hence just as bad an offense as placing the content. There might actually be something to that if it were an obvious and egregious BLP violation or something, the kind of thing where any reasonable person would realize the content does not belong. But that is clearly not the case here, and giving a person who cleaned up punctuation a block warning because the content may be inaccurate or unsourced is a civility issue at best. New, good faith contributors could be driven away from the project by something like that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(removed resolved template) Is there more that needs to be done here? I didn't catch the "De Facto approval" bit. N419BH 13:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't know if this is a pattern for him, but, if it is, it needs to stop. I'm not sure if there's any benefit to additional conversation about it with him, given his response to prior attempts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Civil issues are still issues. The instant archiving is also a civil issue, which to me is adding up to a lot of civil issues in a short discussion time. If this is a pattern it is a big problem and if he doesn't want to discuss then the discussion would have to carry on without his input. I noticed that yes it does appear to be a pattern for him. He's going right to level 3 warnings with users: [18], even new ones. And in this case what was added seems to be true [19].--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on my previous interaction with him I think it'll fall on deaf ears. You can try though. If he's level 3-ing good faith contributions (like periods) we have a problem. ESPECIALLY if he's doing it to new users. I however disagree with the instant archiving being a civil issue. It's permitted (though annoying) at WP:OWNTALK, as it's basically deleting everything minus the deleting bit. N419BH 14:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on my experience archiving on going discussions has been frowned upon in the past. A quick look at his user talk contribs [20] seems to show a habit of giving everyone a level 3, which are used for users who are already pushing good faith at that point. not users firsts mistakes. This is a problem as far as I'm concerned. If he doesn't want to listen, the community can make him listen.--Crossmr (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Frowned upon, yes. Against policy, no. Biting the newbies, however, is a problem. Might be time for a formal warning about WP:AGF, as the documentation for the level 3 templates states they assume bad faith. N419BH 14:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think there's a pattern of problem disclosed here. This edit combines some clearly beneficial changes along with some I cannot judge. He reverted, even breaking the format improvements, and issued a level 3 block advisory. For this change, the text of his note is appropriate but it is again accompanied by a block warning. He hands out block warnings to people all over the place; in each of these instances, it is a first warning and often for a single edit: 1; 2; 3, 4, 5. In this case, he did the same thing: warning somebody for content added by somebody else. I stopped at this point, but there are plenty more in his history. I realize that it may be frustrating to keep these articles factual, but there is a clear tendency to bite here, and it needs to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you all that there's a WP:BITE issue, here. And, although I'm sorry for not WP:AGFing, I fear that nothing short of a block will get this user's attention to the community's worries. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, let's AGF for the time being and assume he just isn't aware of the biting issue. Since personal messages aren't working, let's try one of these. N419BH 14:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I've left him another message, if he continues and carries on we have little choice but to block if he isn't going to communicate in an effective manner and carry on disruptively.--Crossmr (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That works. We'll see if it changes anything. Should those of us with tools (rollback, twinkle) go and remove his level 3 warnings? Any way to do that quickly? N419BH 14:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You could have used {{uw-bite}}... Seriously, let's hope he gets the message... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also {{uw-tempabuse}}, but a handwritten note is often more effective than using a template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you all for chiming in; I do what I can to lighten up the place a bit. Moonriddengirl, I think you are exactly right in your interpretation, and ordinarily, if I run across statements like that Juve/Udinese stuff, I will either look it up or tag it or remove it--but trying to have nice, clean articles with verifiable stuff on sports topics is a Utopian effort. What I wanted from Matthew hk, who has three times as many edits as I do, and should know better than me, was some acknowledgment of the silliness of it, and a "sorry dude"--that would have been enough. Well, if you'll excuse me, I have an essay to read, and word on the street is that Lionel Messi is about to work against the Germans, so vaya con dios, and thanks again. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  This appears to be a very long term problem, at least as far back as 3 years ago I see this level 3 template being used in a content dispute [21], generated this reply: [22].--Crossmr (talk) 15:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  As to the archiving issue he was asked 2 years ago not to archive this quickly User_talk:Matthew_hk/Archive_7#Archiving.--Crossmr (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

i just want to say there is rumour (transfer gossip and preform ace etc.) and hoax everywhere in football articles of wikipedia. the page often denied to semi-protect. Yes i'm harsh to people adding transfer rumor, but seems it is the only way to educate newbie. hands off and saw people how to edit. My edits on transfer is provide a external citation (if available, usually the only available thing is a transfer table). Look at Mario Balotelli (see the reverted edits), the page denied to semi-protect!

There is a few regular editor for Italian football and not many page likes Maicon Douglas Sisenando (which recently adding hoax that he went to Romania) and Klaas-Jan Huntelaar (Celtic) had more people to patrol, for other Serie A top player likes Philippe Mexès diff, there is a few people to edit. The page tagged for rewrite for a long time but seems no one to do it.

Moreover, there is a serious problem for hoax. Toldo may retire but without official announcement, but it is a slippy slope that Júlio César will took Toldo's no.1 shirt diff and Luca Castellazzi took :Julio Cesar old number. And Jonathan Biabiany was add no.20 shirt, there is no official announcement either (20 is his Parma number and was took by Macini at Inter 2009-10 first half), for Giulio Donati, the Lecce announcement did not show he will wear no.13.

Even more, Dabo was added no. 29 in Sevilla, which unexist in La Liga (1-25 only, for first team member and 26 to ? for youth players). And then there is an ip user added a unknown keeper to Genoa diff which there is a handful reliable source to support. Same problem in A.S. Roma that Ahmed Barusso was added as no.15 and Fábio Simplício as no.30. Unlike Adriano which presentation with no.8 in press conference, the former (Barusso) was returned from loan and he was wearing no.29. ip user and newbie just find no.15 and 30 are vacant and added them with the numbers. This vacant numbers tricks were everywhere and the only way is to give enough warning.

It may be true that the club may not announced the signing officially, like Udinese seldom announced the new signing (especially young players). But most of the rumour were far from deal done or 99.9% done, like Juve announced Macro Motta passed the medial yesterday night and pending to finalize.

Finally, ip user already received waring before they edit

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about the biography of a living person, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to the subject of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page.

And what's the point that they can't receive a straight yellow card (level 3 warning) instead a foul? 79.53.229.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), 84.215.85.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) received the waring and stopped the vandalize. (the latter just changing the caps with hoax)

Made newbie hand off to add transfer rumour and made them saw people edited the page for new club with reliable source, to me seems a effective way to keep wikipedia lesser hoax.

While User:Zombie433 is a bad example (already at ANI), he provide a external link but irrelevant (likes Fabio Borriello Mayola Biboko hoax new club, Ondřej Mazuch's unsource transfer fees, and most recently Ezequiel Schelotto which misunderstanding the whole transfer and article he cite.

Please feel free to tell me how to patrol 200+ footballers article that appeared in the transfer gossip, and page likes Danielson Gomes Monteiro and Samon Reider Rodríguez [23] diff] (which i find no news in http://www.tuttomercatoweb.com about his new club) that seldom visit. (p.s. likes these articles, i seldom patrol them User:Matthew_hk/Italian, tell me how to patrol?, semi-protect all?) Matthew_hk tc 16:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

diff Genoa's Felipe deal is far away from deal done, as the new non-EU quota ruling [24] Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While your approach (Made newbie hand off to add transfer rumour and made them saw people edited the page for new club with reliable source, to me seems a effective way to keep wikipedia lesser hoax) may be correct in principle, I think you go about it in the wrong way. It's ok to inform newbies that they've made an error; however, you should be kind to them and explain what they did wrong, so as not to scare them away. You should always start with a level 1 warning, when you're not sure that the editor is willfully vandalising (it's true that you can skip a level or even start with a level 3 or even 4im, but that's an exception to the rule for particularly egregious vandalism). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Remember that most contributors are working in good faith; they may be adding rumors that can't be proven, but they aren't deliberately undermining Wikipedia. Explaining to them our sourcing requirements is sufficient for a first problem; if they persist, then escalation is appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My general rule for first warnings is if the edit could possibly have been an attempt at a constructive edit, use a level 1 template. If it's almost certainly not designed to be constructive, use level 2. If it's very disruptive such as a blatant personal attack or defamation, use 3 or 4im depending on the severity. I'm not saying this is perfect, but I generally find this an effective strategy. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

diff Genoa's Felipe deal is far away from deal done, as the new non-EU quota ruling [25] Matthew_hk tc 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

ip talk1 clearly using foreign language and adding irrelevant (I love youtoMr.han gardeşimiz's statement said.) diff

User talk:Gokera, level1, User talk:94.120.174.31 adding useless dots,

diff User talk:62.45.212.242 for against a Turkish club in Premier League.

diff User talk:212.174.249.209 to rubbish?

diff new surname? User talk:80.80.175.66

diff interesting playing position and club (note that in Italian media said the transfer was not finalize (due to transfer fees) until 7 July (around) announced by the Turkish club.

diff Matthew_hk tc 17:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Italian became Jews? diff People with younger? diff adding random numbers for stats, which he only played 20 games in all competition for Fenerbahçe diff

Old problem of Dani User_talk:188.26.106.12

Replace the stats with random numbers Diff another ip with random numbers Diff, another random numbers diff and diff

Diff a given name that no one know and not appear in the player id.ext.link

hoax players diff Matthew_hk tc 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not questioning the validity of your edits. We are stating there is a problem with the way in which you inform others. All we are asking is instead of warning people to stop and assuming bad faith (as the documentation for a level 3 warning clearly indicates), leave a level 1 warning instead. If someone adds unsourced information to a footballer's article, by all means remove it, but don't proceed to assume bad faith and leave a level 3 warning on their talk page. Leave a level 1 warning instead, which assumes good faith. N419BH 17:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And don't leave one for me in the first place. You have yet to explain, in all this grammatically challenged verbosity, how I deserved a level 3 warning for adding a period. All this stuff about football articles and patrolling and whatever, it's not to the point. I just don't get the feeling that you understand at all what my problem was with your edit--and from the looks of it, other editors here agree. Drmies (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Leaving aside the whole question of templating the regulars (some say don't, some say do), you don't template people for actions they haven't committed (adding punctuation to a sentence is not original research), and you shouldn't just hand out block warnings to people who are obviously making a good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia...not even if you think they're doing it wrong. You also have to make sure that even with people who are vandalizing, you scale your warnings appropriately. This is almost certainly vandalism, but does it merit an only warning? Did this merit an [only warning]? According to our policy those are for "severe or grotesque vandalism only". It is not immediately apparent what is "severe or grotesque" about those edits; they look like garden variety vandalism to me, the kind of thing that passes through new change patrol routinely. It seems like a level 2 warning would be enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:4.58.0.62

Despite being warned, and blocked for it just a couple of days ago, this IP has returned to putting promotional links to books published by W.W. Norton Company into bibliographies, works or further reading sections of nmerous articles. In general, if the book inserted was written by the subject of the article, I've left the book and deleted the spam link. If the books are just topical to the subject (none of the books inserted were not appropriate to the article), I've removed the edit entirely, on the theory that spamming should not be rewarded. (If anyone feels the books I removed are worthy of inclusion, feel feel to restore them without the promotional link.)

I think the IP needs another block, of longer duration, to put across to them that Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. AIV would almost certainly not deal with this, since the last edit was some hours ago. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I agree completely. Every edit since the last block has involved an insertion of that link. I haven't investigated the IP range but a range investigation might be appropriate too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. We really need to set up some more specific guidelines for the 'further reading' or 'books' sections that are cropping up more frequently. In this case, inserting more links directly to the "buy me now" pricing page is clearly a problem, but I see quite a bit of COI insertions without links. Wikipedia is starting to become a PR distribution channel. Kuru (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What/where are the current guidelines, out of interest? I'd be keen to see something like "no URLs at all. Use {{ISBN}} instead." Something like this should be ample for any reader to wishes to engage in further reading, whether they want to borrow or purchase the book. (Wrong forum though, presumably, hence my question about existing guidelines). TFOWR 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unless the link is to some RS discussion of the book -- say, a review in the NYTBR or TLS -- the ISBN is more than sufficient. Publisher's catalogs almost never give more information than Amazon, B&N etc. As for guidelines for inclusion in "Further Reading" sections, I'm fine with any relevant entries put in by editors, it's when the pattern of editing starts being spam-like that it becomes a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban not working

Resolved

 – Blocked and tagged. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Swamilive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Jbfolker2x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Despite having been recently banned, recidivist sockpuppeteer user:Swamilive continues to create sockpuppets and has recently been trolling on User talk:Jimbo Wales as User:Jbfolker2x. Can someone please check that the ban is in place and working properly? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bans are social solutions, not technical solutions. They require us to enforce them, through WP:RBI etc. The sole advantage of a ban over, say, an indef block is that bans enable editors to enforce the "R" part of "RBI". Obvious sockpuppets should be blocked, but that'll require manual (admin) intervention; there's no technical way to achieve this (equally, their edits should be reverted - with a community ban in place any editor should feel confident in reverting Swamilive's edits). That said, I'll take a look at Jbfolker2x: I'm happy to do WP:DUCK blocks if required (and if I can see the obviousness of the editing...) TFOWR 11:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to punt this one. I can see reasons for concern, but WP:AGFing I can also see Jbfolker2x contributions as positive, if misguided. They appear to have two concerns:

• That some points made by Swamilive were valid.
• ...and that includes criticising long-standing, widely-accepted policy that - they believe - prevents certain advocates from editing.

I do not share their belief, and I believe the policy prevents advocates from advocating - which is an extremely good thing.

Nevertheless, I can not in good conscience state that Jbfolker2x is a WP:DUCK-sock of Swamilive. I acknowledge my unfamiliarity with Swamilive, and have no objection to anyone more familiar with the circumstances of the case blocking or take action as they see fit.

TFOWR 12:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Familiarity is a good idea for getting involved in a case, indeed.  Confirmed, blocked, and tagged. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I just created an LTA page of him, see Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Swamilive. Feel free to expand upon it- hopefully this helps people stop him quicker. --Rockstonetalk to me! 18:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Really disappointed that certain imp facts got removed from Wikipedia link, can u plz help?

Resolved

Dear Mr. Jimbo Wales

I have been using your Wikipedia for most of my references; i love Wikipedia and always believed that Wikipedia isnt bias until; one of my references i use for debating the History of Palestine; was unfairly removed; it is my search for the Jewish Agency for Palestine; which existed and had a whole section on it; entitiled The Jewish Agency for Palestine; u should have found it under the Jewish Agency for Israel; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Agency_for_Israel#The_Jewish_Agency_for_Palestine However and recently the information/ facts presented on Wikipedia was removed by someone from Wikipedia and replaced the information with incomplete facts; for example; they never mention the Jewish Agency for Palestine; Now they write The Jewish agency; as if they are removing the few remaining evidences that the area Palestine never had the Jewish agency of Palestine (created in 1922) led by David Ben Gurion which became the first Prime Minister of Israel in 1948, removing such facts; clearly shows biast opinion for only choosing distorted information on the truth.

Plz can u intervene and place the real facts on the Jewish Agency of Palestine which was removed recently from your company? this is an imp matter to redeem fairness and equality The info and facts does exist on other sites; why remove it from yours? http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3424601427.html http://www.answers.com/topic/jewish-agency-for-palestine

waiting for your kind reply

B/ Regards

Matgooys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matgoolys (talk • contribs) 11:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is called a content dispute, take it to the talk page of the article in question please. This is a bit too minor for Jimbo to get involved, and this board is also not an appropriate venue. I appreciate you may be new to Wikipedia, so it is just something to keep in mind. Trying looking at the page history to see who removed your citation, and ask them directly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

And, BTW, it's "biased", not "bias". Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Shreevatsa

Hi, Please help me.This user is blaming me for everything I do.I patrol new pages and nominate article for speedy deletion which I see vandalism or unambiguous advertisement.You can also take a look at my contribution.Still, He says that I am biting new comers.No other Wikipedians have commented me such thing.I once made mistake and nominated Neemrana Hotels for deletion.Since then, I don't know why but I have been considering as a very new editor who don't know Wikipedia policy.My rollback rights was also removed because of it.I think that this user played major role in it.Take a look at this link.He also aggressively comments against me.Please give me true advice.Also take a look at the comment at my talk page.Max Viwe | Wanna chat with me? 14:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on your particular case, just some general comments about getting the balance right with tagging speedies and welcoming new editors. Don't tag an article as soon as it's created - wait an hour or even a day to see if it improves (there's no WP:DEADLINE). Don't re-tag an article if the speedy is removed. There are circumstances where this is completely OK, but it's easier just to never do it. When you tag an article obviously you should alert the article's creator. If there have been no previous posts to their talkpage - welcome them (with {{Welcome}} or Friendly, or however you choose). Once you've welcomed them, then leave the speedy deletion notification. Be prepared to talk to the editor about why you tagged their article. Almost finally, only use speedy tags when you're completely sure that the page meets the criteria for speedy deletion. If you're not sure, use WP:PROD instead. And finally, the absolute best thing you can do with an article is improve it so that it no longer should be deleted. TFOWR 14:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The current block on User:Ryan kirkpatrick

Ryan kirkpatrick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked as a sockpuppet of Jersay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a result of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jersay. However based on the edits of 109.154.73.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) since the block being a duck match for Ryan kirkpatrick that would seem to suggest Ryan kirkpatrick is not a sockpuppet of Jersay, unless he happens to have moved several thousands miles. I have discussed this with the blocking administrator and this discussion is not a cricitism of his good faith block based on the evidence at the time, and he has no 6objections to a wider discussion about what should be done with this editor.

Traditionally block evasion has done no favours to the blocked editor responsible, however I ask that the block evasion itself is not used against Ryan kirkpatrick. If you look at his talk page and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick you will see a history of cluelessness, so I doubt he would have been aware of the consequences of block evasion, particularly when the (good-faith) block was in error to begin with. So while Ryan kirkpatrick's general cluelessness should be taken into account, the block evasion is the least of his "crimes".

The request for comment linked above shows zero support for Ryan and there is plenty of questioning about whether he should be allowed to continue to edit, and I was planning to propose a topic ban prior to his block.

The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether this block is a good block but for the the wrong reason and should be maintained, or whether Ryan kirkpatrick should be unblocked with editing restrictions. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblocking. GregJackP Boomer! 20:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is a discussion not a vote, and the simple "support unblocking" does not take into account what should be done about this editor. O Fenian (talk) 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• No, it is simple. He was blocked for sockpuppetry. He did not do that. He should be unblocked. Any other issues can be dealt with, but keeping him blocked for something that he did not do is wrong. Unblock him, and if there are topic bans or whatever needed for other conduct, those can be discussed and decided on. GregJackP Boomer! 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that the RfC is lacking in support for the subject, but it usually takes some effort to get from there to an indefinite block. An editing restriction should be easy enough to frame: edit nothing which has to do with terrorism and add no mentions of terrorism to things which don't already mention it. Or is there something I'm missing? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy with that as a restriction. O Fenian (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support unblocking the user with an editing restriction of no edits relating to terrorism. Let's assume good faith and hope the user does not sock. If he does, we will be forced to reblock. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock - but on a short leash. I'd rather have editors be monitored and mentored rather than resorting to new accounts. But if problems continue then blocks may be appropriate for an extended period. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved back from archive

Would it be possible to get some decision on this please, since he is still evading his block now using 109.154.87.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). It seems there is support, albeit limited, for an unblock with a topic ban on terrorism. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• If he's actively evading his block, then no, absolutely not, Oppose. N419BH 15:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is the second IP he has used. As I said above he is somewhat clueless and may not realise the consequences of evading the block, and as the initial block for sockpuppetry was in error I do think it would be a bit harsh to keep him blocked for block evasion. I am certainly not an advocate for Ryan kirkpatrick, I believe he is a net negative for Wikipedia and ideally would like to see him blocked indefinitely, but only for the right reasons. O Fenian (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, if he's not being disruptive with the IPs, unblock. Otherwise, retag the block as a disruptive editing and set the time to that for an appropriate first-time offense. Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope... N419BH 15:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Now that I'm aware of the exceptional circumstances, I will change to support with a tight leash. Any rubbish and he's back at ANI for blocking. WP:ROPE. N419BH 15:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support conditional unblock, with a topic ban on anything related to terrorism broadly construed and the formal warning that further socking (with IPs or accounts) to circumvent editing restrictions will result in another block. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support proposal of unblocking and topic ban. Even if the IP vandalism gets to the point that he should remain blocked, we should unblock him and immediately reblock for the vandalism — there's no reason to have someone blocked for the wrong reason. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maypigeon of Liberty

I can't remember quite why Maypigeon of Liberty (talk · contribs) ended up on my watchlist, but they've been repeatedly been warned about their "unique style" of vandalism warnings ("I have foiled your plan. I have stopped your devilish deeds. I have thwarted your plans to ruin your friend's good name. I will always be there, two steps behind you... waiting with my reverting abilities. Wherever you go, whatever you do, I will be right here waiting for you", "Don't vandalise, douche. So, I'm sure you thought you were really funny when you wrote the word crappy on that vodka article. You know what I think is crappy? Your rotten soul. You, sir, are a despicable human who was raised in the ways of your father Absalom. Repent, and walk in the ways of David. I beg you, return to your former self. You are the only hope we've got.", "Yo homey - stop vandalizing. What you did to American Idiot was not only an assault on the very fiber of our society, but also a personal insult to all lovers of monkeys. There will come a day in your life when this will catch up to you. The day will come when you will weep and feel remorse for your capers. You may laugh now, but wait until your funeral when someone vandalizes your eulogy. Who will be laughing now? Probably your mom."…

In the past when challenged on them, MoL has replied with "Someone has to stand up for the values of Wikipedia. Someone has to be there to make the site educational and informative when others want to turn it into a den of graffiti and obscenity. At this pivotal moment in the history of Wikipedia do you want to be the ones who helped end the avalanche of vandalism? Or do you want to be the ones who stood in the way? Even now my own userpage has been laid siege to by the scandalous vandals. They no know shame. They laugh at their inequities, mock those who dare avenge their heinous crimes, and are discomforted in the least by the lewdness of their own open nakedness, for they are without values and without shame. If you're unwilling to act in stopping the onslaught of barbarism that plagues the Wikipedia project, then I suggest that you forthwith and irrevocably resign.", "Only the righteous need survive in our cutthroat game against vandals" and "When dealing with goons of this sort, you must speak firmly. I felt compelled to remind this young buck of the consequences of vandalism.".

Either this is some kind of elaborate trolling, or MoL genuinely doesn't see the issue here (possible); over the last couple of days we've had "If you pull that crap again, I'll come down on you like a sack of potatoes. None of that funny business, please" and "Please join my revolution to end vandalism on Wikipedia, dear friend". Can someone keep an eye on this and brandish cluesticks as appropriate? – iridescent 16:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I must admit I laughed very hard, reading this user's warnings. Some of them are wonderful.

Seriously, however, they are inappropriate, but this user seems to have stopped and he's now using templates ([26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]). So I don't really think there's any need for admin action. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The final two links iridescent provides are more recent than those you've posted, so perhaps it's not resolved. Nev1 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, I had missed that, I'm sorry! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's trolling. This is the same person as User:Pizzashoe and, more revealingly, User:GingerbreadMan969. Someone who really has a grudge against User:Daedalus969. Someone might want to doublecheck. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember a user once who used to revert vandalism with edit summaries like "BANG BANG DIE VANDAL SCUM" and the like. This is a bit more... high brow, but it is a bit immature. He might want to take it easy. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have told him to tone it down. These comments get seen by more people than just the vandals, and it harms the reputation and image of the project, humiliates and degrades the vandal, and is just a little daft. Hopefully he will take the message in the right way. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

But yes it probably is trolling. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef for socking, per Jpgordon. T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(OD) The name, the style, and the conflict with Daedalus certainly puts me in mind of Jayhawk of Justice (talk · contribs). Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rantotheridge

That's a strange final warning on his talk page for Anal sex, given that his user contributions shows that he never edited that article. Warning from User:Rantotheridge --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Rantotheridge (talk · contribs) is pretty plainly the recently blocked Sugar Bear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There may be no more connection than that. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If that is true, Rantotheridge should be blocked immediately. I agree that it doesnt look like a new account, but could you show us why you believe it is Sugar Bear? (note:I made a new section header for this since it might spin off a thread unrelated to Maypigeon) —Soap— 17:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the general tenor of his first few contributions, this is what I mean by "pretty plainly". I know it's one edit, but still... — Gavia immer (talk) 17:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I also saw that diff, but didn't look at the context and didn't make the connection. He's been indeffed now by another administrator. —Soap— 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

By any user name, he be a dead pigeon. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unapproved welcome bot

Sahimrobot (talk · contribs) has been fired up recently and is welcoming users. Will notify the operator notified on fa.wiki per the links on the bot's page. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef. NW (Talk) 17:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion: Sovietia

Sovietia, who's currently under a one-week block for edit warring to add dubious trivia to Chris Noth, is back to adding the same content and otherwise vandalizing the article from various IPs [31] [32] [33]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Resolved at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sovietia/Archive --Kudpung (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should take another look at this AN3 entry

Resolved

 – blocked N419BH 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I recently reported Wittsun for edit warring; however, I received a decline response since Wittsun had not yet actually violated 3RR (he had only made three reverts to Reverse Discrimination in the previous 24 hours, not the requisite four). However, folloowing this, Wittsun made another reversion to Reverse Discrimination; together with the previous three, this puts him in violation of WP: 3RR. The admin who initially gave the decline response appears to be offline at the moment, so I'd like another admin to take a second look at this case. In addition to violating 3RR, Wittsun has also been adding blatant commentary, POV-pushing, and conspiracy theories to the article and others (someone needs to tell him that neo-Nazi Kevin MacDonald is not a reliable source; see [34]) and has in general been disruptive for quite some time. To top all that off, he's accusing me of edit-warring. I'm at my wit's end (my wittsun's end?) as to what to do about him.

The relevant discussion is linked here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:_Wittsun_reported_by_User:_Stonemason89_.28Result:.29 Stonemason89 (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like B has already blocked him for 24 hours. Hopefully that will get him to change his ways. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Tasers

Resolved

 – Admin attention not required (nor any action at all really), and there's been a decent number of comments on the subject. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous, a guy has been asking how to defend himself against a police-operated taser. Now, the ref desk regulars tend to operate in their own little world, but it strikes me that giving advice to someone on how to evade the police is not appropriate, especially given their proscription against giving legal and medical advice. Is it really OK with the wikipedia foundation to have its editors be offering advice that could aid and abet illegal activity? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well personally I wouldn't have a problem with helping someone defend themselves; what they choose to do with that knowledge is up to them, but self-defence certainly isn't a crime. The reason that we don't give legal or medical advice is because as a community, we are not qualified to do so. If we claimed to be able to, WMF would probably have a large pile of lawsuits on its plate right now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. You just scream don't tase me, bro!!! –MuZemike 18:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Moreover I have a problem with the notion that the police or other authorities are by default right, even legally right (which is certainly not always the same as really right). Maybe the poster wants to do something he has the right to do, perhaps even the legal right, and is nevertheless concerned that he might get tased wrongfully, and perhaps even illegally. --Trovatore (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the legal default is that the authorities are right; that is, that one is supposed to comply with the directions of the police and other legally constituted authorities, and raise the issue of the legality or suitability of their orders afterwords. That can be very annoying when you know you're right and the cop is wrong, or when they're using their authority improperly in a picayune way that you know is never gong to get to the "afterwords" stage, but that's what you're supposed to do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an arm of law enforcement. In the context of this discussion it doesn't matter what the legal default is. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

That's also completely incorrect; a police officer only has the power to uphold the law, and if their actions are illegal you are under no obligation to comply. A lawyer would be able to inform you in a situation where a police officer's actions are not legal, and a police officer certainly isn't "automatically" in the right. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Reference desk should give advice on How to evade police. We all know he might get arrested wrongfully, and perhaps even illegally. Sheesh. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not attempt to close down a discussion of how to evade police, no, and would oppose rules that would attempt to close it down. I would probably not contribute to it, not being an authority on the subject. --Trovatore (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

What evidence is there that the OP has or is intending to commit an illegal activity? As it stands, it's a purely hypothetical question. The OP even said "Believe it or not, I was just curious.". Discussing methods to evade tasers isn't illegal. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The way he worded the question didn't sound very hypothetical. The proper response would have been to direct him to the taser article and be done with it. And I find this notion, that the cops are the bad guys, to be very disturbing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Bugs must not have seen some of the recent reports of misuses of tasers such as this case. —DoRD (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

How doesn't it sound hypothetical? "If a policeman fires his taser at me and I stick my hand out and catch both barbs in it, will I be disabled as effectively as if the barbs hit my torso?". Key word there being "if". I see absolutely no inference by that sentence that the OP is planning to commit a crime. 82.43.90.93 (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know, the police tend to make the odd mistake when it comes to tasers. Sort of a shock and 'Awww...' experience. HalfShadow 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, he's essentially asking for information on how a taser works, and for information on how an individual might defend themselves against a taser; neither of these are illegal, and it's not our concern what he chooses to use this knowledge for; moreover given that he's said he's simply curious, we should assume good faith and take his word for it. And as for finding it a "disturbing" notion that the police aren't automatically right, disturbing or otherwise that's just the way the world works, I'm afraid. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Passing judgement on what should and should not be in an encyclopaedia based on vague moral reasoning is unwise in the extreme. Relevant considerations should be included in every article, regardless of what people might or might not do with the information. Wikipedia is not responsible for policing the acts and intentions of the readership.--Kristoferb (talk) 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he's a fiction writer, looking for some background to get a character out of a sticky situation. In any case, I wouldn't offer advice like that to a total stranger. We're all volunteers here, no one has to work on anything they don't want to. Dayewalker (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference desk advice--Patton123 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent coordinated vandalism at Ash Ketchum

Resolved

 – Sticks and stones can break our bones but 4chan, while annoying, can be semi'd N419BH 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There's what appears to be coordinated vandalism at Ash Ketchum. I've semiprotected that page, which should hold it for now on that page, but the editors involved also appear to be involved in vandalism on numerous related pages. Can anyone help with blocking/reverting this? -- The Anome (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They are also hitting Twilight (2008 film), which I've been reverting. It's using pending changes, so no serious damage can be done. --Chris (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably a standard 4chan attack. I think everything should be good now, but I'm not 100% positive. NW (Talk) 19:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats made over article BBC blast

Resolved

 – User indef blocked until threats are withdrawn, or legal action is concluded. --Chris (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:789123man claims to be an employee of the BBC and threatened to sue wikipedia over copyright on my talkpage User talk:Yoenit, after I reverted his soapboxing in the BBC Blast article. I can hardly take him seriously, but WP:THREAT says I should post it here, so could somebody please look at it? Yoenit (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are right to bring it here, but he's talking nonsense. "BBC Blast" is not copyrightable, it is far too short. --Tango (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I know this. You can't copyright a title or a name. You can trademark it, but that doesn't prevent others from mentioning the trademarked name, only from stealing it. I.e., Ford Motor Company is a trademarked company name, but I can discuss it all I want to (see there? I just did). --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• User has retracted their legal threat. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  Doesn't look like much of a retraction to me. The rationale for WP:NLT is quite clear, retracting to "I'm not, but my employer might/will" has the same effect, an attempt to force a point of view backed by a threat. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think we should go "benefit of the doubt" on this one. We can't assume the person works for the Beeb and we can't assume that if the user does, their supervisor will do anything. That would fall into WP:CRYSTAL territory. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  The point in the policy is not to stop people using legal recourse if necessary. It's to stop people using the threat to stifle other editors. If there is truth in the BBC being the employer and if the BBC go ahead or not is unimportant, the threat is still there and is still designed to try and force a point of view. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  We can't bind people by what other people will do. If person A says a legal threat, retracts it, and is unblocked but person B does the legal action person A was talking about, we don't block both person A and B, just person B. One person's actions can't affect another, we don't assume, per WP:AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

  That is in no way a retraction, it is merely saying he will report to his superiours who will then take legal action. It is still a legal threat with a chilling effect and the user should be blocked until a full retraction is made. WP:NLT is pretty clear. Verbal chat 21:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No, but we can bind people to adhere to our policies. This is exactly the sort of thing that NLT is meant to inhibit, and editor claiming that unless an article reads and looks the way he wants, someone will be sued or arrested. Also, look at the editor's contributions and you'll see that we lose nothing by keeping him banned until he posts an unreserved retraction of the threat. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give the user instructions on how to get unblocked. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading his posts I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for the BBC or is representing them here in any capacity. (The BBC is a Television company??) That makes this an even more clear abuse of legal threats to "win" a content dispute. Verbal chat 21:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading his posts, I find it very hard to believe that this guy works for anyone or is involved in any other activities suitable for a person over the age of twelve, but I'm still willing to give him a chance to withdraw the threat and start contributing constructively. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Cush & civility...

• Cush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I tire of his violations of personal attacks most annoyingly when I am not even involved in a discussion. His Inability to hold rational conversations to collaberate with individuals whom he percieves of Relgious faith is also troublesome [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42][43][44] [45] and my favorite that becuase i am christian my god demands his death and just being a christian is a personal attack on him and is a death threat. All i ask is some one do something because i tire of his antics Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof i have notified the editor involved [46] Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong diff number in your last link: it's going to an edit in 2004 about Quincy. Could you check to see if you left off a few digits at the end of the number? —Soap— 22:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the one. And yes, it does seem to me to be a pretty nasty bit of bigotry. Reyk _YO! 22:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes that it is Weaponbb7 (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

After a cursory glance through both editors histories, it does seem to me that Cush has been grossly incivil. I have found nothing in Weaponbb7's contributions that could be considered incivil, but I did not look at more than a few random contributions. Cush was last blocked in 2008, for personal attacks and harassment. I would recommend at minimum a 2-week block, but I would like to seek more opinions before placing a block as this is not the kind of thing I deal with regularly. --Chris (talk) 23:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Digging a bit deeper, [47] does appear to be minor incivility on the part of Weaponbb7, but it's not even in the same ballpark as Cush's contributions to the discussion. --Chris (talk) 23:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin behaviour at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Inappropriate_sketch - User:Gwen Gale

Resolved

 – Nothing for an admin to do here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm raising this here because I don't know where else to raise it. If I'm wrong to do this, sorry. I wish to refer the above page, and the admin mentioned, to AN/I. The discussion being carried out there is very clear, and some very strong arguments are being put by myself and several other users.

However, this admin is violating the nature of WP:POINT and is ignoring policy by continuing to claim that the image involved (used at Lolicon) is not permissible under WP:OR, which it clearly is, and this has been stated to her multiple times now by myself, NihonJoe, Kevin Rutherford, and others. I know this is a contentious issue, but it's turning into a complicated matter. Your help would be welcomed. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 19:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unquestioning nut-riding of an off-the-cuff and uninformed remark made by Jimbo Wales? On my Wikipedia? Badger Drink (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here with BarkingFish that Gwen is being annoying, if not disruptive. I'm all for allowing others to voice their views on something but usually the discussion dies down once both sides have come to some sort of agreement. In this case, a few editors including myself have tried to reason with her that a certain image doesn't qualify for original research. Apparently she isn't convinced by our arguments and that is fine with me as we are all entitled to our own opinions. The thing that bothers me and a few others is that she is still continuing to insist that the image needs a citation even though a few of us are coming up with proof that this isn't the case. I know that I am biased here in this argument but I really feel that Gwen is continuing to beat the dead horse to no avail. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry, I agreed with Wales on something and said so in a thread on his talk page. I slipped. Is there any way I can redeem myself or is it too late? Gwen Gale (talk)

(A billion edit conflicts later) Firstly, I don't think she's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I think she's doing what she thinks is right. Incidentally, I think she's completely wrong and she seems to have a fundamental lack of knowledge of policy, but I don't think she's disrupting to make a point. Secondly, I don't think she's even really disrupting Wikipedia, since she's only made two edits to the article in question (and they were back to back, so there are no reversions involved). She should also read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as suggested by Azatoth. However, all things said, I see nothing that can be acted upon by an administrator. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nor do I, and since she's apologised here (albeit with some degree of sarcasm), perhaps that will be the end of the dispute. This probably should have been filed at WP:WQA if anywhere, by the way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time to review everything to see if Gwen is being annoying. But she's absolutely 100% right on the content issue: the image in question is WP:OR. Even the person advocating for inclusion called it a drawing in the artists own style. The artist is not a notable artist in this genre (or anyway, no evidence has been put forward to the contrary).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, where are you getting the notability part which somehow influences the importance of the image? I'm a bit confused by that remark. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Kevin. The policy at WP:OR regarding original images states nothing about the artist or creator of the image requiring to be notable. Does that mean every photograph I've ever taken and uploaded can't be used in an article because I'm not a notable photographer? Get real :) BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, the point of the image, as demonstrated by the caption on the Lolicon page, is to demonstrate common stylistic features; the fact that it was drawn by a non-notable author doesn't subtract from its contribution to the page, so I don't see the issue. But in any case, it's fairly apparent that Gwen's actions have not been disruptive (or at the very least were not intended to be disruptive), and there certainly doesn't seem to be any need for admin intervention here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with BarkingFish, in the sense that pretty much every QI would not be eligible for inclusion at Wikipedia. Even if one could argue to the letter of the law that it is OR, I don't think applying OR to images makes much sense or benefits Wikipedia. (Please take note my perspective on this is mostly coming from photographs, as that is what I have experience with.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(agreeing with Deskana) I don't think that this is an attempt to be disruptive. In fact, the very fact that Gwen is discussing the reasons for their actions (instead of revert warring) is, if anything, representative of the consensus-building process. Although I don't agree with the original action myself, simply performing it in the first place doesn't seem to be in any way out of line, as it seems to have been done in good faith. --slakr^\ talk / 20:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Deskana, except for the part about Gwen having "a fundamental lack of knowledge of policy"; I think this is more of a case of Gwen (and Jimbo, incidentally) misunderstanding and misapplying policy. I see nothing in Gwen's actions which would require an admin to intervene. Not even close. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 20:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that claiming that that drawing is WP:OR is something much like claiming my photo of Pike Place Market is OR.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't upload a drawing of your own which someone later claimed, without independent citation, to be representative of an interpretive genre. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

No, but I claimed it's representative of Pike Place Market. What's the difference here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

A photographed object and a drawing claimed to be representative of a genre are not at all the same things. I find it highly unlikely that a non-noted uploader's own drawing of a bunch of lily pads would be allowed as an example of Impressionism. The pith is, I am not at all mistaken as to the policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference here is that Impressionism is a 19th-century art movement having lots of PD examples, where Lolicon, as I understand it, is a current style, and any examples would need to be used under Fair Use, hence making it preferable for a Wikipedian to provide an example of the style. (Having flashbacks here to the arguments about using a Wikipedian's drawing of Susan Boyle before people managed to get free-use photos of her...) Otherwise, having a Wikipedian draw an Impressionistic painting for use here might not be a bad thing...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright has aught to do with the original research policy. Moreover, that drawing of Boyle was never claimed as representative of a genre, it was only claimed as (an easily verifiable) likeness of Boyle. What's more, as I recall, it was Inkscaped from a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) The image is simply using an image which uses many features of the lolicon genre to illustrate some of those features. It should be referenced that these are indeed features of lolicon, but I see no reason why the artist should have to be notable if the image imparts understanding to those reading the article by demonstrating some of these features; the image is being used to convey a very specific point about the genre, as indicated by the caption. It's not claiming that it is made by a notable artist in the genre. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who says those are the features of that genre? Is that your own OR? Either way, this is my last post to this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Not my OR; note that I said "It should be referenced that these are indeed features of lolicon". Referencing is required to reliably establish the typical features of lolicon, but there's no reason why a wikipedian's own illustration incorporating these features should not be acceptable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• Call to close: Can an uninvolved admin (or editor in good standing so as not to rule out helpful people akin to myself ;)) mark this as resolved? There's clearly no need for admin involvement here, as it is simply a content dispute and from what I can tell it's a perfectly civil one as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Seconded: I agree that this should be shut, since I think nothing further can come of this discussion...I will say no more on the subject, and call for an admin to close. Apologies for raising this in the wrong place, as pointed out, it should have gone to WQA instead. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 21:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think that the image falls under OR under the current policy, but it seems that everyone agrees Gwen is not being pointy. Having this thread in multiple places doesn't help anyone, so I'm closing it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Gregbard in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nontheism

Resolved

 – User informed of WP:CANVAS and promises to abide by it in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If I'm reading the policy correctly, selecting users to notify of a procedural matter (in this case an AfD) based on their perceived or expected opinion is not OK. I maintain this is exactly what Gregbard has done by adding this message [48] to a number of user talk pages, specifically calling out their expected (or hoped?) sympathy with retaining the article. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be pretty blatant canvassing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:11, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to this report, let me state a few things. This isn't a simple situation.

A) To be honest, it appears that there is an interpretation under which I have violated this policy, which I had not read until this point.

B) It appears to be a very softly written policy where there are certain conditions under which some level of is canvassing permitted. ::C) This is a free speech issue. It is perfectly reasonable to expect to be able to bring issues to the attention of those who have conspicuously identified themselves as being interested in those issues. It seems to me that these Wikipedian categories exist precisely so as to make this possible. There should be great reluctance to enforce such a policy, just on moral grounds.

D) The message was neutral, and I could also reasonably expect that perhaps some would not agree with me on the issue.

E) I believe I had given the system a chance to work itself out, and so I feel that this was a "last resort" type of action.

F) Communication is not harm.

G) This is the first time I have even made any attempt to canvass beyond one or two people for any issue outside of the WikiProject discussion venue.

H) I will abide by the canvassing policy in the future.Greg Bard (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing an AfD by bringing it to the attention of a large audience which are likely to agree with your POV is usurping the consensus process. I note that this was brought to AN/I without any sort of note or warning about votestacking being left on your talk page however, which wasn't the best of ideas. I'm not going to produce individual answers for each of your alphabetised points, but communication can be harmful to the process, and this is wikipedia; you don't have a fundamental right to say whatever you like, you have to abide by policy. Please keep the policy against canvassing in mind in future. I don't think admin attention is required at this time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I can see both sides here. This definitely was canvassing as defined in WP:CANVASS (due to the partisan audience), but equally I totally can't blame Gregbard for being unaware of the policy on it. On the face of it, notifying editors you feel will be interested in a topic is a good way to drum up AfD participation, it's just unfortunate that in this case the interested editors are likely to all be on one side of the debate. I think that no further action's necessary here, Greg has admitted that he was unaware of the policy and endeavours not to do it again. ~ mazca ^talk 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(yup, edit-conflicted with Giftiger wunsch basically saying the same thing!) ~ mazca ^talk 23:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that no furter action is needed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The main problem of canvassing is that it makes it very hard to establish consensus. If you choose to notify of an AfD only those people who you agree with and even if only some of them follow the link and !vote, then the discussion and the subsequent consensus-gauging has been altered, distorted. That's why canvassing isn't allowed; friendly notices are permitted, but to contact only those you agree with, even if your message is neutral, is votestacking. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I apologize. I do hope that the issue gets more attention, and that the result will be better quality content. Greg Bard (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Latin American demographics again, revisited (son of)

Ninguém versus Opinoso, mostly. I think that one merits a fairly big thwack with a lart, whereas the other merits a minor tap. I'll refrain from saying here which is which. Anyway, the fact that I view the edits of the one differently from the edits of the other has been taken to show my lack of neutrality. So I leave the job to somebody else. Start at my own talk page to assess my position and to find your way in to this mess. (You may of course wish to block or ban me too.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant pages include Talk:Brazilians of Spanish descent, particularly sections "More comments on User:Ninguém", "The prolificity of Portuguese colonists", "More misinterpretation of sources", "And more distortions of sources", "And yet more distortion of sources", "Why Ayllon isn't a reliable source in this context", "Friendship with an administrator", "Reinserting junk", and "Article's title"; the History of my own Talk Page; the Talk Page of Hoary, Talk:Portuguese Brazilian, the Talk Page of SamEv. Ninguém (talk) 23:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Leitch and Chelsea F.C.

Resolved

 – Blocked for 24 hours by Mazca.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Archibald Leitch (talk · contribs) Despite multiple attempts to stop him/her, User:Archibald Leitch continues to revert anything and everything on Chelsea F.C.. Just take a look at thier editing history! Over 20 reverts in one day!--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave him a serious warning, and he stopped doing it - only to start doing it on the reserve team's page instead. I've blocked him for 24 hours, but given his block log it could have been longer. ~ mazca ^talk 23:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He's submitted an unblock request and is... not happy to put it mildly. Another person to review it would be appreciated, as far as I can see he's cruisin' for an indef block. ~ mazca ^talk 23:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

He needs to be indef blocked for makeing personal attacks and in violation of 3RR and Civil as well as his past history.--White Shadows ^{There goes another day} 23:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined, and I've pointed out that he is lucky not to have been indeffed. Rodhullandemu 23:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)