Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia

I have received an email from the person behind the User:Manhattan Samurai account. This person is also believed to be the same person behind the User:BillDeanCarter account - which, as far as I am aware, is an account in good standing, but which hasn't been used since Feb 2008. The Manhattan Samurai account, however, has been troublesome and was recently blocked. The only personal information in the email is the name of the person, and the email address which I am not repeating, the rest of the information is clearly intended for this board so I repeat that here:

You might want to save this email. Consider me the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia now. A high-profile prank has begun. I have figured out how to change my IP address and now many biographies are swapping stories between themselves and fictional families are rising up across the Wiki landscape.

If you want to know, the last straw for me was fucking with my featured article "List of works by William Monahan". Slowly and methodically I will have my revenge. Find a way to terminate Bali Ultimate's account and reverse the damage he has done and I will hand over the names of the accounts that I'm now using

I don't doubt that this person will do as he says, but such vandalism occurs everyday and is dealt with by the systems we have in place. I don't see that there is much for us to do with this information, but felt it was appropriate that I pass it on immediately. SilkTork *^YES! 10:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give him what he wants. Sorry Bali. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Papa! I'm scared! Drmies (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Lex Luthor of Wikipedia ey? Clearly we are dealing with a criminal mastermind deluded 12 year old here Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to reblock with email disabled. Any objections? Stifle (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  Never mind, already done. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

  If you're looking for socks, you might as well start here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs) sent out around 50 emails in the past two days, to a wide variety of users (looks at first glance like one email per recipient). Zdefector (talk · contribs) is looking a bit sockish, as mentioned above, and is a  Confirmed match for Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs), though I'm not seeing a direct connection between those three and the MS account. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange. I received an e-mail from this user on Sunday, one that seemed at face value to be a good faith request for me to pass on his desire to see the Manhattan Samurai account unblocked. His reasons amounted to his "sincere" desire to reform and quietly work on potential featured articles. I was mulling over whether to pass the request on, intending to look into the editor's history a little more closely first, when I saw this. Either the editor is simply trolling, attempting to disrupt the project as much as possible, or is so highly-strung that he genuinely changed his mind from wanting to reform to wanting to vandalise in the space of a few hours. One other thing: he explicitly asked me not to reveal his name on-Wiki. If he made a similar request to the OP, vandal or no, it may have been inappropriate to reveal it here. On the other hand, this might have been a ploy to stop my revealing the name of one of his accounts. Either way, despite my belief that many problem users are redeemable in some way, I suggest that should the account ever be unblocked (highly unlikely), it is done so only if the editor is placed under strict mentorship, with several thousand strings attached. Steve ^{T • C} 11:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anyone has revealed the name of the email account here. To see where people have previously made a connection between the Manhattan Samurai account and other Wikipedia accounts, do a Google search for "Manhattan Samurai". That such a claim has been made on WikipediaReview doesn't mean it is true - it is simply another piece of information in this tortured case. Given the "playful" deception that the user behind Manhattan Samurai has previously used, it is equally likely that the user is NOT behind the other account but - for fun - wishes to make us believe he is. Who knows? SilkTork *^YES! 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he sent me an email saying he was User:BillDeanCarter, which mostly made me wary of belief. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(To SilkTork) What I meant was in reference to revealing the previous account name, he said: "Please be sensitive about revealing that my real name is [X] because I wanted to abandon that account so that my real life information was kept secret." Editing histories seem to indicate that this at least is the truth, but whether this is something we do for people who subsequently turn out to be vandals is something I'll leave for more experienced vandal-fighters to deal with. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 12:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be uncivil, i knew that MS was trouble the moment i met him (his "wiki-conspiracy"). It seems we've found another Bambifan101. Elbutler (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

By calling himself the "lex luthor of wikipedia", does he mean that he's going to repeatedly come up with numerous elaborate and convoluted schemes which always have fatal flaws which the good guys/gals always exploit easily, resulting in the scheme failing and him going to jail?--Jac16888^Talk 12:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah pretty much, like Superman, Wikipedians can't be blackmailed easily. Lets just whack every sockpuppet account that pops like a whack-a-mole, after sooner or later he'll come to sense and realize he shoudn't waste his life on "getting revenge on Wikipedia", but if he does waste his life, he/she is a deluded child. Elbutler (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Does he realize that Lex Luthor is just a pain in the ass who never actually wins? He should think of himself as the Washington Generals of Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as if those drawn here aren't into pain? :D Gwen Gale (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor! Lex Luthor fired nuclear missiles into the San Andreas Fault in an attempt to plunge the entire West Coast of America into the sea! At the moment this guy is somewhere inbetween Mister Mxyzptlk and Toyman. Stilh, he made me laugh tho, so I say we comply with his request. Ryan4314 (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"The Bibbo Bibbowski of Wikipedia" or "The Kandy Man of Wikipedia" don't have the same ring to them, though. – iridescent 12:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread gives him the drama he craves. His apparent point at wikipedia all along has been to play games, insert fictional memes here and there involving inside jokes between him and his pals. I don't know which are his socks or even if he has many, but there is always lots of sock-type behavior around him (if you look at almost any article he's edited heavily, there's always a series of SPA's that make 50 or so edits, then dissapear when a brand new SPA comes along). However, i've been deeling with abuse from Zdefector (talk · contribs), Scijournalist (talk · contribs) and Bankscover (talk · contribs). This sockmaster is at least a confederate of MS, yet no blocks have been handed out over the confirmed socking?

All three now blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• So, articles are the new real estate? rootology (C)(T) 14:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

See Domain_name#Official_assignment, think of en.Wikipedia topics as something alikened and all the kerfluffle becomes much easier to understand. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I got an email from MS too. I blocked him from sending email from his account. Just deny him and he'll go away. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Spot on. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this might be a good situation in which is would be appropriate to revert/undo all edits made by confirmed socks. Especially based on the threats of providing false information. This would further support to deny the attention this 12 year old craves as well as ensure that content has not been compromise. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I received an email from him, too, but the one I got seems to have good intentions behind it. What would you guys suggest I did? — neuro^(talk) 17:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

He has obviousley stated his bad intentions. I say delete the email and ignore him. His account has also been blocked from sending email (and all sock accounts should be similarly blocked as well IMO). Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• I hadn't checked my wiki email in a few days. Got the same one, also claiming User:BillDeanCarter as a sock, as well as User:Smith Jones and User:Deathdestroyer. //roux   17:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we need to take theses sock, "confesssions" carefuly and ensure that they are socks and not good faith editors that MS has a grudge against or wants to get blocked for the hell of it. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur totally. arimareiji (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It will come down to behavior. I'd bet the farm that Billdean, deathdestroyer and MS are the same. Smith jones while an odd character (he deliberately uses mispellings to create double meanings as well as spoonerisms and prose that is generally so impenetrable that it can't be by accident) i have no opinion on. But MS would absolutely love to cast suspicion on "innocent" accounts. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

SJ was one of MS' more ardent supporters/friends, which casts some suspicion. Should we be opening a specific SPI thing on this or are Checkusers handling behind the scenes? //roux   19:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Luna Santin did run a CU, looks like, from the post above; not sure if another one would be appropriate to try and connect with the other claimed editors. I suspect MS is just trying to take some innocent victims down with him at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• By 'Lex Luthor' I thought he was stating that he we made him go bald and he hates us for it. HalfShadow 18:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, speaking as someone who is bald. So I guess now I can never refer to myself as the Lex Luthor of Wikipedia; I'll have to settle for being the George Costanza of Wikipedia now. -- llywrch (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• this is a personal dreisappointment to me. manhatan samurai was a good friend and while he idd have some issues that he oftne caused him to tangle with adminsitrators and other wikipedians he contributed to some very effectual articles such as Alan Cabal, gareth penn, ralph bakshi, and is Google making us stupid. however, i concede that eventualy the conmmunity has to have put up with enough bullcrud from this user and while it pains me to see a good editor go down for something so childish and quizotic, i agree that tis probably for the best. hopefuly User:Manhatan Samurai will take this opportnunity to withdraw, rex-amine his proiroties, and if he really wants to continue his contributions reutrn secretivly under a new name and edit constructively without lapsing back into hsi old behaviors and amake a good faith effor tto follow community policies and bylaws. as someone who considers him a friend, i hope that he will abandon his curent strategorizing and behave with more dignity in the future when he returns. Smith Jones (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
• i just noticed tha t some other users are comparing me to Manhattan Samurai as if i am sockpuppet of him. Let it be known thus far declared; i worked with Manhattan Samurai colaboritvely to save an article Alan Cabal which it hought was being deleted unfairly. we followed all the rules' when we lost the initial WP:AFD, we took it to deletion review, then got the assistance of an adminstrator to userficate the page, then improved it through extesnive resarch to the point where it was valid to reintroduce it to the mainpage. as a srueslt of this collaboration, the spirit of Wikipedia i might add, i decided to contineu working with Manhattan samurai and develop working relationships with him to improve aritlces for which he had a shared interest.
• That is the extent of our involvement; i am neither his meatpuppet nor his sockpupet and if any good faith suspicions remain in existence among my fellow wikipedian i Welcome a CheckUser or any other sockpuppet investigative tools since i believe in operating on a high standard and I invite any good faith users to scrutinize my behavior and correct any mistakes which i have made itn the past. Smith Jones (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Our involvement"? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at all of this, I was expecting someone to have stolen 40 cakes. And that's terrible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, what's terrible is that the cakes look like pies. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the cake is a lie Joshua. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

With each passing day I grow more convinced that WPians need more outlets for lighthearted communication and humor. But they seem to find them well enough on their own. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone who was watching this thread is interested, i believe the sock farm is agrowing, and have opened up a request to look int it here [[1]]. Bali ultimate (talk) 22:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

per this all confirmed and blocked, including a couple not previously listed, it seems. ThuranX (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive POV-pushing

Lear 21 (talk · contribs) has been pushing for the inclusion of the European Union in the various "List of Countries by ____" articles for some time now. A wide discussion over a year ago (a discussion he participated in) resulted in a consensus that has held steady to the present. Recently, he has edit-warred on List of countries by population and List of countries and outlying territories by total area in contravention of seemingly apparent consensus against his position. He has also canvassed inappropriately (example) to gain support for his position on the latter article. Most recently, he has announced his intention to edit-war on a daily basis to ensure his position is upheld. He has also claimed that I and other editors are a cabal of chauvinist ideologues that is a threat to an encyclopedia...dedicated to inform{ing} humanity. This all smacks of someone on a crusade to "educate" the rest of us, and demonstrates a clear intention to disregard any consensus that disagrees with his own view. This type of disruption is damaging to the encyclopedia and a waste of all of our time. Is it perhaps time for a topic ban? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.

I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking - Come on guys, discussions can get quite emotional and hot. For the vast majority of his statements in the long discussion of the EU's entry Lear21 always came up with very valid points. The whole discussion became quite fruitless because of a lack of new arguments and not because of uninvolved editors as stated above. So don't try to find some single incidents that may be caused by some frustration about the fruitless all-over-again discussions to cut him out here, as this would be censorship. - Additionally, I feel obliged to add that it was Pfainuk who opened up this Pandora's box by deleting the EU's entry and violating the standing comprise in the first place. This started the whole mess/discussion and therefore his view in this incident notice can hardly be seen as impartial. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll not get into the details of the content dispute here because it's beside the point - though I'll point out that the original edit did not delete the EU from the article (I moved it from one part of the article to another), and that the EU did not have an entry on the list before this discussion started. I will note that I did declare my interest in this at the very beginning of my message - and I note with interest that you, also an involved party, did not.

Discussions can become emotional, sure, that does not justify Lear's personal attacks, nor his apparent intent to force through a change by perpetually edit warring, nor his refusal to AGF (here he told another editor that his comments were "a joke and therefore inexistent"). I'm not arguing for a block, I'm arguing for a topic ban. I think that when an editor all but announces that he's going to continue to edit war against consensus for "years", he needs to stop editing on those articles or be stopped from editing those articles. You say the discussion has got quite emotional - maybe (though apparently only one one side). But that's not an excuse to edit war until you get your way. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Any block or topic ban should be based on the real facts. So, he announced he could go to edit war ... so what? Did he actually do it? When did he violate the WP:3RR? ... I think that in both our countries we wouldn't get convicted only on basis of announcing a misdoing - why should we act differently on Wikipedia? Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is this: Lear has canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS. He has attacked other editors. And he has edited in direct contravention of apparent consensus on the talk page; that is disruptive editing in my book. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that partially goes for Pfainuk as well, as he has pushed for the removal of the EU's entry from the initial section of the article, in direct violation of the established consensus without creating a new consensus on the talk page first. That's disruptive editing by the same standards. Consensus can change, nobody is saying anything different, but there was no new consensus in the first place. - Having said that, if Lear21 should be topic banned, so should Pfainuk ... and I'm nominating myself as well, as I'm not completely sure that I acted without flaws in all my past edits. - Otherwise, we all could just cool down and forget this whole nonsense. Really. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I boldly moved the EU from above the list to below it. When I was reverted, I took it to talk. That's actually endorsed by guidelines, not condemned. Pfainuk talk 14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no one is perfect, but that doesn't give Lear an excuse to be disruptive. I think all of us—save Lear—could quite easily drop the issue and leave it as it is. That is exactly the problem; Lear has indicated that he will accept no outcome other than his own version. That unwillingness to compromise is totally unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Wikipedia while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.

None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 insists to either recognize external expert sources and the methodology of more than 20 sister Wiki languages OR to stick to longterm stable version which was backed by more than 10 editors over the last 3 years. User Lear 21 has not announced to start an edit war ! Quote "This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise." Instead user Parsecboy (initiator of this notice) and user Polaron have not intervened the breaching of a longstanding compromise version although both have been part of it a year ago. User Parsecboy is only willing to give incorrect and biased summaries of the discussions in order to get rid of an unwanted participant but established Wikipedia editor Lear 21. I have no doubt that this behaviour stands in a stark contradiction with guidelines issued for administrators. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not follow what other Wikis do, we are our own project; what fr.wiki or de.wiki do is totally irrelevant. Moreover, this discussion here is not over any content; it's about your poor behavior on both the articles and their talk pages.

As for whether or not you literally said you intended to edit war, "I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis." seems to be pretty clear in its meaning to me. I have made 1 edit each to both of the articles in question; I have no intention of fueling any edit-warring by adding to the reverts. Note this edit summary, where I chastised both edit-warring parties to stop reverting each other. Where exactly have I made incorrect or biased summaries? You have canvassed in violation of WP:CANVASS, attacked other editors, and edited in a disruptive manner. That you have not refuted any of these is telling. Parsecboy (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking too

It's sort of intellectual dishonesty to quote people out of context. If interested, people can judge by themselve how does Lear can progressively come to such behavior. I can witness that the communication with two wikipedians on this article, namely BritishWatcher and Pfainuk, appear to be impossible as long as we don't follow their POV. They seem to fail to understand the aim of making medium proposals when there is strong POV dispute, they seem to fail aswell to understand that their POV are not worth more than others, they are infringing the 2nd pillar of WP and yet reminding others about WP rules.

For what I have seen, they are pushing -consciously or not- to avoid reaching a consensus that could not satisfy them at least at 90%. That's not called trying to reach a medium equilibrium between parties, and that's not an encyclopaedian spirit, a WP spirit even less.

So, when facing such behavior, when you keep explaining that 1+1=2 and you keep being answered that 1+1=3 for more than a month, I can understand that people can lose patience. Some here judge that Lear has been disruptive, he's probably not perfect in his behavior, but maybe those who launch such accusations should take a look in the mirror too and get a perspective.

I personally stopped fighting this, as such closed and rigid mind is out of my understanding. I'm trying my best to assume good faith and accept something that please everyone, but I have to admit that in the present case, it's hard. Rules, conservatism and own POV should never overlay common sense, wide view, flexibility, honesty, self-questioning, logic and deductive mind.

I, too, could ask for something that suit me better, but I'm trying not to overweight my requests to allow different POV to be displayed, as I'm constantly trying to follow the spirit of Voltaire ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"), but I have limits, like everyone else, including Lear. Orravan (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're reading the same discussions I am. Barely a week into the current discussion, Lear was already attacking Britishwatcher and Pfainuk: I congratulate BritishWatcher and Pfainuk being a stereotypical, aggressive anti-European deletionists at Wikipedia like many others before, be proud of it. But please spare your hate and ignorance for the tabloid sections in your country without spreading it here in an encyclopedia. Nothing taken out of context; two whole sentences, linked to the post he made. Note that it was the second post he made to the discussion. This does not seem like someone who has tried for weeks to circumvent WP:ICANTHEARYOU type behavior, and finally losing patience. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Barely a week into the discussion, it seems that Lear was also facing anew a behavior he fought several times in the past. There is something else Lear wrote, just above the part you've chosen to paste, which help to put the quote into perspective : "Since my first edits about these issues the only editors who constantly delete, diminish and vandalize EU related content come from one country, the UK. I have met or read about more than 50 of them during the last 3 years. These editors display almost no EU related knowledge and still feel being able to judge the issues."

It's indeed a personnal POV and we agree that it definitely does not allow someone to be rude. Now for my opinion : I don't consider him to have been rude, just being tired of what could be considered as vandalism in others situations, tired of what he saw several times and saw once again when Pfainuk and BW started to argue exactly the way 50 persons did before, with the same flaws and yet the same extreme self-confidence. Early into the discussion, I felt really uncomfortable myself about the way they were eluding some basic rationales and facts, like if they wanted to prove that their POV were better or something, while WP is about neutral knowledge, and not partisan choices. There can't be consensus nor agreement without fair equilibrium. Orravan (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's missing the whole point of this issue. "Being tired" is not an excuse to attack other editors, nor is it an excuse to votestack, or edit-war. Lear is just as guilty of ignoring basic rationales and facts as anyone else; "being tired" doesn't give him a free pass to behave as he wishes. I've also been involved with these issues for quite some time. I too could say I'm tired of the whole debate; why don't I just delete the article and indef-block all the involved users, and save us the trouble? According to your line of reasoning, I too would be entirely justified to do whatever I want. My point is this: we have limits on behavior for a very good reason. If we choose to ignore them because a user is "tired of the same arguments", then what good are the rules in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear could have been way softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé.

Now to make it clear, no one said tiredness is an excuse, I'm just telling you : put things into perspective, in-context, to fully understand it before judging. Is the one speaking out loud guilty when pushed repetively by someone more disruptive but silent ? So I can keep insulting someone for days until he punch me, he's gonna be 100% the one pointed out ?

Also, if someone keeps erasing the data of an article, and I keep reintroducing it, would it be edit-war stricto sensu (aka : POV conflict), or protection from vandalism ? Pure POV issue here.

You can be highly disruptive without giving it the stance, I don't even argue that they have been on purpose, I think they are of good faith, just being overconfident about their POV, misunderstanding about the need for neutral point of view and fearing to see their POV overlaid by another one. It has not been the case here, as the aim is to reach an equilibrium between every POV. It can't be done when someone keep seeing your POV not worthy to be displayed along with his and reject POV he disagree with.

So, why is Lear blamed here ? Because he stated an opinion he made over his experience and expressed that BW and Pfainuk were acting the same way dozen of people did before ? To say it again : definitely Lear could have been softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé. That was the substance of my previous post.

Also, you say that he reacted vigorously already in his 2nd post, but I started arguing with them myself one month and a half ago, do you think Lear unable to read what have already been wrote, compare to what he saw repetively in the past, and make a statement over it ? That's why it's important to me to look at the whole issue, to put things into perspective, to avoid being blinded by visible events only.

Once again, what I've seen definitely lacks tact, indeed, but is not at all over limit, especially when you look carefully at the dispute as a whole.

Now to make it clear, I'll be slightly off-topic to make a quick reminder to understand the dispute. Here's what WP says about the EU sui generis specificity : "In political science, the unparalleled development of the European Union as compared to other international organizations has led to its designation as a sui generis geopolitical entity. There has been widespread debate over the legal nature of the EU given its mixture of intergovernmental and supranational elements, with the organisation thus possessing some characteristics common to confederal and federal entities." (from Sui generis article).

Arguing that the status of the EU is not clear and fixed —both de jure and de facto— is not a POV, it's a FACT, and that's why the dispute is and will be endless as long as someone think to hold the Thruth. The dispute is now about whether the EU should be above or under the list, which is childish and a loss of time, and endless aswell.

I came with a proposal already applied elsewhere on WP and almost everywhere out of it : including it unranked in the lists. If you've carefully read me until now, you easily understand how it's a compromise as it reflects a reality, a fact. Should you be a pro or anti EU, nobody cares, as the purpose of WP is to provide knowledge, and as far as I've seen, it seems that Lear had been the one willing to accept compromise and sticking to facts (as I try to do myself). Orravan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If any user had the impression of being personally attacked by my edits I´m sorry. I apologize for it. I will return to fact based argumentation, citing references and providing logic reasoning in the future only. The initial complain of this notice, the disruptive POV-pushing, has to be rejected by all terms though. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Handing off

LirazSiri (talk · contribs) is, by admission, the co-founder of a software project, TurnKey Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The article Liraz wrote on this project was deleted as promotion (WP:CSD#G11). It was reposted, again by Liraz, with the addition of a couple of trivial non-independent sources (the Ubuntu community wiki newsletter). This has now been to WP:DRV, my talk page and WP:VPP. Liraz is convinced the deletion means we are an evil deletionist cabal. Liraz also believes that my statement that continuing to argue the toss over content you write about your own projects can lead to blocking, amounts to "suppression". Rfwoolf (talk · contribs), who has a long-standing grudge against me personally, chose to try to "help", and in the end Liraz appears to be interpreting everything xe doesn't want to hear according to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and to interpret everything which is even slightly pleasant as support for the crusade to have the article. Liraz' judgment that the original deleting admin was an abusive bully has now been transferred to me and amplified, and I am now "suppressive" a "bully" and "censoring" stuff. So I am walking away. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It [2] reads like an advertisement, and the belligerence displayed by its author is typical of self-promoters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Guy has been, in my view, reasonable in his dealings with LirazSiri, who apparently feels that there have been personal attacks and harassment occurring, none of which I've been able to spot in their dealings. Rfwoolf has a long and problematic history with Guy, was not involved in the discussion, and then threw an attack in out of nowhere. There is also a lengthy discussion on the Policy pump that is horribly misplaced as it's turned into an argument over the admin activities. While the deletion may have been a borderline decision at the start (I may have AFD'd the article, for example, while others would speedy it), the entire situation is now spiralling into a brawl. Definitely needs more eyes (besides mine, as I'm a cranky bastard with too many deadlines this week and next and the block button is getting bigger and shining red as I go along). Tony Fox (arf!) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of you... but... assuming the best, this seems to me to be an editor who wishes to create an article about a product that (IMHO) is notable enough to deserve an article (the article's subject isn't "just another Linux distribution", as I first thought, and seems to have at least one quite innovative feature). The editor, as a newbie, failed to establish notability and ran up against WP:COI. Their close relationship with the article's subject made them defensive, and that in turn led to problems working with other edtors and admins. Despite my previous belief (struck-thru', below) that we could possibly mark this as resolve, I believe the editor is still railing against other editors (a situation that is, to some degree, being encouraged). In particular the editor is reluctant to create the article in userspace. Would it be possible for an admin to (a) offer some degree of protection to the editor's userspace, and (b) possibly offer mentoring (the mentoring wouldn't necessarily need to come from an admin; I'd be prepared to mentor, for example). I think some degree of strong message to the editor is necessary, but not one that closes all doors. As I said back-a-ways I do believe that this subject is notable, and that a decent article could emerge. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per this edit it sounds like the editor is stepping back too. Various editors have left advice should LirazSiri (talk · contribs) choose to re-create the article. Mark this as resolved?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking; I'm not convinced that the editor has stepped back. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by railing against other editors, but I feel your original assessment on stepping back from the article is true. Perhaps if I truly had something to gain personally by continuing to pursue this I would be more motivated to continue fighting for the article's inclusions and the basis for its notability but I've discovered an ugly side of Wikipedia that has discouraged me from further engaging myself in this dispute. I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Wikipedia. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally. Naturally I got defensive. I didn't sign up for all this drama and though I find Wikipedia's community and culture fascinating I really do have better things to do with my time than fend off these attacks. Now that I know how quickly things can turn into a battlefield just as soon as you attract the wrong kind of attention, I'll come back only after I believe my position is strong enough to convince even the likes of Guy, other die-hard deletionists and the blue wall of allies that would otherwise gang up on me and accuse me of having bad faith, abusing Wikipedia by advertising "yet another non-notable Ubuntu fork" on Wikipedia (in order to promote myself of course), while acting in conflict of interest. I don't know why they singled TurnKey Linux out as it is more notable than any of the other unofficial Ubuntu derivatives that have articles. I have my suspicions. It's a free software project that is giving away software appliances that other proprietary vendors are charging a hefty ransom for. I can't prove anything though, and there's the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what can attributed to simple incompetence. It doesn't matter though. An article on Wikipedia matters little in the grand scheme of things. LirazSiri (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Small aside: by "railing against other editors" I meant, in part, the section on your talk page titled "Attempted censorship of critical speech on this talk page". Note that I am not taking sides here; I'm not saying you're right/wrong and Guy's wrong/right or whatever. I'm just noting that this suggests that the matter at hand can't simply be marked as "resolved". Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be helpful if an outside person had a sit down with Rfwoolf about his/her "help"? AnyPerson (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Help" indeed. This minor skirmish reminds me of the battle royale that occurred last summer over someone else's pet computer language, something called MKR. [3] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being an admin I don't have access to the delete logs (or I do and I'm too stupid to know it), but what was the reason given for deleting the userspace article? And what does this say about using userspace to clean-up articles? If we can't collect our thoughts and improve an article we're just supposed to get it perfect the first shot out of the box? That doesn't seem right. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wall?

I have no idea what's going on between them, but Foxcow (talk · contribs), David the Dogman (talk · contribs) et al. (see their talkpages for some more "participants") seem to be doing some networking via Wikipedia relating to something to do with Wall. (Your guess is as good as mine.) Thoughts?  GARDEN  21:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are attempts to use Wikipedia for social networking growing? This is the 3rd incident I've seen in the last month. Indef blocks? That's what I did last time after a warning. dougweller (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The b-man had some interaction with one of these folks, maybe he can lend some insight here... –xeno (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much about them---I blocked one of them for making legal threats and then again for block evasion, but have since come to the conclusion that the person I blocked might be part of this cliche. I suspect that they are all a group of HS friends/buddies. Beyond that, I can't really add much.---I'm Spartacus! ^PoppaBalloon 23:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(EC with Xeno)We apparently have several bored schoolchildren in Florida, who are using Wikipedia as a substitute for social networking sites which are blocked by the FCAT explorer software (or the school's IT people have installed a similar filter). I'd suggest nuking the user talk pages, and directing them to any of a number of social networking sites, all of which should be accessible from their computers at home. Since Balloonman has changed his name, I suspect that would confuse the kids. Horologium (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the talkpages that were pure vandalism/testing/advertising/whatever and blanked the others, leaving a friendly message on each. Might be worth noting that someone created Ihatefoxcow (talk · contribs) and at least one other account to attack these users.  GARDEN  22:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

"wall" is a reference to Facebook, with the "wall" being the place that you post comments, see what the person is doing, etc. Wikipedia is not Facebook (WP:FACEBOOK not withstanding). Users that are here solely to socialize should be told to contribute to the project as a first and final warning; if they don't get that, they should be forcibly shown the door.
For the record, I'm all for friendly chit-chat; however, such chit-chat should come secondary to positive contributions (either mainspace edits or project-level edits). EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh! God, I'm so out of touch. Which might be odd considering the stereotype for my age group. Okay, your idea seems strict but fair.  GARDEN  10:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I realize your points and will start making positive contributions like I did to Page (servant) and Squire and I will use all I know to help the articles. David the Dogman (talk) 19:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Also want to now why you deleted my only copy of the book of wall. we worked hard on that. David the Dogman (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I have nothing better to do I will tell you guys everything. I created a account. I then told David the Dogman who created Rangersarecool. We after a bit both got blocked I was able to get unblocked while David created several other accounts. Now he has David the dogman. We created a fake religion, called Church of Wall. He put it on my talk page and his. I didn't know about the no chats like myspace and stuff like that rule. Sorry.--Foxcow (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to comply with WP:SIG

I'm not sure how to deal with this, because blocking seems to be rather extreme, but it's frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to comply with a behavioral guideline. User talk:Ottre (userpage is a redlink) has customized his signature to eliminate any links (to his userpage, his user talk page, or even his special:contributions page). I first contacted him on January 21st on his userpage (diff) asking him to change his signature to conform to WP:SIG. He never responded to me, but when it was raised on another talk page, he dismissed it, stating that he "didn't abide by policy on linking signatures". (diff) Meanwhile, when he left another comment on a talkpage that is on my watchlist, and I followed up on my original message, he responded on my talk page "I saw your first message. I am not fixing my signature, as it encourages contact with editors who follow WP:V—contact I would rather avoid." (which was left with only a timestamp, no user name whatsover).(diff) Does anyone have a suggestion on how to resolve this situation? Horologium (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore it for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

↑What Bish said. Is there really nothing worse going on to worry about? – iridescent 22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll ignore behavioral guidelines. Should I ignore all of them, or only certain ones? Horologium (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the ones that, when ignored, don't actually harm the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Only certain ones. Knowing which ones to ignore is part of the IAR final exam. --barneca (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I *did* say that I tended to be more EGOUR than rouge. I've invoked IAR only twice since confirmation, although I have been tempted on a few more occasions. However, it's a bit frustrating to have to pull up the talk page history to leave a message with a user who doesn't have his sig linked, which is what originally prompted me to address the issue. The page in question (the one on my watchlist) is under article probation, so it's a little more than just rule-wankery or nannyism. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it was going to be something stupid like a excessively bolded names, but I would say a sig with no identification is bordering on disruption, and pointy disruption at that, considering he apparently wants to "avoid" those who follow policy. There's no reason to invoke IAR for this; it's not improving the wiki; I say we give him the chance to fix it or block. Simple as that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly inconsiderate. If he didn't sign his name at all, I'd be more inclined to make a big deal of it. But if the signature includes his unlinked username (I believe User:Doku does something similar), you don't need to go into the history, it's just the extra effort of cutting and pasting. That's not really a sig with no identification. I suggest just muttering under your breath about his lack of consideration for other people, and leave it at that. Now, if he's being disruptive in other ways, this would be one more log on the bonfire. But I wouldn't act on that issue alone, if there was nothing else. also, I don't understand why he's worried about editors who follow WP:Verifiability? :) --barneca (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Docu who used to do that (and still does: [4]); and similarly drew complaints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Echoing EVula, while having a non-WP:SIG compliant signature is annoying, annoying ≠ disruption. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've made thousands of edits without any major problems so far. Is it a wank that I think WP:V is a trademark, which should be replaced by freely-created American, Australian, British, Canadian and South African versions of WP:RS? I know thousands of editors share this view, and do things like deliberately red-linking to their (deleted) userpages, so it can't be that disruptive. 23:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs)

(as an addon to my previous post) That said (for whatever reason my browser didn't want more text, sorry to split this) do you have examples of no-name signatures in article talk? That's where it's disruptive, and while it's still acting like a jackass to not link your username if he's at least making it clear it's him there's not as much of an issue. (ec twice) ...And the above is exactly what I'm talking about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs. Ottre is aware of this is causing discomfort for others. If he is unwilling to be a collegial member of our community by following simple norms about signatures, he should choose an alternate hobby. If he doesn't fix the signature promptly, a short initial block would be in order. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore me then! I have never made a completely anonymous post to a talk page, and indeed have signed ~100 IP contribs—particularly at AFD. Not linking to my history on WP is a core part of my editing philosophy; do you refuse to consider the idea that if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition? I do, and am actively in sourcing information by adding page refs, and checking the print edition of newspaper refs used in WP:ACOF articles. 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs)

So, I genuinely prefer WP:RS to WP:V. Could you tell me why not having a linked sig is a protest against WP:V? I'm really confused. Skinwalker (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am really confused. Some of the posts above have no signature at all. I do not know how I can follow this thread when I don't know who is posting the message. It becomes impossible.SteelSkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist both your talk pages now. I'd also like to submit this case be closed, as I always sign with my unlinked name (except in this case, to prove the conversation can easily be followed with just a timestamp and identifier) and this practice per se can hardly be considered disruption. Likely just an intolerant administrator, rejects the concept of generationalism (my name for the above, editing philosophy). Ottre 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what does this have to do with verifiability vs. reliable sources? Does not having a linked signature somehow abrogate WP:V? I'm not an admin, and therefore can't block you, but I'm genuinely curious about your stance. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to discuss how (incredibly) well it works. Ottre 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warn & block. There are good reasons for linked sigs, and I'm unconvinced by reasons to the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Warn and then nuke. The attitude to ignore is ridulous and a reason for alot of drama. Should we ignore until there is a certain threshold of disruption and drama? Is or is this not against policy/guidelines? If it isn't then I apologize but I would be more than annoyed if I was interacting with this user with his present signature. --Tom 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a final warning, followed by a block if there is no improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity, like the peacock displays its tail? I'm sure very few people *want* to sign like Ottre does, and out of those that do want to, peer pressure will stop most of them putting it into practice. That leaves a miniscule minority who will actually do it. It's a bagatelle. But contrariness might turn it into a Movement, if somebody here insists on making a big deal of it. Please mellow out. Contrariness ≠ disruption. Bishonen | talk 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I think the only one who needs to mellow out here is you, Bish. We agree on a low-drama solution to possible and past POINTy disruption, that's done with. Ottre and you want to turn this into something more. Bringing this back in hand, Ottre, I think you should consider yourself warned. Please sign with at least your username, linked or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen, I was trying to say that if this user is not breaking any policy or guideline, then I apologize and that user can carry on, but I would find it annoying, thats all. Also what does ZOMG stand for since i see it alot. I know after its explained I'll have know that. Anyways, no biggie, cheers, --Tom 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained here [5] and also with somewhat less clarity in wiktionary, OMG is "Oh My God" and the "z" or "Z" in front of it has no particular meaning except emphasis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note that "All Gods Forfend" is the most common equivalent amongst pagans. Anyway... Ottre 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You entered the discussion without even clicking on WP:SIG first? Wow. I mean, I see. ZOMG means Oh My God, with a Z in front of it for extra internetspeakiness. :-) Bishonen | talk 00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I did read it, but missed the part about it being "behavioual" vs a "guideline" which is different from a "policy"?? My freaking head is going to explode :) Even with the user name, without it being link does make it more effort to contact a user. For the 3rd time, if this user is within policy or guidelines or whatever, then its my problem not his.OMG :) --Tom 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been following, please don't use words like "effort". My talk page can be accessed via PageUp > History > Ottre:Talk. This is a matter (I hope) of whether or not it is acceptable for an experienced editor to flaunt established but minor editing practices. Ottre 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to waste your time. That past POINT was made for a very constructive reason, unlike the "policy-wise" admins who are calling for a block if there is "no improvement" (Come on! Of course I am going to agree with consensus), and I only had to sign three times without any username at all. Ottre 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the love of [offensive object removed ], you're not required to have an account, you're not required to sign your edits, you're not required to link to anything in your sign - it's a polite suggestion, and shrugging it offer carries the penalty of getting nasty looks and naught more.
  • You're not required to respect other Wikipedians. You're not required to assume good faith. You're not required to use common sense. You're not required to say anything useful. You're not required to talk about Fight Club. Er.. wait. Ignore the last one. I hope you get what I mean, tho. :) --Conti|✉ 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• WOW! what an utterly ridiculous complaint this is. Some admins really have too much time on their hands. RMHED. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap. On a collaborative project the ability to communicate clearly is rather importance. Making authorship of talk page comments easy to identify is kinda an important part of this.Geni 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, they could just edit as an IP, or register a new account for every edit. Then they'd be perfectly in line with policy and even less traceable. WilyD 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I might add that my words above, where I said this whole discussion is about a "minor editing practice", aren't meant to suggest it is unimportant. It's minor/trivial because by this stage in the project, there are probably millions of edits where people have logged out to contribute something to an article. Ottre 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then log out and edit as an IP so no one will bother with you, or else continue with your unlinked sig; however, WP:SIG as guideline or essay or no, leaving only a timestamp is disruptive; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. That's all that needs to be said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a social experiment by one member to see how much annoying behavior can be withstood by other project members? The only convincing argument s/he has made so far is that s/he does it so other project members will have a more difficult time verifiying if s/he is making constructive edits. The ability to do this is what protects the integrity of the project. I'm all for personal privacy rights, but their rights end where the rest of societies rights begin. Deliberately annoying behavior for it's own sake is disruptive.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? Ignore this guy. There is no reason to ban/block/lose someone over something so amazingly trivial as a signature. there is a name and a timestamp. IF we are honestly considering blocking this person for that and only that, i'm...well I'm not even sure that I recognize this place. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Come on, it says right at the very top that there can be exceptions. This. Is. Not. Blockable. SarekOfVulcan, 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• No name signatures are little different than IP signatures; there's no return address likely to connect with the sender so the conversation must be of little import. Although I shouldn't be by now, I am surprised how much angst such a minor thing that doesn't affect anyone gets some people - go on, edit something by now... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SIG clearly states that a signature must link to the user page. This is to provide easy communication amongst users. Some think that communication is a minor thing, but I think it is vitally important. My suggestion to Ottre is to put the link back into your signature and sign your posts properly to avoid angst among other users, and to end the fuss. Do it now, then we can all go home.SteelSkin (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, what's with all the sigs that include names but no links all of a sudden? Is this in response to this? rootology (C)(T) 05:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Always listen to Bish. This could have been over at post number two. I really dont see why people want so much unneeded drama. -M^ask? 10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the first thing we tell anyone who's in a dispute is to discuss it with the other editor. How's that possible if there's no link in the sig?

I know, we can all figure out where to leave messages, but we've been here a while. New editors wouldn't have any idea from looking at a talk page how to contact him, and aren't those the editors we're supposed to be welcoming?

It might or might not be strictly against policy, but it's certainly an arrogant statement, one that says "if you don't already know how to contact me, you shouldn't be doing so anyway." Dayewalker (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit WP:ABFish, but on the other hand it does look as if the user is being a bit pointy. This is not the first time it's happened (e.g. Docu) and there is a reasonable degree of consensus that linking in the sig is something one should do, but no consensus to make failure to do so a hanging offence. If it's a protest, then that probably violates WP:POINT. It does confuse n00bs, and annoys some people. The obvious answer is for the user to simply fix the problem. I have a redlinked user page, and that is deliberate, it is actually quite useful to see how people react to a redlinked user page, but my sig still takes you somewhere you can talk to me. It's that absence of a quick way of getting to the user directly, which causes friction. Guy (Help!) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lemme see if I can get this right...based on: "if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition", it seems the primary motive here is deliberate obfuscation. They don't want to "have contact with" anybody who tries to enforce WP:V, because they don't personally think they should be required to follow WP:V as it pertains to uncited statements in articles. By refusing to provide a link to their contribs, they are hoping that the (albeit small) amount of extra effort required to check their editing history will: A)lower the chances that an editor will notice their history of adding uncited statements to articles, and thus B)increase the chances that people won't challenge and delete their current unsourced contribs to an article based on that history...phew. Convoluted, eh? If the guy had just said "I don't feel like it", I probably would have just said leave him alone. But now I'm really uncomfortable with invoking WP:IAR so this guy can run his strange, pointy Breakfast Machine-esque obfuscation scheme and confuse people wherever he goes. Bullzeye ^contribs 13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... in the case of User:Docu it is relatively easy to type in the username and get to the appropriate page. On the other hand, SHEFFIELDSTEEL isn't terribly helpful for anyone trying to get to my pages. That's because I use caps in my sig that aren't in my username, of course - but what about an editor who has extended / non-Roman / Unicode characters in their user name? It seems that the only way people could get to their user page would be to cut and paste their sig. Not exactly convenient.

Now, in the real world I would be right there on the barricades if anyone suggested we all had to get our addresses tattoed on our foreheads, but this is a wiki. It's based on hypertext. It is supposed to be easy (convenient, even) to click on links to get to other pages. Those users who have refused to follow this communal norm, of providing a link in their signature, have yet to provide any convincing justification for this. Whether you call that refusal "making a point" or "being pointy", it is counter-productive to the ideal of building a community whose purpose is writing an encyclopaedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or people could click the history. We should also be pretty wary of community norms that develop in the late stage of community formation. They may have more to do with defining a community (outwardly or inwardly) than they do with making an encyclopedia. We should be doubly wary of our temptation to equate those community norms with what is or is not "counter-productive". Protonk (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem getting to User talk:Ottre as such, it just requires extra typing. It's basically rudeness on the part of Docu and Ottre to compel people to do that extra work. But there are a lot ruder things that go on here that don't get blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Either it's okay for the everyone else to force individuals to put a link to one of their pages (user, talk, or contribs) or it's okay for individuals to force everyone else to have to go to the history to scrutinise their edits. Personally, I think that avoiding scrutiny is bad, and that having a link in one's sig is good, but I'm willing to accept it if consensus is (after e/c) that a certain amount of rudeness is okay, as long as it's within the letter of the law. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has been able to force Docu to change his ways, so consensus must be that it's not important enough to make a thing out of. Consensus can change, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue sounded familiar, so I checked the VPP archives and found Method to protect your user and talk page from "quicky" vandals. However that editor was eventually convinced to added a link to his sig. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the early stage few people thought it was worth faffing around with their signatures. That kind of MySpacery is a late-stage artifact, to be sure, but not necessarily a welcome one. I for one would not care if the ability to customise signatures was simply removed. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oy. When I brought this up, I noted that I thought a block was extreme; in other words, I wasn't suggesting blocking. If I thought a block was appropriate, I would have done it; I'm not afraid of using the tools when appropriate. In this case, I was looking for any community input on how to resolve this situation without going the block route. Some of you flamed me, some of you went off on wild tangents, some of you provided relevant input, and a few of you got to the heart of the issue. I remembered the dustup over signatures a few months ago, but I couldn't remember the relevant players (User:Docu and User:Pigsonthewing) and I couldn't recall if the situation was resolved. (It appears that Docu started linking his name for a while, and then went back to his old form.) Obviously, this isn't going to be resolved (either here on AN/I, or on WT:SIG), so I'm not going to press the matter. My main concern was that on the talk page of an article which is under article probation, an editor who had never posted before challenged the reliability of one of the sources; that editor's signature had no links in it. My first request to modify the signature was totally unacknowledged (it wasn't even deleted/archived, which is a form of acknowledgement). Perhaps I overreacted, but those of you who are berating me for bringing this up on AN/I are out of line, in my opinion. Horologium (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just disable his customized signature ability :) ANyway, if he wants to prostest WP:V, I'd recommend he change his name to User:I protest WPV or something like that. But if he's not abiding by WP:V (the reason for disabling his links so he hopefully won't get reverted), then that is a serious offense, and should be taken up somewhere. For the record, I'll revert any edits he makes on the mainspace that I run across, with the stated reason that "I am protesting non-lined sigatures made in prosted of WPV, as the edits probably violate WPV anway" :) BillCJ (And can someone fix the heading so it's easier to post on this thread? Or is that a protest of WP:EL?)

Next we ban people whose signature displays a name that isn't their username. That'll show 'em. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CCFSDCA

CCFSDCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating a lot of pages about holidays around the world. Only source given is a book, "Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World".

Claims on user page to be Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, and probably is. So there is only one source - the articles' author.

Google search for "The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World" reveals only hits from Wikipedia.

There are WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:POV WP:Notability and lots of other issues here, and I'm out of my depth. pablo_hablo. 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The user has a thing or three to learn about editing on wikipedia - like not signing articles - and it is evident that he's pimping his book. But the one substantive article I've checked so far checks out - there is such a holiday. I suspect he needs a good talking to, which I see you've started; I'll pitch in. All of the articles he's created need to be checked and very probably de-sigged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A note - it is considered extremely rude to not notify a user when you mention them here. The user is now notified, but please remember this for any future noticeboard postings. — neuro^(talk) 00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As Pablomismo pointed out, the very existence of the book being cited/flogged appears to be impossible to establish. It therefore can't be used as a reference in these articles. Deor (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The book can't be found because it's, by the editor's own admission, not only unpublished, but unsold. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Topic Ban of User:Deeceevoice

Deeceevoice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Pursuant to WP:ARBCOM/Clarifying motion RE:SlimVirgin "administrators are normally expected to explain their actions, respond to feedback, and otherwise engage in normal discussion and dispute resolution, and that the restriction on arbitration enforcement activity provides no exception to this standard" I'm asking for consensus on the validity of Deeceevoice is banned [..] until 5 May 2009. [...] Tom Harrison and further discussion at User_talk:Tom_harrison#Banning.

Without (at this stage) going over the exact he-said she-said, the motion linked above additionally states that "It does not apply to notices, editor lists, warnings, broad topic area actions, or other "enforcement actions" that are not specific actions applied to specific editors." This was in the context of Elonka warning a user and was that warning an administrative action.

I feel that the Commitee needs to provide greater clarity. Tom has, in my opinion, warned a specific editor. However, Rather than being forced to go to arbcom, can I not unwarn them? Can consensus here at ANI unwarn them? Am I smoking crack again?

I'm hoping we can avoid a long and rambling thread, so please attempt to make your replies succinct: Is the topical ban valid until removed by arbcom?
Thank you.

brenneman 00:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Brenneman, I think Tom has banned an editor, which can be undone by a consensus of uninvolved admins. PhilKnight (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with philknight that a topic ban can be undone by a consensus discussion at a general forum such as AN/I. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't have an opinion on the quasi-legal question, but it's fine to get it clarified. I guess we could meta-ize it one more level and ask if it can be clarified by a consensus of uninvolved admins, or if it can only be clarified by arbcom. (But who to ask?) Anyway, if the community decides my 3-month topic ban of Deeceevoice was unwise, I'll lift the ban, let someone else monitor the article probation at Ancient Egyptian race controversy , and return to my crucially important work on the History of English land law. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I've looked in more detail at this, and I've reached the same conclusion as Jpgordon, that is Tom's ban of Deeceevoice isn't valid. Tom has tried to ban Deeceevoice under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, however these clearly aren't applicable in this instance. I've moved his log of the ban from the pseudoscience case page to the talk page. Obviously, an edit war would be unseemly, so I urge anyone who disagrees to gain clarification from the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Um. I could argue fairly easily that ancient egyptian race controversies could easily be classified as pseudoscience. It is "history" and not "hard science" per se, but that isn't the important facet. The important facet is the opposition of mainstream historical thought and a POV which makes "scientific claims" for non scientific purposes. Protonk (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Protonk, you and others are totally misconstruing the purpose of the article and my role in it. The purpose of the article is to discuss what gave rise to the controversy in the first place, the competing/contradictory portrayals, perceptions and historical accounts of the people of ancient Egypt from dynastic times, through classical antiquity to the present -- nothing more. And even within the context of the article itself, there is simply no evidence of POV pushing on my part. The ban is wholly bogus. deeceevoice (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not insinuating that you are pushing a POV or whatever. I don't know whether or not you are. I'm just asserting that the controversies themselves could fairly easily fall into the umbra of "pseudoscience". Protonk (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In spite of PhilKnight's removal of my log entries, Deeceevoice is still topic banned. As I said above, if the community decides it was unwise I'll lift it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

These kinds of "questions about arb enforcement" threads are probably more appropriate for WP:AE, not WP:ANI. Can we change venue? --Elonka 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, as long as it's okay with brenneman. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Aaron brought this here because he wanted input as to whether community consensus was enough to lift a ban. So far, there seems to be a rough consensus that community consensus indeed can do that. So, I believe it would be more appropriate to keep the question open here.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka tells me I didn't follow the correct steps to impose a topic ban. I will not be enforcing the topic ban on Deeceevoice, or having anything more to do with the page. Thanks to all those who've taken time to look into it and express an opinion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Old Account

Resolved

 – shy bairns get nothing

I previously used the account "thomsonboy93" in a very juvenille way that eventually got me banned. I now have taken the wiki process much more seriously, and am even the senior editor to a page that I helped create and improve. With my old account, I posted to pictures on my friends user talk page, but they were deleted. After I lost the contents of my hard drive, the pictures were also lost. Wikipedia deleted them, because they had no value to any articles, but I thought that since at one time they were posted on the wiki servers, wikipedia may have a copy of them. Could you please do me this favor? The files are:Image:Kacani.jpg, and Image:Katranny 2.JPG My email is frebel93@gmail.com, if you wish to get in touch with me Frebel93 (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you're an indef blocked user, evading their block and you're asking for a favour. Is that correct? RMHED. 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a fair assessment of the situation. However, I don't see a problem with giving reformed editors a second chance, if they can demonstrate that they're here to edit constructively. I've sent the images requested to the email address the user provided. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Chalk one up for common sense. RMHED. 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Inviting scrutiny like that is about as "good faith" an attitude as we'll find here. In contrast to a certain other user. What's his name. Alpha Commando, or something like that. I'm a baaad boy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tsk. Uncalled-for. //roux   06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but could Bugs have not listed about 3,000 others while he was at it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I listed that specific one is because of the latest sockpuppet that turned up on this page in the last day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Long term block for 125.255.113.214

I've blocked 125.255.113.214 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for two years for persistent vandalism. I was going to block for 6 months but came across these charming threats: [6][7][8] and that this is the ip's 11th block since June 2007. It's registered to an ISP in AU. I figured I'd bring it here for discussion. Feel free to change the length if discussion warrants. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is a way to get rid of this. just find an Australian user willing to call police in Melbourne and report his various death threats. I don't know anything about Australia's data privacy and carrier protection laws, but I bet the police can get that ISP to divulge his name/address without any trouble whatsover. Should stop the problems pretty soundly. Protonk (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• It's registered to Pacific Internet, but the hostname (mail.rhac.nsw.edu.au) refers to a school, Rouse Hill Anglican College. —Snigbrook 17:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Hammerfist

Referred from WP:WQA, beyond the scope of minor incivility, personal attacks on another user [9] and [10] Gerardw (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks for that since the second one was on the heels of a final warning. Watch for the promised socks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks may be turn out to be too brief. The user's talk page contributions subsequent to the block do not demonstrate willingness to become a model community member. See the last three edits in page history. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Scribe711/Wired for Books

On January 27, 2009 Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) added links to over 35 biography articles, mostly in their "External Links" sections. The links were to an external website, Wired for Books, consisting of audio interviews of important authors. One of those articles was Maya Angelou, one of my "pet projects" on Wikipedia. Several hours later, I reverted Scribe's edit, and put a warning on his talk page. Then administrator Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote a note on Scribe's talk page, explaining why his additions were spam. In spite of this, Scribe replaced the link, which I again reverted.

This began a discussion over the next several days between Scribe, Anthony.bradbury, and me. Instead of spending time detailing this conversation, I direct you to Anthony's talk page: [11] and [12] and mine. As you'll notice from these discussions, Scribe was rude and condescending. You'll also notice that Scribe711, on several occasions,[13] [14] [15] deleted content from all three talk pages. It certainly is his right to delete content from his own talk page, but certainly not the talk pages of other editors. After some warnings, he ceased deleting Anthony's and my talk pages, but he continued to delete any kind of communication from either of us on his. This in spite of the fact that I offered to listen to the Maya Angelou interview and determine if its content was suitable for any Angelou-related article. (In the meantime, I placed the link on Talk:Maya Angelou, as per WP policy.)

It's obvious from Scribe711's behavior that he's not at all interested in contributing to Wikipedia. He has an agenda and as Anthony.bradbury states, he's arguing from a conflict of interest. (Scribe711 is David Kurz, the creator of Wired for Books.) He has accused me of eliciting other editors (meaning, I suppose, Anthony.bradbury) to label his additions as spam and vandalism, but Anthony, someone I've never had any kind of contact with in the past, joined the controversy on his own. Anthony and I both believe that adding a link to the end of an article, and doing that to dozens of them, constitutes spam. Scribe711 disagrees, and instead of negotiating a compromise with either of us, has chosen to reinsert the link with no conversation about it, or to delete content from talk pages. I believe this behavior warrants a block, at least a temporary one. Thank you for your consideration. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned one last time, will keep an eye on him. yandman 10:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see he's been banned for multiple accounts. Apparently someone recognised him... Figure, would you mind removing some of the links he inserted? I doubt I'll have time this afternoon. yandman 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. I'll probably have time to do it tonight. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the socks, and yes, we have been here before:

• wiredforbooks.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Bono06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Bono06 was blocked a long time ago for persistent spamming
• Dkurz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I will add the link to XLinkBot, so new socks will come up pretty quick, and do some cleanup on external links added by these three accounts (and see if there are other spammers as well). I should note, I think that the link has been used in a proper way as well, and it may be of use to the project here and there (as long as the links obey WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Rex User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) too. He's been creating articles with the WiredForBooks link in the external links section, with the link in the same format used by the Bono06 sock brigade. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Blohm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Another user who added the links, I have cleaned a lot of the link additions by the SPA-edits, and I see that Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth has done the edits by Rex User. The rest seems to be added by non-involved editors for as far as I can see. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• 132.235.75.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

An (old) IP adding the same links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, once someone demonstrably associated with a site starts spamming links here, the consideration of NOT#DIR and EL go out the window. The site is spam, links should be deleted, the url should go on the spam blacklist, and future additions should be reverted on sight. That's probably a minority opinion. :) Protonk (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found exactly one reasonable use of the site while I was looking over the contribution lists for these socks, and that one was used as an actual reference. (Wow! A real use for it!) I made sure the reference had the correct title and let it be.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw 2 of these links being removed via my watchlist, and have a few queries. I'm fully aware of the problems we have with being spammed (and serial-spammed, as in this case), but I'm distressed by Protonk's attitude above. I've listened to a few of these interviews, and found them informative, and have now added the link as a ref to Isaac Asimov, and would like to continue examining, and replacing where warranted, the links to these interviews. Is there going to be a further future problem with this, or can non-COI editors add/replace these links where appropriate? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's good information in the interviews, then they should be used as references for specific facts in the article, in which case there's no question that the links should stay. Just as plain links in the External links section, though, the interviews wind up looking an awful lot like linkspam. That's my take on it, at least, from reading the policies. But I'm not an admin, just some guy or other.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well FM&C, at least you reviewed the links. From reading only this thread, I am very tempted to suggest that the site be added to the blacklist, so that this person can't keep coming back & adding his spam. However, if there is useful content at this website, then the best solution would be to work with this person to have him add the content to the body of the article -- per Quiddity's comment. -- llywrch (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been socking for at least two years. It also, from the comments made by another editor who was from Wired for Books (named something like WiredBooksEditor), looks like the people at Wired for Books were having interns add links to their site to Wikipedia as well. I found one good link out of a couple hundred, and that one link had - I believe - been added as a reference by someone other than the spammer *after* the spamlink was added. Therefore, I honestly think it's best to leave this sockfarm blocked and let other editors link up any interviews that have references they need. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

After following this discussion, I've changed my mind about using the content of the WFB interview in the Angelou article. I believe in compromise and assuming the best of people, but it's simply not worth my time. I'm sure that the information can be gained in other places. Let the guy's interns do it. At least I know what to look for if and/or when he strikes again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FM&C, in response to last comment I formally suggest we list this site on the spam blacklist with the understanding that any established Wikipedia editor can whitelist individual URLs -- unless people here enjoy playing whack-a-mole with spammers. The tool is available & intended for situations like this -- so use it. -- llywrch (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Question though: When trying to add a blacklisted link, is there a link on the 'you can't do that' screen to the whitelist talk page and a 'If you are trying to add a citation or firmly believed in link relevant to the article, please leave a message here to request and exception for this page.' note? ThuranX (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

A serious and dangerous movement, inside some Wikipedia Italy administrators

Good morning

I'm an University Professor, now living in Italy, where i do my researches. I'm really sad to post this denounce but i think that it's my right and my obligation to do that.

There are som Italians Wikipedia administrators who operates by an totalitarian way. Sometimes they have some racists attitudes (unfortunately most present in Italy at those days). They works against the liberty of expression and opinion. They are a sort of "militarized group" (in my opinion, an "anti Wikipedia" concept) who "hunts" some people (specially who make some observation against their acts), penalizing those people with abusive and offensive acts. You can see easily that they uses icons and pictures who reefers to a military uniforms and patents. It's a gang! A dangerous Italian gang, who hides, behind an authority of Wiki administrator, racists, fascists attitudes. (as i said first, unfortunately that's an sad and dangerous social phenomenon who is present in Italy at this time, mainly with the younger people). Probably those "administrators" are teenagers (i think, at least, Vituzzu is). Maybe teenagers can't be administrators of an important stuff like Wikipedia. I think that Wikipedia is not an RPG GAME, where teenagers hunts and kill people for fun, but an important tool that works for the democratic culture and research!

Their login names: Austroungarika, Vituzzu, Dedda71

My login name: edulevy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edulevy (talk • contribs) 13:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not the Italian Wikipedia. This is the English Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is not a place to discuss problems on the Italian Wikipedia. The Italian Wikipedia is thataway. Algebraist 13:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you have only four contributions on the Italian Wikipedia, all consecutive ones to the talk page of User:Austroungarika (so basically just one edit). [16]. You are coming to an unrelated language version of Wikipedia to complain about a Wikipedia where you have one edit, naming three editors you have had no interactions with and who yu have not notified of this discussion (as requested in the instructions for this page and basic decency). The only "military" pictures and icons I see on AustroUngarica's userpage are a couple of barnstars he received, just like they are in use on the English Wikipedia. When your first edits are to accuse someone of racism and fascism without any justification beyond the "military" barnstars on their userpage, it's quite logical that you get blocked there for trolling and personal attacks.

If you have a serious complaint, with evidence, then you can contact Meta or User talk:Jimbo Wales or the foundation: the English Wikipedia has no authority over the Italian one (or vice versa). If, on the other hand, you are just making baseless claims and trying to create drama, then continuation of this will get you surely blocked here as well. Fram (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales has no authority over the Italian Wikipedia, either -- Gurch (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for linking foundation, which wa a helpful edit. However, please don't strike out any of my comments again, I don't appreciate it. You have raised your objections below my comment, which is sufficient, and I will strike out any part of my comment if I feel the need for it, just like I will not strike out your comment if I disagree with them. Fram (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We really don't know what was he dealing with but when I saw him insulting Austroungarika (saying she's racist) I blocked him for a day, btw his beaviour is showing I'm right thinking that's only trolling--Vituzzu (talk) 14:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I love unintentionally ambiguous headers like "A serious and dangerous movement, inside some Wikipedia Italy administrators."
I think I'll skip off to the store and get them some Pepto-Bismol... it's helped me through several serious and dangerous movements. arimareiji (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Refusal to discuss or reach consensus by JuStar (talk · contribs)

JuStar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly reverted good faith edits on E=MC² (Mariah Carey album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite sincere efforts to discuss the matter on the article talk page, plus a message I left on their user talk page (diff), this user has refused to discuss the disagreement. If you look at JuStar's contribs and check for contribs on the Article Talk and User Talk spaces, you will see that they have made virtually no edits. As much as I appreciate their efforts, if they are unwilling to discuss their edits and simply continue to revert other's good faith edits, I suggest that they be considered for administrative action. (EhJJ)^TALK 14:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusation and possible stalking

The past months I have interacted with several editors over whether or not Marty Lederman, Scott Horton (lawyer), John Dean, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post several university pieces, et cetera fail RS. Trying to be civil I asked for input at the RS noticeboard. To my surprise I am now being accused of inserting my personal dissertation into articles.[17] No, this is not the case, for the record this is not my article as I happen to be a physician in daily life.Could somebody look into this and ask those involved to stop 1) making wild accusations, 2) searching articles I work on to continue their edit war,[18][19][20] 3) stop using misleading edit summaries, 4) to abide by WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:V, WP:STALK,WP:VANDAL. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now the fourth noticeboard Nescio has complained to after every single editor to evaluate it on the first three rejected his claims, and four separate editors (including a member of the arbitration committee) found policy violations by Nescio's edits. The issue is that Nescio wishes to insert a pet theory of Lyndon Larouche into three articles based on the synthesis of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Ahmad Chehab and blog posts by Scott Horton and a half-dozen unrelated articles that don't mention the underlying subject. Since Ahmad Chaheb has absolutely no google footprint or notability, I've repeatedly asked Nescio why he is so insistent on including this material in multiple articles, and this is the first he's denied a COI. Fine, but there's still the problem of RS, SYN, WEIGHT, SPS, and BLP. Content dispute: nothing to see here except Nescio's violation of WP:DEADHORSE and WP:EW, but if you want to avoid WP:MULTI, there is a discussion at Talk:Unitary executive theory. THF (talk) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody rejected since nobody commented. This misleading statement is a fine example of how this user operates. Second, I am asking for assistance in stopping the abuse which is entirely different from my previous request meant to establish why this user is removing RS. I reitterate: no help on article but to stop the accusations and stalking.!'' Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First, both of you are at the line with regard to WP:3RR on this article -- take a break from this, or risk having it frozen at the wrong version. Second, accusing each other of "WP:VANDAL", "WP:SYN", "WP:WEIGHT", and "WP:RS" doesn't make either of you to look good. Lastly, after reading this article a couple of times, I still have no idea why this section entitled "Neoconservatism" belongs in this article. It's a non sequitor, with no clear reason what a third-rate Fascist philosopher has to do with Neoconservatism. If I were to weigh into this content battle, Nescio, your edits would lose. Either find some published sources showing how Schmitt influenced Neoconservatism -- or any modern -ism -- or find another article to work on. (We have almost three million of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do that.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SmashTheState, or, Now we see the violence inherent in the system!!1

• SmashTheState (talk · contribs)

Without looking at the users contributions I see two problems:

1. Username is probably not inline with Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames (may fall under eiter promotional or disruptive usernames)
2. Userpage is a violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:User page

Please take a look at the users userpage before replying.

-- Cat ^chi? 15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

i.e. "Wikipedia is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." I wouldn't be against a block here (even if what he's saying is true in my case :) )  GARDEN  15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a poser: If someone calls you a name, and it's verifiably true through reliable sources, does it still count as a "personal attack" under wikipedia guidelines? Or if it's not verifiably true, but could be true, is it really a "personal attack", or is it just a POV-push? Some IP address awhile back called me an "ugly ignorant fool". My answer was, "How dare you call me ugly?" Because he might be able to prove the "ignorant fool" part, but the "ugly" part is strictly POV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the name. You can ask the user to change the offensive portions of their userpage. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the Username concerns, that is a little bit of a reach to my mind. As for his userpage....hrm. It is iffy. Is it a breach of NPA or just a lack of civility? Does it demonstrate a systematic failure to AGF? Can't say I'd want to make the call. Garden does help by highlighting the exact concern phrases. Perhaps if Whitecat could highlight the specific things he thinks are wrong, SmashTheState could take care of it without the need for admin. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)

It's threads like this that got me to unwatchlist AN and ANI a little while ago, and (after backsliding) have just caused me to unwatchlist it again. Everyone needs to grow some thicker skin, and stop actively looking for things to be outraged about. This casual talk of blocking for, I suppose, not showing proper deference in the phrase quoted by Garden (or maybe it was having the audacity to use the word "factotem"?) is.... I don't know what to call it. "Proving SmashTheState's point" comes to mind. --barneca (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap. You had AN and AN/I watchlisted at some point? Wow. Dedication. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'm even thinking of unwatching my own editor review - two editors who disagree with my comments (or who cannot read) have taken the opportunity to majorly skew context and trash me. Good thing I'm used to WP:DRAMA from around here :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had WP:AfD watchlisted. I found that was about as useful as alphabetizing the entries in a dictionary. -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like satire. Don't fret none about the user page. Watch the contributions. That's what's important. If he's engaged in POV-pushing and original research, then he'll be brought to a screeching halt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Satire? Read the rest of that section and see if you still think he is being satirical rather than nursing a grudge. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it. It's a rant. But it raises the question, If he really hates wikipedia so much, then what's he doing here? Hence the need to watch the contribs. If he starts pushing a point of view, then he can be stopped faster than you can say, "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing: if he hates us then why is he here? (And I have to seriously question the judgment of anyone who considers the average Wikipedian to be a "Randroid".) -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the presumed superiority of the old Soviet system vs. the American system reminds me of this one, from Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly he's probably just another white, male, middle class person from an English speaking OECD country bitching about wikipedia being comprised only of white, male, middle class people from English speaking OECD countries. Pretty standard, and easy enough to ignore. Protonk (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to write something about the whole rant being sadly amusing, but you kind of nailed it down there. His editing style *is* rather confrontational, looking at some of the discussions he's had in the past, so it's probably something to keep an eye on. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the user is an anarcho-syndicalist, just like Dennis from the greatest movie ever made. Surely the user sees "the violence inherent in the [Wikipedia] system". MuZemike 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not so much the grudge-bearing evident on the user page as edits to content with summaries like "Rand was a psychopath" which raise major red flags for me. I have blocked the user pending a credible explanation of his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe they have good reason to bear a grudge, who can say. The edit summary was appropriate given the content and ref they added. So all in all an extremely piss poor block without any merit at all. RMHED. 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Why has this only just been brought up now when the user account was created two and a half years ago? I would have preferred the user to have had the chance to explain himself before a block considering he isn't a very active editor. Plus, his rant has been on his userpage since July 2008 - I'm a tad surprised at the block given the fact its only just been raised now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good god there are some thin skins on Wikipedia. That was the most entertaining userpage I've read in months. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was his eighth edit: [21]. Nothing has changed since then. He has never been anything other than a political activist bringing his battles to Wikipedia, and I'm astounded he lasted this long. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny I feel the same way about you Guy. RMHED. 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What, that I'm a political activist bringing external battles to Wikipedia? You might have a hard time proving that, since I have been accused of bias by both left- and right-wing POV-pushers. Do tell, though - what external battles am I bringing here? I'd love to know. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was the "astounded he lasted this long" bit he was referring to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. When I was at school I was absolutely convinced I would be dead by the age of thirty, to find myself still here aged 45 is a constant source of amazement. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now, instead of just ignoring someone we have fulfilled their prophesies about wikipedia banning people for their views. The easiest way to avoid granting credence to these folks is to avoid making them martyrs. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually he's just going to get unblocked and be all kinds of obnoxious about this. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The very act of pursuing a case against him proves what he stated in his rant. Sweet, sweet irony. --Nik (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• To repeat what I said on my talk page just now, it's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Wikipedia culture to Kangaroo court, [22], and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Wikipedia is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. We can't, however, follow a policy of not blocking people who have a martyr complex on the grounds that we will prove them right. Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a name problem, it sounds like any number of 'down with the dysfunctional US .gov' names we hear from young idealistic zealots. Big deal. It might, otoh, be an album he really likes. The Rand was a psychopath, although clearly provocative, did have citation, and looks to me like one of those 'out to change the world by higher consciousness type edits that the same youthful idealistic zealots make. I don't agree with this block. We can instead watch him. If I'm proved wrong, I'll take a public trouting, and apologize for an over abundance of (rare) pateince and goodwill. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather uncertain about the block myself, but until the editor provides more of a comment than this, I'm personally not going to press for unblocking. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled by a system that allows "rather uncertain" blocks, and then demands the person being blocked explain themselves. Meanwhile, the person who did the blocking casually mentions "Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now." Doesn't anyone else feel like they're watching a strange farce take place? --Nik (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'm one admin, and I feel that StS has in fact left a bad taste with many of his edits; I'd like to have the editor provide some information on his intentions going forward, and whether he's going to edit productively or continue to act as a local champion; I have no intention of undoing the block myself, but am looking for further information so that other admins can act how they see fit. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I support unblocking Smash the State. The commment on Ayn Rand is actually based on the writing of Albert Ellis, a well-known critic of Rand's philosophies: [23]. The editor has no previous block history and the admin's opinion of "odd behaviour" is no reason to support blocking an editor. As it stands, it is difficult to support the indefinite blocking of this editor and the subsequent efforts to have his User Page and his two-year-old article on Solidarity unionism deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought Guy's behaviour had improved after the RfC and Arbcom case, but this block and deletion nomination shew that the old Guy is still with us. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite a block and run, with 2 hours from block being noticed here to his departure, we do have real lives after all. Guy will likely check on this thread before bed or in the AM, depending on his location, and will follow up. I'm not concerned by that part. That said, I'd like the community to hear from STS, as to whether he really is more interested in editing cooperatively or in staging some grand revolution. I'm not thrilled with the block, but he's not lily-white in this either. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Guy immediately after he blocked SmashTheState, sent one of his articles to AfD. This just smells of incredibly bad faith especially when the AFD is heading towards a snow-y keep. D.M.N. (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried, you know, talking with him before you hit the block button? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no bad faith whatsoever. The article is for a term with very few ghits, and those mainly in reference to the Starbucks union dispute; the creation fo the article coincided with several polemical edits to content by the user. There is no bad faith whatsoever in reviewing the content edits of an obviously biased user. Incidentally, if anything I share his political leanings, though I am more soft left than hard left. By US standards I am practically a Communist. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, it's not about your politics or people's perceptions of them, it's about they way you deliberately set about hitting a man when he's down, and goading him with invitations to participate in an AfD when you yourself have prevented him from doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If so many agree that the block stinks, why is the block still in place? --Nik (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No clue, let's get it off, and let him at least present his side of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I'll leave a note on his talk page, and on Guy's as well. I'm open for disagreements and any admin who thinks this was a horrendously lousy decision may reblock with no hard feelings from me whatsoever. GJC 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Username is misleading, user wants a sprawling, central planning meta-state, which is what most countries (along with the US and UK) already have. Either way though, the username is harmless, though the soapboxing is a worry. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have any evidence for your assertion about what he wants? Or did you just make that up? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Soundout

Hello,

I have noticed that all the articles written by User:Soundout include links toward a (his?) website: Audioville. For example, have a look at these three articles (there are tenth of similar ones):

The_Boarded_Window_(radio)

The_Fall_of_the_House_of_Usher_(Radio)

Apocalypse_(radio)

The "Media" section of all these articles is basically the same and include a link to AudioVille where they sell copies of these radio shows. There are also one or two AudioVille links in the "External links" section so up to 3 links per article. The articles themselves are reasonably well written and referenced, but it still really looks like a disguised advertisement for AudioVille.

What is the policy in this instance? Should the articles be deleted as spam? Or should we just go through the articles and remove the links to AudioVille? For information, all the articles have already been nominated for speedy deletion although it was decided to keep them: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Time_Machine_(Radio)_et_al

Any suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurent1979 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's a spamsite, delete it from the articles and warn the contributor to stop. If he won't stop, turn him in to WP:AIV. Unless a kindly admin decides to take action from here first. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• audioville.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Looks spammy, Soundout has added 205 of the 210 linkadditions in my database. Maybe some cleanup would be good here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have put a spam warning on his discussion page. Is there any automated way to remove the AudioVille links? I have started removing some manually but it is going to take me a while. Laurent (talk) 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added it to XLinkBot, which should stop new additions by new users (it will not stop Soundout, but they is watched now). Unfortunately there is no automated way to really cleanly remove the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I have reverted his spam. Took me half an hour but that was worth it :) Laurent (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's more to it. The guy likely wrote those articles for the express purpose of advertising the product. That's my take on it, anyway. We'll see what he has to say, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to be working for or on behalf of Radio Tales, however I'm not sure what we can do about it since his articles are otherwise well documented and the topics seem to be notable enough. He also wrote a lot about the videogame soundtracks produced/composed by Winnie Waldron and Winifred Phillips, who both work for Radio Tales too. Laurent (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that Radio Tales itself is notable, but I doubt that the individual story dramatizations are. Adaptations like these usually rate no more than a mention in the articles about the source works of fiction. Deor (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cp fan

The user Cp fan (talk · contribs) started editing recently, and has created a userpage with an {{administrator}} template, has declined an unblock request[24] and and has been tagging user pages, usually of blocked accounts, to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Hamish Ross and other sockpuppet categories related to the same user. This includes at least two accounts, The JPCU (talk · contribs) and Computer whizz-kid (talk · contribs), that have not been blocked, and Cp fan looks like another sock. The user's other edits have usually been reverts of IP edits, but I'm not sure if all of the edits being reverted are vandalism. —Snigbrook 18:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather concerned by this. Looking at some of the usernames he has been tagging (e.g. to do with swirly faces or a certain notorious glam-rocker) , and one possible interpretation of cp leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

... and I took away his self-awarded barnstar (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems a bit mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to give barnstars to ourselves (see WP:Barnstars). They are 'awards' we give to each other, so removing a self-awarded barnstar isn't mean. -kotra (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Main Page BLP Violation (In the News section)

The use of the phrase "investment scam" is incompatible with WP:BLP - everything is alleged, nothing is proven. This should be re-worded in a more NPOV way and link directly to the article at the current NPOV title Enten currency investigation rather than the redirect it currently links to. Exxolon (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say we can't include negative information or claims about living people. It says we can't do so in an abusive manner and without proper reliable sources. I don't think either article about the incident or person, or the main page entry, are abusive. The sources seem to be plentiful and reliable. Does not appear to be a violation. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Adoniscik vandalizing and blanking the article Fethullah Gulen

User:Adoniscik is consistently vandalizing and blanking the biography of Fethullah Gulen, and starting edit wars. Majority of the editors cannot find the chance to develop the article. He claims ownership of the article and push his/her POV and his version. He is deleting about 80 of 100 references and huge part (about 8/10) of the article. He systematically call editors against his POV as stockpots of others to keep others away from the article. He does not give any specifics of his objection and use the edit summaries for nonsense comments. It hurts the quality of the article a great deal and violates many WP policies. He does not add any useful information to the article, just delete useful and recent information. Your attention is greatly appreciated. Here is just a few recent edits of him. Thanks. Eranist (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you provide a diff or two of this editor calling others "stockpots"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the claims of referring to other editors as kitchenware, I'd point out the the above user was created 3 days ago and has edited nothing else, and this appears to be a content dispute. Dispute resolution is that way, third door on the left. The discussion here also appears relevant. Black Kite 21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The submitter of this complaint, User:Eranist, has been blocked as a sock per checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/philscirel/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing

Another contributor, User:Pigsonthewing has made good contributions to Wikipedia in the past and he often has good insights on problems. Although we have had frequent incidents of friction over matters of a fairly esoteric nature regarding microformats, I honestly value his opinion, and have responded to suggestions he has made. However, we have already had one requiring the intervention of an administrator on commons User:Swift. The most recent incident is today with a mass reversion of work I have been doing with Wikipedia support for extreme dates. One particular revision prevents me from demonstrating the benefits of a proposal I have made to the owners of the protected template {{Infobox_Former_Country}}. I am requesting assistance from a mediator who is willing to install a Firefox extension so they may understand the positions of the two parties. The user believes that this work constitutes "sandbox" work, whereas an examination of the templates {{start-date}} will reveal that they are robust, nontrivial, and can provide substantial benefit to users. The change has been discussed civilly at this page. So far only one user other than myself and Mr Mabbett have voiced an opinion. Mr. Mabbett believes that it is necessary to revert any use of the template rather than give me the opportunity to fix whatever he thinks is wrong. As far as I know, none of the "damage" he claims has been made is visible to Wikipedia users, so the remedy of mass reversions is difficult to understand. I have attempted to reach agreement with this user over some ground rules over settling these differences, but I have failed, and I am reaching out for your assistance. Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page and in the relevant edit sumamries before you came here, I reverted several of your edits, but by no means "a mass revert", because in each case the metadata you were emitting, and in some cases the on-screen text, was broken (for example a place-name of "Boeotia,country=Greece"; BC dates rendered as AD dates). I can supply screenshots if necessary. If you wish to test or demonstrate your work on templates, please do so in a sandbox, not in articles. Your proclamations about my supposed beliefs are fallacious, and fail to assume good faith. Where have you attempted an failed to reach "ground rules"? Besides, the Wikipedia ground rules are already established: Boldly edit; if Reverted; Discuss. In at least one case, you have simply re-reverted, to again emit faulty metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways to emit microformats. You certainly have strong opinions on the subject as you have amply shown at the commons geocoding project, and that is good. You have given me instructions in the past as you have the geocoding group, and you have been proven to be correct as many times as they are incorrect. I proposed that we mediate these disagreements on the microformats.org mailing list, but you have declined to participate in that process. As it was, it turned out that your advice was incorrect. I value the input though because I know there is an issue to investigate. However, I cannot presume that you are correct without evidence. I repeat my request for mediation. There are pages that exhibit new behavior (for example linking to map sites) that can be shown to no longer function due to Mr. Mabbett's belief in the rightness of his position. I ask for an unbiased observer to make a decision. I will happily comply with whatever ruling is made. I'd like to move on and get some work done. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed many ways to emit microformats, including many wrong ways, such as those you used which I reverted today; and cite above. I have given you advice and assistance, not instructions. You are wrong to imply that I am incorrect half of the time. Please provide evidence to support your assertion that "There are pages … that can be shown to no longer function" due to anything I have done. External mailing lists are not the place to resolve disagreements over Wikipedia templates. Please cite evidence of me declining to participate in any discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a pointer to the commons thread being discussed where Andy requested that I do things his way which was found to be incorrect by the experts at microformats.org. My Mabbett asserted that "There are no authorities in that community, and my answer is as authoritative as any you will get there." I am not sure why Andy asserts this. Last year's book on microformats Microformats: Empowering Your Markup for Web 2.0. cites Brian Suda, and Kevin Marks as internationally recognized experts on microformats. Their advice contradicted Mr. Mabbett's, and I chose to follow the guidance given by the microformats community. I meant no offense by not following Mr. Mabbett's opinions, but I cannot take his assertions at face value, so I go to authorities to settle these matters. That seems like a process that is workable, since this subject is fairly obscure at this point. I am not sure if there is some restriction on Mr. Mabbett contributing to the mailing list, because I know he was banned for 16 months from edits to their wiki. But I would certainly agree to post his arguments verbatim and ask for a ruling from them. Anyway, next year maybe this process will not be necessary, as many major browsers will be microformats aware. What I am asking is that until then that anyone asserting incorrectness to be concrete in their descriptions of what is incorrect with each others templates, and to show that what is being done is recognized by authorities to be incorrect. If any party cannot show this, and if there is no recognizable harm to Wikipedia, then it seems reasonable for WP administrators to take a wait and see position, and ask that each of the parties not interfere in the activities of the other. WP can defer consideration of such correctness debates until such time as there are sufficient contributors who understand and care about these differences in style. If there is some other proposal for common ground, I am open to any suggestions.-J JMesserly (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's generally worthless to come here without diffs to the problems you are complaining about. AnyPerson (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing which I proposed at Commons was found to be "incorrect" on the microformats mailing list, nor anywhere else. Indeed, I provided (on Commons) citations from that list to support my position, at the request of J JMesserly; he disregarded them Do we really have to rehash that debate here? I have already provided descriptions of the bugs produced by J JMesserly edits, and offered to provide screenshots if necessary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is a side by side comparison of the kind of thing we are talking about. EG: My version of Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) changed a single parameter to an infobox: [edit- locality change better shows value of feature]

|place={{address|[[Boeotia]], [[Greece]]|locality=Chaeronea|country=Greece}}

The original line read:

|place=[[Boeotia]], [[Greece]] 

With my change, users with microformats aware browsers will see map buttons for (google, yahoo or mapquest) activated when they visit this page. Click on the google map button, and you can see where the battle occurred. Pretty cool. With Andy's change, this capability no longer works. This template talks in a way to the outside world that Andy thinks is wrong. It works, it delivers functionality, and it has no negative visual impact on anyone viewing the article- the article looks exactly the same as before. To see for yourself, add Firefox's free Operator toolbar, visit the page, and see for yourself, then compare to Pigs on wing "Fix". It will be clear that his "fix" actually removes functionality. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Case 2:Lamian War Here, Andy's summary edit reads: "rv - emt8s bogus metadata (323-321 AD)"

1. in operator, click options box. Click data formats, and check the debug box.
2. View the current version [25], you will see no events button highlighted.
3. View the edit from J JMesserly: [26]. You will now see the events button.
4. You will see that once again functionality is present with my version. Now, let's look at this claim of "bogus data" that Andy is talking about. He claims the emitted dates are AD dates, not BC dates. Click on Events.Lamian War.Debug. you will see a dialog that gives the dates 323 and 321. Andy assumes these are AD dates. Now click on the source tab. If you can't search the dialog, copy paste it to a word processor and search for dtstart. You will see the value is -323Z. Now, no one sees any of this stuff and it really impacts zero applications, but Mr. Mabbett feels that this number is incorrectly formatted. That is what he is talking about. According to the docs I have, ISO8601 standard for BC says the year should be negative. It is.
5. Why will this matter? Well- one day, just as you can click on a google map, you will may be able to click to go to a scene that recreates a village in ancient greece, or with a video recreation of the battle. The other site needs to know what time period you want to go to. This data shows where. (A technical note on the second date, the end period of an event is always +1 unit, so if the event ends on friday, you have to give the date for saturday. This war ended on 322 BC, so the correct number is -321Z. This calculation is done by my template, and correctly does it whether the precision is hours, days, or months. (Respectively, +1 hour, +1 day, +1 month). Template editors can imagine that this is non trivial code, and puts in context Mr. Mabbett's edit summary suggestion "rv please do your testing in a sandbox". I do my testing in a sandbox, and move changes when they are stable. Sometimes errors happen, but the number of articles is fairly low, and I check my work.

Should folks doing this work be needing to go to the adminstrator's board to request arbitration on this sort of minutiae? I think not- Seems like we all have better things to do. If and when it turns out that these numbers could be formatted better, well what the heck- WP contributors will rise to the challenge and fix it. Until then, why should we have edit wars over this stuff. I'm just asking for a live and let live policy until we have more folks that understand these debates. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your first case, you were emitting a metadata 'locality' value of "Boeotia,country=Greece". There is no such locality, and the string "country=" should not have been included as data. The correct output would be a locality value of "Boeotia" and a 'country-name' value of "Greece". You again misrepresent me by claiming that I think something which in fact I do not. Please desist from doing so. I see that you have since fixed the problem, thereby acknowledging the initial fault. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your second case, I concede that the BC/AD date is indeed a parser bug and I have written to the author of Operator (with whom I am in regular contact) to request a fix. However, Your comments about end dates also shows a basic error; the need to increment by one does not apply to year values.

In another example, your metedtaa asserts that the Battle of Caer Caradoc took place at "Herefordshire Beacon, Herefordshire UK"; whereas the text in the infobox is "Location - Unknown. Possibly Herefordshire Beacon Herefordshire Beacon or Caer Caradoc Hill"

You clearly misunderstand several aspects of microformats and what you are doing with them; that's OK, because we all have to learn, but please do your learning in sandbox pages - not in live articles - and accept help. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, blocked

[27] Punishing this long term content editor editor (with an exemplory block log) in this fashion for an outburst of frustration is plainly ridiculous. Could someone please unblock, while things are still reasonably calm. Giano (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see, so insulting the dignity of the Admins is now a capital offence. Even to long standing content editors, in a moments of rare frustration, with unblemished block logs. The new rule is "Insult us and you will be banned for a week and forbidden to edit your own page" That appears to be the new diktat to Arb's clerks. I had hoped we had a new regime here, it seems I was mistaken, it's worse than ever it was. Giano (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The arbitration enforcement function is not part of the clerking function, although the two are often performed by the same administrators. No "diktats" have been given by the committee to the clerks or the admins active in enforcement or anyone else, beyond those contained in motions that have been openly posted on the site. I would appreciate input from other administrators on both the initial block here and the extension. Giano, please provide notice of this thread to the blocking and extending admins if you have not already done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than inform Admins who have performed bad blocks that their conduct is being discussed. I am going to bed - I am not the blocking Admin - one asumes they have not already done so! Giano (talk) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your having brought this forwards here, Giano, but intentionally not notifying the blocking admins in a case like this is assuming bad faith on their part, and a gross insult to them. It's an expected part of the usage and policy of this page, which you are aware of, to notify admins on review of their actions here. Please make it more of a priority in future reports. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the additional extended block violates the longstanding policy that we let blocked people vent a bit on their user talk page. While I am opposed to incivility, and this clearly was some grossly abusive incivility on BigDunc's part, blockees are not expected to be perfectly gracious about being blocked. The incivility was restricted to BigDunc's talk page and talk page edit summaries.

I'm going to leave an intent to unblock note on Tnzaki and Deacon's talk pages along with a pointer here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't reviewed the original block but I agree with GWH on reducing it to the 48 hrs. Being blocked is stressful. –xeno (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  So is editing in an environment where people constantly chew at each other. You're frustrated go do something else. No one is forcing you to stay on wikipedia and vent your frustration here.--Crossmr (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Both of these views hold some merit.

"Im have better things to do with my time than notify admins of ANI posts" - Giano. It bears repeating, every time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Admims are supposed to post such blocks here. They did not - explain? Giano (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...I think the complaint is that you come here, stir up a hornets nest and then depart, claiming that you don't have time to come here and stir up a hornets nest. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Giano's narrative of the events is inaccurate. BigDunc was blocked by me, for 48 hours for violating a Arbitration enforcement related revert restriction. I was honestly not particularly pleased with the block, and would not have objected to another admin stepping up and coming up with a better idea - but no one did. BigDunc's unblock request was denied, I believe twice without my knowledge or involvement or even notification. After that his block was extended to a week for gross incivility by Deacon, and his talk page access was removed after a rather nasty message from BigDunc. This popped up on my watch list this morning and I restored BigDunc's access to his talk page, shortly afterwards BigDunc posted this which begins "Probably better if the page remains protected Tznkai." (I reverted this message, an action I now think was ill advised) This, as far as I am concerned was an invitation to restore Deacon's block extension and the remainder of the message confirmed that Dunc intended to continue cursing and railing and so on. I'm not sure when this longstanding policy of allowing venting started - I certainly havn't seen it written anywhere, but I'm not particularly worked up about this, I don't object to BigDunc's block being modified, shortened, lengthened or even overturned. For the record, Domer48 was also blocked for 48 hours, Mooretwin for 2 weeks, resulting from the same AE thread, and someone else is welcome to handle those blocks, modifying them, and otherwise handling the situation.

Giano has mentioned something important, BigDunc( and Domer48 ) are longstanding content editors, and they've created a decent amount of material - but they don't get in trouble for "insulting admins" - they get into trouble for edit warring, and POV problems related to the Troubles. My sincerest encouragement and thanks to anyone whos got the balls, creativity, and political capital to genuinely solve the situation. I'm unable to do it myself--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR summary of above: read the history, but unblock away.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all good will in the world, BigDunc continued such language even after the block was extended. He also sent me a nasty foul-mouthed email, which he subsequently apologised for in a mature way in another email an hour or so later. I agree with Giano that people might need to be given breaks in such circumstances. But it is situational and now isn't the time to review, esp. in the shadow of BigDunc's hot-headedness and the context of this AN/I thread. This would be bad for the respectability of rule enforcement if nothing else, and probably wouldn't do BigDunc any favors. The block was merited, and if a review is to happen it should be in a day or so. The AE block should definitely not be overturned (the other party got two weeks anyway); i.e. the original block by Tznkai should run its course. The additional 5 days can be looked at only after that ... if everyone's happy doing so. So leave it another day at least. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather depressing to read and review. I think that the original block was justified, and a 24 to 48 hour duration was appropriate in the circumstances (note: if the original block was any greater than 48 hours, I would not have considered it appropriate). As for the block extension, while there is no longstanding policy on venting, I think insufficient consideration has been given to the fact that he was responding to a block that he felt was unjustified (although in reality, it was justified - despite his assertions). A block extension may have been appropriate (to echo in no uncertain terms that such incivility will not be tolerated), but the duration of the overall block was manifestly excessive. Either increasing it to 72 or 96 hours was enough; increasing it to 1 week is more of a punitive measure of bad faith. Had the conduct still gone out of control after this time, then you can always reblock.

Nevertheless, the block log now has an annotation of 1 week, so I propose the following way forward from here. If there's clearly signs that such misconduct will continue, leave the block as it is. If he makes an unblock request that is convincing and makes the right sort of assurances (with regards to civility), then unblock around the time the original block was set to expire (AGF; lapse in judgement). If there are no such assurances, but at the same time, no clear signs that the misconduct will continue, then unblock after 72 or 96 hours as time served; excessive extension. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The AE thread launched by BigDunc resulted in the block of three users. The one whom BigDunc reported, who had committed exactly the same offense as BigDunc, got two weeks. Afterwards BigDunc went ballistic with abuse[, and sent a nasty email]. It's papably absurd to declare then a five day extension "a punitive measure of bad faith". I don't even think that borders on reasonable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've been hanging low here due to my break, but Deacon, you're WAY off track here. Actually, Mooretwin got off QUITE easily with two weeks. He was told previously his next block would be for a MONTH, mininum. When you add in the fact he basically swore he'd keep doing it, if I had a say in it, it would be indefinite. Dunc.. Well, I guess I'm going to send him an email telling that swearing isn't going to make things better. I would support limiting it to the two days IF he made assurances that he wouldn't continue. SirFozzie (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I commented elsewhere, but to reinforce SirFozzie's point, we have a longstanding policy that it's unfair piling on and escalation by the administrators to punitively block after mild to moderate venting on talk pages after blocking.

While I agree that what BigDunc did is improper and antisocial, we have had users who did this sort of stuff for days and days and were allowed to wind themselves down into being reasonable again without further intervention or provocation, because everyone was pretty sure that they would be ok if left alone to vent for a bit and were not in fact basically bad guys / girls.

Admins have a lot of power. We also have to have a sufficiently thick skin that we can turn the other cheek and accept some abuse sometimes. What we have to do makes us a focus of some abuse. It's part of the job. If you aren't thick skinned enough to accept that then you're not doing the job right.

We don't expect admins to be perfect, and lord knows you were provoked, but it's situations where you're provoked where it's most important not to respond in kind.

I am going to reduce the block length now, to expire when the original 48 hrs would have. Deacon - I appreciate that he frustrated you. But you didn't give him enough patience here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 48 hours for affronting an Admin is ridiculous. I hope though Tzkai has learn that he cannot impose these Draconian sentences at a whim (even if he is the Arb's clerk) it does not make him a one instant justice dispenser. Furthermore why was this block not posted here, properly - rather than kept buried away? Giano (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, BigDunc was not blocked for 48 hours for affronting an admin, but was blocked for violating a 1RR-remedy. Last year, a few editors were blocked for between 24 and 48 hours for the same type of violation in the same area. As such, Tznkai's action has received the support of those administrators who declined the unblock requests of BigDunc, as well as the support of other administrators and editors here. Finally, are you asking about the original block, or the block extension in the final line of your comment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon

My review covered the AE thread - yes, I'm aware that 3 users were blocked. You're wrong on the second point though; Domer was blocked for the same length as BigDunc for doing the same thing. But BigDunc reported Mooretwin, and Mooretwin was the one blocked for longer. I think the rationale for a longer block on Mooretwin was other circumstances; a greater number of reverts than other parties who violated revert-remedy, a block log that shows a clear, recent, and outstanding history of edit-warring, etc. This was worthy of a 2 week block.

And I don't think my characterisation is absurd or unreasonable. In fact, I think BigDunc's reaction was quite predictable to some extent. No experienced editor is incapable of criticizing without abuse; for some reason, he was unable to control his reaction and it was more abusive than anything else. I considered that this was the only evidence you had to justify 'block + unable to edit talk page'. However, that is not enough to justify the length of your block. Can you provide other diffs of him going "ballistic with abuse" in between the original block and your block? I can't find any. A reasonable person who assumes good faith would not expect him to send such an email to you.

I thought the email, like this, came after your block? And that he apologised (and hopefully made the assurance that it won't happen again)? If the answer to both questions is yes, then unless he sends such emails again in the future, he should not be prevented any further or it would end up being a punitive measure. As an administrator, a trusted member of the community, it is implicit in your duty to give due consideration for the personal hardship that may be caused by your actions, warranted or unwarranted. If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't be adminning in that area, if at all. A decision to block isn't what I'm faulting; it's the length of the block where you were definitely wrong.

To conclude, I support Georgewilliamherbert's action to reverse your action, more-so in the light of BigDunc's wise decision. This was what I was getting at in my proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Protection log

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^(talk) 02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could any of the Administrators place a protection log on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Page is being vandalize by IP 65.32.128.178(talk) who insist on inserting false information claiming it is sourced. Please refer to both talk pages here [[28]] and here [[29]] He also made 4 reverts already today. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, requests like this should go to WP:RFPP, not here. If it's just him I don't see why protection is warranted, you can discuss it with him, and if he becomes disruptive he can be blocked.--Patton^t/c 00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh O.K. sorry, I was not aware of WP:RFPP. As far as discussions with him...there were already plenty (links above). I think he is just trolling everybody. Thanks anyway and sorry again for placing this request on a wrong page.--Jacurek (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie

There was an edit war in progress over material in the lead of the Rachel Corrie article, so I moved the disputed material to the talk page until the dispute could be resolved. (These are the reverts by various editors of the same disputed content since Jan 31:[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45])

Arimareiji has ignored the moving of the material to the talk page, and returned the disputed material to the article lead [46]; and thereby undoing the attempt to resolve the problem by discussion on the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already made my reply at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Wikipedia:Edit_war, but I'll repeat some of the salient points: Malcolm Schosha was not "removing disputed material," he was continuing to revert to one of two disputed versions. He was doing so after arguably having followed an editor to Rachel Corrie whom he had been repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against. If there's consensus for removing that section of the lede altogether (rather than fighting over which version to use), that's quite possibly the best course. This is not what Malcolm Schosha was doing. arimareiji (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji has accused me of "continuing to revert". I only made three edits to the article, and I am a marginal player in the edit warring on Rachel Corrie. One of my edits had nothing to do with the disputed content, and one edit was to move the disputed content to the article talk page. According to my understanding, moving disputed material to the talk page is not edit warring, but rather a way to stop editing warring. It was my intent to stop the edit warring that was already in progress when I made my first edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Three edits = three reverts in three hours, and two before saying anything at all on Talk. He had no prior involvement with the page whatsoever, much less familiarity. arimareiji (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NO. It was two edits. The third edit was well explained on the talk page. Just what do you thing is wrong with three edits? You have far more reverts there than I do. I am the most marginal player in the ongoing edit war, which was not my doing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against you making edits or reversions. I do, however, think it's highly inappropriate that you only made edits to this page after an editor you were repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against did. Your first two edits at the page were reverts-by-proxy of him through PR and myself. You reverted him directly three hours later, and only after that did you come to the Talk page. This is exactly the same behavior as before, and 3RR is not an entitlement. arimareiji (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is surmise, and is incorrect. I have an interest in articles involving the Israel/Palestine conflict, and have edited a number of such articles. That, and particularly the problem with the lead, is what got me involved in the article. I do not need your permission to edit. I was never warned not to edit articles with Untwirl, and the first I saw of Untwirl today was when he/she reverted my edit. Had he done any editing to the article before then? I have not looked.

You seem to think the issue is me. But it is you who has persisted in edit warring, and that is why I brought the issue here to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim to innocently stumbling across Untwirl gets less and less credible. Now you're asserting you don't even know the contents of your own Talk page or the block log that documents the block you got because of it, one of several. You seemed proud of it then; I'm guessing you've changed your mind. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, the problem is that you (not me) were edit warring on the Rachel Corrie article. Will you, as I requested, move the disputed material back to the talk page so the dispute can be settled without further edit warring?

Every thing you have said here so far amounts to ad hominems against me, the ad hominem being the most famous logical fallacy. If you think I am a nice guy has nothing to do with the validity or truth of my argument. For instance, I have heard it argued by those who are against vegetarianism, the argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. But if a bad man happened to be vegetarian does not refute the premises of vegetarianism. Likewise Hitler wore clothes, and breathed air; but that does not stop even those who despise Hitler the most from wearing cloths (at least in public), nor do they they refuse air and hold their breath.

So, Arimareiji, once again, my question is: will you return the disputed material to the article talk page for discussion? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha - I would suggest that you read the talk page instead of only using it to make demands. You would see that I've been talking to editors on both sides and we've got consensus to remove both disputed versions from mainspace, rather than keep reverting to only one of them as you were doing. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

(undent) To whom it may concern: Malcolm Schosha received this warning from DGG (who has since recused himself) two weeks ago. It was immediately subsequent to his receiving yet another block, this one for revert-warring against Untwirl (my bolds):

"And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

In several different aspects, he's flagrantly disregarding this warning. He had no involvement with Rachel Corrie until Untwirl (the editor he just got blocked for edit-warring against) came to it, eight edits prior to his. His first edits were to twice revert (against Untwirl's perceived "side"), and revert again (Untwirl himself) three hours later, over "exact wording" in a "controversial article". Only after doing this did he come to the Talk page for the first time. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording - not to find better wording based on sources.
Finally, please note that the warning admin above refers to Malcolm Schosha's claim to stop editing. You can still see this claim on his talk page. He did not do so; he came back and quickly resumed the same behavior. Please do not think this is a moot issue. An RFCU may also be appropriate, as one of his blocks (June 2008) was an indef for socking.

This will be my last post on this matter here. If an admin has questions, they can reach me at my talk page. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then so be it ... decisions may be made against your liking in your absence. You're not compelled to be here, but while you're still a subject, it's likely a good idea to hang around. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did not block was that I saw this as a minimal violation. I'm aware of the problems with the article, though I haven't to be recollection worked on it. The material Malcolm removed from the lede was in my opinion clearly inappropriate for a lede, being contentious detail material not necessary to give a clear introduction to the article. It should almost certainly be used elsewhere in the article, but that wasn't the question. I doubt it was wise of him to get involved at all, but it wasn't heinous. Arimareji has repeatedly insisted on my talk page that I proceed to a block. My own view is that this should just die down, unless it becomes a pattern continued there or repeated elsewhere. But at this point I think it would be fairer if I left others to judge. DGG (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiWeb151 block review

I blocked WikiWeb151 (talk · contribs) as a duck/likely sock of Audi151 (talk · contribs), who was in turn blocked due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoMamma6188. As I am not at all familiar with the details of the puppeteer, and for checks and balances, I'd like other users to review this block (and my deletions of their nearly identical subpages User:Audi151/Audi's and User:WikiWeb151/Audis). Thanks for any input.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Jaguar151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WikiFan151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Urgent TFD

Please could someone decide on this TFD here: [47] ASAP - the deletion template is very disruptive. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:HorseGirl070605

This user has so much bad behavior, it's difficult to know where to focus. She has abused [48] (and perhaps threatened in earnest) editors, has a sockpuppet account (71.68.223.17), has ignored several editor's requests to stop vandalism, edit wars, blanks her discussion pages to hide final warnings,[49] and repeatedly announces she's retired, when she is editing as usual.[50] I have consulted with other editors,[51] and the suggestion was to begin here. She shows no sign of changing her habits of making off-hand, often childish edits, based on personal opinion, or information from social sites. Of particular concern is indicating she's willing to delete other, established edits for no reason. She wanted the articles for Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny entirely deleted, for example.[52] She seems to be largely unwilling to improve her behavior in even small matters. This thinking is so contrary to Wikipedia values, so persistent, it seems time to take some action.Piano non troppo (talk) 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of this evidence is really questionable; she does not actually want Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny deleted, she was attempting to make an other stuff exists argument for the inclusion of The Volten Sins. Her threats are clearly not serious ("I'll get my dog Nsync to bite ya'll and I'll get my cat Spicey to bite and scratch ya'll"). Editing after announcing retirement is not forbidden and may just indicate a change of heart. And I would hardly call editing while not logged in a sock puppet, unless it was done with the intention of presenting an alternate identity, which you have not demonstrated evidence of. Nevertheless, her uncooperative attitude and poor communication ("I'm not going to work together with any of you peons. And ya'll can't make me."), as well as her technique of avoiding conflict by pretending to cooperate and later misbehaving again, not to mention her persistent OR edits, are really difficult to deal with. Dcoetzee 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, difficult to deal with. We were, in part, seeking a suggestion about what to do. Statements such as "You A-Holes can't stop me."(cited above) suggest she has no intention of changing behavior without correction. (Switching from editing as HorseGirl070605 an anon IP is a part of a larger pattern of avoidance, that is, she stopped editing in one, and started in another. Only later did the editors watching her discover what she'd done).

I got involved only lately, and was appalled at the amount of effort earlier editors had expended trying to reason with her. Her disdain for proper sourcing is real enough, and based on a worldview coming from social sites, and apparently her interpretation of the Bible, as, for example, in this edit on Ghost: "Ghosts are mentioned in The Bible. Ergo ghosts are real."[53]

We've tried reasoning with her, what's next? Thanks. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Inspecting her recent edits, I think most of the damage is limited to The Saddle Club, and she's stopped editing there for the moment. She may be uncivil and have a poor attitude, as well as the issue with reliable sources, but relatively few of her edits are manifestly bad and she doesn't continue pushing them if challenged, so I don't think there's a significant problem. I've left a clear warning on her talk page (and that of her IP). Dcoetzee 07:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That would be the warning that she just blanked without comment. [54] But thank you for your message to her, that at least lets her know there are some rules and guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking warnings on talk pages is fine - we can take it as proof that they were received. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the user is that naive. In either case, it looks like she bucking for a block. Someone should remind her that a person cannot revoke his/her contributions under the GFDL. The user has acknowledged all such warnings given and still does not heed them. MuZemike 09:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Inteligent design editors teaming up to abuse non-free images

Some editors of Inteligent design are teaming up and overcoming the non-free content policy to use non-free book covers and magazine covers against site-wide policy and consensus.

I'm about to violate WP:3RR since I have to deal with a whole team of editors that insists that people wanting to enforce the policy are just "NFCC regulars" that, unlike them, can't understand the topic of "Intelligent design".

It's well established, and derived from WP:NFCC, that we don't use non-free book-cover images in articles that just happen to mention the book. We use it in the book's article or in any article that discusses some topic that couldn't be fully understood without seeing the specific image. This is nothing special about book or magazine covers, but something valid for all non-free images, according to WP:NFCC#8.

A recent discussion on the article's talk page faded away after the image proponents turned it into a discussion about how bad our policy is. --Damiens.rf 04:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and protected the wrong version (in this case, I actually think that it is the wrong version, since I agree with you on our non-free image policy, but I'm not going to enforce it after protecting the page). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And I've warned those who were edit-warring in breach of policy. Happy to block if need be. Let's hope it won't be necessary. --John (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You warn me for edit warring? Since when is one edit edit warring? Completely uncalled for. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have taken the initiative of notifying the other editors you warned of this report. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the venomously misleading title of this section, I'm now not at all surprised to have received User:John's note on my talk page. At the moment, I'm glad I'm not an admin-- I might have fallen for that myself were I not already familiar with the situation. Here's the problem in part: Those editors that choose to frequently file and/or participate in FFDs and who hang around WT:NFC and related pages are not the only users capable of participating in the consensus process to assess whether a given file meets the NFCC. The editors who've descended upon intelligent design in the past week or so appear to be under the illusion that they're the only ones capable of making this assessment. Guettarda's comments immediately below give some perspective on what the arguments ended up being about. In terms of the NFCC, the argument ended up being about the often-subjective and highly debatable assessments called for in NFCC#1 (no free equivalent) and the especially subjective NFCC#8 (significance). These are not the kind of criteria that are appropriate either for a CSD assessment or for any other kind of purely ministerial action by an administrator. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The use of these images is in keeping with our fair-use policy. Rationales have been made per WP:NFCC#8. No one has bothered to address the rationales for inclusion under NFCC#8. There is no abuse of policy here. John, on the other hand, is making threats which constitute an abuse of his admin privileges, including issuing "warnings" in which he made no attempt to explain what policy he claimed was violated. Guettarda (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No Damiens, the discussion never addressed the issue. It didn't peter out because of "how bad our policy is", it petered out because the only argument that was made against inclusion of the images was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Guettarda (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only argument was "because I said, that's why" and and dismissal without consideration of any argument for keeping the images, and any editor who disagrees is part of an abusive gang. That is not fair. This is a content dispute period. And there is absolutely no consensus to delete the images. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Fair Use guideline is consensus. We don't have to reach a new one for each article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

RE "The Fair Use guideline is consensus." : So is the definition and description of the proper scope of a "guideline" in WP:Policies and guidelines. Please go refresh memory about what a guideline is, by consensus, within Wikipedia. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The content part of this discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. The editor conduct issue can continue to be dealt with here. If a consensus is reached in the proper venue that these images meet our policies, this issue will be resolved. If editors edit-war to restore stuff which breaches our policies, they will be blocked. Straightforward stuff, I would think. --John (talk) 05:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the thread at NFCC says to go to Talk:Intelligent design. [Disclaimer: I should be blocked for this edit.] siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with John. The discussion on WT:NFC#Use of book covers in intelligent design has been short, superficial and in violation of WP:AGF (denigrating the WP:CONSENSUS on Talk:Intelligent design as "another case of majority rule ILIKEIT"). The issue has been done to death on Talk:Intelligent design. The regular editors on that article (including myself) believe that there is a long-standing consensus for the inclusion of this "stuff", no contrary consensus has been formed, and there is no objective evidence (only subjective back-and-forth arguments) that it "breaches our policies". It therefore follows that any blocks to enforce one side of this debate would be unlikely to be seen as "uninvolved". YMMV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 06:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite User:John's excellent suggestion that I take this up at NFCC, apparently there already is a discussion there explicitly shunting all further comments to Talk:Intelligent design. There is a pronounced lack of consensus at the latter discussion page, to which I have contributed. Presumably further discussion should occur there as well. Under the circumstances I have just described, a block threat seems to be particularly unjustified. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 06:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I left a message for John re his warning on my page ... he seems to have missed the quid pro quo and gone for the qui. Sad, really, but, well ... •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NFCC policy

1. No free equivalent. We meet that criterion
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. We're good there.
3. Minimal usage/Minimal extent of use. Not a problem.
4. Previous publication. Yep.
5. Content. Yep.
6. Media-specific policy. Looks good.
7. Significance. Case made. Nothing beyond IDONTLIKEIT has been offered to suggest why the case is flawed.
8. Restrictions on location. Not a problem.
9. Image description page. Got that.

No policy is being violated. The case was made for #8. Once that was done, the discussion petered out. No one pointed out any flaws in the rationale. Inclusion of the images in the article appears to be consistent with the NFCC policy. Guettarda (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't justify an edit war. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone saying it did; do you? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a heck of a lot of people making excuses here, yeah. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...for removal? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of people talking about how the photos satisfy (or do not satisfy) policy. That doesn't really matter, as far as ANI is concerned. Even if the images were public domain, nobody has the right to edit war to keep them in the article. And it's not urgent to remove them, either.

Policy can be debated by any user; the only action here that calls for admin intervention (which is what this page is for) is the edit war. I'm with John - I'm willing to block anyone continuing it, on either side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why did John only threaten those on the "wrong" side of this debate? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It was a warning, not a threat. Warnings are good things. If you're getting warnings, that means you haven't been blocked yet. Which is always nice. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so threats are a good thing. But still, why was only one side threatened with a block here? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 07:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I didn't warn only one side. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you have said that you are "with John", without (apparently) bothering to examine what "John is with". siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. Nobody's interested. I know you've got a smart-ass answer for everything, but it's obvious what I meant. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

John's threats seem to have sewn a bit of bitterness. Charges regarded horses and asses do not seem to defuse this situation. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 08:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

W.r.t. John's warning(s), I tend to think he might have been misled by the opening gambit and the title of this thread. Obviously he thought he was enforcing clearcut policy and as such his approach, rendered against only one side of the dispute, is somewhat understandable to me. But the fact of the matter is, as I said above in this thread, the assessment of whether the images at issue meet policy is not anywhere near that simple, and the only credible "policy" issues being asserted by Damiens.rf and several others are based on NFCC#8, interpretations of what are debatable, subjective editorial decisions, not by any means clearcut policy-based decisions. Advocates of removal of the images also took a couple shots based on NFCC#1, though these were highly stretched arguments that free-licensed images of the authors should be used in lieu of the cover images, and, as should be obvious, there are no legitimately free-licensed replacements for the cover images themselves. I should add that in October 2007 the article was featured on the main page with these images present in the article, as well as withstood two WP:FARs, so you can dependably bet that many admins have seen the images in intelligent design before, the consensus among admins being that the use, while not bulletproof, was reasonable. Perhaps needless to say, several admins have also disagreed with this assessment that the images' use was reasonable under the NFCC, notably NV8200p and CBM. ... Kenosis (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The entire conversation above shows why use of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce WP:NFCC. Standard timeline;
  • Images removed per NFCC
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Goes to talk
  • Regular editors of article claim they have "consensus" to keep the images
  • Alternatively, a "rationale" is cobbled together which is claimed to "meet NFCC#8" (it almost never does)
  • Edit war (optional)
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or editors eventually see that images aren't viable)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to enforce WP:NFCC will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL (this hasn't been the case so much this time, but is normal otherwise)
  • And we wonder why enwiki's use of non-free material is is such a terrible state?

Black Kite 11:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's run Black Kite's comment from the top from a slightly different perspective:

• The entire conversation above shows why policing of non-free images of enwiki is out of control. It is the same every time someone tries to enforce their view of WP:NFCC. Standard timeline of an NFC raid on Intelligent design (there've been multiple);
  • Images removed in spite of existing rationale and consensus
  • Images replaced
  • Edit war (apparently compulsory)
  • Goes to talk
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing consensus
  • Self-appointed NFCC enforcers dismiss pre-existing rationale on NFCC#8 -- which inevitably goes nowhere as the criteria is completely subjective and quite vague.
  • Edit war initiated by NFC advocates, taking any pause in conversation to being an admission of surrender
  • Either stalemate, RfC, etc, (or self-appointed NFCC enforcers regroup to try again in a few months time)
  • In the meantime, those seeking to defend legitimate content will often be subject to random violations of NPA and CIVIL
  • Rinse and repeat
  • And we wonder why these self-appointed individuals have a reputation for precipitate and non-consensual behaviour?

It really depends on who's telling it, doesn't it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 12:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "self-appointed NFCC enforcers", "NFC raid", "policing", "pre-existing consensus" and "non-consensual behaviour" proves my point exactly. Thanks for endorsing my posting. I don't think I need say any more. Black Kite 13:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The use of the phrases "claim" & "cobble together" proves my point exactly as well. And I am amused that you would take umbrage at "enforcers" "raid" & "policing" given your prior use of "enforce". As to "pre-existing consensus", you and your fellows were pointed to archive giving exhaustive detail on previous discussions. And I believe "non-consensual" is pretty accurate for unilateral deletion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• The Foundation has tasked us with only two areas to keep control of on WP: WP:BLP and NFC. BLP is heavily policed (evidenced by the number of ArbCom cases over it, along with numerous ANI postings), but when it comes to NFC, that seems to be second bananas. Adherence to getting to the free mission goals of WP is not optional. Anything that can be done to reduce non-free use has to be done, with the understanding that some non-free use on en.wiki is needed to help with articles. --MASEM 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I find it surprising that we still have people who work on the thankless task of NFCC compliance (given how "significance" is rather subjective, it is impossible to get right). I don't think that non-free images are worth the trouble they bring (a clear decision "only free images" would be so much simpler than deciding where the border is), and they are certainly not worth compromising our mission as a free encyclopedia. In support of wikiveganism, Kusma (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Vote fraud by Grassfed

Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish was nominated for deletion on the 2nd of February, see AFD. On the 6th user:Grassfed created a new account and their sole edits were to vote Keep in the discussion. --DFS454 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Godvia

User:Godvia was blocked indefinitely for a variety of tenditious behavior. The user has returned tonight to post a series of personal attacks upon established editors on her/his talk page here, here, here and here. I am asking for protection on this talk page as the user apparently has no intention of asking for the block removal and is now using that page to attack editors. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take the page off your watchlist; the editor is indef blocked and is likely to remain so while they post such rantings, but it does not help move the situation forward by reverting them. Once the situation calms and the editor drifts away or apologises or becomes World President and Gets Various Asses Seriously Pwned then the page can be restored to the appropriate version - in the meantime, let them air their grievances and do something more fun somewhere else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

David Dein

Can someone double check David Dein - User:David Dein has removed a substantial amount of information; some referenced & verifiable some not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User blocked, under policy pertaining to usernames matching those of well-known individuals. Appears to have a COI at any rate, whether he is Dein or not. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs dilemma

I've come to report a growing problem; new user Eugene Krabs. The username pretty much gives away that he likes Mr. Krabs. At first you'd think that he's just a normal new user, but if you look at his contributions, you'll see he's getting very close to being disruptive, he makes all these weird edits and when someone reverts them, he leaves a false warning on their talk page.

And when i tried to help, he got mad and said that i'm trying to boss him around. I thnk we've either discovered a very disruptive sockpuppet, or a disgruntled child/teenager. I decided to come here for some advice on what to do, Eugene obviously doesn't want help. Elbutler (talk) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him new anymore. We had an issue with him moving his talk and userpages to articlespace awhile ago (December I think), and he recently asked for someone to be blocked here. He certainly doesn't understand the concept up escalating his warnings (or indeed, he isn't that great at warnings at all). I don't perceive him to be a sock ...merely "misguided". (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(note: I have advised the user of this discussion) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We are clearly dealing with competence issues with Eugene. I do think he's a good faith editor. Turning down a mentorship offer was clearly a bad move on his part, because I think it would have helped. I've been friendly, and tried to point out why his missteps were missteps, but never quite gotten the feeling that he understood my explanations ([55] for example).—Kww(talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)