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 87.114.128.88 (talk) at 19:24, 14 December 2008 (→‎Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag': wow, huge torrent of speedys from same user). 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


    NoCal100

    Following complaint posted unsigned by Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs). JaakobouChalk Talk 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NoCal100 is obviously a sock puppet of an established or banned account. NoCal100’s use of the complaints procedures has been phenomenally fast for a ‘new account’. The method of attacks on Calton at Sellick666 in tandem with MegaMom (one wonders how many sockpuppets she's bred) to gain status is suspect and typical sockpuppet behaviour.

    NoCal100, often, promotes POV by insisting that there is consensus in his/her attempts to flout the rules for dealing with POV. NoCal100 stalls improvements to articles through false claims of consensus, these are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia, alternatively, NoCal100 might insist that there is "no consensus" for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with POV.

    Acting in tandem as a tagteam Nocal100 and Jayjg accounts should therefore be considered one.

    This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

    It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus in a manner that places inaccurate and misleading information in wikipedia [1]

    a) Banias

    With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

    i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

    His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

    John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

    ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

    repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

    b) Shaufat

    again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

    NoCal100:-

    No one was yet living in them.

    quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.

    NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

    c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

    From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

    Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

    NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

    The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.[1][2][3]

    d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

    e) NoCal100 bad faith edits [2] category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions [3] [4] blatant POV

    f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV [5]

    g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine [6]

    The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking.[7]

    h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

    i) NoCal100 bad faith edits [8] the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (in the English speaking world it was only known as Stern gang).

    j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

    k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

    l) NoCal100 bad faith edits here the article is about the Semitic use of ADN from ancient to modern not just the Hebrew variant.

    m) NoCal100 bad faith edits using I don't like it delete technique here

    n) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem and still break 3RR here on 19 Nov 2008 (no penalty from admin)

    o) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem again claiming consensus where there obviously is none. here on 19 Nov 2008

    p) NoCal100 I don't like it edits POV edit here King of Jordan is not relevant to the Arab league (where the King of Jordan speaks of his hands being tied by the Arab league) yet NoCal100 finds that the mufti in Germany prior to the conception of the Arab league is relevant, strange edit basis.

    q) NoCal100 bad faith edits

    Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people.

    Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here

    NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

    original here

    And then on 1 December 2008 NoCal100 changes his mind on definition of massacre here

    Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.

    • Lipman ambush
    • Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
    • Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
    • Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
    • Liliental attack
    • Morris massacre
    • Oren massacre
    • Middle East Institute ambush
    • Ovendale ambush
    • Hutcheson ambush
    • Higgins incident
    • Love massacre/ambush
    • Neff ambush

    or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

    r) NoCal100 bad faith edits here. Use of the word terrorist..complete POV. The perpetrators were never caught, the main conclusion from Jordanian and UN investigations was that it was robbery, Israel's evidence was found to be incorrect and the Jordanian and UN version confirmed when ID from the robbery was found in Gaza several years later. How can you tell the motivating force without confirmation from either a group claiming responsibility or evidence, apparently NoCal100 is able to.

    s)NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in collusion again here making controversial edits. The fact that the West Bank article has sections about alternative names one wonder why Nocal100 and Jayjg want to place a controversial name in the lead?

    t) T stands for tag team NoCal100 and Jayjg here

    The term "Judea and Samaria" is also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and is often employed specifically as a collective reference to the Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters.[4][5][6] Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.[7]

    NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking pattern:-

    [9] [10] [11] [12] and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here

    • 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
    • 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
    • 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

    Gilo [13]

    • (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
    • (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
    • 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) (again after no previous record of editing gilo)

    Palestine Liberation Organization [14]

    17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani
    17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO
    previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles and strong sockpuppet behavioural pattern.here

    [15] Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. GBT/C 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    SSP is down the hall, first door on the right ... ►BMW◄ 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But with 73 open cases dating back over a month, who the hell considers WP:SSP to still be even remotely worthwhile? Except in the most blatantly obvious cases (two users named User:JohnQPretty and User:JaneQPretty editing the same article), nothing gets done...yes, I'm off topic. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I could mention WP:RFC/USER, however that process isn't exactly without it's faults either. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RFCU seems like the proper place for this sock allegation.
    p.s. I added a note at the top to register Ashley kennedy3 who forgot to sign their complaint.
    Cheers, JaakobouChalk Talk 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I have no idea who NoCal100 is a sockpuppet for RfCU is inappropriate as it would then require a fishing expedition to find the account of the operator. I did sign it at the bottom 3 minutes prior to your post jaakobou but at the head is a better position due to the length, thanks..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not even remotely the right place for this -- a bitter content dispute masquerading as a sock report (which, even if true, isn't against the rules). IronDuke 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As IronDuke notes, this is actually a content dispute. What Ashley K somehow forgot to mention is that he is just off a 5 week block- one week for egregious personal attacks against me, and an additional 4 weeks for block-evading sockpuppetry. During that 5 week block, he continuously monitored my every edit to Wikipedia, compiling on his Talk page a list of "bad faith edits" - i.e - every edit he didn't like, and as soon as his block expired, put that list here on AN/I, under the guise of a "sock puppettry" report - for which he of course produces no evidence. This is a thinly disguised attempt at some sort of retribution. I might add that since the block expired, he has followed me around to at least 3 articles, including a new one I created and successfully nominated for DYK, to undo my edits there; canvassed editors to pile on at this AN/I report; and continued his personal attacks against me, on my user page and Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    It's about blatant POV from an obvious sockpuppet deletionist. If he knew anything about a topic he would add to wiki...If you care to read the incidents it is about bad faith edits by NoCal100. It is not about his sockpuppetry of which his behavioural pattern is indicative...His/her bad faith edits are about NoCal's inconsistencies...pure and simply put he/she is using double standards....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring at Banias

    I just blocked Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs) for edit-warring with NoCal100 (talk · contribs) at Banias. Ashley was at 3RR,[16][17][18] then an anon, 208.246.78.90 (talk · contribs) came in and reverted her for "pov pushing",[19] Ashley reverted again,[20] and I blocked Ashley for 1 week. I'm torn on how to handle NoCal100's involvement. Even if the anon was him, he did not violate 3RR (just barely, by a couple hours). Ashley kennedy3 has a hefty block log,[21] and just came off a one month block for abusing multiple accounts, so a block of Ashley's account was obviously reasonable. However, NoCal100 hasn't been blocked since October.[22] He has, however, been repeatedly accused (by Ashley) of socking/meatpuppetry, apparently connected to Calton (talk · contribs) and Jayjg (talk · contribs), though I'm unaware of any conclusive evidence.

    So the options are:

    • Block NoCal100 and the anon for edit-warring; or
    • Request CheckUser confirmation; or
    • Give NoCal100 a stern warning, and potentially a formal notification of WP:ARBPIA sanctions; or
    • Something else? Any other admins have an opinion here?

    --Elonka 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He's already notified of the ArbCom sanctions. I guess a short block could be justified, considering he was edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Block him for... possibly editng while logged out, though he didn't violate 3rr and there's no evidence it was him? And is there a purpose in repeating what are so far baselss allegations by a user with a huge block log here? If edit-warring is a concern, warning NoCal would be the first step, and letting him explain. This is quite premature. IronDuke 23:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did post a note at NoCal100's page to notify him of this thread,[23] and ask him to comment. --Elonka 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If it were for the edit-war alone, I would suggest to unblock Ashley and warn both editors. However, that is not the case (tone of the 2nd revert, for example). Still, if Ashley makes a note of finally understanding why she is repeatedly sanctioned. i.e. WP:NPA violations such as this one: NoCal100 is a suspected sockpuppet he gets no points, then I would consider supporting an unblock request with favour. Ashley needs acknowledging the problem though (I suggest WP:NAM). JaakobouChalk Talk 00:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As a creative ArbCom sanction, how about a 1-week topic ban on NoCal100 from editing articles in the Palestine-Israel topic area? He would still be allowed to participate at talk, but not to actually edit the articles. That would be lighter than a block, and would be comparable to the block that Ashley kennedy3 is under. Does that sound fair? --Elonka 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that NoCal has, from evidence presented, done absolutely nothing wrong, a topic ban would be quite excessive. Even-handedness is not a good in and of itself, one must take cognizance of the actual behavior of the participants in question. IronDuke 06:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry IronDuke, but isn't edit-warring wrong? My last block for 3RR in September 2007 was doled out even though I had made only 3 reverts in 24 hours and I was the one who had filed the 3RR report (against an editor who later turned out to be a sockpuppet). What happened to there is no excuse for edit-warring? Tiamuttalk 16:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I can say with confidence that WP:edit war is an open invitation to confusion, incoherence, and bad feeling. I looked at your block and... I disagree with it. (Surprised?) Indeed, I find such blocks will lead to greater disruption, as users are less likely to file 3rr reports when they can get blocked for making one. IronDuke 17:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    reposting this from my Talk page, where I have already responded to Elonka's earlier questions. I want to commend you for not jumping to any hasty and unwarranted conclusions while I was offline. My comments are simple: I am not the anon IP who reverted prior to Ashley's 4th revert. I have no problem with you blocking that IP address, or running a checkuser to confirm what I am claiming. If you'd like, I can also e-mail you, in private, my IP address and how to validate it without needing a CU. I realize I was drawn into an edit war and reverted more than I probably should have (though, as you note, I did not violate 3RR, nor did I revert after your warning on the Talk page) - due in part to being quite upset at having Ashley come off his 5 week block for personal attacks against me, and immediately continuing his personal attacks - calling me a vandal, and a sockpuppet, without a shred of evidence. As a gesture of goodwill, I am willing to withdraw from the Banias article for the duration of Ashley's block, so it does not seem like I am taking advantage of his block to "win" the content dispute. I am totally opposed to a topic ban, which is excessive, and goes against the rule that blocks are preventive rather than punitive. I did not ask for Ashley to be blocked , let alone have him blocked for a week, and it is unacceptable that I should be subject to some 'comparable block' just because he was blocked, when I did nothing similar to what he did. NoCal100 (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    'As a gesture of goodwill, I am willing to withdraw from the Banias article for the duration of Ashley's block',

    Translation. 'To show what a nice chap I am, I will wait till the person I wikistalk is out of gaol before going after him again.' For the record, NoCal is a stalker though making the point is futile, knows nothing of I/P articles or background, and goes after good editors with persistence. He does not discuss the merits of edits at any length if at all, mainly reverts, and, as in the most recent instance, and elsewhere at articles like Shuafat, seems to have anonymous I/P editors who back his moves. He keeps his nose clean, but has bloodied those of many experienced editors sick and tired of his behaviour. I don't know whether he's a sockpuppet. I like many others with strong informal knowledge of the flow from article to article, are 100% convinced he edits to no good, but simply to scalp or take out pro-Palestinian editors. Nothing can be done about this, since most of us are fed up with his behaviour, which cleaves to the rules, while tripling the amount of time we waste in defending articles from his delapidations. We're fed up with the excruciatingly boring waste of time remonstrating through the labyrinths of arbitration to prove the obvious. I personally suggest taking NoCal and co to book should never be adopted. At the same time admins with a fair degree of area knowledge of our respective behaviours should begin to use discretionary warnings when these obvious patterns of abuse repeat themselves, without having to be tipped off by 'grassers' or 'pimps', which only leads to obnoxious partisan duelling at Arbcom pages. My advice to Ashley is to leave Wikipedia, until some rules on overseeing abusive editors who do not contribute substance but track about for fights are in place. My advise to administrators is to look at Ashley's actual contributions to wiki pages, as opposed to his short fuse, which people like noCal persistently light. He is, like Ceedjee, a very good content editor, and it is a shame that content editors, sick and tired of bureaucratic bickering and wikilawyering which make sensible levelheaded edits an obstacle course, are dropping out. In Ashley's case, these abuses have seen him punished twice, while the harasser cruises on, without a bruise to his record. At the moment, working on I/P articles is farcical, thanks in good part to the solidarity NoCal and others enjoy from people who should have more sense, and see beyond the legalese to the actual quality of what editors bring or fail to bring to the project. Nishidani (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome back Nish,
    Is there possibly something you'd like to strike through from the above message for WP:NPA's sake? I note you to "comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people.".
    Sample considerations:
    Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 14:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not back, and will not be back to edit unless something is done to cancel that warning on my page. I read occasionally, and am ashamed to see a very constructive editor punished successively in this manner, while a useless editor gets off with his gaming scot-free. I don't care for civility or ad hominem links. I see civility in the way people edit, i.e., knowledgeably and collaboratively, not in their watching their p's and q's while they drive hardworking editors up the wall with tendentious stalling and stalking tactics. Anyone can see what is going on. I have clashed strongly with Ashley, with Ceedjee and several others on my side, and I would suggest Israeli/Jewish editors begin to take a leaf out of our book, and notch up our respect by showing they too can deal with abuses on their own side, without involving everyone in administrative review processes. The way Ashley, Ceedjee and a few others challenged each other consolidated a very good working rapport, also with Israeli editors on key articles. This is a matter of record.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple weeks ago, you were given a 3rd level warning for making a personal attack[24] and I believe it would be beneficial for the project if you choose to amend this current "p's and q's" issue.
    Cordially, JaakobouChalk Talk 18:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cordially reminding you that you admin-shopped to get me warned, and that the admin is a mathematician with a zero-grade ability, to judge from the the way he reviewed the evidence, in interpreting English. Apart from what appears to be a gesture of ethnic solidarity with you. I've no intention, if that is what you are worried about, of further contributing to wiki when ethnic sympathies govern administrators, in addition to an inability to construe simple evidence. So there's no need to continue this conversation, since I am only back to register a protest on behalf of a fine editor, (with his faults) who has again received poor treatment over the last 5 weeks, while those who don't contribute substantively are thriving. Old men, who in their real lives have never had the question of their civility raised, dislike these jejune and mechanical reminders, especially from the younger generation. Nishidani (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting statement: "... the admin is a mathematician with a zero-grade ability, to judge from the the way he reviewed the evidence, ..." .. Could you please explain how this is not another personal attack?
    It looks to me here that you are not willing to set an old statement aside, and try to work either together, or try to keep away from each other. There is no need to state these remarks (personal attacks) over and over again. You have a right to your opinion, but you don't have to keep on stating that here (and one can even question if it needs to be stated anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you find my statement interesting. I might say the same for yours. Of course you have a right to your opinion, even if it has nothing to do with the issue, here, concerning NoCal, and why he is driving out editors of substance. My remarks were directed at NoCal's behaviour. They were interrupted by an interested party who has a vested interested in pushing the view that I indulge in personal attacks in order to undermine the opinions I ventured on NoCal. Naturally, in defence(since posting these wikiquette comments endlessly has an instrumental function, that of building up over time the impression that a repeated insinuation must have some truth to it) I reminded that person of the circumstances regarding my own case. Since you evidently haven't any knowledge of the background to either dispute, and evidently have not studied (I don't blame you) the page where I demonstrated that Arthur Rubin failed to construe straightforward English in context, I fail to see why you thought this comment necessary. To call a spade a spade, or a failure to read a simple English statement a 'zero grade ability' to construe that language may be hyperbole, but it is not a personal attack, anymore than noting that a person who crashes cars when he drives is an atrocious (instead of a bad) driver is a personal attack. This is about NoCal, not me. Thank you.Nishidani (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I just found that my name has been used and feel I should speak for myself. I had already posted the following at Banias, where I have been active. I neither know how to, nor care to[provide links to these sockpuppet investigations]; someone else should. I object to the deletion of sourced material relevant to the facts of Banais. It is the water; it has been the availability of that water throughout history, as I noted before. Future availability makes it important today; it is a continuum. Deletion by stilted, POV'd view shouldn't fly, particularly where hiding this association seems Wiki-endemic and is politically advantageous to keep it that way.

    I think I ran into NoCal100 first at Hasbani River, when he made these 2 edits[25] and I tried to correct them[26]. The POV I objected to was the change from a Lebanese river to one in Israel. I had sourced that, it is still a Lebanese river. NoCal100 made a slew of edits, after I left the scene; it all ended with the article looking like this[27]. Back to a river in Israel, so much for sources, NPOV and other wiki-stuff for NoCal100. Frankly, sometimes this all seems like a waste of time, but then....

    I am also quite suspicious when things like ‘un-needed quotes’ are used in an edit summary, since I have learned about that little ball to play with, [here].

    I do believe NoCal100 has followed me around, because it seems quite often now to bump into him. This [28] is the start of one that goes on for four additional edits and is current. I am sure there were more in the past

    My pov is different from the NPOV I use in making edits. If you feel that this is soapy, then please consider this edit[29] or this one[30]; you might get a hint of the NPOV problem Wikipedia has in the I/P area. The fact that both of these have been able to sustain themselves over time, [no-diff] and [31] indicates that there was something either hidden or not fully discussed. Trust me, it is the long-time modus operendi, or at least a style. These are only two of many Black holes within Wiki’s I/P universe. We shall see how long these last, after mentioning them here.

    I have little to say in what you do or don’t do about NoCal100, but he will absolutely continue to pull this un-Wiki-like stuff, if you do nothing. Best that you do something, draw a line, just say no, whatever. Something that at least shows your eyes are open. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comment; however, can you be more specific about "un-wiki-like stuff" or "draw a line"? We can't put a restriction that says, "Don't do stuff". Restrictions are more often worded as, "Don't revert more than once per day on an article," "Don't remove citations to reliable sources", "Don't edit these three articles, but you're still allowed to participate at talk", "If you add anymore unsourced material, you will be blocked," etc. What is it that you think would be most helpful? --Elonka 19:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Charles Dickens

    Resolved
     – Page semi-protected until 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC); future issues should be reported to WP:RFPP. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recommend protecting the page, having a rash of similar vandalism from multiple IPs. Ndenison talk 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please file future reports at WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Extreme personal attacks

    How in the world is 86.40.99.86 (talk · contribs) still editing here after this and this? I realize he got a warning, but my God. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Those edits were over 12 hours ago and his edits since then were less incivil. Unless he continues again there really is no grounds for blocking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support a block nonetheless. The user's comments since the warning (at 1338 UTC on 11 Dec) have been rather incivil in my view, such as: "Your understanding of art is fundamentally scewed", and calling editors "nihilistic partisans who see no problem in blatant child abuse". The first comment also suggests the IP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Except a block may be worse than pointless, since there is no evidence that this is a static IP, meaning that the person who committed the attacks would be free to edit via some new IP, and innocent users may be blocked instead. The reason we don't block stale IP vandalism is precisely for those 2 reasons. Blocking a stale IP address is not considered merely for the content of their vandalism, only on the effectiveness of stopping that vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't necessarily call this stale; the IP's last edit occurred less than 10 minutes before this thread was created- less than 4 hours ago. Also, I didn't mean to suggest an indef block; I think a 12 or 24h block would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Although the issue is likely stale now, I do not believe it was so when submitted, and a short block would have been appropriate. Further uncivil behavior should result in an immediate block: we simply cannot tolerate this level of discourse. — Satori Son 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified the IP of this discussion in any case. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The account master of this IP (User:DenisHume) has been blocked indefinately. Please see the talk page of that account and respond to this blatant abuse of power with some conviction. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.222.9 (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is editing here, and back on the page that got them in trouble, in evasion of the block[32] - shouldn't those comments be removed and the IP blocked, at least temporarily? 14:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
    DenisHume is blocked from editing his own talk page. Keeping it blocked while simultaneously blocking IP addresses he can use has the effect of silencing him completely, except for email. Given that the IP block will expire in two days nothing needs to be done about it now but I recommend lifting the talk-page-block within a reasonable amount of time. The original block of DenisHume was 1 week, it seems reasonable to lift the talk-page-block on a trial basis at that time. COI disclaimer: I am actively involved in this discussion and I probably have some personal feelings invested in the matter, so you should assume my recommendation is not without bias. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC) He is now allowed to edit his own talk page. He is also showing signs of wanting to become a responsible editor in 2009. His block remains indef, which, as someone recently said elsewhere, is no the same as infinite. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is it time to mark this "resolved?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pixelface

    User:Pixelface legitimately is concerned with issues with fiction on WP, however, the user's behavior is known to be a problem in terms of his/hers attitude and tendentious editing. The user often challenges the core pages for fiction (WP:NOT, WP:FICT) by directly changing them and challenges the assertions that long-standing text has/had consensus. Generally this resolves to talk page discussion. However, just recently, Pixelface has boldly altered both WP:WAF (a "stable" guideline considered under WP:UPDATE) and WP:NOT and WP:N, stripping mentions of sites housed on Wikia under the pretense that we should not be even mentioning Wikia due to a "conflict of interest" (which I will note there are other discussions around that refute this claim) among other aspects. Those changes have been reverted, but instead of following WP:BRD, the user continues to revert back to their version. This is more than just a one time 3RR - Pixelface has approached this point many times in the past, and generally after some fiction-related incident comes up that raises high concerns for the user. (In this case, it appears to rise from his/hers strong opposition to User:Sgeureka's admin candidacy as you can see by the rant posted here).

    I have in the past put a WQA for Pixel's tendentious editing which was resolved, but this recent rash of behavior (including the consistent claims of COI for Wikia without any evidence) is becoming disruptive to the currently active and positive discussion at WP:FICT among other places, and more than just etiquette but appropriate editing behavior. Yes, the user may not like how policies and guidelines result in the change of how we cover fiction, but there's a point where attacking the policies at the nitty-gritty details (eg, the current complaint on WAF is that it was only proposed for 18 days, and then made a guideline, despite not being challenged for 2+ years, and that the editor that created it is no longer present); Pixelface uses a similar approach to try to strip WP:NOT#PLOT despite strong consensus every time it comes up to keep it.

    Despite the fact that Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation in the present situations for WP:NOT and WP:WAF, I think there needs to be some type of admin action here, because this is a repeatable pattern, and the continual challenges to things shown to have consensus are disruptive. --MASEM 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with Masem's summary. For months now, Pixelface has continued to be disruptive and pointy in his/her continued campaign to removal limits on fictional content and against the mention of Wikia within Wikipedia. From his own talk page, he seems to feel Wikipedia is in some kind of competition with Wikia and that almost implies that there is a grand conspiracy to drive traffic to Wikia to up people's bottom lines. He even notes that "Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Wikipedia policies and guidelines." As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR, but usually only by waiting days or even weeks, then reverting again there by "avoiding" 3RR. Such as his recent edits at WP:N: bold change on November 9 which was reverted, November 24th] Pixelface reverts despite having no consensus at all in the talk page discussion, again on November 26th despite still having absolutely no consensus at all, and finally on December 12th after discussion had already stopped. At WP:NOT, he continously removed the WP:PLOT section, which eventually resulted in an AN/I. He first removed on October 21st, was reverted, reverted on same day. Change was reverted again, and Pixelface re-reverted for two, then stopped until November 3rd where he returned and again removed the section despite no consensus for this removal. His nearly systematic attacks on anything he feels is limiting fictional content on Wikipedia is disruptive (not to mention downright aggravating). There is a difference between legitimately questioning existing guidelines and just continuing to attack them and edit them despite the continued lack of consensus for his many changes.
    He's also displayed various bouts of incivility during his discussions, in his edit summaries, and while defending/promoting his views. In a recent AfD, he responded keep then questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site[33] His remarks during the recent Jack Merridew discussion really speak for themselves[34]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had trouble with Pixelface's obsessive behaviour before now, too. The Wikia thing is really a Wikipedia Review meme - Wikia is a legitimate way of removing cruft form Wikipedia without being excessively WP:BITEy. Fanboys are not going to go away, so best to divert the excesses of fandom to somewhere more appropriate. I don't see this as a problem, as the Wikipedia community (which writes the guidelines) has no financial relationship with Wikia. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has there been a user conduct RfC on this before? I'm not sure that immediate adminstrative action is required, though it's certainly worth having a discussion about potential solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not exactly alone in the shall-we-say-colourful-exchange department WRT the whole notability/fan/tv/etc. issue...oh heck, I am doing a million other things at the moment and now I have to go and read more...(sigh)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so, but not from lack of certification. He's always seemed to be a bit obtrusive and annoying to me. Sceptre (talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I check in on the Fiction wars every once in a while, and it seems to me that Pixelface is engaged in long-term edit warring and is unwilling to accept any consensus that is contrary to his own opinions. He (and many others) have been cautioned by Arbcom before (though not by name) to stop edit-warring and incivility, and it seems to have had little long-term impact on his behavior. An RfC would at least allow the community to better determine the extent of the disruption, and if the poor behavior does not stop the evidence may be used later to determine appropriate remedies. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixelface is allowed to propose or oppose anything he likes, regardless of consensus. I feel that Masem is trying to make a point by initiating this and the last the last complaint he has made against Pixelface. Their vague and generalised nature means that they can neither be proven nor repudiated. The complaint that "the user's behavior is known to be a problem" seems to me to be an example of weasel words, and is not substantiated in any way. This discussion is little more than a thinly disguised personal attack and this matter should be closed without further delay. --Gavin Collins (talk) 04:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse Gavin's statement that this is an improper attack upon Pixelface's legitimate lobbying on matters of policy. More generally, our policy/guideline pages seem to be too open to the addition of prescriptive rules contrary to our policies WP:NOTLAW and WP:BURO. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and we should not seek to stifle the natural opposition to the ever-growing thicket of supposed rules and regulations here. Open debate and challenge is required to provide a proper check and balance. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pixel's allowed to argue against any policy/guideline he wants (though his tone and nature are bordering the edges of being civil, but that's not actionable on ANI), and making a single bold change to a policy/guideline to see if it sticks is completely fine per WP:BRD. But this is not the first time that Pixel's reverted a reversion to one of his bold changes that occurred within minutes of the change, and reverting to the point where a 3RR warning can technically be given should not be done - as an experienced editor he should be aware of this. This is the specific concern that may have required administrative action that I brought here. --MASEM 14:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Masem (07:16) "Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation"
    Ok, was aware of 3RR, and didn't. Take it to RfC, not ANI.
    Collectonian (08:05): "...questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site...[35]"
    Looks ok to me. Read WP:NPA. Behavior is commentable, and questioning unusual behavior is not incivil.
    Collectonian (08:05): "As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR..."
    Hm, looks like you did a 3RR tango on Nov 27 [36]. So, your complaint is inclusively that you have stepped over the 3RR line, but Pixelface didn't quite do so. Pot-Kettle.
    JzG/Guy (09:50): "Pixelface's obsessive behaviour"
    Pot-Kettle.
    JzG/Guy (09:50): "is really a Wikipedia Review meme"
    Pixelface is an awesome investigative researcher. Trust me that you do not want to drive him/her to WR – or much worse, into the arms of the mainstream press that has already raised global eyebrows on Wikipedia's hand-waving of higher-ups' COI issues.

    ←Perhaps I can be most helpful toward dispute resolution by explaining why Pixelface is being made an example for a larger-but-suppressed fiction-content dispute at Wikipedia.
    • A known WP anti-contemporary-fiction clique (cabals are secret) includes higher-ups who cling to a faded vision of Wikipedia as a trustworthy academic competitor of Britannica. (As things have turned out, competitor yes, trustworthy academic no, for several reasons.)
    So, they reason, WP must do as Britannica does and doesn't. Britannica doesn't do contemporary fiction, so this particular clique is on a mission to marginalize contemporary fiction at WP. The problem is that as-Britannica vision is not what a large percentage of WP readers want to read. The reason is simple. Britannica readers statistically skew older, and Wikipedia readers skew younger.
    The limited evidence suggests to me that up to 40% of Wikipedia editors strongly to moderately disagree with the fiction guidelines and policies, perhaps another 40% don't care, and maybe 20% are strong supporters of the fiction-limiting guidelines and policies. Among this anti-contemporary-fiction 20% are clique hard-liners connected all the way to the top. All such connected cliques in every organization get a lot of mid-level plus rank-and-file support. The younger pro-fiction 40% don't have connections, and I've watched at least one pro-fiction editor go silent as soon as he got connected. (Maybe it's the classic right-left political mix.) If such a 40-40-20 percentage mix is fairly representative of WP's contemporary fiction situation, under other circumstances a large opposed minority would be considered a WP "no consensus", and a compromise might be brokered. None has been, and suppression of contemporary fiction interests continues - the latest being ill-considered transportation of swaths of contemporary fiction editing effort to Wikia.
    • Not to criticize Masem who may not have known the suppressed backstory, but this ANI-excess case against Pixelface is another hierarchy-bias railroading of interests of maybe 40% of editors: pro-fiction, younger, less connected, for whom Pixelface indirectly speaks.

    The larger consequences of scapegoating or ignoring Pixelface:

    A. Sooner or later Wikipedia is going to be hurting for donations. Maybe not this year or next, but inevitably. Why should WP simply hand those donations over to Wikia in the form of ad revenue - in the name of some snooty pretense that Wikipedia has not outlived the original Britannica vision? (Insert pseudo-academic argument about how anti-contemporary-fiction principles trump money. 9>9)
    Rather than evicting thousands of editor-hours of in-universe marketable hard work to Wikia alone, recognize the suppressed reality that there's no fiction consensus on Wikipedia. Compromise by forming a WikiFictpedia. If editors and readers there want to write and read individual articles on every notable character ever written, so what? (WP:NOTPAPER) Think! Let them do it and help collect Wikimedia Foundation donations for the servers here.
    B. Pay more serious attention to Pixelface's and others' conflict-of-interest warnings. The press has already seriously trashed Wikipedia for COI - root it out before the bashing gets worse and donation good will takes a more serious PR hit.
    • At the wikilawyer detail level, how often is Pixelface allowed to challenge the policy/guideline status quo grip of the anti-fiction clique? Once a month? Two? Three? How about an annual fiction policy/guideline consensus day by global IP fiction fans every May 15th?
    • How about the higher-ups wise up and initiate consensus structural reforms before Wikipedia has to install figurative castle battlements, moat, and a drawbridge? In case anyone hadn't noticed, WP has accumulated many serious offsite opponents, both vandals and intellectuals with plausible grievances. This is a bad combination: the vandals justify their actions as retribution for the plausible grievances. WP reforms are needed to cool off the intellectuals. Officially sponsored consensus surveys of contentious issues (say, modeled on WP:ATT's) of editors, admins, and IPs would be an excellent start. Milo 11:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • TL;DR. Except in as much as you make the laughable claim that agitation by detractors amounts to anything worth a hill of beans. Sure, Kohs and Bagley and a few others are shit-stirring with some known long-term anti-Wikipedia journalists. Big fat hairy deal. Pixelface's problem is edit warring and relentless argumentation against consensus, end of. Ah, but wait: I remember you now from the spoiler wars, when you and Pixelface were on the same side and your view failed to gain consensus. Perhaps that provides context for your pitching in here when you are otherwise not a very active Wikipedian at all. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the $64 question as to who speaks for the wikipopulace at large - certainly Pixelface is outnumbered in many debates, my impression is that there are often 2-3x as many deletion-minded as inclusion-minded at these dustups, and to me this in part explains a higher number of reversions. What I don't know is moving beyond the cluster what sort of proportions we have...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've always found this to be one of the more interesting statements issued when people are discussing the Grand Deletionist Cabal. Elsewhere on Wikipedia, if there's four times as much support for one side of any given debate (all other things things being equal, and with no clear appeal to policy or precedent to separate them) it's generally understood that this means it's where a majority of our contributors want the project to be going. In this case, however, this is taken as evidence that anyone who argues to delete articles on a regular basis is part of a massive meatpuppetry engine designed to skew deletion rates far beyond that of which the silent majority would approve. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: Shall we archive this now? It is quite large and covers alot of material with the inevitable tangents...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy deletion of user's own talk pages?

    Are currently active editors allowed to have their own user talk page deleted via WP:CSD#U1 (a la {{db-user}})? I was under the impression that they did not qualify because these sorts of talk pages were "useful for the project." --Kralizec! (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I wouldn't think so..only in a case of right to vanish..--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's certainly my understanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So far as I know, deleting the whole history of a talk page is only done through WP:RTV and never with a CSD tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct. User talk pages should only be deleted in conjunction with one's exercising of their Right to Vanish. — Satori Son 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting user talk pages means that only admins can review the history of warnings received by a user, and then only at some inconvenience. Deletion is not something that should be done lightly. Of course, users who aren't intending to come back are an exception. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A user can blank his talk page, showing that he has read any warnings there, but leaving them in the history for all to read. He generally should not be able to delete it. I would delete a User page (but not a talk page) at the request of a user. Edison (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. We may need to fix the WP:RTV page. We currently have there "To vanish more completely, you may wish to blank your userpage, talkpage, and any subpages in your userspace, and/or tag them with {{db-user}}, which will notify administrators that you wish them to be speedily deleted." I was partly responsible for putting that there, and it may have been a bad idea. WP:LEAVE and WP:RTV go to the same page, so that's the main "how to leave Wikipedia" page, and it needed instructions on the various ways of leaving other than "vanishing", which I added. What should it say about this? --John Nagle (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That advice follows from WP:U1, which says a user can request speedy deletion of their user page and subpages. Does that include their talk page? Maybe WP:U1 needs clarification. --John Nagle (talk) 17:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

    Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [37] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clarification I never meant to imply a request for a permanent topic ban. I was thinking a temporary topic ban may allow Fru the opportunity to get a better idea of how to work collaboratively, while working on articles he is not as emotionally involved in. My major problem with him, is his refusal to actually discuss what is bothering him specifically. He makes claims that "the source does not exist" when it does, or "the source does not say that" when a quick review makes it obvious he did not read the source. In sum, I do not support a permanent ban of any kind against Fru yet. However, I do think he should show some ability to work here in other articles to stop his disruption on the more contentious articles. I apologize for not being as clear in my initial request. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • BOLP Before you say I have a pov take into consideration that I removed poorly sourced contentious material from the Micheal Moore article, Fred Phelps and material claiming that Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist from his opening. The editors of those articles also said I was pov-pushing. It is clear that there is a obvious double stranded on what sources are expectable depending on the biases of the editors. I know a lot about the rules of wikiepdia bolp,coatrack, and npov. I admit that part of my recent contributions to the TALK Pages of olberman and Al my have been to make a WP:POINT. Fru23 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse - I personally see absolutely no constructive contributions from this editor, and only seems like he's here to service an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia in the process. I would endorse putting all of his editing privileges on probation pending constructive contribution elsewhere. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sockpuppetry?

    • OK, so at the risk of turning this into WP:SSP:
      • We've established (and he's admitted) that 72.192.216.42 was Fru23 at one time.
      • Looking at Special:Contributions/72.192.216.42, we see this "dynamic" IP's second edit, in July, was to Cesar Millan. It was a revert to a previous version by....
      • Special:Contributions/KingsOfHearts. Looking at the edit summaries of KingsOfHearts' September edits, it's clear that all the "LOL your sources suck" edits from the IP this summer and early fall were the same person as KingsOfHearts.
      • Looking at the articles KingsOfHearts has edited, we see that there's an amazing overlap with...
      • Special:Contributions/Fru23.
      • Quack.
    I think the only question now is, are Fru23 and KingsOfHearts the same POV pushing vandal who should be indef blocked, or are they friends who have been socking on Bill O'Reilly and other conservative articles, and should be blocked? Luckily, per WP:SOCK, it really doesn't matter. Don't subject ban, Block indef.. --barneca (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's impressive detective work. It does seem like we have sock/meat puppetry going on here, and that would call for a block. Croctotheface (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)As Gordon Ramsay would say: "Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear." Permablock, yes. // roux   01:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Check your facts, KingsofHearts has been editing for a year, longer than the ip which supports my claim that it is dynamic, I started editing on the ip but stopped after noticing its past contributions some which were on BILL OREILLY which is why I went there in the first place, I said all of this about a month ago. Barneca, do some research on my past edits before accusing me of conservative pov pushing so you won't look like such a .

    So far I have edited the follow articles.

    • Criticism of bill oreilly Removing contentious nonnotable material
    • Michael Moore controversies Removing contentious nonnotable material sourced by only newsbusters or national review
    • Media Matters for America Removing Quotations from every other word in a section
    • Osama Bin Laden Removing terrorist accusations from the opening turned into a big argument that I avoided, in the end my edit stayed in place.
    • Fred Phelps Removing a list of God hates slogans from the opening.
    • Todd Davis Removing his social security number from the page
    • Life lock Removing Todd Davis social security number from the page
    • Jersey girls Changing 9/11 terrorist attacks to 9/11 attacks
    • Muhammad Rewording picture info on the page to say "an artist's depiction of Muhammad doing something" instead of just say Muhammad doing something.

    The only edits of mine that could be even remotely seen as conservative pov pushing is some to Bills. If anything most of my edits seem to be pushing a progressive/liberal agenda. Fru23 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    After Looking through again I have not edited ANY page that kingofhearts has edited. Croctotheface stop praising him for this and what would I be blocked for? Fru23 (talk) 01:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also recommend a comparison to Wikiport (talk · contribs), another short lived POV pusher who showed up to complain about sources[42] on the Fox News Channel and Bill O'Reilly articles (also note the reference to Olbermann). My guess? Fru23 is yet another sock of the same disruptive user who has been showing up on the FNC related talk pages for a very long time. The quacking is getting louder. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) ::: Fru23 should NOT be lblocked right off the bat. quite rnakly, the phony "checkuser" induction reaosning used above seems dody; while its certainly possible that Fru23 is the same person as the origial vandal, the fact of tha matter is that there is a possibility that his issues/conflicts are likely to be unrelated and thus we should assess Fru23 as Fru23 and not as twhoiever he might have been in another increasquitian. I recommend the WP:MENTOR option and iwouldnt mind taking on that role is no one else has the time/icnliantion. Smith Jones (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (ecX2)I think I hear quacking as well--but just to eliminate any doubt, a Checkuser is in order. But in the meantime, endorse topic ban, pending acceptance of mentorship Blueboy96 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC) (ecX3) i concur witht he above, asa reatlional conpromise. Again, a topic-ban temporary might be in order until i can hamer out a deal with Fru32 to manage contentiaos article editoring. Smith Jones (talk)[reply]

    I just listed every page I have edited, NONE are the same as kingsofhearts, plus only one can be even remotely considered conservative, most are liberal. Please one of the people going OMG SOCK!!1! respond to this. Its is entirely possible that we at one point had the same ip that does not mean we are the same person. Even if we were that is not a warrant a ban or even a block, wikipedia has no rule against having more than 1 account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry Fru23 (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23 is obviosuly not a sock, so lets dropt his line of ringworm snot right now please and ge back to the original content conflictSmith Jones (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "increasquitian" and "dropt his line of ringworm snot"--Smith Jones, WP would be a much less-cromulent place without you. (More comprehensible, perhaps, but definitely less-cromulent.) You should write poetry in your spare time. :) GJC 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I must say, I'm going treasure being accused of speaking "ringworm snot" for quite a while. --barneca (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ask and ye shall receive ... Blueboy96 01:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Blueboy, for picking up the ball and running with it. I'd planned to file a checkuser request after Fru23 denied it, but I was pulled away from the computer rather abruptly. I'll go there now to see if there's anything I can add. --barneca (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meatpuppetry to stir up contentiousness most assuredly IS against the rules, regardless of their physical proximity, and I remember very well at least one very contentious case where both of them were banned despite checkuser showing no relationship at all. One tidbit I find interesting is his edit on Muhammad, which seems off track from his usual editing. However, it is on my watchlist (which is up to 2,500 items now - yikes) and I had edited it recently, so he might have been looking at my recent edits and decided to make a small edit just to give the false appearance of some diversity. I could be wrong about that, though. However, it would be interesting to see if a checkuser tied these various guys together, or if its coincidental. A look at the history of Fru23, the IP, and KingsOfHearts does seem to bear out his argument that the common articles are only or primarily on the IP, not on the named users alone, indicating that they are sharing the IP somehow. The bizarre use of caps is fairly common to Kings and the IP, but rather less often for Fru23. It might also be interesting to put a hard block on that IP 72.192.216.42 and see what the fallout is, if any. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They have the same passwords, they are indeed socks. Lobocf (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
    "Lobocf" might be Serbian for "troll". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • bolp = biography of living persons. its ia perfect valid annunciation of the term WP:BOLP that I personaly use every often day when relevent as it means the same thing and is actualy more clearly the n the more inaccurate WP:BLP which could mean anything since it has no palindromatic information attached to the link. Smith Jones (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wacknowldged you but the point i am trying to say that is WP:BOLP is an existing redirect, which eans that it must hav ebeen used by SOMEONE before fru23. while i admit its (unfortunately) rare but that doesnt mean that Fru23 is somekind of sockpuppet mastermind. lets wait for the checkuser to tell us who is a sockpoppet of whom and deal with the matter of Fru23s behavior pthus far irrespecitve of the nature of his alleged sockpuppets if there are any which whom I am in seriously doubt-mode. Smith Jones (talk) 03:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I "wacknowledge" that it doesn't prove sockpuppetry. It's just a little piece in a puzzle. Checkuser would likely tell us for sure, one way or the other. But that oddity jumped out at me when I was looking at Fru23's contrib list. Similarities in style are worth looking at when sockpuppetry is suspected, even though they may be coincidental. For what it's worth, the alternate WP:BOLP was created nearly 2 years ago: [43] whose span on wikipedia was a grand total of 20 minutes, in which he (or it) created a number of variations on WP:BLP and other wikipedia abbreviations. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    again, i agre wthat there is probalb ysomething fishiny about these two accounts, but to me tocontineu arguing here is to have WP:ANI usurp the role of WP:sSP THERE Is alwready a checkuser request underway re: this user and it makesmore sense to do the sockpuppet investigations via WP:SSP and dea l with the mentorship/conflict resolution/etc elsevhere. Smith Jones (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that you need a new keyboard? New Monitor? My typing is often lysdexic, but I bow to the master. Edison (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see what this is supposed to prove. Even if you decide to say I am a sock I have never crossed paths with kingofhearts, so I can't be blocked for that. See legitimate uses of sockpuppets. Fru23 (talk) 04:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What a positive result would show is a history of seven recent blocks instead of only two. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Which may or may not be the reason he was trying to get at least one of his blocks deleted from the log: [44] and [45] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (OT) I'm confused that User:KingsOfHearts even exists. Care to comment at WT:U#How confused do I have to be? Shenme (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd just like to point out the remarkable coincidence that while others have mentioned that Fru claimed on IRC that he works for O'Reilly, KingOfHearts claims in this edit summary that he personally took this picture of O'Reilly during taping of the O'Reilly factor. Something he would obviously be in no position to do unless he (yes, you guessed it) works for O'Reilly. It's getting a little hard to hear in here, what with all the quacking. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A Foxy sock drawer

    Checkuser on Fru23 returns not only KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but a few others including Xrxty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See this edit. Fred Talk 14:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    distinctive edit by KingsOfHearts Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Similar edit by 72.192.216.42. Fred Talk 15:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This family of editors, particularly Fru23, KingsOfHearts and the ip, use the same half dozen identically configured computers, as one might find in an office. Fred Talk 15:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Welly welly welly welly welly welly well! A real-life version of Fox in Socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    They also edited from a second ip which has been blocked for 6 months as a "schoolblock". Fred Talk 15:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here an edit from the ip reverts to the version favored by Xrxty. Fred Talk 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you list all the socks at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/KingsOfHearts? Time to close this on-wiki puppet show. Blueboy96 15:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fru23, KingsOfHEarts and Xrxty all blocked indef, while 72.192.216.42 has been blocked 48 hours. This show is over. Blueboy96 16:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There. Not a single grain of evidence of abuse, but who cares. Opposition to the prevailing pov must be removed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Around 10 blocks for disruption. Several grains' worth there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Afterthought

    I've been trying to come up with a term to describe what seems to be an increasing phenomenon - a user who brings a complaint here only to end up getting blocked himself once others investigate. Sometimes they make a simple mistake, such as inadvertently tipping off editors, as with Fru23 managing to tie himself up with that IP, which opened the lid on the case. Other times they simply don't see the forest for the trees. At the risk of falling into the "recentism" trap, I'm thinking a good term would be "Plaxicoed". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Happens all the time, Bugs. Ever since I first became a sysop I've noticed it. That's a typical arc for disruptive users. Probably better not to name it after a particular person, because if the matter becomes too personal for them they're apt to stick around and become an even bigger problem. See User_talk:BooyakaDell#Sockpuppet, Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196, and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JB196. DurovaCharge! 17:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Another thought is the Homer Simpson response to when he messes up: "D'oh!" In The Hunt for Red October, the enemy ship managed to torpedo itself. Maybe "wikipedo". Or "wikipe-D'oh!"
    Hey, by the way, we now know what the deal is with those guys, as they "retired" within 4 minutes of each other: [46] and [47] They're brothers! Shazam! This is a twist on the usual "my evil twin brother did it", the dilemma being it's hard to figure out which one was the evil twin. Ironically, KingsOfHearts' talk page initially said, "I will try my best to help wikipedia. Any suggestions?" Today, he helped wikipedia.
    That still leaves Xrxty. That must be the "evil cousin" who's out of town. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One semi-serious question: KingsOfHearts had uploaded a photo of O'Reilly that he took on-set. Would it be presumptuous to license-tag it as PD-self, since he says he took the photo only he didn't seem to get that it needs to say PD-self? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it can be presumed he meant PD-self, but the question above suggests a possibility that it's not- if FRU did once work for O'Reilly and he took the picture in the line of work, the image might well be a work product, and thus ownership would go to O'Reilly's production company. On the other hand, if KOH wasn't an employee, and just happened to be on the set with a camera, it's a different story. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had best leave it alone, then. I see that Blaxthos has un-deleted the two talk pages, since the "retired" stuff is a lie - it's kind of like Larry Miller's pub-crawl joke, "We decided to leave, right after they threw us out." So the next question is, where does one request page protection? I know there's a page for that somewhere, but I've never used it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ==>WP:RFPP Deor (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Danke. Blaxthos, in fact, already has it covered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, this is evidence you are simply reverting to old habits. This edit that you made does not accord with the content of the source cited. Why don't you quit making edits like that for a while and maybe we can address the questions you raise. There is a serious question as to whether blogs are appropriate sources. Fred Talk 21:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hold the phone

    Here's a brand new redlink jumping straight into this debate. Imagine that. [48] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Criminy... —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but everything's OK, he says he's not a sock of Fru23. He just happened to jump into this debate, as a brand new user. Must be a miracle of some kind or other. P.S. I posted a note on the checkuser's page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder if this is an attempt to make a WP:POINT about AGF, considering this comment. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After reading through fru23 arguements, he has made many good points, there apears to be a double standard on which sources are exceptaple on differant articles on similar topics, mainly depending on the bias of groups of editors who feel they own an article. I am going to continue what he was doing. I am not a sock of fru23. JcLiner (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reported the above user, who is obviously a sock and promises to continue his predecessors' disruption, to the checkuser and also to AIV. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea, though honestly I don't think AIV will do anything as this sort of gaming/socking doesn't really qualify as vandalism (see here). Also, I wonder what the CU will turn up, considering both IPs that they're known to have used in the original CU case were blocked at the time of account creation. I wouldn't rule out going over to a coffee shop or some such, but I doubt a CU would be able to determine anything from this. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)Quoth the ravenduck: neverquackermore. "I am not a sock of X" is kind of proof of being a sock of X, all other things taken into consideration. // roux   20:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured posting to AIV wouldn't hurt, especially in light of his threat to continue his predecessors' disruption. BlueBoy is preparing another CU case. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately for us, the user doesn't seem to be trying at all to hide his tracks, so it should be very easy to spot future puppets. I actually didn't realize this had gone this far up until stumbling upon this page earlier today. It's really quite something. NcSchu(Talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppets often assume the collective editorship here is as stupid naive as they turn out to be. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, would you consider a refactor there? I know this is frustrating but it's better to take the high road. DurovaCharge! 21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. :) DurovaCharge! 22:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Baseball Bugs, I do not understand what flawed logic you are using. I am neither disruptive or a sock. JcLiner (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are actually a legitimate sock, prove it. Contact someone on Arbcom and tell them in strict confidence who you really are--with proof, naturally. They can then convey that you are indeed the legitimate alternate of another account. Or just wait for the CU request to be processed. I don't think anyone here is in any doubt of what those results will be. // roux   21:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of which, it's been filed. I have a feeling this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 21:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to block based on behavioral evidence. I don't think we need to wait for the checkuser results. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please block me now so if the results come back negitive you will look like an idiot. I expect an apoligy and for everyone to remove all acusations against me when this is disproven. JcLiner (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Checkuser results came back as "possible." Similarities noted by Fred, coupled with JcLiner's behavior, were enough for me to indefblock. (sigh) I have a feeling we're going to end up playing whack-a-mole with this one for awhile. Blueboy96 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he owes you the "apoligy". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has graciously supplied us with his current IP 64.72.89.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is now in the wikilawyering stage. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys are so obvious. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fortunately, so was Mr. Fox 'n Socks. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave the IP an extra day off (for a block of two days) and disabled user talk page editing. If he wants to contest the block, he can use one of his accounts. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've invited him to email me and given directions for how to do so. DurovaCharge! 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The banned User:Tecmobowl also tried to get the checkuser to tell him how he identified him when he used socks. As if. Fred gives a hint of it though - it seems like the PC itself can be identified through some kind of signature, the technology of which is beyond me. It's kind of scary from the Big Brother standpoint, but it's also necessary in the hit-and-run world of the internet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's most likely from information that your web browser transmits to a server whenever you make a connection to it. Unless you're crazy and do certain strange things with your web browser it wouldn't ever be personally identifiable on its own, though it could be used to rule out a relationship if it were significantly different. From what I understand it was the behavioral correlations that sealed this case more than anything else. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take your word for it. Just as long as checkusers continue to snag the socks and launder them, that's the important thing. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats

    70.224.54.239 has posted a threat on an article, and probably needs to be blocked. Although it may not be likely that the vandal will carry out these threats, it is common practice to notify ANI in these cases. If consensus expresses that an abuse report should be filed, I can do it. NOT ALL ISPS IGNORE ABUSE REPORTS (although this is an AT&T IP). PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked for 31 hours in the meantime. Dunno if an abuse report is merited, but definitely contact the police. Blueboy96 01:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are such death threats typically reported to the FBI? If so I don't think an AR would be necessary. In any case, the Template:City-state police might be worth contacting, as well as the Indianapolis local FBI office since the threat was made across state lines. Contact info for the cops and the feds. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WhoIs, this IP address is registered to a "Private Address" in Chicago. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:18
    I'm reasonably sure that's in error or is just referring to the network backbone controlling that area (see the custname "rback4b"); South Bend is very close to Chicago anyway. The hostname (adsl-70-224-54-239.dsl.sbndin.ameritech.net) indicates it's a South Bend, Indiana address. You could also check the geolocate info which backs this up. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EC TrustedSource says that this IP belongs to an AT&T DSL customer in South Bend, Indiana, so I'm guessing it's either there or somewhere around there. Note that usually TrustedSource is pretty accurate, it's not 100% accurate; the IP is most likely based somewhere around there (or actually in the city or South bend). TrustedSource says that my Embarq DSL IP is based in Fort Myers, Florida even though I'm in Deep Creek, Florida. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll contact law enforcement tomarrow, unless someone else wants to do it tonight (or today depending on what part of the world you're in) PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the contact information for the Chicago Police Department. Probably want to go with the non-emergency number. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:22
    See my previous comment- this is not a Chicago address. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct. My mistake, I guess WhoIs needs to update their information. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 13, 2008 @ 02:26
    I've contacted the FBI at http://tips.fbi.gov and asked them to contribute to the discussion here. A copy of the message I sent them is here. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to FBI: to contribute to this discussion, simply click the edit button next to the text "Death threats." PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not particularly keen on the language you use in your message to the FBI; when one acts to report on-Wiki behavior to law enforcement he does so as a private citizen and, as the community have said many times, in the context of all manner of extra-wiki interactions one might have with non-Wikipedians, must be at pains to make clear that he or she does not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation or even for our particular project. The "you are welcome" and (particularly) the "we look forward" locutions suggest that you speak in an official capacity. Anyone is, of course, welcome to report putative threats to law enforcement (as a libertarian who would not support the criminalization of the instant behavior [who is disposed, for that matter, to support the disassembly of the body of criminal law] and who is disinclined to see taxpayer monies be used in frivolous pursuits, I do not undertake so to act), and for various reasons we permit such reports to be discussed on-wiki, but in its rejection (or failure to adopt) WP:SUICIDE and WP:TOV the community have made clear that we take no broad official position on how threats ought to be dealt with and most especially that once an editor in his or her individual capacity has reported a threat we must not permit the project to be disrupted any further; inviting a law enforcement agency to join in a discussion about a threat is altogether inconsistent with those understandings, and inviting in an official capacity is even more pernicious (and makes us look profoundly silly, but we need not reach that issue). Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, that's not a death threat. It may be otherwise criminal (although most probably not), but it's not a death threat. "I'm going to kill John Doe" is a death threat; "I'd like to kill John Doe", "I wish I could kill John Doe", "I wish someone would kill John Doe", "I wish John Doe would die", and any variants thereof are not death threats, at least to the extent that they are not said to evoke the same reaction from a target as would a death threat. Joe 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What he said. C'mon people, use your noodles. Reporting childish vandalism like that to law enforcement is a tremendous waste of time and resources. L0b0t (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This didn't need to be reported, and the failure to explicitly note you are not a representative of the Wikimedia Foundation was extremely poor also. Daniel (talk) 08:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the harm with erring on the side of caution and reporting this. Look at it this way: it only goes to show that different people's views of credible threats vary significantly, including those in the media who latch onto stories of unreported threats of violence. The best position to take for the project is to report something if you consider it credible. As to PCHS' message... yes it could have been written better, but considering the circumstances... I think we should have a form letter for this sort of situation. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written a basic page on a form letter here. Input and suggestions would be welcomed! —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 14:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Said user has edited the Ion Antonescu article, erasing text backed by sources and pushing in a version that minimizes Antonescu's murderous contribution to the Holocaust. There is only one source cited in one part of his version, and that source is problematic to say the least this was pointed out to him on the talk page, where he has earlier stated his rejection of mainstream sources in an inflammatory post (the reply I refer to is here. I was concerned by this, and I do recall wikipedia has a zero tolerance attitude toward this kind of attitudes. Yes, both versions have problems, but erasing an article section and replacing it with such an extremist opinion should not be any kind of option. Please also note his whitewash edit on Responsibility for the Holocaust. Dahn (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh please, my edits are perfectly in line with modern historiography. I have not stated anything you would not find in the Wiesel Commission. Furthermore, saying Romania is "directly responsible" for all the deaths when the Wiesel Comission says the area was not even entirely under Romanian control and many deaths were caused by the SS and Ukranian Einstazgruppen.Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no Holocaust denial as such here, just the sadly usual Eastern European nationalist bickering over who was responsible for which massacre. That is a content dispute and does not belong on this messageboard. Please pursue dispute resolution and use the article talkpage instead of this space.  Sandstein  18:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (From my talk:) We have two other noticeboards dedicated to such issues: WP:POVN and WP:CCN.  Sandstein  11:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The solution for such issues is not to send our good contributors from one noticeboard to the next or expect them to waste their time "discussing" with such elements. The solution is to block, block, block. Nationalist tendentious editing is not a content dispute, it is ipso facto blockable disruption. Short warning block of 24hrs for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 69.138.182.154 (talk · contribs) has removed information from the DeAngelo Hall article twice now, with the edit summary "The deleted content was slanderous in nature, and could result in legal action against Wikipedia." [49] I know this isn't a direct legal threat, but it seems to hedge up against using a legal threat as leverage to get your way in a content dispute. I figured it would be best to bring it here for admin attention. Please note I'm not commenting on the quality of the edit here, just bringing it to more experienced eyes. Dayewalker (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just warn, I think, nicely, and with links to policy. The edit was squishy and probably a BLP vio (though the legal threat is more than thin). IronDuke 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally believe statements of that sort qualify as in-spirit violations of WP:NLT: they are used for the same sort of bullying during disputes that direct legal threats are, and have the same potential for discouraging good editors. While I don't suggest a block at this point, I do believe these sorts of statements must be discouraged. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should remember DOLT--Ipatrol (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IWF IP proxy

    Is this IP still being used as a filter on Wikipedia? I thought IWF lifted its ban? 194.72.9.25 (talk) 10:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what's happened - I had my "old" BT IP address back the other day, but this morning it's all through the same IP address as everyone else (as it was in the Virgin Killer days, which is at least visible to BT customers once again). 194.72.9.25 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears the all BT customers are once again coming through the same IP - I have just removed an autoblock on that IP twice. ViridaeTalk 13:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone using BT please try and view the Virgin Killer article (obvious warning - controversial album cover containing nude underage female) and report back to see if they can see it or has something else been blocked? ViridaeTalk 13:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [50]. The page/image aren't blocked but the proxies are still active. -- Mentisock 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Mentisock. ViridaeTalk 13:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have complained at the IWF homepage, once I found the means to do so, that their action of a few days ago is still having repercussions regarding the ability of WP to allow ip editing while attempting to combat vandalism. I have no great expectations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Has someone tried contacting BT? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The proxy is still active for Be customers too, even though VK is no longer filtered. Of course it's possible that other wikipedia pages are still on the IWF blocklist. Did the IWF ever say they weren't listing any pages on wikipedia, or just that they weren't listing the VK one? --fvw* 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think they ever listed anything else before otherwise there would have been this rerouting problem already. Now they said that both the VK page and the image were blocked so they needed to unblock both for IPs to return to normality but it seems they did, since they're both visible again, so it must be another connected problem (cache retained by the ISPs maybe?) -- Mentisock 12:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lightbot

    I've only followed the previous discussion with this bot in passing, but isn't this the exact opposite of what it's supposed to be doing? JPG-GR (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep. // roux   17:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is his explanation: "I said that I would stop fixing these errors because I got frustrated. I am no longer frustrated. I see these errors still exist so I decided to start fixing the errors again. ... I find it hard to be persuaded that errors should not be fixed." Tennis expert (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The following are some links to related discussions regarding this bot: the operator's talk page and the old AN thread.--Rockfang (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And an additional discussion that started yesterday on the operator's talk page and has since moved to the MOSNUM talk page. Mlaffs (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing piped links is a bad thing? Why? Tool2Die4 (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing piped links isn't necessarily a bad thing, particularly when they're scattered throughout the text of an article. What's happening here is removing piped links from inboxes and tables. Removing piped links from an infobox or a table, where MOSNUM explicitly envisions they might be appropriate, is a bad thing. Removing piped links that provide valid contextual information, without replacing them with a link to that same information in a different manner, is a bad thing. Removing piped links, when a previous AN thread on the exact same issue was resolved by that same user saying they would no longer do so, is a bad thing. Mlaffs (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a side note: IIUC the 'bot operator's rational in the current sweep is that autoforatted dates ([[Month Day]], [[Year]] is incompatible/not allowed with a piped link. Accepting that statement on faith, it is reasonable for the 'bot to delink both halves of [[Month Day]], [[Tear in field|Year]] and point out that only autoformatting or piping may be used. The 'bot had been changed to do that.
    The troubling thing is that it looks like the 'bot cannot identify when the mark up is in a 'box/table or in the body of the article text.
    - J Greb (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be wise to wait until this is closed before making these automated edits. However unless the consensus changes wildly in the next days I see no community support for keeping these Easter egg links anywhere. --John (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the introduction to the relevant section of that RFC specifies that the discussion there concerns piped links in the body of articles, not within tables and infoboxes. The latter is the issue here. Mlaffs (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lightmouse also is removing piped links manually. See, e.g., this, this, this, this, and this. So, regardless of whether there is a technical problem with Lightbot, Lightmouse obviously believes that piped links should be removed on sight. Tennis expert (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanotechnology Fail-Safes

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

    • and a diff of my recent article edit

    This article seems to be the product of a class project at Worcester Polytechnic Institute, produced by what may be a role account (hard to tell). Unfortunately, while the actual topic is encyclopedic in nature, the article itself has issues (many of which, but not all of which, I corrected in the above edit); the user above also created a massive number of mostly inappropriate redirects, many still linked from their userpage.

    Unfortunately, I have a sinking feeling that this article is likely to have continuing problems of the "but my professor told me to do it his way, not your way" variety, so I'd appreciate if people could keep an eye on it. Meanwhile, if anyone is willing to help this project meet Wikipedia policies, that would be very much appreciated; while there are POV and crystal-balling issues with the article as it stands, the actual topic is suitable for an article. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reads like OR and an essay. I'm not sure if the topic is at this point needing an article; merging sourced content to Nanotechnology, Implications of nanotechnology and/or Regulation of nanotechnology might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone should check on any role concerns, but the article is "decent", but needs cleaning. It could actually probably be made significantly better and longer, given all the scientific and general press and writing on the subject. It shouldn't be redirected, but just fixed. It could actually be a great article, for the topic. rootology (C)(T) 19:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree; one of the reasons I've posted this is to avoid having the work they put into the article wasted - the core of a useful article is there, just not written by someone familiar with our policies. By the way, is there any sort of class project welcome template out there that I'm missing? I used a template plus a custom message, but this happens often enough that we ought to have a welcome for it. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Be Black Hole Sun latest unblock request

    This user has requested an unblock on their talkpage. For an unblock discussion on AN/I from November, see here. As the previous issue was discussed and consensus reached, perhaps it would be best if this request was similarly discussed rather than handled by a single administrator. Skomorokh 20:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I might kick off the discussion in a minute, also notifying of AN/I thread. — neuro(talk) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At minimum, given that his block was mainly about abusive sockpuppetry, we ought to involve a checkuser in this discussion (ping Alison! ping Thatcher! ping Luna Santin! etc.) to check out his claims that he has behaved for the past month. Before we get into a discussion over whether to let him back, it would be helpful to know this information... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like a check-user to be run to see if he is being honest about not editing during the last 30 days. As the blocking admin, I shall say that while BBHS now appears to be genuinely sorry for his sock puppetry and the other editorial behaviours for which he was blocked, I'm not sure if we can trust him not to commit the same offenses again (Links to evidence of which can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive175#User:Be Black Hole Sun and his socks.... and from User talk:Be Black Hole Sun#Blocked onward.
    It is my personal feeling that he has had enough chances to behave and enough chances to explain himself, and should continue to stay blocked. I said when I blocked him that he can be a good editor, which is evidenced by his GA and FL contributions, but that is not enough to just overlook the rest of his behaviour.
    That said, if the CU comes back clean and community consensus is to allow him back then I will not oppose the request (I may not be able to unblock personally as my available time here is limited at the moment).
    If he is unblocked I think this really does have to be his final chance (He's had 2 already). Also, as I said at the last AN thread, some restrictions would have to be imposed such as:
    • Be given mentors, adopted, and/or placed on editor review
    • A 3 month soft topic-ban on music related articles and templates, and must propose changes to mentors and implement only if approved.
    • Must only edit using the User:Be Black Hole Sun username. No IP edits, no sock edits.
    • Held to a strict 1RR for 3 months following the unblock, followed by a 2RR for 3 more months if first 3 months are incident free.
    • Any violations of the above or WP:OWN, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOCK (the original blocking reasons) to result in a permanent WP ban, with ABSOLUTELY NO MORE CHANCES.
    Of course, these are just suggestions. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No - He screwed me around many times. He's socked before and then apologised for that (with the Wellwater Conspiracy or something) and then he continued socking with BBHS. He's had last chances before. If one takes a look at those archive links up there you'll see that he was socking just hours (between 2-3) before writing up his first unblock request. We're going to be repeating the past if we unblock now. And to repeat again: He's had socks before, he was found out, blocked, and then apologised and then was unblocked. Isn't this just way too much now? ScarianCall me Pat! 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For more info on previous second chances see User:Wellwater Conspiracy. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I haven't been involved with this case personally, I do think there's such a thing as too many second chances. Would giving him another one here really be likely to benefit wikipedia as whole? --fvw* 17:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Request declined. Tan | 39 17:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requested block for Martha Runs The Store

    Disruptive edits, possible vandalism. He creates nonsense pages, adds speculation and fan fiction to episode pages (mostly List of Martha Speaks episodes), and destroying wiki-tables. A list of contributions can be found here. Elbutler (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I do believe you're looking for WP:AIV. — neuro(talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this may be time to deal with this here ... there is a long history of such actions by the editor, and all the niceness in the world has not helped. ♪BMWΔ 21:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "long history" goes back three days, and involves less than 20 edits (most other edits are to the user page). This editor is clearly being disruptive, but has not yet received a really serious talk-page warning, just the "friendly advice" sorts of things. Looie496 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (I guess in some ways I needed to clarify my sock beliefs, but thankfully y'all caught on. I'll try and be less cryptic) ♪BMWΔ 12:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any connection between this user and highly disruptive blocked user and Martha Speaks fan User:Simulation12. Elbutler might have a better idea if there are similarities. --Leivick (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked indefinitely, following from an AIV report, pending some sort of satisfactory response on the talkpage. I also took the step of removing article material from the user page, and replace it with a template, after notifying the editor of the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Time is running out....

    I blocked Cheers dude (talk · contribs) for repeated changes of "is" "will be" to "is expected to be" in the lede of 2009, 2010, and 2011. I request review of that block, as I also reverted him on one of those years. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not quite sure how that can be a reason to block. Seems like a sound edit. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:YEARS, and the discussion at WT:YEARS on the removal of the {{future}} template from future year articles, all state that anything in the future is subject to change, and that fact need not be included in articles. (I thought there was a WP:FUTURE project and a general comment that all future events are subject to change, and that need not be stated in Wikipedia articles, but I can't find those disucssions.)
    And it's not just once, but 3 or 4 times in each article. It's WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRR. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) For a discussion of Cheers dude's bizarre behaviour, see Talk:2009#removal_of_will_be. Also feel free to take a look at his contribs list, as well as mine for edit-summary discourse. The point is, he's making these types of edits multiple times across three articles. Not to mention that he reverted a talk-page entry of mine (I responded with a warning that if he did that again, I'd take it to ANI, but since we're already here, then what the heck.) If requiring a citation-needed tag for the fact that 2009 will start in a few weeks isn't WP:POINTy, then I don't know what is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) @Arthur: No more than three times, actually. Since you are involved and hereby confirm that you have an opinion on the matter, you should not have blocked. It is discussed on talk, no reason not to let that run its course. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW – and I'm not involved and have never had anything to with WP:YEARS – he's now removed my original warning as a "personal attack". – iridescent 22:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is, and he is allowed to. That's what you get if you don't respect an editor you don't agree with. Errr... you are clearly involved. You reverted him on two of the three pages. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're quite wrong. I never said he violated WP:3RR, only WP:EW. Edit warring can be one edit if against clear consensus (and the editor is aware of the consensus). He made at least 10 of essentially the same edit on the 3 articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said you said, thanks. So far, I don't see a consensus, at least one user agrees with him. Anyway, since he initiated the discussion, a block is counter-productive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 22:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Will be" is a statement of fact, and hence as the editor in question points out, if that is the case, there should be a cite for it. To use the argument "Do you seriously think that the world might come to an end in the next two and a half weeks?" is not on as per WP:V. The question could have been asked on 10/9/2001 "Do you seriously think that the World Trade Centre will be a pile of rubble tomorrow?" Unless someone has that WP:CRYSTAL ball who can prove that 2009 will actually come to fruition, then "expected to be" is quite warranted I feel, for no-one knows what the future may bring, even within the space of 24 hours. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, and note that Guido edited some of his comments to have, IMHO, a significantly different meaning)
    The dude made a statement on talk, but continued reverting before anyone had a chance to reply. The previous discussion is so old it's fallen off the relevant talk pages (probably including Talk:2008). Cosmic Latte opened discussion in an appropriate WikiProject, as the issue deals with more than one article. CL probably should have pointed the dude to that WikiProject, but apparently he found and blanked it. That would be grounds for a 'final warning and subsequent block even from an involved admin. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The editor who "agreed" actually made a different related edit. The change from "will be" to "is a future" is a related edit. I'd have to look at the history to see if the discussion relating to the removal of {{future}} covers that or not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Points to the editor right above Arthur's post.) No, that would not be a valid reason either. Cosmic Latte's contribution was significantly below the belt. And if you still have to check the history, then declaring consensus for your point of view was premature, and pointing to the current version of WT:YEARS was unhelpful. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Cheers dude was getting carried away with the "crystal ball" rule. Unless some unknown entity alters the way we calculate the calendar, or unless the world comes to an end (in which case there won't be any wikipedia), changing "will be" to "is expected to be" is silly. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BB, did you just agree with me about something? Maybe the world is coming to an end. – iridescent 23:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I won't let it happen again. 0:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't find the discussion about the removal of the {{future}} template from these articles anywhere, except an April 2007 reference in Template talk:future. Perhaps the matter really does need to be discussed. (I doubt it, but perhaps the dude should be requested to bring up the matter in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years when his block expires.) I doubt the result will be any different, but that is probably the best venue for discussion, rather than the individual article talk pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As a note, the block for the user has long since expired, although Cheers Dude claims that he's still blocked. I'm not seeing an autoblock, either. seicer | talk | contribs 04:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Baseball Bugs said it perfectly above. This is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia. This is not Conservapedia; there is no need to play to apocolyptic fears by giving serious thought to the idea that the earth isn't in for another revolution around the sun. On the other hand, this project isn't so liberal as to take seriously the possibility (unless verified) that the Gregorian calendar will be done away with any time soon. In other words, WP:UCS. Also, this is the English Wikipedia. The English language has a future tense. It is therefore peculiar to over-interpret WP:FUTURE (aka WP:CRYSTALBALL) by inferring that the word "will" should never be used, or that every single instance of it must be cited, or that there is somehow a greater need to cite a future-tense ("2009 will be a year") than a present-tense ("2009 is a future year") rendition of exactly the same idea. In other words, once again, WP:UCS. As for Russavia's World Trade Centre analogy, we are not talking about man-made structures here; we are talking about the Earth and the sun. As Bugs pointed out, if they disappear, then Wikipedia will disappear too. So, if my assertion that "2009 will be a year" is ultimately proven incorrect, at least there won't be anyone telling me, "I told you so!" Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User 24.187.112.15 persistent disruptive editing and personal attacks

    After failing in his months-long campaign to have the word "conservative" removed from the first paragraph of the Drudge Report page, anonymous editor 24.187.112.15 is repeatedly making personal attacks on the Talk:Drudge Report page. He has started a new section purely to attack an editor (me), and despite having the attack removed as per WP rules by me and another editor, he simply keeps re-posting it.

    Warnings placed on his Talk page are simply ignored and removed: [55]

    He also ignored the consensus decision of a RFC on the Drudge Report page recently and tried to edit out the consensus text. Perhaps a long ban is n order? ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've blocked the user for 24 hours. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine this anon will be likely be back here soon enough. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Holocaust denial

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

    Would someone please take a look at this edit from Inclusionist and his extensive block log and tell me what it takes to get indefblocked around here? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While Steven was posting this ANI, creating unnecessary wikidrama, I took the time to answer my own question about the uniqueness of the holocaust, which dozens of scholars have written and argued about.
    I invite Steven to civilly discuss controversial issues that he may not necessarily agree with.
    And unlike Steven, I am not suggesting that anyone be banned simply because I disagree with a sincere question.
    Because of the intolerant reaction, and since I already found my answer, I am deleting the question. Inclusionist (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Several of those blocks seem to have been self-requests, for whatever reason, performed by user:Xaosflux, who may know more about this user. This edit by Inclusionist about hypocrisy in Holocaust denialism seemed to me to be off-topic to the page, but I wouldn't ban anyone for it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I planned on deleting the question, but Steven already deleted it,[56]
    Several admins have blocked me too at my request. Inclusionist (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hayley Williams

    Resolved

    This article is currently protected under the guise of "consensus" (interesting when consensus means something has to be protected). I contacted the protecting admin: he is not willing to do anything.

    This is silly: the woman is notable hands down: her own article on Rolling Stone [57] [58] (two of many), MTV [59] [60] (two more of many): and 421 notes on google news archive: [61].

    I don't understand why we can't go through the proper channels for this (AFD): it certainly doesn't qualify for A7 non-notable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the articles you've provided here as far as I can tell don't really establish the subject's notability independent of the band Paramore. This is per the caveat at the end of WP:MUSICBIO; unless we can establish the subject's notability independent of the band, via either membership in another band, solo releases, or some other notability outside of music (e.g., major roles in films I would think might work), the current status quo is to redirect. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It establishes it per WP:BIO. She has become notable independent of that - "multiple non-trivial references by the media". Are you really going to say that half a dozen articles in Rolling Stone and she's not notable and that this satisfies a7? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this being discussed here and not the article's talk page? As I stated on my talk page, establish consensus at the article talk to establish the article, and then it can be unprotected. Right now, the consensus (originally established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramore and never overturned as far as I can see) leans towards keeping it as a redirect for the same reasons Mendaliv outlined above, either way (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I didn't see that Articles for Deletion. Must have typoed; will take to DRV or elsewise. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Holocaust Article

    Resolved
     – Template vandalism reverted- please clear your browser cache if still a problem. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I appears that somebody hacked into your system and valdalized the Holocaust article--Woogie10w (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for pointing it out. Someone vandalised one of the templates on the page; it has already been fixed. You may need to clear your browser cache if it does not appear fixed for you. CIreland (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, you don't need to "hack into" anything to edit an article :-) ♪BMWΔ 12:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    abusive edit summaries and comments

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AShentino&diff=257830789&oldid=257367441

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.42.67.181

    also, see the edit summaries for the Heidegger (disambiguation) article.

    I don't have a clue who this user is, but whoever it is, they are being very rude.

    I have a hunch that it's mtevfrog, but I can't be sure. Perhaps a checkuser is in order to confirm the IP?

    Just to be fair, I should probably comment that a related article, Martin Heidegger, is currently under edit protection following an edit war between mtevfrog and some other user who's username starts with a J (can't remember). If indeed it is mtevfrog behind the IP in question, then this would indicate a pattern which needs to be addressed.

    Disclaimer: I am unfamiliar with procedure. If I've made a mistake, please move this complaint to its proper place.

    Shentino (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, you are unfamiliar with procedure and ought to have read WP:DAB before creating that page. It is also poor form to throw around accusations of vandalism against valued contributors and not to inform them when you start threads about them at ANI. Warn the IP for personal attacks; if they persist, step up the warnings and report to WP:AIV if they continue making personal attacks following a final warning. Skomorokh 04:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the pointers.

    Shentino (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm confused... The IP user last edited on December 1... and yet Shentino warned him about his incivility about 4 hours ago, and within 3 hours he became active again... I am not sure we need a block yet, but I will warn 24.42 about being incivil. If this continues, a short block may help, but as yet I don't think the user is aware of the disruptive nature of his incivility... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blatant sock

    Resolved
     – contributions indef blocked along with its socks (contributions, contributions, contributions) by Chris G. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please look at this users userpage User:YoMamma6188. He has a list of user's on there that's name's are close to the others, there obviously all his. This user has also been uncivil. Could an admin please look at this, and is a WP:CHECKUSER needed here? SteelersFan-94 04:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, seeing as he admits to all of his alternate accounts on his main page, and there is no evidence that any of those have been used abusively, I don't see a HUGE problem over the multiple accounts; there are other indications this user may not have Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but the sock issue seems like a non-starter so far... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I reverted something on his userpage that called "every wikipedia users bitches!". So I know were your coming from. Couldn't we just block those and then go from there? It won't take an admin 10 seconds to block them. What do you think we should start out doing? SteelersFan-94 05:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Open a dialogue with the user. // roux   05:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? SteelersFan-94 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Start a conversation with the user, politely asking why he has so many alternate accounts. Read WP:SOCK first. // roux   05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K, Thanks. Should I report what happened here for you or Jayron or another admin to comment on? SteelersFan-94 05:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I tried to assume good faith, and be civil. If it looks wrong please don't hesitate to say something. SteelersFan-94 05:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin threatening following user

    Resolved
     – No threat, no problem. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gatoclass (A administrator) appears to be "threatening" a fellow user who is up for ARBCOM elections because they disagree on a D.Y.K. proposal. (See diff here). Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, for a start, that wasn't a 'threat'; Gatoclass immediately went had already gone to the candidate's page and cast his vote. Apparently something about the candidate's statement caused Gatoclass to believe s/he was ill-suited for Arbcom. "If you don't do X I'm opposing you" is a threat. "I'm opposing you because of Y" is an explanation. -- Vary Talk 05:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, for crying out loud ... that's not a threat, that's a spat. As noted almost immediately afterward, people are allowed to cast their votes for ArbCom for whatever reasons they want, even personal grudges. I'm sure at least of the few of the record-breaking opposes here were payback. Daniel Case (talk) 05:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But in the middle of a discussion that could influence consensus? Thats rather uncalled for and taints the consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Vary and Daniel Case; no one "threatened" that user, Gatoclass just expressed his opinion about that user's remarks. —Politizer talk/contribs 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CARLMART continuing unsourced article creation after block expired

    CARLMART (talk · contribs) was previously blocked for one month (old ANI report) because he repeatedly created unsourced articles which turned out to be false, and has not offered any explanation for his conduct as requested by the blocking admin (again, he has never once edited in the Talk or User talk namespaces in over a year and 1000+ edits despite numerous warnings about his conduct). Instead, after his block expired, he immediately started creating his usual form of unsourced articles again: Iranian Mexican and Afghan Chilean. After some examination of other page histories, it looks like he was also editing while logged out to evade his block, with his usual unhelpful habits (e.g. here claiming that some sportsman is a "Prominent Korean-Spaniard" when nothing in his bio indicates Korean citizenship/ancestry, or here claiming that there are a large number of Iranians in Venezuela). IMO this guy needs to be blocked indefinitely, as suggested by others in the last thread. cab (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Without communication between editors we're nowhere, WP:COMPETENCE, etc etc. Per the last discussion I'm assuming there's consensus for this, I've indef-blocked. --fvw* 06:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I endorse Fvw's block. We shouldn't bury our heads in the sand when dealing with chronically disruptive editors who cannot seem to "get it" after a myriad of chances. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse; every article has a talkpage and every editor has one too - it therefore presumes that dialogue is considered to be an essential tool. Anyone disregarding the facility is unlikely to be contributing in an appropriate manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Complaint against Admin Future Perfect at Sunrise (Misuse of Admin Privileges

    Resolved
     – I sense an upwelling of anti-user:Bosniak sentiment here, so let's close this generic "rouge admin abuse" complaint and leave things to WP:DRV, which is the right venue. Guy (Help!) 12:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin user Future Perfect at Sunrise deleted the whole article Anti-Bosniak sentiment and I lost all my hard work! Only 1 section was preserved. He didn't warn me before deletion. He alleges I am trying to put same article as deleted one. WRONG! All I am trying to do is to rebuild the new fresh article with credible source. This is wrong guys, this is wrong. And of course, you will do anything, because he is administrator, right? This is sad. Bosniak (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The correct way to appeal an AfD is to go to WP:DRV, not to just recreate the article. It's a speedy deletion candidate if you do that, so you shouldn't be surprised that it speedily gets deleted. --fvw* 08:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For admins who want to check: the page recreated today by Bosniak can be seen here: [62]; its previous incarnations (through various deletions, moves and cut-and-paste forks) are here and here. See also my comment to Bosniak on my user talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bosniak, that is literally the same page (including the same headers). Other than a difference in reference markup, some minor grammatical changes and other things, it's the same. You've been trying to get that exact same article through in some way or another for almost 18 months. You lost at AFD. Go to WP:DRV and follow instructions. It is your job to convince others to keep the article. Keep on this track and you'll likely get in trouble yourself. Also, does anyone see a need for Talk:Anti-Bosniak sentiment? It's not exactly useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We can delete that once it's clear that the article deletion has stuck. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Misuse of making citations by an IP user

    Resolved
     – Not the right venue for this. Black Kite 18:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to report an anonymous user 125.54.251.167 (125.54.251.185) whose referenced contributions on this article, were different from the relevant data in the source paper of Itabashi Yoshizo(2003),板橋義三 (2003)「高句麗の地名から高句麗語と朝鮮語・日本語との史的関係をさぐる」"Research on the historical relationship between the Goguryeo language and the Korean/ Japanese languages on the basis of the Goguryeo toponyms."「日本語系統論の現在」 "Perspectives on the Origins of the Japanese Language."

    Basically, this user strongly tends to change, remove and correct her/his previous own edits. Therefore the correctness and accuracy of her/his contributions cannot be guaranteed at all. So I have been monitoring this user, correcting a great deal of her/his wrong edits. Probably, that is why s/he invented some false citations as a pretext to justify her/his bad faith edits and to keep out of my corrections. By altering deliberately the cited data taken from the paper of Itabashi, her/his referenced contributions were different from the information of the original source[63], [64](upper and middle one), [65], [66](the lowerst one), and by adding a cited contribution whose relevant data is in fact not existent in the paper of Itabashi Yoshizo at all. [67](lower one) By this, I would like to make it clear that this is not the complaint of misrepresentation of sources, since this user altered the data given the Itabashi’s paper citied by this user.

    Although this user seemed to acknowledge at least my accusation that he had abused citations in bad faith [68], basically s/he made no reasonable excuse for her/his wrongdoing [69],[70], but just tried to cloud the issue. Considering her/his attempts to maintain false referenced edits despite my four times warning. (See also my Edit summaries) [71], [72], [73], [74].

    False citations made by this user are listed below:

    False quotation Original source notes
    ɣapma 盒馬 (山 : mountain) ɣapma 盒馬 (大山 : big mountain) Initially, I corrected this wrong contribution made by this user, based on the academic research. After a while, s/he insisted on her/his previous wrong edit once more by making citation. So I had to correct her/his edit based on the source s/he cited for it.
    mi1ra (蒜 : garlic) mi1ra (韮 : garlic chives)
    kuət-・ιəi kur'iy The reconstruction of the pronunciation of the Goguryeo word.
    kata- (tough, firm) Not existent in the original source I removed the false reference note.
    kari (犁 : plow) kar- (刈る : to cut off)
    so2ɸo(赤 : red) so2ɸo (赤土 : red soil) I corrected this edit made by this user, based on the source s/he cited for her/his contribution. After a while, s/he repeated this bad faith edit again removing her/his own previous citation. So I had to undo her/his unexplained deletion.

    Above all, her/his misuse of making citations may not only degrade the authority of Wikipedia, but may also affect badly to the academic reputation of the author of the original source material. So this user should be blocked for her/his fabrication from editing Wikipedia. However hard one may work to correct intentionally wrong referenced edits by trying to verify the correctness of citations, such cases will happen again and again, if there is no ban for abusing citations.

    In order for this user not to abuse her/his anonymous IP by making further significantly disruptive edits with irresponsible attitude, the article Goguryeo language should be semi-protected as a preliminary measure until this case is finally settled.

    Jagello (talk) 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    And, I don't mean to be rude, but a report of this length is only going to delay action on your case. In my observations, long reports tend to get ignored. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting review on my own action

    Introduction:
    PalestineRemembered (talk · contribs) has been without mentorship since his last mentor nominated him for community ban. Since then, there's been several instances where I felt he should replace his last mentor (Ryan Postlethwaite) or possibly even be placed under sanctioning for several offenses (such as calling fellow wikipedians "racists" and suggesting an editor is a war criminal).
    My action for review:
    I've noticed some pretty strong soapboxing (per: "highly partisan supporters of an illegal policy condemned by the bulk (I think) of Israeli opinion and virtually every significant opinion in the world.") and noted him to try again without it.[75] I'd appreciate some review on this since I feel like I may have over-stepped the boundary as I am not his mentor (though, I understand he currently does not have one anymore).
    With respect, JaakobouChalk Talk 15:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can remind another editor to comply with WP:Civil and WP:AGF civilly. Mentors are just another editor that has hopefully established a relationship with an editor who sometimes violates those policies and can be more successful in persuading them to comply - however it is the editor with the problem that needs to make the effort. If PalestineRemembered is estranged from their mentor then that is their problem, as is any continuing incivility. Continue reminding them, and if they persist warn them and afterward bring it back here to see if any action needs taking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Your action was to delete PR's talk page comment. I've taken the liberty of reverting it, per WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments; I think it's best not to edit others' comments except in extreme circumcstances. In general, a preferable alternative is to simply ask the other editor to modify their comments, without deleting or editing them yourself; it's best if an editor strikes out their own comments if inappropriate.
    In this case, while I'm not familiar with the whole debate, PR's comments which you deleted do not appear to me to be soapboxing, but to be discussing the reliability of sources for the article, which is exactly what article talk pages are for.
    I would like to repeat my earlier suggestion that you and PR avoid each other as much as possible. I see no need to keep bringing up a 15-month-old discussion about mentoring. Where you need to interact on articles, I suggest focussing on article content, and not criticizing each others' behaviour but leaving it to others to do that. I think things will go more smoothly that way. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    PalestineRemembered's post was sharply worded,[76] but I'm not seeing any policy violations there. Seems like an appropriate thing to leave on the page. --Elonka 18:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting removal of 'speedy-delete tag'

    I barely finished creating this article when some wiseguy added the speed-delet tag to the article. As I said in it's talk page,it'll be ready within the span of 2-3 days. Double_Cross_(film) --PhyrnxWarrior (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    From the look of things, it isn't eligible for a WP:CSD#A1 deletion. I'm sure the reviewing admin will decline and remove the tag. At worst, he/she will probably userfy it for you upon request, so you can finish getting it ready. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Unsurprisingly, it was already removed by the time I made my above comment... :-) —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the tag as it was ineligible for the category of speedy delete given. DuncanHill (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominating account, Call me Bubba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), appears to be a role account operated by another user purely for the purposes of deletion (he essentially admits this in one of his first edits). Given the obviously poor judgement shown in this case, a review of this account's other proposed deletions would seem to be overdue. 87.114.128.88 (talk) 19:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ Report on Extra-Judicial killings Committed by the Israeli Occupation Forces -- September 29, 2000 – September 28, 2001, Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 2001.
    2. ^ Jerusalem bombing: A war increasing in cruelty, fuelled by lust for revenge, The Independent, August 10, 2001.
    3. ^ 'The street was covered with blood and bodies: the dead and the dying', The Guardian, August 10, 2001.
    4. ^ Lustick, Ian (1998). "For the Land and the Lord : Jewish fundamentalism in Israel". Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 0876090366. Retrieved 2008-11-06. For political purposes, and despite the geographical imprecision involved, the annexationist camp in Israel prefers to refer to the area between the Green Line and the Jordan River not as the West Bank but as Judea and Samaria.
    5. ^ Bishara, Marwan (1995). "How Palestinians Should Use This Moment". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-11-06. [...] it stretches to the fanatical Jewish chauvinists who want to expel the Arabs from the land they call Judea and Samaria--a territory that, depending on how you read the Bible, could stretch past the Jordan as far as the Euphrates. Says Sternhell: "The minimum the religious Zionists can live with is the West Bank." {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    6. ^ Thomas, Evan (1995). "Can Peace Survive?". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-11-06. The religious settlers in the occupied territories believe that God gave them the West Bank--which they call by the Biblical names Judea and Samaria-and that no temporal leader can give the Promised Land away. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |day= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
    7. ^ Murqus, Sa'īd. Tafsīr kalimāt al-Kitāb al-Muqaddas (Cairo, 1996, in Arabic)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=257957136"