Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.137.0.28 (talk) at 17:50, 13 May 2008 (→‎Specific Diffs: adding a diff). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
    You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

    Start a new discussion

    Edit-Warring/Repeatedly deleting text with deliberately misleading edit summaries

    User User:TharkunColl repeatedly deleted text from the British Isles article, each time very loudly insisting that the text was not supported by the reference cited and that he was defending the truth in a rearguard action against POV pushers. The text was in fact verbatim supported in the references cited. User User:TharkunColl reverted two other editors who replaced the text, each time using CAPITAL LETTERS in the edit summary to state that the text was not supported by reference. The diffs are [1], [2], [3].
    The accompanying talk page comments include [4], [5], where TharkunColl repeats the assertion that the deleted text was not in the reference. The page was then partially protected, resulting in the following comments [6], and [7], with User:TharkunColl accusing the original editor of lying, and the reverting editors of being POV, a politicised minority, etc. The deleted text, which can be very easily seen in the diffs from the article, appears in the reference given, i.e. the words "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism" appear in the article from the Canadian Journal of history at [[8] (look on page 2).
    I pointed out on the talk page that the references did exist and that I believed the repeated deletions and misleading edit summaries qualified as vandalism. It has been pointed out that vandalism is generally considered to refer to more dramatic actions and that I should come to the general incidents board if I wanted to raise this issue. Once challenged with the detail from the reference, User:TharkunColl began defending his actions by claiming instead that he felt that the text he had deleted wasn't immediately relevant to the article and later by saying that he hadn't actually read the reference at all. I belive this is a post-hoc defense.
    Given the LONG term issues around the British Isles article, I feel that such repeated deletion of supported text, such misleading edit summaries and the (incorrect) accusations of lying and POV are serious and that behaviour like this represents a major problem on a page with the problems of that one. Note, I don't have strong feelings about the content deleted. I think it probably belongs, but it hasn't been discussed and I don't believe it's the point. (I also feel - perhaps incorrectly - that two admins who frequent the page, John and Deacon of Pndapetzim, have strong views on the article content and perhaps ought to recuse themselves from any discussion on this incident.) Wotapalaver (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You forgot to mention that part of my edit included rephrasing the bit that said that British trade in the North Atlantic dated to Saxon times. If that appears in the article then I certainly never saw it - and even if it does say it, it's demonstrably wrong. Incidentally, I have since added the whole quote, not just the half that was originally there. In any case, it is referring to the British Empire, not the British Isles. TharkunColl (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikistalking case, was moved back to Tharky's page (at Bardcom's choosing). But, so far that discussion hasn't continued there. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any possible sanctions against those who repeatedly make malicious and/or frivolous complaints? TharkunColl (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a separate complaint that has nothing to do with the wikistalking incident. And yes, the wikistalking conversation has not continued on any Talk page that I am aware of. Interesting that Merkinsmum interprets the previous incident as "no admin action required".....is that an assumption.... ??? --Bardcom (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a fact that that is pretty much how the last thread here ended- it was to be continued on Thark's talk, i.e. not on the administrators noticeboard. As far as I know, everyone who commented in the previous thread you started the day before this one saw it as a content dispute, and some referred to the RfC about Bardcom Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bardcom (which, in my opinion, is pretty much a content dispute, but that's by the by.) Please reread my words above- I'm not assuming anything about this thread if people really consider it a separate matter, I was commenting on the previous thread, hence my use of the past tense. However- as it is so soon-about a day after the last thread, people might wonder if it is actually the same matter, as LessHeardvanU did above, and as I am yet to be convinced that it's not.:) Merkin's mum 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merkin, there is no conspiracy theory. This is a separate thread, and a separate complain. I steered well clear of the British Isles Talk page when this row broke out. The last thread ended because the admins weren't going to actually do anything about Tharky's behaviour (which appears true - nothing has yet been done). The admins have blessed Tharky's behaviour as justified, because they have interpreted it as a content dispute. Same thing appears to be happening here, only more so, as you are now attempting to connect (while trying to make it appear that you are merely wondering) two separate issues into a single issue and then absolving Tharky's behaviour, again, under "Content Dispute".

    Question Does Content Dispute grant editors a special license under which they can evade warnings (still nothing on Tharky's Talk page), blindly revert edits without justification (then or since) or discussion(my separate complaint), and continually remove references (this complaint, different editor, although similar themes (Tharky, British Isles))??? One of the hallmarks of good adminship is an even-handed approach, low tolerence of ad hominen attacks, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF at all times. Equally, when editors deliberately breach these fundamental policies, a warning must be issued pointing out the problems. After warnings come blocks, etc. This incident, and the one before involving my complaint, appears to teach editors how to edit war, how to breach policies on civility and assuming good faith, all without warnings or sanctions. Many editors will learn these lessons. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins can use common sense when dealing with edit wars, block are a last resort. If it can be resolved without them it should. No editor of this article is deliberately trying to disrupt the article. --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Howabout we let Watapalaver continue his complaints againt Tharky. Let's not get his report & Bardcom's (archived) report interwined. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hang on, aren't any edits related to "The Troubles" under Arbcom thingies? I'd urge all editors to step back and go through dispute resolution. Also, that huge chunk of text: tl;dr. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for arbitration - The Troubles - this absolutely is a "related article" and I'm suprised, and disappointed, to see admins brushing it off as a content dispute. It is a content dispute, but the editors involved clearly need stern advice about dispute resolution, and to be reminded of the sanctions available against any disruptive editor on those articles. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's stretching it to link "The Troubles" with this complaint. If I squint up my eyes and peer through my eyelashes with my hands over my eyes and my head moving back and forth really quickly ... then yes! I see the link! Otherwise no. --Bardcom (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have I said anything about a "conspiracy theory"? It just seems like the same subject matter. I do agree something perhaps should be done about it, but I don't know what except maybe a ban on these behaviors from one or either side. I'm not an expert but don't think that would be dealt with on AN/I, it's a matter for mediation (has there been one?) or if ArbCom want to spend the time on it, eventually ArbCom. But it would be depressing to see it come to that, IMHO. Merkin's mum 19:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with the Troubles, nor with Bardcom's earlier complaint. It is also (again) highly misleading of TharkunColl to suggest that his deletion of the text was somehow because of subtleties about phrasing about trading in Saxon times. (it's all in the cited documents). This is about behaviour, not about content. This is about deleting supported text while simultaneously accusing the original inserting editor 18 months ago of putting in "lies", accusing the reverting editors of being POV, political, claiming to be "defending the truth", loudly claiming in all the edit summaries that the text was not supported by reference, WHILE IT WAS COMPLETELY SUPPORTED BY THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT. If it is legitimate to do what TharkunColl did then Wikipedia policies have a great big hole in them. Read the diffs and the referenced document, or just search for the key deleted words on google, that'll bring you right to the referenced document. Wotapalaver (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't shout. (joke).:) One part of this is a content dispute in so much as the part where people would have to read the sources to know who's right or wrong. Have you said to Thark that you object to his edit summaries, before you posted here? AN/I is sort of the last resort, first you're supposed to talk to the editor themselves. No, I see you personally haven't mentioned anything in the last fortnight, at least on Thark's talk page, before you informed him you'd made a thread on AN/I. Before that, around the 20th April, you wrote to his page a section with the title "erroneous" User_talk:TharkunColl#Erroneous which probably wasn't the best start. You need to be systematic about following WP:DR- if you object to for instance an edit summary, leave a message for the editor concerned. New ones. If it was a fortnight ago you could try asking them again before taking it to AN/I. In the case of an edit summary, that does not involve the article itself but the editor, so could be on his rather than the article's talk page. I know you have discussed the content recently on the article's talk, I still suggest an editor's talk page as the next step if you feel you have an issue with a specific editor's behaviour (as opposed to content of edit) in future. Ask them for the change you wish to see. Just My Humble Opinion.:) Merkin's mum 02:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a content dispute at all. The issue is edit warring while deleting text that is supported, all the time loudly claiming it's not supported by reference and claiming other editors are lying, pushing POV, etc. It's about deleting text while giving deliberately misleading edit summaries that totally misrepresent the reason for the edit, and then getting away with it. You might have a content dispute about whether or not the deleted text ought to be there or not, that´s entirely beside the point. The issue is edit warring with deliberately misleading edit summaries, claiming that the text was not supported by reference, when it clearly is. That's not a content dispute, it's a behaviour dispute. If - as it seems - admins allow worse behaviour on controversial articles then editors will quickly learn this, or have apparently already learned this. Since this isn't a content issue it doesn't seem that dispute resolution is actually appropriate. Wotapalaver (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused as to why this is here. The edit summaries seem clearly explained to me (though i'm recommend avoiding the caps lock) they don't seem to be hiding an edit. Calling them 'deliberately misleading' is not assuming good faith. The behaviour of User:Wotapalaver and User:TharkunColl fails to impress in terms of civility and edit waring. The proper way to discuss sources is on the talk page not by reverting edits. --neonwhite user page talk 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit summaries are clear. They say that the text deleted was not supported by the reference. The edit summaries actually said that several times. It's just that it's blatantly not true.
    The complaint isn't about content, and good faith is hard to assume when an editor repeatedly deletes text saying that it's not supported by reference, accuses the reverting editors (I was not one, so I was not involved in the edit war) of POV, political editing, etc., when the text the editor deleted is verbatim from a highly reputable reference. So, 100% clear and 100% untrue edit summaries. They're not hiding the edit, they're describing the edit in a way that is 100% untrue. Does that count as misleading? It would seem so. Wotapalaver (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether sources are adequate is a content dispute and nothing else. Assuming good faith is what you should be doing and what you are not doing. The edit summaries describe the edit perfectly and there is no misleading. I repeat that talk pages are for discussing these things. --neonwhite user page talk 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Neon, this isn't a case of discussion about "whether the source is adequate". The edit summaries said the text wasn't supported by the source and the accompanying talk page entries said it represented "lies" and "pushing a POV". The text was almost a verbatim copy of the source. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you really think the name used for Ireland, Northern Ireland, and the Brtish Isles has no connection with The Troubles? Are you honestly saying that it would not attract any troublesome edits from anyone with an interest in the troubles? Dan Beale-Cocks 15:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess it might. I don't know if it has. I don't have any reason to think that ongoing battles around the Troubles have got anything to do with this case. I only raise a specific incident of edit-warring and use of misleading edit summaries where an editor edit-warred, deleted supported text, and used deliberately misleading edit summaries to hide the facts of his (or her) edits. (and please note, I was NOT involved in the edit war. I also really doubt that my views on Northern Ireland will fit neatly or happily with any of the sides that seem to be established around WP. They'd probably all regard my views as blasphemy.). My experience so far on the specific page leads me to suspect that disregard of reference is rife, which I see as a problem. My only issue is truth and verifiability. In my view, this case is about edit-warring, using deliberately misleading and abusive edit summaries and talk page entries. Wotapalaver (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I replied to one of the 3 or more other threads started on this subject in various venues, to say that in most of these threads, most uninvolved people don't see Thark's edit summaries at misleading at all. If he thinks the source doesn't back up what is being said, that's his opinion in a content dispute. And edit warring is what a lot of other people have been doing over these articles, to the extent that there's already an RfC about User:Bardcom. Merkin's mum 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (reduce)Merkin, Neon, as I said already, this isn't about content and it has no relationship with Bardcom or his issues in any other forums. Let's review some facts.

    • TharkunColl repeatedly deleted the words 'Current scholarly opinion is generally that "his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism"' from the article.
    • TharkunColl's edit summaries said things like "PLEASE READ THE SOURCES, THEY DO NOT SUPPORT THE PREVIOUS TEXT"
    • The source says "Most writers accept that Dee created the phrase "British Empire," but otherwise argue that his imperial vision was simply propaganda and antiquarianism,...".
    • TharkunColl accused the original and the reverting editors of lying, pushing a POV, etc.
    • TharkunColl later claimed (although I'm not sure I believe it) that he had not actually read the reference at all.

    So, how can the edit summaries possibly be seen as not misleading? TharkunColl didn't say the text was unsupported or delete it just once, he said it was unsupported and deleted it three times in quick succession and matched this with clear (and incorrect) accusations on the talk page. This isn't a content dispute. This is a case of pure edit-warring, use of misleading edit summaries, and similar misleading statements on the talk page. Also, please remember, I'm only reporting the incident, I wasn't involved in the edit war. Wotapalaver (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No admins as far as I can tell feel this is a matter for administrator action. ? Am I right admins, could this be marked as resolved? If you look at TharkunColls most recent edit summaries, they have been very explanatory and could not be construed as you claimed. So maybe he has changed in response to your quibbles. Maybe he just missed the one line you mention in the source (please WP:AGF- or maybe in context he feels the rest of the source says the opposite. Most uninvolved people as I understand it see this as a matter for Arbcom or RfC if they see it as anything other than an edit war/content dispute. An admin, User:John, on your own talk page, says your own behaviour about this issue and towards TharkunColl is questionable too, and you yourself may risk a block eventually over this- User_talk:Wotapalaver#WP:CIVIL and User_talk:Wotapalaver#vandalism. There is already an RfC about Bardcom, and I see you are editing articles about the British Isles, Special:Contributions/Wotapalaver which is exactly the same subject matter as that warred over by Bardcom. These issues, the rightness or wrongness of the conduct of the people involved, will be hopefully resolved by that RfC.Merkin's mum 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Merkinsum, TharkunColl's edit summaries in other places may not have been deliberately misleading. I can't comment. In this case they were. As for AGF, TharkunColl's own statement is that he didn't read the reference before he started edit-warring, repeatedly deleting the text with edit summaries claiming that the text was not supported by the reference and accusing other editors of lying. That means his edit summaries were deliberately misleading or that he's lying about not having read the source. Either way, AGF is difficult. As for John's view of my behaviour, I've been consistently perfectly plain. I regarded what TharkunColl did as sneaky vandalism, as per the wikipedia definition of such, and I said so. John disagrees and feels that use of the word vandalism constitutes incivility per se. I disagree. Either way, I wasn't involved in the edit war. IIRC neither was Bardcom so he's not relevant. As for other things, I only go by what verifiable sources say. I regard what's been going on around the British Isles page as bizarre in the extreme and various admins tolerance of demonstrably anti-verifiable edits as highly regrettable. Your description of my complaints about such edit-warring as a "quibble" is a perfect illustration of this. If my complaint about what happened is a quibble and not a complaint worthy of action, can I assume that the administrator's noticeboard accepts that it is OK to edit-war by repeatedly deleting supported text, to use deliberately misleading edit summaries while doing so, and to incorrectly accuse other editors of lying about sources? Yes or no? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chrisjnelson

    This user has repeatedly been uncivil and rude and I am sick and tired of it. I ask that his pattern of behavior be reviewed. He's been blocked at least a half-dozen tiems before and still there is no improvement. Diagreements can be worked out if people are reasonable, but when they are not, what to do? nelson has ised profanity directed to me and has also insulted my good-faith edits. Both of those are specific, clear-cut rule violations. I know I am not a registered user, I chose that because of privicy concerns. I still hope that my views on this will be takne seriously. Clearly the past punishment of Nelson has no affect on his behavior, in some ways it is worse than before.

    72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I know what you mean, but you should provide specific diffs here to highlight uncivil comments that were made. Grsztalk 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if there is already mediation going on, shouldn't we wait until it is completed before acting? Either way, notifying Chris and the mediator in case this just belongs there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncivil comments have been made, but I'd wait on this. Right now, the mediation (at medcab) is rather behavioral, and I'm trying to switch that over to content. This is a predicated affair, at the moment. Or should be, I think :-) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem waiting, I just started this because the other mediation was only going to look at the use of "originally". Therefore, I was advised tha this is the incident place. I can make the case anytime, whenever it is deemed appropriate.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI: Chrisjnelson has been the subject of a (recently expired) arbitration ruling. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. DurovaCharge! 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Drafted or Originally Drafted contains more examples of his incivil tone and attempts to bully a conversation. This looks exactly like the kind of behavior that led to the prior ArbCom ruling. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately it appears Chrisjnelsen won't participate in the mediation, as a result the mediator is closing the case. You can't mediate if one side refuses to participate. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, is that the rule? So by not participating (even though he made plenty of comments) he can keep doing things his way, in the face of what others desire? What about Wiki:Consensus? Kind of like running out the clock, nelson can now claim there is no consensus or mediation ruling he has to follow? Hmm.72.0.36.36 (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought exactly when I saw this. Does this mean someone can get a mediation case closed simply by boycotting it? Be very careful about opening that can of worms. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mediation is supposed to be a voluntary way of resolving differences so that ArbCom doesn't need to become involved; walking out should be an option that all parties have. If behavior is still a problem then an involuntary ruling can be made, but not as a result of mediation or lack thereof. I haven't checked the mediation link to see why he chose to leave, but I would hope that this choice isn't used against him.
    FWIW, I've had both good and bad editing experiences with the user in question. He seems to work hard at trying to improve the coverage of sports on the encyclopedia, but when he doesn't get his way or finds opposition, he is quick to resort to personal attacks (which I've generally just reverted on my talk page). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By reverting aren't you kind of encouraging poor manners? If there was a consistent effort for the rules to be uphelp it seems like that miight be the best way to discourage uncivility, etc., No?72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ←Back up, folks. I closed the case because he said he would not pursue his objective any longer, not because he refused mediation. There was no boycott. Now, if he had said "I'll stop doing this, so why bother with (informal) mediation" and still continued (regarding "originally drafted", which was what the case was about when it got to me) then there would be evidence of obviously disruptive behavior aside from NPA. I was pressing whether he was indeed going to continue, just so I had a content angle and thereby work on the civility issues, which was the main locus of dispute for both the editor in question and the other parties. He said he was not going to continue, so I closed. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My question is, why does it always have to get to mediation, arbitration, ANI, or blocking with this particular user if there is a disagreement with him? If he's reached Durova's radar then the problem must be significant. And he did refuse to sign on for mediation. Then just said he'd stop adding the word "originally" to "save [himself] the needless annoyance." 67.137.0.28 (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific Diffs

    Someone asked from some specific diffs. Well, here are some of Chrisjnelsons greatest hits, from this "originally" argument 192.91.171.42 (talk) 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "No one thinks you're smart and well-read because you know one quote. Your endless stupid edits far outweigh being able to recite one line of someone else's work as if it means anything here. Hate to break it to you, but the consistency I've been implementing is completely a good thing, and I can be certain RWE would agree given that I know he wasn't mentally retarded" [9]

    "Considered for what? The fuck I cuss more than some is irrelevant in the "originally" discussion" [10]

    "Well they apply to everyone. But I disagree in large part about what is considered "uncivil" here, so I'm not going to blindly adhere to the rules on it. I'm going to do what I believe should be acceptable, and deal with the consequences later" [11]

    "I am always objective. I don't give a shit about Chris Long, his mother or the Rams. I have nothing against them and no allegiance too them. But I know what's notable and I know his mom isn't at all, so I'm going to remove it until the end of time because it's irrelevant crap and makes the article amateurish and worse overall" [12]

    "I'm not trying to bully anyone by using profanity. If you could be bullied by profanity you'd be pretty lame anyway. I use profanity to express how I'm feeling at the moment. Like if I'm fucking pissed, I'm not going to say I'm pissed. I'm going to say I'm fucking pissed. There's a difference. And dude, I can't help it if your good-faith edits are horrible. Chris Long's and Matt Slater's moms in the leads? Give me a freaking break. That is without logic." [13]

    "And Blackngold - I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense without the word - it would. But I feel this is better writing so I'm going to add it until forced to do otherwise." [14]

    Would someone delete this junk?

    Blocked/banned user:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as user:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

    See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.
    After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:
    1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
    2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?
    --barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked user:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of user:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thnaks for the note, just coming back from the weekend: As already said to The way, the truth, and the light, i closed one (the first?) Afd related to User:W.GUGLINSKI, so i had some idea regarding his theories and demeanor. As far as i understood, the user was not banned, but blocked indef. If he has used any sockpuppets previously, why is no SSP case mentioned here? Moreover, I had noticed that the Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Ring Theory mentions some person named Dankal.naveen, who may simply have found his way here as one of the few who agree with Guglienski. I explicitly mentioned that on my talkpage to "The way, the truth, and the light" as well as that I assume the two accounts are not the same. I had thus declined deletion per CSD G5 and prodded the article and tried to reason. While I could not convince Dankal.naveen to let the article go (and would thus have brought it to AfD myself), reading trough the now twice denied polite unblock requests and once more through the AfD I see beyond just AGF both in writing and arguing two different persons so would stick to my original assessment and consider this block not valid (and thus us also not the deletion). I really think we need more evidence than common beliefs in such cases. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any feedbak here? Especially to 1) any previous accounts under which Guglieski would already have edited while being blocked and 2) anything other proof than a perceived similarity in topics, while I do see significant differences in writing, communication. Otherwise I am going to assume that is is indeed someone who knows Guglinski, has his book reviewed on Amazon, posted now his own essay on wikipedia (like thousands before and after) and edits probably from India (according to the first IP edit on the deleted article), nothing of which is blockable. As there is now another unblock request, I am going to unblock unless there are objections. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't object to an unblock if you really think these accounts aren't the same person; re-blocking is easy if disruption continues. But I will say that I do find enough similarities in the writing style and subject matter of the old and new articles that I, personally, believe they are the same person. Still, if you disagree, I guess the AGF default is unblock, and watch. I think I know what's going to happen, but I've been wrong before. Have you asked Raymond about it on his talk page? (sorry, I'm to lazy to open another window to see for myself). --barneca (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, no objections either, so I've unblocked. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The hypothesis that Naveen Dankal is a different person is reasonable, so I support his unblock. Dankal does have an Orkut community called 'Grand Unification Theory'. In Orkut he says he is based in India; Guglinski may be in South America. There is no burning need IMHO to allow recreation of Heisenberg's Scientific Method although technically the grounds stated in the deletion log no longer apply (article was not in fact created by a banned user). No reason to lift the indef block on User:W.GUGLINSKI so far as I'm concerned. Check out Guglinski's behavior during the Quantum Ring Theory AfD if you are wondering. I would keep an eye on Dankal to see if he's willing to follow our policies. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actaully I closed that AfD ;). As for Dankal we'll indeed have to see what he now does with the editing privileges.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harrassment by User:John celona

    John celona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Can someone help me deal with this: [15], [16], [17], [18]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously. I have given this editor 24 hours to file a request, absent which I reserve the right to block for harassment. --Rodhullandemu 23:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Further to Rodhullandemu, I note that you and John celona were involved in discussion over this matter several months ago, and if Rod had not intervened I was considering issuing a warning of harassment regarding those claims. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OTOH, if you think that this renewed aggravation is worthy of a block right now, I wouldn't be critical. --Rodhullandemu 23:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think your suggestion of either filing a SSP or dropping the matter is the most appropriate in this instance. Further similar accusations without merit might be a blockable offense, now that there is a warning in place. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had some concerns about John for a few days now, especially after looking over this which is most probably him by his style. We need to have a look through his contributions and make sure there isn't a serious pattern of harassment and canvassing. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that link is painful. In the case in point, we are talking about the early 1970s, when rock stars screwing 14-year olds while maybe wasn't the norm, certainly didn't attract accusations of pedophilia as it would now. It's all very easy to apply morality retrospectively, isn't it? </irony> The problem here is that these people want to rewrite history in their own terms, and that should be resisted at all costs. --Rodhullandemu 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have had a look at the contrib and block history of this editor... not great reading. Perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course the only reason you are "looking into" a year plus old blog post by a third party is because you were "canvassed" by David in DC/Jpk212 [[19]] who have continually harassed and stalked me for months and REPEATEDLY made false and disproven claims of sockpuppuetry against me, even though the alleged sockpuppets have never posted on the same page as me. I think this [[20]] quote by a neutral observer regarding the harassment these user/s begins to describe their actions-":::: This behavior coming from David and Jkp212 is reprehensible. Those 2 have been harassing John since he first dared disagree with them. They have been trying to get John blocked for months now. I for one find their behavior to be as appalling as Johns attitude toward Yarrow. I think that this matter needs to resolved in arbitration." : Albion moonlight (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Albion moonlight (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)" If one looks at the edit pages of these allegedly seperate users they repeatedly post on the same pages in support of the same positions, often with very similar language. Where one goes in a dispute, another is sure to follow-hundreds of times over. John celona (talk) 01:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that in this case the disruption and harrassment is a 3 way street. The only reason I am defending John is because he has been being harassed by so many for so long. I deplore his politics and his attitude toward Peter Yarrow but I defend his right to speak his mind in a discussion space. I do not think that Peter Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort but I do know that he was convicted of a sexual offense and that He was granted clemency by President Carter. I still back Johns right to speak his mind about this in a discussion space. : Albion moonlight (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, get it right -- NO ONE has questioned any editor's right to speak their mind. It is Celona's harassment, and near delusional edits that have caused disruption here. There is no reason to defend that, and it is NOT harassment to demand for it to stop. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Come off of it man the diffs are there to prove that both you and David have been harassing John from the onset of his refusal to respect an Rfc that you 2 found to be a consensus. John did not take part in that original Rfc . Your and Davids subsequent fight with John has continued on to other articles. I am not saying that John is in the right but I am saying that all 3 of you are guilty of making wikipedia a battlefield. The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual. All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable. I do not care about John. I care about wikipedia and the rare opportunity it attempts to afford people from all walks of life regardless of their political beliefs. You and David need to own up to your own bad behavior instead of denying it. Albion moonlight (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that you say something is true does not make it true. Show EVIDENCE or your accusations are tantamount to your own harassment. By the way, if you "don't believe that Yarrow is a sex offender of any sort" as you say above, then why don't you share that opinion in the discussions... It is ok to share your opinion , rather than repeatedly saying "i don't care... but be nice.." --Jkp212 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would characterise John Celona's edits as spiteful, ans this is something we certainly don't need on WP:BLP articles. He is taking a very absolutist stance in cases where a more nuanced approach is clearly appropriate. Some kind of restriction is clearly not far away unless he moderates his behaviour very considerably. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As to sock puppetry, I think a look at this exchange might suggest to an objective reader that we are not the same editor. Period. [21]David in DC (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's another [22]. David in DC (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have had multiple false sockpuppet claims filed against me by Jpk212/David in DC on alleged sockpuppets which never posted on a single page I have. These 2 user accounts have filed literally hundreds of posts on the same pages, invariably on the same side of any dispute. All I am asking for is an IP check of these accounts posts. The IP check will have its own impartial tale to tell. John celona (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What Celona is referring to is that another user, and several admins, have suspected him of being a sock of ratishka: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=195596873&oldid=135135655 -- while the evidence was compelling, the checkuser was unable to prove it conclusively because the IP had timed out...--Jkp212 (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "evidence was compelling'. LOL. That Rastishka did not post on a single page I have posted on. some sockpuppet! someday someone is going to take the time to review all your edits (like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured) from day one and see exactly what you have been up to. John celona (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For more on my answer to JC's false allegation of my making false sockpuppet allegations, please see this diff: [23]. David in DC (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even in this discussion above Celona is breaking the rules on personal attacks. He says "like the false Toronto Star quote you manufactured" -- he has no right or evidence with which to make such a statement. He is an attack machine. If you look at his edits, over 90% of them are personal attacks on others. --Jkp212 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above post is false. It is itself a "personal attack". As regards the Toronto Star newspaper,[[24]] you made it up. The "direct quote" is a direct fabrication. A hoax and a fraud on the Wikipedia community The judge said no such thing; Yarrow's far left, corrupt political hack lawyer said it-not the judge. You know it. I know it. I INVITE- I BEG an editor in the Toronto area to go to a library, look up the article on microfilm, and post a copy of that article online-then permanently ban Jpk212 for not only falsely posting a quote to buttress his views, but his continued intansigence in maintaining his boldfaced lie. John celona (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I said that the judge agreed with the defense, and yes, that is what the defense argued, and it is a direct quote from the Toronto Star article. I did not "make it up", and you should stop with the personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You falsely wrote that "the judge agreed with the defense that the girl in question was a groupie, "whom he defined as young women and girls who deliberately provoke sexual relationships with music stars." [[25]]. The judge did NOT say the child Yarrow molested was a "groupie" Yarrow's corrupt lawyer said it. The judge did NOT agree with the lawyer-he sent Yarrow to prison over the lawyer's objection. The reliable sources clearly state that the little girl "resisted his advances". [[26]] [[27]] Not exactly the behavior of a groupie but of a frightened child molested by a rich and powerfull creep. John celona (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That reminds me, John; what happened to your allegation of sockpuppetry against these two editors? Are we to now take it that it's withdrawn and you are apologising to them? The ball was very firmly in your court, and as far as I can see, you've dropped it. Hmmmm? --Rodhullandemu 19:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have asked for assistance on this [[28]] on your talk page. I await your response. Certainly you have reviewed the 2 accounts and found the hundreds upon hundreds of similar edits virtually all expressing the exact same view that well-sourced criminal convictions should be censored or minimized? I don't think an IP checkuser is unreasonable. It has been used against me by these 2 users on alleged puppets who never even posted on a single page I have! Here is the result of that allegation-[[29]] I am sure you will now pursue those who filed and egged on that false claim against me. Right????? John celona (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggested that you file a sockpuppet resport, not a checkuser, which is less likely to be accepted. WP:SSP should not be a minefield for an experienced editor such as yourself. --Rodhullandemu 19:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You greatly overestimate my knowledge of Wikipedia minutiae. I have never filed an ANI, checkuser, SSP or anything else. I believe you have me confused with Jpk212/David in DC who have filed personal attack after personal attack against me, always in tandem and always using similar language and tactics. Since you are someone who [[30]] thinks "Allegations of sockpuppetry should be taken seriously", now that you are aware that this/these user/users have been involved in proven fale sockpuppet accusations against me [[31]] (where the alleged puppet and I never even posted on the same page!) we can safely assume you will now act "to block for harassment." since your actions on this ANI have been in a spirit of impartiality. Right????? John celona (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Take look at that same page, from one year ago, where an editor asked Celona to stop making personal attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:John_celona&diff=196192829&oldid=132031064 -- looks like 1 year later, numerous editors are still telling Celona exactly the same thing. Someone needs to stop Celona and these personal attacks. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's easy to forget, but we started here: "Can someone help me deal with this: [32], [33], [34], [35]. JkP and I are very different editors. And I'm not trying to censor anything, nor am I committing any vandalism. David in DC (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
    Nothing above really solves that. Indeed the accusations seem to continue and expand. One improvement, I guess, is that they now seem limited, mostly, to this page.
    A question for folks with more tenure around here than me, then. Is that about the best I can hope for?
    One solution proposed above came from Albion Moonlight: "All John needs to do now is wait until he is blocked indefinitely and appeal that block to arb com. I hope to hell this happens soon so you and David will be told in no uncertain terms that your behavior is unacceptable." That seems a bizarre way to proceed.
    I wouldn't really mind if another part of AM's proposed solution were applied right now: "The arbitration committee will read all of the diffs in the order that they took place and realize that what I am saying is factual."
    Would someone care to subject my edits to the level of scrutiny AM suggests right now, without JC needing to be blocked and without him having to appeal to the arbitration committee? Such scrutiny, in my view, will establish for sure that I am not anyone's sockpuppet, nor any account's puppet-master, the original unfounded harrassment accusations I came here to notify admins about.
    This particular incident report was not about whether Edward Bennett Williams was a hack (he wasn't) or whether JkP invented an article in the 1970 Toronto Star out of the whole cloth (I'd bet against it). It was about JC leveling a grave accusation (in the world of WP, anyway) against me, one I deny and resent. David in DC (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about more than this 1 ridiculous accusation that Celona has made. It is about his unrelenting pattern of attacks, despite more than a year's worth of warnings, and he should be indef blocked for it. I agree with the question posed above, that "perhaps a more general community discussion of the benefits of allowing this editor to continue is required? " --Jkp212 (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to be Clintonian about it, but it depends on what the definition of "this" is. By "this", I mean the four accusations of sock puppetry JC littered the project with a few days ago. While there's enough fodder above for almost any right-thinking editor to file other reports or requests, here and elsewhere (hereinafter "that" or "those"), they are not "this" incident report. I'm looking for a resolution to "this" incident report. I'm looking for a determination that I'm not a puppet or a puppetmaster, and that JC is violating the rules by saying that I am.
    If "that" RfC is filed or "those" complaints about the rest of his behavior are lodged, I hope they will be addressed, too. But, respectfully, JkP, I disagree with you about what "this" is about. David in DC (talk) 05:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor playing administrator, needs to be stopped

    I will admit, this is not that important in the grand scheme of life. But then most of Wikipedia is not. If you have a cyclone rip through your country or have a car smash into your home, WP is the last thing on your mind and nothing qualifies for ANI.

    User:WilliamH has violated guidelines with speedy keep of a porn star that has no notability other than posing naked. It doesn't matter if she is in a list of other naked models. September 11th victims don't have articles (or they get deleted) even though they are among a list.

    Appropriate closures Non-admin closures of XfD's should be limited to the following types of closures:

    Unanimous or nearly unanimous keep after a full 5-day listing period, absent any contentious debate among participants. speedy keep closures, per the criteria at that guideline.

    from [36]

    Naughty, naughty, WilliamH. An administrator should either block WilliamH for 24 hours OR redo that AFD and tell WilliamH.

    If WilliamH's actions are OK, please state so here and I will do the same to other AFDs. State so here ______________ Thank you. JerryVanF (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Might help to link a diff to the afd closure.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume he was talking about this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson. Nsk92 (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC) ‎[reply]
    Just look at User:WilliamH's contribs. It's full of them. I agree this user is playing administrator and needs a good talkin' to (not a block yet though as that would be punitive at this point). I've undone one closure already, looking at some of the others now. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, that wasn't meant to be critical just advice, I just have seen that complaints with clear diffs get handled quicker then if you make the admins search for the incident.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no problem in principle with a non-admin closure, but one that is closed after less than 3 HOURS! No one even had a chance to comment on that one. Even if an admin had closed it that quickly, I'd have something to say... Indeed, he should stop closing AFDs if his judgement is that poor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ← I looked at a few of the other closings. I'm not going to revert them because I agree with William that they had no chance of succeeding. However, in the future, this user does still need to refrain from performing closures so frequently and so speedily. Closures are generally supposed to wait 5 days and be handled by administrators. Non-admin closures are for extenuating circumstances and aren't supposed to occur often. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If it's about Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kimberly_Evenson then happy that someone would take the effort to close it. Just reading the article gives it's notability 'Playboy magazine's Playmate of the Month'. SunCreator (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted that closure too. The article doesn't actually establish notability. There isn't a single valid ref. I'm not sure that being a playboy playmate establishes notability for a person in and of itself. Let's wait and see what the AfD determines. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, what? Playboy model of the month = notable, but olympic athlete ≠ notable? Dan Beale-Cocks 22:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c)*3 The AfD discussion has been open for less than 24 hours. Give it some time - if the subject is truly notable, the AfD will fail anyway. —Travistalk 03:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah... let's please stop with the non-admin closures, especially of this particular AfD. Quite a few people here, including admins, seem to feel the discussion should stay open for now. There's no emergency here. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I tend to agree with this. Some editors including some admins get uptight if you even put a notability tag on an article without any WP:RS and less notable(to me at least) then the article in the link above. SunCreator (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought anyone could do a clear "keep" close, with due caution. (It better be clear!) Has someone policy-crept the closure guidelines to say otherwise? - David Gerard (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem is in a keep close for an unsourced WP:BLP more than anything else. Anybody with sufficient experience and Clue can perform a keep close as long as the article clearly meets policy, but that cannot be said of unsourced BLPs so I am uneasy seeing such things closed by people who do not demonstrably have long edit histories with evidence of sound knowledge of policy. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the real test is whether the closure is seen as non-controversial. The issue is also compounded because it's not only non-admin but also speedy (very speedy, in some of this user's cases), and combined, that makes for very shakey closures. These should only be done if no one has a problem with it, aside from the nominator perhaps. And they should probably never be done after just one day. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at a few of this editor's closures. I agree that the speedy ones seem to be against the written policy about non-admin closures, but I can't muster up much indignation about any one of these. Can anyone find an example AfD where they believe an experienced admin closer would have taken the opposite result? I see that his closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson was undone, and that reversal seems well-justified since the closure was too fast. I don't see any obvious errors about the results. (This guy seems to have some judgment). I could support a policy where any non-admins who speedy close in under 8 hours could be threatened with blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O RLY? — CharlotteWebb 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: at Talk:Sněžka-Śnieżka, back in January though, I had a strange experience when the article name and a possible move was discussed without it being actually listed at WP:RM. People just started voting, a kind of instant democracy. Then, User:Hexagon1 CLOSED the "poll", I objected, only to be reclosed, and then after my removal, again (please do not push move that nobody wants, disruptive only) after which I [37] excluded at least my talk from the greenish box with the "vote". To no avail (rv, your talk is as much a part of the vote process as mine or the others'), and again (rv. sigh. per Talk:Caron/Archive2 and every other talk page vote ever held. your comments are part of the vote discussion, and as such get archived. Start a new section to talk if you want.)-- Matthead  Discuß   19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment from WilliamH: Firstly, I am glad to know that my ability to determine opinion is not really the point of contention. However, in terms of allowing opinion to form, I realise I ostensibly prevented it from occurring to the extent that is preferred. Please understand that elsewhere, this is not the case, and please understand that I highly value consensus, and it is something which I would never intentionally impair or disrupt. It is ultimately my belief that a man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package, hence its importance.

    "Playing administrator, needs to be stopped" disregards my ethic, and comes across as though my non-admin administrative actions were not for good purposes, but that I was acting, i.e. masquerading as an administrator whose actions needed to be stopped because I intended to subvert the project, which is blatantly not the case. Please consider the effect such words have, as what has been misconstrued comes across as rather ad hominem. No one wants their words to have the potential to imply such a thing, and I would be lying if I said I wasn't extremely disappointed to learn that contributions I have made in good faith have prompted a user to suggest my blocking. I don't think it would be unreasonable to say that such misunderstandings could result in sound contributors departing Wikipedia, a wholly undesireable scenario.

    To sum up, I understand I have exerted a bit too much boldness. I also appreciate the BLP concerns and would like to make it clear that this is something I take seriously. I agree with the comment on my user page that no matter how sound my judgement may be, I realise I may have applied it too early and will act accordingly. Regards and apology for any inconvenience, WilliamH (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for addressing everyone's concerns here, William. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One other thought: As this is a borderline notability BLP, do the new ideas about no consensus=Delete apply? Did that policy proposal take root well enough? ThuranX (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vintagekits proposed unblocking

    Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is an editor who has proved to be quite a challenge for our project. He demonstrated, time and again, in certain circumstances he has behavioural issues which are incompatible with civil editing, yet at the same time he is a useful and prolific content provider in a niche area. Vk is currently indefinitely blocked for using sock puppet accounts in a manner that violate policy. Giano (talk · contribs), who will be familiar to most of you, has long suggested that Vk be permitted to edit in the subject area where he excels (sports, particularly boxing), while restricted in a way to stop him getting into situations where his behavioural issues come to the fore (The Troubles and Baronets). In this way, the reasoning goes, we get value out of Vk but with none of the problems.

    There has been some discussion at ANI over this suggestion in the last few weeks, some editors have supported it on principle but expressed reservations based on the exact conditions the unblocking would involve. Others have indicated that they oppose at this time, because the issue that precipitated the current block has not been adequately addressed. Others, still, believe Vk has had more than his fair share of last chances and he should remain blocked for the foreseeable future. The discussion raged, VK was boldly unblocked, without any conditions being formalized and then promptly reblocked again. At that point I proposed that the best way to settle this was to establish a formal set of conditions that many believed would keep Vk out of trouble, while maximizing his good contributions. That done, I believe the community opinion on this proposal can now be sought in an informed manner. At this juncture, I intend to present the two other options expressed also, and I hope that together we can come to some sort of consensus on how to settle this.

    The most popular options are as follows:

    1. That Vintagekits be unblocked presently under the tight conditions described at: User:Giano/Terms for VK's return. The restrictions are idiosyncratic, tailored by those familiar with Vk's history. The philosophy is one of management: rather than banish Vk (and thus also lose his good contributions) if we can manage his participation then everyone can gain. This requires complete co-operation from Vk, which he has indicated he will give, and it is hoped that it might provide a new way of dealing with a certain type of problem editor. It should also be noted that this really will be the very last chance for Vk, a violation of these conditions will result in a permanent ban, to which Vk has acceded.
    2. That Vintagekits be unblocked after three months of observing his current block in a sock-free manner. At that time he be unblocked and be allowed to edit fully and normally, with the exception of a project wide topic ban on The Troubles [clarification: this includes Baronets] (as per option #1), which will remain in place for one year. The reasoning behind this delayed unblocking is that Vk has not adequately addressed the reason for his current block, sock puppetry. Since he was blocked, Vk has continually created a number of sock puppets, mainly to edit boxing articles (though it should be noted that, almost exclusively, these socks created good content). It has been proposed that Vk should remain blocked until he can demonstrate that his sock-puppeting days are behind him.
    3. The final option is that Vk remain blocked, ostensibly because the community has tired of giving him additional chances.

    I ask that anyone with an opinion on this please express a preference below. I appreciate editors may have additional ideas, which are welcome, but it would make everything a lot easier if editors could express an preference for those proposed above. It would also be extremely helpful if editors could restrict themselves to a preference plus any comment, query or justification. Meta-discussion, or the tit-for-tat sniping that tends to accompanying this subject is most unwelcome, please keep it focused. I realize ANI is not the optimal place for this, but wish to get maximum participation, rather than the usual suspects that populate these discussions. After a day or so It may be reasonable to move this to a sub-page.

    Finally, if this is the first you have heard of Vintagekits and would like to learn more before commenting, I would like to provide more comprehensive links, but it is difficult to know where to start, so:

    Over to the community... Rockpocket 05:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm well familiar with the Vk case and the proposals. I'm also the checkuser who finally caught him socking which led to his last indef block. I'd certainly support Option 1 as it stands - Alison ❤ 05:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having clashed with VK (briefly) in the past, I think despite him being a pain to deal with at times, he obviously has the potential to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, I worry a little that he would be tempted to use a sockpuppet to get around these restrictions, however if he remains blocked from editing, he is still capable of making a sockpuppet, so nothing is to be lost by allowing him to edit. Better the devil you know.
    One other minor detail, according to the terms he is not allowed to use offensive language, which I don't consider to be productive, use of offensive language that is not directed towards another user in an insulting manner is harmless. I for one use the word "fucking" and the phrase "What the fuck?" on talk pages and edit summaries, they are merely descriptive terms and should be allowed. This is not a 11yr old kid we are talking about, show a little trust and wikipedia is likely to be rewarded with the return of a decent editor. Option One Sennen goroshi (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we all know when bad language is used as an attack, and when used as a general harmless adjective. However, he is instructed not to use bad language, and for three months he would be very wise to avoid it in any context. Then the problem won't occur. Giano (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd now support option 1 due to the good work that has gone into this and my confidence that this time the community has in place restrictions and safeguards that will ensure proper compliance. I do see the strength in option 2 also, as it seems unfair in a way that Vk has not really "served his time" demonstrated that the behavior for which he was blocked is no longer a concern. Either one would be fine. --John (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an admin, but from what I've seen of the VK discussion, I would support option 1. Further, (probably because I have not had to deal with him) I would be willing to remove the "absolutely last chance" crieterion. I'm certainly not going to insist on that point, but I throw it out inasmuch as VK obviously has the will and ability to create socks to continue editing; I'd rather see him editing under a known username.
    It would be really nice if the software could do article or category blocks per user, which would probably solve the major problem here neatly. I've seen that mentioned before, but don't know if any effort has ever been made to see if it would be feasible. I would urge (completely unrelated to the VK discussion) that some people open a bug to request the necessary tools for admins. Loren.wilton (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Without giving too much away there appears to be a way to, uh, find and nullify Vk's ability to use socks henceforth. Rockpocket 06:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an information note only:John refers above to Option 2 being in some way tied to a feeling that Vk has not yet "served his time". As one of the principal supporters of this option throughout the past week or so, I can say that there was nothing in my mind about punishment or about time served in itself. The only concern was that Vk has not yet proven that the sole reason for the current block (the creation of abusive sock puppets) is not still a concern. ៛ Bielle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Breaking wikibreak to oppose, how many times must we go through the block-unblock cycles with obviously disruptive users? His block log shows edit warring, serious personal attacks, harassment, and socking in a pattern of disruptive behavior going back to Jan '07. It appears from the 9 August 2007 unblock that an agreement of this nature was made before and was (inevitably) violated. I honestly don't understand these perpetual proposals to unblan rightly banned users. One unban I could see, two, yeah, but these thirds/fourths/etc are really taking AGF way too far. I think it's fair to stop assuming when a year and four months of blocks every month or every other month show otherwise. Terms #6 and #9 are just laughable, we're getting him to agree to what we already expect from users who manage to not get blocked every 40 days or so? Our rules are applicable from the day you start editing, you don't get to break them an infinite number of times before you decide to start playing along. naerii - talk 08:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Option 2. Would not support the "very last chance" criterion removal, as suggested, and would have liked to have seen some genuine regret from Vk. Also would have liked to have seen the restraint on editing Baronetcy articles extended to one year expressed in option 2 (although personally would have preferred indefinite topic bans on the Troubles and Baronetcy areas). -Bill Reid | Talk 08:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    To clarify, Option 2's definition of "The Troubles" would also include Baronets (I have also now clarified that in the proposal). The hope is that Vk would appreciate a self enforced indefinite avoidance of those topics would be best for him after the year expires. I think the idea was to find the right combination of carrots and sticks to cajole Vk into better managing his own contributions in time. No idea if this is the right combination, though. Rockpocket 08:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I very much support option 1. He has expressed a strong wish to edit responsibly, and has firmly declared his intention to renounce his old ways. This seems the perfect opportunity to give him the chance to prove himself and benefit the project. I know his work well, and for the most part it is of a high factual standard, reffed and excellent. He is more than aware of the penalty of breaking these conditions, that he wishes still to edit under these conditions in itself shows great commitment, no small amount of humility and contriteness. Therefore prolonging his block would I think be punitive and serve no useful purpose. Option 1 can only benefit the project whatever the outcome. Giano (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Option 1. With the Olympics, and the high visibility of that it gives to boxing, there will be a need for the production of good quality articles by someone knowledgeable - and VK has the qualifications. It will also likely provide VK with a definite reason to keep away from issues that have lead to their removal from the encyclopedia - while not condoning the socking, it is obvious that the person has a desire to contribute usefully. If we allow VK to operate within those confines then I suggest an all round benefit to the community, the encyclopedia and to VK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 2. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Much better addressed as an RfC. We're going to start allowing 'notices' to come down to 'options?' I take option #4, where this is built into a concise RfC, as ANI is about an incident - meaning singular. Collective action and consensus should take place elsewhere. ANI is not for summary judgment. the_undertow talk 12:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideally, I agree. However, there have been extensive discussions here and elsewhere on this subject, and there will continue to be incidents unless we can find a solution that (amost) everyone can agree had community support. This is part of the wider discussion process. Its unconventional, I know, and it may be taking liberties with the purpose of these pages to generate wider interest. But I hope you can appreciate that a successful end would justify the means. Rockpocket 20:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support option 1 per comments elsewhere. Thanks, SqueakBox 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support not voting on rigidly defined options and instead exploring the options through community discussion as per the_undertow. ViridaeTalk 12:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • support option 1.5, which doesn't exist, but is a compromise between options 1 and 2 (I'll explain below). Despite great reservations about Vintagekits's ability to sustain good conduct, I believe that it is very important for the community to try a conditional unblock, because whatever the outcome it will lay to rest a matter which for nearly a year has polarised a chunk of the community into large camps of defenders and critics. Vintagekits himself, as well as both many of his strongest supporters and his strongest opponents have all agreed that these conditions are his last chance; if Vk makes this work, we can all celebrate the rehabilitation of a prolific contributor, and if he screw it up then there can be no argument that he was not given another chance. Either way, the issue is settled, and whatever anyone thinks of Vk, the community needs to move on from this standoff.
      However, because of the recent and prolific sockpuppetry I share the concern about an immediate unblock. Given all the good faith on all sides, the three months proposed in option 2 is far too long to wait, because the consensus and good faith generated in recent discussions could evaporate, and that would damage the community. So my ideal option would be an "option 1.5": the conditional unblock is agreed now, but delayed for one or two weeks, just to stress the principle that block-evasion sockpuppetry should not be rewarded with an unblock. If there is no consensus for that option, I much prefer option 1 to option 2. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1 and, if this does get a consensus as the way to deal with this sort of situation, I'd support making it a general protocol for banned users who want to return to work non-disruptively in one specific area (Taxwoman being the most obvious example). — iridescent 14:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading over the multiple threads over the past few days, and I believe that option 1 is the most reasonable. Hopefully within that frame Vk can be re-admitted into the community whilst his contributions that are apparently good can continue. Rudget (Help?) 14:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1 but only as the very very last chance--Cailil talk 15:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Option 1 --Domer48 (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Option 1.5 per BrownHairedGirl sounds like a sensible compromise, it also means there is some deal of gap between the unblock decision and VK being 'released into the wild'. Gives things a chance to settle down. Narson (talk) 16:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Undertow's comments notwithstanding (we have no Community Sanction Noticeboard to discuss this on any more) I think there are enough people discussing this that it will be clear that the outcome is not just a thing put in place by one or two rouge admins, but really IS the will of the community. Several ArbCom members are participating constructively in the discussion in the role of editors/admins just like the rest of us, so if this were a matter that should have been remanded to ArbCom they would have said so, I am sure.
      • That said, I support Option 1. It's well thought out and has made allowances for a lot of contingencies and gives VK one final last chance. No one can be unclear that if he blows this, that is it.
      • I see BHG's point about driving the point home that he's not off the hook.. and if the community decides they like 1.5, I'd be OK with it as well, and you can (if you are counting noses) count me as supporting that too. But I'm not AS keen on it because blocks are preventative not punitive and leaving the block on to make the point does seem a bit punitive to me.
      • If the community decides on option 2, I'd reluctantly support it as well, but it is far from my preferred outcome (maybe count half a nose?? :) )
      • Option 3 I oppose strongly, because I'm a big softie who believes in second chances, with verification, so do not count me there :). I am hopeful VK gets it and will reform. I am sure VK knows that Alison is not the only CU that will be checking him periodically, I myself just ran a check recently to establish a baseline. "Trust but Verify" and all that. whew! Even by my standards that was long winded. But FT hasn't spoken yet, so I'm sure it won't be the VERY longest one (grin, run, hide). ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • question Giano's suggestions for option 1 say:- "He may edit only sporting articles and their associated talk pages"- I assume this means he can -if he were to want to- edit any topic except the Troubles or baronets and so on. For instance, VK could chip in on the Tony Robbins article with me if he wanted? Merkin's mum 16:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1. While in principle, VK should acknowledge that his abuse of sockpuppetry was wrong, we're already preventing him from socking again in Option 1 (rule 9) and I'm not sure what a further block without sockpuppetry would achieve beyond preventing the Olympic pages VK will likely edit peacefully anyway. I have a couple of points to raise:
      • My understanding is that "the Troubles" here does include articles related to the Falklands and Gibraltar, and other British sovereignty disputes - this is implied by "Irish/British geo-political dispute" in the footnote, but I just want to double-check that this is right.
      • Would there be a page where any infraction could be reported, or would it be here? I hope it doesn't happen, but just in case. Pfainuk talk 17:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any breach of the rules should be reported here, because VK's next block will block will be permanent and very serious, so it is imperative that the blocking admin fully understands what he is doing before the block is imposed. Giano (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly endorse Giano's point. We are remarkably close to a consensus on a previously divisive issue, and a block outside consensus could reopen the whole can of worms; in fact it's such an important point that I would suggest adding it as bolded notice at the conditions displayed on Vk's user page so that any admin considering a block is aware of it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mentioned that on the proposal page as something I thought was important. We need to mention it in the final draft of the proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was perhaps negligent not add that to the conditions. If there is a consensus to unblock, we should probably do just that. Rockpocket 21:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oi! No sackcloth! Your redraft was reviewed by lots of people, and none of the rest of us spotted that issue then, so if there was a failure it was a collective failure :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support option 1. I haven't reviewed the case carefully, but if Vk is agreeing to follow the rules and accepts the consequences if he fails to follow the rules, I see no benefit in keeping him blocked any longer. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 18:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum re the point raised by Merkinsmum; if option 1 is preferred I should also support VK editing at the invitation of another responsible editor (who will also ensure that VK complies with the terms of the parole) any article not related to The Troubles (as broadly defined above) while the other editor is online - and that the invitation (and limitations) is registered at whatever venue is proposed for the regulation of any parole. Any invitation may be challenged and a consensus then required to allow VK to participate in that article. I see this as another method by which VK can be permitted to slowly rejoin the community by editing usefully in areas where there is less likelihood of conflict. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice idea, but impossible to enforce. The conditions outlined will be a good indication of VK's commitment for three months. Giano (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why, if he's going to be unblocked, he needs to be blocked from any areas other than the problematic areas? If I've missed something, someone feel free to msg me about it. Merkin's mum 19:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean as a whole, not with LessH's caveats, even. Why are we objecting to this editor's being on other subject areas, if he hasn't been a problem there? Unless part of these terms is punitive rather than preventative? I mean, people seem to value his contribs on sport articles, but there's no reason why when he felt like it, his contribs might not be helpful in other areas too, even with a small edit to an article's grammar etc he could be a valuable contributor to many articles if he felt like editing them- we all can, if we're not really thick or a vandal:) Maybe I'm just going by my own editing urges, if I was limited to one area it would hamper what little I can do for the project. On anything except the Troubles, baronets or related articles there's no reason why he wouldn't be harmless, is there?Merkin's mum 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vk has expressed numerous times that he only wishes to edit sports pages (and perhaps railways). By starting off with tight restrictions and incrementally relinquishing the enforcement over time, hopefully to be replaced with Vk's self-discipline in avoiding those situations anyway, we hope to help Vk avoid problems. Its not that it will not work, but simply the there was no real desire from Vk to work outside the sports area. In a few months he may wish to expand his horizons, and in a few months he would be free to do so. Rockpocket 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, per Rockpocket. To help VK re-establish within the community he needs to be closely monitored - which is best done by agreeing beforehand where he will be editing (rather than reviewing his contrib history to see where he has been). It also gives those persons who have clashed with VK in the past an indication where he might be expected to be editing, and thus diminish the chances of accidental collisions (and allows little excuse if somebody is out to cause trouble by running into VK - although of course this is extemely unlikely...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aaah ok I understand :) option 1.5 then- I still think like Brownie that he shouldn't be rewarded/should be shown socking to avoid a block is not really ok. Merkin's mum 22:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refer to ArbCom or, in the alternative, Option 2.

    This is a difficult one. The best starting point is probably the conclusion of 'the Troubles' ArbCom case at the end of October last year; a line had been drawn in the sand, and the opposing parties were warned to keep away from each other. The indefinite block in place on Vintagekits was withdrawn, with Penwhale (the ArbCom clerk) posting on Vintagekits' Talk page "Due to the decisions, you are now no longer community banned. Make this chance count". Fred Bauder chipped in with: "Without getting into specific disputes. it was intended that Vintagekits be on probation. If he doesn't turn himself around, he's out of here". Since then, there have been 3 limited blocks and one indefinite block.

    However, the most worrying aspect is the off-Wiki harassment of Rockpocket. Part of the ArbCom provisions had been a civility parole, which Rockpocket insisted on upholding and earned Vintagekits' annoyance as a result. There then appears to have been an off-Wiki campaign of anonymous harassment of Rockpocket, which Vintagekits denied being a part of on his Talk page (since oversighted), but stated on Wikipedia Review that he would 'abuse' Rockpocket 'all day long' [38].

    The proximate cause of the last indefinite block, however, was the use of sock-puppets to cast multiple votes (in favour of Giano) in last year's ArbCom elections.

    Since receiving his 16 th. block [39] on February 20 th., (which was the third 'indefinite' one) Vintagekits has simply created sock-puppets to continue his editing, so far with 16 confirmed [40] and 3 suspected [41]; the first, Stick Negative (talk · contribs · logs), appearing two days after the 'indefinite block' was imposed. The 'indefinite blocking', then, has simply been ignored. Reverting to type, one of these socks has resorted to cheap abuse [42].

    At the moment, therefore, we have a situation of simply gaming the system; the indefinite block has been ignored; despite being imposed it seems to be considered too difficult to enforce. What is being offered by Option 1 is, therefore, simply a 'get out of jail free' card. Nor is Option 2 particularly desirable; since the ArbCom made its judgment, a combination of vociferous special pleading on Vintagekits' behalf and lack of support on behalf of the Admins charged with enforcing the ArbCom judgment has resulted in Vintagekits' User page being restored (despite a lack of consensus) [43], [44], and now the proposal to allow him to return to editing.

    The root cause of the problem here is a lack of support from ArbCom for the Admins who are tasked with enforcing its judgments. There are issues here around how to rehabilitate a disruptive editor; but they are issues best resolved by those who issued their judgment and then ignored its implementation; or, in other words, those who allowed the present situation to develop in the first place. --Major Bonkers (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I must confess; I too have been wondering why Arbcom isn't enforcing its ruling. I'll leave that to the Administrators, to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bonkers, there is no 'get out of jail free' card. The conditions set would be better described as a release on licence, with exceptionally strict parole conditions and a guaranteed throw-away-the-key if conditions are breached. Even if you are right about what led us to this point, we are where are, which is not necessarily where anyone would like to be, but we can't start from somewhere else. I am disappointed that you haven't seen the merits in the widespread agreement, even amongst VK's most vocal supporters, that this really should be his last chance. Rather than continuing to argue about who was right in the past, isn't it much better to seize this opportunity for a lasting solution to this long-running dispute? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that you are right to a certain extent BHG; whilst the post should be made by someone, the tone is negative and hostile. It's a possibility that Gold heart or some other aggrieved inadequate might be behind the harassment. Will refactor and post further on your Talk page. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet another suggestion

    I'm not an admin, but as someone who has had run-ins with this user in the past, complained about his activities, and been complained about in return, I make the following suggestion:

    It has been said that Vintagekits has created a large number of useful articles, however he has demonstrably missbehaved in relation to articles about Ireland. If the ban is removed, how about making it on the basis that he continues to create and maintain those articles but desists from contentious Irish articles for say six months to SHOW he is rehabilitated.

    --Gibnews (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If I understand you correctly, that is what "Option 1" is all about - he may only edit selected articles within his sporting field of interest for three months, after which he can edit anywhere expcept pages associated with the Irish troubles etc for a further year. Giano (talk) 15:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Apparent Meatpuppetry on Bryan Pisano

    This thread was archived without us receiving any admin assistance. --SmashvilleBONK! 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, given the creeping admissions of guilt (from 'not at all' to 'maybe' to 'well we do know each other, except for that guy', to 'oh wait, that guy i said i don't know is my brother'. It's a MeatPuppet parade, and Admins are needed. ThuranX (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Would either of you care to open up a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets and put all the necessary diffs in? Since there seems to have been collusion in both a DRV and an AfD, that increases the case for taking some action. If you then want to file a checkuser request, you greatly increase the chances that an admin will act on the case. Don't worry too much that the closer of the AfD will overlook the socking; other editors have pointed it out several times. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually already did here last Tuesday. But so far it's just been the accused and the AfD participants. I didn't put any diffs in, but I did include the three discussions that were most pertinent... --SmashvilleBONK! 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for filing Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender. The case is not quite dire enough to justify a checkuser, since code 'D' of checkuser requires that the socks have affected the result of a closed vote, like an AfD or a DRV. So far the two AfDs and the DRV have both closed *against* the wishes of the possible meats, so they haven't done much more than waste people's time so far. Any admin who wants to take action on the data already gathered is welcome to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't that irrelevant? Meatpuppetry's a flat out no-no, and giving them a free pass on it now invites more of it later. Why not give lengthy blocks all around? ThuranX (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because blocks are preventative and we're probably never going to see them again. --Random832 (contribs) 14:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In other words, free pass to do it again, drop out again, then again and again and on and on. Ok. I thought somewhere inthere we'd adopted rules about Meatpuppets, but I guess those only apply when admins want it to. ThuranX (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been a lengthy and reasonable discussion at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Sgt. bender where two of the named editors participated. The second of these guys has started creating articles. If you see any joint participation by two or more of these editors in any future AfDs, ask them to withdraw. If there is no response, post again at ANI, and a block should be considered. I think our patience is running out, but the two people who seem to be continuing as editors look OK. During the times they are not colluding on AfDs they are doing some useful work. EdJohnston (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did just open another AfD on one of their articles while I was looking at their past edits... --SmashvilleBONK! 15:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User Rjecina - playing checkuser and administrator - shall be stopped

    Resolved
     – Blocked the IP for 3RR violation. Suggest that Rjecina report this IP as a Velebit sock at WP:SSP. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is engaged in regular removals of my contributions to the Srbosjek article and the talk page - removal of references and pointless insertion of the [dubious – discuss] tag after each existing and not removed reference. See [45], [46], [47] He was warned already three times by other user and by me - [48], [49], [50]

    Also, his harassment of other users is already noticed by an administrator and proper waning is given. [51], [52]

    You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([53]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    --71.252.101.67 (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It should be noted that Rjecina is removing the material (actually reverting to a previous version) with the edit summary "revert of banned user user:Velebit, aka user:Stagalj aka user:Standshown aka User:Pederkovic Ante". Removing material from banned users is allowed. Of course, if this is NOT one of the listed banned users, there might be a problem. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For evidence see User talk:71.252.83.230 and User talk:71.252.101.51 (I am not even asking to see history of Velebit, Standshown and Stagalj). This puppet is using similar multiple IP for editing. From my knowledge his blocking is not possible (because of multiple IP:71.252.102.204, 71.252.101.67, 71.252.52.88, 72.75.18.147). Similar style of editing (writing about Ustaše) is answer if he is puppet or not (see WP:DUCK). This argument has been used by Future Perfect last time.--Rjecina (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For evidence - I never used the IP adresses listed above. Also, Rjecina attempt to block me was already rejected twice [54], [55]

    --71.252.101.67 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Your last argument is 1 of reasons why we can't let user Velebit edit wikipedia ! You are writing again and again false statements. Nobody has asked for your blocking and this is clearly writen in demand for semi-protection.--Rjecina (talk) 22:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note. In the header I added the name of the article under dispute as well as the user links (for the person complained about) to make this report less puzzling. The comment from Future Perfect is quoted by the IP from somewhere else, since it's dated April 22nd. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked 71.252.101.67 (talk · contribs) 72 hours for 3RR on Srbosjek (knife). Rjecina may or may not be justified in assuming this is a sock, so his reverts may or may not be right, but there is no justification at all for the IP's reverts. Rjecina if he wishes may add the IP address to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Purger. The IP does fit the address pattern 71.252.* of at least one previous Velebit sock and he has the same interests. The IP's recounting of Rjecina's previous history (above) is quite unbalanced, as you'll see if you click through to the various sources. EdJohnston (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The two IP socks above look very much like more Elspeth Monro (talk · contribs) socks to me. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Improper page moves of Gibraltar events

    Number 57 has unilaterally decided to rename Gibraltar events Gibraltarian despite having been requested by three Gibraltar editors not to do so on his user page, because that is not the correct name.

    Plus was asked to look at this renaming:

    john 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The name of the event is on:

    I consider he is misusing his position as an administrator. As there was already article with the wrong name, only an admin could have deleted it to be able to move the article. Efforts to discuss this only result in being told the editor is 'an English teacher'. [56]

    He willing not look at references or the opinion of others, so a complaint is appropriate. I have delayed in the hope of progress but none. If another process is more appropriate, please advise. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll just repeat what I wrote in Gibnews' talk page (not sure why he didn't understand as I explained it three times). I didn't use any administrator processes to move the page - as can be seen in the diff, I moved it over a redirect (which obviously wouldn't exist if I'd deleted it). Plus I only did this for consistency's sake after Gibnews' WP:RM on several articles (e.g. Talk:Gibraltarian constitutional referendum, 2006#Name Change request) had failed (as a result of which he appears to have resorted to forum shopping). пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I fail to see how that was done, and there was NO reason to do rename any of those pages because they were correct before. The other part of my complaint is that you refuse to listen to anyone OR look at the references and instead impose a missleading description of an important event. --Gibnews (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) I used the move tab at the top of the page; (2) I believe there was a reason because in my eyes it was incorrect before; (3) I have looked at your references, and I've provided my own ones that refute them.
    Anyway, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring administrator action, so I suggest you stop clogging up the incidents board with this. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find it hard to see how you can legitimately refute the Government of Gibraltar which called the event with a reference in a user contributed online dictionary. What concerns me is nobody seems bothered, apart from the few Gibraltarians here. surely someone else is reading this and can see why its objectionable Its an abuse of power. --Gibnews (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders

    I've moved this to the main noticeboard. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Incivility on WT:BOT

    I've having issues with Betacommand on WT:BOT being generally insulting and incivil; I'd try to discuss this with him directly, but seeing as he's been through ArbCom twice I'm more than sure he's aware that how he's behaving is just counter productive. Specifically, these two edits: "grow a brain" - "Like I said you dont know what your talking about so shut up" "stop spewing ideas that my dog even knows wont work". Help? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, Betacommand was approached by three editors on his talk page before your post here. Maybe that will help and we can avoid a protracted thread here? --67.186.244.249 (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes; a discussion about this issue already exists on his Talk page at User_talk:Betacommand#Warning. I suggest this discussion be taken there so that it is centralized and he can be aware of it. Gary King (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually looking for input from people outside his normal circle of talk page watchers. Besides, if two ArbCom cases and a handful of blocks later he's still making personal attacks, shouldn't we be looking for something else to try to get him to stop? —Locke Cole • t • c 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you propose happen? I've never interacted with him and would rather not get too involved in this, but if this is his personality and he does not want to take any action to change it, then there isn't much that can be done besides the many blocks he has already received. He was blocked just a few weeks ago due to personal attacks for over a week. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sanctions are unlikely in this case. Blocking or sanctioning Betacommand needs to be weighed against the generally productive and much needed work he brings to the project. He is honestly quite irreplacable, and does lots of underappreciated work for Wikipedia. Most of the regulars have learned to shrug off these inevitable outbursts from him. I can't speak for all, but I can only say that all are well aware of these concerns with Betacommand, and given that he has not been sanctioned for this yet, it is unlikely that one more report of him saying something like this is not likely to result in any action. I am not excusing or condoning this sort of incivility, only noting my observations of how these regular reports usually go down. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect. The value of his contributions are irrelevant if he's personally attacking other editors and being incivil. No one should ever have to put up with a disruptive and insulting attitude due to the supposed "value" of the attackers contributions. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I point to yet more POV pushing disruptive editing where Locke attempts to force his opinion on others, when the consensus is clearly against him. so he bring the facts I point out in an attempt to force his opponents into silence. its just his standard disruptive POV pushing method of operation. Im sorry if you dont like the fact that you cannot force your obvious anti-bot mentality on others, by attempting to re-write a policy that you have no understanding of. βcommand 04:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Jayron's comment is, in your opinion, incorrect. Not in everyone's opinion. Some people - such as myself - actually subscribe to a different opinion: Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, the community already has an opinion at this policy page. You'll note that the policy does not carve out exceptions for personal attacks by editors who are "invaluable", nor does it have any kind of point system where X number of valuable edits allows you to make Y number of personal attacks. The mistake here would be to continue to tolerate these "outbursts" and let it slide because of his value to the project: no single editor should ever be invaluable to the project (and as far as I know the community has never backed such a solution). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with everything said here, but I do agree that no one should rise above rules applied to everyone, including the fact that no one contributor is invaluable enough to the project to have their less constructive actions disregarded. With that said, again, what do you want done in this case? Gary King (talk) 04:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm involved obviously, but since 24 hour blocks don't seem to work (or are cut short for dubious reasons), perhaps escalating the length of the blocks would help enforce the idea for him that it's not okay to make personal attacks like this? And considering a community ban wouldn't be such a bad idea either. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Revert-warring on the administrators' noticeboard is not either of your brightest moments, and I'll block the both of you if you're silly enough to continue. east.718 at 04:30, May 12, 2008
    Indeed, there does exist such a community policy - note that I did not speak for the community when I noted the existence of Wikipedia:Ignore personal attacks. Also note that the editors who have commented on Betacommand's talk page are not excusing his comments - one admin wrote in no unclear terms that he would block Betacommand if Betacommand wrote a further comment similar to the ones that you cited above. Having this thread does indeed draw wider attention to your concerns - but the thread on Betacommand's talk page already seems to me to address them (if I understand your concerns correctly). --67.186.244.249 (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Betacommand has had multiple 24-hour blocks and many warnings on this issue, including a recent "final warning" from Ryan Postelthwaite. I'd suggest that the response to Betacommand's next personal attack, if it happens, should be a one-week block. Being "irreplaceable" shouldn't get you a free pass. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Going along with the "irreplaceable" idea, is there any progress on splitting BCBot's tasks up so BC is less irreplaceable (that sounds so crude, but you get my drift, and nothing ill intentioned is meant) then currently? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a bit hard to figure out what BetacommandBot is doing, but I think the only tasks it does that aren't duplicated by at least one bot are moving images to commons and producing linkspam reports. Neither of those is something that can't be stopped for a week or two. --Carnildo (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that, useful information in the event this becomes an issue again. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've found Beta to be a user very hard to work with; unapproachable, and refuses to see any fault with his/her bots when there clearly is. Rudeness is rife, and I agree that doing something vaguely (very vaguely) helpful should excuse bad behaviour. Support a 1-2 week block on the next instance of incivility. —TreasuryTag—t—c 10:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I note that programmers usually find it galling to have their work criticised by those who don't understand it; I know I do. Isn't 72 hours the next logical block extension after 24h? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect it depends on what an editor is being blocked for. Obviously posting personal information about another editor would be dealt with more harshly than calling someone a name or some other milder form of abuse. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think BC has posted personal information anywhere (correct me if wrong) so I doubt the insinuations here are helping anything. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User_talk:Harry_the_Hamster - sock of User talk:Argus-Bot, User_talk:86.129.31.62, User_talk:86.145.219.221, User_talk:86.162.213.186

    Resolved.

    User_talk:Harry_the_Hamster has engaged in repeated vandalism and insertion on unsourced information on Video CD, CD Video, Template:Video storage formats. Same systematic edits as blocked User_talk:Argus-Bot,User_talk:86.129.31.62, User_talk:86.145.219.221, User_talk:86.162.213.186. First edit for Harry the Hamster appears 3 days after argus bot was blocked. I have issued a level 4 warning, editor is currently active. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indefinitely. You can use WP:AIV in the future.-Wafulz (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nickwtts

    Resolved
     – Vandalism-only account, blocked indefinitely. MastCell Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This guy is always spamming.122.54.90.185 (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be a vandalism-only account; glancing at deleted (and non-deleted) contribs, I've blocked it indefinitely. MastCell Talk 15:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Centrifugal force

    I've just re-blocked User:David Tombe. Antelan has expressed concern that I might want someone else to make the block (see [this diff). Can someone please take a look at this, and either endorse or revert the block? See User talk:David Tombe and Talk:Centrifugal force for previous discussion. I'd really appreciate some help on this. -- The Anome (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I am familiar with the proceedings on Centrifugal force and I thoroughly endorse this block. Antelantalk 15:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit-warring to reinsert unsourced and disputed content? The block looks justified to me, though I agree with Antelan that as you are involved in reverting this editor it would be preferable to have another admin look it over instead of intervening yourself. For the record, I'm happy to look at these sorts of situations, as are many other admins. That said, I don't see this block as particularly problematic, and I'd endorse it after the fact with a suggestion to involve outside eyes in the future. MastCell Talk 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also an ANI thread last week. Endorse block, and suggest that when it expires, it should be a last chance. As to whether Anome should have made the block: mu. I suppose now that it's been brought up, it might be less distracting to involve someone else next time, but I'm not concerned in this case. Anome seems to have gone out of his way to help this editor, but it isn't taking. --barneca (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been keeping track of this situation also, and minimizing my reverts to a few cases where I thought there was a clear policy violation that User:David Tombe had already been warned about. Thus I may serve to some degree as the impartial editor that some of the above folks would like, and I endorse this block. This is a difficult situation, because Mr. Tombe backs off when administrators put a foot down hard, but he does not ever seem to get up his goal of inserting his version of the truth (which is not even a notable fringe view as far as I am aware) into centrifugal force and related articles. I am glad to see The Anome keeping a continuous eye on this situation; I think it would be a waste of time to bring in a new admin who was unfamiliar with the situation every time further action was required. -- SCZenz (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Stub genocide

    Despite the stated "unreferenced stub about a community that can be discussed in its parent municipality until there's enough info about it to justify a separate article", stub article contains an entire referance section. Can we put an end to this stub genocide please? I see a bulk action by the user. -- Cat chi? 15:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    Have you contacted the user?-Wafulz (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see from the below link this isn't a new issue. -- Cat chi? 18:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    What I learn form above history is that there was an ANI thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive383#Cobden.2C_Ontario initiated by you on March 9. Are there any successive 'bulk redirects' or discussions beyond that?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single one of the links in question is a proper reference about the community; they're all web pages which happen to mention the community in passing but not in a way that serves as an adequate source for the article's content. Three of the four are just straight lists of communities in the county, with no other content besides that, and the fourth is a list of headstone transcriptions from county cemeteries. That's a directory listing, not a valid reference section. And while it has sparked some discussion and disagreement in the past, redirecting an unreferenced stub article to a larger, properly referenced parent topic is entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy: the presence of genuine reliable sources which properly verify Wikipedia content is a requirement, not just an option.
    I'd also like to clarify that the entire "county" is actually a single municipality — despite its name, which was retained for historical reasons, it's actually a single city and not a county in the normal sense. These aren't independent towns, but unincorporated communities within a single incorporated city which only has one mayor and one municipal council. Wikipedia policy already explicitly states that until such time as we can write something substantial and properly referenced about them, individual neighbourhoods should exist only as redirects to the city that they're part of. Unreferenced stubs aren't inherently entitled to stick around Wikipedia if there's a better and more solidly-referenced article in which we can discuss the topic. Having 41 separate unreferenced and badly written five-to-ten-line stubs about a single city is not an improvement over having forty redirects to one good article about the whole city.
    And again: the links here are just lists which happen to mention Hemlock. They aren't valid references about the community, because the only statement in the entire article that they properly supported is the basic fact that there's a community called Hemlock within the City of Norfolk County. They didn't support the statement about wind power, they didn't support the stuff about local schools, they didn't support the weird and irrelevant tangent about Socrates (specifically, is there a documentable reference to confirm that the community was named for the ancient poison that killed Socrates, and not for the local presence of tsuga trees?) They didn't support any statement about Hemlock beyond the mere fact that it exists. An article isn't necessarily properly referenced just because one or more external links are present — the actual quality of the links has to be taken into account as well, and these links simply aren't solid references. Bearcat (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should also note, Cat, that this is the second time you've come straight to AN/I with an issue about this without discussing it with me first, and both times you've misrepresented the situation: in the Cobden discussion, you accused me of deleting content that I did copy into the target article but simply rearranged into a more logical flow, and this time you accused me of ignoring a reference section that I did review carefully enough to know that it didn't actually contain any real references. Could you at least give some consideration in the future to the fact that, having been a Wikipedia administrator since 2005, I just might have an actual clue or three about Wikipedia policy, and maybe talk to me first so I can clarify my reasons for doing this before having to defend myself against charges of vandalism? Thank you kindly. Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One more point: the goal of Wikipedia is not to maximize the number of stubs on here. The goal of Wikipedia is to maximize the number of quality articles, and minimize the number of stubs. And yeah, for smaller and less well-documented topics, that sometimes means merging five or six or ten or twenty stubs about interrelated topics into one longer article. In a situation like Norfolk County, a considerable number of the community stubs will never be anything more than stubs, because there simply aren't enough good references out there to produce quality articles about each individual community — so writing one quality article about the city, and then redirecting the individual communities to that one article, is much more consistent with the goals of Wikipedia than keeping 41 separate stubs that have no realistic prospect of ever becoming good articles otherwise. Bearcat (talk) 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stnickvillager

    Hello. I logged on just now to check that everything was running fine, and to my surprise, I discovered that most of the pages in my watchlist had been edited by this user, with summaries such as remove vandalism. I wondered what vandalism the user was talking about, and then it soon came to my attention he was talking about me! I then checked his/her contributions, and found that they had basically gone through every single page I had edited, undoing basically all the moves I had made, and all in all, just removing pretty much all of my contributions. I then noticed that he had left a comment here about me, in his contributions (which is how I found this link). The user had complained I was "vandalising", but was rightly told by another user that he/she had not done what they should have done - talk to me, and instead, went round telling several other people (you will find them in his contributions) that I am a vandal. To be honest, I am quite appalled with the way this user has acted, and perhaps I am in the wrong here - I don't know, I'm not that experienced, but I am sure that he/she is the one at fault, and I would be greatful if someone could help me with the situation with this user, and perhaps advise me on what to do next? Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, as I had another look at it, I noticed this user is perhaps even newer than me. I am going to undo the page move revisions he did. If anyone disagrees with this, please tell me, while I am still working on it. I would also appreciate it if someone could speak to the user about being polite, and about the naming policies. Thanks. Hamletpride (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried talking to the user? Try starting a discussion at his/her talkpage and hopefully you can sort it out between you. Also, for specific articles you could discuss at the article talkpages.--BelovedFreak 17:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not sure what to do, since the more I check the user's contributions, the more it appears they are possibly a POV troll, not to mention an uncivil one. I have lost count as to the amount of times I have been called "vandal" by the user. I have changed all the relevant pages back to how they were before he went on a big reverting spree. I feel that talking to the user will have little consequence, since the user apparently did not want to talk to me - instead, coming straight here (which is now, in effect, what I have done, but in result of coming to the conclusion that this user is perhaps rather unwelcoming to discussion). I am honestly not sure what to say to the user, as I do not want them to come stalking my edits even more. I shall then, for the moment, leave it in the hands of the community here. Thank you. {¦:-)} Hamletpride (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are both editing in the same area. The other user claims to live in the physical area, and thus have an interest in articles about the local area. And he also has an opinion about what those articles should say. I think you can bet that you will see him again, whether you like it or not.
    What you need to do has been mentioned above: pick one (or more) of the articles you want to change, and start a discussion on the talk page. Post a small, short, polite note on his talk page mentioning that you have started a discussion and you want him to participate. Maybe something like: "Hi. I've started a discussion about hamlets on the ... talk page. I'd really appreciate it if you would stop by and offer your comments. Thanks!" Be sure to sign your posting.
    After you have done that, give him a couple of days to see if he shows up. If he doesn't, you can make the change you want in that article. If he then shows up and reverts or whatever, point him again to the discussion you started on the talk page. Loren.wilton (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    EarthBound/Mother Name Controversy

    There's been a naming of the series article controversy that's been going on for several months. In case you don't know, the series consists of three role-playing games, Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3. Only Mother 2 was released in the U.S. under the title EarthBound. Personally, I'd prefer Mother (series) instead of EarthBound (series) for these reasons.

    1.) EarthBound was the name of only one game.

    2.) Though Super Smash Bros. Brawl says EarthBound (Mother) under series when looking at Trophies, when looking at songs, it says Mother, Mother 2, and Mother 3.

    3.) On the Smash Bros. dojo, never says EarthBound, only Mother.

    There are too many reasons. In the discussion page, the main person who's defending this is A Link to the Past. To be honest, I'm not to fond of him and tangled with him over a naming controversy. It was whether the Android/Artificial Human pages should be called either one. I think I contacted you about that. Anywho, again, he was the only one trying to make it Android, dispite Artificial Human being the proper term and more known. I ended it by renaming them #17 and #18 because these are also propers names used after the Cell arc. In this argument, some of the points he's making aren't accurate, and he's becoming very frustrated with the subject, resorting to name calling and such. Read the discussion and you'll see. He even kept reverted more than three times which breaks the 3RR policy. He's also moved the article without Wikipedia:Consensus. Can you please intervene so this discussion can end. I haven't been to the article in months, and it's still going on. I read everything and he's wrong again like he was back then. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a content dispute that doesn't require admin intervention. As an aside though, the game is significantly more well known as Earthbound. (I'd never heard of it being called Mother before).⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Content dispute. I've been watching that page for some reason and although discussion has occasionally been a little too "passionate" at times, the last comment on the talk page by A Link to the Past was left unrebutted on May 8. Perhaps try WP:RfC or WP:3O to get more voices. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    gaming the system and edit warring against the recommendations of WP:RSN

    Levine2112 continues to ignore that there was discussion that the source is reliable from an external observer at the RSN. Slp1 wrote it qualifies under SPS. Levine2112 continues to remove[57][58] well sourced WP:NPOV text against the informative recommendations at the RSN. Levine2112, has refused to abide by his personal agreement. The relevant discussions are here and here. QuackGuru 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring against the recommendation of the RSN has continued.[59] I notified the editor about his personal agreement[60] and I was attacked in his edit summary. Levine2112 wrote in his edit summary: remove false allegations from known harrassers. QuackGuru 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Levine2112 Here is a bit of background info. QuackGuru 03:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Very heated AFD

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Hanau is getting very hot, allegations and personal attacks being thrown around. Could an admin please have a look.--Phoenix-wiki 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Non-admin comment: It appears a lot of the edits on that AFD according to the page history are being made by Aimulti and it appears he's making attacks towards others. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:70.69.9.186

    IP editor 70.69.9.186 has an unfortunately lengthy history of vandalism, insertion of original research, NPOV violation and failure to source assertions. The editor has been blocked previously for this behavior, and warned many, many times by multiple editors on his or her talk page([61]), so I don't think it's possible to claim ignorance of the policies. Examples from the last day or two include [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and [67], just to note a very few. Several editors have had to go out of their way to track and revert these baseless changes. Even if a longer-term block is not warranted, perhaps a friendly warning from an admin might convince him or her that their editing behavior needs some reconsideration. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [Non-admin comment] Given the constant re-offending after multiple warnings with no signs of reform, I see a 24h block as rather lenient [esp. as it doesn't seem to be a public/institution IP]. If after the block expires they continue to offend unabated, I would think that a much longer block [2wk+?] would be warranted. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 18:06, May 12, 2008 (UTC)

    possible reincarnation of pornography troll blocked yesterday

    Resolved
     – longtime sock abuser... checkusered and blocked...

    New account apparently trolling today: Livni (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

    Similar account blocked yesterday: Abreactive (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

    Link to yesterday's AN/I report

    In addition to similar editing/vandalism patterns adding pornography links into many articles, both editors marked every edit as minor.

    Not every edit is about pornography, but many of them are, in addition to changing the definition of rape to a "successful evolutionary strategy".

    I have not warned this user or reverted any of the changes, but because the activity looks so similar to yesterday's incident, I thought it best to report it so an administrator can take a look. Thanks. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Though some of the edits may be OK, it's pretty obviously a sock of Abreactive, and has been blocked as such. I'd support unblocking the user if they went through the normal unblock route and pledged to discuss controversial changes first rather than acting unilaterally. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abreactive was later blocked as a sock of User:DavidYork71, and both of these should remain blocked indefinitely on those grounds. I'm going to set up an RFCU to see how many other sleepers are out there. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the quick action. I endorse the initial block and also concur that if the person agrees to collaborate positively, it would be reasonable to unblock for a second chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is patently a sockpuppet of Abreactive, and likely also both are socks of DavidYork71. Go ahead and file that checkuser request. It should put an end to this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We have a winner. Sock farm ferreted out and gassed. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And that seems about it on this one. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another one: Worthy2Bworshipped (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Blocked on duck test. Antandrus (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just coming to report that--support on duck test. Worthy2Bworshipped hit all the same articles as Abreactive, and added the same porn links.-PetraSchelm (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mountainsarehigh

    Mountainsarehigh (talk · contribs · count) is skirting the borders of policy with SPA POV edits to Ron Paul. User is attempting to avoid reportability at other boards, but has had a WP:AN3 block and returned.

    • Classic old-user new-account marks: upon 5/1 creation, immediate familiarity with how to edit and reinstate reverted edits, and with some policies (while denying knowledge of others). Immediate edit war per WP:AN3. Deleted warnings, and later questions, from user talk (see history). Used edit summaries and well-formatted sourcing in second session. Clear WP:SPA, every last edit has been directed toward discrediting of Ron Paul. Clear alternative account of somebody.
    • No admission of being a legitimate alternative account despite the above; legitimate alternative accounts should freely admit having a prior WP history when questioned with evidence to avoid bad faith. However, this tells the whole story of attempts on that front.
    • User had been engaging in many suspiciously familiar behaviors since 5/1, but today performed a very strong maneuver, i.e., removing a longstanding footnote from a lead blithely as "need better sources here", without seeking current or past consensus, without considering how it redlines other article locations where that footnote is cited, and without admitting the additional support sources have already long appeared in the subsection and subarticle. IMHO actions of user have served to begin destabilizing an article that has been quiet for recent months and has been a FFAC. User has gone on to other generic disruption, such as pinning the errors of that edit on another editor.[68] Disruption is so obvious (to me) that it appears to be deliberate testing of WP's standards.
    • Caveat: I have not succeeded 100% in my reports of suspected socks and am not 100% sure of a puppeteer in this case. However, the extant behavior warrants a report to this board in good faith. I suspect a banned puppeteer who has returned regularly with sophisticated new accounts.

    My request is for some admin to provide a second view in this case as to my next step. Should I assemble evidence for SSP or directly for RFCU? Should I ignore the potential destabilization, or just deal with it by ordinary means as well as possible? Is immediate admin response available? RFCU has been proven to be a regular need to remove sock factories in the case I am considering, and it is likely to turn up others in any latest sock drawer. I am not listing all my evidence with this initial report due to the time it takes to assemble, but I will add as needed. JJB 17:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

    William Gaillard

    Resolved
     – From the top of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process." Try WP:DR —Alex.Muller 23:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Content dispute with User:Dead-or-Red. Have tried to reason with another user but they continue to remove cited sources. Have tried to get to contextualize the piece that they keep removing. Basically want to bring the situation to a resolution.Londo06 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Londo06, you could try obtaining a third opinion.--PhilKnight (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. Will give that a go.Londo06 18:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i have never removed cited material, and have always tried to reach a consensus. Dead-or-Red (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm afraid that is not true. There was sourced material that was repeatedly removed.Londo06 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WikiSkeptic's extreme incivility and personal attacks

    I need admins' attention on WikiSkeptic (talk · contribs)'s incivility and personal attacks against other editors. I first noticed him for his personal attack comment pointing at me[69] at the talk page of the indefinitely banned user's WP:SSP case which I filed.Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Azukimonaka I don't know what led he to come across the SSP case, but I took strong offence by him. He also edited Japan-Korean related articles with insulting personal attacks toward Japanese/Korean/Chinese people such as calling Jap Kap, Cap.Jap POV: terrorist group[ balance, all Kaps not crooks[70] So I gave him a warning not to speak the inappropriate comments. But he ignored my advice[71] [72] [73] and then keeps doing that. In the meantime, Ludvikus (talk · contribs) gave him a barnstar[74] which I felt so odd, so went over to the user's page and found more insulting comments towards other editors with whom he had a dispute, especially Flying tiger (talk · contribs).[75] [76] [77] He called the disputed editor doing "terrorims". Also other editors protested to ludvikus for his giving the barnstar because of WikiSkptic's past personal attacks.[78] Ludvikus also disagreed his way of speaking and incivility, so retract the barnstar.

    Today, he edited Timeline of Japan-South Korea relations which also I edited several times earlier and has been on my watchlist. I thought his edit with no source does have any merit so reverted.[79]. Then he left an mocking comment at his talk page which implies my English.[80] I said to him for his incivility but accused me of wikistalking him[81] and being paranoid[82]. He was recently warned by an admin[83] but does not admit his wrongdoings. I need your help. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please note complaining user has been reprimanded for filing inappropriate AIV reports: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Appletrees&diff=211709535&oldid=211709323 I can state categorically that I have never examined Appletree's watchlist and still remain ignorant as to which articles are or are not on it. User keeps claiming my edits are "pointed at him" and/or "directed at him" when this is not the case--paranoia anyone?-WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The AIV report has nothing to do with your incivility and personal attacks. That is a clear evidence that you're wikistalking me to the contrary to your false accusation[84] [85], so you lessen my effort to notify this report on you. You came to the admin who took the AIV report and the editor who had a dispute with me. What a hilarious. It does not change the fact that you're warned for your extreme wrongdoings.--Appletrees (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, what's hilarious is that the record clearly shows that you began editing my pages in each and every case after I've edited them. In other words, I started editing, and you've chased me across Wikipedia. THen, when I ask for a "little assistance" from some well-known and respected Wikipedians, you "retaliate" by looking for one of your friends. At each and every case, you are clearly obsessed with me, and I'm hoping you might eventually learn to put Wikipedia first and your bizarre obsessions second. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No way, your appearance at WP:SSP/Azukimonaka is just a coincidence? Your bizarre way of speaking is really not tolerable. You've been warned but you do not cease that. You need a lesson for what you did. --Appletrees (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before this goes any further, both of you knock it off. ANI isn't the place to fight over things. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I do not come to here to fight with him. This report is all about his abusive verbal attacks. So need an admin's attention like these as well..[86] [87] [88] [89] --Appletrees (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And attention will be given now that it has been brought up. I'm currently looking into both of your recent actions, as are other admins as well, I'm sure. Once we can actually post without getting into any edit conflicts, we'll decide if any administrative action is warranted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. But edit conflicts are not a matter for the report. I can't stand his racial/personal attacks.---Appletrees (talk) 19:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article material aside, WikiSkeptic's racist comments are completely unacceptable.-Wafulz (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In the meantime, he added more insulting personal attacks against me.[90] Regardless of the admin Hersfold's advice, he went over still to assault me behind my back and the admin said to him to stop lobbying.[91]


    I think the editor should earn a proper lesson for what he has spoken. If he complaint about my notifying Flying tiger, one of the victims of his verbal attacks, I wonder why he notified unrelated people to seek his help.--Appletrees (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, well now I've had a short moment to look at things without getting a new messages bar every five seconds, it looks like Appletrees has a legitimate complaint. This discussion started up after User:El C warned WikiSkeptic for this trolling comment. During that discussion, WikiSkeptic manages to drag Appletrees in for no apparent reason other than to set up up as an example. Comments such as these two have no place in the project, particularly when coupled with and made immediately after comments directed to other users [92].
    This isn't to say Appletrees is entirely saintly either: this isn't anything that I'd call polite at all, and there are many similar edit summaries (talk history) and posts that indicate to me someone has a slight problem in keeping cool in heated situations.
    I feel a block is merited here, for WikiSkeptic certainly for his racist comments, and possibly both parties, but I'd like another admin to look into this to help check over what I've found. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That fact that I had disputes with Badagnani is totally irrelevant to WikiSkeptic's personal attacks at me. If anyone asks me about the dispute with Badaganini, Badagnani should be summoned for his behaviors here. However I only reported WikiSkeptic's assaultive remarks. The disputes between me and Badagnani are his introducing original research on Korean cuisine articles and personal attacks. I only claims that he should bring reliable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked Skeptic for 24 hours. Haven't look at the Appletrees stuff yet.-Wafulz (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've checked out Appletrees' contributions and I don't think s/he's done anything wrong. I think this is the result of their English skills and not necessarily any incivility.-Wafulz (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Badagnani and I've edited Korean cuisine articles and English sources are limited for the subjects but Korean sources are many. The reason I stated that he does not read Korean but Badagnani insisted on creating the non-notable garaetteok article with its unofficial name after his googling the unofficial name in Korea website. This is not the first time. I've talked him many times but my patience hit the bottom. He also said huintteok (garaetteok) maybe be noodles but he has edited tteok articles a lot, so I do not understand about his insistence. Anyway, the disputes on Korean cuisine are no related to WikiSkeptic.--Appletrees (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The irrelevant accusation of my disputes with Badagnani.

    These disputes with Badagani have nothing to do with WikiSkeptic. He dragged me and accused unrelated matters to turn from the main subject. --Appletrees (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been brought to my attention by messages left on my talk page as mentioned above. I declined the AIV report of Badagnani for a good reason - AIV is not for dealing with anything outside persistent/obvious vandalism and spamming. AN/I or dispute resolution is the correct place. I did however advice Badagnani that users are allowed to remove content from their own talk pages generally. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this a troll? Second opinion, please

    Resolved
     – That's quite enough
    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

    Please look at this user's [contribution list] and tell me if I'm right to suspect trolling here. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any one or two of those questions, taken by themsleves, and I'd say AGF. But good God, 60 questions in 3 days? No. I'd warn them to stop, and block if they continue. I'd be tempted to delete their 60 questions as time wasters, too. --barneca (talk) 19:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly looks like a lot of time-wasting to me. Notice there are no mainspace edits. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    His questions all seem reasonable, though. Very much unlike the typical RD trolls. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is reasonable? I dislike the word troll but every question I looked at seemed to have been written to do nothing but nettle (and waste time). Gwen Gale (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Edits are coming from a range that has been softblocked (schoolblocked), a second range that might also be a school or might not, and the account was one of 6 created at the same time from the same IP.
    1. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Stolen thoughts (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
    2. (Logs) . . 22:24 . . Avril's sister (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
    3. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Bliss bois (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
    4. (Logs) . . 22:23 . . Sticky end (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
    5. (Logs) . . 22:22 . . Swan's swimming song (Talk | contribs | block) New user account
    6. (Logs) . . 22:21 . . Mr Beans Backside (Talk | contribs | block) New user account

    Thatcher 20:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • User:Stolen thoughts was blocked for being one of a series of accounts that was creating nasty attack pages directed at a particular user. Avril's sister has no contributions. The only contributions from the rest of them are... inane questions to the Reference Desk. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Questions are sometimes coming at the rate of 1 per minute. Disagreeing with Someguy1221, most are unreasonable, with a few legit ones thown in occasionally. We are definitely being trolled. I say, block indef as troll, revert all questions that don't have a response yet to minimize wasting time. --barneca (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Let me echo Gwen Gale in pointing out that there are some questions by this editor that can't really be considered reasonable. He/she is here for some fun at Wikipedia's expense. Fairly harmless but potentially fairly annoying. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the remaining unblocked accounts as obvious socks. I advocate an indef block for MBB as well, but if someone wants to give them a final warning, or a shorter block, that's up to them, and IMHO it's NawlinWiki's call anyway. I see NawlinWiki is removing some of the questions. Good. --barneca (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I object to all of these allegations. I am simply asking questions. I'm sorry if I posted too many, but I don't see any reason for threating me with a block. As I said to NawlinWiki on his talk page, I wasn't aware contributing to the encyclopedia was a requirement for asking questions on the Reference Desk. Also, I do not see how they can be considered disruptive. I informed Gwen Gale, another user who reverted some of my questions, that they are not offensive or rude, homework questions, legal or medial, or starting debates. I don't see a problem. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They are disruptive because they distract Ref Desk editors from answering real questions. Your pointing to the specific list of guidelines that you say you aren't violating is a clue, to me at least, that you are trying to game the system. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to my questions being called inane or fake. They are real and they are not senseless - they are simply things I wanted to know. Look, I'm new here and I've obviously broken some of the rules, so if someone kind would point my in the direction of the guidelines I should read to avoid being blocked, I would be grateful. Thank you. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please have a look at Wikipedia:Disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read that and it does not relate to this situation. I have not committed any "gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies", asked any "questions about which reasonable people may disagree", edited an "article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors", "failed to cite sources", "cite unencyclopedic sources", "misrepresents reliable sources", or "manufactures original research", and I have not broken "Wikipedia:Civility" or "Wikipedia:No personal attacks". Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you seem to be rejecting community input. Please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But the community input in this case is not biased on anything other than speculation and gossip. After reading the guideline pages, I can see that I have broken no rules whatsoever. In fact, I challenge you to provide an example of a rule I have broken. Yes, I am arguing with you now, but only because I feel I am being misrepresented at this trail. And yes, I am going against the majority view of most of the editors of this page. But again, I feel I have a right too because no one has yet shown any indication that my questions are disruptive. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By now, I think you're on the cusp of straying from WP:GAME. Let it be. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think (some of) your questions would be more appropriate for The Straight Dope. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, by pointing to very specific rules or guidelines and then attempting to find ways to skirt around those, you make it hard to assume good faith. Also, suspicions might be aroused by somebody who knows his way around the editing window and conventions, yet professes to be 'new here'. Answers to many of the questions you peppered the Desks with could be found with a simple Google search, and if you really have such insatiable curiousity, then taking time to read up on the answers to the first several dozen questions should probably keep you busy for awhile. Give it a rest. --LarryMac | Talk 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If your questions were asked in good faith, please explain the encyclopedic notability of this question. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Or was that just one of the many questions you copied and pasted from here? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That question is a valid as Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Finger Gestures or Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous#Cookies or bars, both of which no one is arguing about. Mr Beans Backside (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this user is bored and killing time. Have we seen enough? Gwen Gale (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Short circuit this feeding frenzy: Indef blocked. I believe Thatcher's CU evidence, combined with the similar editing pattern, proves this person is a sockpuppeteer. One of the deleted edits of one of the socks was grossly uncivil to another admin. They are disruptive (if not per policy, then per the simple English meaning of the word), they are trolling, they are blocked. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Request for help on policies

    Hello. Since I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies, please tell me what happens when:

    • Some user proposes a rename/merge and a vote is taken.
    • the proposing user threatens to cause havoc thereafter if he loses the vote.
    • The user proposing the rename loses the vote, then starts to butcher the page, cause havoc and starts a process of slow merge and slow rename in a gradual manner to achieve the same affect as the vote that he lost.
    • Several other users are unhappy about this and have expressed frustration on other pages as well. What can they do? They have asked the havoc causing user for an explanation, but his usual reply is that he does not have time to provide explanations.

    This is happening on the Blessed Virgin Mary page and is slow vandalism in my view. What are the Wikepedia remedies here?

    This is in some sense a pattern of behavior here for another frustrated person commented on Protestant views of Mary:

    "I do not understand, why our fellow traveler Carlaude first contributes actively to this (new) topic, changes its name, and then requests deletion? AFTER his deletion request on May 6, our friend was busy linking Protestant views of Mary to several other mariological pages".
    History2007! I have answered this for you just minutes ago-- please read my posts.--Carlaude (talk) 21:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think there is a great deal of effort being wasted here by many people, trying to maintain the quality of Wikepedia articles. Your help will be appreciated.

    Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SANTA MARIA! That page history is a mess. Honestly. Not sure what to do with that, but it appears as though Carlaude's edits are against consensus, and he is trying everything he can to dodge that consensus... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, get multiable reverts and accusations of "butchering the page" from History2007.
    I did and do make continued efforts discuss content issues... as to what edits he objected to & why.
    He has told me very little if anything.
    If you think I am "trying everything he can to dodge that consensus," please tell me how.--Carlaude (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Holy crap! (pun fully intended) That page, as edited by Carlaude fails NPOV by a long shot. Instead of discussing the dogmas, he edits the page to be a litany about the holiness of the subject. He's clearly interested in continuing to push his religiously motivated version of the page against consensus, and should be blocked and/or topic banned for it. ThuranX (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandal

    Could someone please block this vandalism only account Special:Contributions/RedHeffer- they also just edited under Special:Contributions/91.104.206.183. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AIV. Nakon 22:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is not appropriate in this case since the account last edited 3 days ago. All edits on this account since September, 2007 have been vandalism. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, like said above, pile em' up over there ---> Tiptoety talk 23:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I know about that page, but it requires that the "vandal must be active now". It isn't since it stopped 3 days ago. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to current Admin thinking, there is nothing that can be done, as the editors isn't currently active, and blocks are not punative. ThuranX (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some admins will take action against slow-motion vandals that you can never quite catch right in the act per the AIV now requirement. A couple of times I have successfully requested admin action against slo-mo vandals by pointing out periodic vandalism from an editor with multiple level-3 or level-4 warnings, even if all warnings are over a day old. Under those circumstances, escalating blocks can be justified by the admin as preventive enforcement following multiple ignored block warnings, rather than as a prohibited punitive measure. I have also seen indef blocks on (non-IP) slo-mo vandals after a burst of particularly egregious vandalism, or by admins who have exhausted their patience with the behavior, so time may be on your side. But this editor's history doesn't appear sufficiently extensive or regular to yet qualify them as a slow-motion vandal. However, it is a reason to keep the warnings current if that's what you suspect. -- Michael Devore (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that a user does not have to be active "right now" to be a vandalism only account, if they have received a final vandalism warning (sometimes that is not even required), has vandalized past it, and there only clear intention is vandalism you can report them to WP:AIV and have them blocked. Tiptoety talk 00:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a very good point, but vandal enforcement at AIV is not consistent when one steps outside the now. I have read reports rejected from AIV simply because they were stale, even when the vandal has had two or more last warnings on their talk page for the current month. There are also Jekyll and Hyde editors who occasionally make a good edit along with a bunch of vandalism. Each good edit tends to reset everything to neutral status. I almost think some vandals know this, and game the system by vandalizing, making a few minor good edits, vandalizing, rinse and repeat. The situation can frustrate non-RCP vandal-fighters when they see registered user talk pages with three or more last warnings, and no blocks in the log. It makes the "last warning" ring rather hollow. -- Michael Devore (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    user:I Write Stuff disruption

    Apparently as revenge for presenting evidence of sockpuppetry in an Arbcom case, he is wandering out Wikipedia creating nonsense pages claiming that I am a sockpuppet of one of the accused socks (see recent contribs here). I request that an admin cleanup this mess and give him a stern talking-to. - Merzbow (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I ask for a check based on sound evidence only. Merzbow edits from the same geographic location as the suspected sockpuppet. They further have the same linguistic characteristics. They have also never edited in the same time period as the other user, even though they are suppose to only be 20 miles apart. I do not see the harm in letting a neutral 3rd party finish their check, if in fact Merzbow is so sure it will be negative, no harm in confirming he is not a sockpuppet. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide some diffs for review? If not, I'm inclined to agree that your behavior borders on harassment. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those diffs would be already provided at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow, where expected, right? — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Merzbow and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Merzbow, related to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:I_Write_Stuff and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_I_Write_Stuff. I request a halt to the forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that your requests are quite patently nonsense, as the single piece of "evidence" is a post made by G33 using the SGR sock after the case started, containing obviously copy-pasted bits from my contribution history. Creating an RFCU and a SSP in addition to identical ArbCom evidence and Workshop additions is an obvious attempt at disruption. - Merzbow (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Its convenient that you state it is his sock, you, being someone in closer proximity to the socks IP, also found all the evidence. You live in the region, you obviously know how Giovanni33 writes, since you are the only one to present evidence, which you then fed to other users on their talk page to pursue. You have the same access to the same ISP's and wireless networks, except it would be easier, geographically, for you to get to them then Giovanni33, by distance. Finally, you have never posted at the same time as the sockpuppet in question, which if it requires you to travel, or to switch to a wireless network, would make complete sense. Again, if the evidence is not suspect, a neutral 3rd party admin will state it so, without you making an uproar and complaining. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm sure you're aware, requests for CU (and presumably the SSP) related to an ArbCom case must be made at that case. You seem to be desperately and disruptively forum-shopping. - Merzbow (talk) 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The complaint by Merzbow is a double-standard because actually IWS is doing nothing different than what Merzbow is doing. The methods used for the evidence are virtually identical (no comment on the actual merits or quality of the evidence, though). So, if it's good enough for him to dish this out towards others, he should be able to take it in return. What was that phrase about the kitchen and it being hot? Also, it look bad that Merzbow feel IWS investigations are such a threat that he needs to be stopped, when all he is doing is pursing a line of investigation that may uncover some important connections that could turn the tables on Merzbow's arbitration case against me. If one is interested in uncovering the truth, there is nothing to fear.Giovanni33 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This crap by I Write Stuff is an obvious violation-- it's disruptive vandalism. Giovanni, save it for the arbcom case. I'm sure everyone around here is quite tired of reading your long winded polemics that contain little actual content and skirt the edges of WP:CIVIL. The fact that you are resorting to such tactics in an effort to undermine the arbcom case against you elsewhere instead of doing much of note in the case itself is telling. Jtrainor (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have read the accusation before, it is because I use "Times1" and "Times2" for reference names. I already explained to Merzbow the folly, in that the reference name is not Times1, Wikipedia adds the increment to the end of a reference name when generating links on the page, it is how it differentiates between the multiple users when a ref name is applied. Amazing how everyone who opposes Merzbow is a sockpuppet. And next time you post from the UK, you may as well just use your IP. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly too stale for action, but if this user is a WP:SPA with no role on Wikipedia other than to disrupt articles on American politics and terrorism, then he would be covered by the proposals currently being fleshed out under the Giovanni33 arbitration. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have written more articles on Wikipedia then you, 26 or so to date. To insist I am here to do nothing but "disrupt" is clearly a foolish assumption. You have been here a significant period of time, yet I rarely see you actually writing articles. This most valuable editors are those who actually edit, instead of complain and insult on talk pages, as if they have nothing better to do. Instead of leveling accusations against me, perhaps you can go write something. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attack

    This revert came with the edit comment "rv disruptive edits that are starting to look suspiciously like racism". I demanded an expanation or apology,[93] but none has been forthcoming. Neither side is too happy with the other at this point, but I think that comment goes over a line. What say you? Andyvphil (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The particular edits reverted in the given diff do not appear to me to be racist in tone or intent. I would, however, suggest that you take my view as vindication of those edits and then move on - the best way to diffuse the situation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The reverted content, as written, may not have been meant to hint at such an agenda, but it could for some readers. I see no need for apologies but this looks like a heated content dispute to me and I hope everyone might think about calming down. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Andyvphil continuously adds needless detail about Black Liberation Theology, Trinity United Church of Christ, and Jeremiah Wright to Barack Obama despite an overwhelming consensus that these are inappropriate. The reversion I made was a response to him re-adding that same material with the addition of previously reverted material concerning another African-American politician. Many editors could see these edits as having an unpleasant, racist whiff about them. I shall be making no apologies to disruptive, bombastic and tendentious editors who seek only to push their personal points of view, particularly those who may appear to have racist motivation. I notice that this particular editor has re-added this Trinity/Wright material yet again, which only reinforces my original thinking. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that the degree to which Mr. Obama shares the views and doctrines of his church and minister (I have, btw, never added any detail about black liberation theology to Barack Obama) is central to his political viability, a legitimate and necessary subject for his biography, and a controversial question which by policy must be addressed in an NPOV fashion. Which is pretty hard to do if we can only describe his religion as "Christian(denomination: United Church if Christ)"(which the article does) and any mention of the fact that it is also Afrocentric and subscribes to a black variant of Liberation Theology that is far from the mainstream of the denomination is met with accusations of "racism", even expressed in the weaseling way that Gwen Gale ("it could for some readers...hint at such an agenda") and Scjessey ("Many editors could see these edits as having an unpleasant, racist whiff about them. I shall be making no apologies to...editors who...may appear to have racist motivation") do here. I have never encountered Ms. Gale before and I think so little of Scjessey's judgement that I am not at all distressed by his ill opinion of me, but I have to ask: You can think what you want, but if NPA means anything doesn't it mean that there will be sanctions against editors expressing such dark suspicions on such inadequate grounds? Andyvphil (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP using flagicons inappropriately (2nd time)

    The IP 71.187.44.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously adding flagicons to film and television articles, in addition to stuffing any and every possible worldwide release he can into them. Attempts to communicate with this user have failed, and the last block seems to have taught him nothing. This was already reported once here. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:86.42.90.145

    I'm a bit concerned about 86.42.90.145 (talk · contribs) who is leaving personal discriminatorary Anti-British sentiments on a number of talk pages. A warning was given on his/her talk page ([94]). It has been suggested this is an IP of a banned user ([95]). --Jza84 |  Talk  00:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Check the dates of the contribs. This account was a "sleeper" for a long time and suddenly woke up on May 9th to begin replacing "British Isles" with "British Isles and Ireland" (and similar changes). Sound familiar? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How can an IP be a sleeper? --barneca (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, only because the first two edits came over 6 months before these and were rather alike. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If an IP can be a sock, can't it be a sleeper? Doesn't matter. Don't worry about who's using the IP and concentrate on what they're doing with it. This thread was started on May 9th. That might be a coincidence, but it looks to me like a connection. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "sleeper" means an account that is created and sits silently until the four days to become "autoconfirmed" passes, before doing page move vandalism, edit warring on semi-protected pages, etc. An IP does not become autoconfirmed, so it can't be a sleeper. --Random832 (contribs) 16:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Poisonous atmosphere at John Howard

    Could I ask for an admin to review recent conflicts at John Howard, please? The atmosphere has become quite poisonous, to the extent that constructive edits and discussion are impossible. There seems to be no consensus for inclusion of certain newly-added material and the personal attacks, incivilities and downright falsehoods are piling up. I suspect that I'm being deliberately goaded through the above tactics, and I'd like to see some outside eyes on the article. It may be necessary to protect the article - either way, I don't mind, the material in question is trivial - until we can work out a consensus. --Pete (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Now, to underscore my remarks about atmosphere, there is edit-warring on the discussion page. --Pete (talk) 02:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article protected; ad hominem sections of talk page {{hat}}/{{hab}} enclosed; notice and warning left on talk page. CIreland (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cooper University Hospital‎

    Hi, I hope you can help me - I would really appreciate some advice about what path to take. There is an anon editor who keeps posting controversial material about Cooper University Hospital‎ in its article. The anon's edits have been reverted by other editors who say the info is untrue, and me because it's unsourced and has been challenged before. The anon edits from several IPs, making warning messages pointless, has not entered into dialogue on the talk page, and uses misleading edit summaries. The anon edits from 198.202.202.165, 150.131.73.89, 68.236.0.92, 69.250.190.109, 216.9.250.44, 216.9.250.40, 74.186.185.22, 68.143.37.18 and 216.9.250.106, and previously 68.236.36.160 where they were blocked for harassment and personal attacks. Is semi-protection of the article an option here? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Above and beyond issues with the IP edits, the article is atrocious. It reads like an advertisement or press release. I've tagged it accordingly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the article is terrible. Bad writing, no sources. The rest of the content seems to be non-controversial (the content, not the writing style), so it's just the info the anon is adding about gang violence that's contentious. Somno (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Happyone2 again

    I think this user did not learn. He just continued putting false info. This needs to be stopped as several other editors aside from myself are also peeved by his edits. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference: Happyone2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Can you provide any references or DIFFs? seicer | talk | contribs 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here: this and these on Mermaid Melody Pichi Pichi Pitch, and the following edits on Rina Tōin, Hanon Hōshō, and Lucia Nanami respectively: [96] [97] [98]. The said anime has currently no official English version and there's no confirmed announcement that there will be one (it has a license, but it is soon dropped). You can examine these edits as well, some reverted by Pitstain (talk · contribs): [99][100][101][102][103]

    Also, this and this on Engine Sentai Go-onger. Arrowned (talk · contribs) reverted those edits due to doubt and asked Happyone2's sources for those edits, but it seems the latter never responded.

    What kind of action do you have in mind in this matter? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    North Queensland Cowboys vandalism

    The users from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/124.187.85.212 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.220.202.31 have been vandalising the North Queensland Cowboys. This page has copped quite a bit of vandalism lately Ssiww (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You'll get a faster response at WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William M. Connolley abusing administrative authority yet again

    William M. Connolley is protecting a page he is edit warring on, again.[104]

    We brought this to the attention of WP:ANI before and even created a RfC about the abuse of Connolley blocking users he was in edit wars with at least 30 times, and has been chastized by at least three admins. The last block, he announced he was going to do break the rules before he blocked another user in an edit war. We reported it, and no one did a damn thing.

    Connolley's acts as if he is above wikipedia rules, and based on the way everyone ignores his behavior he is. Can another admin get up enough spine to tell Connolley that the rules apply to admins too?

    There are clearly two sets of rules on Wikipedia: one for admins, and one for everyone else. Such a fucking joke. Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A quick look at the history of the page in question does clearly show this admin protecting a page in which he is actively involved in a content dispute. Bstone (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deep breath. Now exhale. He semi-protected the page, in response to an edit war involving IP's. The page was shortly thereafter full-protected by another admin ([105]). It's not the call I would have made, but semi-protecting a page in the midst of an all-out edit war to which apparent IP socks are unhelpfully contributing is a bit less dramatic than the above two comments would lead one to believe. Complaints at WP:AN/I are ideally presented accurately and without breathless hyperbole. When people have to check into the complaint and find that the facts don't quite match up to the rhetoric, it makes the complaint less likely to be taken seriously. MastCell Talk 05:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everything I wrote is accurate. William is in fact protecting a page he is edit warring on. He has a history of threatening and blocking new editors he is edit warring with. The page protections edit warring rules have no exceptions. Admins are not supposed to protect pages they are edit warring on, period. Admins are not supposed to block other users they are editing on, period.
    Can I ask you a favor MastCell? Are you an Admin? Inclusionist (talk) 05:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and yes. MastCell Talk 05:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another frivolous posting and another attempt to harrass WMC. You'd think you would have learned the first time when your attempted arbcom fell flat on it's face, Travb. Jtrainor (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A horse and a stick and all that. ArbCom found no fault with WMC's previous actions on this page (see [106]),,so I highly doubt they would find fault with this (completely necessary) action. - Merzbow (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per above, placing a grossly uncivil complaint here doesn't endear you to the people you want to resolve this, especially when you're sensationalizing the issue. Anyhow, I find no problems with WMC's editing, and while I would not have done it, semi-protecting the page when IP sockpuppetry was clearly evident is fine. He isn't stopping any other users from editing, and is simply removing a venue for people to abuse the process, which was the case. The situation is fine as is - the page is protected, resolve your dispute without the overblown hyperbole that typified your initial post here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Complainant seems to be in denial about the atrocious state of the article and the long-term problems caused by Giovanni33 and his hosiery drawer. According to the arbitration case in process, this problem looks set be resolved shortly with Giovanni, his invisible friends and the nameless horde of single-purpose accounts given the long-overdue bum's rush. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article and its title are magnets for PoV warring and it looks to me as though WMC has done a fit implementation of WP:IAR. Any admin should tread so lightly and think hard before doing such a thing but he is familiar with the article (along with the editors warring over it) and widely trusted in the community. It's ok to ask about his actions but I see no consensus at all that his protection has been untowards. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Robinepowell Yet Again

    This user just came off a two week block for distruptive editing, and is already back to her old habits of edit warring and ignoring attempts to discuss things. She is making bad edits to Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7), and has ignored my requests that she stop removing the commas from the dates, and the she provide a source for her claims of completely different airdates she's claiming. As with all other issues with her, she continues to just say "she knows what's right" and refusing to actually provide a real source to back up her claim. She continues to ignore my request that she discuss, and my request that given her contentious history on these articles that she post her proposed changes to the talk page and allow discussion rather than continuing to revert. She has been blocked seven times for edit warring and her disruptive behavior. I feel stronger action is needed at this point, as she seems completely unwilling to learn, to adjust her behavior, and to work cooperatively. She's already violated 3RR on the page again, and continues to ignore the requests that she stop and that she provide a real source beyond "saw it in a forum." Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, she was reported here on April 29th, which was the result of her two week block by admin User:Pigman. Collectonian (talk) 05:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Normal block escalation would go to one month this time around. (After that, an indef block in my opinion). The editor has been notified of this ANI thread. No apparent interest in the slightest compromise; scornful edit summaries suggesting that others don't know English. This editor is already over 3RR on the above-named article today. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Multiple editors have tried to discuss/compromise, but her responses have always been scornful and/or blatantly ignoring them. I got involved when another editor asked for a third opinion and help explaining stuff to her, but the responses are still the same. Its rather tiring and frustrating that she so completely refuses to really discuss anything. The few times she did respond to talk page messages, she basically said "I'm right cause I'm Canadian" while continuing to edit war. Collectonian (talk) 17:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Annett Legal threat

    I want to get the eyes of a more experienced admin on this situation as soon as possible. An acount and an IP have both claimed to be Annett himself and are now asking that the article be removed. I blocked the acount for disruptive editing a couple of days ago and advised them to contact the Wikipedia offices through email, but it looks like he wants to handle this on the site itself. Let me know if I can help at all. Thanks in advance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if I can be honest, email communication with Wikimedia is really the only way I can see for us to confirm that the accounts do belong to this person. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    More evidence againsts Dust1235

    User creation 06:58, 26 April 2008 Dust1235 (Talk | contribs)

    BTW, They successfully deleted the SFD Template, in bad faith. All new users (and all Wikipedians) must assume good faith, and Dust disobeyed, by creating a SPA just to nominate for deletion. 122.54.90.185 (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, if you’re indeed User:Togepi 987 ([107]), you shouldn’t be editing. --Van helsing (talk) 11:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, but Dust1235 did not delete anything, since they are not an admin. They nominated a template for deletion, and the template was deleted after a consensus derived discussion with a large number of participants. Corvus cornixtalk 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please block 64.5.138.2

    Resolved
     – another six months block --Rodhullandemu 15:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This IP address was blocked for six months for repeated vandalism. It has resumed editing as if nothing ever happened. Its most recent edit to a biography of a living person is especially offensive.

    I ask that you block this IP address for another six months at least, or even a year. Since this is not a typical report for WP:AIV, I am posting here. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 14:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP belongs to Cape Henry Collegiate School.(whois) 68.220.216.108 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sock puppetting vandal

    Could an administrator please do something about this vandal. He created numerous socks to vandalize pages. See the history of Wikipedia:UAL [108] and on the talk page [109] thanks -- penubag  (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you be more specific? Nothing's jumping out at me.-Wafulz (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No one edits Wp:UAL as their first edit and there is normally never so much vandalism to a Wikipedia:prefix page. Also judging by half of the user names relating to anime characters, this is definatly the same person. Can some one ip block this guy. Thanks -- penubag  (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume you're referring to some redlinked usernames in the recent history of Wikipedia:User access levels. I think an IP block would be overkill at this point. However, semi-protecting that page would be wise, and I will request it. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violations

    User:David Shankbone has decided "out" real life people for contributing to Wikipedia Review; see his talk page and User talk:Jimbo Wales. No matter what the editor has done, Wikipedia is not the place for this, and WP:BLP applies. My first inclination was to delete/request oversight of the edits, and warn David, but given Mr Shankbone is quite popular due to his numerous image contributions, I thought I would bring it here rather than risk a wheel war (the last time I used admin tools with regards to an established contributor for obvious and knowingly violating established policies, it was undone and I didn't hear the end of it for weeks). Thoughts, please. Neıl ☎ 16:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • My thought is that Neil has a personal issue with me--he took it upon himself to go around to all articles where other users put my name in the image captions and removed them, why just me, I'm unsure--so if I get blocked then it should be by somebody other than Neil. He has a personal animus. If anyone wants my reasoning for stating that Paul Wehage is the fieryangel at the Wikipedia Review, let me know. But as Lawrence Cohen stated, our policies don't exist to protect editors of other websites. --David Shankbone 16:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • David, applying the image use policy does not amount to a personal issue - I simply noticed this while reading the last ANI thread about you. I should point out I haven't even considered blocking you - this is why I have brought it to ANI for discussion. Please do not deflect the issue with rubbish about some personal animus. I have none with you. I also note you have repeated your BLP violation. Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last ANI thread was not about me, but about User:SqueakBox, and I had started it. He had taken a false COI argument that the fieryangel--my good friend Paulie--and applied it here. You have also misapplied it, by the way, but not with removing it from the image captions. When I saw that was happening, I raised the issue myself and nobody addressed it (I can hunt through the diffs - I raised it at the time Jus4helpin was putting names, not just mine, in captions. Regardless, you overapplied it. --David Shankbone 16:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there are any other contributors who have their name in the article's image caption (whether put there by themselves or by someone else), feel free to let me know the name and I will work on removing those, too. It is quite hard to find them unless the name is known. Neıl ☎ 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether an editor has been here for five years or five minutes is irrelevant. If a user is using Wikipedia to further some sort of vendetta and are in danger of bringing the project into disrepute, all steps have to be taken to stop them doing so, whether they be Shankbone or Willy on Wheels. Suggest indefinite block as the post above shows the outing will not stop George The Dragon (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think an indefinite block is warranted or appropriate. An agreement to stop would suffice, providing David's various BLP violations - which he is continuing - are deleted or oversighted. I would like a neutral admin to step in here. Note the link David provides doesn't even back up his assertion - all it states is that a user holds the copyright to a piece of work on a person Wikipedia has an article on, nothing more.Neıl ☎ 16:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an admin, but I just wanted to ask why (possibly re-)revealing who Musikfabrick is/who fieryangel is is so important? What does it matter, really? Wouldn't just not doing it lead to less drama/in-fighting? I agree he may have done you some harm, but really, how does (re-)outing/revealing his identity him help the encyclopedia? And obviously an indefinite block is over-the-top. Mahalo, David. --Ali'i 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tried to stay out of this mess, if that make me neutral enough. And I've never contributed to WR, And I consider myself a friend and general supporter of David S. I agree that the talk pages text there does not prove the identity, especially since a/copyright was asserted for more than 1 article, but never proven, and b/J-T B says it was an account used by several people (in apparent ignorance of our prohibition against that). As for people at WR, I suggest the safest rule is that we should stay clear of any not explicitly admitted corresponding WP identities, and in fact it might even be well that the correspondence be explictly admitted here, not just in WR--do we want to accept their standards? David, please redact. I dont think this calls for oversight, but thats up to OTRS and the office if there's a complaint. I am undecided about the part of attributing real people to purely WR identities. DGG (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-I do not see any BLP vios, David Shankbone did "out" (in the Wikipedian sense of the word) another editor. My main point is that the title of this section in innacurate--It's not a BLP vio, it's this Wikipedian idea of "outing" that is the problem. daveh4h 17:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I suppose if the question is one of importance then it's not "Important" - except that over on Jimbo's page you had yet another person, this time an IP editor spreading Wehage's FALSE BLP INFORMATION ABOUT DAVID SHANKBONE there. Not one person has removed that, not one person has asked for oversight. My reputation both on and off Wiki has been damaged by Wehage, and I encourage anyone who also feels the same, including Newyorkbrad, to contact me. I have his I.P. address. I have evidence. But I do note that both Lawrence and Neil left up the BLP violation about me, nobody has removed it, but yet I have violated no policy. I haven't outed anyone. I found out who someone was off-sight, and then found out they outed themselves here. So, I have violated no policy. Yet I have been one of the most constructive and productive contributors to this site, and few people seem concerned with my reputation - only those of offsite trolls. --David Shankbone 17:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest we forget, David Shankbone does not actually exist outside of your own imagination George The Dragon (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...BLP doesn't apply to editors. Shankbone isn't your given name. I redacted the outing only, I don't know about anything else, because I saw a good contributor--you--doing something that could get him banned. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, David Shankbone is the subject of several mainstream media articles. You all need to start acting like it's a BLP, because that name is tied to me whether any of us like it or not. Just because "George the Dragon" hasn't done anything noteworthy doesn't mean other people here haven't. --David Shankbone 17:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any other User:Something that we have applied BLP standards to? I think this would be a new thing... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We simply can't go allow slander and defamation of editors on this site. Many of us have editor names that, because our work here became noteworthy off-wiki, is tied to us. That makes it a stage name, a pen name, or whatever else you want to call it. It's beyond the realm of comprehension that some of us would not see that. And I'm not the only one - asked TonytheMarine, User:Durova, User:SlimVirgin, et al. --David Shankbone 17:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you outing anyone, anyway? If said slander and defamation is occurring on wikipedia, we have ways to deal with that (and outing people is not part of it, last I checked). If it is occurring off-wiki, deal with it off-wiki. Outing someone here because of something they did elsewhere seems quite juvenile. --Kbdank71 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of BLP is that it applies to all living people. So unless we have zombies on Wikipedia, I'd say that the general principle applies to editors. That said, it applies to WR editors, as well. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    David, please place here or send to me -any- comment on WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. Anyway, she has never even had account on wikipedia so what she writes on another site, is her own affair, and if you are equating her with a Wikipedia editor you can't have got that correct, nor could you prove it as there is no evidence for it. She's said she's never had an account on wikipedia, and we have no reason to doubt that. If you've outed her (I've not looked at the edits concerned, but you've just admitted it) you are outing (and by doing so, sort of harrassing someone who is not even on this site so is entirely entitled to voice her opinions on another site- it's no business of this site to have on it identifying material about an unrelated person who happens to disagree with some things on this site but has a complete right to voice her opinions without attempted, and probably wrong anyway, outing from an editor here. Lawrence- TFA is not even an editor here, and yes, even for editors who are outed by others here, we remove identifying info.Merkin's mum 17:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "WR by thefieryangel where she agrees with the outing of NewYorkBrad. I doubt it. " Merkin - you appear entirely unfamiliar with the situation and the actors involved if you are writing that. Anyway, I think I have said enough...I will allow you all to discuss this. I'm on Wikibreak. Paul: Lulz! --David Shankbone 17:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    for t hat matter, false information posted here should in fact be removed--the rule against outing -- or untrue attempted outing --protects widely in both directions & applies to anything connected with an identity. David's right there. It applies to all. DGG (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone actually _read_ BLP? If it applies to editors _as editors_, we first ought to shut down WP:AIV, since those vandalism reports aren't backed by reliable secondary sources. This noticeboard would be second, then arbcom etc. --Random832 (contribs) 17:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look, I think personally, it may be time to abandon anon and pseudonymous editing, as I've opined elsewhere, but the policy here is to allow it, and to enforce allowance. As long as that's policy, I'm behind it, regardless of personal opinion. Therefore, except under certain tightly controlled circumstances as outlined in the m:Privacy policy, and/or in matters related to articles, in accordance with WP:BLP policy, no one should be revealing private information about others against their wishes, whether true or false. No one. We cannot control what is done at non WMF sites but it's not something to be encouraged here. Period. I don't think it matters whether one is a WR participant or not. I don't know all the particulars here, but if people are outing the particulars of David's pseudonymous identity, that's wrong, the information should be deleted or oversighted and the people cautioned or sanctioned. But that goes both ways. If David is outing the particulars of other people's pseudonmymous identity, that is also not to be tolerated and should be dealt with the same way. Regardless of how much of a Meatball:VestedContributor David may or may not be. No free passes. ++Lar: t/c 17:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for deleted revisions and history.

    May I have the latest good version of International Task Force on Preventive Diplomacy and the history to my email ref otrs:1543555. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It was verbatim from here so probably easier to re-cut-and-paste it. I can mail it on if you want but there's nothing different that I can see. — iridescent 17:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, would you be able to send me the editors username, if the article is usable or can be made into a neutral verifiable article, I want to attribute the initial edit to whomever made it. NonvocalScream (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's probably a better idea to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:DRV#Temporary review for requests like this in the future - AN/I is intended for incident reports. krimpet✽ 17:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With all my time on wiki, and I never noticed that.  :) Seems easy enough, thanks. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Xgmx

    The IP address posted to Talk:Main page requesting an unblock on his main account. I am inclined to refuse and to suggest protecting his talk page. He says he is sorry, but his actions don't support his words. Calling Daniel Case a "rogue admin" whose bans are meaningless does not signify remorse. Unless I'm missing something, I suggest an admin block the IP address and protect Xgmx's talk page, and suggest that he may start out under a new account if he promises not to make trouble anymore and not to reveal the connection to his old account (per WP:SOCK). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=212156496"