Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Otterathome, User:80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157, and User:Mathieas

Removed unarchived thread that hadn't been touched in 24 hours--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have unarchived this thread because it is an ongoing issue that remains unresolved. I would appreciate further comments. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving was unwise. You're emphasizing a pattern of behaviour: off to WP:RFC/U with you for that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who was accused of being a wikistalker (FYI not a real word). I am curious as to why this was archived without a resolution. I looked at the WP:RFC/U that Bwilins linked to and it stated that an incident can be archived for three reasons none of which I believe apply in this case. I don't claim to be an expert in wiki policy, so I would appreciate knowing why an unresolved matter was archived. Thanks. Mathieas (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Everything on this page is archived if nobody has followed up within the past 24 hours. If there are remaining issues, there are other dispute resolution avenues you could follow, like WP:Wikiquette alerts or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So the way it works is, someone makes an accusation against someone, there is a big long discussion (involving a bunch of unrelated stuff), then it gets shoved in a closet and forgotten without a resolution? Seems like a waste of time. So I guess this means I will not be going to wikijail. Mathieas (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what "pattern of behavior" am I emphasizing? I am simply following the rules stated at the top of this page. They state "Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment."

That is all I did. I unarchived a thread I believed did not merit being archived yet on account of not being resolved and I added a comment requesting more discussion.

Additionally, we already tried Wikiquette alerts and I addressed in the original post why I chose to go here instead of RFC/U. See quote: "Hi, an issue about User:Otterathome was recently raised over at WQA, but was closed as stale. I commented on the talk page of the user who was involved in marking it as such, and s/he replied suggesting RfC/U or if it was becoming a serious problem, ANI or ArbComm. After reading the limitations of RfC/U and the fact that the problem is continuing to escalate, I believe the issue needs to be addressed here. Below is the copy of the WQA alert, and at the bottom I have added some recent updates."

So that is why it was addressed here. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, off to RFC/U please:

• "He has continued on his tendantious editing by nominating another web star" (from previous ANI) - "continued" means pattern
• "He has also tried to impose his views on a quality scale rating assessment for Jessica Lee Rose" (from previous ANI) shows pattern across articles

It was already established beyond reasonable doubt by the community that Wikistalking was not occurring, and therefore immediate action was not required. You therefore were required to address the pattern that you were trying to establish if you wished further action to be taken. Nobody is going to be immediately blocked or banned for AfD'ing articles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, remember how I said, since his previous AfD was over, I had no doubt his next one was in the works?

Have a look at this.

Again an LG15-related page, again a page he already tried to kill twice (once through AfD, once through calling for merge).

One month since the keep of the AfD, two weeks since decision not to merge.

How many LG15-related pages does he have to try to get rid of how many times until a pattern is established?

~ Renegade - 213.39.173.221 (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the new AfD he, again, tries to brush off any argument he can't attack on factual grounds by pretending they are invalid and "suggesting" people argue differently. In particular, he is trying to gloss over the fact that the nomination shows multiple signs of being frivolous and in Bad Faith by implying commenters are off topic if they question the validity of the nomination in the first place, rather than just accepting it and going with it.

He has also directly and unambiguously admitted his nomination is wrong by now, due to the fact that doing exactly what he (supposedly) wanted, improving the sources on the page, messed up the reference numbers in his nomination.

Instead of fixing his nomination, he went on to direct me to hide my post in which I point out his argumentation as it stands is wrong. I am not sure how Wikipedia etiquette is usually on this topic, but personally, I think telling a commenter to hide from the discussion that the nomination is factually incorrect and incoherent, in order to ensure its validity isn't put in doubt, is very questionable and not a sign the nomination could stand on its own.

In addition, his nomination in general, as pointed out in the AfD, shows several subtle signs of bad faith - including, but not limited to, implying that the fact that sources cited don't include information from future (as in time travel) is a sign they're bad, personally deciding which sources are independent 3rd party sources and which aren't, and making unexplained and bogus projections about the future chances of press coverage of the show.

~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 19:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see anywhere that says ANI is not used for establishing patterns of behavior, after all, one of the possible things ANI says it can do is impose a topic ban, which would not be possible without the person establishing a pattern of behavior. Additionally, I don't see anywhere that says that RFC/U is used for establishing patterns of behavior, muchless that it is the only place to do so. If there is such a page, can you please direct me to it? I am trying to follow the policies as written out on the respective pages, but so far all that has happened is I have been told I "unwisely archived" something that, according to the written policies on this page, was completely within bounds, and told to go to another page to establish my case, when nowhere says that that is the only avenue to do so. Could somebody please clarify this all for me so I can understand where this is coming from? Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As you may not have realised, they won't stop complaining about me nominating their articles until something is done. They will defend their lg15-related articles to the end. See my archived comments for further details.--Otterathome (talk) 20:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly think that this is exactly this kind of attitude that is the problem here. Since when are articles "owned" by one person or group? This is a community wiki. If you see articles as "ours" and "theirs" then you loose focus of the bigger picture which is to have a comprehensive community wiki of the highest possible quality. --Zoeydahling (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, something does need to be done here. Otter has demonstrated a pretty clear pattern of bad-faith editing, and is very clearly on a crusade to get an entire category of articles deleted. He's also got a bad habit of throwing around negative labels like 'wikistalker' and 'SPA' when people criticize him. He also seems to be nominating approximately one webseries related article for deletion per week. His deletion noms are OVERWHELMINGLY webseries related. This includes one situation where he nominated an article(Jackson Davis, took it to DRV after it was closed as a keep, and then 7 days after the DRV ended, and a mere 16 days after the original Nom, renominated it. In that nom he repeatedly tried to partially cite WP:NOTAGAIN ("Already nominated isn't a reason see WP:NOTAGAIN", leaving out the bit about how that doesn't apply if it's only been a short time since the last one) as a counter argument when people complained about the short period. He also partially cited the DRV's decision(That it wouldn't be inappropriate to renom it...he left out the part where they said "later in the year").

Then there's his more recent nomination of Vincent Caso. The edit history. and the nomination text itself are both very telling. His first edit to the article consists of unilaterally replacing it with a redirect to The Guild[1] Mathieas reverted, protesting the 'unilateral deletion' in the edit note and also left a note on the talk page(the first and so far only edit to said talk page). Otter re-reverted to the redir, claiming in the edit summary it wasn't a deletion. Mathieas reverted again, saying it seemed like it to him. Otter never commented on the talk page.[2] [3] [4] A little over 6 hours later, he nominated the article for deletion. His nomination summary was: "One of my wikistalkers User:Mathieas feels the need to disagree/revert me, so I have to spam another afd. Subject seems to fail WP:BIO/WP:N and seems to be only known for being in The Guild so redirect there." [5]. The nom itself in the summary flirts with violations of WP:UNCIVIL and WP:POINT, by calling Mathieas a 'wikistalker' and saying straight out that he only Nom'd because Mathieas contested the unilateral summary redirect. Not quite 31 hours AFTER nominating it for deletion, he finally got around to adding a Notability template [6] and citation needed tags. [7]

Even more recently, he for the second time nominated yet another webseries related article, LG15: The Last for deletion. [8] This time he avoided the article entirely, posting nothing it, simply nominating it. He also managed to actually write an overall decent summary this time. Problem is, the nom is rapidly snowballing into a speedy keep per WP:NOTAGAIN The first nomination [9] was posted at 22:28, 3 August 2009... by otterathome. The previous nom, which had only one person vote 'delete', ended 34 days ago. He renominated it six weeks after his previous nom, and five weeks after it failed.

He's showing very clear signs of being on a personal crusade. In doing so, he's violated WP:NOTAGAIN twice, tried to subvert it by partially quoting it once, and has come dangerously close to violating WP:POINT and WP:UNCIVIL. He seems to be literally trying to 'sneak one by'; his conduct on the Caso article is particularly bad in this regard. Unilaterally replacing the article with a redirect, then edit warring and calling the person contesting it a wikistalker? Trying to go back after the fact to contest the lack of citations?

The overall pattern is pretty clear. Given that the closest he's come to giving anyone a chance to answer him when he contests the notability of a webseries related article was to issue an ultimatum... he simply wants them gone, and isn't interested in any sort of compromise. This shows he's not thinking about the good of the encyclopedia, but simply about what he personally thinks belongs here. It isn't just that he's going around nomming a lot of articles in one particular category that have problems, he's deliberately ignored consensus and has made absolutely no attempts to work with anyone or establish consensus. All he's done is to try to jam what he thinks down everyone else's throat. Does something need to be done? Absolutely. Otter needs to step back and realize that he can't just ignore his fellow editors, he needs to work with them and be both civil and reasonable as he does so. -Graptor 208.102.243.30 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein

At User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban User:Sandstein notified me that I was "topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months." I took issue with this, due to the editors who reported me to AN/I being as guilty of the same types of Battle over a variety of articles, and gave specific examples of it; inserting and edit-warring at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) over the insertion of accusations that the memorial is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist; which turns out was totally false, and the editors in question had not sighted sources they claimed to have done; the other being Alexander Litvinenko at which an editor professed his belief that Putin is a paedophile on the talk page, and the insertion of poorly sourced BLP violating material on said article on that accusation. The issue I had is partly the fact that it was made out that I am the only one who is guilty of such WP:BATTLE violations, and this is obviously not the case. As I wrote on my talk page "I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making all editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent." So I am taking responsibility for my own edits, if anyone thinks otherwise, and am willing to cop things on the chin, within reason.

At User_talk:Russavia#List_of_articles I have posted a long list of articles I have been responsible for in creating and/or expanding, as a response to a question by another editor just above. Just below the list I wrote the following: "Having said that, I will abide by the topic ban...the history of the Soviet Union isn't really an area that interests me anyway---articles are so biased, that anyone with half a brain who should read them will know that they are biased and will take the article for the joke that they usually are."

Just below this, I queried of Sandstein how the Putin article wouldn't be part of the ban, but comments on a talk page would be. His response astounds me, as all one would have to do is "did you see on *insert name of Soviet history article here* Russavia's edits...what a fuckwit", and I would be in breach of the ban if I were to raise it, according to information I was clearly given This is doing my head in as much as yours, I know.

After the lifting of the permaban on myself, I posted High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve to namespace from my userspace. I tweaked a category on Dmitry Medvedev and reverted on Alexander Litvinenko (link to reasoning coming later). These edits garnered this response from Sandstein at User_talk:Russavia#Warning. Given the amount of conflicting information coming from Sandstein, as to what is or isn't covered by the ban (according to him), the fact that he all but said that Putin wouldn't be covered by this ban, led me to rightly assume that the articles I created would also not be included. The High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve was created 1 year ago, so is hardly history.

An uninvolved admin posted a request at User_talk:Russavia#Requesting_comment seeking clarification as to exactly what articles I can or can't edit, given Sandsteins interpretation of history -- something that I had already sought beforehand, but got no conclusive answers. Sandstein responded to this with User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban_extended -- he has now banned me from ALL articles relating to Russia or Russians, and has made the laughable claim that I am disruptive in this entire area, which is clearly not the case. Also note Ezhiki's question "Dmitry Medvedev is a current politician as well, yet he was the first to be listed in your warning above. I guess I just don't see the logic (and by the looks of it Russavia doesn't either, and he has to work under this ban somehow). I hope you understand that under such restrictions a clarity of the guidelines is of utmost importance. Further comments, please?" It appears to me that Sandstein has extended the ban because he could not be bothered in providing details of what would and wouldn't be covered. How am I an editor under restrictions supposed to know what articles I can and can't edit when I get conflicting information from the admin handing down the decisions as judge, jury and executioner.

I posted at User_talk:Sandstein#A_solution a possible solution. That being that seeing as Sandstein believes I am a problematic editor in articles relating to the history of the USSR/Russia with the Baltic States, that the 6 month ban be limited to those types of articles. There is no evidence of me being a problem across ALL Russian articles, by any stretch of the imagination, and by limiting the scope to the areas in which I am seen to be a problem, there can be no ambiguity about whether an article I am editing is part of the ban or not. Simply blanket banning an editor from an entire topic in which it can be shown they are productive, because of a problem in a small corner, is not the way that an admin should be operating, particularly moreso when they have not provided sound reasoning for 1) what articles may or may not be edited and 2) extending the ban despite unanswered questions and objections from numerous other admins and editors in good standing.

I take responsibility for my actions, and agree to abide by a topic ban; that being the original topic ban as placed along with sound reasoning as to what articles I may or may not edit (very ambigious although even then), or the topic ban that I suggested on Sandstein's talk page (totally unambiguous as to what I may or may not edit). I recognise that it is my wikibehaviour which is the cause of the initial topic ban, and I take responsibility for that; other's behaviour can, and will, be dealt with elsewhere at another time. There seems to a consensus amongst those admins and editors who have already commented that the blanket ban now in force is draconian and is totally unwarranted. Sandstein mentioned it should be taken to WP:AE, but as this is now as much of a problem with Sandstein's conduct as the ban itself, it is probably the best solution that both issues be dealt with in the one place, as both Sandstein and myself are at fault here, and that is what I am requesting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, huge suprise, you ignored my advice to move on.

So you probably will ignore this advice to: large block of text will probably be skipped over and ignored, this needs to be cut down by 80%. You also have no edit diffs to support your allegations.

It is a real shame you will be indefenetly banned within a few weeks, if not a few days. Ikip (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is wrong place. If Russavia wants to appeal the sanction by Sandstein, he should complain at WP:AE. If he wants to sanction Sandstein, he should ask ArbCom. If he wants to reverse the previous vote at the ANI that had happened two days ago (the decision by Sandstein was supported by two other administrators and no one voted against), he should provide some new and really compelling arguments in his favor.Biophys (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing this wall of text, I did some research

March 2009 - Russavia is warned by Jehochman to respect NPOV under RFAR/Digwuren

June 2009 Russavia is formally warned and placed on notice by Thatcher under RFAR/Digwuren

September 2009 Russavia is formally topic banned by Sandstein under RFAR/Digwuren

Among other things, all of the proper paperwork is in place and it is obvious that Sandstein is not the only administrator who has found Russavia's conduct in this area problematic (there are other blocks for stalking and edit warring, but I am focusing on these in particular). Unless this goes to WP:AE the sanctions will not be overturned and you will be blocked if you violate the topic ban. The other option is appealing to arbcom at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Requests_for_clarification. MBisanz ^talk 19:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, you can move this to WP:AE, otherwise someone else will probably close this and move it for you. Again, I would strongly suggest condensing this by 80%. You can add this information later, if needed and brought up. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not Russavia's behavior being problematic—he himself admitted that restricting his edits in the area where he is judged to have caused problems is warranted. The issue is that he was placed under editing restrictions, yet all his requests to explain just what exactly those restrictions entail were either ignored by the Sandstein (admin handling the topic-ban) or replied in a manner that did not clarify much (please, do take time to read conflicting and self-contradictory responses to Russavia's inquiries on his talk page). If one is restricted from editing certain topics and agrees to abide by such a restriction, why should the question to explain what those restrictions include be met not with a proper explanation, but with accusations of disruptiveness and extensions of the topic-ban? Such behavior can easily be seen as admin abuse, and this is precisely why Sandstein's actions were questioned by two other admins (myself included) and several editors. This is what this inquiry is about. What the ban was imposed for in the first place is beyond the scope of this thread—Russavia accepted it and only needed some clarifications, which he has full rights to ask for.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:03, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

The referrals to AE and arbitration clarifications appear to be correctly stated. The community does not have the ability to overturn sanctions that derive from discretionary provisions of an arbitration case. No comment or opinion on whether the current action was meritorious. Durova³¹⁷ 20:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No request to overturn sanctions has been made here. The request is to review the actions of an admin, who was unable to explain what exactly does and does not fall under the definition of the topic ban he imposed, and, rather than to provide such explanations, chose to extend the ban to include pretty much everything the user has ever been editing ("just in case", I guess?). It is my understanding that an admin should be able to explain his actions when asked to do so (and he was asked not just by Russavia, but by at least five other people, none of whom were involved in the shenanigans that led to Russavia's topic-ban). Is that an unreasonable request unsuitable for WP:AN/I?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:30, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

Such a request should be directed to the Arbitration Committee because the acting administrator invokes an arbitration decision. Durova³¹⁷ 20:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So Sandstein unblocks an editor, and that editor makes his first edit a complain here... the topic ban was certainly justified, and a block following its violation seems justified as well, although I would quibble whether it was justified to make it an indef - I would go with a day or so for the first violation. Overall, I think Sandstein acted properly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with the last two comments) The wall of text by Russavia above (after a day of exchanges in this vein) is too long for me to read as well, so I would just like to refer interested colleagues to the relevant prior discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Russavia unacceptable behavior at The Soviet Story and User talk:Sandstein#A solution. Should there be admin consensus to modify or overturn either my original topic ban or my subsequent expansion of it (although per WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions any appeal discussion should take place at WP:AE), then that is of course fine with me, but I would appreciate it if any administrator making such an amendment would join the few of us who patrol WP:AE (rarely a fun chore, unfortunately). I apologize if any of my very unsuccessful attempts to help Russavia understand the scope of and reason for his ban may have been confusing or contradictory.  Sandstein  20:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Sandsteins's actions without reservation; caution Russavia not to become disruptive in his characterization of sanctions against him, well and duly earned, as poor actions by the administrator who carried out the final phase. I note not the several warnings received, nor the previous discussions, have led Russavia to contemplate his actions with an eye to improving his demeanor and habits here, and suggest that unless he wishes to meet with further sanctions, he not waste any more bandwidth or time on complaining that he acted poorly and was justifiably sanctioned. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of moving on and not dragging this to infinity, I would suggest that Russavia should be placed under a topic-ban as outlined at User talk:Sandstein#A solution (in brief: articles dealing with the history of the Soviet Union and the Baltic States would be a no-no, while something as innocuous as Russian airlines or diplomatic relations with countries outside of the Baltics would be OK). In case of reasonable doubts, Russavia needs to be explained which kinds of articles he may and may not edit under the editing restrictions. It's not like the terms of the topic-ban cannot be extended later should that become necessary; until then there is no need to deprive Wikipedia of many useful edits Russavia made in the course of last months. Would anyone second that?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:39, September 11, 2009 (UTC)

• Procedural oppose it would muddy the waters to overlay a community sanction on top of disputed impementation of the Digwuren arbitration discretionary sanctions. Please straighten this out through regular channels. WP:RFAR is thataway. Durova³¹⁷ 21:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely support Ezhiki. I am not uninvolved enough to see if the original topic ban is warranted but by extension it to basically anything this user with tens of thousand user has written we just defacto ban one of a very few content producers in this already severely under-resourced area. Soon there will be not enough people there to simply maintain the articles (it is already not enough for any significant projects). IMHO the ban's negatives much underweight all the possible benefits. I would support very broad ban of Russavia from the topics related to Baltic states, Russia-Baltic and Soviet-Baltics relation there the most of the conflict seems to be centred in. Regarding the procedure, I was under impression that AN/I is a good place to review administrative actions but ff AE is a more appropriate forum for review of the topic ban then please transfer my statement there Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ezhiki and Bakharev make some good points here. The original topic ban resulted from Russavia's incivil reaction to a series of calculated provocations by Martintg and others, who are trying to get rid of their content opponent. WP:CIVIL explicitly states, that the policy should not be used as a weapon against others; therefore their behaviour should be condemned. However, one could expect an experienced editor such as Russavia to be more careful. There is no excuse for getting provoked. The original topic ban (Soviet history) may be warranted, but I disagree with Sandstein's extension, which doesn't seem to be based on solid argumentation, but on Sandstein's personal frustration. (The correct decision would have been to delegate the issue to another, uninvolved admin who could assess it more calmly.) Since Russavia is one of the most productive editors in Russia-related subjects, the extended topic ban would hurt this area of WP a lot and would have far more negative than positive consequences. I think this solution would be the best way to go. Offliner (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

After spending too much time reading this stuff on various pages, I agree with Ezhiki, Bakharev and Offliner. I doubt Russavia would violate the terms of his proposal, which goes to the heart of the matter and doesn't deprive the encyclopedia of his contributions in other areas.John Z (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a more limited ban would not suffice to prevent continued disruption because Russavia does not really recognize having done anything wrong in the first place, because he has a history of disruption across Russia-related topics and because he seems to have a tendency to wikilawyer the limitations of any restrictions. But should there emerge an admin consensus for limiting the scope of the ban, I would appreciate any admin who implements such consensus to take (co-)responsibility for enforcing it.  Sandstein  05:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well he does say "I recognise that it is my wikibehaviour which is the cause of the initial topic ban" in his TL,DR above, so I AGF. Speculation on his future conduct is just that, and disingenuous wikilawyering out of restrictions he devised would be hard. His disruptions have at times consisted of pointing out serious problems (BLP) in an ineffective way, rather than taking it to BLP/N, say. I ain't an admin, but I'd add my 2 cents and tell him he's behaving like an idiot if he does.John Z (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per several commentators above, this is not the proper forum (either AE appeal or ArbCom) but while it's here I do feel it necessary to point to Russavia's behavior after the action:

• "Perhaps I will start a new account, and use it to spread accusations of people being murderers, paedophiles and shit like that. But of course, the people will be Russian. What will that get me? Oh, don't worry, I know that already...a medal." - threats of creating sock puppet accounts, obvious attempts at battleground, incivility and extreme assumption of bad faith against Sandstein (who's ruled several times against me I might add and is probably one of the most fair and reasonable admins on AE)
• "That has gotta be the most sorry and pathetic excuse for a banning I have ever seen." - incivility bordering on a personal attack
• "But hey, this has to do with the history of Russia, broadly construed, so I will wait with baited breathe for one of the adolescent children to come running to you to ban me" - personal attacks against other editors, simply because they dared to report his/her bad behavior.
• "What an absolutely-fucking-exciting article that would be to read, I can hardly wait to read it" - completely unnecessary profanity and sarcasm aimed at amping up the drama, battleground (there's a lot more of this, I just picked a single example)
• "I will fight you on that." - note that part of the original report was Russavia saying stuff like "I will fight you to the death on that" on articles
• "So-called topic ban be damned." - this appears to be a willful violation of the ban and a "challange" to Sandstein.

And a whole lot more at [10]. Basically, the Russavia's response should be enough to clear away any doubts that a topic ban was very appropriate. Given that Russavia then responded by purposefully violating his topic ban twice, an overall ban was also appropriate. The fact that this user has created content does not excuse the gross incivility, personal attacks and creation of battlegrounds (not to mention edit warring) that this user engages in (if this was an isolated instance then content creation could serve as a mitigating factor but this user is most definetly a repeat offender, as can be seen from his/her block log).

Russavia could have accepted his topic ban or appealed it through the proper channels. He could have asked for clarification without the use of profanity and personal attacks. Instead he himself made things worse for her/himself by increasing the level of incivility and rudeness and announcing to everyone that s/he was going to violate the ban and then proceeding to violate it. While s/he spends a lot of time on his/her talk page blaming others, I think it's pretty clear that there's only one person to blame here.radek (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sandstein's action. It was up to Sandstein to rule in this case and he did so. I do not believe that current practice allows AE cases be taken to ANI by disappointed participants. Russavia is welcome to pursue his grievance at WP:RFAR. If Russavia thinks Sandstein misused his admin powers let him try to make the case to Arbcom directly. EdJohnston (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing changes on Wikipedia does it? Actually the real problem is being ignored. The problem over Russavia is actually inconsequential, the problem is that yet again we have an Admin, this time Sandstein, acting in an arrogant and overbearing way, and as usual most are joyfully shrieking "wrong place" or "don't be mean to Admins." In truth, it matters not one jot if this is in the wrong place, this is an encyclopedia not a Politburo run by programmed robots. As usual, here, the result is do anything but look at the true problem - that one Admin can be permitted to behave in this way is wrong and needs to be stopped. Such Admin behaviour has already cost Wikipedia dearly, many former content editors have already disappeared, or like me, stopped writing completely, sickened by juvenile, pompous and arrogant little people, who have through some default been allowed to become Admins. It's a huge problem and it's a growing problem. Now we shall have the usual catcalls of "It's Giano, ban him" "How dare he be so rude" and "put it in the right place" - as I said nothing changes here - does it? So many Wiki-departments for so many crimes, so many wanting to be in charge of them, and so few to do the real work. It's pathetic! Now stick it in the right place - and, I could make a suggestion as to where. Giano (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm in full agreement with Giano's comments above. He describes the problem very well. --Malleus Fatuorum 09:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not; the characterisation of "juvenile, pompous and arrogant" is a bit strong. Nevertheless, I do agree that as a learning point, it would've been possible to use a more respectful and tactful tone with this editor.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

May I inquire who you believe should use a more respectful and tactful tone with which editor? (See also Durova's comment in the "Trout" section below, who appears to have erroneously believed that I used any expletives or was in any way incivil.)  Sandstein  21:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the community as a whole could perhaps have used a lighter touch with Russavia. So far as I can see, no individual editor said anything out of line, and I quite deliberately refrained from naming anyone as a perpetrator. But, I think the cumulative effect of all the things said to Russavia was stronger than it needed to be in the circumstances.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Russavia needed to be pulled into line, but the actions of Sandstein were disproportionate, and maybe even vindictive. Mentorship for Russavia may be an appropriate remedy, as I consider some of his actions now and previously have unintentionally led to conflict. Banning should always be a last resort, and I do not believe we have exhausted all options.

Russavia, some of your actions in the past have annoyed me (your reformatting of Diplomatic missions of Russia without due regard for category consistency being the most egregious). However you have written some articles of note, and I have found you to be a largely conscientious and dedicated editor. Those values, unfortunately, are what drive some of us to take extreme exception whenever other members of the community present ideas different from ourselves. Some suggestions:

(1) take a measured approach whenever you come into conflict with others. Humour trolls. Reason with one-track-mind agenda pushers while respecting their values. Ignore vandals as you remove their handiwork.

(2) don't write War and Peace when presenting your opinions. Be succinct and to the point.

(3) respect your audience. It is cute at best, and galling at worst, when we Australians who have never known warfare or oppression insensitively seek to impose our views on others who may have a clearer understanding of events, we risk being labled as Полезный идиот.

(4) never loose your temper - well, you can loose your temper, but just don't type when this happens.

(5) there is nothing shameful about "crying to" an administrator. Standing up for yourself in a fight might win you respect at Mirrabooka Senior High School. Running your own edit war here is neither helpful nor heroic.

Sandstein - I know that Russavia can be annoying and over-eager sometimes, but remember that the standard of behaviour and accountability for Admins is always expected to be higher. Kransky (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alex Bakharev that Russavia contributes positively in articles on modern Russian history, and he contributes a lot. His problem is different. Russavia perceives a significant number of users to be "enemies of Russia" and he is going to fight with such users "to the death" as he said himself. He is so obsessed that he named (or indicated in diffs) some of his perceived "enemies" in reply to Sandstein. If he is prohibited from editing any articles edited by users who he named himself as his "enemies" and from commenting about these users, this may be fine, and the topic restriction could be lifted.Biophys (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like Russavia to be restricted from editing articles concerning diplomatic relations and missions. The issue isn't political, but rather he took it upon himself to reformat List of diplomatic missions of Russia without seeking or obtaining consensus. Almost all the other list of diplomatic missions by country articles are formatted in a standard matter (see List of diplomatic missions of Kenya, Peru or before it was changed]). The matter was debated last year without resolution. I am a stickler for consistency, as it helps avoid any suggestion of double standards.

Russavia has also created plenty of stubb articles on Russian ambassadors, diplomatic missions and relations with specific countries of varying quality. Kransky (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Add: I actually took the time to read Russavia's long post here, as well as the extensive write ups on his own talk page. The striking thing is that NOWHERE does Russavia even indicate that he is aware that his conduct has been problematic, instead he blames and makes personal attacks on others, lashes out with profanity at Sandstein, threatens to use sock puppets and acts as if it is up to him/her whether or not to abide by the ban or not. A very telling part is how he (mis)characterizes Sandstein's comments from his talk page, here - which is probably what is contributing to some editors mistakenly believing that somehow Sandstein was "rude" to Russavia - which he wasn't. For example, here is how Russavia describes Sandstein's comments:

His response astounds me, as all one would have to do is "did you see on *insert name of Soviet history article here* Russavia's edits...what a fuckwit",

Here is what Sandstein actually said:

Since you agree to abide by your topic ban, I am unblocking you. Should you violate the ban, you may be re-blocked or your topic ban may be extended. As to your question, I cannot usefully answer it, since it seems to be some sort of accusation in the form of a question. Let me only note that no editor is "entitled" to redress or to anything else on Wikipedia. To clarify any ambiguity that may exist, you are topic-banned from the subject of Soviet (and Russian, Baltic, etc.) history. That means that you may pursue dispute resolution with other editors, except where such dispute resolution concerns content related to Soviet history. You may certainly object if others make personal attacks against you, and request appropriate admin action. However, I strongly advise you not to do this with respect to any such attacks that may have been previously made in the context of Soviet history articles, so as to avoid violating your topic ban inadvertently. Any wikilawyering about the ban will also not be tolerated.

This is apparently the "astounding" response. How in the world did Russavia get the "fuckwit" comment (complete with quotation marks which make it seem like this was a phrase actually used by Sandstein, or someone else) from the measured and calm response by Sandstein?

These seem to be all attempts at creating Wiki drama and mis-characterizing Sandstein's actions in the hope that no one will bother to check their accuracy.radek (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me bring you up to speed. User:Colchicum basically called me a Nazi on User:Digwuren talk page, formulating the response as [11] "I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia." Sandstein claimed that I would be unable to address such personal attacks myself due to the ban, stating "Russavia, if somebody else makes a proper WP:AE request about this, I will look at it, as will other admmins, but you are currently topicbanned and not helping yourself. If you continue in this vein, I will remove your ability to edit your talk page.". He later responded on my talk page "You may certainly object if others make personal attacks against you, and request appropriate admin action. However, I strongly advise you not to do this with respect to any such attacks that may have been previously made in the context of Soviet history articles, so as to avoid violating your topic ban inadvertently. Any wikilawyering about the ban will also not be tolerated." So I said, that all one would have to do (if they wanted to be a complete arsehole) is write on someone's talk page "did you see on *insert name of Soviet history article here* Russavia's edits...what a fuckwit" and I would be unable to do absolutely anything about it. Add into the fray, that I left the message on another editor's talk page, and another editor made the personal attack against myself. So in short, what Sandstein has said, is that ANY editor may make ANY personal attack on myself, whether it be calling me a fuckwit, a Nazi, communist scum, hell, even a paedophile, and they would only have to connect it to editing on a Russian/Soviet article, and I would be totally unable to report it, as it would violate the ban, according to Sandstein. Does anyone else agree with his opinion there? If so, I suggest you get your head read. --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, this is out of context and illustrates the problem of your being unable or unwilling to understand the scope of your restrictions (which is why I had to widen them to make them unambiguous). As I said there, you may of course report personal attacks (though this is the first time you provide an actual diff of that attack, which is indeed particularly revolting), including attacks like the "fuckwit" example you give, but it would be better not bring up old personal attacks that were previously made in areas within the topic ban or you might violate the ban inadvertently in the course of their discussion. Colchicum's "Ruavia" attack would be grounds for an indef block, if immediately reported; as it is of March 2009, it is not really actionable any more (blocks are not punitive), but I am certainly ready to intervene if any such conduct repeats itself.

I am tired of this drama and propose the following: If any uninvolved administrator (i.e., nobody involved in Eastern Europe content disputes) believes that any other sanction against Russavia would be more appropriate and workable in lieu of the current broad Russia/Soviet topic ban, I do not object to them imposing that other sanction instead, with the understanding that they would be then responsible for any enforcement and fallout management.  Sandstein  03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, it isn't the first time that I have provided the diff for the attack. I did so at User_talk:Russavia#Example_of_others_WP:BATTLE_-_topic_ban_be_damned. And it is your response there that made me unable to understand the ban, due to it basically being claimed such an attack would be covered under the ban. Do you get it now? --Russavia ^Dialogue 01:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Baked trout with dill.

We all deserve a little trout for posting here. It's lovely with baked with dill, broccoli, and potatoes serves me right for offering mild commentary at an Eastern European dispute thread. Please remember that this noticeboard's purpose is community-based administrative action. There are things it can do and things it cannot.

Flowchart

Seek modification of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren#Discretionary_sanctions → Wikipedia:RFAR#Requests_for_clarification

Debate Sandstein's conduct → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sandstein

Allusions to the Politburo are red herrings.

Nobody is giving the run-around to shield abusive administrators from scrutiny. In fact, if you want to scrutinize Sandstein properly I'll gladly certify RfC. Sandstein, it would be advisable to tone down some of your statements. Best wishes (and can we close this thread please)? Durova³¹⁸ 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC) your friendly local apparatchick

Thanks for your input, Durova, with which I agree with respect to procedure (although according to the relevant remedy appeals against sanctions should be made at WP:AE). Which of my statements do you think I should tone down? I ask this because it is always a particular concern of mine to meet professional standards of civility and courtesy in all interactions, even when the people I interact with do not, as is frequently the case at AE. Feel free to reply at my talk page so as not to prolong this thread.  Sandstein  18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To be candid, I posted that before fully reading Radek's statement above. Apparently a crude expletive was attributed to you in quotation marks without a diff; Radek contends that what you actually posted was quite different (also without a diff). Apologies if I misunderstood. Since there have also been assertions that you failed to adequately define the scope of the ban, perhaps the best course of action would be to proactively open a request for clarification. A number of experienced editors argue that a somewhat different restriction would be more effective at addressing the problems. So a review of the restiction could occur definitively there. And if diffs are forthcoming of inappropriate conduct on your part then that could be handled too. Let's resolve disputes rather than expand them. Durova³¹⁸ 19:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If you refer to the word "fuckwit" used in Russavia's statement, of course I never used such an expletive and I am surprised to see that you believe I would. (I'm not sure that Russavia even means to allege that I did; his statement is somewhat confused.) Radek's quote is correct; the diff is [12]. – As to procedure, how to proceed is obviously up to whoever wants the sanction amended, but I believe that a request for clarification would not be the best venue, since nobody asks for clarification of the ArbCom remedy itself. Instead, as I have advised repeatedly to no effect, WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions directs that WP:AE be used to discuss any appeals.  Sandstein  20:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom has been reorganizing its spaces extensively lately. There used to be a section for appeals; that doesn't exist anymore and seems to have been bundled with clarifications. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark is poking my elbow and making jibes about implications that ArbCom doesn't think it makes mistakes anymore. Anyway, in certain situations the best solution is for the acting administrator to initiate a motion and invite scrutiny. Have I erred? Will honor whatever outcome arises. Everybody gets to have their say in a venue that can actually have a meaningful effect; less frustration and drama on all sides. Sounds sensible? Durova³¹⁸ 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to paraphrase a quip about the US Supreme Court, ArbCom is not the last instance because it's infallible, it's infallible because it's the last instance... For my part, I will not initiate any new proceedings and believe that I have adequately explained my opinion in the discussions that have already taken place, but I will of course honor any admin consensus or ArbCom decision modifying my sanction.  Sandstein  21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And to steal a quote from Absolutely Fabulous: "I was trying to take control of my life, you know, only to find that it's actually controlled for me by petty bureaucracy and bits of bloody paper - ignorant bloody petty rules and laws that just obstruct every tiny little action until you've committed a crime without even knowing it! I mean, you know, why can't life just be made a little easier for everybody, eh?" Several admins and editors have said now that your explanations were not coherent enough to enable myself to continue editting - for example, why does removing BLP from Vladimir Putin not come under the ban, but editing Dmitry Medvedev does? Why does High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve (a program announced in July 2008, and first list released in February 2009) come under history of Russia, but User:Russavia/Duma-A would be ok for me to edit as it is a current list? The HPMPR also is a list of current members of this group. And why would the Duma list be ok, but Medvedev, who is the current President not be ok? It is this type of contradictions from yourself which has led to this. If you had of answered the questions that were asked of not only myself, but also of User:Ezhiki (who is an admin in good standing), we would know where I stood, and where I can edit. Instead, you totally ignored all of us and broadened the ban to include all Russian topics, and used reasoning that came across to me (and others) as some sort of "How dare you question me". You have fobbed off a solution that several editors and admins seem to think is a fair solution, and a solution that leaves us able to know exactly what I may edit without any doubts in anyones minds. And you have also fobbed off a suggestion that I be allowed to continue editing articles in my userspace (see the list at User:Russavia). Also Sandstein, please cease and desist in saying that I do not take responsibility for my actions, because I have written it at least half a dozen times now in various ways and in various places - your continual spouting of this claim seems to me that you are only doing so to try and justify your actions which have been called into question. You demand that I take responsibility for my actions and for my role in this unfortunate drama. The question is, when will you stand up and take responsibility for your actions in this mess? --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually Sandstein declares an intention to honor any consensus that forms at this ANI discussion. So I'll be heading off to enjoy a fine meal of trout. Best wishes for a satisfactory conclusion. Durova³¹⁸ 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to also note another case in which Sandstein has recently imposed a topic ban - on user Loosmark [13]. This isn't in order to comment on Sandstein but rather to contrast the behavior of the two users, Russavia and Loosmark in response to their respective bans, and how the community has reacted to each.

Regardless of the actual merits of the case and how it will end, after being banned by Sandstein, Loosmark, after being topic banned [14], did NOT post long, profanity filled accusations against other users on his talk page. He did NOT make un-civil remarks towards Sandstein. He did NOT make promises to try and avoid the ban through the use of sock puppets. Instead he simply asked Sandstein about how to appeal the ban (although he did indicate that he found the ban ridiculous) [15]. He then posted his appeal at the appropriate venue, appropriate formatted, in polite words, specifically addressing the issue at hand [16].

On the other hand, after receiving his topic ban, Russavia did ALL of those things that Loosmark did not. He threatened to create sock puppets ("Perhaps I will start a new account, and use it to spread accusations of people being murderers, paedophiles and shit like that."). He launched on long tirades accusing other editors of stuff month and months ago (I'm not gonna provide any more diffs and wiki links here - there are too many, and anyone who feels competent enough to offer an opinion or take any kind of action here HAS A RESPONSIBILITY to read through Russavia's talk page [17], this report and all the other information). He made uncivil remarks to Sandstein (as well as to other editors) and explicitly stated that he was going to purposefully violate the ban (which is what caused his topic ban to be changed into a general ban). He threatened Sandstein. He made further comments with the purposeful intention of violating his topic ban ("topic ban be damned" [18]). He then filed an angry, profanity filled report here (though by the standards of his talk page, I guess this can be considered toned down) in which he misrepresented what Sandstein actually said to him, and continued with the incivility and the personal attacks. In fact he filed the report at the wrong place and then acted offended and insulted when this was pointed out to him. He also, unlike, Loosmark, went around and asked other editors to speak up for him.

Like I said, I don't know what the actual outcome of the two appeals (more precisely, one appeal and one misfiled report) will be, but I can imagine one set of outcomes that will contribute to creating the worst incentives possible for the future behavior of editors active in Eastern European topics. And these incentives would be - if you play by the rules, and act polite, you get screwed and your appeal rejected. Screaming loudly, using profanity, attacking users and administrators, creating lots of drama and generally acting in an uncivil manner will get you what you want. I understand some admins might be tired of dealing with this drama, but I would ask them to take a bit more of a long term view here.radek (talk) 04:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with Radeksz's account of the two situations.

   Russavia's melt down and subsequent recalcitrance, profanity and threats should be rewarded how? Any change to Sandstein's action will signal that reward for threats, lobbying, and intimidation are effective both in waging content wars and in avoiding sanctions for the most heinous display of a complete lack of any integrity or civility I've seen yet on WP. Even sockpuppeting paid propagandists pale by comparison.

   Russavia should have considered keeping to their positive contributions. Editors have accepted total bans of much longer duration in recognition they stepped over the line. Not Russavia. Their behavior leading to the sanction and—100 times more disturbing—after the sanction is their choice. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. See my essay for an explanation of what is going on here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

@Durova: I think that a procedural oppose is not helpful here. Sandstein did the RIGHT THING. If he didn't do it perfectly in the light of our bureaucratic policies - so what? Disruptive users should be taught a lesson, and the lesson should not be "if you make a lot of noise and point out a procedural error, you can keep on being disruptive". See also another of my essays :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The procedural oppose was not against Sandstein's action. It was to a proposed community-based sanction. Since then Sandstein voluntarily announced willingness to accept consensus that arises here, so the procedural oppose may be considered withdrawn. Durova³¹⁸ 22:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Drawn Some and Richard Arthur Norton III

Dear admins, an issue brought here a couple of times before still seems unresolved. It was first noted by User:Alansohn at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Wikistalking_and_edit_warring_by_User:Drawn_Some and again by User:Benjiboi at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive198#User:Drawn_Some_seems_to_be_wikistalking_User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_.281958-_.29. The self-appointed policing by Drawn Some of Richard Arthur Norton seems to be constinuing as elaborated on per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Graham, 3rd Earl of Menteith (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia A. Berwind (he calls the later "non-notable" despite being covered in The New York Times as "JULIA A. BERWIND, A SOGIETY FIGURE; Leader Here and in Newport" in an article. I would think given that two separate editors had identified a pattern of what looks like wikihounding in the past Drawn Some would lay off, but as with today has these mass spurts of efforts to be rid of articles Richard works on even to the point of today renominting for deletion an article that closed as regular keep (not no consensus) a mere week ago. Moreover, when another editor (User:Ikip) politely requested Drawn Some consider redirecting per WP:BEFORE and WP:BRD, Drawn Some dismissed him as "I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant". In any event as in the two AfDs exampled above, Drawn Some said to bring my concerns here and so I am doing so. For more of their interactions, please see here (I suspect their or more in the way of deleted contribs). Now, it would be one thing if these copy and paste nominations were unanimously supported, but again, we are talking about everything from a renomination a week later to dismissing royalty as "non-notable." And a whole series of them from an editor for whom he was twice discussed on ANI previously? I don't know it, it just doesn't feel right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • If you're going to quote me don't lift choice bits out of context. My reply to ikip was:

No, they need to go to AFD. I could have redirected them but it would just be undone without some consensus. I don't have time to battle the editors who think notability is unimportant and everything should be included in the encyclopedia. You see A. Nobody is already making irrelevant smokescreen !votes. Drawn Some (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Drawn Some (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Not seeing how that is much better. What is with you and Richard? Why are you so fixated on nominating articles he works on or arguing to delete those he wants kept? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• It is interesting that you don't attempt to justify or explain your behaviour in any way. With the best will in the world it is hard to see how your actions can be considered acceptable. Ben MacDui 20:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Perhaps a final warning to both to avoid each other, or next step would be a formal topic ban or even escalating blocks? Cirt (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• The behavior that is inappropriate is mass-creation of articles on non-notable topics. Nominating them for deletion is highly appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Like Henry Clay Ide (AfD discussion) that you nominated for deletion today for being a non-notable Governor-General of the Philippines? There is a point where the claimed non-notability explanation beggars belief, and the more plausible explanation that you nominate articles not out of policy concerns but simply because Richard Arthur Norton was the last editor to touch them starts to make the more sense. This is especially so when it turns out that Richard Arthur Norton wasn't even the creator of the supposed "mass-created non-notable topic" article. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Drawn Some's fixation with RAN is unacceptable. The various afd's are clearly motivated by animosity and should be speedily closed. Occuli (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the goal of this ANI, isn't it? To keep articles that are clearly on non-notable topics. That would be inappropriate as well. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Drawn Some is having these conflicts with Ikip, with RAN, with A Nobody. (I don't think the main conflict is with A.N., though he was the one to bring it here this time) , Does everybody need to avoid him, or is it the other way around, that he needs a long rest from AfD. The problem is not the conflict, but the wikistalking. I think the example Uncle G brought shows it the most clearly. DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I wonder if a user conduct RFC would be of benefit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't even know who this person is, so if we had conflicts in the past, they must have been minor because I forgot. Can you provide some edit diffs A Nobody? I always have to ask you to provide edit diffs. I asked Drawn to redirect, but I didn't mention anything about Before. That was the total of my involvment with this person. Ikip (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add here that Drawn Some does not seem to be acting in good fate. He nominates numerous historical biographies that have only just been created. Now i ask, is Drawn Some a historian? What basis does he have in determining that a person is not notable just because he does not know anything about the subject? Wikipedia is not complete. There is still alot that needs to be added. Now, wikipedia has thousands, if not thens of thousands of articles about minor historical figures such as these. There are countless of pages about minor nobility etc. And there are countless more missing. These pages add to wikipedia and should not be deleted. Drawnsome is actively working against good editors by preventing new articles from being created. Again: Wikipedia is far from complete. Furthermore Drawn Some nominates these articles almost as soon as they are created. Thereby he prevents anyone else from finding the article and adding to it. Alot of articles start off small, and become bigger. By constantly immediatly nominating anything created about minor historical figures, Drawn some is preventing this. I would also like to note that Drawnsome's entire contribution list is filled with these deletion efforts. There are no edits on articles that add anything to the articles. Drawn Some does not add anything to Wikipedia. He only removes. And drawnsome does seem focussed on RAN alot. Omegastar (talk) 21:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• I will add my voice to those above and say that Drawn is clearly stalking RAN, This behavior is unacceptable and must stop. The fact that two ANI threads failed to correct the problem makes it clear enough that there is no "good faith" cause for these actions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible topic ban if this continues

This seems pretty clear cut. User:Drawn Some. You have two basic options. You can continue down this path of nominating obviously notable articles for whatever reason you may have or you can accept that you may not be a very good judge of notability vis as vis these articles. The first path will result in your being topic banned from AfD, that is to say if you continue I will start a discussion here to reach some community consensus to ban you from starting AfDs or participating at AfD. The second path, which basically involves you reducing the volume of AfD discussions you start and immediately improving your batting average (As it were) is the lowest impact path because it does not require some more heavy handed community participation. Among the recent nominations of yours that I have reviewed (on this list, about 40% have been speedily kept or look to be on that road and <40% appear to be approaching no consensus (That is, 40% is the upper limit for your success rate, even including no consensus closes). .400 is a good average in baseball but not for AfD. It is doubly disturbing that you appear to be following a specific editor and nominating their articles for deletion. If you want to continue to nominate articles, please endeavor to exhaust all options before deletion, write a full and convincing nomination statement (ensuring that it is accurate) and refrain from nominating a string of articles made by a particular contributor. Protonk (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seconded, with the note that I will support any topic ban proposal if you fail to adhere to the second path. I've spent quite a bit of time trying to merge, delete and redirect articles on unimportant members of the peerage - heck, I tried to change WP:POLITICIAN to exclude the lords - but this goes over the line, particularly the apparent "stalking" of one particular editor. Ironholds (talk) 22:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I echo the words of Ironholds.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. --Jayron32 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ironholds. Targeting a particular editor and wikilawyering are totally unacceptable. Salih (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've snow-closed the offending AfD, because the drama it was creating is unnecessary. However, I am concerned that Protonk's and Ironholds' admonishing remarks addressed to Drawn Some are more strongly-worded than strictly necessary in this case. I do not always agree with Drawn Some, but he is a good-faith editor motivated by a genuine desire to improve the encyclopaedia; I tend to think of Drawn Some as a deletionist counterpart to A Nobody or Ikip. I think that what is needed here is guidance and encouragement, not a kick in the arse, and I specifically think Drawn Some should not be topic-banned from AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

But look at the point that Uncle G provided. There, RAN made a few minor additions to Henry Clay Ide, a governor general of the philipppines and diplomat; an obviously notable person. Immediatly after Drawnsome nominated the article for deletion. This article was not even created by RAN( the article is 5 years old!). It was only edited by RAN. But as soon as RAN made the edit, Drawnsome appeared to nominate the article for deletion. Omegastar (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

One comment that I found particularly disturbing is "Yeah, I was on vacation and I was talking about this guy to some friends and they agreed he probably has issues he can't help and that he's not actually hurting anybody. I will still try to clean up after him some when I have time." I have had some fierce run-ins with some, mostly now indefinitely blocked, editors, but have never been so fixated on anyone that I needed to discuss them with real-world off-wiki friends and certainly not while on vacation, not to mention borderline personally attacking him by suggesting on wiki that anyone "has issues". Then, to outright declare after the previous two ANI threads that he "will still try to clean up after him some when I have time" is an outright admission of intent to follow the editor around. On Wikipedia we might occasionally have arbcom appointed mentors or voluntarily join the adopt-a-user program, and yes, we all are vigilant against vandalism and problematic editing in general, but to be a self-appointed janitor with regards to a specific editor and especially to assert that you will continue to do so in the face of two different editors who thought it problematic enough to start admin board threads just ain't right. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with topic ban, per above. Ikip (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand this concern but remain of the opinion that the line presently being taken with Drawn Some is too strong, too early. There is a behaviour pattern to address, but I do think there are better ways to deal with a good-faith editor than this. For example, one might propose a mentorship arrangement, or simply take the matter to his talk page.

  I do agree that RAN, who is a good-faith editor too, should be able to edit without being wikistalked and I understand the Article Rescue Squadron's desire to protect him, but I think a topic-ban would be punitive rather than preventative at this stage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your concerns and wrestled with them when posting this. My view is that we shouldn't topic ban him now but should he keep this up the face of what is very obviously strong disapproval, we should topic ban him. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That is how I read Protonk's comments: Protonk is just warning Drawn now. Ikip (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I realise that. I'm merely advocating a lighter touch in this matter in future, because I think the line presently being taken is a bit stronger than strictly necessary. Drawn Some's quite bright, and I think he'll get the message loud and clear without any further drama.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I too support Protonk's position on this. My concern is that, notwithstanding S Marshall's hopes, as yet I see no sign at all that Drawn Some has understood that his actions are beyond the pale. I fear we may be back here again soon. Ben MacDui 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

another opinion - Drawnsome has repeatedly deleted without discussion all across Wikipedia. He/she really gets on my case about a valid potential COI on the only subjects i am interested in (Majora Carter/South Bronx), but always goes way over-board (obsessive), is really self-righteous about it (mean), and can't seem to collaborate, just fight to the point of scouring WP for the purpose of diminishing references to Majora Carter that I had nothing to do with. People usually get "Drawsome fatigue" and leave articles behind - for which they suffer. It's not a creative or productive relationship for readers, writers, or editors. --believe me (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – blocked for ∞ - 2 days per WP:NLT by User:Jake Wartenberg. Tim Song (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In the following unsourced, uncited edit to the Henry Ndifor Abi Enonchong article, User:Abanie29(talk)(contribs) threatened "ANY PERSON HOW EDITS THIS PAGE WITH FALSE INFORMATION WILL BE HELD LIABLE FOR DEFAMATION AND LIEBEL". I reverted the edit, and given the legal threat thought I should post it here. For background, the article was created by a single purpose account with no citations or references, and edited by an anon ip. I came across the article later and rather then put it up for wp:afd, I rewrote it using all online references I could find. It was then overwritten by another single purpose. I reverted those edits.--Work permit (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Block and CheckUser Abanie29--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is that-a-way. MuZemike 01:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

All right captain! Let's go!--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should give a break to editors who just learned English yesterday, by reducing the lengths of their indefinite blocks by a day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

...and infinity minus two would be what? ;) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That just means they get the last two days before the heat death of the universe to edit. --Jayron32 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. You're onto it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Somehow, I don't think that they will be still be around two days before the Heat death of the universe...--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 11:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that some form of Darwinin belief?? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the writing style and similar promotional interest in that guy, it's a good bet that Tracey29 [19] (another one-shot editor, who created the article) is the same as the guy we just blocked. Admin discretion as to whether to block that user also. But he only made the one edit under that user ID. Possibly likewise with user Dbtmamfe, who flooded the article with minutia, and soon after being reverted is when the legal threat popped up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation bot

Would an administrator stop Citation bot[20] until its operator is once more monitoring it? There is an iassue about ISSN's being discussed now, at Template talk:cite journal[21], and I've asked BAG members and other Bot owners to look into the number of bugs the bot has recently and the apparently low response and resolution rate by its owner. I've notified the Bot owner of the request at Bot owners noticeboard[22][23] and will post a link to this also.

At this point, the operator needs to respond to and deal with the bugs, which he does not appear to be doing on a regular and routine basis, and BAG is not responding to my notice, and another user is also concerned that the bot is running and performing a task that is being discussed right now, without any action by its owner to stop the bot and gain community consensus for the task. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you post diffs of obvious errors made by this bot that would warrant immediate administrative intervention? Just having bugs does not warrant a block - every computer program has bugs.  Sandstein  06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly immediate, either my request, or the response, and what I said is what I said, supported by the diffs provided. The bot is running, currently unattended by its operator, who is not dealing with the existing bugs. An editor pointed out that the bot is adding ISSNs when it should not be (up to debate), this being discussed at the link I provided. Meanwhile, the bot operator is unresponsive. This is a bot operator who had a bot running without his knowledge before, and, really, there's no harm in stopping a bot for a time, when the operator is not paying attention to its bugs, not responding to user concerns. In fact, this operator became an administrator for the sole purpose, according to his RFA, of being able to restart his bots at his convenience, so there's also no inconvenience to him to stopping it while he's unresponsive, as he can, and will simply restart it. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We (or I, at any rate) will not block bots unless we have diffs showing that the bot is doing obvious damage, or unless there is consensus that the bot is doing something that it should not.  Sandstein  08:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That is what is now being discussed, whether or not the bot should be doing what it is doing. This operator has had prior problems with bots, running them without approval, running them while issues were being discussed. I personally worked very hard to clean up over 5000 bad articles created by this operator's AnyBot. I think erring a bit on the side of caution when it comes to irresponsible operators and a board full of ignored, unrepaired bugs, and questions about whether the bot should be doing something in the first place.

And, as the bot operator's tendency is to do whatever he wants regardless of consensus, that leaves others out of the loop of deciding consensus. In fact, if you work on that theory, that the consensus is for not doing something, then you are authorizing a bot to do unauthorized work. Whatever. You can't be bothered to read my original note, and I can't be bothered to discuss your side arguments. Why don't you clean up the last few hundred anybot articles remaining? Others did the first 6000, created under the "if there isn't consensus to not do it" theory of creating crap. --69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: admin clearly unwilling to look at anything posted, when vague reasons for not looking can be supplied.-69.225.12.99 (talk) 08:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this and feel I should add a little explanation because of the history (another bot by the same author resulted in a decision to delete around 5000 articles created by the bot). It's quite likely that the IP reporting the current issue is the user who was previously thanked by many people for assistance in relation to the previous disaster.

A quick look makes me believe that there are no knock-out examples of bugs with Citation bot, but there is an ongoing debate about some of the edits it is making, with several editors expressing a view that certain changes should not occur (while others like the changes). It should be noted that Citation bot is agreed to be extremely useful in general; I think the issue is that some recent additions to what it does are disputed, and that the bot owner is not available to react.

In this comment, Eubulides says "Citation bot has been running for several days now, with no apparent oversight, and has added a lot of ISSNs and months that many editors oppose. Who's going to undo all this mess?" (I will notify Eubulides of this discussion). I don't know if the bot has bursts of activity, but at the moment it is not editing often, so waiting another 24 hours would appear to not be a particular problem. However, if no one speaks up in favor of leaving the bot running soon, I think stopping it pending discussion would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Recent problems with the Citation bot below. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent problems with the Citation bot

Recently the Citation bot has been having several problems, in two categories. First, editors have different preferences about citation formatting, and the bot is supposed to make changes only when there's a reasonable consensus that these changes are improvements, but recently two changes to the bot were installed without that consensus, and the bot has been running for several days now and has installed what must be hundreds of changes without the consensus. Second, there seem to be bugs (not just preference-disputes) which aren't getting fixed. The changes I've noted recently are:

Adding ISSNs

There have been multiple independent complaints that the bot is adding ISSNs against editorial preference (e.g., my complaint, Headbomb's). The bot operator Smith609 (talk · contribs) replied that he thought there was consensus for it, pointed me to a May discussion that he thought established that consensus, and invited me to restart the discussion. I read the May discussion: it never mentions the idea of the bot automatically adding ISSNs (what it does, is reject the idea of automatically removing them, which is a different matter). I restarted the discussion, and if you look at the resulting thread you'll see that adding ISSNs is highly controversial, with no consensus that the citation bot should be adding them. In controversial areas like this the Citation bot should leave things alone.

Adding months to dates

Again there are again multiple complaints (mine, Headbomb's). When I asked earlier this year that the month not be added (in response to an earlier problem like this), the bot operator replied that the problem was fixed. This time, however, the operator merely replied "Is there a guideline for when a month is appropriate?" with an edit summary "Month is sometimes (always?) useful" and has not followed up to my response of four days ago. This isn't a good enough response to reports of a malfunctioning bot, and indicates a worrisome desire to have the bot add material despite a clear lack of consensus to add it.

Messing with author format

I reported the problem six days ago, the bot operator quickly replied that he patched the bug but said he might undo the patch when he completes a module, I quickly responded that that the bug is not fixed and gave an example, with no response yet from the bot operator. As far as I know the bot is still chugging away installing these changes (I've disabled it for some articles I help maintain, so they're immune for now). In this case, there does not seem to be any dispute that it's a bug in the bot.

Adding unwanted URLs to wrong places

This was reported a couple of days ago by Literaturegeek. It's a serious error and apparently has been going on for some time. No response yet.

Given all these problems, about 30 hours ago I raised the possibility of shutting off the bot for now. No response yet from the bot operator, who has not edited Wikipedia for four days. Given all the above, the bot should be shut off for now, and I'm afraid its changes over the past few days may need to be undone (a task that's beyond me). The bot is very useful when it's working, don't get me wrong! But it's not working now. Eubulides (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To add something, the bot only runs on manual mode. I don't know if it's appropriate to block that bot, given it's not going to do anything unless triggered by meat with eyes. I know I still find the bot useful given all it's current flaws. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, why does User:Citation bot #User interaction have a huge red Emergency shutoff button saying "Administrators: Use this button if the bot is malfunctioning."? Surely that button was put there just for the purpose we're discussing now. (Or are you saying that that big red button does nothing if an administrator presses it, and it's placed there only to give us a warm and fuzzy feeling? :-) Even if the bot is run purely manually (whatever that means), surely we shouldn't be encouraging users to run it if it's malfunctioning sufficiently badly. Eubulides (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To stop it for when it's in fully automated mode. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's odd. If you look at Special:Contributions/Citation bot, the behavior isn't consistent with a human-triggered bot. It's creating lots of pages, such as Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.pcl.2007.01.008; it's never created pages for me when I triggered it by hand. And its most recent edit to an article, which was soon (rightly) reverted by Materialscientist with the edit summary "useless", doesn't have the feel of a user-triggered bot; instead, it has the feel of an editor who's reverting a bot gone haywire. (Previous comment struck because perhaps Materialscientist tried to use the alt bot.) And anyway, even if this stuff is really human-triggered, that still raises the question: why are we encouraging the use of a bot that has serious bugs right now?
• Let's put it another way. The last time someone reported the bot malfunctioning here, it was with a simple report "Citation bot is incorrectly formatting authors, and User:Smith609, the operator, does not appear to be online." (something that sounds very much like the current situation). Then, the bot was blocked right away. That seems like the right thing to do. What's different this time?

Eubulides (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

These templates are the results of {{cite doi}}, you probably are using {{cite journal}} and {{cite books}}. As for what's different, I don't know. I'm not saying the bot shouldn't be blocked, I don't know what's standard procedures with a case like this. I'm just giving context and explanations of what is actually going on. I'll let an admin with bot-related experience decide wheter or not this warrants a block. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been away for a few days, hence my absence. The bot is currently only editing mainspace pages when requested to do so by a user. The user who activates the bot is expected to check the output of the bot. Regarding Cite Doi subpages, the bot is correcting systemic bugs introduced under earlier revisions of its code; on the whole its improvement rate should be better than its bug rate, and as I have time to develop the code its success rate will improve further, with existing bugs being corrected.

If you are willing to discuss actions that need to cease immediately, I can either stop said action occurring until I have time to fix it, or disable entirely the script that is making that class of edit. Without concrete examples, it is impossible for me to know which scripts need disabling and (when I have time) fixing, and which can continue to operate in safety.

Hope that helps; I may have a couple of free hours over the next day or two, and a message on my talk page is the best way to get my attention. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bf20204 Personal Attacks after blocking And new editor account for block evasion?

Bf20204 (talk · contribs) Ba20204 (talk · contribs)

Hi all - after a 72 hour blocking for outing, BF20204 has returned with some pointed personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and other interesting points here here and here. Also, he has done some similar edits to an archived discussion from this page here here and a couple of other times. For the record, he used personal knowledge of who I am rather than an internet search - I figured out his identity on my own and he is a former co-worker who saw where I have edited from (countries) to figure out who I am. Does a neutral party want to take a look and see if he has crossed the line again? Bevinbell 14:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice that my links were not working - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Foreign_Service&oldid=313348292 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AUnited_States_Foreign_Service&diff=313350537&oldid=313348432 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive562&oldid=312964573 and related editing by the editor after his ban. Bevinbell 14:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I just noticed he has a new account - Ba20204 but signing with his old user name! Is this block evasion/sock puppet/or weird new user account creation? Bevinbell 14:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's notable to look at the Special:Contributions/Ba20204 as he was actually editing the archives, and admits to having created a new account "First, this is Bf20204. I did not create another account to circumvent the system. I created an account to respond to the accusations leveled against me." I have left the archives untouched so y'all can see (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edits to the archive, lest it go stale and undo become impossible. I wonder if it would be possible to set up an edit filter to prevent that sort of thing? Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the two accounts are the same person - as admitted by them.

• They received a 72hr block on Sept 8 (User:Bf20204)
• They created a new account on the 10th (inside the block time) and editing the archived ANI discussion (User:Ba20204)
• On the 12 (outside of the 3 day block) they used the new account to continue the same negative activities
• As of today, they're back on the original account, although they appear to have "given up the fight"

So, we have Block Evasion and further disruption, but it may have stopped. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi - well, he has professed that he is moving on, but he has done some unfortunate things. I left a response on the article talk page as I did not want his comments just hanging there for folks not privy to the history. Given the discussion on ANI over his ban for outing, there was a call for an indef ban (which I do not think is warranted) based upon his OR and POV edits and outing attempt. I hope an admin would take his block evasion and new account creation seriously (I don't know what to think about editing an archived ANI discussion) as well as his picking up the negative activities again - whats the point of blocks if they are evaded? Maybe some additional ban and/or warning on multiple account editing and block evasion? Thanks Bevinbell 14:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Esnupi

Resolved

 – Junk articles mass-deleted and editor blocked 48 h by PMDrive1061.

Esnupi (talk · contribs)

Yet another strange case, I fear. This is an instance of an apparenly well-meaning individual with a limited grasp of English who is posting machine translated Brazilian place substubs en masse from what I assume is the Brazilian Wikipedia. Some of these appear to be from other sources as well. He's finally stopped after a few requests from other users, but the fact remains that we have in excess of one hundred nearly incomprehensible and/or subminiature stubs. I'm about to invoke WP:BOLD and use the mass delete to just blow these out, but I wanted to get some opinions first. My opinion is they should go; they look awful, they took no effort to create and aren't even suitable for a starting place on a proper article. Any suggestions? Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd go with that. I've taken a look, they are dreadful and unless someone wants to wipe the text and replace it with real English, go for mass delete. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Actually it's the Portuguese Wikipedia. (We divide by language of article prose.) And yes, for one case, São Sebastião (satellite city) is definitely a machine translation of pt:São Sebastião (Distrito Federal) — even down to the retention of the Portuguese abbreviations such as "DF" and the spurious HTML that caused ==History== to not parse as a heading (which I've just corrected). Uncle G (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• FYI - He is starting to create articles again, an article about every 3 minutes. Clubmarx (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest ones are essentially just massive walls of text. There may be something coherent in there, but I'm not diving in to find it. Also, unless I'm reading it wrong this seems to be a personal attack. HalfShadow 17:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor must be blocked until they acknowledge the problem, and all edits deleted, unless someone wants to take the time to fix those messes. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The articles could be worthwhile if we turn them into basic stubs, "<Name of town> is a town/city in the state of <name of state>, Brazil", with the geographic stub tags. I'm willing to do a few dozen of them. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nicer if we could just get him to at least stop or at the very least format his text. He has to understand that every time he tosses one of those...things...up, someone has to clean it up. HalfShadow 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice. But how could he learn this on the English WP site when his responses have been barely understandable? He should be blocked. Clubmarx (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

er? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a Brazilian editor and I saw the notice of this issue at WP:BR's talk page. I was taking a look at his talk page, and I could deduce "go to be fuck" was a machine translation of "vai se fuder", which means "fuck you". In other words, that was a personal attack. Also, with "of the one tesao to type these archives", I believe he meant "I'm having a real good time typing these articles", in a quite bad faith sense. Would you guys like me to try a friendly Portuguese language approach? Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 00:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you, Victão. I just looked at some of his latest "creations" and they are even more incomprehensible than ever. That machine-translated "fuck you" is going to earn him a timeout and I'll go ahead and do a mass delete right now. These are just getting out of hand. Thanks to all of you for the advice. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this approach.  Sandstein  04:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No objections. I cleaned up somewhat one of the early posts (which I now took the liberty to restore) but it it didn't help to set a good example rather to the contrary.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Article Ezekiel Emanuel

I am not sure if the is the right spot, but I didn't see anywhere else to post it. The primary editor of this page had been (probably still is) doing a large amount of original research and synthesis of material. Some of this I have removed, but it appears that he primary solution is to include huge sections of blockquoting that appear that they may violate copyright issues. I don't know the explicit rules regarding taking lage quotes from articles so I thought I would get an answer here. Arzel (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to link the editor to the relevant guidelines/policies instead of just 'giving up' so easily.--Otterathome (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to deal with this editor, and I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a false statement on the copyvio. Arzel (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Request block for 74.93.128.121

Resolved

 – School IP blocked for 3 months, report should've been at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.--Otterathome (talk) 01:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User talk:74.93.128.121 was given a last warning 4 May 2009 (UTC), but has continued to vandalize, as shown by the recent edit at Irresistible grace.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mario, but our Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow 20:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Halfshadow, but Luigi has come to rescue her this time.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to report vandals. I have moved this request to WP:AIV. Intelligentsium 20:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a school IP. Block. End of story.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 20:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It should have been reported to AIV, chummer; that's what HalfShadow and Intelligentsium are getting at. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 21:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never reported anything like this before. Thanks.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 88.233.4.217

This user insists on adding Turkish alphabet to irrelevant pages (like cities of Ukraine, Greece, Iran, Macedonia,...) and deleting referenced to Kurds in Kurdish-related articles. In recent days, it has done the same thing by using other IPs (including 88.233.168.53 and 88.233.68.134), so, semi-protection of those pages might be a good idea [24]. Alefbe (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody there? Check also recent edits by user:88.233.1.84. Alefbe (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest placing a warning on the page of the most recent editor; I don't see any warnings to date. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sambokim Link spamming, again

see previous here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive555#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_etc
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#User:Sambokim_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again._Suggesting_topic_ban_and_block
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Sambokim.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_COI.2C_repeated_copyvios.2C_yet_again.

Sambokim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) The editor has twice been blocked for repeated insertion of copyvios. He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate, and keeps making edits over and over until blocked. His job for the hockey team is english promotion and scouting. Anytime an NHL.com article mentions the ALH or his team he makes sure to run to all the articles and add it as a source,even though there has been no content taken from it. He also edits as an IP, 220.88.45.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Its a long term IP and often redoes some of his undone edits, or does them first, then he redoes them with his user account. Once again an NHL article was about the ALH and he ran through several articles as his IP and put them in. I undid it, and he came back with his user account to not only put that back in as a reference, but to go to a few other pages and do his normal link spam. This player for example is a new acquisition by his team this year [25]. He indiscriminately just fires links onto the article without considering if they have any place. For example, the last link in that bunch doesn't even talk about the player, it is an old article about the team, he likes to try and add it to every single page he can to help promote the team. This user has a clear conflict of interest and through two blocks he still won't communicate and just continues to be disruptive with his editing and tries to use wikipedia for promotion--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be the conduct for which he was previously blocked (creating copyvios). What he's doing now is inserting an external link, http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=497976, which may indeed be inappropriate per WP:EL, into several hockey player articles. Have you tried discussing this particular issue with him?  Sandstein  03:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"He's also been told before not to insert links over and over. The problem is the editor doesn't communicate,..." It seems he has tried discussing. There are a few of these accounts rolling around lately, inserting spam links, creating copy and paste copyvio articles, ignoring all attempts to communicate. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Several attempts have been made to communicate with him. Several sections have been started on talk pages, edit summaries have been used. The user wasn't blocked for linking spamming, but he's been linking spamming for at least a year. Its been reverted so many times. The user is Samuel H. Kim. He was blocked for inserting copyvios, but the reason he was inserting the copyvios was promotional in nature, the same as what he's using these links for. Here you can see as far back as last december he was trying to randomly insert links into the article [26] He does make some helpful edits, like updating the roster, but the majority of the rest of his contributions generally consist of link spam and copyvios. He's being paid to promote the team and he can't seem to help himself. In july his edits to the ALH article itself were solely to promote Halla and then insert a few random sites into the references section [27], sources which were written 2-3 years prior to any of the events he detailed in the article body. I'm also going to privately e-mail you the same e-mail exchange I sent to another administrator. I also had brought up the link spamming in the first complaint. He ended up blocked for copyvios but the linkspamming has been known about since then.--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though the e-mail seems to have no particular relevance to his conduct here. I don't believe admin action is required at this time - his contributions do not seem to be very useful, consisting mainly of adding links and copyvios, but the latter occurred some months ago. I recommend giving him a warning about not adding useless links to articles, since per his talk page nobody seems to have talked to him yet about that aspect of our editing practices.  Sandstein  18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevance of the e-mail is to show his level of communication ability, which is relevant since he never responds to anything on here. As you can see from the e-mail he completely misinterpreted something very simple which shows that he has a big problem communicating in English. The latter also occurred 1 month ago, not "some months ago". His block hadn't even finished a month ago when he was link spamming. Per his talk page, he was given several warnings about copyvios, AN/I threads were started, and he neither responded nor changed his behaviour until blocked. Even that didn't change his behaviour as he had to be blocked twice.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Please block 124.253.115.133

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, IP was not warned correct number of times, user advised.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

See their user acct. Its only two edits took huge chunks out of memory hierarchy. I'm reverting them. CpiralCpiral 04:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's the use if those are its only two edits at the mo? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This request doesn't make sense - why hasn't this anon been warned like any other account that does the same thing? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's takes four warnings, and then the vandal has to vandalize again. Besides, this should have been at AIV, not here.Abce2|This isnot a test 05:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I put a welcome template on the IP (maybe a waste but hey), and one warning template for removal of content.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Can someone place a "resolved" tag?Abce2|This isnot a test 06:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Kay!CpiralCpiral 19:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker

Resolved

Inurhead has continued a months long edit warring and incivility at The Hurt Locker, continuously reverting all edits to the article to his preferred version, sometimes bit a time, sometimes wholescale. He has displayed extreme bias regarding the film, attacking anything he perceives as negative about it. Attempts at discussions have filled the talk page and clearly show that consensus is against him, but he ignores it and continues his disruptive edits and accuses anyone who comes to the discussion as being either a meat puppet, a sockpuppet, or a canvassed votes when the harassed editors trying to work on the articles came to the Films project (per dispute resolution) for additional views.

He has already been left numerous warnings, and been reported to 3RR twice and to ANI twice. First ANI, in July, [28] he got a warning. First 3RR happened August 6th and he was again warned.[29] Next 3RR, August 14th, resulted in his being blocked 31 hours.[30] Soon as he was unblocked, he continued. At this point, the situation had escalated from a disagreement between 3 to Inurhead ignoring the comments, suggestions, warnings, and actions of half a dozen editors or more. I myself reported him here August 16th[31] and he was blocked 72 hours. Block expired, he went right back to the same stuff all over again.

Administrative review and help seriously needed. His actions continue to hamper the legitimate improvement work being done by some 5-6 editors. I have left notices at the talk pages of who I believe to be the major editors involved in the conflict informing them of this discussion, in addition to Inurhead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, the problem edits go back to mid-2008, when Inurhead first began editing articles such as Hurt Locker and related pages such as Jeremy Renner. The edits reflect a pattern of non-encyclopedic rewrites to focus on only positive comments; a lack of willingness to collaborate when consensus turns against his preferred version; and a tendency to use personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him. I've spent the better part of a year having to watchlist the Hurt Locker article to keep abreast of the frequent changes; now that regulars from Wikiproject Film are involved there, Inurhead has expanding his pattern of attack to include unfounded criticisms of some of the most established contributors from that project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. There is a gang of hostile editors that have recently taken ownership of the page and have tag teamed to revert every one of my contributions and/or changes. I made a suggested change tonight by one of them and yet I'm still being attacked by the above hostile editor. They have tried to lure me into 3RR several times by tag team reverting my contributions. Tonight I did not fall for their trap. Collectonian above, lists several times that I have been "warned". But there were only two times. She or he makes it sound like it was more. Again, this is being warned by contributors who were obviously canvassed to come and edit war and revert things I had contributed. I ask that User:Collectonian and User:Ckatz and User:Erik and SoSaysChappy be blocked for tag teaming and trying to islolate and attack this contributor, in an attempt to try to provoke, harass, hound and irritate me, with the goal of discouraging my contributions and/or trying to block me permanently. This is totally unacceptible, as I am a good contributor to Wikipedia, not a vandal. Strict scrutiny must always be applied when blocking people and it hasn't been, in my case. Again, I am not a vandal and was contributing to this page long before this group of hostile minority-majority editors came and overtook the page. Wikipedia is not an "elitist" club for hostile demi-administrators and bureaucrats. Every person should feel welcome to contribute without being isolated, attacked and having all of their contributions constantly deleted. Inurhead (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every person should feel welcome to contribute, but equally, if they edit articles in the way that you're doing (removing criticism and starting the reception section with "The Hurt Locker has been very universally acclaimed among critics", copying and pasting, moving the plot into the lede section, and using unreliable sources), then they should not be surprised if their edits are reversed. You are not being tag-teamed; your edits are being reverted because they are wrong. If you keep disrupting the article, then it is only going to lead to another block or a topic ban. I'd strongly suggest discussing all your changes on the talkpage before making them. Black Kite 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that it would be fair to block Collectonian for making false reports and for mischaracterizing the situation. I did not commit 3RR tonight and Collectonian is clearly trying to make it look like I did, when I didn't. He or she did not cite any disruptions from the past 24 hours and the ones he or she does cite are weeks old, and were again, when I was tricked into 3RR by their tag teaming. Mischaracterizing an editor as having made "bad faith" edits and making threats and false reports is disruptive to Wikipedia and must be punished. The minority-majority group which have taken ownership of The Hurt Locker page has been attempting to use policy to "muddy" the water and to get their way. Collectonian has used policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that this editor is editing in bad faith. Again, strict scrutiny must be used when "whipping" editors with warnings and blocking them. This should be reserved to prevent vandalism, not to prevent good contributions! Misrepresenting these events and being hostile to editors to isolate them is harmful to the Wikipedia environment in that it chases good contributors away. If you want to keep chasing people away, then by all means listen to the "Collectonians". Collectonian is the one that is at war. Her comrades, Erik and his cohorts use pettifogging and wikilawyering to try to drive contributors away. Believe me, any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times. None of my contributions to articles has been vandalism. All of it has been factual and backed up by sources and by what I understood was Wiki policy. They seem to be inventing new policy and policies-within-policies-within-policies to try to thwart new users from contributing and/or so that they can control every film article. It's insanity. Truly. Thanks. - Inurhead (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. Seriously, think about it - if "any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times" - and by a number of different editors - could it possibly be that it's your edits that are the problem? Black Kite 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've reported on here before that I was being hounded and/or wikistalked by one of them who has admitted as much on the talk page of the article. He's the one who solicted them to attack and isolate me. By the way, I didn't "invent" that the film was "universally acclaimed." It is. Check Metacritic. Check Rotten Tomatoes. It is not "wrong" to state a fact. Facts are stubborn things. All laboriously documented. And the moving of a synopsis into the LEAD section was suggested by one of them! I was merely doing what had already been suggested, which several of them agreed about. Yet, that sends Collectonian into a tailspin! Go figure. They were just looking for another excuse to revert everything I did tonight. And you are letting them get away with it. What they are doing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. They are also doing it to try to distract me away from the article, to waste my time responding to these false attacks. THAT is also against Wiki etiquette. - Inurhead (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things to report from my personal experiences with this editor...

• Says that I more or less don't deserve to make contributions to the article because my first edit to the article was only a month ago. Was also referred to as "SoSaysCrabby" (ho ho). [32].
• Borderline personal attack: Accused me of being a member of the film's production crew when there is zero evidence of any such conflict of interest.
• Since incivility seems to be a concern here...Calls my edits "boring" (I'm not trying to write the next great spy novel).
• Individually and collectively accused of being a sock puppet (apparently, my creating this User ID in April of 2008 is somehow strong evidence of this, and from what I can tell this user has a chronic habit of hounding users with puppetry accusations without going through the proper channels at WP:SPI.
• Simple childish engagement of mind games: Here is my my message to him about why I reverted to a 600-word (within guideline word limits) from his edit which expanded it to over 1100 words. He promptly deleted the post. Lo and behold, a few days later, he leaves this post explaining why the 600-word summary should be reverted to on his original one-paragraph pre-release synopsis. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inurhead, have you heard of WP:AGF? You seem to be thinking that anyone saying a word against your edits are involved in an evil plot to remove your contributions. From your comments above, I'm afraid you seem to have taken ownership of the article, and your comments at the article's talk page further strengthen that impression:

• you tell several editors not to revert because they are new to the article
• you say you're going to revert because they made a change when you told them not to
• you tell an editor to go work on some other article when he tries to make a change, and restores to your preferred version
• you dismissed an explanation for an edit saying "too much explaining for what is obviously a revert". I don't see how you can say that when you simply revert others' edits without any discussion at all.

The former 3 are somewhat old, and the 4th is very recent. There are plently of similar edits in between in the edit history if anyone is interested. And just today:

• you removed several comments made by other editors. For what reason, I cannot understand.

As Black Kite said, it looks to me that your editing is creating the problem here. Please discuss on the article talk page (and I mean discuss, not fighting to preserve your version) so that a you people can come up with a balanced version that is agreeable to everyone. If you continue like this, you're practically asking to be blocked and this time it's likely to be indef. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite the problems, Inurhead started a couple of reasonable discussions at Talk:The Hurt Locker, to which I've responded. I think that when so much time is particularly devoted to one article, it's hard to move on. I personally diversify my editing so if for some reason I don't agree with consensus somewhere, I can move on. With the editor's contributions mainly on that one article, though, it is somewhat understandable to take offense at the editors that have swooped in. Still does not excuse the false accusations, which does not help for collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Inurhead also has repeated his personal attacks on my talk page, including the stuff noted above about wanting me blocked for bringing the issue up here again.[33] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To echo some of the thoughts expressed above, my opinion of Inurhead is mixed. Like everyone else, we've clashed with Inurhead on The Hurt Locker. When I first got involved, he was very much asserting ownership of the article. ANY changes other than his were reverted without discussion and often disparraging [34] or hostile [35] remarks. Even once you got him on a discussion page, it was less than pleasant to deal with Inurhead. He characterizes those that disagree with him as trolls and/or socks. As he's done with Collectonian, he's left less then pleasant messages on my talk page. Eventually, some others from the Film project (Erik, SoSaysChappy and others) got involved with the article. I do not like dealing with Inurhead and his hostility, so with others involved, I've stopped doing anything on the article. It wasn't worth the aggravation, and seemed that others had it under control.

The Hurt Locker has gone from reading like a Hollywood press-release to a pretty respectable article. Much of the informaation has come from Inurhead (nearly all of his edits are directly related to the film, cast or crew), but have needed significant work to shift from press-release to article. Once you can convince Inurhead to actually talk about things, and discuss them rather than attack, he seems to be tolerable to deal with. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchived as Inurhead appears to have just waited for this thread to archive, before once again starting back up with trying to revert The Hurt Locker to his preferred version, continuing to use false edit summaries while trying to remove any criticism of the film[36]. When he was reverted, he left his usual ranting message claiming no one has the "authority" to revert his edits and that he will "report" me for reverting his inappropriate changes that have no consensus[37] and claiming that no one else is disagreeing with him anymore (obviously false from above and the fact that its, oh, 3:30 am so unlikely most others are even awake). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for a week; this is their third block for the same thing. Clearly Inurhead has taken nothing of the above conversation in, not to mention the warnings on their talk page. Sadly, if editors are determined not to Get The Point^TM, then there's not a lot we can do except stop them from editing. No doubt an unblock request will be along shortly. Black Kite 08:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Being completely uninvolved in this, I decided to go look at the talk page, this really bad faith comment by Inurhead really sealed my opinion:

"That the above contributor went "wandering around" after-the-fact trolling for excuses to alter the release date, might show alterior motives. So the release date is going to be changed back to "2009" for those reasons."[38]

Ikip (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointy edits and/or trolling by User:虞海

Can someone examine the recent mainspace and talkpage edits by 虞海 (talk · contribs) which appear to be clueless, POV pushing or intentional trolling. Here is a summary of events:

1. user adds a false and POV disclaimer to India and Kashmir articles. (the disclaimer is false since the disputed territories are already properly marked in the maps)
2. When his edits are reverted by User:Sandeepsp4u, he explains to Sandeepsp4u that he made the edit because, "See what you did on Page Medog: Is this neutral??". Sandeepsp4u has never edited the page Mêdog County!
3. User 虞海 then readds the false disclaimer to India page, which I revert, with edit-summary, "revert false and pointy disclaimer". I also leave him a note on his talkpage. To this he replies, "I'll do what you did to me to others"
4. He then follows up by removing comments from some 20 odd Chinese/Tibet county pages, copying my edit summary (from point 3) "revert false and pointy disclaimer", which is not applicable to his edits. (sample links [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], ...)
5. User:Croquant questions 虞海 about one of the edits and edit summary (from point 4).
6. At this point 虞海 leaves a message on my talk page which copies verbatim parts of, (1) the message I left for him (point 3) and (2) Croquant's message to him (point 5)

I know this patently bizarre behavior may be hard to follow. Can anyone make sense of all this, and wave either the clue- or block-bat ? Abecedare (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like another case of Disruptive editing to me. Also, note that I've left a warning on his talk page for not assuming good faith for his edits on the article page of India and I'm now sifting through his contribution/edit history to see if he has made any other malicious edits or editing trend that's worth keeping an eye out for. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remember the three strike rule, I've just issued the second warning for his addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of Mongolia, now you guys just watch out for the third time he conducts another disruptive editing and report here immediately for the Admins to take the appropriate action. Also, you may report to WP:AIV if any of his subsequent edit(s) are/is deemed to be a vandalism edit, this will surely get himself BLOCKED faster than we can say anything here. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris

Once again, I'd like to draw attention to this problem. A problem that is NOT going away. Frankly, I'm frustrated at how long this persistent disruption is being ignored. This User has manged to make a joke out of every article or template he has gotten himself involved with. This user is NOT a contributor, all his activities on Wikipedia revolve around revert-warring and the many disputes he has started because of his extreme Croatian nationalist views. The User arrives at an article, and does not stop revert-warring and arguing until the other side finally gives-up - regardless of sources, regardless of any mediation efforts, and regardless of the amount of time necessary for him to wear down the guys that are trying to make him see sense. For example

• on Talk:Independent State of Croatia, I have presented university publications specifically supporting my edits. I have been prevented from including the information by User:Imbris. First he demanded the publication's primary source, when I pointed it out he simply raised the bar on evidence and so on.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs, the argument involving no less than four users (User:No such user, User:Hxseek, User:Ivan Štambuk, and myself) trying to prevent User:Imbris' and his edits (which he constantly revert-warred to push) had lasted for an incredible five continuous months. User:Imbris had simply kepts changing his argument in perpetuity until every single other User simply gave-up. I can't even remember how many times the article got protected because of this farce.
• on Talk:Hey, Slavs again, User:Dottydotdot had (heroically :) gotten involved in an effort to mediate the dispute. Having heard all the arguments she reached a decision that was not to User:Imbris' liking. She recommended this version as "the most neutral & least POV" [44]. User:Imbris simply decided to ignore the results and continue on his merry way with the edit-warring. The excuses, now that the result was against him, were that the mediation had taken "only seven days"(!?) and that "not every single step" had been taken before requesting mediation. :P
• Template:History of Croatia had been made into a husk by User:Imbris' edits. All my efforts to improve it and widen its scope were simply reverted, and I simply do not know what to do? Do I discuss? What's the point? The user's revert is ridiculous and obviously detrimental to the quality of the template, and yet there is no way he will ever budge on this issue.

This user is now revert-warring on no less than six articles and templates (Hey, Slavs, Maltese (dog), Independent State of Croatia, Socialist Republic of Croatia, Template:History of Croatia, and Template:Infobox SFRY). Discussion is utterly and completely pointless, since even if there were a way to present 1st class sources against User:Imbris, it wouldn't change a single thing. When User:Imbris joins in one might as well give-up.

As a "little girl that complains admins all the time", I'm calling again for repercussions against this sort of widespread disruption, or at least mediation that would end the ridiculous conflicts. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Imbris about this thread. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it me or am I getting the cold shoulder again? Its so nice Imbris has been notified, now he can see first hand how his reliance on admin disinterest in this problem is still working just fine. He's a clever one, just ignores all reports and they neatly go away... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

First of all, I must say that I detest the accusatory tone of my fellow Wikipedian User:DIREKTOR. (1) Opening lines – In his opening line he complains about a problem. What is the problem? Perhaps I am a problem?! For this alone Mr. DIREKTOR should be warned not to make such hidden commentaries about a fellow Wikipedian. Then he continues to bicker his personal view on my style of editing, complains about not alleged not enough contribution level, speaks about revert-warring and even makes ridiculous claims of extreme nationalist agenda. All of his personal views on my person are null and void, and should be taken in context. (2) I have contributed on the Coat of arms of the Republic of Macedonia, the Flag of Serbia, the Province of Ljubljana, ZAVNOH, AVNOJ, National Front of Yugoslavia, several Montenegrin articles, and in a number of fields where additional information was necessary. We all know how fixing false or unreferenced material can get difficult and very exhausting. Recently I have started a minor attempt at correcting some false information and stumbled upon a group of people that are not happy with my editing. (3) That group of people could be considered Yugoslav nationalist that consider former Yugoslavia as the best framework for the states that comprised it (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia (with Vojvodina), and Slovenia). They consider that naming the languages of Bosniaks, Croats, Montenegrins, and also Serbs is highest and extreme nationalist agenda, and that those nations should speak only Serbo-Croatian language. Maybe some of them really believe in such agendas, maybe some of them think that a new Yugoslavia in the fashion or formula with Albania, without Slovenia should resurrect, I cannot say with certainty. But I can say that some of them still believe in Yugoslavia, its agenda, its facts (and myths), they declare as Europeans and do not hold Communism or Socialism in high regard; but advocate that Yugoslavia was simply the best, which advocating places them in the logical error, where they simply must defend the entire socio-political system of Yugoslavia. DIREKTOR made several defamatory messages about me to User:Dottydotdot (I did not sneak anything), User:AniMate, and involves himself into every issue where he can make his input on my person.

• On the Independent State of Croatia article, the DIREKTOR retrieved a source that is highly biased by the fact that it was written by a Tito' supporter, who wrote at least two biographies of Tito and several other books on Yugoslav partisan guerrilla fighters, Battle of Neretva, etc. He was also an agent of the Intelligence community for the UK. I mention those facts as a contextualization attempt to show Mr. DIREKTOR the fallacies of his primary source. (a) The book by Maclean could not be considered as a primary source, he did not wrote the book as an autobiography, he did not write in the form of diary (with dates, names of persons, etc.), he did not portray the written paragraph (that I contested) as an eyewitness account, etc. (b) The contested paragraph clearly indicates that eyes were sent for inspection by the Poglavnik (Leader) with explicit remark that it was to be done cyclically, when enough were collected. (c) The Maclean book was issued in 1957, and the original oft-told story of dubious authenticity (which dubious was portrayed in the university publication as well) was published in a fiction novel Kaputt in 1946 (first edition in English language was in 1946, while the author himself wrote that he finished the novel by December 1943). (d) I have contested the Maclean story by three diff sources. (e) Maclean did form his negative opinion rightfully, but exaggerated rhetoric is a conjecture in direct link with the Kaputt : the novel written by Curzio Malaparte (Kurt Suckert, also known as Gianni Strozzi) (f) The Kaputt story is not only about the basket of eyes, but on the inspection of those alleged packets by the Leader, and for that matter regularly. (g) Something is not a 1st class source if it is taken out of context, if there are other reliable sources to contradict, and if the secondary source quotes from also a secondary source. To conclude: DIREKTOR will write everything as long as it supports his POV, despite the controversial, biased and defamatory "truths", he was involved in the DALMATIA DISPUTE that landed a 1 year restriction.
• On Hey, Slavs. DIREKTOR had canvassed Ivan Štambuk to the discussion on the anthem with the words settling this thing once and for all User:Dottydotdot started the informal mediation without 3O and without RfC. User:Rave92 was not called by the initiator of that mediation, nor by the mediator. The entire mediation failed because the initiator of the mediation did not portray all the issues, he limited himself to some issues but raised other within the process. User:Zocky agreed with User:No such user that there should be minimum number of lyrics in the article, also using some kind of reference able material, such as official sources, etc. Both DIREKTOR and Ivan Štambuk agreed to minimize the number of lyrics and then suddenly changed their perspective by forcing removal of the list of all Slavic languages (to make it less Pan-Slavic) while at the same time inserting Bosnian language version of lyrics and also Montenegrin language version of lyrics which cannot be sourced by a reliable source.
  • Users User:Rave92, User:Ex13, User:No such user and myself supported the inclusion of Croato-Serbian as an appellation (at least twice, in the article). User:Zocky considered the quarrel/discussion not important enough to join in it.
  • In this topic/issue it is impossible to find a solution because Ivan Štambuk falsely presented on his user page that he consider himself a native speaker of the Croatian language. He said that he believes only in the Croatian variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. The entire time Mr. DIREKTOR insisted in bringing the issue on the Talk:Serbo-Croatian language to include his trusted companion (who is sharing the belief system). I do not want the matter resolved on that talk page because of the minor dispute (dispute originated in the Mr. DIREKTOR's unwillingness to compromise) and because this would lead the supporters of the idea of there is only a Serbo-Croatian language.

• On the informal mediation by Dottydotdot
  • Dottydotdot did not recommend any version as the informal mediation had failed. Mr. DIREKTOR and Mr. Ivan Štambuk wouldn't allow the insertion of the term Croato-Serbian twice, which was supported by Rave92, No such user and me.
  • Because of the imprecise notion for the informal mediation, this was made out of procedure by Mr DIREKTOR; the users that discussed did not know precisely what languages are in plan for removal. It was during the discussion, crystallised that Mr DIREKTOR and Mr Ivan Štambuk wanted to delete Bosnian, Croatian, Montenegrin, and also Serbian lyrics (because of their shared POV), by this they would leave only Serbo-Croatian (without stating it is also Croato-Serbian).
  • Dottydotdot should advise Mr DIREKTOR to WP:DR in the order that it is ordained on that guideline. Dottydotdot should have read the discussions led previously, had the mediator read it thoroughly – the mediator would use the proper name of the Croatian language, and not call it differently. Dottydotdot should have insisted on sources, Dottydotdot did not insist on those, did not look at the sources I presented, etc.
  • No decision was made, it was informal. Dottydotdot did not call Rave92 to list his opinion, and he said his opinion at the discussion about the Montenegrin language being included.

• Template:History of Croatia: Was not made into husk. The issue is partially solved by the effort of User:Spellcast. DIREKTOR wanted his POV more visible by including articles that are specifically Yugoslav, and in the same time not yet specifically pertaining Croatian history. He was against a division of Modern History/Contemporary History. I support the latest editing by Spellcast, where he included the article Croatia in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
• Socialist Republic of Croatia: Where DIREKTOR insist on false information, consider self-proclaimed and not-internationally recognized (not recognized even by neighbouring countries) entities, successors of the Socialist Republic of Croatia, he insisted on Coat of arms of the Federal State of Croatia, which proved to be false, he listed data pertaining to certain happenings in Bosnia and Herzegovina with that article, etc, etc.

I have tried to show Mr DIREKTOR fallacy of his approach of POV-pushing without caring for reliable sources, referencing, gathering different views and contributing without the final judgements and final conclusions or finality of anything. Everything is and should be changeable with sources and with editing for the benefit of the reader (not the fraction of writers). I cannot say that edit-warring is a solution, or that it would ever be one.

I have successfully edited the Maltese (dog) article with User:Mangojuice and also several Olympics related articles with User:Andrwsc, so the remarks that DIREKTOR makes are purely ideological, he simply cannot understand that someone can cherish the good stuff about ZAVNOH, and in the same time do not support his theories of illegality of certain historical entities (+ the defamation campaign on everything pertaining to that entities).

• The Template:Infobox SFRY issue is all about Mr DIREKTOR's POV, whereby a nominally socialist state, which implores certain aspects of free trade, and for that matter capitalism should be only regarded by its up to 1948/1950 legal system. Mr DIREKTOR will not stop at WP:OR, he would do anything to further his view, quote sources which are opposed, use schemes to entrapment, accuse everyone and anything of nationalism, accuse of stalking, drop out of discussions, gather support by canvassing, etc.

As for the "little girl" remark; that remark was a joke and is followed by a smiley (+ not aimed at Mr. DIREKTOR personally or directly). I was subjected to a whole range of ridiculing by Mr. DIREKTOR, who spoke about me questioning a Serbian zombie without eyes (plucked out by Ustaše. Mr. DIREKTOR usually starts any comment he makes by "LoL" or similar gesture of bad faith. He ridicules any opinion other than his own; it is very difficult to stay "professional" when subjected to such behaviour, etc.

As for the conclusion of all of the above, there is no mediation necessary, not if WP:DR rules are met, no singular administrator should enforce a solution. Mr DIREKTOR is very hopeful that some users inclined positive towards his attitudes would be placed in the mediators position and judge once for all (as he very often knows to say), by joining ranks, choosing sides, and similar, all this instead of reliable sources (and much of them), without the proper referencing and with as much as pushing his blatant POV around.

The normal editor, who wish to quote reliable sources, as many of them necessary to solve issues, like the issue on Maltese (dog), should not be subjected to such harassment, defamation, and false accusations as it has been done in this case. DIREKTOR is just mad because someone else is playing in his turf (figuratively speaking, naturally). In all of those articles I have edited before Mr DIREKTOR and I get discussing.

All of this started at Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta, I mean not for me, but for Mr DIREKTOR.

Imbris (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I'm glad to see something is being done about this individual. Less sophistic nonsense, more real editors! Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What a post! Perhaps a bit more detail would've helped? :) WP:TLDR, and rather confusing as well. Moving on...

Unfortunately, Notpietru, little is being done as yet. Do not assume that the length of this MASSIVE post is indicative of a response to the widespread disruption you, I, and about five other users have been forced to deal with as best we can. :( --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really prepared to get involved in this mess; just voicing an opinion. Hopefully things will be suitably resolved soon. Ελληνικά όρος ή φράση (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) — hard-core PoV-pushing anon

Resolved

 – Blocked by Gamaliel.

See Special:Contributions/71.241.218.107. See also the extreme incivility at User talk:71.241.218.107. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 11:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...a quick look at said talkpage had me lose count of the fuck, fucking, and fuck you's on that page. User knows one synonym, though: shit Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 12:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

......actually, there are only seven "fuck"s and one "shit". Tim Song (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you people doing counting expletives? Don't you have any better shit to do? Narrow minded horror at "naughty words" aside, what is the general feel for his article edits, are the POV pushing, or is this a content dispute masquerading as a policy issue? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a little from column A (content dispute), a little from column B. Shitty behaviour, for sure, but does it deserve scrutiny here? Fuck, no. Seriously, I'd suggest forwarding this to WP:WQA. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to infer bad faith, could you at least provide some evidence of where I've been struggling with 71.241.218.107 over content? —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for the deadly (but small) dog, but for my part I didn't see you as necessarily being in a content dispute - I saw 71.241.218.107 as being in multiple content disputes (and responding to some by denouncing other editors as "neo-nazis" - hence my belief that civility is an issue). Hope that clarifies, and I'll leave it to KC to clarify further if they, in fact, believe that 12.72.73.42 is also involved. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He or she isn't simply in content disputes, but is pushing articles in a particular direction, in defiance of established consensus. For example, there is repeated conflict over what to call the award that the Bank of Sweden added to the Nobels, but established consensus has been that it's to be called “the Nobel [Memorial] Prize in Economics”. User:71.241.218.107|71.241.218.107 has participated in discussion at “Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences”, so he's aware of where practice stands. But, after that participation, he or she has repeatedly edited articles to name the Prize as he wishes, and in some or all cases is now edit-warring about it.

There's plainly no masquerade here, even if one somehow doesn't agree with my assessment. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, but the point still stands that this isn't an WP:ANI matter. If they're edit warring, take it to WP:AN3 - which is the appropriate forum for reporting edit warring. I'd also suggest that this is pertinent to WP:WQA, too.

(Incidentally, it's always helpful to provide WP:DIFFs demonstrating actionable behaviour - I based my assessment on the user's talk page, and a quick scan through their edits. I'd have been able to steer you towards WP:AN3 earlier if you'd been more specific, and provided diffs, earlier. In the absence of specific things to look at ANI reports often degenerate into chit-chat about counting expletives ;-) )

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the appropriate set of diffs to determine whether he or she is (as I say) engaging in hard-core PoV-pushing would essentially be all of the edits in his or her edit history. as to taking the matter eslewhere, het, I feel that I've done my part as it is. If admins won't act, that's not on my head. And (sincerely) you have a good day. —12.72.73.42 (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea whether or not admins will act - but I reckon there's more chance they'll react if you alert the relevant forum. The admins who hang out at WP:AN3 tend to be more familiar with edit warring, just as the admins who hang out at WP:WQA tend to be more familiar with civility, and the admins who hang out here tend to be more familiar with incidents. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What's an "incident" and when did AN/I become "administrative notice board for instructing editors to take it to another notice board"? The editor is clearly out to lunch on both content and behavior. I first noticed this odd piece of vandalism[45] and this battleground approach.[46] Pigeonholing specific behavioral outbursts as vandalism, incivility, edit warring, etc., is just a labeling exercise and does not clarify anything here. This is a slightly unusual case, a static IP editor promoting what looks to be an extreme anti-capitalist beliefs,[47][48][49] and a genre-hopping range of vituperative reactions to any who try to reign that in, from accusations of bad faith and personal attacks to dogmatic anarchist screeds to simple cursing. I admonished the editor to cool it and was told to fuck off, in so many words. Do we really want to be the type of encyclopedia that tolerates that, or that puts bureaucratic obstacles in front of simple requests for help dealing with obviously inappropriate behavior? This report won't fit better on any other board, and an RfC or some other silliness to determine the obvious just wastes people's time. It would take five minutes to review the editor's last week of diffs and decide whether a block or a warning is in order. The incivility, obviously, cannot continue unless we've just given up on civility. Wikidemon (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back to serious-land. Scanned the IP's edits. Disruptive, IMO. Esp. the pointy redirect of Capitalism and the totally inappropriate responses on the user talk page, as well as the repeated recent edits against apparent consensus and the pointy edit summaries. Tim Song (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An incident is something requiring urgent administrative attention, and this board became what you bemoan sometime ago - there's a large section at the top of the page instructing editors where to go and why ;-) This report wasn't gaining any traction here - the best I could do was direct the reporter to a board where they were more likely to get a response. And I still believe that WP:AN3 and/or WP:WQA are more appropriate forums for addressing edit warring and civility issues. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Flag is correct; we frequently suggest better venues. I note your vandalism example is more POINT than blatant; the vulgarity which you loudly declaim we cannot put up with is confined SFAICT to the editor's talk page, and is largely of the language choice type, which as we all know is largely a background and preference item; and most damningly, I fail to see anyone making any significant attempt to engage this editor at this time. Since I posted on his page, no one else has, and s/he has not posted anywhere. I suggest this is not an emergency, and the world will not end if we wait to see if the editor in question responds either here or on the editor talk page. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Mostly pointy edits. Disruptive? Sure. Blockable? Probably not. Wait and see. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) For what it's worth, leaving a "welcome" template is a nice touch.[50] Other than that, this is exactly the response I was complaining about, giving the legit editors the run-around (and some chiding to boot for daring to come here, apparently) instead of dealing with what looks like WP:BADHAND account of an experienced editor (their ninth edit, on their first day of editing, was to remove another editor's talk page comment, citing WP:NOTAFORUM).[51] An increasing number of reports go down that way. Maybe the admins who hang out on noticeboards enjoy chatting whereas the ones who actually deal with things are elsewhere? If you've been to WQA lately they don't do anything, they generally send editors back here with instructions to file an RfC or Arbcom case if that doesn't work, claiming that their noticeboard is for mediating good faith disputes among willing editors regarding whether conduct is uncivil, not intervening in case of recalcitrance clear incivility. The edit warring board intervenes only in case of active recent (as in, the past few hours) edit wars and tends to reject as stale or "no violation" slower, longer-term tendentiousness that don't cross 3RR. AIV is only for active blatant vandalism. Don't you see the contradiction in saying nobody is making a serious attempt to engage the editor, and justifying as a "language choice" preference the editor's telling those who have visited their talk page "are you fucking mad",[52] "your hypocrisy as an editor",[53] "fuck you",[54] "fuck off",[55] "fuck off" and "piss off",[56] "I sure hope you don't have kids",[57] "stay the fuck off my talk page", "you quivering sack of shit", "seek mental health counseling", and "neo-Nazis".[58] I would say I tried to engage the editor, although I was stern, as stern as an admin should be in saying that blanking the article on capitalism was not acceptable. The response, Please read WP:AGF, and then fuck off with your unwelcome and accusatory interjections. Go defend hypocrisy elsewhere[59] does not suggest any likelihood of constructive discussion so thank you but I'm done interacting with this editor. I think it's a fair call that the complaint is stale and unblockable at this point, in which case... I hate to tell y'all how to do your volunteer job here, but a reasonable response instead of telling concerned editors to go to a different board where their request will also be ignored, to leave a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up. Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"leav[ing] a warning as an administrator on the offender's talk page that their behavior is not allowed and they will be blocked if it happens again, and ideally, to be ready to back that up." - all outside my ability, I'm afraid. Best little ol' me can do is assist with procedure. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck? This has to be the most fucking ironic "discussion" I have ever seen. And I've been accused of incivility??? Fuck that!

I am fucking sick to my stomach over the fucking lying hypocrites which includes the mainstream media and the POV cover-ups of the Left. This is why Wikipedia is the mess it is. It's a democracy where majority rules on arbitration votes. NO! Wikipedia operates on consensus. NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T!!! Look at what happened in Washington D.C. on 9/12. What? You only read the Washington Post or the New York Times? Then I suppose you wouldn't know that reports of almost 2 MILLION fiscally Conservative Americans marched on the Capitol yesterday. WHERE IS THE OFFICIAL PARK POLICE COUNT?? Suppressed by Obama? I was there, pictures don't lie, as much as the Left would like them to: http://michellemalkin.com/

So I hope someone fucking reports me for this post, especially since I am a "newbie" poster to this discussion. I happen to think TFWOR is probably a pretty cool dude (although somewhat politically confused). If I want the Truth, I know Wikipedia is not the place to look for it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you might want to read What Wikipedia is not. Shinerunner (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I could be in error, here, but I believe that was intended as Humor. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cannot reach agreement on what it IS, you will never reach agreement on what it is NOT. A negative cannot be proven because if something is absent, it would not be there to prove its absence. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Think of the time wasted here that you could be improving this collaborative (is it, still?) encycopedia.

This boils down to a bunch of market fundamentalists getting ticked off because I dared to declare that the emperor has no clothes. There's no such thing as a Nobel prize in economics. The prize in question has a name. I'm not interested in whatever names the market fundamentalist editors want to invent for it, to lend significance to their economic feudalist heroes.

Your supposed "consensus" collapses the instant someone comes along to challenge it. You don't get to declare an article frozen and demand justification for future edits. In the future, when "consensus" has supposedly been reached that "capitalism" should be renamed "freedomism," I'll challenge that, too. (When, not if; the systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism at WP is astonishing. Probably because the emperor here is a Randroid, and nobody wants to tell him he's naked.)

Now comes the part where you declare me a POV-pusher for challenging your POV-pushing. Begin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds to me like there is a content dispute between a hostile editor who doesn't sign his posts, regarding (among other things) the common name of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a hostile but less foul mouthed editor who tried to frame this as POV pushing. I'm ready to close this, unless there is a significant dif from the complainant. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care whether the award is called a “Nobel” by Wikipedia. I care that, with various things having been (for the time Being) decided by consensus, we have an editor who is changing articles in violation of that consensus, and in order to advance a PoV. Now, please stop levelling this accusation about my motives; I asked you before to at least produce evidence. Since you didn't even try, it's completely unfair for you to repeat the charge. —12.72.73.40 (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd block this user for consistantly attacking users. See his talk. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 17:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The uncredited essay on the IP's talk page is a copyvio from here. It's from an essay by Fredy Perlman, "The Reproduction of Daily Life", published in 1969. --John Nagle (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In that case, shouldn't you be on the horn to the pigs? John Gray isn't Fredy Perlman, either, so you might want to have him thrown in a cage as well. While you're reading essays, I suggest this one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

Removed.[60] I hope we can all agree that WP:COPYVIO is enforceable. Wikidemon (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, users - even IPs - get a certain amount of latitude on their "own" talk pages. If this behaviour continues elsewhere I'd certainly agree, however. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that 71.* isn't here to work constructively. What would I know, though - I'm just a puppet of the evil Rand conspiracy. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you're a comrade who's been playing too close to power and should probably stop aiding and abetting in their purges. When you're "rapidly coming to the conclusion" that their POV is accurate and that comrades who challenge it are not "here to work constructively," then you do begin to appear rather puppet-like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk • contribs)

I've no idea about their POV or your POV. I just think you're a WP:DICK, and that the project would be better off without you - comrade. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised that the comment had been re-added - I thought I'd rolled back immediately after making it. I've struck the comment as it's less than civil. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we're just being had. It's hard to imagine anyone sincerely meaning all that. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for demonstrating what I've been saying. WP has a systemic bias in favor of market fundamentalism. The response to anyone who challenges it is disbelief. Surely "capitalism" is a synonym for "freedom," right? Well, no, actually, that's wrong. But like a fish who "cannot comprehend the existence of water" because he is "too deeply immersed in it" (attribution!), you cannot comprehend systemic bias when it comports with your own worldview. You are incredulous when it is pointed out to you, and assume that those who try to correct it are the ones pushing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That's worth thinking about. Marxist analysis has its uses, especially when capitalism breaks down. But for Wikipedia, it has to be cited to reliable sources who use it about the specific subjects of the articles being edited. Editors have to avoid doing their own Marxist analysis. Can you find some good sources? --John Nagle (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's some form of pseudo-anarchism. "Anarchism" appeals to some people; anarchism appeals to others. It's moot, anyway, the IP has been blocked by Gamaliel, thus confirming that we're all part of the conspiracy and working for The Man. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was part of the left-wing conspiracy, not the right-wing conspiracy. Oh, I can never keep track of all the conspiracies I'm participating in. Well, as long as the checks keep rolling in, it doesn't matter. Gamaliel (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the copyvio again and issued a warning to the user. Gamaliel (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they're blocked for now... Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Since this user does not respond well to criticism, to say the least, I've blocked him/her. Gamaliel (talk) 19:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reticent and vandalizing IP

Resolved

 – Blocked by Blueboy96.

24.62.87.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Problems with blanking articles and reticent edit warring.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. by Blueboy96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). All the Best, Mifter (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Dear administrators, while cleaning the article Goce Delčev of POV, one user called Jingiby called me with nationalistic names, calling me Macedonian nationalist and publicly wants to damage my authority as user. Please react since I cannot edit with such nonwiki behaviour. See here. He has been blocked several (15) times for his behaviour and I think he did not learn the lesson. Thanks.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: moved from WP:AN by Mifter (talk · contribs). Best Mifter (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Final decision (point #1) - failing to adhere to the policies of expected behavior. A recent view of contributions show a disturbing level of personal attacks and a clear violation of revert parole. The complaining user is not dealing with these issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever check the comlaining user's activity on Macedonian Question? The complaining User is extreme active with disruptive, vandalizing, non-referenced edits on it. This is checkable. I am not under revert-parole yet. Thank you.Jingby (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No, why should we have? At any rate, his conduct is not relevant to the question of whether or not your conduct, which is at issue here, is proper. You, too, should address your conduct here.  Sandstein  19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has about 12 entries in WP:ARBMAC#Log of blocks and bans and a very long topically relevant block log (although his revert restriction does seem to be expired by now). The edit at issue does contain an insulting edit summary, and a sanction seems to be required. What do other admins think? (For future reference, WP:AE is the dedicated noticeboard for such cases.)  Sandstein  19:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Macedonist is a scientific term, not an insult. The term has been used to describe persons, which behavior is in concordance with the Republic of Macedonia's dominant official state doctrine, which is now current. The term is also used in an apologetic sense by some Macedonian authors.Jingby (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you often use endearing terms in conjunction with absolute vandal? And is clown meant to be positive. At this point, I would like to hope for redemption, but the lack of taking responsibility is worrisome to say the least given your many opportunities before. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Our article defines the term as "a political term used in a polemic sense to refer to a set of ideas perceived as characteristic of aggressive Macedonian nationalism", so I can see why it can be perceived as insulting, but yes, it is not a serious insult by the standards of the topic area.  Sandstein  19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Extremly rear. This is also checkable. Also absolute vandalism and absolute vandal are equal, I think. Jingby (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs?  Sandstein  19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. User:MacedonianBoy has indeed a history of toying with articles falling within the scope of ARBMAC and a quite sufficient number of personal attacks ([61]) Due links will be provided if issued. He has a history of harassing other contributors on another project, where he happens to be an admin. All this has made even admins refer to him as a nationalist, which is in no way uncivil in this case (especially since he has acted in such a way). Macedonist is, as Jingiby noted, a scientific term, referring to ethnic Macedonian nationalists. In this particular case he has failed to provide any adequate reason for his actions and has clearly acted only in order to get Jingiby a block (which excuses Jingiby in no way for falling right for it).--Laveol ^T 19:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A user that uses insults such as: extreme nationalist, clown, vandal and other things should be blocked immediately. I expect a block for him since that behaviour is far away from a normal one. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I would like to explain the term Macedonist that Jingiby uses. That term in the world is known as a term for a person that study the Macedonian language (Македонист / Makedonist on Macedonian), but unfortunately in Bulgaria it is an insult for the ethnic Macedonians, since the Bulgarians do not want to confess that Macedonian nation exist. Jingiby obviously did not use the word in linguistic annotation, since i did not study Macedonian, but English. The insult is the right meaning of the term.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I forgot this, if you see his contributions, you can see that all contributions are related with Macedonia. He and his friends do not allow to the Macedonian users to contribute and they Bulgarize the articles i.e. the articles are according to their will. They represent the Macedonians as nationalists and we cannot do anything here.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, aside from pretty much what I had to say in my comment, you did not even take the interest of reading what wikipedia has to say on the term. Do you seriously suggest that it is so pejorative? --Laveol ^T 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My comment were not as responses to yours, but in general. I cannot imagine a user to edit freely if he characterizes other users with extreme nationalist, Macedonist, vandal and imagine clown. How pathetic. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

You for instance have used tons of racist slurs towards me and a number of other editors and, yet, you are still editing. Any suggestions? --Laveol ^T 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Have I communicated with you during a period of one year? Yes. Have I said something bad? No. Leave the old things from two years ago and focus on your pall.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Immediately and vorever, maybe? Jingby (talk) 20:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal

Resolved

 – Blocked by Kuru.

98.225.232.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

IP has constantly introduced incorrect information and has been warned several times.BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the IP at WP:AIV. In future, you can cut out the middle-man and go straight to WP:AIV - after warning the vandal first, of course. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

...and they're blocked. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:220.233.113.184‎

Resolved

Warned on uncited, with 2 diffs after report for Socialist Alternative (Australia), blanked their entry at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism threetwo times. Fifelfoo (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours for disruptive editing. Rodhullandemu 17:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg by ImageTagBot

I have uploaded some very unique pictures to wikipedia page on Amb (princely state). ImageTagBot attached speedy deletionm tag to one of these images; although I have edited te summary of the Image and mentioned that the picture is from my personal collection and is not available on any other book opr website and has no copy rights issues attached. I informed the Bot operator Sam Korn of the problem but he does not seem to be available at the moment on wikipedia. So kindly check this issue and remove the Tag before the image is deleted, as it was nominated on 8th September. The following is my correpondence with Sam Korn on this issue. "Hi, you have nominated File:1917 Darband, SIR GEORGE ROOSE KEPPEL, SAHIBAZADA SIR ABDUL QAYUM.jpg for speedy deletion. This speedy deletion nomination does not satisfy any of the wikipedia criteria for speedy deletion; if so do let me know. This pic. is of great significance to the Amb (princely state) page and belongs to my personal collection; and I have edited to mention this in file page. So kindly take back this speedy deletion nomination.Wikitanoli (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You havent as yet removed the nomination for deletion template your bot noted, from the above mentioned file.Wikitanoli (talk) 14:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sam_Korn"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitanoli (talk • contribs) 17:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Wikitanoli (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ciao, Wikitanoli. As you've made an effort to provide a source, I have removed the deletion tag. If a human editor has a problem with it, we can review the matter. Regards,  Skomorokh  19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Skomorokh! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I just checked on the Amb (princely state) page; the image still is captioned under the details as nominated for speedy deletion. Can you remove that aswell, Cheers! Wikitanoli (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the tag. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou TFOWR! Wikitanoli (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rain City Blues, reposted from WQA

I originally brought this up at WQA, but was advised to take it here instead. Having been blocked twice in the past two weeks for edit warring on George H. W. Bush, Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken to harassing the admin who performed the most recent block, User:FisherQueen, accusing her of a conservative bias referring to her repeatedly as "Mary Cheny" (FisherQueen identifies as liberal and LGBTQ on her userpage). See this talkpage section. Some choice comments: "Mary, you started this, and I'm the one that's going to end it."[62] "As a concerned Wiki user, for the good of the community, I'm afraid I will have to politely remind you of your incompetence and inability to properly execute the duties associated with your position until you back off. I intend to perform my duty as long as necessary, until you resign or cease your behaviour."[63] (note the charming edit summary) Perhaps the most troubling: "More like a schoolayard bully than a teacher, and as well all know, the best way to deal with bullies is to make their lives hell until they stop."[64] Rain City Blues has been given multiple warnings about making personal attacks (check the talk page history, as they've all been blanked). This user is clearly aware that s/he is being disruptive and intends to continue. I'd block myself but I was involved in the original discussion on Talk:George H. W. Bush. Also, I hate to post and run, but I'm going to be unavoidably offline for two-ish hours and won't be available to comment (unless I can get my blackberry to cooperate, but why would it start now?) -- Vary (Talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most charming. I've issued a two week block for violating WP:BATTLE and WP:NPA with the "bullies" comment and with "the polite way to tell someone where to place their head in relation to their anus" ([65] in edit summary). This is an escalation of the most recent block, which was set to last a week.  Sandstein  18:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Good block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So, as his threats increase, on the theory of making another editor's life hell on earth, so do the length of his blocks. I detect a trend. What we need is for Dr. Phil to go to his page and say, "How's that workin' out for ya?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

My life, by the way, is not hell. I'm actually doing okay. Thanks to all who followed up on the incivility problem with User:Rain City Blues while I was at church. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Your life not being a living hell is further evidence of how well things are working out for that blocked editor. I'm seeing a scene from Airplane!, in which a radio station DJ is shouting "[call letters] where Disco lives forever!" a split second before the plane hits the tower and knocks them off the air. That's what sometimes happens with editors who scream and yell about what they're going to do, right up to the moment when they go "off the air", and ol' man wikipedia just keeps rolling along. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:YellowMonkey

I wish a formal enquiry/investigation into User:YellowMonkey's, (I consider,) improper administrative action in blocking me for two days without issuing a warning for allegedly "revert-editing against strong consensus" on WP:Naming Conventions.

1.) The action was one-sided, with only one party of an edit-war sanctioned, even though the other participants were at least as culpable. 2.) The action did not end the edit-war since the other side felt endorsed in their activities by YellowMonkey's actions, and emboldened to keep on reverting remaining opposition to their changes to policy. 3.) It was clear from representations from myself and other editors on this page that the situation was complex, and the complainants against me were accused of harrassment, edit-warring, incivility, tag-teaming, serious breach of proper practice in editing policy, and other breaches of WP:Rules. It appears these charges were not looked in to, and totally ignored by Yellow Monkey, while hasty, one-sided action was taken against me alone. 4.) It is clear that no proper investigation of the history and circumstances of the events took place - as it should have done. A proper investigation would have found there was no "strong consensus" for the change, as alleged, that I had not actually engaged in a plain revert war, and that the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him. 5.) I was sanctioned without proper warning, against policy on blocks. 6.) I was blocked for two days, instead of the 24 hours laid down for this "offense". YellowMonkey was therefore either acting improperly in favour of one side in a dispute, or else a hasty and improper manner, sanctioning individuals without properly learning the facts of the case.

If this is not the right place to raise this matter, kindly direct me to the appropriate forum. I believe this is important since arbitrary or one-sided abuse of admin sanctions should take place on Wikipedia. Xandar 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have looked, I don't see any cause here to investigate Yellow monkey. What I would suggest, is that you drop this, and move your actual content dispute from this page. You should look into dispute resolution and use the tools there. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you don't see a cause to investigate these accusations, perhaps you ought to think about stepping down as an admin - because these are pretty serious charges for which there is plenty of evidence. Nor is this a content dispute - it's a dispute about one-sided and biased adminship, and ignoring actual breach of practice by certain editors, or else it is a bout an admin who sanctions editors improperly without doing the basic job of investigating the incident concerned. That is something that needs to be gone into. I'm not interested in cover-ups - or people who think ordinary editors are some sort of lesser breed, who can be subject to arbitrary sanction without the person doing so being held to account. I'm interested in getting to the bottom of how this was allowed to happen. If this is not the forum where that can be done, and we can find out WHY this admin abused the proper procedures, I would like to be directed to the correct forum for this. Xandar 23:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any differences to back up your comments? It's hard to look if there are no links provided by you. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 23:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NonvocalScream is not an admin. Mike R (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's at WP:NC. At a glance it appears to be a valid block, and there was discussion on Xander's talk page prior to the block, although not a formal template warning that I can see. I don't see anything here to do, WP:RFC/U is >> that way though. — Ched :  ?  23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The original thread is archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Xandar.

Obviously I can't contribute much here, as an involved party. For what it's worth, though, I think YellowMonkey acted appropriately.

One error cannot be allowed to stand, howover: "the change Hesperian complained of me for, was actually suggested by him". My complaint was not about one edit; it was about nine reverts. As I acknowledged in my report, the sixth of them was an attempt at compromise, at my urging. That compromise having been rejected by others, the reverting continued unabated. To twist this into the narrative that I suggested he edit war, then reported him for it, is going too far. Hesperian 23:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my username is KhatriNYC (I cannot log in with that name since its blocked), and I would like to second this investigation into YellowMonkey. He seems to be power tripping with the blocks he throws out without even discussing or giving the user (in this case me) the opportunity to discuss the reason. I made a change on the Khatri page and forgot to log in with my username, and he accused me of sock puppetry. I explained to another admin William M. Connolley, and he said would look into why YellowMonkey blocked my access and requested YellowMonkey to give me an explanation. I have yet to receive that explanation. This YellowMonkey is seriously reckless and just throwing out blocks as he pleases. I urge please to look into his reasoning and perhaps revoke his admin rights. Thanks - KhatriNYC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.7.178 (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Resorting to IP sockpuppetry in order to defend against accusations of IP sockpuppetry? Hesperian 02:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor at User talk:98.116.7.178/User:KhatriNYC seems not able to understand: continues to edit anon when blocked for sockpupetry, asking why blocked for sockpuppetry... continues to restore Khatri to a point in time the editor wp:LIKEs immediately after a block for repeatedly doing the same thing. - Sinneed (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that reported User:KhatriNYC. His last 250 contributions show that almost all his edits are reverting everyone else on Khatri including regular editors, admins, bots and IPs; reverts also include removing image tags, dab link corrections, typo and language fixes, content addition/deletion. Edit summaries and talk page comments are also abusive and he owns the article. He was blocked for 3RR by User:William M. Connolley‎, around the end of his block, he came back as an IP and did a mass revert which I reverted, and soon after the end of his block, he reverted once more, two reverts in less than an hour of his block expiring. I contacted YellowMonkey to check if the IP and the editor were the same, turned out they were, and the block was issued. Hope that explains it. My talk page is also an area where he likes to discuss. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert D'Onston Stephenson article / User:DreamGuy

The Robert D'Onston Stephenson article is a minor article related to the 'Jack the Ripper' murders. I started it about a year and a half ago. Yesterday a major portion of the article was removed by User:DreamGuy, in spite of the fact that five months ago a consensus was reached, after my request for an 'outside view'. I have tried to revert user DreamGuy's mangling of the article, but to no avail. As it seems his behaviour is much the same as five months ago, I see no other option than to ask for an outside view once again, and, if any such thing is possible, for a general investigation into user DreamGuy's behaviour. (This user has, from what I understand, been blocked on several other occasions.) I'm reposting my request of 2 April this year, as DreamGuy's act does seem to represent a 'repeat offense' - first removing the whole, or major parts of the article without any explanation, and then, when confronted, acting as some sort of "arbiter of expertise". That is not, from what I've been led to understand, how this project is supposed to work.

From my request of 2 April:

A week ago [the Robert D'Onston Stephenson article] was redirected by User:DreamGuy, with the claim that parts of the article was slanted, and that a very short section in the Jack the Ripper suspects article was better. I added some material to make the Stephenson article more objective and reinstated it. A large part of the material that has been there since last year was then removed. I added some more material and reinstated the article again. And then the same user redirected it again. I have reinstated the article again, with some changes, attempting to reach a consensus. But I expect it will be to no avail. I know this user quite well from the 'Jack the Ripper' article and noticed last year that he was trying to redirect another article related to the same subject, at least 11 times (Whitechapel murders), though I did not take part in that discussion. It seems to me that "DreamGuy" has been redirecting the Stephenson article to enforce his new version. Which surely cannot be right ? He also seems to have this habit of talking on behalf of "experts" without any referencing, and pointing at wiki policies without actually providing any arguments. And he has an abusive style, that makes it seem quite impossible to argue with him in a rational way. Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look at that article ? Thank you. ΑΩ (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

ΑΩ (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy notified. I'm getting tired of having to notify users about threads. If you're going to raise a complaint here about someone, you are REQUIRED to notify them. Exxolon (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making me aware. When I filed my first complaint here five months ago noone told me about this requirement. I can see, though, that making ones adversary aware of the complaint is also a matter of common courtesy. Sorry. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So instead of filing a WP:3O, User:ΑΩ comes running here to talk about some supposed "consensus" that was actually about the redirect and not the section in question? This is one of a handful of editors I've dealt with who unfortunately immediately jumps to making over the top complaints and giving extremely biased accounts of old conflicts as a way to try to prevail in any disagreement he has with me. In this case he acts like he WP:OWNs the article in question and never shows any intent to enter into any discussion or compromise; I've given up on redirecting the article, but weeding out some of the major WP:UNDUEWEIGHT problems still present is long overdue. The content in dispute is not covered at all in most 400+ page books on the topic, largely because it is both trivial and has been shown to be wrong more than a century ago, something he apparently doesn't want anyone to know based upon his edits there. I hope that ΑΩ eventually learns that he can't pull stunts like this as a way to try to get what he wants, especially as the editors he learned this behavior from have largely either moved on or been permanently blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Who are the users I'm supposed to have "learned this behaviour from" ? And how would this slanderous allegation be proven ? It is, of course, unprovable. And so, it is slander. As opposed to DreamGuy and whatever other users he might be referring to, I never have been blocked.

And the content in question is more than mentioned in Evans' and Skinner's 'Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook', one of the most widely acknowledged reference works on the case. Six pages in all on Stephenson as a 'contemporary suspect', and most of it about the theory he presented to the police at the time. The quality or validity of Stephenson's theory hardly matters. Parts of it or the whole of it might have been disproven or found to be irrelevant to our present understanding. It doesn't matter. If it had not been for Stephenson's letters to the police about his theory, and the article in the Pall Mall Gazette about the same theory, he never would have become known as a 'contemporary suspect' (however minor, and unfounded) and several books about him as a suspect never would have been written. So, it seems the real issue here is not whether Stephenson's theory should be presented in some way, but how much weight it should be given in the article about him, and how it should be presented. This is also why I made this complaint "immediately". The relevant section was removed in its entirety, without any attempt to improve it, and with no prior explanation on the Talk page. And that is, in fact, very much the same procedure as five months ago.

And thank you for making me aware of the WP:3O. If I had been aware of it, I might have made my complaint there instead, even though it does say that "The third opinion process requires good faith and civility on both sides of the dispute." In my experience you're not a very civil person, as proven by your attempt here to smear me by some unprovable association. In view of this 'repeat action', I'm asking for an outside view. ΑΩ (talk) 06:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Indef'd Redking7

Not really an incident (yet) but I just indef'd Redking7, and oddly enough he isn't happy [66]. Feel free to take a look William M. Connolley (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit extreme, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps as you clearly have a lot going on at the moment, it would be better if you didn't make any controversial admin decisions. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 has been nothing but a timesink for many editors and admins for a long time (and over numerous areas, xe isn't quite a SPA). An indef is, IMO, not harming the encyclopedia in any way. Black Kite 22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rather extreme, I should add. I don't see any reason for this, just the rationale, "give a dog a bad name". Can you admins not wait until something actually happens, then you might be able to justify what is technically an editor ban. Tfz 22:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to give a dog a bad name when the dog insists on gaining one themselves. This is an editor who is persistently tendentious on RoC issues, but also previously were obsessed with the same thing on Ireland-related nationalist disputes (this edit revently and dozens like this; they were even blocked for edit-warring over Ireland-related articles at one point) and has recently managed to unhelpfully join in with the Macedonia-related one [67]. The phrase "drama magnet" springs to mind. Black Kite 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I never remember Redking7 being "persistently tendentious on RoC issues, but also previously were obsessed with the same thing" on Irish related disputes. Maybe you mean British related disputes, because that's where the trouble often starts, but of course none of those British editors ever get blocked. Tfz 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Uh, no. Redking7's two blocks were for edit warring on The Troubles and List of diplomatic missions of Ireland which strangely enough, are Irish-related articles. The "British editors never get blocked" straw man is probably not worth waving around here, to be honest. Frankly I'm not particularly bothered whether xe's blocked or not; merely pointing out that mine (and probably many other) editor's experiences of him are a net negative. Your mileage, as always, may vary. Black Kite 23:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The troubles are British/Irish related in my experience, and wrong to blame Irish editors for that. I have said what I have to say on the Redking7 issue. Tfz 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a good block.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spell it out then. Tfz 23:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Continuous edit warring, refactoring talk page posts and the refusal to get why it's wrong, not to mention a refusal to get the point.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Generalisations + innuendo, I would would like something more concrete than that. Tfz 23:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Innuendo? I don't know what you're talking about.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

He is requesting unblock; clear consensus here on whether he should get it or not might be neat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redking7 (talk · contribs · logs) does seem to have had some problems over the years here, although I'm not sure he's to the "indef" point yet, he may be at the one to two week point. (depending upon the circumstances of the block) Looking at the contribs., I'm not sure the "SPA" moniker is entirely accurate, although there is a pattern to his edits. If you're looking for a consensus on an unblock, I'd be in favor of a mod. to 1 or 2 weeks, but not an immediate unblock. — Ched :  ?  23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Would a 1RR restriction or topic ban help here?  Skomorokh  00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This block should just be scratched and re-evaluated on basic principle (and that's not to say the outcome will not be the same). The last three blocks on this user were from WMC himself, and then he indeffed him 8 hours before he gets his status as an admin removed by arbcom. This just looks like a last hurrah from an admin who knew they were about to be canned, and as such it should not be allowed to stand unreviewed, or be given the cursory 'you didn't say the magic word' unblock decline. MickMacNee (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-evaluation of the block

In my opinion, a long block would clearly be deserved, but I don't think it would cure the problem. Instead, I propose an editing restriction.

Redking7 is a long-term edit warrior on the subject of diplomatic relations between Taiwan and various countries. His changes are constantly being reverted, but he won't participate in any proper form of dispute resolution. In the boxed section below I've packaged up some diffs.

I would support lifting of the indef block, if he will accept two conditions:

1. A 1RR restriction on all articles: no more than one revert per article per week
2. No edits or discussion regarding Taiwan, or on Taiwan's relations with other countries.

I'd also warn him that violation of the 1RR could lead to an indef block. Since he is currently requesting unblock, I'd make the unblock depend on him voluntarily accepting these restrictions. Since he still sees no problem whatever with his editing, it's an open question whether he will accept the restrictions. If he doesn't, I would leave the indef in place.

Extended diffs
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I see three cases involving Redking7 at the 3RR noticeboard between April 2008 and the present. My search did not find any occurrence of his name at WP:AN or WP:ANI. My own memory of the events I am familiar with indicates that the 3RR blocks were well-deserved (I issued one of them). He has been arguing for nearly a year (since November 2008) that Wikipedia gives too much prominence to the liaison offices that many countries have established in Taiwan. Other editors have argued that these offices are a form of diplomatic relations, and they've added them to the list of diplomatic missions of some countries. This is, of course, arguable but Redking7 (it seems) is never going to take no for an answer, and won't participate in any proper form of dispute resolution. He just keeps on reverting and reverting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive70#User:Redking7_reported_by_User:BrownHairedGirl_.28Result:_8_hours.29 The Troubles (13 April 2008) (Blocked 8 hours by CIreland) Four reverts to change 'Republic of Ireland' to 'Ireland' plus one other change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive84#User:Redking7_reported_by_User:Kransky_.28Result:_24_hours.29 Diplomatic missions of Ireland (16 November 2008) (Blocked 24 hours by EdJohnston). He was warring to remove Taipei from Diplomatic missions of Ireland. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive102#User:Redking7_reported_by_Bidgee_.28talk.29_.28Result:_1_week.29 List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom (24 June 2009) (Blocked 1 week by WMC). Pattern of long-term edit warring, 6 reverts at this article over 6 days. He was warring to remove Taipei from the List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom VirtualSteve blocked him 48 hours in March, 2009 for edits such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solomon_Islands&diff=280213001&oldid=280163538 where he changes the Solomon Islands from a commonwealth realm to a constitutional monarchy. He did the same thing at three different articles. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papua_New_Guinea&diff=277160630&oldid=276626324 he did the same thing at Papua New Guinea. He made the same change three times over a period of several days before he finally stopped. Same thing happened at The Bahamas, where he made the same change three times over a period of several days. Each time he was reverted. 13 September: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_South_Korea&diff=prev&oldid=313549754 (Adding 'refimprove' to this article for the reason "This list needs verification - For example, sources show S. Korea does not have diplomatic mission to Taipei (RoC))") 13 September: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_diplomatic_missions_of_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=313549558 (The List is Wrong. For example, Canada does not have diplomatic relations with RoC Taiwan - Verification needed.) His change was reverted by another editor. Same thing at: List of diplomatic missions of the United States List of diplomatic missions of Germany List of diplomatic missions of France He has edited List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China to revert to his own view of the diplomatic situation regarding these quasi-missions. His change was reverted by another editor. This shenanigans was going on as recently as 13 September, and came after expiry of his previous block on September 9. (The last block was by WMC for some kind of canvassing regarding Taiwan on the talk pages of many different users). So he hasn't given up POV-pushing on his favorite topic.

Reviewers can see details of all the past blocks on his current Talk page, since he didn't remove the old notices or the unblock requests.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• That seems fine with me. Protonk (talk) 05:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Glenn Beck

Resolved

 – It was satire. Morphh refactored to make clear. I was probably being overly paranoid. Hey, it's late here, give me a break!

An uncited rumour was added to this talk page, which I removed citing WP:BLP concerns. I initiated a discussion with the editor who added it, who seems quite happy to address BLP concerns (and, indeed, has done so and has added a new comment that addresses BLP).

I've also requested oversight for the first set of edits.

Other editors, however, are now re-adding the comment. I've requested oversight once, but I suspect that this could go on for a while.

Could someone take a look and (a) let me know if I'm being overly paranoid, and (b) take action if needed?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

NB. Since I've requested oversight, I've not posted diffs. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the parody web site? That isn't even a real rumor; it's a critique of Beck's style of accusations. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue may be that the original poster continually calls it a rumour. I've left a note on the talk page clarifying the issue. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So I gather. My real concern is the uncited suggestion on the talk page that there are credible rumours that Beck did quite unpleasant things. In the later (bowdlerised) section the fact that this all stems from satire has been addressed; it's the earlier section I'm concerned about. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: why have I spent today on ANI defending the right and applying policy to the left? Life just ain't fair! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because in such situations it is the correct thing to do? — Huntster (t @ c) 22:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoil-sport - getting in the way of good grumble ;-) TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyhoo... Morphh has refactored so it's clear it's satire. I'm happy, everyone else too? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Christian Blake Davenport, or User:User:Vlchristianlv

User:Vlchristianlv created a page about himself (?) which was speedy deleted. He has a subpage with the exact same page User:Vlchristianlv/Christian Blake Davenport, complete with an invisible page move semi-pp lock, and has also recreated the page as his user page. I blanked the user page and left a warning, but I'm guessing he's not here to do anything other than promote himself. As there is nothing in mainspace I'm not sure that it qualifies for COI or BLP, but I would appreciate a second pair of eyes. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I can tell you that creating an autobiography in article format in one's userspace is generally considered acceptable (see WP:UP). You probably were wrong to blank the userpage, but you might have a case at COIN if he creates the page again in the articlespace. Intelligentsium 00:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vlchristianlv notified about this thread. Come on people. Exxolon (talk) 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

75.5.232.53

• 75.5.232.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Vandalism-only account. All edits consist of removing content from Emmy-nominated entertainment pople, such as [68]. The destruction he's caused today will require massive cleanup. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

picking a few edits at random, seems to me their edits aren't vandalism at all, rather general fixes, tidying, and removal of OR, [69], this edit for example was clearly an improvement to the article--Jac16888^Talk 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But you may want to take a look at my contribs; I've been cleanup up his mess for the past hour or so. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit you linked to is apparently part of a wikiprojects cleanup attempt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers#On-going projects/to do lists. By reverting it you're probably going against whatever consensus they have there--Jac16888^Talk 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Captain Infinity (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted my reversions and removed the warnings from his talk page. Captain Infinity (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ryulong

Ryulong is tagging non-vandalism edits as vandalism after being warned, he reply to the warning by saying "Don't you dare start picking out every single rollback I perform as Mythdon had. I mistakenly tagged it as vandalism through the rollback script and changing a name to the wrong spelling could be considered vandalism." and then he started a discussion at WT:Arbitration/Requests#I can't think of a coherent subject name, so I looked at his contributions and found this revert of a non-vandalism edit where he put the edit summary "Vandalism" that was not "tagged it as vandalism through the rollback script" and 1 day after I warned Ryulong, I looked at my watchlist and found this revert of a non-vandalism edit tagged as vandalism, as WP:Vandalism#Types of vandalism says "Adding or continuing to add external links to non-notable or irrelevant sites (e.g. to advertise one's website) to pages after having been warned is vandalism" as the user was not warned before adding the link the edit was not vandalism. Powergate92Talk 00:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not need Powergate92 or anyone going through my edits to find what they perceive as improper rollbacks. Mythdon was banned (not from the site, though) for doing the same that Powergate92 has been doing. Powergate92 and Mythdon often agreed with each other in disputes with me elsewhere. I began the discussion at WT:RFAR to see whether or not Powergate92 should be allowed to do this. Instead he just used it as a forum to list everything he saw that I did wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What doe's "Powergate92 and Mythdon often agreed with each other in disputes with me elsewhere." have to do with this? Powergate92Talk 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, that night those IPs were used for vandalism on other articles and were subsequently blocked (I think). The one spamlink addition I had thought was another one of the vandals (concerted attack) and rolled back accordingly.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for administrative action here. These are not beyond the pale for rollback, which (gasp) does get misused now and then anyway. Ryulong seems well within the norm.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Powergate92Talk 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Although, if Ryulong is willing to revert "vandalism" and warn editors for such behavior, he should also be open to justifying his edits if an editor comes to his talk page believing that their edits were "not vandalism". Time and time again, I have seen Ryulong repeatedly just revert comments on his talk page without so much as a note left on the other party's talk page. And sometimes, he has given the user another warning of a higher level stating that the request for clarification on the reason the warning was given. on his talk page is also vandalism. Of course, it his talk page and he can remove any comments that he wants but if he is going to leave warnings and similar content on other talk pages, then he should be open to discuss the reasoning behind his edits.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On another note, civility is also an issue that I believe could be adressed now that this user is being discussed at AN/I. The "don't you dare..." comment shown above and other comments appear to be quite nasty and even if Ryulong is right in a discussion, he should be able to communicate with other editors in a more polite and understanding way. It is somewhat concerning that he self-admittedly does not care that an uncivil environment is a poor environment for people to work in. True, Wikipedia Poor isn't strictly a rule in itself, but surely, everyone here (including Ryulong) would want a constructive environment to work in when helping towards the construction on Wikipedia. It would be good to see some of these issues resolved so that we can get to the sources of these problems and so that Ryulong does not have to be reported here again. He has shown that he can be a good editor. But it would be good to see a form of consistency in the promise he has shown here in the past.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not warn any user. I used the rollback function for edits I saw were vandalism. Powergate92 is merely acting the same way Mythdon was to me months ago and this should not continue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not acting the same way as Mythdon, as Mythdon would ask "How was this vandalism?" about edits that were clearly vandalism. (see here) Unlike Mythdon I say "This is not vandalism. Please see WP:Vandalism to see what is and is not vandalism." about edits that were clearly not vandalism. Powergate92Talk 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Same damn thing. And stop using those idiotic {{talkback}} templates. I can check this on my own accord.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair Ryulong, maybe if you didn't have a such a habit of reverting your talk page messages, people wouldn't need to use the "idiotic" talkback templates to communicate (or try to) with you. Just a thought.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The talkback template was being used to notify that he replied to me here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with giving you a heads-up. After all, YOU are the subject of this thread and it is helpful to you to know when there has been new content posted in this discussion.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

←Ryulong is a big boy and can check ANI without being prodded by talkback notices. If he doesn't want them on his talk page, that's his business. Javért ^☆ 04:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But there is nothing wrong with talkback notices, is there?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The point is not whether something is wrong with them or not, it is that Ryulong does not want them on his talk page. Javért ^☆ 04:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is fair enough, but he doesn't need to communicate the way he does with other editors on their' talk pages in the process. Okay, how about, instead of commenting on this talkback template business, we get back to the reason this thread started, shall we Javert?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any interest in this thread other than to defend Ryulong's right to do what he wishes with his talk page. I would, however, like to see you lose the condescending attitude. Javért ^☆ 05:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about Ryulong's attitude and the manner in which he reverts his edits and then leaves nasty messages on other editors' talk pages. SEE ABOVE. If you read my big two comments above, I see this as a good opportunity to resolve any problems that are arising as a result of (this isn't the first time someone has reported him for this) his method of operation.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that Ryulong, Powergate92 and any other involved parties can come to some sort of calm and civil understanding so that the behavior between Ryulong and Powergate92 or Ryulong and any other editor on here, does not need to continue.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that I don't get another user who is constantly watching and checking up on my edits as Mythdon had.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Have no fear Ryulong. I do not want to become a problem for you. In fact, what I've been asking is a CIVIL understanding to be met here and now so that, as I said before, you don't get reported over this issue again and that way you can be able to mind your own business without worrying about anyone reporting you to AN/I for the same thing.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I will like to note that Ryulong has reported a user below for adding public domain logos to userboxes. Powergate92Talk 04:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck does this have to do with anything that you originally brought up?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is called User:Ryulong! I will like to note that when Ryulong removed the public domain logos from the userboxes he said in the edit summary "Addition of copyrighted image". Powergate92Talk 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of copyrighted images. What is the problem with that?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No you reverted the addition of public domain images and said "Addition of copyrighted image". That is the problem! Powergate92Talk 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no knowledge that all of the images are in fact public domain. It's the reason I reverted the addition of the images. Just move on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, I think Ryulong needs to calm down. Swearing isn't needed, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed this after seeing User_talk:BillTunell#University_user_boxes come up on my watchlist. I don't know about WP:CIVIL or not, but it seems pretty rude. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To Ryulong's MERIT, I don't actually think he broke the civility rule in that particular case. Maybe if the user was new then, WP:BITE perhaps. But no, I see nothing terribly concerning with this edit at all. --Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll give a general admonition. Don't leave talkback notices on an editor when a noticeboard discussion involving them is updated. It's annoying at best. Also don't leave them especially following a request to stop doing so. Protonk (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's sort this out

Powergate92, all involved parties, and anyone else who intervenes in this thread. All Ryulong wants is for people to stop checking up on his edits all the time. I believe that if Ryulong agrees to be more civil in future when communicating with others, then we shall grant him his wishes. He can be a good editor, we all know that. Just think how much better he could be if people didn't hawk watch his edits.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 05:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

if Ryulong agrees to be more civil in future when communicating with others, then we shall grant him his wishes. Riiiight. This would appear to be comparing apples and oranges: Ryulong sometimes uses the word fuck on noticeboards, therefore every time he hits rollback, someone should check the edit. Uh huh. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As I said opening this discussion, there is nothing here requiring administrative action. There's an encyclopedia needs a-building. Time to move on, people.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust denial and User:Stevertigo

The following stems from this edit by User:Stevertigo, an issue which arrived here very recently. The fact that "the Holocaust" is sometimes used to refer to the destruction of more than the Jews of during World War 2, is not under dispute. However, as can be seen on the talk page, myself and a couple of others have outlined to Steve several times - while pointing to a preponderance of reliable sources, that regardless of how "The Holocaust" is defined, "Holocaust denial", refers (with the exception of a few passing references regarding the implicit denial of Roma peoples, as one user brought forward) virtually exclusively to the denial of the destruction of the Jews during WW2.

Steve has responded with an eye-watering amount of wikilawyering, the most I have ever seen in my Wikipedia tenure. Some comments directed at Steve have undoubtedly been less than diplomatic, but this, and then amending it with this, frankly, is absolutely repellent behaviour in my opinion. I believed that I have exercised considerable discretion in this matter, such as by inviting Steve to suggest how he would amend the article, which he has responded to. However, it has occured to more than just me that Steve's desired prose not only misses the relevant points, but tacitly suggests that Steve is making his own extrapolations, then trying to find sources to support them. Well, not remotely tacit at all, in fact.

Judging from Steve's other edits (and pages in his userspace) such as this tremendously protracted redirect he established, not to mention this very recently written item or this BLP minefield, or what can only be described as a contemptuous attitude to other people's comments, I do not think it is unreasonable to infer that the interests Steve is interested in furthering are not Wikipedias. WilliamH (talk) 00:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on a good many points, but what exactly are you suggesting we do here? lifebaka++ 01:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest a block, indefinitely if necessary. It is abundantly clear that he is much more interested in tendentiously furthering his own interests, as opposed to Wikipedia's. I need hardly point that that is detrimental to the project, and I see no reason why so much volunteer time should be used to appease it. WilliamH (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've looked over the discussion, and it seems that Steve is now trying to talk in a more civilized manner, accepting what people have to say. I don't pretend to understand the large amounts of philosophical debate flying back and forth on that talk page, but it looks to me that he's calmed down considerably and stopped making threats and stupid comments. A little insignificant (talk) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Completely disinterested observer checking in. Looking over the discussion on the article talk page, it appears to be a discussion, and not at all heated to the extent that is seemingly being portrayed. The ripostes are rather courtly and just because there is a dispute does not necessitate a call for admin action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, but I must ask if any of you actually viewed any of the pages I brought forward. How on earth is for example, aiming to hose away reliably sourced material with one's own extrapolations acceptable? WilliamH (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not a matter for AN/I, which deals w/ incipient problems that require admins to solve. Protonk (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If there are disputes about the reliability of sources, try the Reliable Sources noticeboard. And throwing words like "Holocaust denier" around with hopes they will stick to an editor, is not going to further constructive debate. If they do not stick, they tend to boomerang. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas

If anyone is familiar with Linas (talk · contribs), you might want to have a chat with him. You'll have to tweak his block first since I've tried to stop his meltdown there. I have no idea who he is (I was led there by a crazy edit summary on my watchlist) but his user page indicates this meltdown has been brewing for a while. Maybe someone can talk him down? Wknight94 ^talk 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yikes. user:Juliancolton blocked user:Linas for 3 days post-meltdown. - Sinneed (talk) 01:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That is actually block #2 in the last couple days. There is a ban in the near future if this continues. From his user page, I think he's forgetting that we're all disillusioned by the same things he is disillusioned by. But we don't all start screaming at people because of it. Wknight94 ^talk 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Having been involved in this, can I suggest that if his incivility just amounts to saying "fuck the admins" a whole bunch of times on his talk page, people try to ignore it if possible? He's been a very valuable editor in the past. If he actually does damage it's a different story, but that kind of stuff is pretty harmless. Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The premise to your first question is a false one, so what you build upon it is ill-founded. Go and look at edits such as the one given below or this, which are not addressed to an administrator, or this. This is not lone-good-editor-versus-the-evil-administrator-cabal. This is I'm-an-expert-and-you-are-a-moron, directed at other people regardless of account privileges. Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • One cure for such disillusionment is perhaps a realization such as the following: Linas has spent quite a lot of time berating people here (see User:Linas for starters) for not doing things as they are done at, say, Citizendium. The irony is, of course, that an edit such as this one made by Linas made over at Citizendium would result in an immediate, unequivocal, permanent expulsion from the project. Here, Linas has had xyr editing privileges suspended for a short while, and that only after having been warned first. So maybe the illusions that one might have had of an ideal encyclopaedia project, filled only with experts, all telling one other to fuck off, are good ones to have shattered. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) @Looie496: An off-color comment? Sure. But these are going way too far:

1. Fuck off, asshole [70]
2. Fuck off asshole ... assholes like you never actually look at the article edit history, or realize that their bullshit is captured in that history ... Figure out what's wrong with your brain, and go fix that! ... Stop assaulting total strangers and acting like a total A-1 dick-weed! [71]

   When he was blocked for these outrageous comments, his response included:

3. ...too many assholes like User:Aboutmovies ... So I called him an asshole, which he richly deserves ... Fuck off tedder. You are part of the problem, and not part of the solution. The sooner we get rid of fucking asshole admins like you, the better wikipedia will be [72]
4. This entire edit is ridiculous.
5. Fuck you Juliancolton. [73]
6. Fuck you, Wknight94. [74]
7. FUCK YOU! ... my user page ... says YOU'RE ALL ASSHOLES! ... You are fucking stupid! [75]

He asks if we "want correct articles written by foul-mouthed assholes like" him, and I'm not sure he's going to like the answer to that. If he wants to point out the problems with this system, I'm all for it, and I'll probably agree with most of what he says. But if he's going to scream and hollar like a pissed-off teenager, then I've got better things to do. Wknight94 ^talk 03:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I see no issues with upping his block to indef. at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I intend to take his good advice and fuck off. If we all did the same, maybe he'll come back in a few weeks, apologise, and get on with contributing solid content. Hesperian 03:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And that would help build an encyclopedia... how? Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WTF?? Hesperian 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Hesperian on this. I'm not familiar with Linas, but if this is not a long-time issue of incivility, then allow him to cool down and continue editing. The issue can always be reviewed in the future if this behaviour continues. Let's not keep stoking the fire. — Huntster (t @ c) 05:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The chain of events seems to have started by User:Aboutmovies using an automated script to search for occurrences of Beyond Words Publishing. He picked up by accident an unrelated mathematics article on Trace monoid being edited by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit. "Beyond words" was the title of a volume in a Springer series in the references there. In then trying to use the citation template, Aboutmovies missed the series option in the citation template. Although both editors were very polite, the automated script was not mentioned. A further discussion about citations for mathematics articles (with partially correct points on both sides) set the scene for linas' complete over-reaction. Best in the circumstances to blame that undeclared automated script as the true culprit here. These can often give rise to misunderstandings when there is a glitch. Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

incivility of user:Jäger

- Claiming his edit "was deleted yesterday by a Pole" [76]
- I don't know how to call this one, probably a strong candidate for the stupidest edit of year [77]

Jesus, if i think we are trying to build a serious encyclopedia with contributions from users like Jager I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Loosmark (talk) 01:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

And again - user Jäger notified about this thread. Why do I have to keep doing this? Exxolon (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is good that I am not an admin, as I fear I don't understand what you want the admins to do, user:Loosmark. The edits seem to have been made with mildly poor grammar, but the points seem to be the editor feels Poland, and some Polish agents, are making edits that are contrary to WP's best interest. This might be better for WQA but even there, other than the fact that the editor is focusing on the motivations of other editors instead of on the content, I am not seeing the problem, yet. - Sinneed (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well obviously calling an editor "a Pole" rather than by his name is offensive. I hope you recognise that if we all go around referring to each other as "a Pole, a German, a Chinese, a Spaniard" that would be very ugly. We do have usernames for a reason i think. Also spreading fringe theories about the Present of Poland making some conspirancy against wikipedia is a bit too much. Loosmark (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

What's perhaps more disturbing is that this editor keeps on putting highly POV Nazi propaganda (the real thing - I don't mean that as a Goodwin's Law violation) into the article on Hermann Rauschning (article history here). In fact, the removal of this stuff is what Jager appears to be complaining about there (on the wrong article talk page) and I'm the "Pole" who removed it.radek (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am just an ordinary editor but my response to the adding unsourced propaganda is: Then warn the editor when the editor adds the unsourced stuff, and if the editor won't stop after enough warnings, the admins may be able to help. Earlier, I put in a "focus on the content not the editors" warning on User talk:Jäger, but I am not interested in diving into an edit conflict on the Nazi bits. I just don't see how the admins can help you now. The editor was unwise to add the "Pole" bit, it is rude. Again, if the editor does it again, an interested editor should courteously explain that it isn't acceptable, wp:WQA is a good place to get uninvovled folk to do that if the involved editors aren't comfortable or feel their warning won't be productive. I hope that helps. - Sinneed (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

thank you. Loosmark (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Wikipedia search hit for "Van Jones" on Google

Resolved

I wanted to alert the administrators that as of 9:20 PM EST when you search for "Van Jones" (recently resigned special advisor to the White House Council on environmental equality) in Google the following appears under the line to the Wikipedia entry:

Anthony "Van" Jones (born September 20, 1968) is a racist, anti-American environmental advocate, civil rights activist, attorney, and author who served from ...

The actual Wikipedia article on Van Jones contains no errors, but someone has somehow edited the search results in an attempt to slander him. I am not sure whether this is a problem that needs to be addressed by Wikipedia or Google but I wanted to bring it to your attention so that a correction can be made immediately.

Van Jones is a talented and dedicated public servant and an African-American and in the midst of the controversy (and increased internet traffic) surrounding his resignation I do not think Wikipedia wants to be seen as endorsing this viewpoint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.198.226.240 (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We had this problem before when a vandalized version of Barack Obama was "cached" by Google. There is nothing that we can do on our end to fix this problem, unfortunately; one would have to contact Google and have them purge their cache. If that isn't done, I think it will take about three weeks for Google to update their cache. NW (Talk) 01:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually quite a common issue. Another one that I was recently made aware of is google:yeoman. There is a way to contact Google to have them fix this (as was done during the Obama issue) but I don't have the link. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it usually goes faster than that. Highly trafficked articles seem to be updated by Google every few days or so, sometimes every day. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Even so, we don't want it left up there for two days. How do you contact them? A little insignificant (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, here is the link. [78] I've reported this specific issue already, however. They should retrawl soon, I hope. --Slp1 (talk) 01:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For further future reference, Hersfold has created the guide WP:GOOGLEPURGE for dealing with such issues.  Skomorokh  03:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Trump Soho

Resolved

 – Moves and histmerges complete.  Skomorokh  05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone moved Trump International Hotel and Tower (SoHo) to Trump Soho without moving the page history correctly. Could you make sure the histories and the talk histories are all moved correctly.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've had a bash at it. Have a look, Tony, and let us know if anything is out of place. Cheers,  Skomorokh  01:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems messed up. I am getting redirected to a redirect and unable to see any article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be at your last revision now.  Skomorokh  03:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the article should be at Trump SoHo and not Trump Soho.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to move it there; Trump SoHo is empty. Cheers,  Skomorokh  04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please check...moved and changed the redirects and 2 links. - Sinneed (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Check. All history present at Trump SoHo.  Skomorokh  05:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Jackie O et al.

This request is an {{adminhelp}} from User talk:MetricSuperstar, moved here by  Skomorokh  02:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kyle & Jackie O & Jackie O, G and Danni Show are being redirected to each other by users Martin451 and 114.76.21.137. As far as I can tell they are different shows and neither of the redirects were talked about on article talk pages. I left a notice on each of the users talk pages but there have since been more reverts so I decided to contact an admin. _Met^ty 02:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Officalbehindbigbrotheraustralia created a new copy and paste article Jackie O, G and Danni Show‎ with BLP issues, and redirected Kyle & Jackie O to it. I reverted the change and warned the user about BLP, and Cut and paste. Then User:114.76.21.137 tried undoing my changes. As I was attempting this user:MetricSuperstar started undoing my changes and requested admin intervention. Martin451 (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark Arbitration Enforcement closure

Resolved

 – After review by two further (uninvolved) admins, the original admin actions by Sandstein and AdjustShift were upheld. Manning (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Few days ago i got topic-banned on some articles by admin Sandstein. Since I felt that the decision was unjust I filled an appeal on the Arbitration Requests for Enforcement page. Now admin AdjustShift decided to examine and rejected my appeal [79]. The thing is I had many issues with this Admin in the past (more than with any other on whole wikipedia), for example he once made a bogus accusation against me that "i'm constantly trolling", for which he made a half-baked appology only after i reported him, diffs of the case here [80], scroll down it is case 88 named "accusations of trolling".

In this comment made on my talk page(!) [81] he failed to asume good faith over a comment where i critised him for something, i don't recall what, and claimed i did it "to settle old issues", note that he also himself comments about "disagreements" and "normalising our relationship".

There were also other cases in the past where we argued because we had completely different positions (he usualy supported German POV while me of course Polish), on top of my head: the famous Molobo case, with secret evidence, Expulsion of Germans page (he made a controversial protection of the page, something i disagreed was necessary) and other i don't remember. I can dig up the diffs if necessary. In any case given that AdjustShift and me had so many issues in the past and that our relationship was so bad that in his own words needed to be normalised, i think it is completely innapropriate for him to examine my appeal. Loosmark (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If it helps at all, I would have closed it the same way. I have to agree with Sandstein that you've gotten so involved in the area, you're starting to confuse editor's opinions about the content with what the editor themselves might believe. He gave several good examples when closing the initial report. Taking a breather from the area for a bit may help get your focus back. Shell ^babelfish 03:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, we should still fully adress AdjustShift's actions in this situation.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 03:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whatever the merits of Loosmark's appeal, there does appear to be a serious conflict of interest with regard to AdjustShift here. I was under the impression that the action on such cases should be made by uninvolved administrators and AdjustShift, due to his previous disputes with Loosmark, is obviously not uninvolved here (I believe Sandstein excused himself, rightly, from ruling on the appeal since himself was involved). It's also unclear - and problematic in my view - that AdjustShift ignored (as he himself states) all the comments made by users other than Loosmark, Faustian and Sandstein. I understand that sometimes these discussions get long but what's the point of letting outside editors comment if their input is just flushed down the toilet?radek (talk) 03:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Shell how was I so involved in the area if I only made 2 problematic edits in on a single talk page? Anyway with my appeal I was hoping to at least get a more narrow topic page on single a couple of pages (the reviewing Admin could have proposed alternative solutions). In any case i think I deserve to have my appeal examined by an Admin who wasn't involved in many disputes with me in the past. In my opinion what AdjustShift did sets a very bad example and should be reversed. Loosmark (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't mean the usual Wikipedia meaning of "involved" rather that something about the topic appears to cause you to overreact to the comments of other editors there. However, if there's a consensus that AdjustShift shouldn't have closed the request (I actually thought those requests were supposed to go to the ArbCom clarifications board) then there's no reason it couldn't be reopened so another admin can evaluate the request. Having already given my opinion, however, I would recuse from closing it as well. Shell ^babelfish 03:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that the request should be reopened, as per above. Sephiroth storm (talk) 03:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that reopening is the best course, however I'd like to hear from AdjustShift before proceeding any further. I've left an invite on AdjustShift's page to that effect. Manning (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome, is the topic title appropriate? or is it biased? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC).

I've retitled it.  Skomorokh  04:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

An uninvolved administrator review - I have just read all of the relevant materials in this dispute at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Result_concerning_Loosmark_2.

I concur with User:AdjustShift's decision to reconfirm User:Sandstein's original verdict. I also note that another uninvolved admin (User:CIreland) has also reviewed and concurred with the original Sandstein decision.

I'll acknowledge that admin AdjustShift could have been a bit more diplomatic in his/her choice of words for the closure summary as "I ignored the comments of..." is always likely to be inflammatory when read out of context. But after reading everything I can see that what AdjustShift really meant was that there was nothing in any of those comments which impacted the judgement. (And every admin has been guilty of over-summarizing at some point or another.)

If needs be we can reopen the case and I'll promptly reclose it in my capacity as an indisputably uninvolved admin. Or we can just leave it as is. Manning (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well rather than being a just a bit more diplomatic I think AdjustShift should have not examined the appeal in the first place since he was clearly involved in issues with me in the past. In regards with that I have a question, will AdjustShift's trying to pose as an uninvolved admin even be addressed in any way? I think it should not be swept under the carpet since otherwise such an incident can potentially repeat itself in the future. Loosmark (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well before responding let me say that I have had no previous contact with AdjustShift (at least that I am aware of) so I am not speaking out of any particular loyalty to that user. I'll also note that the rules about being "uninvolved" exist to prevent the exercising of administrative power for any reason other than justice, fairness and the well-being of the encyclopedia project.

If you attempted to launch some form of arbitration action against AdjustShift it would come down to an argument about the term "uninvolved". AdjustShift could easily argue that he/she had not been previously involved in this particular dispute so was acting as an "uninvolved" admin. (If admins were unilaterally barred from exercising authority over any and all users we had ever previously disciplined we would, as a collective body, become ineffective fairly quickly.)

As I see it, your complaint about AdjustShift being "previously involved" is effectively a claim that AdjustShift demonstrated "unfair bias" against you. However, so far two other admins (User:CIreland and myself) have reviewed and found no evidence of unfair bias and have supported User:Sandstein's (and by default AdjustShift's) decision. Until there is evidence of AdjustShift being motivated by anything other than the welfare of the project, I would expect that any further attempts at arbitration would fail.

This is naturally not a statement of Wikipedia policy - it is merely the opinion of a single administrator. Others may or may not agree - such is the consensual nature of Wikipedia. Manning (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Manning I've a couple of comments: I think that "uninvolved" clearly needs to be understood in the widest possible meaning. If not then the thing just doesn't work : for example if editor "A" and Admin "B" argue over some content issue on a page and editor "A" is at the same time reported for some completely separated thing somewhere else, Admin "B" can simply jump there and claim uninvolvement. Regarding the statement that If admins were unilaterally barred from exercising authority over any and all users we had ever previously disciplined we would, as a collective body, become ineffective fairly quickly. i'd like to note that:

a) AdjustShift has never disciplined me, had he done that than yes i'd still have to prove he made a biased decision.
b) Rather he himself characterised our relationship as being in need of normalising (thus according to his own words it was not a normal relationship).
c) we argued quite a bit during the complain i filled against him for the trolling accusation
d) afterwards he wrote that i'm trying "to settle old issues". I have of course not done that, but even if we for a second asume the best case scenario for him that i was indeed trying to settle old issues it still comes down to has grievance because of it.
In my opinion this case is as clearcut as possible because i'm not trying to demonstrate those things, he simply stated them. We have a smoking gun so to say. Loosmark (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We have a policy about this, WP:UNINVOLVED, which says that interactions in an administrative capacity (or disagreements about them) do not constitute involvement. (For instance, I do not consider myself "involved" with respect to Loosmark in any future request for admin intervention just because I topic-banned Loosmark and he disagrees with it.) In this case, although not entirely clear, it seems that the dispute at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#accusation of trolling involved content disagreements about Germany and Poland, which would make AdjustShift involved at least with respect to actions related to such content, but since the issues here concern Ukraine and Poland, I don't know whether the subjects are closely enough related to count for involvement purposes (I know too little about WWII history). That question seems to be moot now because the appeal has been independently reviewed by other admins here.  Sandstein  06:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, I'm sorry but AdjustShift is not an uninvolved administrator. The issue concern Ukraine and Poland during WW2 and German WW2 history is very relevant here. I remember AdjustShift being very involved and even defending German editor from being blocked while in dispute with Polish editors. Please look at his close relation[[82]] with the editors who appeared from nowhere and commented against Loosmark[[83]]. Sorry but he is DEFINITELY not an uninvolved administrator I'm sorry to say that, but there is a huge unfairness going on here and I'm being more and more disappointed with the whole Wkipiedia experience and you, administrators.--Jacurek (talk) 06:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein would you please read this thread from the beginning including the the diffs that I've presented? Obviously I don't consider you to be involved in any future request against me based just on a ban you gave me, such a position would be completely crazy because we'd run out of uninvolved admins in two days that way. Equally I'm not saying that AdjustShift is to be considered involved based on his involvement in the German - Polish disagreements but rather on the things he said about me: that i'm trying to settle old issues with him, that our relationship is not normal, etc etc etc. (diffs are somewhere above). Loosmark (talk) 06:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark & Jacurek: By all means launch any mediation/arbitration method about whether or not AdjustShift acted in an uninvolved capacity, as are your rights.

However in regard to THIS specific matter (regarding the closure of the arbitration appeal by AdjustShift), a number of uninvolved admins have already weighed in to give their verdicts and as such this matter is now effectively closed. Manning (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, how closed? The specific matter here was my complain against the behavior of AdjustShift, I even titled the report that way, sb then retroactively changed my title to "Loosmark Arbitration Enforcement closure" without even consulting me. I'd like to know the opinion of other community members on this matter if you don't mind. Loosmark (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

BillTunell and userboxes

I recently discovered that BillTunell (talk · contribs) had been reformating several university student/alumni userboxes to include the school's (possibly) copyrighted logos. I've gone back and fixed all I could. I'm not exactly sure about the fair use/non-free content aspect of these images, but something should be done.

The short version: BillTunell (possibly) enabled fair use images to exist outside of the article space by using them in userboxes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the logos at User:BQZip01/FBS Trademarked logos are public domain as they are in typeface see WP:Public domain#Fonts for info. Powergate92Talk 04:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is currently being investigated, because many of them are unique and not simple typefaces and may not be in the public domain. I know that the University of Miami's logo is not a simple font logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Where is it being investigated? I've never seen a good way to decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I pointed it out to users who are savvy with copyright information and they are going to check the images to tell if they are actually not copyrightable and are merely trademarks.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes but some of the logos you removed like File:ArizonaWildcats.png and File:Vanderbilt Commodores.png are in typefaces and are in the public domain. Also just because a logo has color and simple geometric shapes doe's not make it copyrighted please see Template talk:PD-textlogo. Powergate92Talk 05:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is not positive that these items are officially in the public domain because someone designed the stylized A for File:ArizonaWildcats.png and someone came up with putting a V inside of that star for File:Vanderbilt Commodores.png. BQZip01 (and other users) changed the copyright tags on all the images. Just because someone tagged an image with {{PD-textlogo}} does not automatically mean it is and always has been in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The A in File:ArizonaWildcats.png is in antiqua so it is public domain and a V inside of a star can not be copyrighted as it typefaces inside of a simple geometric shape again see Template talk:PD-textlogo for info. Powergate92Talk 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because one user decided to assume that the image is in the public domain does not mean that the image is in fact in the public domain.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked at some of the images in question; I believe the Vanderbilt image is public domain; it is a common V placed on a star with outlines. However, I do not believe the Arizona one is. Sure, the outline is easy to do, but I am thinking more with the way the red A is drawn with some sort of creativity. I am talking to other image admins now, but I don't expect this issue to be solved in the next few hours. To sum it up, there are some legit PD logos in the mix, but many are questionable. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd agree with that - the Arizona one probably crosses the threshold of originality, and of course we should default to it being non-free, whilst the Vanderbilt one almost certainly doesn't. One should not make the mistake of thinking that just because a logo only contains lettering it is PD. That is not necessarily the case. Black Kite 06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Related issue with Nickelodeon logos

A second view needed; the Nickelodeon networks are changing their logos on September 28 and I uploaded this logo a month ago for TeenNick under a non-free fair use license, as is the usual case with all logos involving WP:TVS subjects. However Powergate has been modifying the license to be public domain-trademarked instead, claiming in a response to me after I reverted to fair-use licensing that they are PD because it is just a font and because of certain glyphs in the font cited, while I am under the assumption that the typeface is actually a copyrighted font custom-designed for Viacom and thus meets fair-use much more as a logo than as just an illustration of letters. I would like a determination if fair-use non-free is the appropriate license in these cases.

Other examples of Nickelodeon logos which I feel are incorrectly licensed as PD;

• File:Nickelodeon logo new.svg
• File:Nicktoons Network logo 2009.svg
• File:Nick at Nite logo 2009.svg
• File:Nick Jr. logo 2009.svg Nate • (chatter) 06:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Long term weird vandalism

Resolved

Motsew (talk · contribs) seems to be a vandalism-only account, but spreads his edits out over long periods of time (with one or two normal edits thrown in to avoid being blocked. At one time, he also moved his own user and talk pages to Motsar (talk · contribs), and then moved them back. I'm not sure if that's also his account. He also vandalized warning templates on his own talk page with an IP. That kind of overall behavior is a bit comples for AIV, so reporting here. Latest vandalism was to Kanye West today, by uploading and linking an abusive photo. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to be here to contribute productively. Blocked indef as a vandalism-only account.  Sandstein  06:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

3 recent edits under that ID after a 2-year absence? Something smells like hosiery. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Such as this bit of similar vandalism to Kanye West [84] by another red-link, again after a 2-year absence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West

Well this has obviously become quite the BLP posterchild in the last few hours. The article was semi protected for a long time due to prior BLP issues and now this VMA furore. Due to extreme and repeated BLP violations by established editors I have fully protected the article for 3 days until the immediate press/anger dies down. I have left a message on talk explaining and reminding people that BLP applies in talkspace too, but the talk page is seeing a lot of drive by attack edits of its own. Could use some more eyes on it, I am going to bed. Mfield (Oi!) 05:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User:GeorgeSRocks

Resolved

 – Deleted, message left for user about WP:USERPAGE. Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 09:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This user page was recently vandalized, but when I went to revert to a good version I found there isn't a single version of this page that isn't a violation of Wikipedia policy. Even the original account user's versions are either attack pages or threat pages. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)