Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Concern about excessive rangeblocks

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Large amount of Rangeblocks by Raul654

A few weeks ago I guestblogged a series of posts on The Volokh Conspiracy. Since then I have received e-mails from several readers of that blog on various issues. One of the most frustrating was from an eminent retired law professor, who indicated that he has attempted to contribute to Wikipedia articles several times, but has been blocked from doing so. He summarized the message that he receives when he tries to log in, and it turns out to be a Scibaby rangeblock. I have written back and explained how I can go ahead and create an account for this editor, but he seems to have moved on and I fear that we have lost the possibility of his contributing permanently.

In the wake of the publicity surrounding the ArbCom decision in the Scientology case, I was asked to appear on a radio show. There was a short call-in segment in which three people called in, and one of them also complained that he too has been caught up in longterm rangeblocks. Again, I offered to explain to him how to get an account opened if he would e-mail me, but I never heard from him, so he may have given up as well.

It is understood that rangeblocks, particularly ones placed by checkusers, are intended to address long-term abuse situations and are sometimes necessary. However, if they are overused, we risk cutting off our nose to spite our face, and there are also times when semiprotection or just dealing with petty nonsense is a better answer than blocking tens of thousands of IPs. I think we should all please make a point to use rangeblocks as narrowly as is reasonably possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make instructions on how to have an account created more prominent/easier to understand for folks who encounter a rangeblock. Some collateral on rangeblocks is inevitable, but possibly it can be addressed and explained more constructively. Nathan ^T 15:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are instances where as many as a dozen range blocks have been imposed in attempts to control only one vandal. In one case, the blocks of User:Scibaby, at least one person mails unblock-en-l every day asking for help. Who knows how many give up when they encounter the block. Fred Talk 16:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. These SciBaby rangeblocks have been up for years. I would say that several times per week someone asks for help in navigating these at CAT:UNB and they are almost always legitimate users. Most vandals get bored and move on; I think it may be worthwhile to test the waters and remove these on a trial basis. If SciBaby becomes a problem again, we can always reinstate them, but for the time being, I think they are currently doing FAR more harm than good. Additionally, the rangeblocks were placed long before the Edit Filter came on line; SciBaby's abuse can now be controlled using appropriate edit filters much more easily, and it would be preferable for the project if those methods were attempted now that we have them availible. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 16:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Support lifting them. These rangeblocks definitely turn off new contributors. –xeno^talk 16:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblocks are here to protect the project from harm, and to cause less stress for those involved in doing so. But when they result in at least one on-wiki unblock request a week, and a email to the unblock mailing list almost every day, the rangeblock is accomplishing the opposite. I say that we lift the rangeblocks, and take a look at setting up an abuse filter instead. Tiptoety ^talk 17:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If the range blocks are targetted at one person, they should be replaced with an abuse filter. An abuse filter could protect just certain articles from certain ranges or stop a particular type of vandalism from certain ranges, etc. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

These Scibaby rangeblocks have been going on for months if not longer. We get unblock requests on a regular basis as well. I've been against these excessive blocks for a while and I've heard that there has been extended discussion amongst checkusers and other functionaries. Given that admins are (rightfully) hesitant to remove rangeblocks and Raul is generally against removing them I think that ArbCom needs to address the issue. Generally speaking, I don't think we have a problem with "regular" admins excessively blocking ranges. So please, checkusers/functionaries/arbcom - this is something that you all need to work out (in my opinion). - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also support lifting the Scibaby rangeblocks. It's been suggested several times, but Raul always resists. Enigma^msg 17:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in all reality it is not really up to him. Should the community, or the functionaries feel that the ranges need to be unblocked to better serve the community then that is what needs to happen. The decision, is really the communities (as it is with any other block). Tiptoety ^talk 17:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've often geolocated the IPs in the sockpuppet category for this user and have mapped them to every corner of the USA, from California, to Texas, to the east coast, and up to Montana. If this is one user, he appears to have the ability to change IPs at will (maybe through zombie proxies) and it appears this would make rangeblocks entirely ineffective against him. MBisanz ^talk 17:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been privately complaining about these rangeblocks for some time (citation needed, I know), and I'm glad to see it under discussion. The disruption these rangeblocks is undoubtedly causing is not worth the effort to block a single vandal who can easily be identified otherwise, is easy to revert, and persistently evades the bans. The rangeblocks should be removed. --Bastique ^demandez 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted about 15 of the blocks at this time, and note that an abuse filter has been set up. Tiptoety ^talk 19:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a few hours programming up a couple of abuse filters, #205 and #206. (Note: do not discuss the rule-sets publicly. Scibaby is very good at changing behavior once it is revealed how we track him) Thanks, Wknight94, for the tip. I somehow hadn't heard about the abuse filter feature until you mentioned it.

There are two problems with the situation as it now stands. (1) The abuse filters do not have access to private checkuser data and the developers are not going to implement that feature until there is consensus on-wiki to do so. (See Bug 18429) As such, the rule sets cannot take advantage of the knowledge we have accumulated about the IPs he uses. All IP checks still have to be done manually by someone with checkuser access. (2) The abuse filters apply only at edit time. So there is no way to prevent Scibaby is maturing sockpuppet accounts.

Taken together, what this means is dramatically more work for the admins and checkusers who deal with him -- primarily me. I'm open to suggestions for fixing this, because I consider this an intolerable situation. Raul654 (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, see bug 19796, a feature request for a checkuser watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul654, I encourage you to discuss the issue on the Functionaries-l. We've been discussing the topic for the past week. My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding the situation is that Scibaby is not someone that engages in harassment or other conduct that makes it essential to try and stop every account from making an edit on site. - that is true.

As well, his edits are pretty easy to recognize and can be reverted without loads of harm done to the project. - that is partly true. (A) In general, you actually have to know a little something about the topic (global warming) before you can recognize his edits. Otherwise, it's all meaningless jibberish. (B) Occasoinally a legit user is confused for a Scibaby sockpuppet. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen once in a while. (C) There is a cadre of users (GoRight and Abd among them) who have a history of meatpuppeting on his behalf (That is to say, restoring edits by Scibaby after a sockpuppet of his has been identified, tagged, and blocked). In the latter case, earlier this week I issued both GoRight and Abd final warnings that further such edits will result in a block. However, dealing with such meatpuppetry by disruptive users is both time consuming and, in the long run, exhausting.

So, maybe alerting more people to add his favorite topics to their watchlist would be a good solution rather than the approach that causes the ongoing need to create accounts for users or otherwise deal with the collateral damage. - I have *repeatedly* asked for other checkusers to pitch in and help, so that I wasn't the only one paying attention to these articles. Little to no help has been forthcoming. Raul654 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was blissfully unaware of Scibaby until I noticed that Raul654 had reverted, with no explanation, an edit to User talk:GoRight. Since Raul654 is a dedicated opponent of GoRight, I wondered what he was doing reverting an apparently harmless edit to GoRight's Talk. Having, myself, reverted vandalism to user talk pages, and having been reverted on the claim that the user could handle it themselves, I reverted. I was reverted, and Raul654 warned me about "meat puppeting", and we debated it with no resolution. Notice above how the single incident, where I had no information at all about socks, has been conflated into a pattern by Raul654, who, in spite of now being directly involved in a dispute with me, was and is threatening to block me. I have no intention of defying him to make a point, but if I see an example where the benefit to the project would outweigh the possible disruption, I'd have no hesitation in going ahead.

So I looked into the situation. Scibaby, an editor interested in Global warming, was originally indef blocked in September, 2007, by William M. Connolley, on a charge of sock puppetry; it looks like WMC had been reverting this user. However, at that point, as far as I've been able to find, there was one old account, Obedium which may have been a role account, it was odd for sock puppetry because it was actually old, as old as Scibaby. But identical interests. No checkuser was run, to my knowledge, to connect Scibaby and Obedium. Neither editor was warned about the SSP report. There was no warning before Scibaby was blocked. Obedium was not indef blocked at that point, but was short-blocked for edit warring. However, Obedium was meeting what all editors skeptical about global warming have met, and continue to meet, at global warming: hostility and tag-team reversion. Few survive this. (By the way, I am not of this POV, I believe global warming is real and very dangerous.) In December, 2007, Obdeium apparently created a series of socks. It looks to me like, by failing make sure we welcome editors with dissident views, and that we integrate them into the community and the consensus, as was the original vision, and instead relying on blocks and bans, we have created a situation where some people resent that and refuse to be shut up, they don't just go away. Scibaby has now created as many as 300 or more new accounts; and this is one reason why I consider administrative recusal to be such a crucial issue that I've been willing to risk my account confronting it. Raul654 is complaining about lack of help. He helped create the situation that requires this continual defense. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

How about a cost-benefit analysis? I understand not wanting to make things needlessly difficult for new users, but before lifting the rangeblocks altogether I would ask that at least some consideration be given to those of us who edit the articles that Scibaby targets. This is just one more thing we have to deal with in addition to the other stuff that happens on those pages. Raul, what's your impression of how effective the rangeblocks are? (BTW semiprotection won't work, because he ages his accounts.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)\

A year or two ago, it was commonplace for me to find 10, 15, or 20 scibaby socks at a time. Now he registers them in ones and twos, and spends a couple of days maturing them. Clearly the range blocks have been effective in reducing the number of accounts he registers. Raul654 (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The checkusers report that rangeblocks have been effecting a large number of new users. There have been concerns raised about these blocks over time. This is not something sudden. And most significant, it does not seem to be very effective since he finds new ips to use. We need to consider other ways of dealing with the edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always up for a new approach. Got any ideas? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The last time I tried something new (protecting the affected pages), Cool Hand Luke unilaterally decided to unprotect them all. Raul654 (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Guess who just showed up twice on one of the ranges Tiptoey unblocked? (Namely, from 24.205.68.78) Raul654 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

and a third time... Raul654 (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

and a fourth time (all four from ranges Tiptoey just unblocked - the latest from 71.94.156.13). Is anyone else noticing a pattern? Raul654 (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

...and #5. And with that, I've restored the 24.205.0.0/16 range block for a week, because I'm getting tired of these games. Raul654 (talk) 07:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Raul, I can understand your frustration but when the rangeblocks you implement end up doing more harm than good it is time to try something else. There are many other active sockpuppeteers whom operate from such active ranges that Checkusers have declined to block them, and as a result multiple SPI cases are opened every week and accounts manually blocked by hand. We should not be treating this person any differently. Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If this person's MO is to push POV in a few articles, why don't we just protect these articles and/or disallow his edits with the abuse filter instead of blocking ranges? That should be just as effective and produce less collateral damage.  Sandstein  12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with protecting the affected articles. Note, though, that that's probably about 100 articles in total (possibly more).

As for the abuse filter, it's *not* a magic bullet. All of the accounts it detects still have to be manually checked and blocked. And I have yet to see anyone volunteer to help do this. The abuse filters also have a workload issue -- that there's a finite limit on how many filters can run, and apparently the two Scibaby filters (one of which is currently disabled) are complex ones that add to the workload. Raul654 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is appropriate for the conversation, but I will add that I am currently under a Scibaby block. Riffraffselbow (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

...except that the block only affected logged-out users. So as you have already noted on my talk page, the block didn't affect you, except when you wanted to edit while logged out. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll also note that many people who advocated most strongly for removing the rangeblocks seem to have conveniently disappeared from this thread, just as it is becoming apparent how much work that decision is going to create. Raul654 (talk) 01:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That comment was made in bad faith, Raul. I for one, am willing to help. I just need to be told how I can. Would you like me to watchlist some pages for you? Should I be looking for certain usernames in the user creation logs? Tiptoety ^talk 04:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is needed to deal with Scibaby are:

• Technical measures that obstruct his ability to register new accounts and edit (This was done with the rangeblocks)
• Technical measures that highlight his editing when it occurs (this is being done - crudely - with the one Scibaby abuse filter that is currently enabled)
• Users who watch the articles he edits and are adept at spotting his editing. (We have a fair group of editors who are now doing that - WMC, Boris, Stephen, MastCell, etc)
• Users with checkuser access who are willing to do work identifying and blocking his accounts.
• Developers who are willing to implement the dozen-or-so Scibaby-inspired feature requests I've put in

To be perfectly frank, people without checkuser access aren't really able to do a whole lot to deal with Scibaby (only #3 and #5 above). What is especially needed is 3 or 4 (or more) people with checkuser access who will watchlist the 25 or 30 articles he pops up on most frequently, and checkuser him without being asked to do so (blocking the confirmed sockpuppets), and keep doing it until he goes away. Right now, that's just not happening. Raul654 (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

When a mess is made, it can take work to clean it up. --Abd (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps one should create a copy of Wikipedia on some servers and redirect the IP ranges used by Scibaby socks to such servers. They can then edit the global warming related pages all they like on the fake Wikpedia. Only edits on other pages will update the real Wikipedia. To fool Scibaby for as long as possible, you need to revert the Global Warming page on that fake Wikipedia to let it look like the real Wikipedia. It must also be synchronized with the real Wikipedia from time to time. Only a careful examination of the history will reveal that something is wrong, so Scibaby may not find out that he is editing a fake Wikipedia for quite some time. Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, that idea is quite impossible to implement. —Dark ^talk 07:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Iblis's suggestion is creative, but as DarkFalls said, it's a technical non-starter. Anyone have any other ideas? Raul654 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Caught two more Scibaby sockpuppets this morning, both on ranges Tiptoey just unblocked. That makes them #6 and #7 since this crackpot idea was put into action, and still nary a peep from those who pushed it. Raul654 (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So he removed two unsourced statements? And as a result we should prevent many new users from easily signing up and contributing to Wikipedia? I don't understand why these content disputes can't be handled in the usual way. Perhaps Scibaby should request unblocking. –xeno^talk 15:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, he's banned because he used *hundreds* of accounts to vandalize thousands of articles. Nor is it a content dispute. His MO is simple - he removes statements pertaining to global warming and its consequences. If it's not cited, he claims it's unsourced, and if it is cited, he claims it's POV, or misleading, or undo weight, or any one of 100 other subjective excuses. That's why he is be banned. I don't understand why these content disputes can't be handled in the usual way. - then perhaps you should take the time to actually find out *why* he was banned before posting an apologia for him. Raul654 (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well if you want volunteers to help, perhaps you should bluelink this as a start. –xeno^talk 15:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I might just fill out that blue link. It will be helpful to have a reference for his misbehavior when issues like this come up. But as I have already said above to Tiptoey -- there's not a whole lot of good that non-checkusers can do in this case, and what little they can do (mostly spotting potential Scibaby socks and asking a checkuser to check them) is already fairly well covered by the people who regularly edit the global warming articles. So, to review: rangeblocks are effective; checkusers are effective; new Mediawiki features are effective; throwing more admins at the problem is not effective. Raul654 (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful. Otherwise folks who want to help (other checkusers included) will have to learn his MO by trawling through the various noticceboard threads and sockpuppet contribs. –xeno^talk 15:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest, however, that the two User:Tile join rangeblocks be lifted? They are 86.148.71.0/24 and 79.76.96.0/20, both of which are parts of very large UK dynamic DSL ranges. They were set in 2008, so our friend will have moved on by now - indeed has, as can be seen from the cavalcade of new socks at this article. Black Kite 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They were set in 2008, so our friend will have moved on by now - Wrong Raul654 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I meant he will have moved on from those ranges, and in fact your diff shows that he has moved to a completely different ISP - that is an NTL range, whereas the two blocked ones are BT Broadband and Tiscali. All the more reason to lift them IMHO, especially the BT one, as BT Broadband has changed the way it allocates dynamic IPs since 2008.Black Kite 15:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he has access to a second ISP does not mean he does not mean he has lost access to the first one. But what the above block shows is that he's still interested in causing us trouble. Raul654 (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but perhaps I'm not making myself clear - I am merely pointing out that even if he still has access to the other two ISPs (which could be quickly confirmed by CUing the procession of socks at Witton Albion F.C.), the rangeblocks are both only a fraction of the dynamic range which he would have access to, and so are unlikely to be preventing him from creating socks whilst still hitting large numbers of users. Black Kite 15:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not contact the ISPs Scibaby is using and demand that they take action within some reasonable time (e.g. they could warn Scibaby to stop or else he'll lose his internet access)? If the ISPs do not act, then Wikipedia could simply block access to everyone attempting to log on from the ISPs Scibaby is using, not just for editing but also to simply read Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

ISP complaints could be effective, but (a) he has access to a lot of ISPs, so corrosponding with each one is akin to blocking each individual IP address, only more time consuming (b) ideally, the letters should come from the WMF, but they have to date shown absolutely no interest in supporting the admin community in dealing with troublemakers. If they won't get involved to deal with the likes of Amorrow and Grawp, then I doubt there would be any chance of them becoming involved in this (c) You also need someone with familiarity with ISP abuse complaints who is willing to write up and submit the complaints. Raul654 (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

and another sockpuppet... Raul654 (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On the general issue of range blocks

Not to sidetrack any discussion above, but I've asked for a database report to be created listing all range blocks. It will be updated every week. You can view the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Rangeblocks. This should help increase transparency with regards to range blocks and allow administrators to monitor for blocks that may be excessive. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree this could be helpful for admins monitoring the blocks, but making the report viewable by anyone and everyone might not be the best idea. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone and everyone can see it now here. BJ^Talk 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can already see rangeblocks by going to special:IPBlocklist and hiding registered users and single IPs. Thatcher 02:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Rather than worry about the recent ones, would it make more sense to start by reviewing the range blocks that were set more than three years ago? Also rather than indef blocking IP's that are currently open proxies why don't we take a feed from one or more of these sites? Unless I'm missing something wouldn't that be slicker both for blocking new open proxies, and for unblocking closed formerly open proxies. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani category blanking again

Badagnani (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

Just returned from his block – still visible at WP:AN/EW#User:Badagnani reported by User:William Allen Simpson (Result: 48h) – he began page blanking categories again, as his 8th edit. (The 1st three edits were also reverts of my very recent edits, within minutes, perhaps WP:STALKING.) This is the same as the previous behavior.

removed category header

Page blanking is generally considered vandalism, category blanking should be similarly treated.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of material is not automatically vandalism, so no. This removal is apparently done in good faith because he disagrees with the material, for whatever reason. Content dispute. Incidentally, I find the boilerplate text of that template he removes utterly confusing and useless. Shouldn't such a category header explain what should be in the category, rather than what should not? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been deleting the headers from multiple categories. That doesn't seem like a "content dispute", that's just a continuation of his dispute (and multiple DRV) about how to handle surname categorization.

This language is the product of multiple editors, discussed at length, and incorporated in a template for uniformity across all the related categories. The template says what should be in the category as its first sentence: Surnames of [Bazian language] origin.

Unfortunately, some persons (the ones that opposed the new system) began gaming the system, moving Gaelic names into the English-language category, as they'd been "anglicized". Or Russian-language became English-language because they were "transliterated". These are about language origins, not the current modern spelling. So, each and every category has had exclusions added for clarity. (Most are still very simple.)
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh and, W.A.S., why are you revert warring against him on another issue in parallel, removing his additions of Category:Native American surnames (in cases where on the face of it that category makes perfect sense)? [1] At the very least, it appears you are both engaging in sterile revert warring here, and I don't see you discussing at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Native American is not applicable. Creek and Navaho are not the same language group. These are categories concerned with language origin, not some abstract "racial" or "cultural" grouping – as noted in the 1st edit summary – I don't waste my time repeating myself in later edit summaries, I just click the Undo button again. French-language origin surnames do not magically become Creek-language origin or Native American language origin, either; not even under the notably rare circumstance that a French explorer marries into the tribe.

Likewise, Ukrainian names of folks that were born during the Soviet Union do not become "Russian-language origin" names (another area of previous dispute with a different editor).
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

"I just click the Undo button again"? Well, with that attitude you are hardly in a position to complain of others revert-warring, are you? Anyway, I personally find Badagnani has a point on both issues, and I invite you to a discussion at the relevant category talk pages; this noticeboard is not the place to discuss the content. I'll just say that I don't find your explanation of the native American case compelling. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

That discussion already took place at the relevant category talk page (Category talk:Surnames) and previously at WP:CFD, and has concluded. I was just re-explaining to you, because you asked. Sorry for wasting our time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson's complaint

William Allen Simpson (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

• I find this compliant disturbing because William Allen Simpson too engaged in "edit warring". The CFD closure without notification to all pertinent projects is skewed in my opinon. If the discussion for the massive deletion had been notified to the projects (quite a lot 30 ~ 50 projects?), then the result would be not the same as the current one. I did not notice it until Good Olfactory complaint about another admin's alleged wheel war. Therefore, I can sympathize Badagnani's wrath a bit since he is known for "inclusionist" and "status quo keeper". However, Badagnani did not violate 3RR on your report, but equally edit war with you, William Allen Simpson. The only reason that you're not blocked for that edit warring is that somebody complaint about Badagnani's manner to WP:WQA, and you used it to block Badagnani. Indeed, he was blocked for the reason, not for non-existent 3RR violation. And since you too have been engaging in the same subject, the false accusation of "stalking" looks like an attempt to make Badagnani bad. This is a "content matter" that you need to find a solution via WP:DR, not to land here. Besides, you too keep reverting on multiple articles multiple times at the same time for your POV, so please be wary of WP:Edit warring.--Caspian blue 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint, I find this to be completely inappropriate and a blatant form of forum shopping. This isn't the first time he's done this either. Several past AfDs were canvassed/votestacked literally all over Wikipedia to talk pages with obviously biased participants. In fact I call this spam, not ordinary canvassing. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And this certainly isn't an appropriate attitude. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned many times for that behavior now, blocked several, and still has yet to change it. So it's a typical conversation for him, and I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a little further reading into his comments and again, this page contains quite a bit of dialogue that's just plain rude, not to mention that he's talking with an administrator like that. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Happens yet again here. And this time in a worsening manner. Apparently we have a bit of a WP:OWN issue here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, feel my pain: Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. I tried—really I did. Then I gave up trying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Badagnani reopening CFD

User:Badagnani is persistently re-opening a closed CFD. I presume this is against Wikipedia policy. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Notified Vegaswikian about this edit. Frankly, he better have a good reason for reverting an admin's closure or I'm giving him a week. He's been on a terrible roll so far. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Ever since his 48 hour block I've mostly seen disruptive editing from him instead of anything constructive. And he's been given too many 'second' chances to count. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he missed the original close decision. It took me a few minutes of headscratching to work out what Vegaswikian was on about.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't mean you get to ignore an admin. Ask them. Besides, his response just keeps on adding fuel to the fire. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further problems with User:Badagnani

Following a WQA post, Badagnani was blocked by WMC for continually reverting warnings and notices on his userpage as threats. (and yes, the block summary was apparently poor, but that's been dealt with, so perhaps we can not go there again).

Despite several requests (here's three: [2][3][4]) to stop referring to notices and warnings as threats, he is continuing to do so. This behaviour really needs to stop, as by this point it really is outright disruption. In no way is it acceptable to continually refer to warnings from other editors as threats; it is dishonest, assumes bad faith, and is generally chilling to any attempt to have a discussion with the user. I believe at this point a longer block is in order to get the point through to him, and/or a strict ban on using such language in his edit summaries. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I fear attempts to talk to the user are not effective. He seems to allow us to talk past him rather than to him. If he continues to refuse to drop this (which I suggest he do, even if for no other reason than that continuing to bring it up is not changing anything and likely will not change anything), I agree with Roux that a block might be necessary to prevent continued disruption. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 05:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani has explained himself: "Thank you for your opinions. I am a long-time editor who edits always with a mind to enhancing our encyclopedia for our users. Some editors don't seem to share this view but edit more with a mind toward being "enforcers," and, as such edit in a highly aggressive manner. When they show up at a talk page right off the bat stating that they will block, they will ban, they will retaliate, they will attack, etc., such messages are indeed threatening in nature and not exhibiting the proper decorum necessary to preserve a collegial, collaborative environment to which we should aspire. As such I am entitled to remove such comments as I see fit. " and "If editors post at my discussion page in a collegial manner, I will of course respond to them in the same manner. I reserve the right, as do all WP editors, to remove unnecessarily inflammatory and highly provocative posts, which are against our project's fundamentally collaborative ethos."

Makes sense to me. As Lifebaka is seeking to resolve an editing dispute with a block, I understand why Badagnani feels threatened. I suggest a collegial and collaborative approach with a longer term good faith editor. If that doesn't work there's a dispute resolution process. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All discussions tend to fall into "I am doing what's right for the encyclopedia and nobody else's opinion matters because they aren't." Period. It's completely unproductive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attack. I've seen Badagnani respect consensus even when he disagrees with it, but he's certainly passionate about doing what's best of the encyclopedia's readers. He's explained why he finds certain messages threatening. If editors choose to pursue those type of communication, they will be received per that understanding. We generally respect editor's managing their own user pages as they see fit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not, however, respect users continually accusing others of threats, particularly when they are being told that no threats are being made. → ROUX ₪ 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find edits like reverting an admin's close inappropriate (and "my opinion of what's appropriate supersedes everyone else's" isn't an appropriate response). If it's now an "attack" to question the judgment of users doing so and to request they stop, then nothing around here will get done. Everyone doesn't have to walk on eggshells because one editor has now decided they don't want people questioning their activities. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(@ ChildofMidnight, above) Two things. Firstly, I didn't make myself clear in what exactly I was referring to. I was referring to his continued assertions that Good Olfactory's close of the surnames CfD was inappropriate and that Good Olfactory should burden himself with all of the work necessary in implementing a new categorization system for surnames, an opinion he appears to be shopping around for someone to listen to, and which he appears to be unable to drop. Second, I'd very much prefer not to resolve this with a block (hence why I "fear" it), but talking to the user doesn't seem to be effective, as I already said. If you'd like to try you hand at talking, feel free, I hope you'll have more success than I had. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The messages like "I (uninvolved or involved admin) will block you if you do the same thing one more time", "You're vandalising, so you would be blocked after your 48 hours-block", "I will report you to AN/I/WQA/AN3" indeed sound threatening. Because those who have have reported him to AN/ANI/AN3, he feels threatened. He did not say they gave him threats, but threatening messages. He does not play well in dealing with such messages though. If Badagnani wants to record that repeated unwelcome visits from unwelcome people in edit summary, then I would suggest him to change "threatening message" with "unhelpful messages from people whom I pleaded not to visit here" or "disruptive message".--Caspian blue 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Both alternative messages sound equally offensive and the latter more so. My suggestion would be for him to just drop the edit summary altogether and stop removing every message that he finds remotely unpleasant. GraYoshi2x►^talk 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. He objects to behavior he finds threatening and contrary to collaboration and respect for a long term good faith contributor. And you object to him objecting to these behaviors. A fundamental part of civility and collaboration is respect for various editors who represent a variety of cultures and approaches. If you're going to aggressively enforce policies in a way that he finds threatening he's going to react accordingly. There's room for improvement and increased sensitivity on both sides of the dispute. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, surely these edits show good faith. After all it's fully appropriate to refer to people as "Korean nationalists", is it not? GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To GraYoshi2x, well the reference of "nationalists" in March was about me and another editor that opposed to Badagnani's inclusion of an "unauthorized YouTube link". However after that, I've seen/undergone many rude hypocrites' and verbal abusers harassment who have admin buddies, so even thought they said "fuck off", "you idiot", "spammer", or "8 years old", they are free from any charge for their extreme incivility but they are very critical of others' behaviors. So I let the accusation by Badagnani go some time ago. Contrast to them, Badagnani's comments sound to me less threatening and he has tried to improve himself like refraining from adding unreliable links or picture links or saying WP:STALK, so I rather choose to work with him than fight with his dreadful buddy or face other unpleasant people around him. As far as I know, you also did some mistakes to Badagnani, so well...why don't you try to peacefully work with him rather than accuse him in not so much civil manners? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I would slightly question your assertion that Badagnani is a "long term good faith editor". This is the user who, on several occasions suggested that I be banned for nominating article for deletion (many of which were subsequently deleted by consensus). See here. But I agree with the comments about the need for sensitivity on both sides. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• The user has not been adopting reasonable or proportional reactions to comments from others. He automatically removes any comment I make on his talk page as "threatening", regardless of what I have stated—even if there is zero discussion of possible blocks or other sanctions. If I try to discuss a content issue with him, it is removed as "threatening" and "unwelcome". I was recently accused by the user of making a "death threat" against him: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and he continued to maintain it was a death threat after I had apologized for any misunderstanding and it had been explained to him by multiple other admins that it was not a death threat. He has essentially accused me of racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular: [10]. Any attempt by me to discuss these issues with him on his talk page are removed as "threats". He treats some other users and admins similarly, and apparently because of background content disputes. Something must be done. I'd be very happy if the user would simply change his attitude and approach. But barring that, I also fear a longer block may well be appropriate. The user has a history of blocks and it concerns me that the most recent block only seemed to embolden his misbehavior. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it funny that people who have done far less than Badagnani have been blocked indefinitely. He certainly has made a number of excellent contributions to Wikipedia, but if this behavior continues I believe the only course of action would be just to give him a longer block like you said. He's shown that he's unwilling to change his ways, and he's been reported to AN/I for what, at least 10 times now? Every single time I edit an article edited by him in the past year, I'm nervous about how he'll react to it, and 90% of the time he just reverts with some nonsensical statement. Needless to say it gets me a bit irritated, especially when he ignores or deletes all my requests to discuss. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It's just the classic "he's problematic, but he does good work" excuse. Never mind Jimbo Wales's recommendation to show jerky people the door, regardless of the work they've done. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I have known him for much longer than any of people here who complain about him, and have really many ups and downs with him. However, I feel that he is at least not a worst one among harasser/verbal abuser nor rude hypocrite that deserves indef.block, so I could have more leeway toward his behavior and his contributions are indeed "valuable" than Wiki-cops's who do not contribute anything but tag or delete someone's contributions with O article creation. // @Good Ol’factory, since you're deeply involved and want to "resolve this issue", why don't you do something by yourself? --Caspian blue 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because I'm deeply involved. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to block the user in this instance, though I certainly am willing to give my opinion in this instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been deeply involved in working with him for years and have tried, so should you.--Caspian blue 02:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned, over the past few weeks I have tried to make efforts to talk to him, but any effort I make on his talk page is immediately removed as "threatening". I would like to see him at least acknowledge that some of his behaviour may be viewed as problematic and at least make a good faith agreement to try a bit harder to show civility to others and respect administrative actions performed by administrators (i.e., don't try to unilaterally revert them). But if a user refuses to budge after dozens of complaints—sorry, but there's the door. And it's not like this is a first instance or that he's still learning the ropes—he's been legitimately blocked at least 7 times in the past! Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jerky people" are only jerky in the eye of the beholder. User:Good Olfactory has a penchant for getting involved in disputes, presenting himself as a neutral mediator, appearing to take one side and then expressing befuddlement when his actions of indeterminate faith are questioned. The threat of blocks is sure to follow the inevitably unsuccessful mediation efforts with further expressions of frustration that blocks questionably imposed have angered the editor and only caused more damage then they could ever have solved, which can in turn only be addressed by threats and demands for more blocks. The "shoot the horse" remedy of blocking anyone and everyone in all cases, legitimate or otherwise, needs to be replaced with a far-more refined process that keeps valuable editors like Badagnani from areas of conflict while allowing them to continue to work they work well. Punitive blocks such as are being advocated never work. Any advocacy by Good Olfactory for blocks where he has a clear conflict of interest should be accepted only with a lump of salt the size of a small planet. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I haven't put myself out as a "neutral mediator" here. I think that's probably clear from the recitation of my recent encounters with the user in question. I've also clearly stated that a so-called "punitive block" is not a preferred solution. (Incidentally, If accusing someone of uttering a death threat and refusing to apologise or retract the accusation when having it pointed out multiple times by multiple editors that there as no death threat (not to mention a repetition of the accusation after this has been pointed out) is not "jerky behaviour" under Alansohn's loose "eye of the beholder" standard, then he certainly has enough salt on his planet to pass around and share with us all. Anyway, an assessment of jerky behaviour coming from a user who has been blocked x number of times for such behaviour should be, well ... you get the idea. As for my alleged "history" of claiming to be neutral when I'm not—this probably refers to one or more ANIs Alansohn has recently filed against me, which are probably best regarded as vexatious sour grapes trolling from a user who is apparently still upset that I blocked him some time ago. (Links/diffs available upon request.) Looks like more of the same.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose to put Badagnani on 1RR against established editors (not anons). Disclosure that I have clashed with him a lot when he reverts, he always shouts "WP:POINT" but he is always the first to complain when anybody questions him and says that people aren't allowed to question him. I ain't the only Vietnamese editor he disagrees with all the time eg Amore Mio (talk · contribs) and he always adds unsourced stuff or any old thing and insists on keeping it even with no sources because it's "useful" and he adds whatever he wants irrespective of undue weight. He does this in all Asian spheres of editing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• As an editor who has had problems with him in the past, I would be inclined to support this proposal; however, I think a major aspect of the problems discussed above relate not just to edit warring on articles, but deleting other users' comments from his talk page and labelling various comments as "threats" or "threatening" (or "death threats", in extreme cases), as well as unilaterally attempting to reverse administrative actions—so I'm not sure if a simple 1RR would solve the problem, unless it also applied to his own talk page (which would be unusual). Personally, I'd like to hear from the editor on these matters. I've left him a quick note inviting him to do so, but it would be consistent with his past practice if my message is deleted and ignored. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I believe that any action should also limit Badagnani's removal of material from the talk page. By doing this, an editor can make it difficult for others to ascertain if they are currently the source of problems. This delays timely administrative action. That is to no one's benefit. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Having had minimal interaction with Badagnani, but reading this as a cold record, what is proposed (with Vegaswikian's add) seems reasonable. I do vaguely recall Badagnani demanding 1 month blocks against admins at DRV, so that editor would probably conclude that a suitable remedy for a violation of probation after all these warnings and blocks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that Vegaswikian's suggestion would be helpful. Badagnani has most recently taken to archiving comments on his page rather than removing them, which is kind of a step in the right direction. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose The first comment in this thread is a complaint about the way an editor removes notices fromt heir talk page. Now those trying to get him blocked are trying to put him on 1RR restriction? This looks like an end run around dispute resolution to get an easy fix to winning disputes with this long term good faith editor. If there is edit warring take it to the appropriate boards. This recommendation and its support from those in editing disputes with this editor is not a good look at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're telling everybody else to change their ways because one editor is different from the majority? He reverted an official admin closure of a discussion and you support his undoing it based on his own opinion? Where's the logic in that? The 1RR restriction should be well deserved, seeing as he's been given way too many chances, blocked many times, and still has yet to change his behavior. And the "strongest possible oppose" thing... I'm getting a bit suspicious here. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And speaking only for myself, I've had no real "content disputes" with the editor. My sole concerns have been with misplaced allegations of threats, unilateral reversions of administrative actions, repeated solicitation of me to reverse an administrative action, edit warring with other editors, etc. For me at least, this would not be a matter for DR; here seems far more appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He reverts all the time, and basically always accuses everyone else of violating point or stuffing up the article by removing unsourced stuff. I don't care about his removing warnings. He knows what other people think of his actions bcause a few reverts are sign of a dispute. But if he can't revert then he can't go and do all this stuff against the consensus all the time and there would be no need to say anything to him. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 05:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, it is quite surprising that you propose the sanction since he depends on you a lot (checkuser request or asking your opinion on Vietnamese topics). Anyway, I oppose your proposal because the one-way-sanction could be used for his disputers to game the system. (that is quite obvious expectation) I think enforceable community mentorship upon him could be better or there is no other way than RFRA. However, there is a possibility that he could leave the project for good given the fact that he left Commons after his misunderstanding of admins' roles there and OTRS made him feel to leave. So do I want him to be banned? Certainly, not.--Caspian blue 20:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits by User By78

For some time now, By78 has been making edits to pages related to India without consulting others. Most of edits have alarmingly negative overtones. While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source (i.e. using 2002 data about India's road network and pass it off as current). This has brought him into conflict with many other Indian editors of Wikipedia as his behaviour seems motivated by hate and not by a desire to improve the article. He continues to engage in edit-warring and seems to revert any claim that does not conform to his point of view. In his Mumbai article, he added 20 pictures of Mumbai's slums and then proceeded to make the argument that 60% of the city's population are slum dwellers while not providing any strong evidence to back this up. It is also worth noting that other cities in the developing world also have large slum populations but this isn't reference all throughout the article. There are places where this is appropriate but modifying a featured article in such a way seems to me like a blatant violation of some of Wikipedia's policies. Either By78 should collaborate with other users before making modifications to the article OR he should be prevented from making any modifications. His presumed YouTube profile page (http://www.youtube.com/user/by78) is riddled with anti-India information that spews hatred on the country and Indians in general. A look at his recent contributions will reveal this and substantiate my accusations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/By78). Vedant (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I have merely uploaded more than 20 pictures of Mumbai slums to Wiki Commons, but why does that make me biased? If I upload 20 pictures of Saudi Arabia, does that make me anti-muslim or anti-Saudi? You could accuse me of comitting vandalism if I had added all 20 slum pictures to an India-related wiki article, but I have not and will not. I think your disliking of the slum pictures says more about your value system than mine. Poverty is not a crime and certainly not shameful. Are the slum residents inferior, less than human than a Manhattenite? Of course NOT. So what is so controversial about two dozen pics of Mumbai slums being uploaded to Wiki Commons? By your logic, Danny Boyle (the British director of Slumdog Millionaire) would be the number one enemy of India. Of course, Danny Boyle is not anti-India, and then why should I be accused of being anti-India? By78 (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"While some of his data is cited, it is either sourced from non-neutral sites, a single source or from outdated source". Vedant, could you please provide concrete examples of the "non-neural sites" and "outdated sources" that I have used in my edits? Let's hear them. By78 (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

According to CBC 60% of Mumbai's population do live in slums, so it's not hard to source......although 20 pictures is surely excessive and could probably come under the heading of POV pushing. I can't see any relevance in an article on Mumbai to point out that there are slums in other countries as well.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at his last 300 edits or so, the Indian roads article and the article on the tallest buildings in India seem to be the only two he has edited. Freeways, armaments and tall buildings - guy (yeah, stereotyping I know) seems to be a numbers nut. And is there more current data than 2002 for indian roads? My guess is there isn't much more up to data info in public domain for roads in the UK!!. I think the admins might need a few more diffs.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say but it is my impression that his edits have a fundamentally discriminatory character associated with them. I did not mean to imply that the Mumbai article should state that slums exist in other cities. What I meant is that other cities in the developing world (including Beijing, Shanghai and many other Chinese cities) have their own fair share of issues including poverty and environmental pollution. I don't see other users however using Wikipedia as a political platform on which to launch attacks so they can push their own point of view the way By78 has. Another example I can cite is on the Submarine Launched Cruise Missiles page [11], he explicitly removed the Indian entry on the page citing lack of evidence even though VOLUMES of evidence existed. In addition, regarding his modifications to India's Road Network, I don't see why India's road network has to be compared to the United States or China. If this article is indeed on India's road network, then the opening paragraph does not need to draw comparisons to other countries. It is widely understood that India being a developing country is not going to have the first world infrastructure of the United States. It is also widely understood that the Indian Road Network has its fair share of problems and they are discussed in the article but By78 is attempting to make these problems the core focus of the article and thus pushing his anti-India POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 21:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Why can't India be compared with China? I mean the comparison is practically an academic pastime, with India and China part of the BRIC designaion and both being large developing countries. The comparison, I believe, is both relevant and informative, as both countries have fast growing economies, are of similar population size, etc. I certainly wouldn't compare India with Brazil or Indonesia. If I remember correctly, at least two comparisons are made with China in the Economy of India wiki article. Furthermore, there are plenty of wiki articles that are titled "List of Countries by...". You get the point.By78 (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vedant, I think he's probably seen this or something similar, which reports that the sub (the SSBN) won't be commissioned by the Indian Navy for maybe 3 years. He's right - you can't say you've got submarine launched ballistic missile capability if you haven't got the sub to launch the thing fromElen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Lest I seem totally unsympathetic, I think if you provide the admins some proper diffs for edit warring, they may take more of a look at this.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will keep an eye on him in the future though. I do however want to make one thing absolutely clear; my intention is not to promote "Indian triumphalism" as By78 claims but I do want to prevent vandalism or other inappropriate edits to India related pages. I do think that judging by his likely YouTube profile page and his previous edits on India related pages, he seems to be intent on promoting a negative (and non-neutral) portrayal of these articles.

99.238.167.207 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I smell a sock. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You can be as skeptical as you please but I have no relation to Chanakyathegreat. You can check the IPs if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vedant (talk • contribs) 00:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I smell a sock too, Jaerback. Vedant, or Chanakyathegreat, is that you? Back to the substance of the accusation, I think my edits have been well researched, and backed up by well-cited sources (no blogs, no internet rumors), and most of my sources are from newspapers and specialists magazines and websites such as Globalsecurity, CIA World Factbook, BBC, AFP, Reuters, etc. Vedant has accused me of vandalism, which is simply unfair. Vedant has also accused me of POV-pushing and Chinese-Triumphalism. To be honest, I am interested in East Asian culture and do speak a bit of mandarin, but I am not Chinese, and I have no desire to demonstrate one country's superiority over another. If you look at my edit history, you will find that I have also frequently removed questionable claims from China-related articles. I stand accused, however, for being a stickler to facts, numbers, and figures. User "Elen of the Roads" was correct in saying that I am a numbers nut, and I happened to notice many more incidents of questionable, premature, triumphant claims being made in India-related articles, and I did what any good editor would do, I researched into these claims, and I corrected them as I saw fit. I will not make any apology for that. Oh, one last thing, I do NOT have an account on Youtube. By78 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You don't have an account on YouTube? So the page /user/by78 with an impressive list of Indophobic and Sinophilic favorites which closely mirror your Wikipedia edits, and which spouts frequent hate speech against India and Indians, is not you? Give me a break. Even on a site like Wikipedia where you are expected behave professionally and maturely that Indophobic attitude of yours pokes out, as evidenced by the two warnings you have. GSMR (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No I certainly do NOT have an account on Youtube. Although I might get one, seems like a good idea. One has to wonder, of all the hundreds of millions, no, billions of people who have Internet access, what are the chances of two or more people picking "by78" as their account names. Hmmmm... I did a cursory search on "by78" in google, and lo and behold, I found no less than a dozen accounts, spread across a wide variety of websites, by this name. So why pick my account on Wikipedia and this other person's on Youtube and try to make sense out of the supposed similarities? Funny, it's not hard to see that if we are to take into consideration of all these other "by78s" out there, then, gasp, there is really not much there in behavior similarities, except of course, that they all have Internet access. It seems to me that those who objected to my edits are those who are a bit lacking in skeptical attitude and all too eager to accept "facts" at face value, OR, has a bone to pick with me because I've edited some India-related articles with factual sources, which strangely offended some editors out of India. Who is at fault here, I do wonder sometimes. I also ponder as to when these editors would stop using ad hominem attacks on me and instead, as they should per wiki policies, focus on the merit, content, and factual accuracy of my edits. Thus far, it seems, that few had been able to raise objections to my edits on factual grounds, which is no surprise, as my sources have been chosen rather, I might boast a bit, judiciously. Lest you want to write off AFP, Reuters, Indian Express, Globalsecurity, CIA World Fact Book, Ernst&Young, Der Spiegel, UNICEF, World Bank, and IMF as a bunch of propagandists bent on sullying India's good image. By78 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Really?

http://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7706/youtubem.jpg

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/8582/wikipedia.jpg

That sure seems like an amazing coincidence.

And no, the only reason I have a bone to pick with you is because I have witnessed this behavior on YouTube and then again on Wikipedia - while I have no problem with your constructive edits based on factual sources, you may remember the brief edit war we had regarding the etymology of cash where your reason for believing that Englishmen did not use the word "cash" for the currency in Canton was that the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is, FYI, an Indophobic theory which credits Vedic culture to White Europeans rather than Indians) was false. Aside from the fact that this theory does not and never did entail Indian conquest of China or anywhere else, your comment that "aryan" is synonymous with "German" angered me - the fact is that the word "aryan" was never in the European lexicon until Max Muller borrowed it from the Vedas, and that in its original Sanskrit context 'Aryan' did not refer to a race at all. (and yes, the Aryan Invasion Theory _is_ false, the only people who believe that Nords had anything to do with Indian achievements are White Nationalists on Stormfront).

GSMR (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL, I do appreciate the "evidence" you presented. But, anyone can make a screen grab, errr, I meant use photoshop, provided there is enough motivation. Furthermore, anyone can copy what I said on wikipedia, and then create a youtube account to make the same comments, so as to "prove" that I am the same person in both places. Good job. Good job indeed. If you so want to accuse me of being anti-India based on my Wiki edits, then so be it, but do make the same accusation against the good folks working at AFP, Indian Express, The Indian Business Standard, BBC, CIA World Factbook, Reuters, Janes Defense Weekly, Federation of American Scientists, the Indian Parliament, the IMF, the World Bank, etc. Why? Because the whole world is out to get India, sully her good name, and bring her down. Even better, why not accuse Danny Boyle of anti-Indian sentiments as well in his wiki article. Oh, even better, might I suggest that you finally get around to provide some REAL evidence of my so-called BIASED editorship. Anyone care to give it a try? I thought not. Why? Ad Hominem attacks are just so much more exciting. By78 (talk) 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are five months old!

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=oYxO3LOZQ6Q&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DoYxO3LOZQ6Q (deleting them won't help; it will still say "comment removed by author").

Yes, for the past five months, I have been operating a YouTube account with your username from Wikipedia with the sole intention of associating it with you. Come on, Bo Yu, just searching for "Eendiah" on Google shows me everywhere you have an account.

Also, if you care to read what I said above, I do not condemn any of your VERIFIABLE edits.

GSMR (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So what if the youtube comment is five months old? Does that prove anything? My so-called anti-India edits have been going on, let's see here, for almost two years. I wouldn't put it past someone to fake an account on youtube just to engage in ad hominem attacks (silly, but somewhat sophisticated). However, whoever is doing this, for whatever reason, has not read wikipedia policies carefully, namely that it is the content and merit of the edits that should be under discussion, not the editor, unless of course, the editor is engaging in questionable behavior. Now, maybe I am biased, but I just don't see my edits as anti-India, unless of course, you really want to go with the conspiracy theory of the world is against India, which I suppose could be plausible, but I need proof. Now, could someone list the anti-India edits I have made so that we can have an open, honest debate about them? Vedant has brought up two examples, but obviously they have NOT been accepted as demonstrating my so-called anti-India bias, but rather as examples of old-fashioned paraphrasing of news reports and specialist information (with proper citations, of course). What else have you got? Let's hear it. By78 (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Youtube: by78. Joined: August 26, 2006. Last Sign In: 3 hours ago

Wikipedia: your first contribution was on July 26, 2006, and you did not start editing India-related articles until October 2008. In fact, the "Eendiah" phrase on YouTube predates your use of it on Wikipedia. (March 25 2009 is four months ago).

Not that it matters; your standing on Wikipedia is not affected by accounts elsewhere on the Internet. Hell, I'm a member of a hate forum against a certain minority, does that mean I can't edit Wikipedia as long as I abide by the rules and etiquette policy? No, what you do off-site is strictly your business - but you don't need to deny it.

Anyhow, Bo, I believe that you are prejudiced against Indians and despite the fact that India rakes in more money per year her former crown, beats your beloved PRC on the failed state index, and created the number system without which your username would be ByLXXVIII, you are still determined to degrade the image of India on Wikipedia.

Verifiable and sourced contributions aside, let's not forget those 20-some pictures of Mumbai you uploaded showing nothing but the slums of the city, your flame-war with ChanakayatheGreat where you compared the country with the fourth largest economy in the world and her flag on the moon with Sub Saharan Africa, your mockery of an Indian accent, your disbelief at the verifiable etymology of the word "cash" (sense 2 on Encarta Dictionary), and your own bigotry by using the Sanskrit word Aryan to describe blond-haired, blue-eyed Nords on my talk page, though in truth, the word "Aryan" was never used outside the Vedas until Max Muller borrowed the term from them, and came up with the ridiculous theory that Aryans were a race of White Europeans who civilized India (which, to repeat something you said yourself, is false. In fact, using the original Sanskrit definition of the term, only Indians are Aryans. The Aryan Invasion never happened, despite what some White nationalists who want to claim India's history for themselves would like you to think).

Fortunately, the Tamil etymology of Chinese Cash remains clear on the Wikipedia article about it (and on the MSN Encarta Dictionary).

Yes, I think it is quite clear that your main purpose on Wikipedia is to ridicule India.

GSMR (talk) 16:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

GSMR,

Please don't engage in personal attacks against other Wiki editors, especially on the administrator page. If you have problems with their edits, engage the content of those edits. I can't tell what the bias of by78 is anymore than you or anyone else can. Also, I don't think that it matters at all. Even if he was personally biased against India, does that make the sources that he cited less accurate? Jjc16 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, however, I have already engaged with the content of the edits that I had problems with (see my and by78's talk page regarding the etymology of the word cash). I also did not like his POV-pushing with the 20+ pictures of slums in Mumbai, nor his mockery of an Indian accent on the Great Power talk page, nor his denial of the Sanskrit origin of the word Aryan - and he asked me to point out what edits of his I had problems with or found biased (and I have given examples above). GSMR (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for god sake, I have already conceded the point regarding the Chinese cash article. You were right, and I was WRONG, and your edit stayed. Are you happy now? What else have you got? I've only seen pages after pages of ad hominem attacks on my supposed bias against India, by way of some tenuous link with some user on Youtube. Frankly, all this is rather pathetic. Now, would some one please furnish more "evidence" of my wiki edits that you or anyone else deem biased and anti-India? By78 (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Although the off-Wiki issues are slightly less-than-tenuous, we do have to WP:AGF about them at this moment. It's only the on-wiki stuff that matters. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of this, yes, I engage in non-orthodox behavior on non-Wikimedia sites, I agree, as I said before, that there is nothing wrong with that. But the "Eendiah" phrase on Youtube predates your word-for-word use of it on Wikipedia, so why deny the association of the two accounts? What is it this time, did someone hack YouTube's server and set their date back a couple of months?

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=FkPBBZiMAjY&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DFkPBBZiMAjY - "Eendiah", 2 months before you got warned here for mocking Indians with the exact same phrase

http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments&v=Zg5PwBTk4aU&fromurl=/watch%3Fv%3DZg5PwBTk4aU - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvQWD6KcZcY - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oARKp_ZHQvU - Same as above

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOBCWN8HWXs - Three months before

So... what is there to deny? Come on, just be honest. You will only save face... unless, of course, you are the one stealing lines from your impostor on YouTube.

Okay, fine, lets forget the cash thing. The only reason I'm bringing that up is because that was the only time I have ever encountered and challenged you on Wikipedia (before this). But after that, I did, out of sheer interest, browse through your contributions and found that you have a very derisive view of India. While, and I repeat myself for the trillionth time, I do not contest your cited edits and reverts, what I do find indicatave of your Indophobic bias includes the "Eendiah" phrase (which occured first on YouTube by someone very much like yourself, and then as a remarkable coincidence was said again word-for-word by you on Wikipedia, as well as the whole second-warning thing with me.

Go ahead, make as many cited, verifiable edits on India-related articles edits as you want, but keep your racist comments to YouTube and what is likely your Facebook account (as evidenced by another repition of the "Eendiah" phrase here and possible source of the b.y. initials.)

Personally, I would have gone with a less unique catch phrase. http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_en___CA336&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=eendiah just gives it away.

GSMR (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see that this entire thread has descended into a farce. Let's see some real proof of my anti-India wiki edits. Anyone? I suggest that someone please list the edits that I have made that are anti-India, edits that are tenuously sourced, or are inflammatory, or whatever. Ad Hominem attacks are not going to get you anywhere. By78 (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ad Hominem? You're the one persistently denying affiliation with the YouTube account by78, and thereby keeping it a part of the discussion. Because you have repeated word for word on Wikipedia, "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie!", a comment which has been made three months previously on a YouTube account with YOUR username and from YOUR facebook account recently, are you going to call it an Ad Hominem attack when I respond directly to denials that you make about your accounts elsewhere on the Internet? GSMR (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to review what Ad Hominem means. If you scroll up to the top of this thread (I know, it's a long way up), you will find that it was started because someone (Vedant) had made an accusation that my wiki edits are anti-India, and as a proof, he listed this youtube page. This is ad hominem attack. As for the merit of my edits, Vedant raised the Mumbai slum issue and submarine launched missiles as two examples, which have been rejected as demonstrating nothing other than good old fashioned paraphrasing of verifiable, reputable sources. Now, as far as I can tell, no more examples have been brought up. I would like more, since the thread is about my anti-India edits, and surely there must be many many more examples of my racist rant on wikipedia; but, despite my repeated appeal for more examples, I have received none. However, I have received more of the same tenuous link with this Bo character on youtube. Hmmm, youtube is not wikipedia, and wikipedia is not youtube. I am not Bo, and Bo is not I. Bill Clinton the former president is not the Bill Clinton the former British army general. Chankayathegreat is not Chanakya the Great. So, could you please, for the sake of Krishna, provide some additional examples of my so-called anti-India edits? Otherwise, why look for things that are not there, like Vedant does with his looking for a slum-free Mumbai, which does not exist, yet. By78 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, if we ignore the edits for which you earned your two existing warnings, and if we ignore the YouTube account, then here are some of your anti-India comments/reverts made on Wikipedia, where the rules apply:

You should make a real attempt to read. Those two warnings are not for edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arjun_(tank)#Revert_of_recent_edits_of_Hohum_by_by78

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hohum#Arjun_article_revert...

Need I say more?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278455547

What does your opinion on neocons have to do with their credibility on India?

Hmmm, what does Bernard Madoff have to do with his credibility on making good investments?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, this mirrors an opinion voiced on here, interestingly, one month before this edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278666046

Back to the Youtube dead horse again? So tell me, why is the above an EDIT? It was expressed in the discussion pages, NOT written into the Great Power article. So, you are implying that no two persons can do the same research and reach the same conclusion? Oh well, I suppose I am brilliant. Now, that is a brilliant idea. Thank you very much!By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

"As well Sub-Saharan Africa"? So having the fourth highest GDP in the world (PPP) is doing "just as well as SSA" economically?

Yes, as well as SSA. I stand by that statement. In terms of HDI, child malnurition rate, hunger rate, percentage of population below poverty line, literacy, etc., India is doing as well as SSA.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you said economically, and therefore, your comparison must only regard India's economy, not her HDI. In any case, I see several Sub-Saharan African countries, in fact, most of them, under India's HDI. And yes, for the record, China is ranked 94th on the UN's 2006 HDI assessment (in which countries like Uganda, Gambia, and the Congo are below India's HDI, and some of the others you mentioned (like Botswana and North Korea) have no data available. GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(No, FYI, I do not believe that "Eendiah will be a soopa powa by twenty-twendy").

Let me repeat, with more clarity, "no, fyi, I do not believe that India will be a super power by 2020". Do you?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't believe India will be a superpower by 2020. But that doesn't mean I don't believe that India has vast potential for growth. GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278852147

Why do you have to insult the Bhagavadgita?

Yes, I do think Chanakyathegreat got his info. out of the Bhagvagita, which is obviously widly outdated, which would explain his unreasonable stance on things. Nothing wrong with the book, I got a copy myself, thanks to the Hare Krishna house. Good food there too. Did you catch my sarcasm, both then and now? And of course, let's not forget, this comment of mine was made in the DISCUSSION page, not in the actual article. So what examples of EDITS have you got?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you, you'll find that Albert Einstein praised the Bhagavad Gita as well. But in response to the "EDIT" thing, are you forgetting that all of Wikipedia's rules apply on talk pages as well? Or that whether one's edits are made in good faith can be reasonably judged by their talk page comments? My definition of "edit" may not be the same as Vedant's, as I include any contribution to Wikipedia. You can follow all the rules but still be a troll, for an example, look here: http://www.youtube.com/JenkemKang (Though note that I have no problem with African Americans - I am merely using this person's YouTube channel as an example of trolling, while following the rules). GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278874506

"Hindish"?

Yes, Hindish. As in [12]. It is not a bad word, unless you are overly sensitive, which I don't think you are. Anyhow, this again is NOT an EDIT. Sigh, when am I going to get a real example of my mythical anti-India EDIT?By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=278874506

"Slumbai"?

Yes, it's a nick name of Mumbai. Have you not heard of it? It's part of the memestream. Again, this was used in the DISCUSSIONS page, NOT an actual EDIT.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=279266345

"Holy cow"?

Agai not an EDIT, but something written in the DISCUSSIONS page. Did I not ask for EDITS? See [13]. I think I was given a warning about this comment, in all fairness. If you talked to somebody as stubborn as Chanakyathegreat, you would not remain a pacifist for long. So I think I did pretty well there. Sarcasm intended.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, an "edit" is a modification of any page, talk or otherwise. However, if you are referring to specific incidences of ARTICLE edits, then I addressed this above - good faith can be judged by any form of edit. For example, I find your assumption above that I am a Hindu who believes in Krishna just because I'm Indian is prejudiced and racist, and merely an attempt to incite me to get angry - I am in fact agnostic. In response to your Krishna reference, however, I should point out that the Proto-Indo-European religion has been completely displaced by the faith of Abraham in Europe. The lightning bolt-wielding, serpent crushing god known to the Norsemen as Thor, the Greeks as Zeus, and the Romans as Jupiter lives only by one name today - Indra. The common religion of both our ancestors survives today in India only. (Yes, I am agnostic, but if I were to convince myself that god(s) exist, I would be sure to put the pantheon higher on the plane of probability than the God of Abraham). Ha! If I did believe in Krishna, then I would be a part of the only religion which can claim Indo-European cultural hegemony. Oh, it's so, so, insulting... GSMR (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, as I've said before, a nation with her flag on the moon and the fourth-highest GDP in the world at parity is considerably more advanced than Sub Saharan Africa. I am not discussing poverty, I am discussing how technologically and militarily (if that's a word) advanced they are, given that when one thinks "advanced", that is the sense of the word that enters their mind.

EDITS! I was really hoping, as I was going down this long list, to finally see that anti-India EDIT I allegedly made. Bummer! Anyhow, other editors on the DISCUSSION page did not agree with this above statement, when applied to India. You should ask them.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_power&diff=prev&oldid=279497792

"English is 'forced upon' him"? Is that a reference to the British era? Yes, I suppose, after repelling Alexander the Great, refusing to accept Islam under Mughal rule, allowing the French, the Dutch, the Portuguese, and the British (what was your fascination with us?) to set foot in India, someone was bound to end up in charge. It should be noted that the British Isles were ruled by Rome for about twice as long as the British ruled India, and to this day their national motto is in Norman French, a foreign element to the English and the indigenous Celts.

EDITS, again, EDITS. Anyhow, what is so controversial about the above statement? Was English voluntarily acquired at first? Obviously NOT. Many in Africa still speak English or French, and their forefathers didn't go to England or France to study the language. Was India not colonized? History revisions should not be carelessly made.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this "cow piss" stuff? That was, so you know, because some crazy scientist said that it cures cancer. I suppose that addressing the rest of that edit is a moot point because you've already been reprimanded for it (though, and I'm sure you can speak from experience, the management at YouTube and Facebook don't mind it as much.)

Again, NOT an EDIT. Wow, I think your failure, thus far, to provide concrete examples of my alleged anti-India EDITS says more about you than me. You do know what "piss" is, right? Cow piss = cow uraine. Does cow uraine taste like Sprite? I never tasted cow Urine, and I can't imagine it tastes like Sprite. In any event, I don't have a cow handy, and I don't care to try. My point was, democracy is nice, but it is not magic. I was relating to the suffering of the poor. Being a democracy does not make a country a great power, which was the subject of the discussion, and democracy itself does not feed the poor, as it is not ingestable.By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo, it is clear from these comments/reverts made on Wikipedia that you are racist against Indians and derisive of India and are not genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia's quality, rather, degrading its image of India and flaming Indian editors. My talk page is still testament to that.

Anyhow, some list of evidence. As for proving that I made anti-India EDITS, it fell far short of my lofty expectations. Again, just so you are not clear, I, and other editors, asked for specific instances of my EDITS of ARTICLES that you believe are anti-India. So far, zilch. Waste of time? Hardly, I am having fun, and I hope you are too ;) By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

GSMR (talk) 03:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have yet to hear why that youtube account with the same name as yours has made the "Eendiah, de laahgest deemahkrasi een de vehrald! Pawah to Eendiah! Eendiah vill be de Sooopa-Pawah in tdwantie-tdwantie!" with the exact same words and spelling, three months before you did on Wikipedia. Sheer coincidence, right? GSMR (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheer coincidence indeed, and you should accept that. After all, same words have been uttered by many people, by coincidence or by something we call RECITATION, or they are uttered by different people pretending to be somebody else out of ulterior motive (not accusing you here). If I am correct, I believe the quoted statement was meant to convey a certain accent and sentiment perculiar to a certain group, which is rather easy to do. Just picture how the accent is, and wola, there you have transcribed it. <sarcasm begin>Good detective work, Detective Jacques Clouseau. You must be Jacques Clouseau, as your detective style is exactly the same as his. That can't be a coincidence, can it? Or is it someone pretending to be him responsible for the work?<sarcasm end>

If it is someone pretending to be you, then he seems to have a time machine, or at least the ability to hack YouTube and set its date ahead to make it look like you're the one stealing lines from him. Damn him!

It doesn't take more than a Google search for "Eendiah" to reveal your presence everywhere on the Internet. I mean, you must be the only person who transcribes an Indian accent like that - the phonology of every Indian language has a short /i/, /a/, and /u/ - and a consonant /r/ that is identical to the one in English - and most foreign people who hear these languages can establish that with ease. There are many ways to transcribe an accent using a form of orthography as flexible as the Roman alphabet, why is it that both accounts named B(o)Y(u)78 just happen to do it the exact same way?

GSMR (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well well well, still skirting the issue here, aren't we? What specific EDITS are you objecting to? None of the listed items above appear in any wiki ARTICLE EDITS. EDITS are not comments in talk pages, are they? Care to list some of the alleged anti-India EDITS I have made, which have by now become almost mythical for their absense in this discussion. EDITS, anyone? No? Ad Hominem attacks, anyone? Yes, do sign up. Funny you admitted that you yourself have gone on racist and ethnic rants about a particular minority group before, and I applaud your honesty, but does that make your edits, provided that they are based on neural, reputable sources, any less valid? The answer is obviously not. Then why apply it to me, when I have merely made sarcastic remarks about some of the delusions behind the POV pushing by certain editors (not you). Why cast stone from a glass house, even if you are giddy from finding this tenuous, alleged link between me and this other internet character? If you want to play this game, I suggest that you should link me with, say, Osama Bin Laden, or some other very famous sordid character, then maybe the admins will consider my edits completely biased. So again, what ARTICLE EDITS can you think of? By78 (talk) 10:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) By78 - it doesn't matter if you make the EDIT in an article, or on an article talkpage, it's an EDIT. Therefore, using terms like "Slumbai" anywhere on Wikipedia is wholly 100% inappropriate. I'm not even going to respond to the rest, as most fit the same pattern. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, as the distinction between an article edit and a discussion edit can be made, at least for the purpose of this discussion. When Vedant accused me of making anti-India edits, he did in fact mean article edits, as evidenced by his assertion that my edits were sloppily researched or based on non-neural sources. If Vedant had meant my heated comments in discussion pages, then it would mean that he believes my heated comments were sloppily culled from questionable sources, which makes no sense, as making off-handed remarks necessarily precludes the possibility of doing research on what specific words best expressed my sentiment at the time, much less providing citations of origin to the said words; also, my grasp of the English language is satisfactory, and I therefore had no need for dictionaries or guidebooks on sarcasm to aid in my remark-making. In fact, Vedant had belately attempted to prove that my article edits were biased based on my discussion comments and this other youtube account, which I do not own. I think it's safe to say that Vedant assumes BAD FAITH, specifically that I am biased and therefore my article edits are invarioubly and immutably so, which is Ad Hominem. As for accusing me of being anti-India in my comments in discussion pages/discussion edits, I do stand accused of being carried away at times, for which I had been warned and blocked. The said disussion comments have been archived and are there for all to see, and thus there was no reason for Vedant (assuming his sanity is intact) to bring them up again in the first place. Moreover, Vedant asserts that I have been "making edits to pages related to India without consulting others", which obviously implies that the edits in question are article edits, as it would be silly to expect me to "consult others" before making the unfortunate remarks in the disussion page, unless Vedant believes it customary for people to seek counsel before making insults (although lawyers and publicists do sometimes recommend this). As for the so-called anti-India article edits (by the way, I take deep offense at being called anti-India, as I have nothing but the utmost respect for its peoples and cultures), I have yet to see any proof, and I am confident that there is none, as I have maitained my neurality (in editing articles) by adhering faithfully to providing information from reputable, verifable, and/or speicalist sources. By78 (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: when you made the "edit" to a talkpage, did it increment your total edits on Wikipedia by 1? Yes? Well, then it's an EDIT. Just like if you had said "I personally think that Joachim Gentry-Smyth is a stupid, moronic, cock-sucker" on your own talkpage, it would be a major violation of WP:BLP I hope there's no such person, by the way. An edit is an edit - being offensive on a talkpage is still offensive and therefor disruptive to the project. I'm "defending" you surrounding the possibility about the off-Wiki account on Youtube, please don't push my goodwill. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone for moving this discussion back to the talk page? It seems like you both have a lot to discuss :) I don't think this is the place to do it though :( Jjc16 (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Darwinek (admin edit warring)

Darwinek (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Following this report at the WP:AN3 board, this is a clear example of edit warring by both sides (history of article), but I note that User:Darwinek, an admin, has blocked his "opponent" in the edit war.

Given that this block is clearly invalid, have unblocked and then reblocked the IP for the equivalent time for the 3RR violation, and have blocked User:Darwinek for 24 hours as well.

Obviously the more pressing issue is the use of admin tools; comments are welcome about the blocking of an opponent in a content dispute. Black Kite 20:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The first step is that Darwinek should get a block for edit-warring. Although the warnings given by the opposing editor were botched and the opposing editor is pretty clearly in the wrong content-wise, as well as being incorrect in referring to Darwinek's edits as vandalism, an admin needs to know better than to engage in a revert war. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have already done that. Black Kite 21:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, sloppy reading on my part. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Darwinek's administrative privileges had been revoked in April 2007 as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Darwinek. He was resysopped in October 2007 per decision on ArbCom mailing list [14]. -- Matthead  Discuß   21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

They should be revoked again, permanently; this is blatant abuse of sysop tools. Would that take a whole new RFAR, or a motion or what? And I'll take the opportunity to plug my proposal for a community-driven desysopping process. → ROUX ₪ 21:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Roux - given the history and egregiously abusing admin privileges in a content dispute, they should be immediately desysopped. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for discussion. We all agree and know that you mustn't use your admin tools against someone you are in a content dispute with, don't we? Darwinek has abused them and he has been correctly blocked, good decision Black Kite. A quick look over their contributions does not show the similar amount of behavior in recent times that lead to the 2007 desysop but if you found more, please do tell us about it. Regards SoWhy 21:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The block was for edit warring, not abuse of admin powers. They are completely separate and should be treated as such. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the particular circumstances, but admins should never use the block or protection buttons in a content dispute. The only exceptions would be clear vandalism (where any reasonable person would agree that's what it was), or an unambiguous BLP violation where there's no one else around to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I also found a year's block of this dynamic IP for this single edit in a dispute with Darwinek, and a long slow edit war between Darwinek and other editors on this article, during which he blocked one of the IPs but this is going back to 2008 - he doesn't use the block button often. Black Kite 22:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, a content dispute with User:Adam.J.W.C. about the use of Template:Tourism in June 2008 [15] seems to have led to a 24h block [16] two weeks later. -- Matthead  Discuß   01:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

If Darwinek apologizes and promises to be more careful, I think we should let it be, perhaps with a short block in a block record as a reminder. Sure, admins should not abuse admin tools, but a singular exception in the background of years of good work should not be enough to strip one of their adminship. If you disagree, I'd suggest taking this to ArbCom, but this would really be blowing this out of proportions. PS. Please note that I saying that I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promies to be more careful in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize he already did apologize and promised to be more careful in the future. Tan | 39 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

In March 2007. Or was that what you meant?Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit summary noted the year. To me, this makes no difference - an apology and promise made in an ArbCom case shouldn't have an expiration date. Tan | 39 23:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

So is what you're saying that he apologised, promised not to do it again, and then did it again? Or that because he promised not to do it, he didn't do it. (sorry, I'm being a bit thick. I'm supposed to be in bed - I have the flu)Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend reading the above thread, particularly the opening post, prior to getting involved. It's pretty clear. Tan | 39 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just take some more Anadin and go to bed. It seems the safer bet. I'll leave you guys to it.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

@Tanthalas39: It is not completely clear what point you're making, sorry. One interpretation is that Darwinek has apologised (back in 2007) and all is well, and another is that Darwinek has violated his promise not to do it again. Could you clarify please? Often, if someone evinces confusion, it's because they are confused and need help understanding. I've read the entire thread. ++Lar: t/c 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwinek recently blocked someone for edit warring with him (an abuse of admin tools). Piotrus said, "...I oppose taking away his admin rights if and only if he apologizes and promi[s]es to be more careful in the future." In response, I pointed out to Piotrus where Darwinek had already done exactly this, prior to the most recent breach of policy. I thought (and think) I was being pretty clear, but my point was that he already did promise - and broke that promise. Tan | 39 02:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nod. (that's what I got when I read it but I can see the other interpretation) I think you and Elen are actually agreeing with each other, but at least one of you doesn't realise it, and I think Elen will once they read that restatement. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 02:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was that a new apology is needed. The 2007 one is not enough, since he made a new mistake. One mistake per two year can be understandable (we are all human, and we err), but he has to acknowledge it. If he doesn't, than he is not fit to be an admin. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I should have looked at some details earlier. He was dealing with a disruptive anon - that's should be taken into consideration. I don't think that there are grounds for desysoping anymore, but I'd still like to see his apology here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you are the disruptive one, together with your POV pushing friend. 158.143.166.124 (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this user should not be a sysop. How about somebody explains the circumstances politely and asks them to resign, to avoid all the unnecessary fuss and drama. If ArbCom is asked to look at this, they almost certainly will remove sysop access. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to stop by here to mention my (very positive) impressions of Darwinek before he gets crucified by the mob. Darwinek is a longstanding sysop here (who has done yeoman's work with images and has generated a fantastic amount of content). My interactions with the fellow have been nothing but positive and he is very reasonable when approached on his talk page imo. I am uncertain of the details here but I would engage Darwinek as to the rationale for his block (as Piotrus suggests above) before making any summary decisions to de-sysop him -- Samir 05:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• I’m asking myself, are you guys real? Can’t you see the forest for the trees? What Darwinek did was in fact very reasonable under the circumstances. The offending IP reverted his edits five times in several hours with numbingly repetitious insults in his edit summaries. The anon did it in total impunity which only a no name dynamic IP number can give. Here are the examples of his language: 17:47, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism), 19:25, 19 July 2009 (rv Polish nationalist POV vandalism), 19:40, 19 July 2009 (rv vandalism/POV pushing). And than, as User: U158 his insults continued: (rm nationalist POV and foreign language spam). Administrators are there to help others, so they should also be able to defend themselves against attacks when they are being victimized. The anon should have been blocked after his fourth revert at 19:25, 19 July 2009. And, he was, exactly as expected. There are no other rules to deal with here, and so, please stop creating an impression, that there IS a rule Darwinek might have broken by administering a (midly) punitive action against that IP number (24 hour block, not much). I repeat, he did it not against a user and not for a prolonged period of time, but against a nameless number, which Darwinek blocked temporarily for 3RR at 19:45, 19 July 2009, half an hour after the fourth revert. I strongly oppose the idea of an official apology. Darwinek did nothing wrong. --Poeticbent talk 05:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Poeticbent, calm down, everybody understood your argument.

To the issue: I would like to mention that Darwinek likes to engage people, something that stimulates productive, quality editing, but it is also something that can get you into trouble with people which are disruptive, because it creates the impression that you are involved in a content dispute. Darwinek has committed a key mistake: instead of being formal with disruptive editors, he has engaged them. As a result he applied blocks (correctly!) while he was formally already part of the edit process. Given that the disruption was clearly not Darwinek's in any of the cases, and that he/she is an excellent contributor and uses well the mop, I suggest Darwinek to voluntarily renounce to using block button for 1 month, while retaining all other sysop powers. Do not forget that block button is not the main admin tool, but one of many, and while some primarily use this one, Darwinek clearly does not. Dc76\^talk 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Saw this on Darwinek's user talk page, since he is blocked and unable to edit this page Livewireo (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC):

Firstly I would like to say that a block for me is fully justified in a response to 3RR. As for my blocking of that IP it was premature and wrong. For that reason I apologize for that. I should've inform other admins of that disruptive editor and seek their opinion on that specific case. I shouldn't have block him as a person involved. On the other hand IP's edits to that certain article were disruptive, as all his behaviour around. It doesn't constitute "I love Cindy"-type vandalism but is a clear case of disruptive editing. As for the fear and fuss about my admin tools and blocking abilities. I am not a kind of "blocking spree" admin, who blocks various IPs every day. I am fighting with classic IP vandalism every day (several recent examples [17], [18], [19]) but I don't use blocking tool very often. The reason is that in my experience vandalizing IP stops vandalizing after being reverted and/or warned. I am "janitorial" type of admin doing mostly silent and dirty work and admin opened to help other editors. Since my ArbCom case I really changed my wiki behaviour and more than two years of serenity and silence can prove that. My behaviour leading to ArbCom ruling was utterly inappropriate, punishment was strict and just. My behaviour since that time improved significantly ... this regrettable isolated incident is an exception. Me and my admin tools don't pose any threat to WP community. - Darwinek (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone even look at the edits of the IP? I do not see anything disruptive in this and this initial edit. In fact, in my opinion these improved the article; for example Cieszyn is not identical with Teschen, as Teschen was divided between the Czech republic and Poland after WWII. Same with the category Cieszyn Silesia, which is the wrong category given that parts of the Landkreis Teschen were not in what is today Cieszyn Silesia. But the fact that this edit had its merits and was definitely not vandalism did not stop Darwinek to add this warning to the IP's talk page [20]. And then the editing derailed, with reverts and accussations. Guess this is another example of how IP editors are less editors than those that hide behind an anonymous user name. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My response, moved from my talk page:

User:Darwinek is a disruptive editor, who behaved in a highly disruptive way, repeatedly (by revert-warring and abusive use of rollback tool) reinstating spelling errors in articles (Jerzy Buzek: [21][22], Austria-Hungary cannot be referred to as "the Austria-Hungary" in English, "after the 1939 it was..." does not make sense in English - but maybe in Polish?) and inconsistency, despite being told he was in error. He refuses to discuss his edits (Talk:Jerzy Buzek). Furthermore, he is a Polish nationalist POV pusher. This is a fact, and it does not surprise me that other long-time members of the Polish lobby are rushing to his defense now. It's very unfortunate that a lot of Central European topics at this project are largely controlled by disruptive Polish nationalist POV pushers, just have a look at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, Wikipedia would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland. And I was not being more uncivil to him than he was to me - he accused me of "vandalism" despite the fact that he is the vandal, who was messing up grammar and consistency, revert-warring, refusing to discuss, and pushing POV. But I did not block him, that's the whole difference. I don't trust his "apologies" at all, clearly he's only interested in retaining his admin rights in order to continue to abuse other editors and enforce his Polish POV (and odd grammar), as he's done before, and he's broken all his promises before as well. This time, he needs to be permanently desysopped. This project does not need people like him as administrators. I'm fed up by Eastern European nationalist POV pushers (with a poor command of English), and so are a lot of other non-Eastern European users. 158.143.212.147 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.166.124 (talk)

Excuse me, but is this what you have to say: "Wikipedia would save a lot of time and trouble by blocking all access to the English project from Poland" ? Are you at least 1% serious? BTW, I was under the impression that Darwinek is Czech, not Polish. Dc76\^talk 12:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm really fascinated that you've tried to criticise another user's neutrality with such statements ... really fascinated. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One has to say, that ignoring this ips diatribe here the edits in the article space seemed to be very reasonable and factually accurate. But I guessed that doesnt matter, right? 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, it's a content dispute. Instead of bitting at your opponent, you should try to resolve it in a civilized tone. Darwinek was wrong in that by not being formal he has entered the content dispute, therefore even if his block was correct from the point of view of lessening the disruption upon WP, it was not correct because it was issued by Darwinek. I repeat: whatever the impact upon Darwinek, that won't solve the content dispute, so please do be calm, civil, assume good faith (when discussing content, at least), and please work kindly in the talk pages. Dc76\^talk 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor

Let's leave aside the issue of Darwinek. They seem to have taken the points raised here. What shall we do about the apparently disruptive IP editor? Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the edits of the ip in the article space? And did you notice that this ip is now willing to discuss changes on article space and has thus apparently learned his or her lesson? Maybe Wikipedia should just stop allowing ip edits, because apparently they are not very welcome here. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits are welcome from everybody. (In principle, even Bin Laden can edit Geography of Pakistan.) Bad temper is not.

A suggestion: punish the IP for exactly what s/he has done, nor more and no less. If after the punishment the tone and attitude have changed, if there is no more disruption, everybody would be happy. If there is more disruption, you know what to do. Dc76\^talk 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest. Many constructive IP editors feel as though they're treated like shit. Certainly it's acceptable to say stuff to a good faith IP editor that woud get you a warning if you said it to a disruptive logged in editor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:CWii

User:CWii has placed "Leave me the fuck alone" on his user page. Should this be removed? It's very discouraging and offensive at that matter. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, he seems to be acting uncivil. WP:CIVL. Look here to see what I mean: User talk: CWii. --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user page won't do at all, and the reason has nothing to do with censorship. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I bring this edit to everyone's attention. He/she has placed a "Touch this and it's a guaranteed shitstorm " - Can somebody please remove the content from the page? I am unsure of whether it should be removed, or left alone, so if anyone else wants to, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Cwii's edit summary here ("attn wikifags") is repellently homophobic and completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) On the subject of putatively problematic userpages, I observe that that of Marshall notes that "[he] ha[s] been with the Wikimedia Foundation since July 29th, 2008". Everyone who partakes of any Foundation project can, of course, be said to be "with" the Foundation, but the wording strikes me as misleading to the average reader (unless, that is, MW is other than a volunteer; if I have mistaken his role, I apologize and, of course, withdraw my remarks), and I wonder whether it ought to be changed. (It is inappropriate, I guess, for me to raise the issue here without first addressing the user on his talk page, but I see that the complainant no effort was made to raise the issue with CWii before bringing it here; I recognize that CWii's user page might discourage communication, but MW nevertheless managed to apprise CWii of this listing, and so I fail to understand why this had to come to AN/I straightaway.) 68.249.4.105 (talk) 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What does your comment have to do with this discussion? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The usual spotlight brought to bear on someone who complains at AN/I. I'd also note that "ATTENTION ALL VANDALS: IF YOU CHOOSE TO VANDALIZE, THEN YOU WILL RECEIVE PAIN FROM ME." is completely inappropriate (from MW's userpage). → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii userpage blanked, someone else can deal with MW - since he is an active user, I would suggest a note on the talk page requesting removal of the offending part. Viridae^Talk 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) While Roux is probably right about MW here, I did block CWii for a month - and thought about doing it indefinitely. A stroll through his/her talk page, contributions, and edit summaries ("attn wikifags") shows that they are incompetent to participate in the collegial, collaborative atmosphere here. Tan | 39 02:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Is your block for reasons other than the uncivil message on the userpage? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, in fact, I wouldn't have blocked solely for the userpage issue. See the block template on his page, and my above statement. Tan | 39 02:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me a few diff examples? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I support Tan's block completely given the amt of vitriol I'm seeing. If you can't behave on Wikipedia in a collaborative and congenial manner, then go away. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Due to this edit (repeated twice) I have locked the talk page so he cannot edit it while blocked. Viridae^Talk 03:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

can somebody please indefinitely block him. This type of pitiful behavior is completely unsettling. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Way ahead of you :-) Marking resolved. Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, got the talk page before I could save :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wow. I wasn't entirely sure about the original block -- was still thinking it over while looking at other things, trying to see if I might have a useful comment to add -- but those talk page edits are just beyond the pale. Obviously we can't allow that sort of thing. Might be worth unlocking the talk page in a while, see if they may have calmed down by then. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the user should be banned. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to express a different point of view. When high school students melt down, they tend to melt down totally, but it doesn't mean they won't become good editors in the future, especially if they've been good editors in the past. A long block and full protect of the talk page are clearly necessary here, but I don't think there is a compelling need for them to go longer than a month. If the pattern repeats after a month, the next step is a year. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The user should be banned simply for this conduct. The user has proven not to be able to be nice to the editors. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And another one at CWii2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), abusive unblock request. I've blocked the account. Also blocking John Bot II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and John Bot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a preventive measure. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

John Bot V (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot VIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), John Bot IX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and John Bot X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) should also be blocked (all created by CWii). Algebraist 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Luna above, I have given back the privilege of being able to edit his talk page while blocked, but protected the page with an expiry time of 1 month. After that he can edit his talk page to request an unblock. Viridae^Talk 03:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Hope I don't look silly in a month. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Subpages

Since the user will not longer be with us, can someone nuke this gigantic subpage list?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user is indefinitely blocked, the pages are moot, but I can't delete the pages, because I'm not an administrator. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculously premature. Either way, MfD is over there. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Given the further disruption caused by accounts of his, and his promise to continue disruption, shouldn't we get on with deleting the pages? You said before it was premature, what about now?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but are you replying to Luna Santin? He/she was the one that said "premature", not me. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Daedalus, have you considered the possibility that his subpages are not our concern, are doing no one any harm, and that perhaps we'd all be better off finding something else to do besides trying to make sure that the Scarlet A we paint on CWii's forehead is as big and as red as possible? This is not helping anyone or anything. Indeed, it is pouring gasoline on the fire; even when the fire is someone else's fault, it doesn't need gasoline poured on it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how deleting the pages of a user that actually promised to be disruptive is pouring gas on the flame. And further, what flame? This user use to be productive, sure, but they're doing all this by choice. They wanted to get blocked in the beginning, but now it goes further when they come back on previous accounts and promise that the fun is only beginning. There is no flame.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even if the flames have died down, it's still not wise to pour gasoline on glowing embers either. Per Looie somewhere above, this was a pretty big meltdown, but it's still possible they might calm down and return to productive editing in a month or two. Maybe not, but maybe. Since part of their meltdown seems to be an overreaction to what they perceived as an unfair block, it's reasonable to assume that deleting their subpages would be perceived as even more unfairness, and make it that much less likely that they'll be able to return to productive editing someday.

Now, please answer a question for me in return: how would deleting the subpages help anyone, or anything? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Pages like that take of space, in this case, they take up much space. Now, I don't see this user really returning, ever, after they n-bombed their talk page until they were indef blocked, then again using a sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

"Take up space"? Please explain how they "take up space". You understand that deleting them does not free up any server space or anything like that, right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Except they don't, they take up no more space undeleted as deleted because they always remain on the server, they are only flagged so that those people with view deleted permissions can see them ie admins. Viridae^Talk 00:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

SPI report filed

Because of this edit, please be aware of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CWii that I've filed. Since I can't edit CWii's talk page, can an admin notify him/her? I've notified the IP. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:COMMON comes into play here. It might just be quicker to block for 24-72 hours. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Uh, I think this is completely unnecessary. Tan | 39 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a need for it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever; knock yourself out if you want to waste even more time on this guy. The IP account you reported was blocked long before this. Tan | 39 03:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just be waiting for the checkuser results. I won't be surprised if the conclusion is "confirmed", at all. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You realize that when the CU results come back positive, as is totally obvious, that nothing else will be done? This is a waste of time for everyone involved, including the CU. Tan | 39 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

<-- Clerk declined Given the situation, I'm fairly certain that the IP is a sock, so a check is not necessary. We would only find out what we already know. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please un-decline. A check is necessary. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but I did check this one about the same time I reverted that edit, and it looks  Unrelated, with the potentially important caveat I haven't checked if it's a proxy yet. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread in general, will let you know if I find anything interesting. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're scrutinizing the details? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

CWii has just declared that IP to be themself on IRC, for what that's worth. Algebraist 04:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not surprised - Tan made the proper call, the filing was unnecessary and the checkuser request was unnecessary. We can all move on now methinks. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I expected it to be CWii, but I'll be waiting for any potential checkuser evidence. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do with any CU evidence? Ask that CWii be blocked longer than... indefinitely? Block the IP... again? Tan | 39 04:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A need that it be a way to expose the disruption. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

resolved

blocked indef Tan | 39 03:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This is resolution?

Have none of you stepped back from two user page edits (and post-block user talk page sarcasm) to look at the larger picture, here? Here it is for you:

• 2009-07-16 02:11:52: Marshall Williams2 creates Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-19 15:35:50: SchmuckyTheCat nominates it for deletion at AFD, with a discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salvo (magazine).
• 2009-07-20 01:56:39 Marshall Williams2 removes the AFD notice from the article. The AFD discussion had not been closed.
• 2009-07-20 02:04:21 CWii reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:05:07 Marshall Williams2 uses Twinkle to remove the AFD notice a second time.
• 2009-07-20 02:06:06 CWii again reinstates the AFD notice on the article.
• 2009-07-20 02:07:41 Marshall Williams2 comes to AN/I pointing to CWii's user page.
• 2009-07-20 02:08:35 CWii places {{uw-afd3}}, the boilerplate warning for removing AFD notices out of process, on User talk:Marshall Williams2.
• 2009-07-20 02:14:15 Marshall Williams2 removes what xe deems to be an "unrightful notice" from xyr talk page.
• Discussion ensues. 3 administrators and 1 CheckUser are involved.
• 2009-07-20 02:48:49 Tanthalas39 blocks CWii for 1 month.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:09 CWii is sarcastic on xyr user talk page whilst blocked.
• 2009-07-20 03:01:58–03:04:40 CWii makes some silly edits to xyr talk page explicitly trying to provoke an indefinite block.
• 2009-07-20 03:04:57 Viridae prevents CWii from editing xyr talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:08:20 Tanthalas39 extends the block indefinitely.
• 2009-07-20 03:09:38–03:11:20 CWii2, an account that hasn't otherwise been used since January 2009 and that has only 4 edits in total since July 2008, repeats the silly edits, again to the account's own talk page.
• 2009-07-20 03:26:25 Luna Santin blocks CWii2.
• 2009-07-20 03:28:37–03:34:45 Luna Santin blocks a whole load of approved 'bots, even though they have made no edits since May 2009.
• 2009-07-20 03:43:17 Rjd0060 blocks another 'bot that has made no edits at all, and that was created seventeen months before this kerfuffle started, for supposedly "actively causing disruption with bot accounts".
• 2009-07-20 03:48:22–03:49:23 Tanthalas39 makes further blocks of 'bot accounts for "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Block evasion", seemingly wholly ignoring the facts that the 'bot accounts were created almost a year and a half ago, and have no edits at all.

I've had a look at Special:Contributions/CWii for July and June and to be honest I'm not seeing this purported incompetence and lack of collegiality (given as the blocking rationale above) in an edit history that had a mere 27 edits since the beginning of this month up to the point that this AN/I section was started — including edits such as this and this for which the labels "incompetent" and "uncollegiate" seem highly inappropriate.

Tanthalas39 and Rjd0060, your judgement in using your tools, given the apparent complete lack of any investigation here on your parts before blocking accounts, is not looking particularly sound here. And Luna Santin, as a CheckUser you really should know better than to not even look at an account's contributions history when blocking and to block legitimate alternate accounts (that have even been through the 'bot approval process) willy-nilly when they haven't even been used.

Am I the only one to think that perhaps 4 administrators and 1 CheckUser have blocked a 'bot operator and all of xyr 'bots, who was quietly moving images to Commons and not even abusing one account up to the point that this discussion started let alone multiple ones (and certainly not abusing multiple accounts subsequently except to draw attention, although perhaps not in the wisest manner, to some block decisions that on balance do look rather poor), at the behest of an article creator who didn't like having the AFD notice on xyr article and so looked for any reason to have a pop at the editor unlucky enough to be the one who chose to restore it whilst the AFD discussion was in progress? Uncle G (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Given this abusive unblock request from CWii2 and this offensive posting from John Bot, blocking alternate accounts seemed prudent. Obviously that sort of tripe can't be allowed to run rampant, and obviously it was likely to continue unless the user was blocked, so I'm frankly confused what you think should have been done in those circumstances. I have no comment on the situation leading up to the block, as I was not involved whatsoever until CWii's meltdown. As far as I've checked, the blocks were set with talk page editing disabled, but emailing enabled, which seems to limit the potential for on-wiki disruption and public spectacle while still allowing for reasonable appeal once things have calmed down. If the user is unblocked and the community still trusts them to be running bots, I see no particular reason why the other blocks couldn't be lifted as well. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is common practice to block known alternate accounts (in this case, bot accounts) of indefinitely blocked users. In this case, the indefinitely blocked user had already switched to another account (one of the bot accounts) and used it for disruption. In addition, CWii's off-wiki "promises" to continue causing more disruption and his warning that the fun was "just beginning" were more than enough reason to block his other accounts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So are we ever letting CWii back on WP or is it too early to decide? --How may I serve you? Marshall Williams2 02:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If I were you, I'd be very quiet right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy

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

---

Resolved

 – Correct venue for this is WP:RFC, if anything. There is nothing for administrators to respond to at this present time. Black Kite 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy (talk · contribs) appears to have a history of conflicting with users, from failing to agf, misusing talk pages, edit warring, masking comments in archiving. Most recent contributions appear to be disputed removal of material. Now there's no argument that some of his contributions in this way are valuable and appropriate, but his continual inability to assume good faith and general disruptiveness are harmful (and long term looking at the block log). I think a short block for disruption would be called for. Ian¹³/t 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since users are perfectly able to remove comments from their own talk page, there is nothing disruptive at all here. In fact, it looks more like agitating for a block for a user with whom you have been in dispute. Black Kite 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Like many highly active contributors, I've had my run-ins with DreamGuy, but removing comments from his own talk page is absolutely his prerogative. I would suggest that you pursue avenues of engagement other than the dramaboard for now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually somewhat amazed that an administrator didn't know this ... but *shrugs* Black Kite 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was including diffs to show that notices had been left to this user, but no action was taken. I'm obviously aware the user is utterly entitled to remove notices from his own talk page but I thought the diff would save spamming this page with all the links and details already conveyed. Ian¹³/t 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I know it says Resolved, but I think the people doing the resolving didn't dig very deeply. DreamGuy has a long history of antagonism, of acting like he owns Wikipedia, that he is the only person who understands the rules, etc. It seems that, to DreamGuy, all WP policies are absolute and only he can interpret them properly. Check out his edit summaries -- everybody else is an idiot, a liar, has a COI, nobody understands policy but him, his adversarial actions are good, etc.

Recently, rather than work to improve the Ambigram page that I have spent a lot of time editing, he spent a great deal time on the Talk page attacking me and others. He repeated the same baseless claims of COI, puppetry, etc., over and over again. He claims anyone who agrees with me must be my meatpuppet. He has repeatedly accused another user of COI and sockpuppetry with no evidence, despite both contrary evidence and my assertion that I believe it not to be true (based on editing pattern and contact with people at the company he claims there is a COI with). Because I disagreed with him, he put an "edit war" warning on my Talk page, then accused me of deleting comments by others when I removed it from my talk page. Of course, that editing is ok, as noted above, but he seems to think it's ok for him but not for anyone else. In fact, he attempted to suppress debate on the Talk:Ambigram page by archiving the entire page, including active discussions, when there was already auto-archiving in place. There is ample evidence of antagonism by DreamGuy on the Talk:Ambigram page, plus a lengthy commentary on his editing that I wrote when it all grew too much for me.

User:Ian13 has no special interest in the Ambigram page. I'm not sure how he happened upon it and I don't believe he had edited it previously. But, when he attempted to help, he was also attacked by DreamGuy.

You would be very hard pressed to find something that DreamGuy has added to Wikipedia. Almost all of his edits are deletions. Yes, it's true some of that is spam fighting, but it's not all spam fighting, and it certainly isn't in this case. This antagonistic, non-consensus and arbitrary editing make Wikipedia worse (the Ambigram article is certainly the worse for wear, having lost 30% of its content in the last ten days). It also drives good editors away from Wikipedia.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

RoyLeban's comments are somewhat disingenuous; at Ambigram, it seems that from late January till May, he was responsible for adding the afore-mentioned 30%, and thus a great deal of his anger and ire seems to stem from a long running content dispute, and not from any objective view of DreamGuy. ThuranX (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not just limited to that article though. Ian¹³/t 13:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

My comments are honest. Yes, some of the content that was deleted was added by me, but plenty of content that I did not add has also been summarily deleted. Some was restored, but most has not. The justification for deletion included statements like "Wikipedia does not have timelines" when it has thousands and "Wikipedia does not have external links" when it has millions. He claims every thing I've ever added is a COI edit. He repeatedly called me a liar (as I said, check out his edit summaries, we're all liars). Ignoring everything else, he is exteremely uncivil. DreamGuy acts as if he thinks he alone can decide what is appropriate and the rest of us are idiots or liars. Somebody should reign him in. RoyLeban (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

One more thing. This isn't about Ambigram. You might want to look at Garden of Eden, Ian Stevenson, and Smiley face murder theory (where he's probably right, but rude). And that's just in the last few days. Calling him uncivil is being nice. RoyLeban (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are personal attacks because you have not provided evidence in the form of diffs to back up your assertions. WP:ANI is not for dispute resolutions; it's for incidents requiring administative action. When you come here with complaints it is expected that you will provide specific diffs. Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not start this action. I just added additional information. If it will actually make a difference, I can provide diffs, but the incivility can be easily seen in edit summaries and on talk pages. RoyLeban (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I am involved in a mess on the Rorschach article in which dreamguy is on the opposing side. But his pattern is similar to what others claim here. He falsely accused four editors of being sockpuppets, leading to the incorrect block of three of them: [23]. Note that he continued to accuse the fourth of being one. And he continued doing so here: [24]. I wasn't going to bother opening this up myself but since it's happened I thought I'd add more info.Faustian (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

• Odd that, because the sockpuppet investigation revealed that at least the first three were clearly socks, or at the very least meatpuppets. There's nothing for admins to do here. If you wish to raise a comment about DreamGuy's behaviour, then the correct venue is WP:RFC. Black Kite 22:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Daysoflight

Resolved

 – request removed and perhaps moved to another forum. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, did you read the top of this page before you posted? It says Socking issues → Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that way. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've removed my post. Someone else can take care of it, some other time. JNW (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the user has not filed an SPI, I did so instead. All named accounts from the original post are blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:OckhamTheFox and Bambifan101

OckhamTheFox is acting in concert with Bambifan101 to post articles here at Bambifan101's request through discussions they are having on the Russian Wikipedia. He started by recreating The Seventh Brother, an article created twice by Bambifan101 socks and CSDed as such. See[25][26] for the discussions. I suspected as much when the article was posted, and its basically been confirmed by the newest IP sock[27]. Thoughts, options, etc? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some fun quotes from their discussion: "Collectian is probably away now, so I think you can post my new draft there whilst she's away. Tell her that you are new to English wikipedia and are doing this in good faith." and his bragging about his sockpuppeting "FYI, Collectian isn't editing much, and the user Cactusjump is back after a four-day wikibreak. I had used an account called "TheRescuers" to trick Cactusjump into thinking that I was a Rescuers fan" clearly showing that OckhamTheFox (supposedly an administrator there?) knew what he was doing. I'm inclined to think its bannable, but will leave to others to decide how to respond to this. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it's more than high time for a formal complaint to Bell South. I am sick and tired of this individual wasting valuable volunteer time. PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I blocked and tagged the account. As for a formal complaint, you're always welcome to take a look at WP:ABUSE. Icestorm815 • Talk 03:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Meta finally decided to act on this to some degree and has blocked some of his global accounts, including The Seventh Brother one he was using on the Russian Wikipedia[28] and they are starting to block others as well[29] (only took a year after I first made multiple requests </bitterness>). He's being a pain on the many language ones as well, creating vandal articles and copy/pasting English articles from here (his preferred versions) to there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been informed that OckhamTheFox is an administrator at the Russian Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess that means that Bambifan101 and OckhamTheFox are unrelated? It's odd how an administrator could do something like that. -- Pinkgirl34 17:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

They are unrelated, but for whatever reason, OckhamTheFox agreed to help him here despite knowing full well that he was a multi-time banned sockpuppet. Scary to think that is the kind of admins the Russian wiki has...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Russian Wikipedia too. Sorry, are there any pages other than listed on this page, which would help to find any additional information in order to get a complete picture of the situation with The Seventh Brother and his/her relations to Ockham The Fox? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 19:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

We only just learned about this, so I doubt we've got anything other than what's on this AN/I thread, Drbug. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I looked through the User:Bambifan101 and didn't understand exactly what initilally there was disruptive in his behavior. Have he put false information into the articles or just inaccurate in style?

As far as I understand, the informatia lot on that Ockham the Fox carried into Wikipedia didn't contain any false information? It looks to me like all the OTF's edits were good faith ones... Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 22:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he has put false information, reverted to very old versions after clean up and referencing was done, randomly removed comments from talk pages to the point of blanking them, and refactored others comments. It just depends on his mood. Sometimes he does decent edits for a short time, but he almost always reverts to the status quo. He has deliberately vandalized other articles, including blanking and copyvio violations, to get the attentions of those familiar with him, repeatedly merged and unmerged articles at his own whim, attacked and harassed other users, made both death and suicide threats as a joke, threatened to have his "daddy" "buy" Wikipedia and kick everyone off, etc. And sorry, but OTF's edits were far from good faith ones. Seventh Brother AKA Bambifan had already bragged about how he was sockpuppeting here, and OTF KNEW he was banned from editing here, so he turned around and performed specific edits that Bambifan101 wanted to do, including recreated a multi-time deleted article (figuring if OTF did it, it wouldn't be CSDed again) and taken from content Bambifan101 provided. The edits to The Fox and The Hound were to restore deleted content and a version Bambifan101 prefers from one of his many bad versions he's spammed around the other language Wikipedia's. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot for the info. Ok, I see now that the movie fails WP:N and WP:NF. Hm, I probably guess how OTF could think: "no matter what is the primary source of the work, it should be included in Wikipedia if it is legal and adds a value to Wikipedia according to its rules", provided that it's him responsible for the information he brings in. In Russian Wikipedia it's not universally prohibited to bring an article of a banned user to Wikipedia. So he doublechecked the information and put it in. Ok, I won't continue this topic in this page. Thank you! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

If he did mean well, may want to warn him that the sock is still trying to "work" him and get him to do things for him. Ilikepiepieisawesomeright is probably him, again, and 68.220.187.70 most certainly is (one of his known IP ranges). Likely decided OTF is an easy mark and will continue trying to trick him for awhile. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone else incredibly tempted to just rangeblock 74.230.0.0/16, with a block notice that anyone inconvenienced by it should just be pointed towards Bell South's abuse reporting email address? Black Kite 23:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'm too busy getting "Gremlins from the Kremlin" out of my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone block User:Ilikepiepieisawesomeright. Its the named sock he made yesterday while he had the IP active. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

As an update, OckhamTheFox is continuing to perform edits for Bambifan101.[30] While he may be an admin on the Russian Wikipedia, he is continuing to violate this Wikipedia's rules about making proxy edits for a sockpuppet knowing full well what he is doing. His block was released because of his admin status, but he is still not helping anything by continuing to edit for Bambifan. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I will talk to him in Russian. I think he does not realize the difference in policies concerning banned users. Ruwiki user Kv75 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Where should this go/what should be done?

Resolved

Sorry to bring this here, as I suspect it isn't the right place—but the problem is that I can't figure out where the right place is.

Mark West Charter School is a new article about a middle school, which has little to no sourcing. Upon reading it, there's a not-so-nice little WP:BLP violation (which I won't repeat here) smack in the middle. And although it appears that there's a source, that reference actually does not in any way support what's being claimed. I've searched to try to find something that backs this up, and came up with zip.

The article is by new editor User:Pam618 (Talk, Contributions), who wrote on her page:

Hi I'm just a parent. My daughter attends Mark West Charter School. my name is Pam, but I am not the same principle of the school, it's just a coincidence. feel free to chat with me on my page, I can clarify anything about the Mark West Charter School page or answer some questions to the best of my ability. Thank you for caring enough about your child's education to take notice of the Wikipedia. [sic]

In this edit, her summary said:

Just reinforcing and entering the schoo's new wikipedia page for you, and the incoming parents to help decide if they want their child to go to this school [sic]

Because it's an article ostensibly about a school, it's not subject to {{db-inc}}, {{db-attack}}, {{db-nn}}, or {{db-person}} (or at least not as I understand them).

I could just cut the BLP, but that single sentence is over 25% of the article's entire content. And what would be left isn't sourced, either.

Something's funky here, but I don't know what it is, or what to do about it, or where it should go. Someone want to take this on? Thanks. — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the obvious BLP violation. As for notability, I'll leave that to others. --NE2 03:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I added back in who the principle is, less the BLP vio. It is probably a good idea to discuss this issue with Pam618 rather than bring it here, now that there's nothing urgent about this. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

With such a potentially damaging BLP violation in the article history, shouldn't we delete the offending revisions? AniMate^draw 04:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Since there's nothing notable about the school, per precedent, it should be redirected to Santa_Rosa,_California#Education. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I've done that, post-Stifle's history cleanup. Thanks, all! — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs)

Dana Ullman (wikipedia article: Dana Ullman) makes a living promoting homeopathy, and was banned for one year, by the arbitration committee, for the extreme disruption he caused by promoting it here. He has recently returned, and, immediately upon returning, continued his behaviours of attacking any studies that found against homeopathy.

The man makes a living promoting homeopathy. The obnly way he's going to ever come under Wikipedia's NPOV policy is to give up his living. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, while I remember the issues a year asgo from reading up on them here, the two posts he's made to that page aren't of the evil nature you suggest. One is him providing first hand knowledge on the talk page about the faults in a study, and from his explanation, they may in fact have some serious issues, and another explaining the idea. I will concede that the second is phrased in the style of an advocate for 'the other side'. but not like a lunatic. These two comments on the talk page alone aren't enough to convince me he hasn't learned.ThuranX (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe - if there hadn't been a huge thread, in which it was shown that the objections to the protocol only emerged afer it failed, and were approved before. Frankly, after months of everyone having to spend all their time dealing with Dana Ullman, tracking down studies and information which it almost inevitably turned out he vastly over-hyped,a nd which often did not say what he claimed - have a look at the Homeopathy case evidence page - having him back is enough to make one scream. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

From looking at the user page, there's a topic ban mentioned. I only took a quick look, but it sounds like it's still in effect. If this is the case, someone needs to remind him of this and tell him to stay away from the associated articles and talk pages. The right venue for him to contest studies is in the academic world, not here. Friday (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban needs looking at, and also WP:COI. He is an actor in the section being discussed, so probably should only provide information on that subject (the ABC/BBC programs). Verbal chat 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where is the topic ban? There was a total one year ban which expired this week, I can't see a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

He was given a three-month topic ban by Vassayana before the Arbcom total ban -- obviously this expired long ago. Note that the Arbcom decision allows any uninvolved admin to impose new sanctions if such are deemed necessary, after appropriate warning. Looie496 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. It sure seems like the kind of thing that should be re-instituted, permanently. Knowing nothing other than who he is, I think we can safely conclude that he's not interested in neutrality with respect to his pet topic. Friday (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking Vassyana to clarify the topic ban - seems like it was initially 3 months, then a full indef ban was instituted, then lifted (but with the topic ban still in effect), followed by an arbcom-imposed year in the clink. I also notified Mr. Ullman of this discussion, out of courtesy. My personal opinion is to let him contribute on talk pages, but re-institute a topic or full ban if he starts showing us the full monty again. I will note, though, he is jumping back into one of his old favorite crusades - namely, the 20/20 incident, which is a viper's nest of reliable source, conflict of interest, and BLP issues. I wish I could point editors to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence to get a feel for Mr. Ullman's conduct, but despite multiple assurances from arbitrators that it will be undeleted it has not been. Skinwalker (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I make a living from homeopathy, I also have a long academic record, including writing a chapter in an Oxford University Press textbook (2009) on "Integrative Oncology," writing a chapter on homeopathy and pain management in "Weiner's Pain Management" (one of the leading authoritative textbooks on pain management), and many other peer-review articles and chapters. I may have made some mistakes of advocacy in the past, but I have been punished and have learned. If wikipedia will choose to topic-ban me, it must also consider topic-banning many many other experts who also make some type of living from their expertise, including many medical doctors and medical researchers (and on and on). And I wonder then can and should be done with all of the anonymous people who edit here and who might theoretically deserve a topic ban (needless to say, I am not recommending this). Instead, I believe that it makes more sense to topic ban those people based on their behavior and actions rather than on theoretical grounds. I sincerely hope that wikipedia be careful in hearing the "testimony" of those editors who I happen to show are not providing accurate information on homeopathy, as is what happened with this initial complaint. DanaUllman^Talk 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, other crap exists, even in some textbooks. Just because some publisher was foolish enough to allow homeopathic nonsense some mention doesn't mean we have to allow its very active promotion here. Promotion of nonsense and pseudoscience is not welcome here, while defending proven and documented reality is status quo and expected. Why? Because Wikipedia aspires to become a serious encyclopedia, and not a Conservapedia or Altienonsenseapedia. Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I was all set to support his access to talk pages, but he went right into his SOAPBOXing here, which shows that he's unable to discuss this rationally. He asks that people be banned for their actions, not their office, but even on this matter, he fails. He seems more concerned with his ego than with either actual science, or improving the article. He frames his comment in the manner of 'I was there, therefore I am qualified to both correct this, and MORE qualified than others to write an article on this topic.' Even in the last two days' comments, he goes on with the whole 'Homeopathic science is done in a secret and different way which cannot be reproduced by non-believers' jive. It's demonstrative of his inability to hold rational discourse on a topic which for him is a faith and religion; like religion for many, discussion must be an 'us and them' not an objective examination, which is what's required for good Wikipedia editing. Therefore, I am convinced that he should be the subject of an indefinite topic ban, one which will, in practice, likely be a permanent ban. His view is simply at loggerheads with our intentions here to provide solid, cited information. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Eyes please

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 48 hours by William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Will keep an eye on the article for future edit wars. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 14:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Will you folks be so kind as to have a look at Filipino people, and editors: 122.104.185.81 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) and Cali567 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks). There seems to be an edit war in progress, and some talk that's getting out of hand. I'm far too tired to research this in an objective and responsible manner to issue blocks or page protections. I'd appreciate a hand here, I responded to a "help desk" thing, but I'm out of energy right now. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The war is ongoing. This is likely Orsahnses (talk · contribs), previously blocked for edit warring under many IPs and other socks. I've filed a report to WP:AN3 and made a request for indefinite semi-protection at WP:RPP. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 12:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks folks, appreciate the helping hand. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User: SUClover

• SUClover (talk · contribs)

Apparently "SUC" is a group called Screwed Up Click. That's fine, but the user is creating pages the dozen or more rappers and members of the SUC. A quick check of the user's contribs or their talk page will show the extent of it.

Even as I type, the user is continuing to create these pages. A good (bad) example is Woss Ness, created with the text "'Woss Ness' or Woss Ness Family is an american hip hop screwed up group." That's it. No more context or claims.

Some of the newly created articles are missing context (Woss Ness), some are copyvios (TowDown), many are simply lacking much hope of meeting WP:MUSIC (A.C.E.S., Lil' Randy, Dat Boi T, Big Toon). tedder (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So where is the need for admin intervention? Explain to the user the concepts of notability and sources and try to fix the articles or use appropriate deletion venues (speedy deletion is not one of them because they all fail A7 by being member of the notable Screwed Up Click entity). There is nothing that needs admins to invervene, is there? Regards SoWhy 12:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

At what point is (re)creation of ineligible pages considered disruptive? tedder (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation should never be viewed as disruptive. It's not an admin's decision whether a page should be considered disruptive or not (except clear-cut cases of vandalism and attack pages) and as such, no sanctions can be based on such creations. If someone recreates pages multiple times after being told not do so and to use the correct processes, then it may be considered vandalism and acted upon as such but needs clear evidence of disruptive behavior. Such is not evident here, so if you just want to get rid of the articles (instead of fixing them), open a multi-AFD to deal with them. If they get deleted and if they are recreated afterwards then, G4 and SALT can take care of it. Until then, no admin intervention seems necessary. Regards SoWhy 15:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SoWhy. I didn't know how page creation was dealt with. I appreciate the verbose reply so I can understand it better. Cheers, tedder (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Creation of articles is not disruptive. Complaining about them can be. If they are unreferenced substub BLP's as I came across the other day, redirect the page to Screwed Up Click, which has a list containing many of its former members and is otherwise in poor shape, but unref'd BLP's don't belong here, esp. when there's a good redirect target. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MrAshJam spam accussation

User:MrAshJam has put the following files for WP:CSD as spam: Lukas Hoffmann and Michel Duboille, both slalom canoers. The source that I have for both files were from the International Canoe Federation and are considered legitmate. He also called for the speedy delete of Marius van Amelsvoort, edited by Dr. Blofeld, despite the fact that van Amelsvoort came from the Dutch Wikipedia. Chris (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, he is disrupting the courses of the regular new content contributors to wikipedia. Miller's new articles are medalists and are referenced and my new articles however stubby are part of the general drive to transfer content form another wikipedia and are so marked constructively, neither are spam. I think our new editor needs to be informed of this and who the regular new content contributors are for future reference. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Have either of you tried discussing this with him before bringing this here? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I prodded him with what I was translating but he didn't reply to either of us. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I advised him of the ANI, but no response. Chris (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Blofeld's message is fairly ambiguous, but I note that he continued to tag articles for deletion after the message was given with no attempt at communication. I also note he had just over ten edits before starting his little spree - an attempt at getting around autoconfirmation? Ironholds (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mmm looks suspicious, how many newbies know exactly about "spam" tags. 99% certain it is a former blocked editor. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you think there should be a sock puppet investigation on this user? Chris (talk) 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Day old speedy

I added a spam tag to FIVDB yesterday and it still isn't deleted. Can one of you please delete it? Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags. Joe Chill (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy and tagged the article for cleanup. I found at least 3 Google Books hits in the first two pages of the search, so it would appear to be notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sionce when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam? Reagardless I've retagged it as a copyvio from fivdb.net, which doesn't load at the moment but the google cache shows - shows parts like:

Socieal Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

Our article:

Social Vision

A vibrant society based on justice, equity, democracy and environmentally sound principles.

Organisational Mission

To give disadvantaged women, men and children greater voice, reduce their vulnerability, increase use of citizenship rights and help them enhance their quality of life. To that end, FIVDB pursues educational, economic development and social-organisation approaches. It works to strengthen social protection and safety networks and participates in national and international outreach and advocacy. FIVDB works in collaboration with communities, civil society, government and the private sector.

Strategy

FIVDB combines grass-roots service delivery, community mobilisation and advocacy in its strategy.

--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Since when was being notable mutually exclusive with being spam?" Um, pretty much since always. CSD is not a substitute for cleanup.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there clearly seems to be some copyvio stuff in there. I don't think that makes it speediable. Instead we should remove the copyvio material but leave the the other stuff in. T he organisation does merit an article IMO.Theresa Knott | token threats 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This falls under WP:SOFIXIT, not WP:CSD. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The speedy delete tag was removed yesterday so why bring the speedy delete tag up again? It should have been marked as resolved 15 mintutes after I posted it because I replied with "An admin took care of it by removing the speedy and adding tags." Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

is this weird and if so what should I do about it?

I dont understand what this is about User:Kevin Wahlberg User:Chace Watson User:Omoak Fendia and these edits [31] and [32]. Another user has offered an opinion here [33] Cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The titles they were moved to are for users who don't exist locally, so I moved them back. I'm asking the user exactly what's up, and exactly why he's moving the pages. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes newer users try to rename their accounts by moving userpages... not sure if that's what's going on, here, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Chace Watson is problematic, but so long as there are no article space categories on that page, I guess there isn't much we can do about it. But User:Omoak Fendia has barnstars on it that were not awarded by the people that the page claims awarded them. Should those be removed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Harassment and disruption

IPUser 71.212.10.108

• makes sexual harassing comments in edit summaries like "hey sexy lady" [34] and is putting a very large username of me in their Talk Page.
• abusing edit summaries at talk page like calling respected editor "monkey boy"
• blanks reliable sourced content w/o discussion [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]
• refuses discuss after repeated tries from different editors to get discussion on talk page

I think this is same editor that was edit-warring before on [Fibromyalgia], the IP is very different but same behavior. RetroS1mone talk 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This user has just called me "monkey boy" as well. This user's edits are very similar to User:Dr._Anymouse. --sciencewatcher (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes i agree very similar even to the using the giant bold print on the user page. I wonder how this user was using Texas IPs last week and is now Washington state?? Sock?? RetroS1mone talk

IP has just been blocked for 48 hours by Aitias for 3RR at Fibromyalgia. I've removed the great big banner "RetroS1mone" from the IP's talk page as it's harrassment. Whois says "Qwest Colorado, by the way. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruptive behaviour of User:Valkyrie Red

User shows a continued pattern of disruptive behaviour:

• NPA: [42] , [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]
• Attacks on other unspecified editors: [50]
• 3RR / Edit warring: See open case at WP:AN3#User:Valkyrie Red reported by User:MuZemike (Result: ).

User is constantly dancing around the limits, however the net sum of all activities combined with the multiple instances of edit warring constitute clearly disruptive behaviour dating back as far as June 16th and continuing as recently as today, despite multiple warnings and cautions (see User talk:Valkyrie Red but also here. MLauba (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user has tried to delete this ANI post [51] as well as the AN3 post [52]. MuZemike 00:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also see comment made on my talk page by a new user who says he's the user in question's brother [53] (whom I have tried to point over here to make himself heard here). MuZemike 00:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked for 24 hrs for removing the ANI and 3RR board notices. Please try to continue to engage civilly with him on his talk page and provide guidance going forwards. I think they're young and overenthusiastic, not malign, please remember WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. I'm hoping that the message reached its destination this time. As far as I'm concerned, I have no objections if this gets closed and archived - pending Mike's word. MLauba (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Even though I have some slight suspicions of that new account I mentioned above (who now hasn't edited since before the block), this can be brought up at another time if this situation comes up again. I don't object to any closure at this time. MuZemike 14:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

189.18.116.166 and 189.46.245.72 Blocking

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

These two IPs (the same user) continues to make unproductive edits and leaves the wikipedia pages worse than they were originally. Has been contact several times and ignores absolutely everything.Jacksonori47 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see two attempts to contact on the two talk pages, neither of which you signed or left much information on what the problem was with their editing.

I agree that the whole discography is probably a mistake, but you need to WP:AGF and spend more effort to try to talk to them constructively before this is at the level of needing administrator intervention. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued tag-team insertion of defamatory content in BLP

Resolved

 – Semi-protected the article for a week. (X! · talk)  · @263  ·  05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

204.2.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fight the bias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:204.2.209.2 and SPA account (and possible sock?) User:Fight the bias have spent the last couple hours repeatedly re-inserting defamatory content and personal commentary into the Susan Roesgen BLP. As instructed by WP:BLP, I am reverting those additions (even beyond 3RR). I've explained the BLP violations on the article talk page, edit summary and IP's talk page, but it continues -- and frankly, I'd rather not waste any more time taking out the garbage. Is there an alternative course of action to take here? It's gone beyond simple BLP violations to outright tendentious edit-warring. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation should be changed to reflect the fact that it was the columnist's opinion that she was anti-Bush in her reporting (although the Hitler claim seems to be a bit of a stretch) but the article that it refers to seems well-sourced and credible on the surface. Also, it seems to me that the editor was making a legitimate attempt at content insertion, although the quote he inserted needs to be revised.

On another note, I really wish that people would refrain from posting on the administrator board just because they disagree with someone's post. These things should be resolved on the talk page; that's what it's there for. I can't see how the editor exercised any more bad faith in this revert war than you did, to be honest. Cheers. Jjc16 (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jjc16: You should probably read the post just before your comment. It contains ... information. It contains no mention of my having a disagreement with anyone's post. As for the citation to which you refer, it lacks a reliable source. If you can't see the violation in citing a doctored YouTube video from an unknown source in a Biography of a Living Person, then this conversation is long past over. To be honest. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Xenophrenic,

Why attack me? I said that the source appeared to be reliable on the surface. I don't know if it's reliable or not. That's for you and the other editor to decide. However, it doesn't appear to cite someone's personal blog page or a website put up by Neo-Nazis, so it seemed okay on the surface.

As for reading the post, that's what I really thought that I was doing. I went to the history of the page and read the last changes to the page posted by the user and compared them to the current version. If I got something wrong, I'm sorry. I'm still learning how to use the Wikipedia interface. At least in the version that I read, the change posted by the user was as follows.

"It was also pointed out that Roesgen had, in the past, covered anti-Bush protests and voiced support for the protesters who compared Bush to Hitler."

Is this the same change you're talking about?

Finally, I'm not here to fight with you about the validity of the comment insertion. You need to fight that out with the other user. I'm just pointing out that your contentions of bad faith on the part of the other editor seem unfounded. I think she or he was trying to improve the article with the insertion. The fact that you both engaged in edit warring is not a reason to complain on the administrator page. Jjc16 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jjc16: Why attack you? I haven't. It was you that attacked me, and I defended myself. You indicated I made a frivolous WP:AN/I request over a simple "disagreement", when I didn't; that is an attack. You indicated that I showed bad faith, when I didn't; that is an attack. Now you further claim that I have edit-warred, which is false; that, too, is an attack.

It's time for you to stop, Jjc16. As for the content issue you keep mentioning above, I have nothing to do with that -- that content was rightly reverted by other editors for other reasons. This post is about repeated BLP violations, and my repeated removal of them as required by WP:BLP. This request is marked resolved; the article has been semi-protected, and the editors blocked. Please keep any future comments or attacks on our talk pages, thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Clawed lobster

Resolved

Amthernandez (talk · contribs) just moved Lobster to Clawed lobster without consensus and converted Lobster to a disambiguation page when we already have Lobster (disambiguation). We need an administrator to reverse this move. Clawed lobsters are commonly referred to as "Lobster", and the primary topic is not in dispute. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Black Kite 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Alecsdaniel

The user started adding a copyright violating link to the article Everybody (Madonna song) using an IP. When I reverted the addition by the IP, this user suddently reverted back with edit summary as then add a reference, smarty pants!. First of all this is sockpuppetry. Well I wouldnot have been bothered by this, but after I left a warnign template at the user's talkpage, he came back shouting at my page and being uncivil regarding the change. I have explained issues of WP:RS a number of times before, but since the user refuses to listen to reason, I have raised this ANI. Admins please look into the matter. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a few days to stop the edit war over the link and I'll have a word with the user. Neither party comes out smelling of roses here ("Try to develop an article for GA and then come and display your drama" was unhelpful, Legolas), but Alecsdaniel (talk · contribs) really didn't help matters at all so it's them that I'm dinging. ➲ redvers ^{Buy war bonds} 10:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP issues

I added this to WP:BLPN but nobody had the time.

• 1. Medical records are private and i have added it to WP:BLPN here.

• 2. Misreported allegations WP:BLPN here `

Better some administrator have a look at it. Removal needs to be enforced. Iqinn (talk) 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Block increase

Hi User:Aitias has increased the block of User:Catterick here for venting a little anger and has also blocked editor from editing their own talk page this is wrong as editors are allowed to vent on their own page. BigDunc 12:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Before posting here and making false claims, you should familiarise yourself with our policies; blocked user are — of course — not allowed to do so. It is considered inappropriate and my actions are in accordance with the relevant policies: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Talk-page_protection and WP:Block policy. — Aitias // discussion 12:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a false claim the editor gave a parting shot out of frustration of fuck you. BigDunc 12:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was, however, a blatantly false claim that they are allowed to do so. — Aitias // discussion 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Also the policy you link to states or continued uncivil or offensive remarks. I cant see any continued attacks as I said a parting shot. BigDunc 12:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. 1 day block extension and page protection seem appropriate here. Venting is occasionally permitted (but there is no Right to Vent), more so if it's immediately around the time of the block, less so if it's a day later. R. Baley (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC) clarified 13:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support the block extension and the warning to BigDunc for restoring the personal attack. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The editor gets a 48 hr block for edit warring and a minute later Aitias increases it to 72 hrs citing block conflict so editor who is blocked gets frustrated and lashes out at no particular editor with a fuck you all statement and the block is increased this is wrong. The editor could have been prevented from editing their talk page without an increase in the block for editing while frustrated. BigDunc 13:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• "fuck you" is pretty tame as far as incivility goes. The extra day seems a little excessive, let's just run him right out the door why don't we? I note there's been some post-block poking going on as well, i.e. restoring the block notice the editor blanked (which editors are allowed to remove per WP:BLANKING) –xeno^talk 13:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I thought that block notices for active blocks could not be removed from the talk page? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I support the block extension. Incivility is never acceptable, including on one's own talk page and including in response to a block.  Sandstein  13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He was baited and took the bait with editors reverting changes they made to their own page it led to frustration and IMO tame outburst. At most if the attacks and I use that loosely continued per policy the page could have been blocked. BigDunc 13:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with increasing a block length when the user continues acting inappropriately. If someone is being nasty that is the worst time for their block to end, they clearly still have stuff to work through. None of our volunteers deserve to be called idiots and action should be taken to prevent people from doing so. "Baited" is no excuse for being nasty, and I don't see any baiting here anyways. You don't get a special exemption from our personal attacks policy because it is your talk page or because you are blocked. Chillum 13:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• It isn't that blocked users are allowed to be uncivil on their talk pages, it's that a wise admin will often turn a blind eye to it, to de-escalate a situation, especially given the poking that was going on (including by Aitias) immediately before. No one involved comes out looking terribly mature here. At this point, I think the best bet would be to go back to the original expiration time, and protect the talk page from editing by anyone for the duration of the block (no baiting, no response to baiting). Any unblock request can still be done thru the mailing list. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: I object to your claim of me “poking” them and respectfully ask you to retract it. Acting in good faith I have done one revert; “poking” was not intended by any means. — Aitias // discussion 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are quick with the AGF didn't see you doing it with my post. BigDunc 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

@BigDunc: Sorry, could you please clarify your above comment? I am not able to understand what you intend to state... Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 13:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc, pointing out that users are in fact not allowed to vent abusively on their talk page is not a failure to assume good faith. It is simply a correction. Stating your claim was false does not state that you were lying, you could simply have been misinformed. Chillum 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that when someone acts uncivil around here it is the person they happen to be interacting with at the time that is blamed. If you are "baited" by people editing what you put on Wikipedia, then this place is going to drive you nuts because we edit things around here. This is not baiting and it justifies exactly nothing. Chillum 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(re Aitias) I never pointed at anyone and said they were poking, I just said there was poking going on. I don't fault you for not knowing the WP:BLANKING guideline, it's a little counter-intuitive. –xeno^talk 13:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, xeno, if that wasn't clear: My above comment was not directed to you, but Floquenbeam (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 13:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa. Coffee almost finished, I'll be on the ball soon. –xeno^talk 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Since original block 48hrs for edit warring it has now been increased by another 48 hrs by Aitias. BigDunc 13:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think my viewpoint is similar to Floquenbeam. Certainly Catterick did not behave well. A block extension may have been technicaly allowable. But this is where admins need to show judgement. What was the extension more likely to do. Calm the situation down or stoke the fires? There's times where it's best to let it go.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• (reply to Aitias above, don't want it to get lost in the threads) Whether poking was intended or not, it should have been obvious that it was going to have that effect. If de-escalation was an interest of yours, that was not well done. If de-escalation was not an interest of yours, then it's reasonable for me to criticize such a mindset. Understand that I don't think Catterick was behaving like a grownup here, and BigDunc and several others were behaving sub-optimally for that matter, and I too have reservations how Catterick is going to act when the block expires. But you made it worse, not better, regardless of what your intentions were. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised at anyone here who thinks it's OK in any way at all to tell other editors "fuck you" on a Wikipedia page. Would we speak that way to our colleagues, bosses, teachers, students, children or parents? No we would not, and if we do, we should not. And we should not accept it here. It may be "tame" but it's still uncivil language and runs entirely contrary to a collaborative project like Wikipedia. It's all the more of a problem when it concerns an editor who is already blocked for unconstructive editing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not "ok" for that to be typed, but that's not the question. Is extending the block the best way to deal with it? That's where there's a difference of opinion.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• This sillyness has apparently been partly caused by the needless edit warring of Aitias, Snowded and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick who insisted on keeping the block message visible on Catterick's talk page, a move that is known to escalate the situation. Everybody except for Catterick could just have stepped back from his talk page instead. (He couldn't). Ignoring what people do on their talk pages is usually a good idea unless what they do there is truly horrible. Removing block notices is not disruptive, edit warring to keep messages on a talk page after the user in question has read them is. Kusma (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
• Second Kusma's wise statement. Ignoring blocked editors is a good course of action; if you must address the situation, then protect the page to prevent misuse of the block template or blatant PAs; but extending the block was silly. Please feel free to click on the "advice" link in my sig for a more detailed view. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So is anyone going to restore the previous block without this additional 24 hrs. BigDunc 15:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear, venting is, at best, 'overlooked' or 'forgiven'. It should not ever be considered 'permitted' or 'allowed', and anybody saying it is need to be corrected immediately. MickMacNee (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it should be permitted but surely there are levels of civility and fuck you is not at the top of my list. I don't condone the actions of Catterick but I also don't endorse the actions by the blocking admin when all the block did IMO is enflame the situation. BigDunc 15:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I dislike incivility, and strongly prefer people not resort to using profanity, but in this case, I do disagree with the block extention. Yes, Catterick was wrong to swear, but I think edit-warring to restore his block template was equally as wrong, and comes across to me as kicking a user while they're down and deliberately provoking them: there are better things to do than restore a blocked user's blocked template, and Aitias, as an administrator, should have known better, and making threats to block more users isn't helpful to the situation. Catterick was also talking in his post, rather than just swearing mindlessly (note, I am not justifying any incivility here). Please restore the original block length. Acalamari 15:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Catterick (who used to be Lord Loxley) should be given a 1-week block. If he can't learn to play with others, that's his fault. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The individual behind these user names is a persistent trouble maker. [54] That was two years ago. They still haven't learned a thing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be unrelated to the question at hand. If he/she is a persistent troublemaker, he/she should be banned. It may be that annoying people until they say a bad word is a faster way to get them blocked, but that doesn't make it a good idea to treat people that way. Kusma (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

"Annoying people until they say a bad word"? I don't think you should be bandying around accusations like that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't (and I really don't know enough about the motivations of people involved to say that this happened here). It just pulls one of my triggers when I see completely unnecessary disputes over talk pages when people don't understand WP:BLANKING. Kusma (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In response to the character assination that editors are attempting above I have had no dealings with Lord Loxley or Catterick and I am not aware of the history of this editor as in fact it is not important, what I see is an editor who is frustrated makes a remark and has his block increased and their ability to edit their own user page taken away. It wasn't constant abuse, which policy says is the reason for protecting pages and was far from as bad as some editors here are making out. Blocks are not punative so whatever happened 2 years ago has nothing to do with anything is a fudge to deflect from the bad block. BigDunc 20:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means 'unblock' his Userpage (administrators). If he wants to vent, let'er rip. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Again GoodDay you are missing the point and as usual you arrive with your flippant comments that are not helping anything. BigDunc 20:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but as an editor who has been here a while and has been invloved in the DR process most of his time here I will state its never ok to lash out at anyone anywhere on the site. I agree the block was justified. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 01:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs)

GedUK  14:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I request appropriate action be taken against User:TheLongestRoadToIndiaGate for his behaviour at Robert Garside (which he is almost certainly the subject of). The history shows that he is unwilling to engage in debate, and insists that all those who disagree with him are the same person (probably, judging by his edits, Jesper Olsen (runner), which makes sense at least). He seems to have no interest in editing anything else and shows no signs of being willing/able to either collaborate or debate... but I'll leave another admin to take appropriate action since, despite having zero interest in the topic (I believe it was a WP:BLPN post that brought me there), I've edited it enough to seem "involved" now. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 13:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this is getting out of hand (Garside history). Rd232 ^talk 14:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrongful accusation of 3RR by Anon IP User:60.48.190.190

Resolved

 – IP Accuser has decided not to login and to keep a low profile!

On the page of Singapore Changi Airport, the above-mentioned anon IP kept making a minor omission:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303370827&oldid=302825337
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303483271&oldid=303474172
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303539088&oldid=303516404

of which 2 of them I had reverted due to obvious geographical separation, there is a difference between taking off from/landing at Kuala Lumpur International Airport and Kuala Lumpur Subang Airport; just like the location difference between LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport and John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport. And when I reminded him of a possible 3RR scenario by him, the anon IP turned the table around and instead accused me of violating it by posting the 3RR notice on my discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dave1185&curid=16067495&diff=303547896&oldid=303545194). My question now is, is there a better way to get messages through to these ignorant IP editors? --Dave1185 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A) Don't call other editors ignorant.

B) Don't threaten other editors with BANs on their third edit -- especially when you characterize it in this message as a "minor omission".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

1) I am very curious about the so called 'stubborn' editor. This editor is confusing everyone that there is no-one or official name call Kuala Lumpur Subang Airport. As the official name is Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport or Subang Airport. The situation about KLIA and Subang Airport is same like the location different between John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport. The KLIA been stated as it's the only airport and served for Kuala Lumpur (city). Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah Airport or Subang Airport is located at Subang, state of Selangor in Malaysia. It's the same case with the Newark Liberty International Airport which located at both Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey, United States.

2) Is there anyone in United States will name the Newark Liberty International Airport as New York-Newark? This is definitely NO! Same as Subang Airport too where everyone know it is no longer serve Kuala Lumpur (city).

3) I did show the official website link in wikipedia which is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Singapore_Changi_Airport&diff=303370827&oldid=302825337 The editor just ignored it or act blind. http://www.changiairport.com/changi/en/flight_information/arrival_departure/?__locale=en#_test The official website of Changi Airport stated very clear that it is Subang and not Kuala Lumpur-Subang. The editor is doing something EXTRA to confusing people. The official website also stated very clear like Tokyo-Narita or Shanghai(Pudong) but not Kuala Lumpur-Subang! I have no idea why the editor is not following the true but according to personal favorite.

Lastly, I do wish the editor can understand and stop it. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.190.190 (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Read your own talk page for my reply, since you didn't want to talk about it... this was my only way of getting you to talk. And, knock it off with your nonsensical posting on my talk page, it's consider very rude and disruptive. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have 'finally' reply ur questionzzz. I'm just a low profile's editor. If the true thing that i proved was neglected. Then I will just leave here as it is meaning less. I do have an account but I don't wish to login it because I don't like to quarrel with anyone. That all for my words. Thx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.190.190 (talk) 21:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:verbal and associates disrupting articles using wp: tag teaming and wp:canvasing on WP:FTN

user:verbal is currently attempting to insert a phrase unbacked by [wp:v] into the article [Ian Stevenson][55] [56] and, having failed to make a convincing case or provide a better source, is requesting back up from the WP:FTN [57] in what I believe to be a case of canvassing, since it’s simply a request for more bodies to back him up rather than any kind of policy discussion.

user:verbal has also wp:canvassed on WP:FTN on the related article Jim Tucker[58]. I believe this is a much more clear case of canvassing than the above as it regards a WP:N issue and is completely unrelated to any [WP:UNDUE]] issues which it is the stated purpose of WP:FTN to discuss – it appears to be purely an attempt to recruit friendly editors to back him up.

In appears to represent a pattern where user:verbal is using WP:FTN as a rallying point for turning articles into wp:battlegrounds. Artw (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Ian Stevenson article, the edits being made by Verbal are a major improvement over text that appears to be attempting to promote the subject of the article. I would personally commend Verbal for moving this article close to a neutral point of view. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. At Ian Stevenson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I see Noirtist (talk · contribs) well over 3RR despite previous warnings and previous problems with edit-warring. I've accordingly blocked him for 24 hours. That's not an endorsement of any particular edit, nor am I condoning other editors' actions - there's way too much edit-warring on that page, but Noirtist appears to be far and away the most egregious violator.

It's difficult for me to view requests for help on a projectwide noticeboard as "canvassing". These noticeboards are high-visibility, and may be watched by anyone of any viewpoint who has an interest in the topic. They exist specifically for editors to request help with these sorts of issues. The language used here is certainly less than neutral, and if posted to selected editors' talk pages would certainly be problematic, but I don't see a major issue on a project-wide noticeboard. I simply don't see the problem with this post - it looks like a neutral request for additional input on a question within the noticeboard's purview. MastCell ^Talk 16:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Many content disputes are easily solved by providing more sources and attributing the statements in the article to these sources. I'd recommend this approach be followed in this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is (of course, as always, etc) right. I have changed my recent post to FTN to something that I hope is more neutral. I included a diff for transparency. Best, Verbal chat 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x4 Firstly, there has been no "tag teaming" by me - I've only communicated about this issue on article talk and at WP:FTN. There has also been no canvassing, as WP:FTN is an appropriate noticeboard. When posting on FTN I try to give a brief description of the perceived issue, and I usually ask people to review recent edits and the talk page. I am open to dialogue on my talk page, which hasn't been attempted by Artw. In the diff above, the SPA I mention in my notice there to an ongoing thread has recently been blocked and has only edited about three very closely related articles - hence I call them a WP:SPA. The source or the statement Artw is complaining about is an WP:RS, and the recently blocked SPA was misrepresenting the content of WP:V (specifically "Burden") in their arguments - no specific quote is required, the source simply supports the statement. There is also a huge amount of bad faith, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TE going on at the Ian Stevenson/Jim Tucker articles. I welcome more outside opinion, which is why I posted to the FTN. Any constructive criticism, advice, or further discussion about my edits will be welcomed on my talk page - however, as this isn't an emergency, no WP:DR has been attempted, and no canvassing has taken place, I ask for this thread to be closed. Added after ec's: I agree with MastCell about the editing there, and I'm going to back off reverting similar edits for a while. Best, Verbal chat 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I would contend that [user:verbal] is simply repeatedly stating that his source meets the requirements of [WP:V]], without actually addressing any of the issues with it that have been raised on the talk page, and seems to be relying on mere force of numbers to carry his argument through. Artw (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's an issue for the talk page or an appropriate forum. We shouldn't get into that here. Verbal chat 17:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Site ban of User:Bruno P. Dori

I propose adding Bruno P. Dori (talk · contribs · block log) to WP: List of banned users. This user has, over the last nine months, used at least 4 usernames and 60+ IP accounts to evade blocks and edit war on dozens of South American football articles. For more information, see:

• User talk:Bruno P. Dori
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bruninho/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bruno P. Dori
• User talk:Satori Son#Request by Bruno P. Dori

Community review and confirmation of this site ban is requested. Thank you. — Satori Son 19:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued spamming of click game nonsense by User:Pinkgirl34

Resolved

 – Editor agreed not to create further subpages while the MFD runs its course. –xeno^talk 20:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Pinkgirl34 (talk · contribs) is trying to import the click game nonsense from Uncyclopedia. He/she has created over 40 pages and continues to spam despite an MfD of her pages. This is a blatant violation of WP:NOT. This user has already been blocked indef for vandalism and continues to be unproductive. Triplestop x3 19:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But the WP:MFD discussion had the majority of people saying to keep those pages. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 19:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, we should give Pinkgirl34 a month or so, and if s/he still hasn't done anything constructive, then an indefinite block could be applied. PhilKnight (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have done plenty of constructive contributions to several articles, if that counts. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, would you agree to stop creating these pages until the debate at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Pinkgirl34's Click pages is complete? — Satori Son 20:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, then. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The MfD hasn't completed, so saying that there is a "majority" doesn't mean anything till the MfD is closed. However, when even User:DGG says something should be deleted ... Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing your "contributions", it does not seem that you have done many useful things. (eg [59]). Triplestop x3 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a very useful contribution. It's definitely not vandalism. It's even been cited. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 20:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Problem with anonymous editor

see also message at Wikipedia:Editor assistance

I left a message at User talk:Joyson Noel about suspicious edits being made by a number of usernames/IPs. Joyson Noel agreed that these edits were similar to a banned user known as User:Mynameisstanley and, while unable to deal with the matter himself, it was suggested by him that I forward this to either User:Mafia Expert or User:William M. Connolley. It was at this point that the IP in question began accusing me of being a sockpuppet and spammed two talk pages ([60]/[61]) besides my own with this information. He also began following me and reverting my edits, specifically to List of Jewish-American mobsters, but also reverting my talk page with harrassing messages. ([62]/[63]/[64])

I reported the incident at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and one of the IPs was blocked, but the editor has returned under a different IP and has continued reverting my edits at List of Jewish-American mobsters and my talk page. I've left messages on several talk pages, two of them administrators, but I haven't gotten a responce from anyone. Its been kind of frustrating because no one seems to want to get involved or at least point me in the right direction where I can get help. 72.74.219.143 (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have archived the forum-shopping WP:EAR discussion so that the discussion can continue here. – ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking and edit warring by User:Drawn Some

User:Drawn Some appears to have entered a rather drawn out case of wikistalking and edit warring with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Most recently, this has developed into an edit war over the article Blackwells Mills Canal House on my watchlist, for which DS has removed any and all mention of the canal's last gatekeeper who resided there, going so far as to claim that efforts to restore some of the deleted content are "vandalizing" the article (see here). While this appears to have started over issues regarding bilateral relations articles, DS appears to have escalated this issue to several different areas, such as nominating an article for deletion (here) and then removing content from the disambiguation page (see here) after the AfD was closed as a keep. Creating a series of AfDs for religious leaders (here, here and here) Nominating a series of redirects for deletion (here, here and here). Nominating categories for deletion, as here. Adding citation and/or notability tags for Scan-based trading, Conboy, Frelinghuysen, Charles Frederick Lindauer, Kershaw, Winblad, Reinhold Schlegelmilch, Project Manhigh, Blanche Stuart Scott, Anthony Joseph Drexel I, Katharine Drexel, James Caleb Jackson, Hutschenreuther, Anthony Walton White, Joseph Cassey Bustill, Maria Louisa Bustill and Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer. The only thing these article, categories, redirects, disambiguation pages, edit warring, etc., have in common is that User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) edited or created this content at some point in the near or distant past. There appears to be no issue too trivial for Drawn Some to jump in and either edit war or push for deletion. I'm not sure what the issue is behind these actions by User:Drawn Some, but the case for wikistalking and harassment seems rather clear. A block combined with a ban on contact with RAN may help stop the problem. Alansohn (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

For additional background, see archived discussions at AN and WQA. — Satori Son 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Editor insists on including personal messages that are beyond the scope of a noticeboard

Resolved

 – All drama, no action --Smashville^talk 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it valid to put personal messages to editors concerning their editing style on a noticeboard, with an excuse like this:
"YES - it IS beyond the scope of this nb, but after I send that to your talk page, it was removed immediately"?[65]
It's developing into an edit war.
The editor also reputs stuff on my talk page that I've deleted. -- Rico 21:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The friendly notice about using the "Preview" button was quite wise - you would be well-served by paying attention; look how many separate posts it took you to file this ANI? A think a polite request was better than a template any day ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It may belong on a talk page, but it doesn't belong on the RS noticeboard. Moreover, my editing style is not against the rules, but thank you for your personal opinion. -- Rico 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unwarranted removal of talk page content

I would like to ensure that administrators are aware of events that have very recently occurred, and which upset me.

• I had sent a user a request to use Preview a bit more, since I was "getting lost in the watchlist" due to them.
• My (kind) request was removed in what appeared to be a possibly undetected edit conflict.
• Therefore, I sent a similar request to the talk page where the user's behavior was now mostly happening, instead.
• The user removed it from there.
• I re-added it, since at this point I felt the user was purposely denying my attempts to communicate to them.
• They removed it again.
• I added it again a second time, very clearly stating in the edit summary that I desired it not to be removed.
• The user sent me a notice to advise me that I was breaking rules.

Now, I do believe that, under WP:TALKO, the user's twice-removal of my content isn't contemplated, and I think the last message on my talk page demonstrates maliciousness, so I would be grateful if an administrator would keep a watch on the situation. Thanks.

--LjL (talk) 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since my message was sent after Rico's, I would like to make it clear (for what it's worth, and for what it can be believed) that I didn't send it as a response; it simply took me a while to write it down, and I didn't realize Rico was doing the same thing. --LjL (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure edit-warring (almost reaching WP:3RR was the wisest way of doing this. They have the full right to remove a warning from their talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

From their own they do, but not from the reliable sources noticeboard...although it had nothing to do with the topic at hand. --Smashville^talk 21:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But... if I edit warred, that was on the noticeboard (as my content was removed from there). On his talk page, I merely re-added content once, after it had been removed from the noticeboard, while pointing out that I had sent it to the noticeboard in the first place because it was removed in a heartbeat from his talk page (and, for what I knew at that point, it could have simply been due to an unnoticed edit conflict). --LjL (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring it even "once" to my talk page violated Wikipedia:Don't restore removed comments. -- Rico 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

He already explained he thought it was removed due to an edit conflict. There is no reason to keep discussing this. Please assume good faith. It's fairly evident that you are not. Plus, the page you linked is neither a guideline nor a policy. It is an essay. It bears no weight. --Smashville^talk 21:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. -- Rico 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect one root here is whether the removal from user-talk was an edit-conflict or an intentional removal. The edit summary suggests the former. But I agree this is escallated above where it should have, and there's no use in going further with it at this time. Rico has made it clear he seen the messages. Whether he takes them to heart and improves his style for the benefit of the community remains to be seen. DMacks (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The question remains whether LjL's personal message to me belongs on the RS noticeboard. -- Rico 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that it's clear to me that Rico knew about the message I sent him to begin with (it certainly is now!), I am prepared to remove the "personal message" from the noticeboard. But I would like an assurance that Rico understands that removal of my messages from public pages is not in line with guidelines. --LjL (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not removed the personal message from the RS noticeboard, and I'd like to know why article talk page comments can be removed if they have nothing to do with improving the article. LjL's comment had noting to do with reliable sources. -- Rico 21:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh... yes I have?!

In LJL's restoration to my talk page of the comment of LjL's that I deleted, LjL also violated WP:Don't template the regulars. I've been editing here for 5 years. -- Rico 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Is that a guideline? I wasn't aware of it. Also, you may (or may not) have notice that my initial request wasn't a template at all, but carefully "hand-written". --LjL (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just an essay, not a guideline...and it's beside the point because he didn't send you a template. --Smashville^talk 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose you could both move on? This is a mountain out of a molehill.

• Rico, do you see now how much easier it would have been to respond to the initial polite, non-template post, instead of deleting it with no comment? That's how a polite person would behave.
• LjL, you wanted to make sure he saw the post. Now you know he has. What possible reason could there be for insisting it remain up on the board? Why not remove it yourself, if it's still there, now that you know he saw it?

Yes, I will remove it now. I believe there was a reason at the time, there is no more reason now. I will remove it now. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Both of you: Edit warring: bad. Talking: good.

True enough, but I don't consider restoring my posts edit warring, really. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do either one of you actually have an admin action of some kind you need done?

I thought I'd leave that up for admins to decide. --LjL (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I'd like a decision -- not based on opinion, or on an outside opinion on which one of us is nicer. Does a personal request to me, concerning the fact that I sometimes edit my own unreplied to posts, belong on the RS Noticeboard -- even if I deleted it from my talk page (because that was the rationale given)? -- Rico 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been resolved...LjL deleted the comment. Seriously. Stop. You're starting to be disruptive. --Smashville^talk 21:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

--Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing this as resolved. LjL asked Rico something in good faith. No need for wikidrama. --Smashville^talk 21:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

USER:Muntuwandi

Although many users have tried to reach a consensus with this user sadly none have been successful. This user (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Muntuwandi) has a long history of disruptive editing on many articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=histor y http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&limit=500&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_M_(mtDNA)&limit=500&action=history and many other articles he has been accusing of being disruptive before http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi He continually removes sourced material http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_E1b1b_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=303132977&oldid=302770031, adds OR http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haplogroup_DE_%28Y-DNA%29&diff=302853683&oldid=302603277 and does POV http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history He continually reverts the Edits of users such as The Ogre, Causteau, Small Victory, Dougweller, Jingiby, and others. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_history_of_Europe&limit=500&action=history he has promised to stop http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMuntuwandi But sadly this doesn’t seem to be the case. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I see very little independent editing from Monte Cristo, more often than not, he is editing in my footsteps. Nothing that violates policy, just uncreative and frustrating. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

In one of the diffs above Muntuwandi has removed refs to National Geographic on the grounds that it is a "commercial site".[66] There's something wrong there. Is this an edit war across WP between Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Mathsci (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On the surface it may seem like there is nothing wrong with using National Geographic as a source. However this issue has been discussed numerous times, and the consensus is the Natgeo webpage in question contains outdated information, and Natgeo has not updated their website. The latest discussion is here Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Genographic,

Older discussions can be found

• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_7#The_Genographic_Project
• Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)/Archive_4#The_Near_East_Origins_non-theory

In summary the specific natgeo webpage contains old data, that is no longer used in recent publications. Spencer Wells, the director of the genographic project, that runs this specific website, published a paper last year[67], with the updated findings, but for whatever reasons, they have not updated their own website. SOPHIAN/Monte Cristo, has completely ignored all this information, saying that he doesn't care if Natgeo hasn't updated their website, since it is out there in Cyberspace, he will quote it as a reliable source[68], [69], [70]. All the regular editors are currently using the latest studies and agree the specific Natgeo is obsolete. I don't know what the best approach is with Monte Cristo because he is ignoring everyone

Here is a list of his reverts

• reverts Andrew.
• revert's Yom
• reverts Causteau,
• reverts Jingiby

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User is trying to include every B-side

Yesterday evening I received a rather angry message from user:Cindy1000. This user just so happened to add the B-sides to every single by the American country artists, Wayne Massey and Charly McClain. Cindy1000 continually added the B-side song to each of their singles chart and on the McClain discography, she added all of the B-sides in a separate table (after another user was angered when she added them into the singles chart). After I continually reverted her edits, that was when she gave me the message, which basically stated that I was deleting "informative information" and that "there is no reason for it to be deleted." She doesn't seem to listen to me at all, but according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style, B-sides are not allowed in a discography. She's very strong-minded on her views and nothing seems to get through to her. Can please do something about this. You can check the messages she sent me at my talk page, and the ones I sent her HERE. Thank you :) Dottiewest1fan (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute with a newbie who's still learning the ropes, and no admin intervention is required here. Cut her (gender assumed from username) some slack. Also, I believe you're talking about Cindy10000 (talk · contribs). Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats

I assume there is nothing that can be done about this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it does include the IP's (or someone's) phone number. Someone may want to get rid of that. Deor (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give psychologal/psychiatric treatment to every angry editor. Count Iblis (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin look at the now-deleted band page, which was deleted as a copyvio, to see if the original author creator had it explained to them that the deletion was due to copyvio? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the talkpage comment, so it is only viewable to admins or editors with other extended permissions, and asked if the editor wants to see it. Since it has a personal phone number I will ensure that any reposting will be minus that detail - I think I can fudge my way around it. This was my last action before retiring for the night, so another admin will need to look at the deleted article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The original author was Pikahsso (talk · contribs). From the talk page, it appears he was informed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Wizard1911 / User:JBrown13

Resolved

 – Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So I've got a user, with multiple accounts, spamming builders hardware and personally attacking me. I wasn't sure where to report this because there are multiple issues. Here's the diffs:

• Spamming by 12.160.155.78: [71], [72], [73]
• Spamming by 12.170.211.146: [74]
• Spamming by Jbrown13: [75], [76]
• Spamming by Wizard1911: [77]
• Personal attack by JBrown13: [78]

Please help...thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... I am looking into this, but in the future WP:SPI is the place to make such a report. Tiptoety ^talk 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article and blocked the obvious socks. Nakon 00:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Looks like Nakon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) took care of it. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)