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

Fraudulent referencing

User:Ash has repeatedly inserted "references" to a retailer site where the only relevant content is expressly acknowledged as being "from Wikipedia," and the relevant text is essentially a word-for-word match to the pertinent Wikipedia article. Since Wikipedia mirrors cannot, of course, be used as references, I removed such references earlier today. Ash is now reinserting the references, linking to the same retailer site, but providing a misleading description of the referenced source. The articles involved include Alec Campbell, Chuck Barron, Cliff Parker, Bo Summers, and Chance Caldwell. This should be a very simple matter; when a page describes itself as a Wikipedia mirror, it can't be used to reference a Wikipedia article, and it's grossly inappropriate, bordering at best on deliberate deception, to present such a page as a reference with a description that misrepresents its nature, claiming it comes from an independent source. (The site used as a "reference" is (NSFW, adult content) http://www.rainbowcollexion.com/store/DaveAwards1992.html , a site hawking porn videos, with text matching Dave Awards.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I raised this matter on Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's talk page but s/he seems to prefer raising an unnecessary aggressive ANI rather than discuss the matter in the normal way on article talk pages or user talk pages.

The source HW has repeatedly removed was discussed at length at Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source when HW previously went through a campaign to discredit the Adam Gay Video Directory as a source. It is actually well supported by academic use as the information supplied by other editors in that RFC shows. Rainbowcollection is a handy additional URL which clearly sources the published information to the printed AGVD. Assuming good faith, I changed the reference style after HW's initial multiple deletions to make this explicitly clear. The format of the references most recently removed without appropriate discussion was:

The URL is a handy on-line representation of the information for the layman reader rather than only quoting the OCLC for the printed material.

When Hullaballoo Wolfowitz first reverted my citation, I amended it to include the OCLC. S/he has blanket deleted across several articles without further discussion and appears to be failing to assume good faith on my part by calling the citation "fraudulent". I request that these deletions are reverted and discussed in a civil manner rather than waste everyone's time with this sort of bullying and unnecessary escalation. Ash (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be the third ANI regarding this user. SGGH ^ping! 23:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a blatant sales and advertising link to me. Off2riorob (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) So? If you mean me rather than HW, then both previous ANI's resulted in no action due to a lack of substance and were raised by Delicious carbuncle; a user with a topic ban in place history of unnecessary dispute. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive206#Proposal_to_Ban_Delicious_carbuncle. I suggest you judge this matter by the facts presented. Raking through any and all past disputes involving third parties, myself and Hullabaloo Wolfowitz in different combinations would appear more than a little off-topic. Ash (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, did you look at the adult directory to confirm that the awards are listed there or did you rely on the vendor page (which mirrored wikipedia) to assume that's in there? If it's the latter, that is reckless and will cause other editors to review all of your citations with suspicion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The source was verified when the information contained in the article Dave Awards was sourced from it. The reference is identical, only the handy URL has been added for convenience. Its use in this manner falls within WP:RS (and WP:SPS for that matter) as the URL is not the key source document but presents the identical information, namely that these credited actors won these awards. Potentially the URL could be removed leaving the reference to the printed document only, however, we commonly point to commercial sites or catalogues (such as IMDB or AFDB) which are used as supplementary sources. I see no particular reason why gay pornography should be a special case and have to comply with higher criteria for supplementary sources than any other sort of BLP related article. You will note that this ANI is about "fraudulent" referencing.

I believe that it has already been made abundantly clear that there is no "fraud" at work here, particularly with a history of a prior RFC that addressed this matter and the use of the word is unwarranted and uncivil. If we are discussing the refinement of referencing then this is not the correct forum as no administrator action is required and this is not a forum to reach a general consensus on referencing. Ash (talk) 00:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is reckless, Ash. The cited text in wikipedia states that the winners of the last year of the awards, 1994, was listed in the 1996 directory. No mention is made of the other years. Yet you reference the 1996 directory for the 1993 awards. I also had to giggle about the directory being used for a "2003" award.[1]. Yeah I know that one was a typo. You should not cite to anything that you can't verify yourself. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I have been the only editor to supply multiple OCLC's for the AGVD - that was verification that the source document existed in its different editions. If you believe the information about the Dave Awards might be false, and the AGVD (which was published in several editions as information was updated) was not verified, then the identical information in the Dave Awards article supplied by other editors cannot be trusted either. As you have chosen to go ahead and delete these references rather than discuss any further, I suggest you do the same thing, for the same data on the Dave Awards article. Presumably this means that all references to Dave Awards should be deleted from all articles as the AGVD is the original document as published by Dave Kinnick who created the award and it made a point of formally listing the Dave award winners based on his original column. The obvious consequence will be the eventual deletion of several more BLPs about gay pornographic actors, an area already remarkably under represented on Wikipedia compared to almost any other genre of film.

Note that with your recent deletions you are ignoring the prior consensus of the RFC mentioned above for the use of the AGVD as a source. Ash (talk) 08:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are blatantly mischaracterising that RFC. First, the RFC does not establish that the Dave Awards prior 1994 were published in that 1996 directory! Second, that local consensus does not trump the consensus established by wikipedia policy and guidelines! It is clear to me that you have not directly verified the material per SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. You can't cite to something that you don't even know/prove that's in there. That's why other people are characterising this as fraud. The burden of proof is on the person who adds the material. See WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The list of award winners at Dave Awards used the same original source (AGVD) to state the same porn stars as the articles I have edited won the exact same awards. Either it was verified at the time or it was not. I have used the same citation with the addition of a relevant OCLC to prove it exists in a library. I do not have to read paper copies of every citation myself in order to give each citation credibility, that is not part of wikipedia policy as we can rely on verification by other editors. If you believe the source was not verified correctly, the route you should take is ask for verification, not deletion. By claiming the source is "fraudulent" then it should be removed everywhere it is used, not just on the article I have edited.

By the way, a RFC is a wide consensus process, not a local consensus. Ash (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like you did not read Dave Awards article correctly when you copy its citation. "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. A good editor has to verify things when adding it to wikipedia. You can not shirk this responsibility simply because it is inconvenient for you if it's not online. BTW, I don't call any consensus arising out of 3 editors participating which includes the one who called the RFC as being wide. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)

Thanks, could you provide a link to the policy that states that Wikipedia contributors must personally verify all source material for citations with their own eyes rather than relying on verification by others? I am only familiar with the basic RS and V and these make no such constraint. I am not sure you understood my point. All the information in Dave Awards was verified at the time to the sources quoted. I could add a blanket reference to Kinnick's original column in the Advocate if that makes you more comfortable but I would still be reliant on verification by other contributors. As for the RFC, it was publicized on RSN as well as using the normal WP-wide RFC process, that in the 2 months it was open, only 3 people took part did not stop an unknown number of people reading it and anyone was free to contribute if they felt strongly. If you feel a second RFC is needed, you are free to create another, the fact I created an RFC in the first place demonstrates my good faith attempt to satisfy Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's original objections. Ash (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say it's a reasonable interpretation of "It is improper to take material from one source and attribute it to a different one" of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT along with WP:BURDEN's "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." A good editor would check his sources and not rely on heresay. I don't consider your editing fraudulent, just reckless. Further, commenting on the RFC even though it's moot since I don't think it applies, a wide consensus is not formed simply because the opportunity to do so was widely disseminated. Like you said, silence does not always mean agreement, it means people didn't give enough of a shit to contribute. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be useful to look at this BLP noticeboard discussion of Ash's sourcing on a specific article. I have also commented here on the use of the website noted by Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, but nothing came of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The RFC above started on 3 January 2010, was publicized on RSN and stayed open for two months, you were active on that talk page and never bothered to express an opinion or provide any relevant facts. Pointing to other discussions about different articles and different sources (in the case of the BLP discussion, I was not notified of the discussion existing) can only serve to take this ANI off-topic. If you previously had discussions and nothing came of it, perhaps there was a reason that nothing came of it. Ash (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I'm not sure what you're talking about, but I'm going to stay out of this one. My earlier ANI comment about rainbowcollexion.com is here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The use of the Adam Gay Video Guide itself is fine, the website linked which does state it's pulled from Wikipedia is not. Looking at the content history and cross-referencing the link above shows that the content was added to Wikipedia's article in August 2006 and the website page was created in 2007. This amounts to Wikipedia citing itself as a source which is not usually allowed, certainly not in this case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz IMHO is quick to assume bad faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater however, this issue could have been approached more collegially and the dispute isn't with the content but the cited sourcing so deleting content because the sourcing is subpar is a step backwards and likely serves only to inflame editing. Fix the sourcing or tag it for needing a source, in this case if you are unwilling or unable to simply add the source. This is similar to citing a YouTube video of a news report when the source is the news organization and not YouTube. A link to the YouTube copy can be provided for verification, context and content, etc. but in this case a mirror site link is not acceptable. The content doesn't need to be removed just fix the sourcing. If rainbowcollexion.com also seems to be mostly or entirely mirroring content then the site itself may have to be blacklisted. -- Banjeboi 19:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Also note Per WP:SOURCEACCESS:"The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." So not having access to a newspaper or magazine of repute does not mean it shouldn't be included. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The main issue I have that I have stated above is that there is no evidence that the 1996 Adams Gay Video Directory listed Dave Award winners before 1994. When you reinstated that citation, Banjeboi, did you check the directory to confirm that it is there? Has anybody here actually seen a copy whether it be electronic or print? Speaking of inflammatory and bad faith, why point fingers at HW when he did not remove content in this dispute. He replaced a unverified citation with the citation needed tag.[2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to doubt the source and zero evidence has been brought forth that suggests the information is untrue or misrepresented. The issue was with a mirror site and that has been addressed, with a lot of WP:Drama which I am not interested in prolonging. -- Banjeboi 20:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero evidence? Did you read what I had written above about the Dave Awards article? "Kinnick had a monthly "Video Review" column in Advocate Men Magazine; the results were posted in his column each May from 1989 through 1993. The last awards were published for the first time in the Adam Gay Video 1996 Directory since the column ceased in December 1994." That assertion was cited to the 1996 directory. Not the list of yearly awards. To me that is an assertion that the 1994 awards were listed in the 1996 directory, while the others were listed yearly in the Advocate. There's your evidence. You have not met WP:PROVEIT nor WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT when you reinstated that citation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Morbidthoughts has posted on my talk they are looking to see if they can access the online version of the underlying magazine to put the issue to rest, if not we can work out some other way to accurately represent the underlying sourcing. I consider the matter resolved for now and am happy to work with them to collegially find the best way forward. -- Banjeboi 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After some digging, the Advocate is not available in my academic database subscriptions. Maybe somebody in the WikiProject LBGT works or studies in another academic setting can easily find access to a print or online copy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ughh... and Advocate issues are on Google Books that go back only to January 1994. It also seems like there are two issues per month. Can somebody contact Kinnick through facebook so he could confirm whether his 1989-1993 awards were listed in his 1996 directory? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If only Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is calling me a fraud here, I suggest this ANI is closed as no admin action is required. Ash (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect people will pay any more attention to this here than they did on BLPN, but see the already linked BLPN discussion. In that case you used as references sources which did not contain the stated information. I chose to refer to your use of sources as "bullshit" rather than "fraudulent", but I suspect they mean the same thing. This suggests a pattern of undue care on sensitive BLPs and may require admin attention, if not action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If this thread has become an excuse for Delicious carbuncle to throw insults at me for a third time on ANI, could an admin please hide this discussion? It has become an obvious attempt to defame me without bothering to supply evidence or follow any reasonable dispute resolution process. I would hide it myself but I expect this would be taken as an opportunity for yet more thin claims of malfeasance. Ash (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That comment is really inappropriate. You asked (implicitly) if anyone besides me doubted the good faith or your sourcing practices; DC responded that he did. And you've teed off on him, once again, without addressing the substantive matters involved. It is flat out untrue for you to say DC was defaming you "without bothering to supply evidence" when he provided a link to a discussion where he supplied such evidence; there is no need to cross-post or repetitively post the same details over and over. And no one who has posted comments with edit summaries like "HW is making me feel ill" is in any position to complain about civility. A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with, and your pattern of behavior, quite frankly, falls aquarely into that category. How else can one explain your post on my talk page blasting me for not using dispute resolution processes, followed by your post here, only 22 minutes later, insulting me for "bullying" you and other misconduct for invoking those same dispute resolution processes? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense, how could saying "I object to your recent edit comments. You appear to be maligning my edits. Are you calling me some sort of fraud? Please raise your complaint on the correct dispute resolution process rather than maligning me in edit comments. This source had a perfectly adequate discussion on Talk:List of male performers in gay porn films/Archive 3#RfC Use of the Adam Gay Video Directory as a reliable source. If you wish to challenge it, again then do so but desist from removing properly sourced material from the articles in the meantime." possibly be interpreted as "Blasting" you? You have failed to prove I am a fraud or my edits were fraudulent. You have escalated what should have been a collaborative discussion about reliable sourcing into unnecessary threats of admin action. Claiming other editors are frauds is transparently uncivil. Go away and do something productive instead of stirring up drama and taking random pot-shots at me.

As for my edit comment on my own talk page, yes you are making me feel ill with this nonsense, so the comment is perfectly accurate and not an attempt to attack you as, frankly, who would ever notice it unless you pasted it in ANI?

This ANI is titled "Fraudulent referencing", not "Let's rake through every edit Ash has made in the last 3½ years and find something else to grief about". Unless you are prepared to prove that I am a perpetrating fraud, there is nothing here apart from satisfaction for anyone else who wishes to enjoy insulting me by calling me a fraud. Ash (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, in the BLPN discussion that I've already linked to twice in this thread, I pointed out exactly what was wrong with some of the references used. It is difficult to assume good faith when multiple sources you inserted into one article did not contain the referenced material. It is impossible to maintain good faith when after this is pointed out to you, you do not fix the problem. It would be nice if you could respond to the specific charges, rather than puffing up your feathers even more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm certainly not considered uninvolved in these disputes so my comments need to be seen as such. The underlying stated problem was that a source was misrepresented. Instead of taking any civil and traditional approach an alarmist ANI thread seemingly designed to malign a content editor in gay porn is again started. Meanwhile a solution has already been presented, and no one disputes the content is accurate (just not sourced in the best way possible), but I digress. The thread goes to great pains to paint Ash in the worst possible light and also takes sweeping jabs at others who suffer this nonsenses routinely. Such gems as A primary reason that so much Wikipedia content, especially BLP content, in the erotica subject area is in indeplorable is the tendency of a small group of users to focus on personal criticisms of those they disagree with while avoiding the substantive editorial issues, in an effort to make the editin experience unpleasant for those they disagree with... and past jabs alluding to a mythical gay porn cabal complete with outing attempts and accusations. And here these two have the gall to pretend that Ash, myself, or anyone else has gone out of their way to interact with them in any way when the exact opposite is true. And assert that we have any interest in causing them grief when the reverse situation seems to be quite evident. Delicious carbuncle has been doing this, in this one subject area, for several months now and peppering alarmist and dramatic threads to keep them from being archived; and forum shopping in the words of others editors on these boards, because they don't get their way in a given discussion. Their sole contributions in this area has been to game and harass editors in this area with pointless and escalated regular editing issues while doing whatever they can to delete content they apparently don't approve. This is coupled with bad faith accusations and hot-button arm-flailing - BLP sky-is-falling nonsense that is quickly dismissed for what it is. Now they play the victim card to flip the script that mean ol gay porn article editors are picking on them. On the surface that might look plausible but I've only seen Ash trying to use consensus and policy to find resolution and generally Delicious carbuncle simply works to delete as much as they can regardless of consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, in my limited experience is quick to assume bad faith against editors but I'm not familiar enough with their editing to note if they are tendentious about it. This certainly feels like tag-teaming and frankly if there is a dispute on sourcing go to RSN, and those editors know it. So dear fellow editors I apologize for a lengthy comment here as I feel this board actually can be used to solve problems that really do need fire and brimstone cleansing but this seems like the nth thread in the one topic area with Delicious carbuncle and unfortunately it looks like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is somehow getting themselves in deeper as well. This all takes time away from their vandalism patrolling and other deletion work, which can be helpful, with keeping both Ash and I from actually building articles. It also serves to suck up the community energy with yet another dramafest where the actual problem may be yet another case of Delicious carbuncle wikibullying another editor who they disagree. This seems to be an ongoing pattern with them. My assessment is certainly bias and open to off-site campaigning on Wikipedia Review and elsewhere, especially by banned editors. This is my opinion and gives fuel for User:Ash/analysis which Delicious carbuncle made threats over, escalated to multiple forums and was upheld at MfD as being a logical step in dispute resolution. Delicious carbuncle doesn't seem to WP:Hear that their pattern of disruption remains a net loss for the community. Unfortunately I think that remains an ongoing regretable situation which may have to be dealt with if they can't amend their interactions with all editors, not just ones they apparently do approve. Also I second Ash's request that an uninvolved party hide, and likely close this thread. The sourcing issue supposedly requiring this thread was already being solved at my talkpage so this thread seems to be yet another attempt to defame them. -- Banjeboi 05:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, all of this bluster is unnecessary - is there some reason why Ash can't simply respond to the examples of, to use the word in the title, fraudulent referencing I raised in December and put the matter to rest? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the best random pot-shot you can fire at me is to refer to a BLPN discussion from over three months ago where you were rude enough to call the sources "bullshit", and concluded with no issues being raised or changes being agreed for the article in question, then you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in an obvious attempt to take this ANI thread off-topic. There is no evidence for me to respond to here. Put up some hard evidence that I am perpetrating a fraud which needs urgent Admin attention (as per the topic of this ANI) or take your transparent persistent disruptive uncivil and repugnant misuse of the ANI forum for griefing somewhere else. Ash (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I identified five specific sources in that discussion, although I don't know if all of them were added to that particular BLP by you. How much more evidence do you require? I'm sure I can find it if I start looking. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Correa won no Dave Awards. This can have no bearing on the request for Administrator intervention by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for fraudulent referencing in relation to Dave Awards on the five articles listed at the top of this ANI. A BLPN was raised for Vladimir Correa to discuss sourcing, no changes resulted despite your accusations of "bullshit" and ANI is not a forum to rehash discussion from months ago in an attempt to overturn consensus or a place to discuss possible improvement to sources on Vladimir Correa, as you well know the place for such a discussion would be Talk:Vladimir Correa.

If you want to have an Admin take action against me then supply some evidence relevant to this ANI. Your continued attempts to create unnecessary drama and to defame me with no firm facts to support your claims are a misuse of this forum. This forum is not a discussion group for when you feel bored, lonely or want to pick a fight. Ash (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In an ANI discussion entitled "fraudlent referencing", I can't help but think that the example I cite of your fraudulent referencing may be relevant. Again, I have stated exactly what is wrong with the references, so the facts seem to be quite firm. It would be nice if you could simply respond to the charge here. Although it is great to see Benjboi practising his typing here, it isn't doing anything to put the matter to rest. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to examine the Vladimir Correa article will discover that you have raised no current concerns on it, there is nothing to "put to rest". The last time you edited the article was on 29 November 2009 when you raised the article for deletion, this was also the last time you made any comment on the article talk page. The result of that AfD was to keep. I say again, you are off-topic by raising long dead discussion as fake evidence for griefing. You are misusing ANI for harassment. Ash (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, if any admin feels that I am using this thread to harass you, I hope they will speak up, because that is not my intention and I apologise if you feel that that is what I am doing. I'm simply asking you to address the unresolved sourcing issues that came out of the AfD of that article. If my allegations that the sources do not contain the cited information are wrong, it should be very easy for you to show that and would probably take about the same amount of time as avoiding the question has taken thus far. Since this thread was raised about concerns with your sourcing, it seems wholly appropriate to have that discussion here, not on the article's talk page, since the concern is with a pattern of misuse of sources, not with any specific article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, your extended fantasia may have some nice rhetorical flourishes, but it's belied by the fact that you've been hounding me, on and off, for months, to the point of jumping at the opportunity to file a bad faith sockpuppetry claim over an edit made after a system-glitch logout, in a dispute where you'd intervened to claim that blogs were generally acceptable sources for BLPs, despite clear policy language to the contrary. You also went out of your way, for example, to encourage an abusive sockfarmer and a gaggle of obsessive fans to keep pressing transparently phony charges of bias and multiple accounts against me. It's more than telling that you keep ignoring the substantial policy issues and outright violations in the disputed content generally, while freely flinging innuendo and groundless, evidence-free accusations around at editors you're in conflict with. It's past time to stop pretending and own up, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to characterize my statements as false or "fantasia", they are my opinions are I believe them to be true and accurate. As for the accusation that I am in any way Wikistalking you, that seems contrary to reality and I can assure you is utterly false. I have no interest or inclination to Wikistalk anyone. Of the many editors whose edits I either felt needed to be and were asked to review yours didn't strike me as anything but rather uncivil and quick to assume bad faith. As you seemed to be doing a lot of vandalism patrol I think that goes with that territory. If you are open to advice I encourage you to be much more welcoming to newby and IPs editors, even promotional-ish ones. If we can encourage them to add good sourcing and amend their less than positive interactions and contributions that the project wins. Promotional-ish editors often are experts on the subjects they are trying to edit. If they can instead work to rise to our level of notability, MOS and standards then, again, the project benefits. Time and again on your editing I've encouraged civility and coached much of what I wrote above about better sourcing. Wikipedia is not a battleground so i have little interest in engaging as such. I'm sorry you feel I'm in any way stalking you, the likelihood is I question and restore the deletion of content on articles that our paths cross. I have apparently edited thousands of articles so that we intersect from time to time is not that peculiar. As for the sock claim it looks like it was accurate although simply a technical glitch, meanwhile you're faulting me for supporting a sock of some sort, I didn't know they were then and still don't. If they are they still had a valid point that they felt you may have been using socks and this seems to suggest they had a point. If you follow my entire history I continued to push for civility, dispute resolution and even did an overhaul of one of the articles myself so that editor could see you weren't the only one who felt that article needed clean-up. I strike to limit the drama and simply work to improve the articles. Years from now what will count is the quality of the articles not the drama that goes into their creation and maintenance. Now as for blogs as reliable sources, this is an ongoing misperception that more experienced editors have been handling on a regular basis. First off this medium is growing exponentially and replacing in part traditional news media much like the advent of radio and television, and cable channels. Some are perfectly acceptable on BLPs and elsewhere, some are not. A blog written by the subject of a BLP is certainly acceptable for statements about themselves. If in doubt a civil talkpage discussion and possible a visit to the RSN would usually clear up any issues. As for this thread, which presumably you still seem to care about, the content was never disputed by anyone, and still isn't. it was all a matter of sourcing it correctly and that's being resolved. So it would seem this has been another escalation to ANI that was unneeded but has shed some light on the background of those involved. I wish you all the best in your future endeavors regardless if our paths ever cross again. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a fairly skanky response. You pretend to justify you groundless accusations by citing a long-discredited socking charge, one that had already been proved false when your sock buddy tried resurrected it. As was evident at the time, the charge was disproved by CU, and no less than Jimmy Wales had intervened on my behalf, suggesting that I be "thanked for right action [5]. While you pretend you "push[ed] for civility," in fact you encouraged conspicuously dubious users, virtually all of whom proved to be SPAs/sockpuppets, to maintain campaigns of personal attacks after extensive talk page discussions and AN/I disputes had consistently rejected their positions. Your comments on the substantive dispute involved are equally shabby: despite what you say here, the policy regarding blog-sourcing of [[WP:BLP|BLP] content is quite clear - "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" - and the stated exception was not involved in the dispute. You can strike this Uriah Heep-ish pose all you want, but it won't suffice to disguise your lack of good faith, your double standards, and our refusal to abide by WP content/reference policies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Referring to my response as "skanky" and calling another editor who I really don't know nor work with as "my sock buddy", etc seems a really bad way to maturely discuss who you handled the situation.It's utterly false to suggest I encouraged them to "maintain campaigns of personal attacks". If there was ANI threads, etc were they three-ring circuses such as this? Really, I pushed for them to use better sources and improve content as that was the best response to someone who seemed to be acting tendentiously against this one set of articles. I really didn't know the subject but I did feel your editing was a bit heavy-handed when it didn't need to be. Similar to your hard line stance following the letter and avoiding the spirit our policies you strike me as seeing too much as either black/white extremist positions when human beings aren't quite as easy to push labels onto. I stand by my comments but if you never used socks then my apologies. As for the rest of your baseless accusations I respect that you actually believe them to be true for whatever reasons. They aren't but you can believe whatever you wish. -- Banjeboi 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I'm getting involved with this, and I may already be regretting it, but a quick look at the most recent arguments leads to the obvious call to COOL IT on all sides. DC's use of expletives, and HW's use of the word "skanky" and the general accusative bickering nature of all this is unacceptable to me. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool, but I agree - let's deal with the issue below and get this thread wrapped up. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed analysis of Vladimir Correa questions as raised by user:Delicious carbuncle on BLPN on 11 December 2009

Source BLPN: (diff)
As Delicious carbuncle is intent of raking through this old BLP/N on ANI here is a detailed response to the five citations mentioned in that BLP/N that resulted in no action, edit or correction at the time:

1. wikiporno.org - fails WP:RS, I have no idea why User:Keraunos added this reference to an open wiki (diff), it puzzles me as to why Delicious carbuncle felt they could not remove it or blames me for it existing in the article. I would delete it myself if I did not expect to be immediately accused by Delicious carbuncle of yet more malfeasance or fraud.
2. The "More Dirty Looks" book demonstrates that Correa was in "Inside Vladimir Correa" (and that video exists). As for the placement of the reference, I don't have strong opinions on the matter. The discussion about his role as a top or bottom could be deleted without damaging the article, I do not believe that text was added by me. Obviously this improvement could be discussed on the article talk page, or just made without having to create drama on ANI.
3. The reference to http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/9/A/683F9A_1.jpg is just a reference to a DVD cover showing Correa. The article does not depend on this supplementary information. I could not care less if it is deleted or not.
4. The reference to Dyer's book seems appropriate as Dyer lists him with other examples of how his film portrays Correa as a superstar. In the current version of the article, the reference is being used to support him existing as a well known porn star. Rather than Delicious carbuncle's description of "the book sources do not appear to have any correspondence with the facts" this source seems quite appropriate.
5. The Advocate interview appears entirely appropriate as there are no other porn videos produced before 1993 that would be anything close to "Inside Vladimir". It is entirely reasonable to conclude this had to be "Inside Vladimir Correa".

• It should be noted that I believe my response here is pointless as this is the wrong forum for Delicious carbuncle to be banging on about a dead discussion in BLP/N when, as an experienced editor, s/he could not be bothered to raise these points on the article talk page, or to raise flags for improvement on the article itself, or continue to pursue the original question on BLP/N last year. Delicious carbuncle appears to be on a fishing expedition in an attempt to find something against me. As this out of date BLP/N discussion has been used to make repeated claims that this somehow demonstrates I am acting fraudulently, I have felt obliged to take time to respond in detail.
• Delicious carbuncle has made no attempt to discuss, delete or improve the references that s/he complained about over 3 months ago.
• I strongly object to these repeated accusations from Delicious carbuncle, and would hope that the fact that s/he has raised two recent ANI requests about me on this forum that amounted to nothing but hot air as additional evidence of repeated misuse of this forum in an attempt to harass or defame a number of other editors in the form of griefing. I hope that this sustained uncivil and passive aggressive behaviour is not tolerated in future. Ash (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, thanks for finally responding directly, and thank you for toning down your earlier remarks. This all came about because I nominated what was a very poorly sourced BLP article for deletion. Although the AfD was closed as "KEEP" and Cirt's closure was upheld at DRV, the article subject clearly fails WP:PORNBIO. It is unlikely once the current sources are properly vetted it would pass WP:GNG (which is not to say better sources could not be found). Ash, you appear to have deliberately inserted fraudulent references in order to improve the chances of this article being kept at AfD.

In order to minimize friction, I stated during the subsequent BLPN discussion that I did not think it would be productive for me to edit the article myself and asked that someone else make the necessary changes (which would presumably include looking over the rest of the sources). I do not know why no one acted on what I pointed out, but outside of the topic starter Cirt, you were the only other participant and you had introduced most of those sources. The question is not why did I not fix the references, it is why did you not fix what you now knew to be incorrect?

Taking your points individually, but not in order:

1 - as I've said here and in the original discussion, I do not know if you were responsible for inserting each of those references, so I'm glad we agree that wikiporno.org is not an appropriate source. Don't let me stop you from removing it.

2 - you added this reference to source a specific fact which is not contained in the reference. It is not a question of demonstrating notability. This is "fraudulent referencing", to use the phrase in the title.

3 - You added an image of a DVD cover is simply not a suitable reference and should not have been added. It appears to be "padding" the references to avoid deletion at AfD.

4 - The Dyer article is the same article as in #2, but contained in a different book. It has only passing references to Correa. I read it months ago, but as I recall, it does not establish any of the information for which it is being used as a reference.

5 - Neither the Advocate interview with Amy Poehler (in which Poehler refers to a gay porn movie in passing) nor the Gay Porn Times blog post summary which you also used as a reference -- more reference padding -- identify the movie as "Inside Vladimir Correa". In fact, the Gay Porn Times editor states "Ms. Poehler might be referring to 1991’s ... INSIDE VLADIMIR CORREA" (emphasis mine). Deciding that this is close enough isn't quite what WP:VERIFY says. Your comment here is indicative of the larger problem.

Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Supply some PROOF that I deliberately inserted fraudulent references as you are repeatedly stating or stop defaming me. Point #2 above makes my opinion on the placement of "More Dirty Looks" clear, nothing you have provided as evidence demonstrates deliberate fraud on my part. You are assuming the worst possible bad faith.

All the evidence above shows is potential improvement to sources or potential better placement of sources. Nothing here requires administrator action and it seems plainly obvious it never did. This is the wrong forum for a detailed discussion of article improvement and your absolute insistence on holding this detailed discussion here rather than in any other more suitable forum is blatant forum shopping. You are misusing this forum to unnecessarily grief other editors.

ANI should not and does not operate on a principle of assuming guilty until proved innocent. Ash (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, unless you accidentally inserted those references, you did it "deliberately". I speculated that you did it in order to influence the AfD discussion that had been started immediately before you began adding these references. I could be wrong about that, but there is no question that you inserted "fraudulent references" as I have shown above, with diffs. Your nonsensical sputtering about "placement" and your misplaced charges of "forum shopping" are yet more misdirection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you believed that the AFD (from 3 months ago) was manipulated, why did you not go to DRV at the time? Raising this on the wrong forum such a long time later is an obvious fishing expedition taking advantage of an ANI in order to create drama and make hurtful inflammatory accusations.
• ANI is a forum for requests for Administrator intervention. So far you have not identified anything that requires admin intervention and instead appear to be using this forum to endlessly repeat defamatory accusations against me based on your speculations as to my motivation. I have explained my contributions to the Correa article last year above, and you have failed to identify evidence that I have been deliberately perpetrating fraud as opposed to adding relevant citations that could have been better placed.
• Article improvement does not require admin intervention. Hopefully you are satisfied with provoking a reaction from me and creating lots of drama, why don't you now go and do something constructive, like, say, improve an article rather than banging on about edits from 3 months ago that you could have fixed last year had you chosen to get your finger out.
• Just to be clear - stop misusing ANI and stop defaming me.
• Do not expect replies responding to your accusations, I have explained my edits were in good faith and I would be delighted for any experienced admin to investigate. Hopefully you will shortly fall into that big hole you have been digging for yourself and then be unable to grief other editors. Ash (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem to me to be a matter for ANI. We don't check every reference (we should, but we can't), so we end up taking a lot on trust, particularly when supplied by regular editors. Therefore the charge of "false sourcing", whether deliberate or accidental, is a very serious charge indeed, particularly on a BLP. If such a charge were to be sustained (and I've no investigated closely here - so I'm not saying it is), then the only appropriate response would be to ban the offender, and certainly ban them from BLPs. To that degree, this isn't a simple content dispute for a talk page, or a simple deletion dispute for DRV, this is very, very, serious indeed. (Indeed a spurious change of false sourcing should also result in serious repercussion for the one asserting it.) Perhaps a user conduct RFC would be more appropriate than ANI, but in either case the evidence needs examined, and if it holds up, I'd have no hesitation to indefinitely block any offender (if I didn't, I'd be confident arbcom would). I suggest further investigation by neutral parties into Ash's actions, and form here is appropriate - it is essential that we find out where truth lies, or whether indeed we can clear his name.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. However Delicious carbuncle's problems with sources were raised on BLP/N in December 2009 (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive76#Vladimir_Correa). Anyone was free to comment, nobody took any action, nobody else supported Delicious carbuncle's claims of "bullshit" and I see little benefit in raising the same concerns in another forum over 3 months on. I would suggest a ban against me would have to be for a unambiguous pattern of repeatedly adding misleading sources to articles. If anyone cares to supply evidence I would be interested to see it. I'm sure that in my 22,000+ edits on Wikipedia, there are many examples of poorly judged edits to be found but I doubt that this would constitute a pattern of false sourcing. Any reviewer would find my contributions to be constructive and with genuine intent. You will note that back in February I opened an Editor review welcoming critical feedback, not normally an action associated with an editor acting in bad faith.

You make a good point about the repercussions on those who may bring false charges. Apart from it being a bit of a waste of time and effort, I would have no particular objections to an independent investigation by an administrator into my edit history if it were in conjunction with equally detailed examination of the nature of the accusations against various other editors made by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) over the last 12 months. It may be more straightforward to raise an RFC/U on Delicious carbuncle as per my earlier MfD rationale in preparing User:Ash/analysis - the start of a summary of Delicious carbuncle's disruptive behaviour. As this predates Delicious carbuncle's accusations against me here, this could hardly be seen as a tit-for-tat exercise on my part.

Note that Delicious carbuncle previously rejected an offer of mediation in the last no-action ANI s/he raised against me, as far as I am concerned, that offer is still on the table as it was made in good faith. Ash (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone investigate the allegations 3 months ago, or did it suffer from tl;dr? I wouldn't say a pattern would be required here - evidence of deliberate misrepresentation of sources would be serious even if not a pattern. Careless sourcing might be overlooked if it were just once or twice over hundreds of good sources. We need to take sourcing extremely seriously, and since we need to trust a lot of the time, any breach of trust is not to be passed over. I'd strongly suggest that you and Carbuncle both need to get this resolved. It is serious either way. I may have time to look closely myself later, but I've doubts as to whether you'd see me as sufficiently neutral. The issue does now need resolved by a serious, BLP experienced editor.--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Scott Mac (Doc), it is unfortunate that your involvement was based on a personal invitation to comment by Delicious carbuncle. Given that you portrayed yourself as an administrator who may choose to investigate these claims against me by Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and chose not to declare an interest, could you please now confirm the nature of your pre-existing relationship or collaboration history on and off wikipedia with Delicious carbuncle? Ash (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What nonsense is this? I indicated that you might not view me as neutral here. What exactly are you alleging now?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe I have "alleged" anything, I apologise if you were able to infer anything to that effect or if it appears to be nonsense to you. I asked for clarification as you said, "I may have time to look closely myself later...". You also stated that I may not see you as sufficiently neutral, this was a statement about me, not a statement about whether you have a pre-existing interest. When I later realized that you had been invited to comment here by Delicious carbuncle, I was taken aback as I had the impression that you were referring to our previous discussions about your use of language that has offended other editors. Ash (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So what's the problem. My only "pre-existing interest" is a hatred of people playing fast and loose with BLP sourcing - which is probably why DCarb approached me. Is that a problem?--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As noted at Talk:Vladimir Correa, all the above contested sources have been removed. The article did not rely on these sources though any editor is free to re-add them, and if they wish to be super-civil about it, they can add some appropriate rationale on the article talk page. I see little benefit in continuing this thread or explaining why Scott Mac's "hatred" of certain people may be a problem. Ash (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Additional evidence

Since some editors seem to be reluctant to view the references associated with gay porn performers -- some of which maybe "not safe for work" -- I picked two articles on UK bathhouses, Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch. These articles were created and expanded almost solely by Ash, which avoids the issue of Ash sourcing the text of other contributors.

In Chariots Shoreditch:

• The statement "The bathhouse is on three floors decorated in the style of a Roman baths" is sourced to a short item in a travel guide (page 122) which mentions the facility in passing but does not refer to the number of floors or the decor of that location.
• The section "Etiquette" is sourced to two books, neither of which contains a reference to "Chariots" or "Shoreditch" according to Google books. Although it may be argued that this section refers to bathhouse etiquette in general, the similar section in Pleasuredrome clearly refers to the specific facility.
• The description of the facilities available is sourced to QX Magazine, but is actually a full page back-cover paid advert for the bathhouse in the magazine.

In Pleasuredrome:

• A listing of the facilities available is sourced to a travel guide which does not contain "Pleasuredrome" according to Google books (although there is a two line item for "Pleasuredome" which does not mention the facilities at all).
• The statement "The sauna opened as a gay sex on premises venue or gay bathhouse in 1998" is sourced to an archived copy of the bathhouse's website, which does not contain any information about the history of the bathhouse.
• The statement "The sauna is markets itself as "We never close" and is open 24 hours all year including Bank Holidays" (later changed to "The sauna is notable among London gay saunas for being open 24 hours a day all year, including Bank Holidays") is sourced to QX Magazine, but, just as with Chariots Shoreditch, this is a paid advert not a review or editorial.

While not as concerning as the misuse of references for BLPs, this clearly demonstrates a pattern which needs to be dealt with. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the Pleasurdrome one the first cite should have included the next page which does have a description listed; the second ref listed above may have been used simply to note it was a gay focussed bathhouse which arguably is the one fact that would need to be sourced, also there may have been other items on the website that confirmed when opened but I found and added a council hearing note which covered the dating of the establishment, also not an terribly exceptional statement. I wasn't able to view the QX material but even a paid advert that states "open 24 hours", etc would seem acceptable even if not ideal. QX has included blurbs and even a few articles which confirmed pretty much the same thing. So here again it's a case of it would be nice if the refs were blindingly obvious so there is no question why they are used but that is a different case from inserting false information or indeed fraud. -- Banjeboi 00:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A search on Google books (for "pleasuredome" not "pleasuredrome") only shows it appearing on page 507 and page 508 is not available for display. If you have a copy of the book handy, would you mind scanning that page and uploading somewhere, Benjiboi? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking through Chariots Shoreditch this seems pretty much also making a mountain out of a molehill. The first site may simply be confirming that it's even notable enough to be referenced in a traveler's guide and does confirm a Roman style; the second ones confirm general bathhouse etiquette and do seem rather uncontroversial. And again a paid advert describing a club's own features is akin to a BLP subject blogging their own biography - we consider them to be experts on themselves. We would be concerned if these were exceptional claims. That doesn't seem to be the case here. -- Banjeboi 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have included diffs of the edits and links to the sources themselves. Please take the time to look for yourself and do not rely on Benjiboi's misleading interpretation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<yawn> More of the same I'm afraid. You start a whole new subsection much like you've done on so many other ANI threads and allege misconduct et al. You may note that Pleasuredome is a massive gay nightclub also in London, and no I have no interest in scanning anything for you ever. This entire exercise has been yet another WP:Drama fest and I invite anyone uninvolved to close it as still not needing any admin attention unless Delicious carbuncle is to be topic-banned off LGBT subject areas broadly construed and possibly a civility topic ban and just maybe a admin board ban. You likely do have much to offer the project as a whole but my interactions with you have proven otherwise. Civil vandalism patrol has its place but colossal leaps of bad faith time and time again show bad judgement in the least. -- Banjeboi 03:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like DC picked apart these two articles, finding lots of poor sourcing and your response is to pooh-pooh it. Not helpful. I suggest that some interested party go stub out everything cited to the problematic sources. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Lar on this one - if sources have been forged that is rather large issue for the project and needsto be dealt with as productively as possible, soon. - Schrandit (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My take is that this entire thread is designed to disparage an editor not because any content they edit is untrue but that it is focussed on gay sexual activities. Why Delicious carbuncle is so focussed on wikihounding editors who work in these subject areas is for others to judge for themselves, a visit to Wikipedia Review may help. That they feel it is their right and duty to publicly flog and enact their pound of flesh seems to be the actual underlying issue. The oft-bandied BLP flag of concern rings hollow when the fact remains that person X is the same person X who indeed does gay porn. This all digresses from the fact that we, of course, want high quality sources but this "evidence" suggesting that a company's <ZOMG!> paid advertisement used to support information about their services is somehow fraudulent remains ridiculous. Obviously it would be better to use an independent source however statements by the subject of an article are considered reliable as they are considered experts on themselves. -- Banjeboi

Incidentally, does anyone have a copy of the fifth edition of "The Rough Guide to London" by Rob Humphreys & Judith Bamber handy? I've asked Benjiboi to scan page 508 for me, but he has refused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you placed a request at WP:REX? 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the Wikipedia review forum, it appears that Delicious carbuncle, Scott MacDonald and Lar are members. This may not be an complete list and yet seems to be most of the contributors keeping this discussion going. As this may represent a direct or indirect form of canvassing or lobbying against gay-sexuality related articles, could someone please confirm what is going on and if this mets the guidelines for ANI discussion? Ash (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, please stop trying to slander my good name here by trying to associate me with controversial websites (although if Lar and Scott MacDonald -- both of whom are trusted admins -- frequent the site, I suppose I would be in good company). This appears to be yet another attempt to direct attention away from your misuse of sources. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe you are the right person to answer my question. I did not realize that Wikipedia Review was considered controversial here. As for interpreting my question as an attempt to slander your good name, I shall resist pointing out the obvious. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Detailed responses to the trivial questions raised about sources have been answered on Talk:Pleasuredrome#ANI_comments and Talk:Chariots_Shoreditch#ANI_comments rather than extending this dubious thread. Ash (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:174.3.110.108 And Questionable unblock of same (AKA user:100110100)

IP 174.3.110.108 (talk · contribs) is engaging in deliberate wikihounding of myself. I first encountered this editor, when he was 174.3.98.236 (talk · contribs) and later as 174.3.99.176 (talk · contribs), when he made massive changes to Wikipedia:Tables (formerly Wikipedia:When to use tables), Wikipedia:Embedded list, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and Wikipedia:Lists without any discussion nor consensus. As he continued these edits, despite warnings from myself and others, he was reported here and was blocked for 3 hours. During this event, he also filed a false 3RR report that resulted in his being warned again. After his block was lifted, he was again admonished by several admins, but continued on and the report went stale. Administrator User:Father Goose apparently deciding to adopt the editor and helped him make the changes he wanted. He was reported here again on March 3rd by another IP, but no response was given to that report.

On March 10, he pretty much straight down the list of articles on my user page, and making random bad edits to Meerkat Manor[6], Tokyo Mew Mew[7], U-Drop Inn[8], and White Dog[9]. All of his edits were reverted and I requested that Father Goose intervene, as he had clearly decided to "nuture" this IP and had assigned himself as the IPs "advocate"[10]. While Father Goose agreed that the edits were not improvements, he also asserted there were in good faith and felt no action was needed[11]. Further discussion followed on both Father Goose's talk page and the IPs, including some back and forth between the IP and myself where I reiterated that I wished him to stop hounding me and bothering me, primarily through the Meerkat Manor talk page, despite FG also objecting to his change.[12] He continued to do so and Father Goose finally asked the IP to back off and again noted that the edits were not an improvement.[13]

The IP has continued to ignore Father Goose's notes and my own requests to leave him alone, quickly losing my temper with his continued aggrevating actions and Father Goose's seeming approval by his lack of action.[14] Father Goose even went back to U-Drop Inn,[15][16] and made similar edits as the IP, to which the IP responded to by giving him "getting [his] changes implemented".[17] The IP tried to call my reverts of his edits WP:OWN and began using that as a pipped link every time he used the phrase "your articles". He admitted that he'd specifically gone to my user page to "came to audit your articles" to see if they met his idea of what they should be, and then as they had no tables, he just made random changes to "improve" them. He clearly stated: "If you are wondering what my motivation for editing your 4 articles, it is because considering you were the only person who objected to the changes to wp:table, and then you did not explain your objections, considering that you made no contribution the current version of wp:table, I did not think you had invoked the changes to "your" articles." though none of those articles have even one table. These remarks were made after Father had told him to back off, and despite the IP's stating "I won't post any comments on any of your articles' talk pages" he continued to do so.

After I posted to Wikipedia talk:Ownership of articles suggesting the guideline be clarified to note what is not ownership, he followed me in his very first edit, after being offline, to opposed it.[18]. He had never edited that talk page before, nor WP:OWN itself, so it is clear he came behind me.[19] The IP went on to claim he'd done this before, editing Gossip Girl[20], however no edit was found with his IP range, unless he deliberately changed ranges. He also clearly recognizes that his behavior is disturbing and annoying, seeming to find it amusing and has indicate that he fully intends to continue doing so deliberately and claiming that any objection I make is displaying "ownership".[21][22]

Father Goose said he would speak to the IP[23], but nearly 24 hours, has not done so though he has been online. The IP's newest remarks have been to make his expression of his full intention to continue his harassment and random "auditing" of his articles. I am also concerned about the appropriateness of Father Goose's actions in this situation, after learning that the IP is actually 100110100 (talk · contribs)[24]. This user was blocked in 2007 for serious incivility, disruptive, and even making death threats. Apparently, he admitted at some point to Father Goose that he was this indef blocked user, and rather than reminding the IP that he was evading his ban, Father Goose decided to lift the block all together, stating "Assuming good faith; has displayed an imperfect but much more even-tempered manner as an IP since this account was blocked." Father Goose also seems very quick to jump to this IPs defense against any criticism[25] and after his earlier block as an IP, went on to do the IP's edits for him and explained why he could "get away" with[26].

It should also be noted that the IP is in an on-going edit war with User:Paul 012 at Wikipedia:Lists[27], and has been warned for doing various template changes without consensus (even being mistakenly blocked as a bot for how quickly he was doing certain changes. Also, as I was typing this, the IP filed a Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts against me.[28]

At this point, it seems prudent to have some outside administrative reviewing of both the IPs actions, and the quite unblock of what appears to have been a very disruptive editor who has been evading his block with IP socks for weeks, if not longer. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC); Modified 04:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This editor is continuing his actions, going on to deliberately make edits to other articles, despite the those same edits being rejected by both myself and Father Goose as being incorrect and not an improvement to any of the articles.[29][30][31][32], and two more done under his user account[33][34] I find this person's continued deliberate targeting extremely disturbing. Father Goose purportedly contacted him OFF wiki, but obviously it had no results only to prompt this editor to continue this sort of stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I cannot defend 174's continued editing of Collectonian's pages at this point. I've counseled him against it, but he has persisted. Being his effective mentor, I am reluctant to block him myself, as it would compromise our ability to continue to deal with him diplomatically through me. But while I have been offering him advice and assistance, he is not under my aegis, and if another admin feels his actions call for a block or any other administrative action, I will not interfere.

I'll continue trying to suggest to him what actions he could be taking that would be more constructive.--Father Goose (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you tend to be a very AGFing editor/admin, but I am curious as to why you choose to unblock his named account, rather than enforcing his indef blocked, considering the history and circumstances (particular the death threat which, as far as I could see, he never retracted). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The broad principle here is that blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. His behavior is still not perfect (and his choosing to tangle with you in this manner deserves a rolled up wiki-newspaper to the nose), but I've seen him make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and his behavior has been far more communicative and cooperative than what caused him to get banned three years ago.

People are allowed to "come back" if they clean up their act. At the time that I unblocked him, his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed. Clearly we can't claim that he's a model citizen quite yet, and if he decides that hounding you is all that he wants to do on Wikipedia, then the cover should go back on the sarcophagus.

However, as pointed out by several people in the current Wikiquette alert ([35]), the intensity of your reaction here has not helped the issue. I'm not saying you should suffer a fool, but it makes it difficult for me to tell him to stop fighting with you when you're swinging back so hard. So far, this hasn't been going well for either of you.

I'd like to be able to stop this fight, but I'd need two calm people first.--Father Goose (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The fight would stop if he would stop the hounding. Why he decided to start it in the first place is beyond me. And I am calm(er) now than I was the first day. I have little patience for that sort of behavior, particularly when I have it coming at me from three sides at the moment, thanks to this guy, User:Bambifan101 finding yet another range to get past the 4-5 rangeblocks on him, and User:ItsLassieTime making socks and doing their darnedest to try to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, including harassing a bunch of folks who supported or commented positively on it. And, quite honestly, your lack of response only made my frustration far worse, as you seemed to be condoning his behavior and at times I felt you were even encouraging it. I acknowledged in my original report that I had not been as clean-languaged as I could have been, but the issue was still on-going and as we have now both no doubt seen, he fully intends to keep it up. I don't think my being stressed and annoyed at his hounding and using more colorful language than I would normally would (which was far toned down from what I was thinking, believe me) should somehow excuse his behavior. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And as an update, IP is continuing to push an issue at Talk:Meerkat Manor despite the notes above, it being rejected by multiple people, and folks in the Wikiquette alert that agreed he is acting inappropriate.[36] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Outside Tangentially related opinion

Collectonian, his behavior could be called into question. However, I'm still not seeing behavior rising to the level of hounding. He has made changes, but they appear to be good faith changes done IAW policy. While I concur that WP:IAR definitely applies at [[37]] and "The" is appropriate unless someone can come up with a better header. I have 4 articles to which I contributed that became FAs (as you are probably well-aware), but others still add a lot to those articles and change things, as they have a right to do.

However, even if someone else finds his behavior to be hounding, this doesn't excuse your behavior, which has been atrocious: from claiming ownership over articles, to excessive profanity, to inappropriate demands, etc:

[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

In short, I find your behavior to be worse and severely over-reacting. You should have simply brought your concerns here or to another board instead of reacting the way you did. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, that is your personal point view. As already pointed out in the Wikiquette alert, your are completely non-neutral in this discussion considering our disagreements over the A&M articles and my opposing one of your many failed RfAs. This is not the first time you have popped into a discussion that clearly showed inappropriate action by another editor to try to claim I was the one acting wrongly, despite no one agreeing with you. Again, whether or not I used profanity is irrelevant. I'm an adult and can use whatever language I choose. Further, it has already been noted above that this is NOT the first instance of this type of stuff. There is NOTHING inappropriate about telling someone hounding you to leave you alone, anymore than it would be wrong for me to tell you to get over the previous history and leave me alone. I walked away from almost every A&M article because of you. Be happy. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your language and hostility are a problem (the IP's behavior notwithstanding) and is not only relevant, but central to the problems we're facing here. You indeed can choose any language you want, but on Wikipedia, communication should be civil; it currently is not. At least 4 other people agreed with me on the Wikiquette board that your reactions are out of line. Our "history" (which near as I can tell we haven't interacted for over a year) or your history with anyone else is irrelevant. You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"You cannot justify bad behavior by pointing out other bad behavior" - you mean like you are doing now to excuse away this editors edits? And of the people who agreed with you regarding my language, I notice you don't bother to mention that they also agreed with me that he IS wikihounding (and that the last you one yourself noted was lying and had not actually interacted with me, just decided to pop in and make a a negative remark because they disagreed with my replacing the tags on an article they had removed). Honesty is just as important as civility, and using profanity, in and of itself is not uncivil. My behavior here was appropriate, even if you disagree with my language in the discussions. And your view is not neutral (it is amusing you are lecturing me on my behavior when your four RfAs have failed, in part because of your own personality issues....but such is life, eh?)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not excusing his behavior, though I've seen no specific diffs that you've provided with any problems. They seem like editorial concerns; ones that should be discussed on talk pages. One of your changes even goes against WP:HEADING, but I certainly concede that WP:IAR applies, no alternative really works, and you both discussed it on the talk page. Labeling a change vandalism when it is merely a difference of opinion is also uncivil ([50][51][52][53]). I don't see any diffs for the alleged tag removals. Profanity in discussions is not acceptable and explicitly mentioned in policy. Taunting me (or anyone else) is also uncivil.

If he's done something wrong, I'm just not seeing it in the diffs you've provided. I'm not excusing any behavior by saying his actions are justified because of yours. I'm saying I don't see that any inappropriate behavior exists at all." — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I do have to agree that some of Collectonian's reverts that are identified as "vandalism" are far cries from it. For example, the change that is undone by either [54] or [55], the addition of a pop culture section, is nowhere near vandalism - it is a good faith addition that is unsourced or unnecessary, but not vandalism; I'd still likely undo the change by under a AGF revert. Same with [56] a change that adds a bad EL (but not a copyvio EL). If these were repeat offenses (people pushing 3RR or a wise IP that's avoiding 3RR with slow edit warring), ok, vandalism starts to come into play, but not here. I would strongly recommend Collection to avoid the "revert (vandalism)" (which bypasses the edit summary entry) and instead use the other two revert tools that provide a quick edit summary so that it is clear why the reverts are being done. And this is not to question the need to revert - I think Collectonian is right that these aren't appropriate additions, but they are not vandalism. --MASEM (t) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first two are the same edit, made a bit of time apart, by the same person. Isn't that a repeat offense? I do consider the addition of unsourced, random content into a FA to be vandalism, however it others feel it is not, then I'm happy to start just using the regular RV for that sort of thing. I realize I tend to have a far harder view of vandalism than most others. However, I am curious. You do not feel the addition of spam is vandalism? That was not just a random site, but someone's personal "petition". To me, the last is a spam link, not any kind of legitimate link. That, to me, is vandalism, but again if it is not can you explain further to me what constitutes spam versus just a bad link? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the first two edits are not the same edit. They look similar but they are two different facets of pop culture. And because the IP addys are far apart, there's no evidence it is the same person (it could be, granted). I think the stance that "the addition of unsourced, random content into an FA is vandalism" is very much against AGF. (Yes, mind you, I'd love flagged revisions, which would deal with much of this, but...) All of this starts from AGF. If an editor (particularly an IP) makes a first-time edit that is not blatantly wrong but otherwise not appropriate, we need to take good faith that they may not be familiar with all policy and guideline - we can revert, just, we can't assume the person is vandalizing the article. Again, vandalism is deliberate; a new editor adding a bad (non-copy vio) EL is likely not trying to degrade the quality of the article deliberately, and that's why I wouldn't call any of those three examples vandalism. If the same IPs appeared later and make the same changes, then that becomes deliberate and thus vandalism. Again, the reverts in-of-themselves are not wrong, just the choice of using vandalsim rollback. That's why I suggest you should use AGF rollback to at least explain the edits - that will, in part, deal with the supposed attitude issue that BQZip is describing. --MASEM (t) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense (and so agree on flagged revisions). I suspect it is not always evident, but I have actually been working on improving my method of dealing with reverts and on trying to do more AGFing, per some remarks left on my talk age. I do not always successfu, but I don't think anyone can expect one to change overnight? To confirm, these are more appropriate AGFing rollbacks, yes?[57][58][59][60][61][62][63]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem better to me. Again, my only caution here (which is in part what seems to have led to this case) is to avoid pressing the vandalism revert button too fast, as doing a revert with more of an explanation that "vandalism" is much more helpful to new editors and those reviewing such cases. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

To the admins, I welcome any opinions, but Collectonian seems to have no desire/will to change her behavior. I recommend a 24 hour block (1st block for such a violation) for multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and an inability/unwillingness to alter such behavior which is explicitly in contradiction with the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. I also recommend a review of the IP's actions; while I don't see anything wrong, I'm willing to admit I could have missed something. The same goes for the unblocking admin. If I have done anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page or here and I will correct it (if it is something worthy of a block, please block me IAW WP:PG). — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A 24 hour block nearly 2 days after the incident? Blocks are not punitative (supposedly), and it seems you are just trying to find some reason to get me blocked. What is your stake in this? Why are you so determined to get me blocked while continuing to see nothing wrong with the hounding on both a logged in account and multiple IPs (which at least four editors have agreed occurred, despite your own personal denial of events). Hounding and pointy edits are vandalism. Thank you for at least admitting you really haven't reviewed anything and are pretty much just coming here to make negative remarks because its me. Were this any other editor, I doubt you would be calling for a block. And, FYI, Father Goose, whose talk page the exchange occurred on, IS AN ADMIN. Had he felt my language was inappropriate or worthy of blocking, don't you think he would have left me a warning (which I have not received a single one for) and blocked me himself had I continued. You really are not adding any value to this discussion, but instead only causing a lot of noisy distractions from the real issues. As such, it seems unlikely any actual admin discussion will occur here because of this pointless back and forth on a non-issue. Despite what you may like, you cannot have me blocked just because you dislike me.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Blocks are not punitive (and I wasn't suggesting otherwise), but are designed to change behavior. You have indicated that you not only have no desire to change your behavior, but that you believe it is acceptable. "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment." "A user may be blocked...when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to...persistent gross incivility."
2. Hounding and pointy edits are explicitly mentioned as things that are not vandalism: NOTVAND. These fall under disruptive editing.
3. For an admin to initiate a block in a situation he was involved would be inappropriate: "Administrators should not use their tools...in a content dispute where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist."
4. Plenty of users and admins have warned you over the past 2 days that your conduct was inappropriate. Complaining that "I didn't get a warning is disingenuous".
5. I am not asking for you to be blocked because I dislike you personally (which, in fact, I don't). I am asking for your to be blocked so your behavior will fall in line with our policies and guidelines on appropriate behavior.

— BQZip01 — ^talk 01:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Collectonian, the degree of unchivalry pointed out by BQZip01 with those vandal revert edits is not minor. Four edits, each one possibly worthy of a block in themself. It seems to me that despite conversation encouraging your calmness, you are far from editing in the calmest possible way. In doing your false vandal reverts it bring into question your ability to assume good faith and the objectivity of your comments here and elsewhere. I would prefer you are not blocked but what would you suggest instead? How is that you behaviour can be improved? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please point out how I am not calmly editing now. Not two days ago, but now. Also, please note that in my initial report, and in replies to Father Goose above, I DID acknowledge that I lost my temper in my initial responses to this situation. I see no reason to block me now. It is not going to change my general nature, which is not evidenced by that response at the start of this (which is what all of those diffs are from). I am annoyed by BQZip01's responses in the etiquette report and here, but again do you see any evidence I have been uncivil in my responses or repeated the response I had to 100110100/the IP? Also, can you or BQZip01 point to any other time I have had such a response anywhere in my 5+ year editing history? Even when another User:ItsLassieTime sock tried, for the second time, to derail an FAC I have going on at the moment, I believe my revert was fully civil[64], I requested the page be protected, and made the appropriate reports. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your response is one of challenge. It would be nice if it was one of co-operation. You will notice that when tables are turned your view is to propose a long block. Such blocks are not something I would agree with. Let's move forward and assume good faith. I have every reason to believe that in a spirit of co-operation and a helping hand from Father Goose that your issues with the IP can be resolved or at least not brought into flare up or 'fight' again. For now, I'm outta this conversation. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Suncreator, thank you for your kind words and assistance.

Collectonian, ask and ye shall receive: [65][66][67][68][69][70] In every edit summary there is profanity. This isn't an isolated incident. Moreover, the last one was for MQS, an editor in which you opined recently in his WP:RfA. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

One profane word in an editsummary, some of which you had to go back TWO years to find, is not the same. Thanks. And what does the RfA have to do with anything? I am allowed to oppose any RfA same as you (an RfA you yourself opposed). And if anyone is going to tell me that Bambifan101's socks don't provoke cussing, you'll also have to block several of the administrators, who have also used "profane" language in dealing with him. And let's see....you had to seriously hunt for those, to go back two years...out of 100,000 edits, thats all and the best you could do? A few minor edit summaries? *sigh* And I'm supposed to assume good faith that you aren't here with an agenda? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, you try to paint a broad brush as this being a one-time incident, when in fact, it is something you seem prone to do. I just did a quick search on your edit summaries checking for a few choice words. Some were recent; others were further back. And of course I looked back into your past (you said to look in your "5+ years", so I did. To belittle me when it is shown that you are wrong and your behavior remains consistent (sparks of incivility throughout your Wikipedia career), is inappropriate as well).

To paraphrase:

Me: Your recent actions are problematic

You: I'm sorry man. I had a bad day.

Me: This has always been a problem

You: Aside from this, I have a clear 5+ year history

Me: Well, these diffs show you have problems both recent and in the past

You: OMG, you had to go back 2 YEARS?!?

Me: No, you said you had a clear past. You don't.

Ok, so you are discounting recent actions, actions in the past, denying there are any problems, and making excuses as "it was deserved". That basically excuses any/all inappropriate actions indefinitely. Do you take responsibility for any of your edits? If you just said "I'm sorry", taken it back/struck your comments, etc, this wouldn't be an issue.

In any case, I didn't have to search very hard to find them.

The only agenda I have here is to get you to stop being so hostile (The thing about the RfA was simply a note that the two were tangentially related, not implying any sinister action on your part. You, of course, are free to do as you wish at any RfA.). — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

YOU asked I be blocked for RECENT actions claiming I was consistently something or another. I said look at my five year history as a whole, not just pick and choose a few bits of extremely minor issues (which NO ONE took issue with at the time). Almost every editor here, including YOU have "sparks of incivility" through out their career, particularly when they have been here any length of time. If we are going to sit here and nitpick five years and claim that because I made a very minor remark two years ago, I should be blocked today, then this is an entirely ridiculous discussion, unless we are also going to block you, and I'd expect at least 50% of the Wikipedia registered user base. I NEVER claimed to have "clear" history, so do not make false paraphrases. I specifically asked that someone point a single instance LIKE this in my five years. None of those are even close to comparing, not in any way shape or form. If you can't tell the difference, that is your issues, not mine. And I've already noted multiple times in this thread that I agree my responses IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE were overly vitrolic, but you, again, continue to ignore them. This, and your continued harping on this and demanding what, I do not know, just seems like someone with an agenda or some other reason for being here other than any legitimate concern. As is, I'm very tired of this back and forth with you and it obviously is not going to get us anywhere. From this, you will not find any fault here in 100110100's edits and instead support and condone it. From that, I shall refrain from answering you again in this matter, as it is completely unproductive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is your choice. In the diffs you linked, I saw nothing other than editorial changes on format. If I am missing anything someone please post them because I clearly am missing something. I am willing to put forth a support for a block, but I need to see some concrete evidence.

You are absolutely correct that I have made inappropriate edits in the past. I've apologized for it, acknowledge it was poor behavior, and vow to do my best not to have that happen again.

By contrast, you attempt to excuse them "Everybody does it". Even if there are problems with his edits or my edits in the past, that doesn't excuse your behavior. You have clearly made hostile edits and make no apologies for it. You claim you've never made other such edits, but I've shown that assertion to be false. I agree your general edit history is clear, but that doesn't make these actions ok.

Lastly, I do not condone or support his actions, but they are not prohibited either. I find it inappropriate to chastise or vilify someone for behavior that WP has deemed acceptable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that Collectonian should be blocked -- not over this incident, at any rate. 100110100's behavior was at least to some degree provocative, and while Collectonian's response has been disproportionate (in my opinion), that's still nowhere near a block.

I do agree however with the criticism leveled at her here and at the Wikiquette alert. She has a tendency to bare the claws early and often. But I'd much rather address that problem through peaceful means -- i.e., talking to her about it. I don't think I'm the right person to do that, as she no doubt sees me right now as the ally of one of her enemies. But if Collectonian found a way to be calmer and more willing to assume good faith in general, I've got to think she would find Wikipedia to be a much more amicable place than it has been toward her to date.--Father Goose (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite this issue of wikihounding, I haven't had any problem with finding Wikipedia an amicable place. Yes, with my lengthy history and visibility in the fictional areas, I've made enemies. So has any other active editor. Frankly, I don't care. I'm not here to make people like me or make friends. So long as it doesn't bring harm to the articles, its neither here nor there. I do, however, take issue with being harassed and wikihounded. I ask this of you, and my other critics. Had I been the one who had followed 100110100 and his IPs edits and just randomly began changing things around that did not improve the article at all (and in some cases were not even valid per the MoS), and I clearly was following him, not just happening to interact with him, would the response be the same? I doubt it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• 156 ANI incidents involving Collectonian as an interested party. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• That search you link to doesn't mean anything. It just means Collectonian has posted in or been mentioned in 156 ANI threads, not necessarily as an interested party. My name is found in 28 threads: [71], and this current thread is the first time to my knowledge that my behavior has been called into question (although given that I unblocked a user who is not without his faults, I accept the scrutiny).--Father Goose (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Well, okay, some of the threads within that search do contain complaints about Collectonian. But I think she's been adequately informed that she could be less sharp-elbowed, and given that no action will be taken against her as regards this incident, it'd probably be best to let the issue settle for now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• And that is supposed to mean what? I have filed numerous ANI cases, dealing with the Bambifan101 socks, ItsLassieTime socks, a stalking editor for over a year, usual vandalism reports, etc etc etc. You can't just search a name and claim "look at all these threads about them". It doesn't mean anything. Of those that might have complaints about me, a good number were from disruptive editors that, actually reading the threads in question, would show were eventually blocked themselves for being disruptive, rather than having any rebuke against myself or anyone else. I do find it interesting that you are chiming in here though, all things considered, such as your seeming continuing to watch my contribs yourself and randomly following me to welcome vandals[72] (without apparently bothing to note he had done the same multiple times before as various IPs). The Wikiette closing as WP:SOAP was quite right. Just wish someone would do the same here already. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• In our last discussion you suggested that if I thought you were infringing WP:BITE and WP:AGF I should "coddle the IPs directly" rather than bringing the matter to you. I've taken your advice. You left an incredibly harsh "this is your only warning" message on the guy's talk page, without even a welcome template to go with it. Maybe the guy deserved it, maybe he didn't, but it's not like you left any explanation that you thought he was a sockpuppet or evidence backing that up. So I took the time to explain to him exactly what rule he'd broken, why he shouldn't do it, and how he could make more constructive edits in future. You do a lot of these vandal reverts and most of them are good reverts; in a perfect world you'd take the time to amend your warning template to include this kind of basic politeness, but that doesn't seem likely and there's no particular onus on you to do so, so in the spirit of WP:SOFIXIT I did the community-building work myself. A little good faith would go a long way towards not being involved in 156 ANI threads. If you have further concerns feel free to pose them on my talk page so we don't choke up this largely unrelated thread. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Had you done the same to him, I would have assumed good faith with the initial four edits, and had you persisted, criticized you for it and asked you to discontinue. In other words, I believe my response would have been largely the same toward you as it has been toward him. Despite being his mentor, I haven't defended his behavior when it has been unambiguously problematic.

As for the "random non-improvements", I've found that about half of the time I see the sense in 1000110100's edits, and half of the time I don't. The primary reason I've been willing to be his advocate is that often his ideas are quite sound, although his ability to express them (or the specifics of his implementation) is poor. His change to the U-Drop Inn article, for instance, was an instance of poor implementation: "Movie fame" was a poor choice of headings, though "Movie notability" was even worse. That edit brought to my attention some other shortcomings with the section, and I made changes to the section and its heading that you seem to have mostly agreed with.

In the past you opposed his changes to WP:TABLES. It took me a while to understand what he was pitching there, but in the end I came to agree with him fully, and badly needed complete rewrite of that guideline was the result. He's not quite the vandal or bastard you make him out to be, although sometimes he doesn't make himself well understood, and other times he makes some outright bonehead moves -- this hounding case is an example, though I'm happy to see he's now taking a more constructive tack.

I'll do what I can to continue steering him away from unconstructive behavior and trying to help him with his positive contributions. He's probably going to pursue this quote box thing further, and he's entitled to, as long as it doesn't come in the form of a vendetta against you. I don't believe that's his sole aim here, although he did focus on your articles at first, and I won't claim that was an accident.--Father Goose (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't butt my nose in here, but after skimming through this and reading "I haven't had any problem with finding Wikipedia an amicable place." above, among other things that you've said here Collectonian, I've gotta tell you, I've gone out of my way to avoid running into you for months now. I won't go near the edit button on any article that is media related, for fear of instigating a conflict with you (and, to be fair, a couple of others in that area). Not that I advocate a block here, but I wanted to say that BQZip01 and SunCreator do have a point in their criticism.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review of user:100110100

Per above, I think it would be prudent for an admin to review the unblocking of this editor, who admittedly was violating his indef block under numerous IPs for at least several months. While he was unblocked by Father Goose, who stated "his record as an IP was sufficiently clean that I felt we could afford to see how much he had reformed" (fuller explanation above), it seems odd to me to say his record as an IP was clean when he was deliberately evading his indef block. He made no apparent attempt to request unblock under his user name, but choose to edit as a multiple IPs. This, to me, does not show a change in the sorts of behavior that resulted in his indef block, particularly compounded with his massive changes to Wikipedia guidelines without discussion, the wikihounding of myself (as detailed above), his ignoring numerous notes on his various IP talk pages about his mass changes to templates, and his continuing to make various edits that meet his personal preferences but directly conflict with the Wikipedia Manual of Style and consensus in the articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the assessment of the problem/situation, but what exactly would that do? Apparently, we're dealing w/ somebody who could easily keep using multiple IPs. Re-blocking the account won't actually do much. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If the indef block is restored, any active IPs would also be blocked, and, if necessary, new ones would also be blocked for block evasion. Depending on whether he were to continue to evade the block as he did in this instance, a range block could also be implemented. They can have some success, though of course they can also be evaded (as we have some very very long term indef blocked folks who have some 400+ socks can show). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That's true. So, in that case, it would seem only fair to re-block for block-evasion, as is usually done. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of precedent for unblocking someone on the basis of reformed behavior. This is for a very basic reason: blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive. If the block-worthy behavior stops, the block itself should stop.

The indefinite block of 100110100 was appropriate at the time that it was imposed: he had made death threats following a long history of disruptive behavior. Although 100110100/ip174's behavior hasn't been exemplary during the time that I've known him (about two months), I have seen nothing approaching the level that warrants continued indefinite blocking. For the most part, he has been a constructive editor, willing to resolve his disputes through appropriate means.

This episode with Collectonian is regrettable; I personally would be willing to call it low-grade wikihounding, although the edits he has made (and Collectonian has reverted) are defensible if taken individually, even if one might disagree with them. At the same time, Collectonian's response has been so vituperative that it has most likely heightened the conflict.

At this time, 100110100/ip174 seems to have switched to a far more appropriate course of action, namely trying to establish a consensus for the removal of {{quote box}}es, which Collectonian has used in many of her articles. I do not believe this particular initiative is specifically targeted at Collectonian, as he has tangled with me over a similar issue in the past: Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#.7B.7Bquote.7D.7D.

Collectonian's behavior here has not been exemplary either. She almost immediately treated something that ought to have been a minor conflict as a scandalous personal assault, and her actions have served to intensify the conflict. I'd really rather not draw her ire by criticizing her, but frankly, her behavior regarding this fight has not helped to get this thing resolved.--Father Goose (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If its agreed he is going to remain unblocked, I think it should be mandatory that he identify himself. As it is, I have seen several discussions now where he replies as his IP and then as his username, without making it clear he is one and the same, giving an appearance of one agreeing with the other, which is not appropriate. Of course, neither was his canvassing as he has done in his attempt to get that quotation essay passed to a guideline so he can think claim justification on removing them from any article I've edited (I notice that he did NOT go through and remove them FROM all articles, nor propose the box for deletion...he only removed them from articles I happened to use them on). Talking like I'm not reading is more likely to draw my ire than simply stating what you think. *a lame attempt at humor* And sorry, but I do find wikihounding to be a personal assault, and I think it is frequently mishandled and overly ignored by this site's administration. Of course, that is neither here or there at this point. It seems clear to me now that no one really minds that he was wikihounding because they disliked my reaction to it. Whether it was "overboard" or not, considering it was not the first time he'd done it, is subjective. As he himself has admitted to seeking me out, I think my views are justified, even if I could have used less vitriolic language. It also seems clear that if he continues doing it, no one will really do anything to stop it, which of course gives him a positive reward for his behavior. I have, quite frankly, not seen that he has done any significant contributions to the encyclopedia. Other than his replacements of templates (despite being told to stop), and trying to change article style guides to match his own personal preferences of what an article should "look" like, his only real main space edits seem to be hounding myself and, as you've noted, occasionally just playing with stuff you've edited just to do it. Anyway, it seems there will be no result one way or another from this discussion. I don't think he is going to listen to you, or to anyone else when he has not, in fact, even bothered responding here. If someone decides they want to block me for my remarks, feel free. It isn't going to change anything, but I'm not stupid enough not to know that with 5 years and nearly 100,000 edits under my belt that I don't have enough enemies that would delight in it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something but using an IP to evade an indefinite block is per se bad faith editing. Avoiding trouble while doing so is socking, and cannot be considered good behavior. Engaging in arguably blockable behavior is even worse - whether the behavior would be blockable in isolation if done by a legitimate editor, the fact that a person who isn't supposed to be editing is doing so in a way that upsets some others only confirms that they shouldn't be editing. It's ongoing rule-breaking, and cannot be anything but intentionally so. We've been through this exact routine a number of times here. Father Goose is a well-seasoned admin, and must know all this - I wonder if there is some boundary pushing going on here. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with User:Wikidemon here. This account should not have been unblocked while evading the indef block. I too tend to be and AGF'er but this is a bit much. Father Goose is commended for his desire to help but I think this was an error in judgment. If there are issues with User:Collectonian then deal with them in a separate section. We need to decide if the binary user a problem and how to proceed from this point on. That should be the focus of this portion of the discussion. JodyB _talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

100110100 was blocked, not banned. Had he been banned by either the community or arbcom, I would have had no right to individually review his block and choose to lift it.

But the block was imposed three years ago, as a decision apparently made by a single admin, and I am well within my rights to review and lift it if I feel it is no longer needed. The behavior for which 100110100 was indefinitely blocked (which was appropriate at the time) appears to have long since ceased.

I know of many, many cases where a user "evaded a block" (or even an outright ban), reformed their behavior, and been accepted back into the community. Were they then immediately blocked again indefinitely for evading a block? If we had done that, we'd be acting like vindictive fools.

Block evasion is unacceptable in particular when it's done to keep doing the bad behavior that prompted the block. I wouldn't have bothered unblocking 100110100 if I had seen nothing but bad behavior from this user. I'm not saying his behavior has been perfect during the time I've known him, but for the most part he's been acting in good faith, communicating with other users to promote his ideas, and making changes that on the balance improve the encyclopedia. Do we ban users like that? No. Therefore, I lifted the indefinite block.

Wikipedia has a culture of offering second chances, when they are deserved. But this being ANI, everyone commenting here is only aware of 100110100's bad behavior -- his block log from a long time ago and the current conflict with User:Collectonian, who has done everything she can to make the case here for getting rid of him.

If you want to evaluate whether 100110100 should be banned, evaluate all of his current behavior (not just Collectonian's depiction of it) and decide whether this is the kind of user who has no place on Wikipedia. I happen to believe he is imperfect but by no means the kind of person who deserves to be banned. He is a bit strong-willed at times (aren't we all?), but I've seen his willingness and ability to learn Wikipedia's ways, and his ability to apply himself to constructive activities when appropriately counseled.

It is for this reason that I unblocked him. He might deserve to be blocked for some future offense -- he might have even deserved a short-term block for this tangle with Collectonian, although for now he seems to have changed course. If the only reason you think he should be indefinitely blocked now is for the technical reason of evading an indefinite block imposed three years ago, then there's no sound basis for returning him to "banned" status. I gave him a careful and fair evaluation and all of you should too.--Father Goose (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur with FG's assessment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I came here from Wikipedia_talk:Quotations where user:100110100 and what I am told is an IP sock of user:100110100, have signed statements in an RFC initiated by the IP sock. Using both accounts in a discussion which is also polling on whether a page should be promoted to a guideline is not acceptable. I will go with Father Goose's judgement on unblocking user:100110100, providing user:100110100 agrees only to use that account and does not edit using an IP address or any other user account. If (s)he does so by accident then she must agree to revert and redo it if it is on an article page (or similar where signatures are not user) or to re-sign a talk page comment with a user:100110100 signature. Failure to comply with this request should lead to an indefinite block until such time as user:100110100 agrees to abide by the request. If user:100110100 uses IP addresses, or any other user account, while blocked then user:100110100 should be banned. As the unblocking administrator I would prefer it if Father Goose put this restriction in place, but if (s)he does not object, but does not want to do it, I am willing to put such a constraint on user:100110100. -- PBS (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's a bit steep, considering 100110100 does not seem to be trying to sway discussion by using more than one account. He has agreed to not do that in principle: User_talk:100110100#Various_requests, although we must compel him to do it in practice. He has commented at Wikipedia_talk:Quotations#Proposal_to_promote_to_policy.2Fguideline via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation) and a single time as 100110100, with a comment that would be hard to construe as biasing the debate ("Note that an rfc had been filed in the past, with only one response.")
  • However, I agree that any interaction on a given page should be done using one IP range or account only, and that if he wants to edit as both an IP and a registered account, he should mention the account and the IP range on all user/IP pages he edits from. He does seem to be using the 100110100 account as a maintenance account, which is a legitimate use, so as long as he abides by the terms of Wikipedia:SOCK#NOTIFY, I believe he will be compliant with policy regarding switching between his account and an IP. I'll inform him to do so right now.--Father Goose (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

<--Why is it steep? user:100110100 is a user who had been in conflict and indefinitely blocked. You argue above the as user:100110100 had been editing responsibly with IP addresses they should be unblocked. Fair enough but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Although we do not insist that people edit with the same account it is considered good practice (with exceptions for bot accounts etc). As this user has a record of abusing accounts to get around blocks, it is the least that we can expect that they use their user account. This is a user who has been banned and is more than willing to mix it up on talk pages. The very least a potential antagonist should be entitled to is to know is the edit history (and block log) of the account ID they are dealing with. user:100110100 should not want to hide behind IP addresses and if user:100110100 does then user:100110100 should be prevented from doing so.

I still think you should make that a condition of the unblock, but if you do not I will impose it unless there is a consensus among other administrators that it should not be done. -- PBS (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get all embroiled in this, but I've got to ask: but now all their editing should be done with their user account. Why? Is this sort of like a, "you've gotten in trouble once, so now you can't edit without my permission" sort of thing?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 06:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. It's so that an edit history is built up and other editors can see who they are dealing with. (If not there was no point in unblocking the account in the first place). -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, "good faith" restored here, but still... is there really a point in registering? I wouldn't ever edit as an IP (at least not knowingly), but from a philosophical view I don't see what the fuss is all about. Allowing IP edits might make maintenance "jobs" more difficult, and it may make some of the "jobs" that some administrators give themselves to police users more difficult, but how does that make the whole notion of IP editors a Bad Thing™?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 08:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you (PBS) to re-read the second paragraph I posted in my response to you, above, and explain how it would not address your point (I have made the same point) that other editors should be entitled to know which person they are dealing with. Read my most recent post at User:100110100 if you don't understand the specifics.

Are there any principles involved beyond requiring that the user not "speak with two faces" in a given discussion, and that users be informed of what account (and non-accounts) he edits from? I see no evidence that he has used multiple accounts abusively -- although having been informed of WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, he should comply with it from now on. Or are you characterizing the "clean start" he has earned himself via IP editing to be an abuse? I hope not; that would be a pretty a dismal attitude.

I wish others could experience the interactions I've had with this user. I'd just like to say that I think he is deserving of more good faith than has been exhibited toward him by many users so far. He has his quirks and his missteps, and he needs to be informed now and again of what our policies are, but I still think he is an asset to the community and has not deserved the rush to judgment that many have displayed toward him here. He's still not quite a model Wikipedian, but whatever behavior got him indeffed years ago is not in evidence now.--Father Goose (talk) 09:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

FG you wrote "via a dynamic IP (always in the 174.3.*.* range; not too hard to see the relation)" Well maybe not for you, but how is an editor to tell if any particular edit was done by user:100110100 or if it was done by someone else sharing a dynamic IP address? I can not see how this can work in practices as there will have to be a bi-directional set of links for every dynamic page used. (so if I go to the talk page of an IP address user:100110100 is using I can follow it to his/her user account.

Do you really think that user:100110100 is going to keep a diary/log of change of IP address will user:100110100 place onto the talk page of every IP address he/she dynamically uses that user:100110100 is now using this IP address and how does user:100110100 know to add a log to that page that (s)he is no longer using that page (if user:100110100 does not access Wikipedia for a day, that address could have been used by other editors during that day). Not only does that information have to be written to the talk page of the IP address it also has to be logged centrally as well (WP:SOCK#NOTIFY). I can not see user:100110100 faithfully doing this every time (s)he uses a changed a dynamic IP address (until user:100110100 saves an edit does he/she even know what IP address (s)he is using?). Much better that (s)he simply use his/her user name, as not rational reason has been given why he/she should not, and the above complications shows why it is not practical to use dynamic addresses and keep to the stipulation in WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. -- PBS (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

One way it could work, even with dynamic IPs, is if 100110100 uses the method that Dinoguy1000 (an administrator) uses when he edits as an IP -- he mentions his primary account in every post he signs as an IP, and does keep a log of which IPs he has edited from. The reason why 100110100 edits -- actually, prefers to edit -- as an IP is on the principle that IPs should have equal rights as editors. This is a rational reason -- perhaps not one you agree with, but it is nonetheless a valid reason. It will undoubtedly be complicated to take the appropriate steps needed to identify himself consistently, which might ultimately convince him to just use his account full-time.

Having known this user for a while, I know that if on the other hand you try to force him to edit only through an account, he'll abandon the account and go back to IP editing full time. That is his right; you can't compel him to edit as a registered user if his IP editing behavior is not abusive.

He apparently hasn't been on in the last 24 hours, so I'll wait for him to respond to how he would like to address the "multiple account" problem, and we can proceed from there.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

His changed IPs again. He is now editing as 174.3.98.20 (talk · contribs), and to continue commenting in the same discussion, for which he was rebuked by {user|Tony1}} as he is continuing to not identify himself. Also, I think its interesting to note that despite earlier AGFing that he started the discussion for unrelated reasons, during its current course, he changed the discussion to specifically try to exclude the use of quote boxes, tying directly back to his earlier attempt to remove them from all articles I have edited (despite their being found acceptable in FA and GA reviews, and being within Wikipedia guidelines).[73] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it is the same person this edit was made at Revision as of 03:05, 18 March 2010 before you, Father Goose posted your comment here. I presume that you had no idea that 100110100 had edited Wikiepdia (and for all I know (s)he may have used other IP addresses before or since). There has been a stunning lack of engagement here or on the talk page by user:100110100. Do you still see this behaviour as acting in good faith? -- PBS (talk) 05:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's seen the message now and failed to respond, so I've blocked the 100110100 account until such time as he commits to a remedy. As far as I'm concerned, he still has the right to edit as a dynamic IP, since he has not done so abusively. He is not obliged to register an account, although per your concerns here, he may not edit as both an account and an IP without identifying each mutually.

As for the edits to WP:Quotations, he has the right to propose that quote boxes not be used in specific ways, and to ascertain if there is consensus for that position. Anyone else of course has the right to disagree with him.--Father Goose (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow that FG. You've blocked a user. If they use an IP address to edit, and I can ascertain the IP is equivalent to the blocked user, then I will block the IP. (block evasion, ACB, 3 days I'm thinking) Are you explicitly instructing to not reblock an editor you have blocked indefinitely? Franamax (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in essence blocked the account, not the user, the reasons for which are specified here, in the block log, and on the user's talk page.

To summarize the situation:

• I believe the user's only blockable offense at this time is editing both as an IP and as a registered account.
• This is partly my fault, since I failed to realize that this would be considered a blockable offense, and failed to counsel the user to not do so before he got in trouble for it.
• I have seen no sign that the user was editing as both an IP and account in an abusive manner.
• It nonetheless causes problems for the reasons PBS laid out, so it must discontinue.
• The user was editing productively as an IP before I unblocked his account on the basis of having established a "clean start" as an IP.
• He continues to edit productively (not perfectly, but nothing worthy of a block at this time).
• He has at this time failed to acknowledge the recent revelation that he should not edit as both an IP and a registered user concurrently. Since my unblocking the account in essence created this situation which is a problem more on a technical level (don't have two faces) than a question of maliciousness, I feel blocking the account again will return us to the status quo of having a productive user who contributes exclusively as an IP. If he wants to switch to using the account full-time instead of his IP, he can simply request it be unblocked. I have noted this as a condition of his block.

Perhaps the way I am attempting to resolve this seems unorthodox, but it counteracts the behavior that is problematic without interrupting the behavior that is acceptable. Do you feel anything more needs to be done at this time?--Father Goose (talk) 09:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have insisted on using the account and not the IP addresses. You have now given a previously banned editor a cart blanch to use dynamic IP addresses and when someone like Tony1, not unreasonably, says please create an account, the dynamic IP address previously known as user:100110100 can say "but I am not allowed to, but I can edit using IP addresses". AFAICT over the last few days not a lot of good faith has been shown by user:100110100, so if a complaint is bought about an IP address in the range currently being used by the editor formally known as user:100110100, sorting it out is going to be a nightmare (was it the same person editing (it dynamic and presumably relocated to others)) each possible address would have to be assessed separately. I think you should do is contact the experienced editors over check user and ask for a second opinion from them as they will have more experience of situations like this. -- PBS (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you would have insisted on his using the account. But I don't believe that we have the right to insist on that. His editing pattern is irregular in certain ways, but not specifically abusive. As long as he's editing constructively, he has the right to edit as an IP, even a dynamic one. We cannot take it upon ourselves to control his behavior in ways that go beyond what policy specifies, especially in the absence of any evidence of malice.

We may continue asking that he edit via a registered account, and he has the right to decline. I do not believe that, having created an account, he is now compelled to edit only via that account for the rest of time. He has displayed none of the behavior that got him indeffed a long time ago, and thus has earned himself a clean start. If he does finally decide to edit as a registered user, all he has to do is ask for an unblock of the 100110100 account. You are putting words in his mouth when you claim that he would say "I am not allowed to, but I can edit using IP addresses" -- the block of that account comes only with the stipulation that he must not edit as an IP and account concurrently, unless he identifies both mutually.

His editing pattern, IP range, and areas of interest are distinct (and overlap mine), so I expect I will continue to both see and recognize this user, and to help out other admins should he misbehave in the future. But again -- I have seen some missteps on his part, but not malice, so at this time I believe no further action needs to be taken, and no further restrictions need to be imposed.--Father Goose (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(after e/c, mulling FG's latest, but this is what I was going to say) Generally per PBS. It's certainly an innovative approach and I can appreciate that you are trying to solve a tactical problem. My feeling though is that if someone has an account, we should be steering them to only and ever using that account. I've no problem with the "unbanning" part, admin willing to unblock is valid to undo a de facto ban and on your head be it. But this is a very garbled message about terms for unblocking. It's obviously the same user, why is their record not being collected in one set of ucontribs? Franamax (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a critical point I've failed to make clear here is that the user has expressed a preference for editing as an IP instead of as a registered user. Although it would be a convenience to us for him to edit only as a registered user, we cannot compel any editor in good standing to register, and by extension, I do not believe we can compel an editor in good standing to use an account even after it is registered. I originally unblocked the account in the hopes that he would return to editing via an account full-time, but instead he "straddled the fence", which in retrospect caused the problems PBS pointed out.

We can continue to petition him to edit as a registered user, but given that he is presently an editor in good standing, I believe there is no basis by which we can force him to do so. Realistically, if we tried to do so, he would rightfully ignore the compulsion and continue to edit as an IP, and then a series of blocks would follow on the basis of sock puppeting or block evasion or contempt of cop, when his present behavior as an IP has not warranted any blocking in the first place. If his behavior has been essentially benevolent, we should be trying to act benevolently toward him as well. It may seem paradoxical, but I believe reblocking his account and otherwise not restricting his editing is the most benevolent response we can offer him at this time.--Father Goose (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Persecution

I don't know the entire guidelines of english Wiki, so I leave it to administration to decide how my story suits for this noticeboard. And please excuse my grammar.

To the story. It's all began on March 9, 2010, when User:Crusio nominated for deletion four articles of my edition, and navigation template: * Chris Adams * Bernardo O'Reilly * Calvera * Django * Template:The Magnificent Seven

Then came User:EEMIV and nominated six more articles: In the high attention area * Hit Back * In the high attention area 2 * El Shaitan * * Phantom (russian song) * 30th

Before they nominated these articles for deletion, they did not even try to edit them, nor to discuss something, as well as there were no advices to me, nor a recommendations.

Faithfully, all those articles were visited by hundreds of users, since Dec 2009, and nobody try to delete them, nor to remove the images from there.

So, when I told them about my concerns about their good will and impartiality, they had responded me in such way:

• User talk:Crusio#Check it
• User talk:EEMIV#Russian sources
• User talk:Crusio#Warning
• User talk:EEMIV#Warning
• User talk:SerdechnyG#Your warning

Let me cite them:

... It's too bad that SerdechnyG's contributions are such low quality (sourcing, grammar, general lack of content, etc) because WP can use more coverage of all things Russian... --Crusio (talk) 13:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, I do appreciate your knowledge of Russia-related content; as Crusio points out above, Russia-related [and, really, most non-English] topics on English Wikipedia are weak. However, language issues aside, your misunderstanding of [English] Wikipedia policies, coupled by unflagging zeal, are [inadvertently] amusing. ... --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

My lack of grammar is a good reason to edit my mistakes as User:Aiken drum, User:Badger151, User:MuffledThud, User:Phil Bridger, User:Chris the speller, User:Plasticspork, User:Anthony Appleyard, User:Skomorokh, User:Woohookitty, User:RadioFan, User:Mild Bill Hiccup, User:Eeekster, User:Stpaulelective2010, User:Piratedan did (thank you all, gentlemen, I appreciate it). But maybe I wrong, and it's really a solid reason to delete all of these articles? These articles are not my property - they belongs to all wikipedians. Didn't they realize it?

Their deletion nominations it's only a half of the problem. Together with nominations they start another sabotage, such as images deleting (instead of editing them), they deleted a references which provided evidence of notability to articles, reverted my edits (edit warring) and did another things, trying to reconvince those users, who had removed their deletion templates (e.g. User talk:Phil Bridger#El Shaitan). The whole picture looks like a tangle of troublemaking actions, and no signs of even try to edit, or act constructively. Only destructive actions: delete, remove, undo, etc.

To be honest, I don't know entire "legislation" of English wiki, and I suppose nobody really know it all. But, as I suppose, my linguistic defects or lack of knowledge of English-wiki proceeding are not a reasons to start this deletion war.

And I have nothing against User:Crusio and User:EEMIV, but I have a strong doubts about their intentions towards me. The most incomprehensible to me was that one user can nominate innumerable quantity of another one articles. In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy. I see no controversy in threads, which they had opened. In their actions I see nothing against articles themselves, I see only prejudice towards me. I suppose, if there were no list of my contributions on my user-page, they would give absolutely no attention to them. It seems like a badgering and nothing else.

Please, make clear for me: Am I doomed to pass this ordeal, and what a kind of ordeal I faced? Is this a rite of passage for all newcomers, or this is a kind of procedure created especially for me. Before this mobbing, I've got a whole lot of ideas what should I write next, some to-do list, but now I have a strong doubts about my further presence in English wiki. So, please tell me, what should I do next: Pack my bag and say goodbye to English wiki or what? SerdechnyG (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning your good-faith contributions, nor is anyone "persecuting" you. However, your article and image contributions are problematic under several policies, e.g. WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:NFCC. You excised several discussions about these issues in the talk-page quotes you included. Please heed the advice I offered you to review several policies and guidelines about article creation and maintenance. And, FYI, in an effort to at least help out a bit, I have made several useful edits to some of the Magnificent Seven articles you created/heavily edited; Crusio has done likewise. Whether deliberate or innate, myopia about how editors respond to your contributions isn't particularly useful to anyone. --EEMIV (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• The links presented by SerdechnyG and his comments say it all, I have nothing to add. --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note: this is Administrators noticeboard, and nobody ask your opinion yet. You've got an opportunity to write evetything on above mentioned talkpages, or retaliatory note instead. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed the 'admin' noticeboard, but if you are so perseptive as to to see that, perhaps you would note that the majority of edits here are not all by admins, but other users trying to help with the problems being discussed here. You don't have to be invited to comment, nor do you have to be an admin to comment. Anyone can comment, and these comments are not judged by the user level of who wrote them, but rather the arguments themselves. So instead of outright dismissing an argument because it was someone uninvited or a non-admin, why don't you heed their advice.

Lastly, wikipedia is everyone's business. Anyone can comment anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WHAT ADVICE? SerdechnyG (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. And it clearly indicates their intentions. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your refactoring of my talk page post. Do not insert your comments in my posts, only after my signature. As to their advice, it was quite clearly given to you by EMMIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean?? I didn't wrote nothing on your talk page! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, dear friends, you see. They're following me even here. Actually I had no doubts that they would do so. Picture is clear. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 06:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You announced very clearly that you would post here, even though you failed to notify us both when you actually did (as is your obligation, as clearly marked at the top of this page). Both EEMIV and I have been around here for a while and we know WPs procedures reasonably well. "Following" you here is nothing out of the ordinary. Posting here without notifying the people concerned is discourteous at the very least. Please stop your baseless accusations and start getting familiar with en.wikis policies; things obviously are being done very differently here from ru.wiki and you cannot just try to impose your ideas of how the rules should be here. --Crusio (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Before advising me to "start getting familiar with en.wikis policies", You start it first: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 13:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SerdechnyG, That is just an essay, not a guideline or policy. It is by no means binding. See also Wikipedia:An unfinished house is a real problem andWikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad You confessed it. I hope You understand that this issue as well as the other rules (which I may or may not violating) does not overrule The Basics. And The Basics is:

- Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity

- Newcomers are always to be welcomed

- You can edit this page right now (Jumbo says edit, not delete).

So who's right? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You're citing Jimbo Wales' personal principles. I'm glad to see that you're tying to make arguments based on fundamental principles. However, the page you are citing is similar to the Five Pillars, they are not our core policies. If you wish to make arguments based on a fundamental :policy, see WP:FIVE, for the Five Pillars. If you're wondering about the essays I cited, they are no more or less correct than Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built, they just explain the opinions of certain editors. I'd also like to point out that if you think that an article could be made to meet our standards for inclusion, you could create it in your userspace and work on it there. You can ask any admin to move any of your deleted articles into your userspace. Regards, RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's forget about articles for a while (if, of course, they're not a vandalistic issues. I hope they're not). Let's discuss a behavior of two mentioned users. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I want answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In looking through the history here, I'm really not seeing any evidence of "persecution." You have, unfortunately, created a lot of articles for unnotable films that also use excessive non free images., as can be seen in the AfD discussions for those in which almost all are at a anonymous delete due to lack of notability. When an experienced editor notices a less experienced editor making the same error several times, it is very common to review their contribs to see if there are other instances that need to be dealt with. I'll also note that Crusio's remarks were not bad faith. They were actually commending your passion and desire to help expand coverage of Russian topics, while lamenting that you choose to focus on unnotable topics that cannot be sourced or brought up to Wikipedia standards. EEMIV also complemented you for the same reason, but again reminded you that this is the English Wikipedia, and that the articles you have made to not conform to its standards.

Their removal of the images is not only complying with Wikipedia policy, but the Wikimedia Foundation's mandate to keep non-free images uses in-line with policy. As far as I can see, they have been polite in their interactions with you and have tried to help you understand that this is NOT the Russian Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia probably has the most detailed and exacting policies and guidelines of any of the Wikipedias, in part due to its age, and in part due to its much larger and active user base. Even above, you have shown that you really do not have a good understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as you point to Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built which is an editor's personal essay that has pretty much no meaning at all.

Above you note that "In Russian wiki, there is such rule: that one, who nominates more than one article, written by single user, is banned or at least his actions are being put under discussion of entire community of Wikipedians in the case if his nominations ensued a controversy." - that is not the case here at all. We would have no users with such a rule, and quite honestly, it is a bad rule. There is nothing controversial in their nominating unnotable articles for deletion, even if they were primarily created by you. As for your question of what should you do? I would suggest really sitting down and learning Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (including the difference between them and an essay), and perhaps getting a mentor to help you negotiate the differences between your home Wiki and this one. You can find the core policies and guidelines here. I'd also recommend you cease trying to see that neither Crusio nor EEMIV were hounding you, which is a malicious following of another editor for the point of harassing and stalking, but a proper reaction to noting a slate of articles from the same editor that are primarily unnotable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Answered above. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And please do not talk about mentorship. Who will be my mentor? You? If "no" it's all just a words. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it, if SerdechnyG is willing. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a particularly good person for being a mentor, but I do believe you may find it helpful, and as a Films project coordinator I am of course always willing to answer any questions you may have on determining the notability of films and on creating/improving film articles. Also, please keep in mind that yes, anyone can edit here, that does not mean that the edits will be kept and that articles created will not be deleted. This is why we have deletion processes. Yes, it can suck, especially when it seems clear you had the best of intentions in creating this articles, but sometimes it can be very difficult to show notability for foreign films (which for the English Wikipedia, would include Russian films). If you have not already done so, I'd encourage reading over WP:NF, which spells out the criteria under which a film is generally seen as likely to be notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Still, I see debates, but I see no answers. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The answers to the questions you pose at the end of your initial post are entirely up to you; no one is going to tell you to stay or pack your bags. Make up your own mind. Just be aware that if you continue to participate at English Wikipedia, you must abide by its policies. But, to answer your questions: *shrug* make up your own mind.

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

But aren't they obliged to obey this rules. Knowledge of rules and regulations gives you no supremacy over the others. I cited Jimbo to underline that they're supposed to help. What help did they given to me? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Look back at the five talk-page links you offered in your original post, and the entire array of suggestions about familiarizing yourself with basic policies -- couched, again, in an appreciation for a deep content knowledge most of us here lack. It's unfortunate, but ultimately an issue with you, that you react defensively and don't perceive some of these talk-page discussions as attempt to help. --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When I'm looking back there, I see no help. Please do not use word basic. I had mentioned above what is basic. And it's better for you to familiarize yourself with it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As for the questions midway through your initial post about whether the articles should/will be deleted, this isn't the forum; those discussions are happening at the AfD pages, as you know. --EEMIV (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not discuss no articles. I discuss you, and your behavior at first. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 08:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You posed to questions in your original post about the fate of some articles. I just attempted to offer some guidance about where their fate is more appropriately discussed -- and you offer that kind of irritable/irritating response? Please take a deep breath, take some time simply to read the policies and to look at decent film and character articles (e.g. The_Hunt_for_Red_October_(film), Palpatine) for a sense of what we're moving toward with content (and a sense of what isn't appropriate). --EEMIV (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd better attempted it, when you nomitaded these articles for deletion, rather than now, after I posted this appeal. Not so much comments and advices you given, when you nominated these articles and images for deletion. And there were not so much comments and advices from your side, when you deleted chapters and references from articles. Now it looks like informational outburst. Please take a deep breath - ??? What should I respond on such advice? Belt up? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just don't understand the broken English. "Take a deep breath" (sorry for using an idiom you don't understand) means stop, read, and pay attention. --EEMIV (talk) 16:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Belt up means... never mind. It's too complicated to explain. Please be clear, using no idioms. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

A lot of "help" I had received from EEMIV with these files:

• Revision history of File:Praporshchik Volentir.jpg
• Revision history of File:Tarasov and Shwetz.jpg

I understand - it's all a struggle for Wikipedia copyright policy. But is it necessary to be so overzealous? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 14:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is starting to become annoying. User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice. He acts as if he owns the articles that he has created. His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication as he tends to misunderstand many comments and often interprets them as a kind of personal attack, even if they are not. I have offered advice on several occasions and extended an olive branch when he got upset about the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD after he deprodded them. I cleaned up some of the grammar/spelling of some of these articles (see histories of Chris Adams (character) and Calvera (Character)) and in the process removed the academic titles (as is customary) of some authors who had written books that were added by SerdechnyG to show notability for the articles. Again, SerdechnyG got very upset and reverted me three times on both articles. Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

User:SerdechnyG keeps editing against WP:MOS and rejects all advice

For example?? I received NO advices from you yet. All your rebukes could be directed inversely.

His limited grasp of English makes for a very difficult communication

It's difficult to communicate only with you and User:EEMIV. Nobody else said that it's very difficult. All other users simply corrected my grammatical mistakes and nobody told me that my knowledge of English is limited. And guess why? Because I allready know it without outside assistance. So, thank you, Captain Obvious, indeed.

the fact that I PRODded some of his articles and took them to AfD

It's no fact! I privatised them or what? Wikipedia is a Free Encyclopedia. THERE IS NO "MINE" OR "YOUR" ARTICLES.

Again, SerdechnyG got very upset

Don't worry about me. I'm not so upset as you may thinking. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please explain to this person that his behavior is not constructive and that I don't have anything against him, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project? Thanks! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think you and I have already delivered that message a few times; SerdechnyG either doesn't believe it or doesn't understand it. Hopefully mentorship with RadManCF will be useful. Regardless, this ANI thread is stale. --EEMIV (talk) 12:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right: a message. I hope, both of you understand the difference between advice and message. My mentor - is only my mentor. This mentorship is out of your competence, we will sort it out ourself. And last, this thread is stale because of your presence here. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 17:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Just perfect. Masks off. Now they have their own administrator: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Crusio, User:EEMIV reported by User:SerdechnyG (Result: No 3RR violation) -- SerdechnyG (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Doesn't it even occur to you that there was no 3RR violation?? At least not from EEMIV or me: you violated 3RR on two articles. --Crusio (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I did? Maybe it's you, who violated it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• Crusio, no one's getting through to this guy. Let his mentor take a whack at it; we, obviously, won't change his mind. Let's let SerdechnyG get the last word in on this thread, and then the magic bot can archive this long-stale conversation. --EEMIV (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Who decided, that it would be my last word? Don't worry, even if this magic bot archive this conversation, it will be easy to restore it. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're right. I always keep thinking that reason should triumph, but of course the world is not ideal... Let's spend our time on better undertakings. Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever thought why it's not ideal? I suppose, not. -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As you see, it's too much to discuss. I wouldn't describe everything, but only the main points. As for their "second" SarekOfVulcan. I can understand his anger, but let me answer him with John Wayne' words: "It's not me [who done it]! It's El Shaitan!"
As for User:Crusio following all of my actions in wiki, I can say that I was slow in informing him about starting this tread and another one, because I had some... let's call it premonition, that he need no my notifications, because he allready knows about it, by constanly watching my contributions-list. Considering his statements that "I don't have anything against him, nor against the subjects on which he is writing, nor want to annoy him, but only am interested in improving this project" it's all looks curious and maybe even suspicious. Some morbid attention towards my person, isn't it?
As for User:EEMIV. He got to the point that picture on my user page and even my avatar must be deleted. Well, actually I have a few pictures on the wall in my kitchen, and... Oh, boy! They're not copyrighted properly! They must be deleted! Happy deleting! -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian above asked you to learn the policies & guidelines. That seems a bit unreasonable, as there are hundreds of them (I can't find the exact number). You're probably right in saying nobody knows them all. Perhaps someone would like to suggest the "important" ones. Peter jackson (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope it would be so.
But still, User:EEMIV shows not so good knowledge of the rules and policies, which he is trying to enforce. However, I think that knowledge of them all is unnecessary, more important is to follow the spirit of Wikipedia. Isn't it? -- SerdechnyG (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The "spirit" of Wikipedia is found in the policies and guidelines created through a consensus determined by the community. Unfortunately, competence matters here. Some people "can't get it" and even when all of their efforts are made in good faith, if their results are disruptive they don't belong. Knowing every piece of every policy and guideline isn't necessary, but coming to an understanding of major policies and guidelines is essential. Most especially, if someone points out that you are violating one of them, and explains why, and links it to you, and you ignore it, you're never going to function here. These are standards expected of everyone, and you asked if you are being singled out. I don't think so. You asked if you should pack your bags. If your reaction to every suggestion to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia is to throw stones, then yes, you should. -- Atama頭 16:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Convenience break

(out)SerdechnyG wrote the following on his talk page to another editor, in reference to a conversation taking place with EEMIV:

Солидный выбор, спасибо оценил. Но сей товарисч, который меня достаёт, найдёт ещё что-нибудь чтоб пристебаться. Так что для меня это вопрос чести и достоинства. Как говорил к-н Пронин в одном из мультиков: "Это мы еще посмотрим, кто кого уничтожит..."

I don't know Russian, but Babelfish translates it as:

Solid selection, thanks estimated. But this [tovarisch], which me [dostaet], [naydet] is still anything in order to [pristebatsya]. So that for me this is the point of honor and merit. As spoke some Pronin in one of [multikov]: " This we still will look, who whom will destroy… ".

which really doesn't sound at all friendly. I've asked S for a clarification, and suggested that it's rude to have side conversations on English Wikipedia in another language so that the editor referred to cannot read them.

All in all, besides the question of whether S has enough competency in English to edit articles here, his or her attitude seems very problematic, combatitive, defensive and not at all open to helpful advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GRuban gave a translation of SerdechnyG's comment, and while it appears to be somewhat sarcastic, that's about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Users: TimLambert & John Quiggin

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/TimLambert and John Quiggin to centralize discussion and to save space here. Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the section. –MuZemike

User:RHB100

RHB100 (talk · contribs) has been disruptive on Talk:Gravitational potential over a period of several weeks. He has been extremely rude towards User:Sławomir Biały: [74] [75] [76] [77]. I posted to WP:WQA [78] and informed RHB100 at 05:54, 13 March 2010 [79]. Rather than respond peaceably, he continued to insult other users: [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]. Sławomir Biały is a well-regarded WikiProject Mathematics regular, and his calm replies can be viewed in full at Talk:Gravitational potential.

Additionally, RHB100 ignores consensus and tries to force his text onto the page. Here are his attempts to get his preferred description of the potential and its expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials on the page: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90]. While there are some structural differences, the text is mostly the same between these; it ignores the criticisms and corrections made by other users, both in other revisions of the article and on the talk page.

I cannot see RHB100's behavior changing in the near future. Therefore I ask that he be blocked. Ozob (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Update: I informed RHB100 of this discussion [91] but he has continued to post offensive comments [92]. Ozob (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement that I have ignored consensus is untrue. I wrote the original version on expansion into Legendre polynomials in its entirety. Certainly any consensus must involve me. Patrick added valuable contributions. Sławomir Biały then took it upon himself to destroy the vector diagram that I had created and ruin the article with some terrible writing. The changes Biały made were so terrible that it seems more likely to have been an attempt to deliberately degrade the quality of the Wikipedia. There are some people, including those who want to sell more books, who don't want the Wikipedia to be a very good source of information. Considering the terrible thing that had bee done to the Wikipedia, my reaction was rather mild. And their certainly is no consensus. RHB100 (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue here is not the content of the article, nor on being on the right "side" of a content dispute. At issue, first and foremost, is the absolutely unacceptable way in which you have behaved (and continue to both here and at Talk:Gravitational potential). Perhaps Ozob's choice of the word "consensus" was less than ideal, although conforming to the specific manner in which it pertains to WP:CONSENSUS. However, edit-warring against several other editors to attempt to reinsert one's own preferred version of the text is generally considered to be disruptive, especially when at the very same time you come here to make a non-apology while continuing the same incivil rhetoric that landed us here in the first place. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding User:RHB100

I would like to propose a sanction upon RHB100:

Findings

• (a) RHB100 has engaging in talk page incivlity on Talk:Gravitational potential, making personal attacks and inflammatory remarks.
• (b) RHB100 has referred to their own credentials.
• (e) In March 2010, a WQA report was filed against RHB100 in hopes of a peaceful resolution.
• (d) Despite the WQA report, RHB100 has continued the incivility.

Remedy

• (a) RHB100 (talk · contribs) is blocked for a week.
• (b) After the expiration of the block, RHB100 will be placed on civility parole for a period of one month.

Continuing incivility after a WQA report suggests that action is needed. I think this is sufficient (but I hope I'm not being too harsh). —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I don't suppose there is anything in policy to prevent it, but it seems rather odd to me that an editor who has just come off a six-month ban and is on an additional six-month probationary period is proposing sanctions on another user. Shouldn't that six-month probation be used to re-establish your bona fides as an editor by contributing to the encyclopedia, rather than involving yourself in administrative matters? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been meaning to suggest to Mythdon that they moderate their time spent at these noticeboards. –xeno^talk 01:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am an involved party to this incident.) What purpose would a one week block serve? RHB100's behavior is pretty far outside of what should be tolerated by the community under any circumstances, and an indefinite block is certainly warranted. The editor has not shown any sign of a willingness to abide by the rules that bind our community (or indeed those that would be considered remotely acceptable in any community of individuals). And until he shows some signs of contrition, there is absolutely no reason that he should be allowed to continue editing at this project. Sławomir Biały (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors can and do change their behaviour. Usually short block are given to give a person time to change and improve. If this does not occur than longer blocks may follow.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, and would not be averse to an unblock once he acknowledges that there are rules, that he was far outside the rules during his interactions with me, and agrees to follow them in the future. I believe that he has already been given a chance to do this (over the course of several weeks of discussion at Talk:Gravitational potential, through his invitation to participate in the discussion at WQA), and has continued to flout them. The kind of probationary measures that were suggested above would require the contributor to acknowledge the rules, to demonstrate a willingness to abide by them, and to want to change his behavior. Nothing stops him from agreeing to these things and then requesting an unblock, but this agreement is clearly a necessary condition for allowing the editor to continue to contribute to the project. (Indeed, all of us have implicitly agreed to abide by these rules.) But a fairly infrequent contributor such as this will likely not even feel a one week block, and so this would literally serve no purpose. Hence my question: why block at all if for such a short time? Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, something needs to be done, because the behaviour at the talk page in question is simply unacceptable. Eusebeus (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What they don't tell you: RHB100 was the original author of the section in question

They tell you that I have exercised my right to change to change a poorly written section. But they don't tell you that I did the original research and the original writing of the section on expansion in terms of Legendre polynomials. After I did the original research, Sławomir Biały completely replaced my well written article with a poorly written article. I have attempted to get back to my original article, but Sławomir Biały has been very disruptive by continuously replacing my original work. He has removed my vector diagram which greatly added to the clarity of the article. I am a licensed professional engineer with advanced engineering degrees from both the University of Arkansas and UCLA. It appears that Sławomir Biały does not even have an engineering degree and his poor writing indicates that he is not qualified to rewrite my original work. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:OWN, much? Guy (Help!) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Response of RHB100

I have removed my offensive comments. I will look further to see if there are any that I have missed. I regret having made offensive comments. I was incensed over the fact that all my hard work and research had been destroyed.

Sławomir Biały has repeatedly destroyed my well written section. He has turned a well written section that I researched and wrote in its entirety into a poorly written section. He removed the block diagram which provided clarity. He appears to have the goal of making the Wikipedia confusing and difficult to understand. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

He has shown no respect for me. He destroyed my work without any form of consultation with me. RHB100 (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some slight cosmetic changes had been made to earlier posts, but this post that you just made (accusing me of deliberate vandalism) is clearly not in the spirit of an amicable resolution. Sławomir Biały (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For everyone's reference, RHB100 changed his posts in these diffs: [93] [94] [95] [96].

He has also reverted the article once again to his preferred version, ignoring consensus on the talk page: [97]. Together with two diffs that I already referenced above, [98] and [99], he is a little shy of a WP:3RR violation, as these edits happened over a 44 hour period. Ozob (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus on the talk page. This statement that there is a consensus on the talk page is completely false. They have again reverted away form the article as it was originally written and researched to a non-consensus poorly written version. RHB100 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a separate board for 3rr. Gerardw (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I intend to report him there if he violates it. But I hope that someone here blocks him before that happens. Ozob (talk) 02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

RHB100 has made further personal attacks, some of which you can view above, and the diffs for which I am collecting here: [100] [101] (both at AN/I) [102] (at Talk:Gravitational potential). Will someone please block him? Ozob (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The behavior continues to continue [103]. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And [104]. Ozob (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The community has thus far been very tolerant of RHB's personal attacks and disruption. But the disruption now continues with these posts: [105] and [106]. Also, he is now at 4rr at gravitational potential (and at least the first of these is an obviously downright WP:POINTy revert): 1, 2, 3, 4. Is someone planning to do something? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

After being warned of the 3rr violation, the editor in question effectively reverted back by a sequence of smaller edits. I'm not saying that this in itself is blockable, but it does contribute to the overall pattern of disruptive behavior. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN, 3RR/Disruptive editing

Special:Contributions/Dapi89 appears to be reverting all edits automatically in History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945) and appears to try to assume the ownership of the article. I tried to add a couple of tags into the article where I though the text was either poorly written, or where the information was somewhat dubious and needed discussion, or when was unclear about which period the sentence referred to, and wikilink some related articles into the text.

When I looked at the history page, I found that this user was automatically reverting everything, not even a minute passed and obviously no serious consideration given to it. He even reverted changes of correcting small typos like a wikilink to "Naval avition" being changed to "naval aviation". I did not want to go on an edit war with him, knowing his history, so I didn't revert.

• First revert, on grounds of "sourced"
• Second revert, on grounds of "obvious"
• Third revert, on ground of "sourced"
• Fourth revert, though I really don't know what his problem this time...
• Fifth revert within 8 hours: "reverted all changes"

Moreover this editor seems to start to follow my edits in other articles. In the Battle of Britain article to which I added a some casualty numbers from the article's talk page, [and revert them there, too] on grounds that they "removed. No source. If you want the figures from terraine, ask.". The irony is overwhelming, as obviously both the figures were sourced to Terraine, which was discussed and was shockingly given by this very same editor on the talk page - an obvious case of bad faith reverting, though its in an other article, and technically no 3RR, it shows the pattern. At this point he seems to be reverting just for the sake of getting confrontational.

It looks very much like that he has wish to 'own' that article as well, but given the violent, disruptive and confrontational nature of this editor in the past (he was blocked several times for personal attacks and systematic harassment of me, which showed the same pattern, ie. following me on articles to revert my edits), and his similar attitude and methods in other articles and other editors (see: Battle of Kursk article for a similiar pattern of auto-reverting another editor), it seems to be a waste of time to try to talk sense into him. He knows the rules already, he was warned literally dozens of times, he was blocked for this exact same behaviour, he promised to change several times but he remains the same. He simply doesn't want to discuss anything seriously with anyone (very typical: Talk:Battle_of_Kursk#dubios_markings - I love this line: "Firstly, kill the attitude. Second, that's nonsense."), its much easier to revert everybody and dismiss them with one-liners. So, I just won't waste my time on a hopeless case - its been tried already. Kurfürst (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kurfürst. I'm sure you just missed the notification at the top of the page, but you are required to notify users involved in your ANI thread to tell them you have created it. I have left a message on Dapi89's talk for you. SGGH ^ping! 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be issues with WP:OWN, editing "style", and attitude regarding Dapi89's editing of these articles. I would be interested in their response - or even if there is one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I’m not dignifying this with a prolonged response, and I haven’t bothered to read the diatribe by Kurfurst. He has a habit of making these accusations about every editor who disagrees with him. Kurfurst is a long term tendentious editor who seems to follow me around wikipedia and cause me difficulty. I the past I have responded heavy hand idly, and it has got me into to trouble. If you a look at Kurfurst's history you will see what kind of editor he is. I have managed to work well with the overwhelming number of editors in the past, but this guy is agenda driven. He was blocked indefinitely once; unfortunately some bright spark gave him another chance. He hasn't learned.

As far as the articles are concerned (particularly the Luftwaffe page), one will notice he deletes without discussion and makes false accusations of forgery here. The Luftwaffe article is one I have worked to bring up to standard. But Kurfurst is trying to cause trouble, as usual. Inflicting his own perception of events and deleting sources whenever he pleases. I created a battle of Belgium article last year, which is now at GA. Kurfurst was a leading force for its deletion. This just another attempt to ruin the work I've put in.

The nonsense he is spouting about the battle of Kursk is an indication of Kurfursts intentions. The editor in question has been blocked repeatedly. He brings it up here as pathetic 'proof' of wrong doing. To me this is block shopping, which he does often. As to the battle of Britain page. Kurfurst has a long history there; the one everyone is always combating. He doesn't have the source. If he wants it in the article, all he has to do is remind/request it via my talk page like any normal person.

Is it any wonder I reverted him? Is it any wonder his reputation is appalling?

Perhaps the admin reviewing this would look at Kurfursts recent history: he has been accused of the same thing 9OWN and DISRPUTIVE, justifiably) and is now making the same (erroneous) accusations against me: here. He's disruptive, uncooperative and unpleasant. If anyone is being disruptive, it is Kurfurst.

That’s it from me. Dapi89 (talk ) 18:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could well be right. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm far from being Kurfürst's favourite admin; see these polemical rants about my conflict of interest, misuse of the admin tools, favouritism and abuse of power following me blocking him for disrupting a talk page for months on end. Also note that I unblocked Dapi back in July 2009 after he'd been blocked for becoming frustrated with Kurfürst and stepping over the mark. I've never had any cause to regret either unblocking Dapi or blocking Kurfürst. Kurfürst seems to leave a trail of annoyed and suspicious editors in his wake; frankly I think he needs to tone down his combative attitude before we start looking at his presence on Wikipedia from a cost/benefit perspective. EyeSerene^talk 11:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this isn't Kurfürst's first time at ANI. See here, here, and here where he was complaining about Dapi before, and here and here where he was making almost the same argument about a different editor. He's been at the 3RR and other noticeboards for edit war issues numerous times (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). And he has been blocked 9 times already (one of them indefinite, later reduced to 1 month). To say he's a problematic editor is putting things lightly. -- Atama頭 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not pretty reading. I'm starting to wonder why I didn't indefblock the last time. I must have had a reason, but I'm struggling to imagine what it was. EyeSerene^talk 21:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems I am (and me in particular) going to have to put up with him indefinitely; disputing the articles I edit, challenging everything I write (regardless of being sourced), scouring the internet or Google book for anything that remotely contradicts my sources, and then trying to get me blocked for reverting his polemic distortions. No matter how I approach him, what I say (and I have tried to be sickening nice to Kurfurst) he is always the same. There is an entire platoons worth of editors that would rather not put up with him. After two years of incessant disruptive behaviour, enough is enough. Dapi89 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to enable Abuse filter blocking

The wallflowers case is well.. almost as much as the DY71 case. Unfortunately, the amount of disruption is much, much higher. Therefore, I request that the AF be allowed to block. This would stop WF socks from getting more edits in if they succeed in getting past it. I know that this will likely snow oppose.. but I have to try..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Two questions, does this person abuse their talk page/email once blocked, and of the 58 hits for the filter, how many are false positives?--Jac16888^Talk 04:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't abuse their talk page because they abandon an account just after using it for less than five edits. As to the FPs, I'll get back to you on that. Need to switch computers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have done a cursory look through the filter. There were some false positives early on, this is to be expected as this was during a testing period. Since then, the only false positive I have seen is one that occurred on the 17th of February; while it was appropriate that the edit was blocked, this was not the target of the filter and it has since been completely overhauled and wouldn't match that edit anymore. I have very high confidence in this particular filter right now, though I admit I may be a bit biased in this belief. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If the filter is accurate to a high degree, then I would support allowing it to block, provided it doesn't remove talk page/email access. --Jac16888^Talk 05:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the filter could actually revoke talk page/email access if we wanted to. (That is, without making a filter that says "users can't edit talk pages", of course) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I support this configuration change, provided it is used with the utmost care and filters are double checked and triple checked, preferably with code reviews. Inappropriate automated blocking is the ultimate in WP:BITE. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely if the filter can block users it can remove talk and email, since the two are block options just like blocking account creation etc--Jac16888^Talk 05:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't be sure, given that that option has never been enabled; it's just my understanding. I could certainly be wrong; I'm basing my knowledge solely off of what's available at mw:Extension:AbuseFilter --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I support this configuration change with regard to edit filter 278. The last dozen hits cover several weeks of activity and show no false positives. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have a problem with this, so how do we go about enabling blocking?--Jac16888^Talk 17:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the appropriate venue is to open a bug report on bugzilla with the request and point it to this thread. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, couldn't we ask User:Mr.Z-bot (an existing bot) to automatically file a report at AIV every time the filter in question gets tripped? That bot does a pretty decent job of patrolling the abuse filters and reporting users who either trigger certain filters or make several disruptive edit attempts within a short period of time. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem here... currently non-admins have access to the abuse filter. With blocking enabled, this is essentially giving them the block button without an RfA. Is there a configuration change at all that would alleviate these concerns? I've been in support of blocking for a while, but until this is clarified, I oppose this. (X! · talk)  · @226  ·  04:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an issue. For starters no single editor is responsible for a single filter, they are maintained and monitored by several editors, most of them admins, and they would be there to spot if a non admin with the edit filter right decided to go rouge, which is itself unlikely since of all users with the edit filter right, only 7 aren't admins, all trusted users.--Jac16888^Talk 15:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

To avoid any conflict of interest I would like to disclose that I am one of the non-admins being referred to in this thread, but I was going to say something along the lines of what User:Jac16888 said (but avoided it due to the possible COI); I fully trust all of the non-admins in the group to not abuse this ability and only act upon consensus. Even the slightest mishap should be responded to with revocation of that privilege, which any administrator can do. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mikhailov Kusserow archiving issues, again,

Mikhailov Kusserow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

This user was previously warned, and blocked, because they were archiving pages without consensus, and project pages which they were not members of. They have begun doing so again. Can someone please put a stop to this? I'll find the original thread tomorrow, I need to sleep right now. They have been notified of this thread. Also, if any doubt what I say here, simply check the history of their user talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something they archived 1 page 12 days ago, got reverted, and haven't done it since. Maybe just a reminder on their talk page would've been fine? –xeno^talk 13:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The last warning didn't work, why would this one?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What action do you propose we take, 12 days after the single problematic edit? –xeno^talk 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is contradictory to what I just said, but maybe a sterner warning? Further, something should be done about the archives the user made without consensus. I honestly don't know what else to do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left them another reminder, not quite a stern warning because they only made 1 edit 12 days ago. I vaguely recall cleaning up after them the last time. Let's see how this plays out, drop by my talk page if the problem persists. –xeno^talk 12:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Daedalus969, I received your message about archiving talk page. I do that because I think I'm a member of that WikiProject, so I think it's Ok! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Niteshift36 disruption at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

Would an admin please take a look at a potential problem over at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)? This involves talk page disruption in the last week caused by editor User:Niteshift36. I suspect that some encouragement from an admin on that talk page might help move the discussions back towards improving the article and away from arguments about personal points of view. Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I expected this. User:SaltyBoatr and I disagree on the inclusion of a graphic in the article. The bulk of the discussion has been by 2 editors that think it should be included and 2 who do not think it should be included. At my suggestion, Saltyboatr started a RfC. However, after only a couple of hours, he took it upon himself to declare the matter settled and that consensus was reached because the first 2 people to comment agreed with him. I contend, and I believe quite correctly, that a RfC should be allowed to run for more than a couple of hours. Saltyboatr then took this matter a step further by all of the sudden declaring a POV issue with all 50 tables being used in the article. I stated that I thought his sudden complaint was WP:POINTy and disruptive. He takes that as a "personal attack". I am trying to discuss the issue and doing so in good faith. I don't believe my actions are disruptive, but I do feel his latest complaint is disruptive. Further, I would like to hear some other opinions on whether declaring a matter settled after a couple of hours sounds proper or if a RfC should be allowed to run a couple of days. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

RFCs should generally run for 30 days. This give time for a wide variety of editors to comment, not just the first few that agree with the filing party. Mjroots (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• And that is a big part of the disagreement. I didn't feel that a couple of hours (2 hours 46 minutes) was sufficient to call the matter closed and declare a consensus being reached. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously too short a time for an RFC. The core of the content dispute seems to be whether the Brady chart is biased. But forgetting that, it looks like a potentially useful graphic. What's needed is a similar chart from the NRA as to their opinion on the matter. I would not be surprised if they show similar results. But it does depend on how they are defining "restrictive". The NRA might argue that the big block of green states are more restrictive than Brady says they are. But there's a good chance they would be ranked similarly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I suggested that balance would be the answer. Unfortunately I can't find a reliable sourced one (not for lack of looking). The NRA and orgs on the other side of the issue tend to not do graphics like that, choosing instead concentrate on the actual laws, rather than characterizing the laws as more or less restrictive, good or bad or whatever. Likewise, if a similar graphich could be found from a neutral source, I doubt I'd have an objection. But trusting an activist organization to make these determinations is an issue. I've started raising specific objections to specific issues in how they arrived at the score and why the score is biased, but thus far, Saltybotr has refused to discuss the specific objections. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would be amazed if the gun lobby did not rank the states by their opinion on the relative restrictiveness of guns. And I would be at least somewhat surprised if the order of their rankings would differ significantly from the Brady organization. The fact that one organization thinks restrictions are good and another thinks they're bad doesn't mean they wouldn't both arrive at the same or similar conclusions as to the level of restrictiveness. As a gross example, I'm sure the NRA would rank Texas and the Great Plains areas as less restrictive, and New York and California as more restrictive, as Brady does. And surely some kind of graphic in that megillah would be useful to the reader. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, all the reliable sources I've checked really don't do it that way. They deal with the facts of the laws more than their opinion/assessment of the law. (BTW, a number of states in the great plains don't fare as well with the NRA as you might think. The south, however, generally does fare well.) Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• Nobody rates the states? That's surprising, since every other national organization and its mother rate the states for their particular thing. Maybe one problem is not being clear enough on what Brady regards as "restrictive". Even if some of the specific color groupings might be questionable, the visual is helpful in seeing where the trends are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• As I explained at lenght in one of my responses on the talk page, some of their criteria is, to me, questionable and agenda driven. The example I used is whether or not a state mandates so-called "childproof guns". Brady has lobbied numerous times for this legislation and 49 of 50 states have rejected it. 98% rejection sounds like a pretty strong plurality to me. Yet Brady considers the lack of that law a bad thing and penalizes states for it. With a 98% rejection rate, the penalty for not having that law starts to look fringe. This is part of their legislative agenda and to I feel that the penalty is a POV issue. It's not like 40 have it and the other 10 are being stubborn or too permissive, 98% of the legislatures haven't made it a law. Follow what I'm getting at? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• By any objective criterion I can think of, having a law mandating childproof guns would make such a state more restrictive than one that doesn't mandate it, whether you favor such a law or not. Thus 49 of 50 states he would rate as less restrictive on that issue. Hence that stat would have virtually no impact on his rankings. And surely the NRA would agree that those 49 states are less restrictive on that one point, even if they don't agree with his view on the legislation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• You're missing my point. The inclusion of the category is, in itself, POV pushing. This is something on the Brady legislative agenda, something they are pushing. It has been soundly rejected by virtually everyone. I would srgue that it is nearly a WP:FRINGE opinion. By comparison, 6-28% of people believe the moon landing was faked. If we consider 6% to be a fringe idea, why are we considering 2% "mainstream" enough that a state should be penalized for not doing it? The Brady Campaign uses their criteria to push their agenda, which is where my POV issue lies. We won't even get into the reason abot why 98% of states don't have the law (hint: It's an unreliable technology). As I said on the page, if some of this were included in the prose or integrated into the existing tables for each state, I'd have much less of an objection. But let's face it, graphics are eye catching (especially when placed at the top of the page) and that graphic represents an activist groups opinions without a similar graphic to balance it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• And you're missing my point, which is that even if there's an agenda behind the rankings, the rankings themselves may well be on the mark. But they should be cross-referenced with rankings from the NRA, to get a clearer picture. Surely the NRA is likewise interested in removing restrictions. The fact those restrictions exist could result in the states being ranked similarly, regardless of whether someone thinks such restrictions are "good" or "bad". For comparison, during the 2008 campaign, Obama was ranked by rightists as among the "most liberal" of Senators. So if you don't like liberalism, you might see that as a bad thing, and if you do like liberalism, you might see it as a good thing. But neither of those viewpoints affects the observable fact that Obama was indeed one of the most liberal Senators, in terms of his voting record. In fact, when he was giving his speech the night he clinched the nomination, I said to myself that he was essentially walking through the "liberal agenda", point by point. So although the right comes at him with a biased viewpoint, their rankings of liberal-to-conservative can still be factually correct, as could the Brady rankings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing of that article is heavily skewed[[107]]. WP:NPOV indicates that an article should reflect the neutrality balance seen in the reliable sourcing, yet that article does not. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the link to the RFC? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:NPOVN#Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_.28by_state.29. He placed on NPOVN, but I consider it a RfC all the same. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Return of blocked sockfarmer

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to WP:AN as a general behavioral/status question without a specific "incident" to support being here.
Please to not add timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. Beyond My Ken

Another sock of User:Roman888

Resolved

 – Gondo747 (talk · contribs) blocked indef as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, further to the above thread on a sock of User:Roman888, could someone please block User:Gondo747 as another sockpuppet. He has restored the same copyright violations to three different articles. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Gone. This is quite a list growing now. That's two I've ducked. SGGH ^ping! 18:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your responses to this. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries. SGGH ^ping! 19:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

These socks are persistent and predictable. At some point, maybe an edit filter could be a proactive measure? -- Atama頭 20:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Second opinion about IP edits on Talk:Nudity in film

91.150.19.130 (talk · contribs) made an edit on Nudity in film stating that nudity "rocks. Only stupid Americans and youtube thinks its filthy!." I reverted the edit as vandalism and placed welcome and warning messages on their talk page. The editor has since several times ([108], [109], [110], [111]) made edits to the article's talk page where he attempts to engage in a general discussion about the topic (not improvement of the article) and where they repeatedly make references to "stupid Americans" and that "Nudity in films rock", "Someone please upload some hot naked babes now", "How do i upload pictures from great tits and ass movies" etc. I've reverted their talk page edits three times since yesterday as vandalism, leaving more templated warnings as well as this expanded explanation which was a response to a post to my talk page. I'm still hesitant to consider these talk page posts as anything other than vandalism because the posts continued even after I took care to explain a few things and offer my help. However, I wanted to get a second opinion on whether more AGF is due in this case and whether I might run afoul of 3RR if I keep reverting him. I will not revert the last post until I hear others' opinions.

P.S. Apologies if it sounds way too obvious and trivial.

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

3-hour "hey, we're not kidding here" block imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Perceptive vandals, that makes a change :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

hunh. until this day I had not realized that Wikipedia had a nudity portal. I'm not sure why that surprises me, actually, but... --Ludwigs2 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Mr. "Nudity Rocks" has seen the jacuzzi scene in About Schmidt? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• It took awhile for my hysterical blindness to clear up after that scene. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would have to say that Nicholson's incredulous reaction probably echoed that of the audience. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

88.108.11.162

IP address being used to vandalise talk pages and revert edits which were themselves done to revert apparent vandalism. Five such edits in the last two hours. Almost certainly a dynamic IP. Recommend block for 48 hours. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

They've not made any edits in the last hour and a half. Next time, please report them to WP:AIV so they can be dealt with quicker, and/or issue warnings to get them to stop. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks very much. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IP Left a vague threat on User:FisherQueens talkpage

Resolved

 – Already blocked. Tan | 39 21:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[112] not sure what this about but I would take it at least somewhat seriously. Ridernyc (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

and another one here [113] that one much more threatening. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

86.179.113.40 (talk · contribs)

86.179.112.1 (talk · contribs)

86.176.57.119 (talk · contribs)

All appear to be related, IP hopping to harass admins or threaten. Acroterion _(talk) 22:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, they appear to be editing from a /10, which is essentially unblockable for our purposes. Use semi-protection liberally, I suppose. NW (Talk) 23:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since one of the IP's has actually out right said they want to murder the person, maybe we should consider more then just a block. Ridernyc (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Run-of-the-mill asshattery, nothing I haven't seen before. RBI. We can take it up with the ISP if it recurs. Acroterion _(talk) 00:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh I know it's asshatery, but it is asshatery that can get you in serious trouble. I guess it would be up to the editors if they want to do anything though. Ridernyc (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable question on the ref desk

I'd like some other opinions on this question: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#choking. The username, combined with the subject of interest (including the videos he's watching), have me a little concerned. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a troll to me. I checked his contributions and they're pretty much all to the Reference Desk asking oddball questions. He only has like 8-9 actual mainspace edits. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

eh, I went ahead and verbally spanked him, which is what the question needed. If it was a serious question, he'll get the point; if not, nothing to do about it anyway. --Ludwigs2 23:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I take that back. he may be persistent on this. I've {{hat}}ed the question twice now, but I suspect he'll reopen it. If he does, it will need administrator attention. I don't think we want a generic question about choking open on the desk - too much of a troll magnet. --Ludwigs2 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Blood and air chokes are legal manoeuvres in many sanctioned combat sports, including not just the UFC, but countless less famous circuits. There are factual questions there that we could answer. I haven't gone though his previous contributions (yet), but this thread in particular might have been better handled with a lighter touch. Matt Deres (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see anything that needs admin attention, and am surprised that any concern about the question was not referred to the RD talk page instead of AN/I. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He unarchived the discussion and is continuing it. The vast majority of his previous contributions are questions along this same line. I find it troubling and questionable why someone needs so much information about fainting thresholds. Previous questions are about suicide [114], where to buy lab rats for experimentation purposes [115], some sort of question about why a frog is still alive [116], THIS edit which seems to be racist in nature [117], a racist attack on Japanese people [118], and many of his first edits were vandalistic in nature but contained false edit summaries implying he was actually reverting vandalism. I stand by my first impression, that this is a troll. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that at the RD we answer questions put to us by trolls, racists, japanophobes, red-haired people and, well, pretty much everyone; and that we judge the question not the questioner. As to the subject matter of the question, I think we can make a good faith assumption that some people are interested in this sort of stuff. There's no hint of criminality in thr question. And as normal, the RD is doing a great job at providing exactly the sort of answers you;d hope for when faced with a question of this sort. And in sum, a legitimate question has been asked and good answers are being provided. now remind me why on earth this is taking up any space or time at AN/I. Or better, don't. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tagishsimon is presenting his personal opinion of the matter. In general, questions are indeed assumed to be sincere, even when they're kind of off-the-wall and/or nearly-unintelligible, and usually at least some attempt is made to answer. But Tag's firm belief is to totally wear blinders, and I (and other editors) do not fully agree with that approach. As for this particular OP, those kinds of questions add up to a somewhat disturbing picture (it reminds me of some of the stuff Jeffrey Dahmer was said to be fascinated by when he was a kid). We don't have to check our brains and good sense at the door when addressing posts at the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, questions for professional advice or that look like opinion polls or argument-starters are often rejected, with comments as to why. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs, ignoring the OPs history of asking disturbing, racist and trollish questions and to vandalize articles while using false edit summaries is ridiculous. Bad behavior is bad behavior. If posting racist questions is considered acceptable at the RD, then maybe the RD needs to be overhauled. I also don't think the RD talk page is the correct venue for editors to bring up their good faith concerns with the behavior of another editor. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I am concerned about questions that promote acts which can produce physical harm. The problem, really, is that the way he asks the question makes it seem as though choking someone into unconsciousness is a normal (maybe even cool) thing to do, and I don't want some twelve year old reading it and trying it on his little brother with fatal effects. Troll or not, this particular line of discussion is dangerous, and it really ought to be removed. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad behaviour is indeed bad behaviour, and we have sanctions for that. Those sanctions do not tend to include deciding that we're not going to answer a question which of itself is not bad beaviour. Meanwhile the RD does not tolerate racist questions and nor, Burpelson AFB, did I suggest that it did. Try and understand that when I talk about judging the question and not the questioner, I mean just that. Twisting my words is a very cheap shot. Bugs likes to speculate that he's sniffed out a budding Jeffrey Dahmer, and has a documented history of building such a mental picture of questionaers that he cannot bring himself to deal with their question, but must rather deal with his impression of the questioner. I don't think that's what we're here for. As for the promotional effect of this question: he OP is having seven shaes of shit knocked out of him by the respondants, and isn't looking like a poster boy for recreational throttling, by any means. I think it comes down to whether or not you think we should be discussing these boundary topics - throttling & buying stuff anonymously being the last two that have flared up like this - at all on the RD. My very strong view is that we should, just as our articles do not shy away from taboo topics. I have no blinkers on, Bugs; I'm very mindul of what I'm saying. And I'm sure that there are some questions we should not answer beyond those we already don't - medical & legal advice, homework (though it's late, I'm tired, and I cannot bring any to mind right now). But the questions currently causing concern do not fall into the do not answer category, for me, for the reasons I've set out. And, for the n'th time, this discussion, to the extent it is required at all, should be on RD talk and not here. There is no basis for admin intervention with respect to the question, the proper forum is RD talk. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And Ludwigs2, there's little point in removing the question since your 12-year old has already read the chokehold article ... which is to say there's as much chance that he's read one as the other. So what are you saying? Should chokehold be deleted? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw it in the RD and not in the article? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read the chokehold article, but I assume the article isn't written as an exciting first-person narrative (with phrases like "even experts can't do it to me"). Got no problem with information; Do got a problem with incitement. if you see what I mean... --Ludwigs2 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have raised concerns about this user before Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 68#67.246.254.35 but never really persued them. But for clarificaiton this user also edits under User:67.246.254.35 as evidence other then the similar interests and similar editing pattern (interest in UFC/MMA, removing stuff from articles saying no 'ref', blanking their talk page) they've also replied to questions from the other in a manner as if they're the OP, I presented some examples in the linked discussion and this continues, e.g. [119]. This user also had anothed accounted that was blocked User:Killspammers although the behaviour wasn't perhaps that excessive at the time and again as mentioned in the earlier discussion even the admin agrees perhaps the indefinite block was unnecessary. (In other words, block evasion doesn't really come in to it.)

My greatest concern with this user has been their tendency to remove stuff from articles which I presume they don't like, sometimes even with deceptive edit summaries (e.g. saying no ref when part of they were removing had a ref which they were also removing) and often with stuff which wasn't clearly untrue and may have even been true. They stopped this for a while although seem to have started somewhat again but perhaps being more selective in what they remove and haven't removed anything referenced that I noticed. In terms of their RD behaviour my first concern there has been their manner of asking, often coming across as demanding and answer and getting annoyed when they feel the answers aren't sufficient although again they may have dialed this down slightly.

Of the questions themselves, they are usually the fairly immature sort of stuff but I'm not sure if their trolling. For example this specific question is in line with their interest in UFC/MMA. They also have a tendency to ask what appear to be medical advice questions (they often deny it, but sometimes ask multiple questions on the same topic) and questions which appear to be issues relating to their life (e.g. one time they were asking a lot about how to deal with ants, it emerged at some stage they had a ant problem). IMHO this question is particularly illustrative of their mentality Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 January 14#what if my mom dies. Having said that, this user has also said other things about them [120] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Brammers&diff=347191466&oldid=324120637 which conflict with what they said in that question although I wouldn't be surprised if the later details are lies intended as cover.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been keeping an eye on the IP user and his associated names for a while. A good proportion of my recent edits have something to do with them, whether it is asking for advice regarding his recent edits, mentioning him to a user who gave Thekiller35789 a final warning on page blanking, or trying to make contact with him on a couple of occasions (which I try as a first port of call), only to have him blank the page, except regarding his edit to the bleach article.

I agree with what Nil Einne has said — the user has removed other users' content, both to Ludwigs2's edit to the RD and, inexplicably, a harmless comment on a mainspace talk page. I would like to add that in articles, he seems to edit with a particularly hack-and-slash approach, often forgetting to close sentences he has deleted chunks of, little punctuation, and poor style. He sometimes describes his actions in the edit summary as something that would be perfectly acceptable, such as removing unsourced material — even though the material was hardly contentious to start with. On his work to the bleach article under the IP address, he then added unsourced text that said bleach is too concentrated to use neat and must be diluted, which is obviously untrue.

I've found it hard to decide whether the user is deliberately disrupting Wikipedia, whether they are trying to contribute but doing so in an unguided and unwittingly destructive way, or whether they are editing on impulse and do not appreciate WP and the contributions of what they are. In the RDs, the user seems be insistent, stubborn and ask questions that are inappropriate for the desk (some are simply non-questions, such as the question about the 1980s that was basically him pushing his point on others that the world was boring without the internet. When it was closed, he became quite hostile.

On a personal level, I believe that the user might have some form of social difficulties, given their manner with editors, their edits, the bizarre and unnerving questions they ask (seemingly oscillating between chemistry, ants and death). They don't seem to be willing to compromise with other editors and don't show an interest in abiding by WP policies. I waded in against User:Killspammers's indefinite block because I felt it was disproportionate and that the user could, with time and care, be welcomed into the WP community and learn how to be a positive contributor - something that might be beneficial for him as a person. However, I don't think this is going to be the case. Brammers (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Aside: I don't think anyone has subbed the ANI template notice onto Thekiller's talk page yet. Does this need to be done? Brammers (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• I guess people who frequent the Reference Desks can police themselves, but I cannot fathom why this person's questions (both the account and the IP) are not reverted on sight, and why they aren't banned from the Reference Desks. Answering question after question after question from the same bored person can't possibly be what the Reference Desk is for, can it? I suppose if people enjoy answering these, who am I to stop them, but it sure looks like disruption to me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

first off i find it a little disturbing that SOME of you are so obsessed with me and are spreading lies about me. for one thing i never made any racist remarks about Asians. if you bother to read what i posted. i said japs an abbreviation. like brits, or cheks. how is that racist. ridiculous. one of my best friends is Asian. second i have no affiliation with any other the other names you mentioned and that ip is not mine. and i dont live where you said i do and im not gunna tell you where i live some of you seem like stalkers. i dont understand because i am curious about some things you persecute me. leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL. That IP is not yours? --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

And, we know where he lives because we helped him locate the phone numbers for Social Services in his area in January. Nimur (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

no, you gave me the numbers for what you thought were my area. i never told you if you were correct. the fact that you are stalking me is disturbing and violates Wikipedia guidelines. i will change my ip today anyway because your stalking is creeping me out. leave me alone creeper. find something better to do with your time than stalking people on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thekiller35789 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been answering questions on the reference desk for nearly five years. I didn't even know you existed until you came there asking unusual questions. I happened to have answered some of your questions. If you prefer, I will make a point to avoid addressing any questions that come from you or appear to come from you. Nimur (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imperativism

Resolved

 – Articles deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A pretty elaborate hoax with a series of articles created by the same editor, my assumption is that this is the subject of the articles. They're now stooping to BLP violations by making claims that the subject is formerly engaged to a model, without providing reliable sources. I have issued a warning, but this is getting tetchy. Woogee (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the word you want is "hoax". http://www.google.com/search?q=michael+carrano+imperativism gives hits. He's an unreviewed author and multiple time unsuccessful third party candidate for Connecticut office, so probably not Wikipedia:Notable but he exists. --GRuban (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Probably best to just let this run its course, though all of the articles up for deletion should probably be bundled into one nomination. AniMate 02:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

They repeated the claim that he was engaged to the model, I've reverted again and left him a blp2 warning. The source for the claim is a link to the model's home page, but not to a page which specifically proves she was engaged to him. I've looked through the website, and can't find any proof for this claim. Woogee (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated the article, and all I can say is that, while M.A.Carrano DOES have gHits, it doesn't mean he's notable. In fact, the gHits might be mostly false positives or mirrors. Strangecalypso's actions are probably just again one of those incidents about new users who don't understand Wikipedia's policies. This is an unfortunately too common instance, and it's not the first time I've encountered such a case. Thanks Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As the articles were purely promotional in nature, I just deleted all three of them and closed the AfD. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Using talk page as forum & other vandalism/issues, user warned repeatedly

• Miss-simworld (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) using talkpage as a forum at Talk:Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and cluttering up talk-page (also at Talk:Pan-Arabism#Question_to_Nableezy_on_his_continous_actions_on_the_Pan_Arabism_page). User warned repeatedly but refuses to comply. In addition this user also has issues with original research and pushing a point of view that is unattributable to reliable sources (issues could be found on 1st mentioned talk page but is spread to other articles). --Qvxz9173 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This person is wikihounding me and trying to get me blocked very desperately due to their own biased agenda filled with hate and racism towards those who refuse a mere label. Here [121] [122] [123] [124] were he even included verbal abuse in an article. Yet he was not reported and it was I who had to delete this vandalism. He tried to prove I was a sock then failed, he then had the nerve to complain about civilty when he had abused an article with POV insults (as the edits clearly indicate), This person themself is a vandalist filled with hate and purely wants to supress information, they are angry because the title of the page Arab Christians got added the extra Arabic speaking Christians to suit those who do not use that label. In this [125] page he openly confesses he wanted and was dissapointed I didnt get blocked to prevent me from editing any articles and he was hoping for my blockage despite their not being a reasonable case.This has little to do with disruptiion for this person but more that they dont like whats being added and my explainations to his motivated edits that he cant refute. I am the one who should be making a complaint but unlike Q here I dont stalk or wikihound people I have better things to do with my time, than resort to these measures. ♥Yasmina♥ (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

USB article has gay porn reference

Sorry if this is not the place to post this, but I just noticed that the USB article has a clearly improper reference to gay porn that has been there for a while. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb Specifically, in the device classes table is this line, which I think is completely wrong. BAh Interface Hipster Bullshit iPod , Gay porn storage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. It's just normal vandalism, which was in place for 47 minutes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Whenever I see one of those complaints, I wonder if the complainant is responsible. And IP addresses don't help; since through email or social networking, one vandal could ask another to post the complaint anywhere in the world. Just to make sure we've noticed and given him his proper attention, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of this so quickly. Responding to Wehwalt, I'm saddened to hear you think people would regularly do such a thing just for 'proper attention'. I regularly refer to Wikipedia for things but have never tried to edit anything. When I saw the issue with the USB article, the first thing I looked for was a 'report vandalism' link, which I couldn't find. I glanced at the history of the page, but couldn't make heads or tails of it, and thus did a general search for reporting vandalism, which led me here. Perhaps there is a 'normal' way you would respond to such a situation, but as a casual user I'm sure I represent a lot of people who would like a simple way to 'notify the experts' when we find something clearly out of place. If you're worried people will abuse such a thing so that they can post in a obscure corner of the site like here, perhaps you need to provide a mechanism to easily report issues in a 'private' manner. I'm sorry if this all is out of place for this page or somehow has been hashed out in other ways, but your comment doesn't help create a 'welcoming' environment.. quite the contrary, it will now make me think twice about reporting future issues I may run across. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.142.152 (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt's comment is misplaced, and I'm sorry for it. Thank you for pointing us to the vandalism, that's appreciated. We tend to encourage people to click the "edit this page" link and fix things themselves, but I appreciate this is not a practical suggestion for everyone, and well understand that unless you;re well familiar with the ways of wikipedia, getting things done and entering into communication with the community can be very difficult. You deserved a better reward than for someone to mull over the extraordinary things that bad IPs get up to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, this IP might also be the IP who edits under the 65.XX thing. That editor is quite productive here, and beats some of us in that respect. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not say any specific person had done that, including this editor. However, the phenomenon is hardly unknown. Please take all comments as an effort to improve the project. It's unusual for an editor's first two edits to be to AN/I--Wehwalt (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember that IP addresses are often dynamic, and what looks to you to be their "first two edits" might be their 2,000th and 2,001st edit to Wikipedia. With IPs it's problematic to prejudge. You might be dealing with a new editor, or someone with more experience than you. -- Atama頭 16:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two more socks of User:Roman888

 Both blocked and tagged. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, could someone please block User:LoganStarr and User:Laskar34 as sockpuppets of prolific copyright violator and sockpuppeteer User:Roman888? These two accounts were created within 6 minutes of each other, and their only contributions have been to restore Roman888's copyright violations to articles recently purged in his CCI. I've given them both "warnings" but the evidence in my view is strong enough to apply WP:DUCK and block them indefinitely before more damage is done. This is his 6th and 7th socks in a few days. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick response --Mkativerata (talk) 06:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Have you filed a sockpuppet investigation against this guy, because we're knocking these socks off at least twice daily. If his IP isn't too dynamic we can get a rangeblock and possibly pick up any sleeper socks he has. AniMate 06:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I'll file a case when I get the chance over the next 12 hours or so. I was hoping he'd get bored by now, but clearly not. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I just have to note that in the time since the SPI was opened, he's launched another one (which I've blocked). It's too bad he couldn't put the time into learning to comply with copyright policy that he's spent in trying to thwart it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB access - Mlpearc delinking articles

Resolved

 – User agrees to use more care when editing with AWB and also has been counseled on the various appropriate reasons to have an item linked more than once in an article. –xeno^talk 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Mlpearc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has started serially, massively delinking articles --> he is apparently starting with the letter A as he has delinked golfers on my watchlist -- Tommy Aaron, Adams, Ahern, Allem, and many other articles. This is serious enough, in my judgement, to warrant immediate administrator attention.--Hokeman (talk) 03:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He was recently given access to AWB, and it may be that it deserves to be taken up at WP:AN/I, not here. Generally, the WP:AIV is for rapid response to petty vandalism and automated revision of the articles in question.  Mephistophelian (talk ● contributions) 04:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Moved here, from WP:AIV. -- Cirt (talk) 07:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a discussion about this happening at the talk page of the user doing the delinking, see User_talk:Mlpearc#Stop_delinking_golfer_bios_immediately (also a question was asked about it Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Need_Help). Mlpearc seems to be doing this in good faith and is open to discussing the issue. At this point I'm not sure we need admin intervention per say, rather people to weigh in at this editor's talk page as to best practices regarding wikilinks within articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. -- Cirt (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This users use of AWB is absolutely shocking, his access should be revoked immediately. He shows no understanding for WP policies and guidelines, making edits which delink items in see also sections and navigational templates. A comment he made on his talk page "They way I see it is : One link per subject,per article, I might get flack from this but I make Judgment calls and this one. Period" shows that he is unwilling to change his view. I am not comfortable with this user having access to a tool which can quickly make so many wrong edits to articles. Jeni ^(talk) 10:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I left them a warning that if they continue in this manner, their AWB access will be revoked. –xeno^talk 14:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Message received and understood, My apologizes, won't happen again Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I want all involved to know that all and I mean ever single edit I made was in good faith. I misunderstood the overlinking.Mlpearc MESSAGE 16:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Falsification of sources by Granitethighs

Common name is an unsourced essay written and defended by Granitethighs. Today an IP removed a paragraph of what appears to be original research as "Unsourced, unsupported original research".[126] Shortly afterwards Granitethighs undid that removal with edit summary "Added citation", but no citation was added.[127] I undid the restoration[128] and issued Granitethighs a please explain.[129] Granitethighs then restored the paragraph for a second time, this time really adding a citation.[130] I tracked down the source cited, and found that it does not in any way support the paragraph. (source, second opinion)

The paragraph argues that the use of binomial (two-part) scientific names (e.g. Aloe vera) originated from the practise of using two-part Adjective Noun common names (e.g. Black Rat), which in turn probably arose from the practice of giving people Firstname Surname names. As far as I can tell it is 100% original research. The source to which it was cited argues that current scientific taxonomic practices are incapable of handling the 10-million species now recognised. Yes, they are that completely unrelated.

In my view, both the original edit, the edit summary of which falsely claimed to have added a citation, and the subsequent edit, which sourced the paragraph to an article that doesn't even remotely support it, were wilfully deceptive. This is a case of someone willing to do just about anything to protect his personal essay.

Granitethighs has blustered and argued and changed the subject and finally reasserted that the citation was perfectly appropriate. In the absence of any recognition of what is an extremely serious and highly unethical infraction, I am very much inclined to show him the door. However, since I am arguably involved here, I would like someone else to take over from here please.

Hesperian 07:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. I will be offline for several hours now. Hesperian 07:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC))

This is a storm in a teapot, generated by an administrator who has lost the plot. Granitethighs is a highly competent editor, and is the primary author of articles such as Sustainability and the History of botany. For whatever reason, Hesperian attacked Granitethighs in a peremptory and particularly nasty way, crowding him into a corner and threatening him with a permanent block, as can be seen in the exchanges between their talk pages, here and here. He has given Granitethighs neither space nor time on this matter. It is the overbearing behaviour of Hesperian that should be the matter for scrutiny here. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Hesperian's accusations. The paragraph in question argues that the "folk" use of single names like "Homer" and binomials, like "Homer Simpson" closely resembles the scientific use of genus names like "Eucalyptus" and species names, like "Eucalyptus regnans". The paragraph did not contain any citation. I am in full agreement that a citation is needed for this assertion and complied with Hesperian's request to provide one, although there was a misunderstanding about when this was given. The citation given was, I believed then (and still do now) appropriate. However, it was not considered adequate by Hesperion who said I was "falsifying citations" and therefore I should be "blocked". I was truly amazed by this sudden accusation and an altercation followed after which I offered to provide whatever citations Hesperion required in whatever places he thought fit in order for the article to be acceptably encyclopaedic. Apparently this was not enough and this situation has resulted. I feel that this has been extremely badly handled. Not only do I disagree with Hyperion's judgment on this matter but I am still not aware of any transgression and, as an observing editor noted, this is tantamount to a sysop "bullying" an editor. I am a keen Wikipedian (see my record) and more than willing to abide by the "rules". I have shown willing to comply in any way with reasonable requests. As i have shown willingness to comply with Hyperions recommendations I think his actions in this matter are totally unreasonable, not directed at the article itself, but at me, and require formal discipline.Granitethighs 08:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There you have it folks, from the horse's mouth. Granitethighs maintains that it is appropriate to source a paragraph to an article that doesn't say anything remotely like what the paragraph says; viz, to falsify references. This makes him a greater threat to Wikipedia than any vandal.

This rhetoric about how the citation was "not considered adequate by Hesperian" is just ludicrous. It is not a question of adequacy. It is a question of veracity. A citation is an assertion that a source supports us. In this case, that assertion was a lie. The apparent purpose of the lie was to stave off challenges to Granitethighs' personal essay. Hesperian 10:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- This is just a routine content dispute isn't it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 08:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Fabricating sources is a routine content dispute now? That's funny, I thought it was a breach of our fundamental principles. Silly me. Hesperian 09:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, silly you. It is your fabrication of accusations that is the breach of fundamental principles. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In what way is my accusation fabricated? It is a fact that Granitethighs sourced a paragraph to an article that doesn't say say anything even remotely like what the paragraph says. This is, by definition, citation falsification.

I've provided evidence. Now you provide evidence, or withdraw your foul false accusation. Hesperian 10:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There was no "falsification" or "fabrication" by Granitethighs. You asked him for a source. He supplied you with one which arguably doesn't meet the requirements. So maybe he needs to find another source. So what's the big deal. As Sean says, this is just a routine content dispute. I suggest you apologise to Granitethighs or hand in your mop. Admin tools are not for you to bludgeon content editors in this way. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no "arguably". The source isn't even remotely on topic. Fabricating a source to stave off an OR challenge to one of your pet articles is not a content dispute. That is a big deal, especially when the fabricator maintains that they have done nothing wrong. Hesperian 10:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Granitethighs and Epipelagic have employed the time-honoured trick of muddying the waters by flinging lots of mud. Ignore the rhetoric. Examine this series of diffs: [131][132][133][134][135]. Now ask yourself: Granitethighs having already tried to stave off removal with a false edit summary, is there any good faith explanation for Granitethighs' attempt to stave off removal with a false source? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 10:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reinstated the comment above by Hesperian, beginning with "In what way is my accusation...", and ending with "withdraw your foul false accusation". Hesperian removed the comment after I had replied to it, which seems to me an example of "muddying the waters". I think at this point it is for others to decide where the rhetoric is coming from and who is flinging the mud. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I removed it after you "replied" by modifying your previous comment, which made my question look silly.[136] Rather than complain about your conduct in modifying a comment I had already replied to, I simply removed my own. And now you accuse me of doing what you did. Very classy.

By all means reinstate my comment (you say you have done so, but appear not to have). And while you're at it, split your comment again so that it is clear what I was responding to. Meanwhile, this is more mud. Now I have to repeat myself in order to get my comment some oxygen. Hesperian 11:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, what you did (before I hit save on the above) is fine. Hesperian 11:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Granitethighs and Epipelagic have employed the time-honoured trick of muddying the waters by flinging lots of mud. Ignore the rhetoric. Examine this series of diffs: [137][138][139][140][141]. Now ask yourself: Granitethighs having already tried to stave off removal with a false edit summary, is there any good faith explanation for Granitethighs' attempt to stave off removal with a false source? No, I didn't think so. Hesperian 10:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No Hesperian. It's not good enough for you to just cherry pick and grandstand like that. Those diffs need to be read together with the wider context given on the talk page exchanges between Granitethighs and Hesperian, here and here. Anyone who reads through that stuff will see that things are not the way Hesperian is presenting them. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read through the exchanges. There appears to be some history between the users on this article so it was inappropriate for Hesperian to threaten to block granitethighs. Perhaps he would also have got a better response if he'd gone in a bit less heavy handed. However, in terms of the actual dispute, Hesperian seems to be totally in the right. That particular unsourced paragraph was added by granitethighs here. At that stage it was completely unsourced, and seems to have been left that way till today, when the IP removed it. The source that ended up being provided did not prove anything that was in the paragraph and looks like it was taken completely out of context. There are various causes for concern here:

• Unsourced material being added in the first place (though granitethighs was relatively new at that point and a long time has passed, but they haven't made any effort to source it in the intervening period despite editing the article quite a lot).
• Incorrect edit summary in saying they had added a source.
• Using a source which does not back up what the text says at all.
• Lack of acknowledgement of any of the above.

I do not think these sort of issues can be simply called a content dispute. Inappropriate use of sources is one of the worse problems on wikipedia as it is very difficult to pick up on. I do not know whether any admin action is necessary at this point, as the material in question has been removed and has so far not been reinstated, but it would be very helpful if granitethighs could acknowledge that these are serious errors, and that they won't be repeated. Quantpole (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over all this I think the following sentence from Hesperion gets closest to what this is all about: "Fabricating a source to stave off an OR challenge to one of your pet articles is not a content dispute." Several things need to be said. Firstly, I would like to think I am mature enough not to "own" articles I have been a major contributor to. OK the proof of the pudding needs testing here but I stand by this statement. Secondly I acknowledge that the article is dismally short of citations: I can rectify this but it wont be tomorrow and the tag encourages others to help. Thirdly I can provide alternative citations for the problematic paragraph if Hesperion does not like the current one (which he has removed anyway) so there should be no content or citation dispute anyway - "staving off an OR challenge" sounds rather dramatic to me- it was a reasonable request for a citation. Unfortunately the one I chose did not seem appropriate to Hesperion. Fourthly, the assertion that this is a fabrication (whatever that is) is simply his POV - other editors can see what was added to the paragraph and consider whether they themselves would treat it as fabrication. I really do welcome challenges to content, especially when they are discussed - how else do we improve articles? I am not so responsive to threats (i.e. you should be permanently blocked).Granitethighs 12:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the source supports the quote it was being used to reference. Whether or not the claim attached to the quote was correct (I very much lean towards no) is a different issue, and there seems to be a clear synthesis problem with its use. Similarly, the source doesn't support the paragraph as a whole, and I get mixed impressions from reading the comments - in some comments it seems that it is claimed to do so (as per above), while in others it is not. At any rate, the source wasn't falsified - at most it was used incorrectly. This is still a problem, but not the one originally suggested with this thread. - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Bilby. The entire paragraph was removed by the IP as unsourced OR. Granitethighs restored the entire paragraph with the false claim that he had cited it. I removed the entire paragraph again. Granitethighs restored the entire paragraph again, sourcing it to this article. It is not correct for you to say "the source supports the quote it was being used to reference"; the source was quite clearly being used to support the entire paragraph, not just the final eight words given in quotes.

On top of that, the quote is part of the deception. The source says 'scientific taxonomy is a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles and therefore not able to handle 10 billion species.' (my paraphrase). Granitethighs turns that into 'science borrowed two-part names from common names, making scientific taxonomy a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles. (my paraphrase) Hesperian 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a few issues mixed up in all this, but my only concern at the moment is to clarify whether the reference was falsified or whether it was just used incorrectly. I'm going for it being used incorrectly, but not falsified - there was a direct quote, immediately followed by a reference, and my reading was that the reference was for the quote, not the paragraph as a whole, in which case it is accurate. (If the quote wasn't in the reference, of course, I'd have a completely different view, but fortunately it's there). The question about whether or not the quote was correctly used is certainly an important issue - it's just that it is a different concern. - Bilby (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

<- Genuine fabrication of information and misrepresentation of sources happens everyday in many, many articles that cover issues with conflict based narrative wars. They are almost always resolved by the editors without resorting to this noticeboard. This Common name issue is trivial in comparison and could have been sorted out on the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Those who think "genuine fabrication of information" is too trivial to bother administrators with are sadly mistaken. Hesperian 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I said 'This Common name issue is trivial in comparison and could have been sorted out on the talk page.' This is drama. Admins creating drama on this board when they get into trivial content disputes that they could sort out through reasoned discussion with a user wastes time and resources that could be allocated to deal with serious issues. There are several on this board right now. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have mapped it out on the talk page, to try and refocus. I'll read teh source article tomorrow myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Hesperian's mate, Casliber, is capable of handling this matter the way it should have been handled from the beginning, and that this unfortunate matter can now be marked as resolved. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Two important and final points from me. Firstly, I take a pride in my referencing. Take a look at my recent efforts: History of botany, Herbal, Botanical gardens . A capital offence (my Wikipedia life is at stake here) always requires intent - a motive. Ask yourself what I have to gain by “falsifying” a reference. The article concerned is not about a person or political ideology it is about “Common names” I have no investment in this article other than that it be accurate and well written. The topic is my bread and butter: I can provide many references to the paragraph that has caused so much concern. I have nothing to gain by be deceptive or devious. If my citation is good it will stand and be ignored. If my citation is poor my editing credibility goes down. Why on earth should I deliberately apply a poor reference or try to falsify anything? My motive is not an irrelevant factor here. Hesperion by threatening to block me permanently treats what he regards as poor citation as some sort of devious and punishable behaviour. I leave you to make your own conclusions. The second point has been alluded to by other editors. Hesperion had options in dealing with what he regards as poor referencing. IMO he could either have deleted the paragraph and pointed out that in his opinion the citation was inadequate. Or, better and less confronting, simply state on the talk page that the referencing was in his opinion inadequate. If my action then was to resist or be awkward he had a case for discipline. My record is good, i respond to reasonable requests, Hesperion by threatening to permanently block me has hugely overreacted. Granitethighs 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is outrageous that, left to his own devices, Hesperion would have permanently blocked you. He owes you an apology, if he has the grace. Otherwise, he should hand in his mop. Administrators as threatening and high handed as this should not receive community supported if they cannot reflect sensibly on their behaviour. Nor should content editors have to work in such an unsafe and fearful environment, wondering if some predator administrator is going to unjustly descend and savage them. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been an exchange of views on the Common names talk page. I will NOT continue to be BULLIED - that is the only word that is appropriate.Granitethighs 09:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

This is "bullying" apparently: "I think it is high time we saw some of these putative sources. Whatever of this article is not properly sourced in one week, I will delete. Hesperian 08:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)". That's right: I am generously giving him a week of grace—one week longer than I am obliged to—before I do the proper thing and purge this essay of original research. If that's bullying, then I'm proud to declare myself a card-carrying bully, in capital letters and all. Hesperian 14:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Another bad block

Resolved

 – Good block, and further comment is feeding RH&E's troll. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see [142]. Again, WP:BITE. 86.176.164.91 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The user and user talk pages for Denise Fergus (talk · contribs) don't inspire me with confidence that this was legitimately the person claimed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say, the edits to the user/user talk pages are worrysome, but the edits to other pages were fine, even constructive. I see no problem with them and question why some were reverted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, suggest IP go read up on WP:REALNAME first before commenting further. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the block -- the username and contributions fit the recent editing pattern of User:The abominable Wiki troll. Email me if you want details. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• When a brand new editor with the name of a real person makes exactly ten edits, an inference might be drawn that this is not the person claimed, and an attempt is being made to acquire an autoconfirmed account. Even WP:AGF on that point, WP:REALNAME is clear. Rodhullandemu 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Then wouldn't Dave1185 above and you yourself fall under that? Because how do we know your name isn't Rod Hull or Rod Hulland and that you don't own an emu? That would all fall under WP:REALNAME. That person's name could very well be Denise Fergus. There are plenty of people who use their real names as their Wiki usernames and haven't been blocked. So, claiming WP:REALNAME isn't really a good reason. There needs to be more. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Their first edit was to an article mentioning Denise Fergus. It's definitely a REALNAME violation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And 86.176.164.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) "first" edit was to create an item here called "Another bad block"? What is the IP really trying to tell us??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
        • So Dave1185 can't edit anyone articles with the name Dave in them cause that would be a violation of the rule? Come on, that's just silly. Let's get a checkuser in here to be certain, otherwise we are just assuming and you know what happens when you assume. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Good block. The IP is also the long term abuse troll visible in Rod's (and others') talk page history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Surprise, surprise.[143] Yes, good block. I take it the IP's don't get blocked due to too much broader impact? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Illegal use of wikipedia

Hi,
At the attention of the sysops : Biner Corporation & Associates - [144].
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.67.249.102 (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about "illegal use", but given that the primary sources don't exist, I've speedied it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we alert the Fish Police? --Smashville^talk 13:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sharky and George more like. SGGH ^ping! 19:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The two above comments may also be connected with Legal Sea Foods. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass replacement of Kosovo with Serbia

Can anyone have a look at this users contributions?. I noticed he is changing Kosovo with Serbia in a lot of articles. Even IF this is correct, it is done in quite an imprecise way which leaves the article's with both country names Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Gah. Indef'd. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 14:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

schoolblock for 204.82.0.0./16 (New Brunswick Department of Education)

The whole address range 204.82.0.0./16, belonging to the New Brunswick Department of Education, appears to only contribute with vandalism. I could not find a single constructive edit within an overwhelming list of vandalism edits in this address range. Maybe a schoolblock would be appropriate? Nageh (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How hard did you look for a constructive edit? [145]. I don't think a blanket rangeblock is necessary at this point. –xeno^talk 14:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you beat me. I did check more than a few edits, though. Anyway, I understand it's a problem blocking such a large address ranges. Cheers, Nageh (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Typically we would only rangeblock if it was being used for WP:LTA as we did with some UK schools at one point. –xeno^talk 15:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Resolved

 – GWH's requested minimum 24 hours are up, and consensus is very clear, so there's no need to drag this out another day. I've never interacted with Yorkshirian in my life, so I think I count as an uninvolved admin. User:Yorkshirian is banned indefinitely. I will block the account and update WP:List of banned users accordingly. Give me a few minutes to figure out how to dot the i's and cross the t's; after that, if you see that I skipped something, let me know or just fix it yourself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(Note on closure by an uninvolved admin - though this currently is approaching WP:SNOW thresholds, it is best practice for admins not to close user bans prematurely, in order to ensure that opinions are gathered from users currently offline. Per WP:BAN 24 hrs should be considered a minimum; I would prefer 48 hrs. Current rate of edits indicates little additional damage will accrue with longer discussions, this is a long term problem not an urgent incident. - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC) )

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Yorkshirian
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Yorkshirian

For the past several months, the long-term problems caused by Yorkshirian have continued. These are largely limited to the British National Party article, but not limited to that article. Problems include the adding of blatantly false information, adding of material that substantially misrepresents what sources say, the use of a source he has never seen (and in another case it's highly likely he completely made up a newspaper reference), edit warring, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground to further an external conflict ("native Christians" versus "black settlers", "immigrants" and "asylum seekers", and also "far right" versus "communists" and "far left"), assumptions of bad faith, accusations of vandalism against other editors, and an attempted outing of another editor. To that list I could add the persistent removal of material critical of the BNP but I really don't want this to become an argument about whether he was right to remove certain content (as in some cases I may agree at least in part with some of his edits), so I'm just largely sticking with his addition of problematic content and his edit warring. To save burderning ANI with over 40K of evidence, details can be seen at User:One Night In Hackney/Evidence. It's difficult to pick specific examples from such a lengthy catalogue of disruptive edits but here's a few, but I recommend reading it in full:

• A claim he added that the British National Front reportedly became the third party at local level in some areas of the United Kingdom neglects to mention the fact that the source says this was actually misreported
• Adds text describing the participants in the 1981 Brixton riot as "black settlers", I cannot emphasise enough how racist (and factually incorrect) that text is.
• Adds claim that the British "state" introduced the Public Order Act 1986 which "limiting by law opinions people could state in regards to race in the United Kingdom", and that John Tyndall was subsequently prosecuted under it. Slight problem with that, John Tyndall was imprisoned in July 1986 and the act didn't receive Royal Assent until November 1986 or come into force until April 1987. He can't blame the source either, as it makes to mention of the Public Order Act.
• Adds an obscure reference to a local paper in Britain, a story from the Dewsbury Reporter in 1989 to be exact. Not obscure enough unfortunately, since I have access to the archive. Somehow he manages to get the publication date wrong, the name of the story wrong, and what the paper actually said is substantially different to what Yorkshirian claimed.
• Adds text saying that the "party saw a popularity growth in London and the urban southeast" sourced to a book that actually says "East London having become a promising area for the party".

I could go on and on with more examples but I suggest you just read the evidence page, the majority of edits where Yorkshirian adds content are problematic, the content added usually bears little resemblance to what the sources say. In my opinion this is one of the most disruptive types of editing going, as people assume good faith that when a source has been added with text that the text is accurately cited. As a result of this, the British National Party article in places resembles a work of fiction. This can't be excused as simply adding a reference and not changing existing text to match, as the overwhelming majority of the time it's text that Yorkshirian added in the first place. Most attempts to fix this are usually reverted by Yorkshirian, so he needs to be addressed before the article can be fixed. I don't believe there's any particular reason to believe that this abuse of references will only be limited to this article either, does anyone else? I'm sure there will be various comments about how good he works on other articles (although based on the evidence of widespread fraudulent referencing I've produced I'd suggest everything he's added needs to be properly checked), while that may mitigate his conduct on this article it certainly doesn't excuse it and it certainly doesn't justify allowing it to continue. Given his long track-record of disruption and him being supposedly on a final 'life' I believe it's time to close the door on Yorkshirian, if it doesn't happen here it's next stop ArbCom. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had to indefinitely protect both John Birch Society and British National Party, and nearly protected Catholic Church and Human rights, with Yorkshirian edit warring at all four. The 1RR condition that helped end his most recent permablock is clearly a distant memory. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite clear with this edit where Yorkshirian simply repeats his previous POV without regard for anything anyone has said. I can see those articles being protected forever while he persists. His tendency towards WP:OUTING people continues as well as his edits had to be oversighted at WP:NPOVN. As always, no response - much less apology - to Alison's oversighting or her reminder about harassment. More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Wknight94 ^talk 14:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I expected that he would've been site-banned by now, so naturally I'm surprised he's still editing despite all the above problems. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He can do good work and he backs off eventually but he has some really strange views that he imposes from time to time and has a habit of making silly accusations against other editors. The good work, when its good is worth putting up with some grief - this guy is a real eccentric. I would suggest a ban on reverts and a ban on any comments on other editors, to apply to all pages. --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no incentive to stop when he will just sock through any ban, and then get a free pass when he promises to stop socking. The ban evasion was so rampant that people forgot about the behavior that got him banned in the first place - behavior that got him re-blocked a few months after that, and continues to this day. It's a bizarre system we have here. Wknight94 ^talk 14:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult. When he's good he's very good, and when he's bad he's very bad. My perception is that, having let him get away with a lot in the past, he is clearly now unable to change his underlying behaviour, and the bad Yorkshirian is now outweighing the good. So, I wouldn't object if he was taken off the scene. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose ban. I disagree, Ghmyrtle. Yorkshirian is a good contributor to many high-quality articles; there is already a dearth of editors who work on history-related articles and we cannot afford to lose another one. We have one particular editor at Wikipedia who is continually disrupting the project with his provocative, trollish edits-in particular to the Dave Snowden article; I marvel that he is not being discussed here in lieu of Yorkshirian.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine just occupies time - he doesn't seem to cause much serious damage, he's just irritating (or amusing, depending on how tolerant you're feeling). But Yorkshirian actively and aggressively promotes a highly eccentric and extreme politicised POV on a lot of political and religious articles - so the net effect on WP of his actions, I think, is actually worse. I'm reluctant in a way to say that, as in the past I've supported his continued involvement. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban, and I'd like to see some fairly aggressive checkusering given his history of block evasion and sockpuppetteering. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban and seconds DuncanHill's suggestion. --Joowwww (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I thought we'd already established that being "very good" is not an excuse for being "very bad". Ironholds (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban wikipedia is not for advocacy, and not for smearing other editors. Verbal chat 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban — by far the most serious accusation here is that of falsifying what sources are saying. That absolutely cannot be tolerated, or else the entire foundation of Wikipedia crumbles. *** Crotalus *** 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How about adopting Snowded's suggestions?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 18:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - only last week did I have to deal with an oversight request in which Yorkshirian attempted to reveal the alleged RL name of another editor on the project. This happened at this discussion and the redactions are evident from the page history. This kind of behaviour is never acceptable and, in the light of all this other abuse, I have to support a ban here - Alison ^❤ 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I looked him up recently because of problems on Catholic Church, and was stunned to find Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Yorkshirian. Not clear why he's still editing given that background. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I, too, came across the history because of edit warring at Catholic Church, and with that many socks, and continued socking after the indef blocks and arbcom one-year block, I was quite surprised to see the latest block removed. Editors who are here only to cause trouble take inordinate amounts of time from others, and should be shown the door firmly and quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Hackney has provided more than enough evidence to show this abuse is chronic, intentional, and not likely to stop. No measures would be effective short of forbidding him to add content. That, of course, would be absurd. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - In case my comment above wasn't clear enough. Wknight94 ^talk 20:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Long-time problem editor, this is well overdue. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have a very poor experience from working with this editor. Not of the scale described above but I have had a taste of it. Knowing that the behavior I have seen is only the tip of the iceberg, I too would not oppose a community ban. --RA (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as someone who have been on the receiving end of his bad side. Better a total bad on reverts then he is neutralised --Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• Never mind the reverts - did you see Hackney's evidence of misrepresenting sources? Wknight94 ^talk 21:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dewsbury et al - I was involved in that one removing the material. A no revert policy would have worked there. Not sure how many others. His problems are when he edits articles that play to the worst side of his right wing nature, then he pushes the boundaries. Overall I would prefer to have him inside the tent with some control than as a sock farm. I'd also like him focused on all the obscure little history articles where he does a lot of good work. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockaphobia is not a great reason IMHO. Otherwise, let's unban everyone and pretend they're under control. Are you sure he's not doing the same in the obscure history articles? Or are they too obscure for anyone to notice? Wknight94 ^talk 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yorkshirian's edit warring is only part of the problem, and the smaller part at that, so a ban on reverts will not do. The main problem is the well-documented fabrication and misrepresentation of sources. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Yorkshirain and I are engaged in a dispute at talk:John Birch Society, so I won't use that as a basis for supporting the ban. However I checked some other articles that we've both edited and found this edit[146] to Denis Fahey. With some difficulty I obtained a copy of the cited journal article and I found that it does not support the text he added. This is further confirmation of Hackney's allegation that Yorkshirian has repeatedly misrepresented sources. Using a hard-to-get or expensive source makes it even worse as it's harder for other editors to check. Edits like this harm the integrity of the project. On top of the other issues concerning this user it is unacceptable behavior.   Will Beback  talk  21:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Once an editor's edits cannot be trusted or relied upon, then they have no place here. Best to let him go.  Giano  22:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban Continually and deliberately misrepresenting sources should get you shown out the door post-haste. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I am not sure why he ever got another chance after all the socking. We have way too much patience with this type of editor. Hans Adler 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. Two years or so ago when hearing the arbitration case I only reluctantly supported the restrictions on Yorkshirian, because he does go to source material and writes articles. But it becomes clearer and clearer that he is distorting the source material as well as editing disruptively. I don't see any way that he can work collaboratively. (I declare an interest as one of the sources so distorted) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per Alison. Durova⁴¹² 05:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per most above. --John (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Enough is enough. Skinny87 (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - reluctantly, but WP is not a game, or a debating forum. Sorry, Yorkshirian, you blew it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Incorrect ban of User:Iadrian yu

Resolved

 – Mixup corrected & user unblocked — Scientizzle 14:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that User:Jpgordon has made a mistake banning User:Iadrian yu for AFD sockpuppetry. Apparently Iadrian is being confused with puppetmaster User:Iamsaa, see also his talk page for more details. As Jpgordon hasn't edited in over 30 minutes i assume he logged out; thus raising the issue here instead. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

• AfD in question: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nusrullah Khan Noori. It does appear likely to be a mixup. — Scientizzle 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I boldly unblocked because this seems likely to be a mixup...If a checkuser wouldn't mind double-checking the situation to settle it for sure, that would be excellent. — Scientizzle 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Just a mixup. Sorry, all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please review my block

Resolved

 – A good block for vandalism. NW (Talk) 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/193.136.138.62. The one edit that started all this might have been legit, but see discussion and prior edits. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the block as his last edit basically acknowledge that it would result in a block. I would also have no problem with having further discussion with him to educate him on the use of the talk page and possibly lifting the block.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block -- all of this IP's edits were disruptive, and he continued to vandalize the article from User:193.136.128.19, which I've also blocked. Both IPs belong to Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, I declined his unblock too, they clearly knew what they were doing would lead to a block, yet continued after warnings. They can make another unblock request which actually addresses the concerns... --Taelus (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history of vandalism going back more than a month, and the clear stated intention to continue, I would say the length of block may be too little. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait--we're agreeing that this was a good block? An admin came here to gut-check a block and nobody threatened to take him to ArbCom?? OH NOEZ! Needz moar dramaz... GJC 03:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Western Pines

Troll [147] [148] and others. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 17:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kinda seems like. But I was not aware that special authorization was needed for posting welcome templates??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Welcome Wagon gets really pissed off if you take away their business. Those gift baskets just go to waste then and nobody likes that. HalfShadow 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Can he be blocked, or warned not to be annoying? :) ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 21:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I've left a talk page message advising him that no one needs "authoritah" to post welcome messages. SGGH ^ping! 22:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

He's still leaving me shite on my talkpage... [149] ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 07:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not so much "shite" but I do believe it is a message designed to rile you, the user knows very well he has made no edits to ANI and there are no threads I can find pertaining to you here. I've given him another warning regarding his disruptive behaviour. I think further messages like the first warnings he gave you could be constituted as disruptive editing. SGGH ^ping! 08:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm - blocked as a  Confirmed sock of South Bay (talk · contribs). I'd been watching him for a few days, as there was a prior checkuser done and his name had come up. South Bay had a week block for previous socking and has now had a second block, this time for a month. Other admins feel free to amend accordingly, if a month is inappropriate here - Alison ^❤ 09:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

IPvandal 70.88.220.*

Someone seems to be having fun vandalizing at Aerodynamics and elsewhere:

• 70.88.220.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 70.88.220.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I don't have the tools so I haven't verified other addresses in this group, but I can imagine there's more. Can someone have a look? Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a gadget you can enable to check the rest of the range. –xeno^talk 22:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice gadget. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This could be that gadget. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

70.88.220.0/26 is the range. It checks out to Chelmsford Public Schools, Massachusetts. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Da-da-dadada Gadget Inspector, da-da-dadada-da-da... HalfShadow 01:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you are extremely bored tonight HalfShadow. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be here all week; try the shrimp cocktail. HalfShadow 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget to tip your waitress! You've been beautiful! Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that tool in combination with the enabled gadget is just what it takes. Thanks. DVdm (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't ya love ANI on the slow nights?--SKATER ^Speak. 03:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It gets better on weekends. The all time highs are probably the VP/T threads that start up when the database starts lagging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.3.3.249 personal attacks

Resolved

 – Blocked Rodhullandemu 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A string of personal attacks by an IP 76.3.3.249 who has decided I'm a Nazi and quit a few other things. Diffs here [150], [151], [152] and a few others but they seem to keep going. Can I get an admin to look into this? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

A little attention here please? They are still at it [153]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You can add a post to WP:AIV, though I'd add a disclaimer stating that you're involved in the thread (so that the administrator reading it independently verifies before blocking). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I already reported the user to AIV.--SKATER ^Speak. 00:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

EC-ThanksUser:Skater and User:Rodhullandemu, was on last civil nerve with that person. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, try not to let the vandals get to you. They're just seeking attention most of the time...--SKATER ^Speak. 00:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL, usually dont, but that guy was on a roll. Kinda funny, as I was keeping track and reverting on about 4 pages he was vandalizing and just reverting him. He was reverting me, and started going so fast he started to revert himself and then re-revert himself when he realized it. They are so SMART like that. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, one editor calling another a Nazi. How original and non-cliched. If someone says that to you, you can always mock them with a comment like: "AM NOT!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'm a nazi. If the shadows are just right, you can nazi me at all. HalfShadow 01:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Or even the half-shadows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I pre-emptively yanked the IPs ability to edit his talk page. I think we know what the unblock request will consist of, more or less. –MuZemike 01:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1 is at it again

Will somebody please give Mbz1 (talk · contribs) something stronger than a cup of tea? Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors (we were all told not to have anything to do with one another). See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603#Incivility, claims of harrassment, and talk page drama, especially the "Temporary topic ban" section.

Now that the ban has ended, Mbz1 awarded a barnstar to another editor in which she referred to Factsontheground as "lies-on-the-ground"[154]. She left a series of nasty messages at User talk:Factsontheground#Wikipedia is not a forum related to a five-day-old message. When Georgewilliamherbert left two messages there for FoTG, Mbz1 added an unnecessary taunt. When I removed it, she restored it. Twice.

Mbz1 is growing emboldened by the fact that her behavior seems to be sanctioned by the admins and others who watch this page. Is somebody willing to stand up and tell her, No!, you can't insult, offend, and taunt other editors? Or is this sort of behavior okay now? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly that is not ever warrant a response, but in the last few minutes Malik Shabazz violated two wikipedia policies 3 times:

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO

reverted my edits from the other user talk page in the violation of WP:TPO, and in the edit summary advising me "to stay in my corner"

threatened me with the "perma-ban" in the violation of WP:TPNO in particular: * Do not threaten people: For example, threatening people with "admins you know" or having them banned for disagreeing with you

Looks like Shabazz forgot to add that that my message he reverted was posted in response to that: Factsontheground wrote about me: I believe that Mbz1 demonstrated a racist anti-Palestinian agenda " with no reason whatsoever.

Of course I would not have objected, if factsonground removed my message from the talk page.Shabazz should not have done that.

For the record factsonground did not remove my message, and instead has responded calmly to Georgewilliamherbert, Sure, George, I just want to move on. This whole conflict is really boring me.

About "nasty messages" here's another thread wich explains the things.

Something else should be mentioned. Shabazz writes: "Earlier in the week, she was banned from interacting with Factsontheground (talk · contribs), me, and a few other editors" . There's a mistake in that statement. We all were banned from interacting with each other. Please see here for example.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

--Mbz1 (talk) 03:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your use of TPO is false. Funny how you use it to remove attacks on yourself by other editors, such as Vix, but when you yourself are the one making the attacks, you claim otherwise. Mal's removal of your personal attacks has not violated TPO. Remember, Mb, the behavior of others does not excuse your own. You were in the wrong for attacking Facts, and for continuing to restore the attacks. It's time to admit it, and cease.

Secondly, mistake or not. The point still remains. You were banned from interacting with others because of personal attacks and sniping. Immediately after the ban, what do you do? You personally attack and snipe.

Admins, I implore you. You have the power to make this stop, and this user obviously is not going to stop unless blocked. She's made that crystal clear.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, he didn't violate TPO with the warning of a perma-ban. Admins are well within their rights to threaten problematic editors who refuse to follow the rules with blocks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus969, would you be so kind to please spell out what of my messages that I left at factsonground's talk page you consider to be PA? I mean let us all laugh not only me. :) In a meantime please kindly stop wikihounding me all over the places May I please ask you to ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely ? Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, I am one of the others that watch this page, but I was sorry I didn't manage to get a comment in at ANI see this. There does seem to be a bit of a conspiracy to "get" Mbz1. I find it interesting that a user was allowed to template someone's talk page something like a dozen times in half as many hours, with the templated user asking that the behavior cease, and this is not considered harassment. Over the last couple of weeks Mbz1 has been harassed on her talk page, on others' talk pages, been put up for all kinds of wiki-charges (sock puppet, 3R, editwarring and now a second ANI) by editors with a particular POV. The behavior of editors and admins alike to Mbz1 has just been abominable. If what Mbz1 has said is true, that she has only recently begun editing in the Israel-Palestine area, and that most of her edits before that were related to her magnificent photographs which she gives freely to the Project, then all this harassment is in fact against WP:BITE. I also wanted to add to the last ANI the fact that I thought that the administrator User:Breein1007 did exactly the right thing by removing a false accusation against User:Mbz1 -- that was exactly the appropriate thing to do. User:Malik Shabazz on the other hand, admonished the editor, but left the false accusation up. This in an Afd that was brought against a page started by Mbz1 and filed by aforementioned User:Factsontheground within hours of its creation. I am willing to bet big money that Facts had dealings with Mbz1 in a prior article in which he felt he was frustrated in his editing by user MBz1 and consequently has been dogging her at other articles. Malik seems to be supporting accusations of lack of etiquette against Mbz1, at the same time not considering the behavior of Facts with respect to Mbz1. To my mind if Malik had been operating with fairness toward Mbz1 he would never have allowed a false accusation against her all the while knowing it was false. Thus I see him as part of the problem, obviously following her contributions, hounding her with yet another lawsuit which the community has already said it is not interested in. I think that user:Malik Shabazz should not WP:BITE and take a step back from this engagement. He is the more senior editor, an administrator, and he should know better. It looks to me like this suit was brought as a n attempt to harass and entrap another user with whom, incidently or not, he does not share a POV in the I-P area. Stellarkid (talk) 04:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I was disappointed to see the post where Malik Shabazz threatens to ask for a permaban at ANI. That is quite a bit "stronger than a cup of tea." Stellarkid (talk)

Err, Stellarkid I'm not an admin. But thanks anyway for the kind words :P Breein1007 (talk) 06:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, isn't that a bunch of BS. You've been here since early 2009, yet you've only contributed to this page 113 times. You say you watch this page, but I'm sure, anyone that has watched this page would know, it is very, very difficult to sort through the torrent of edits that this page receives in the watchlist. Let us also not forget that you call Breein an admin, despite the fact that they have not been here that long, do not have admin privileges, and do not even have rollback. In fact, your praise of this user that you know absolutely nothing about leads me to believe that you two are related.. somehow. I also love how you completely fail to address all the attacks Mb has put against people. Your styles are remarkable similar.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Scratching this entire post instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There is really very little in your post I care to respond to, but I will say one thing only. I spent several hours looking at the last ANI report, going over the diffs and going back and forth to pages in my attempt to understand what was going on. It is a little convoluted I grant you, but it can be sorted out if one cares to. I happen to care to since I happen to like User:mbz1. I guess you are planning on going for another fishing expedition at checkuser? Any objective person should be able to see in a flash that are styles are far from "remarkable similar' [sic].Stellarkid (talk) 05:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, this isn't about WP:BITE and it isn't about Palestine or Israel. It's about Mbz1 and her behavior. This edit summary is a perfect example. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have explained to admin my edit summary here, and he sees no problems with that. I am not sure why you do? You do not want to look as Daedalus969, do you?--Mbz1 (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

And now Shabazz is adding to WP:Drama by collecting the troops :)--Mbz1 (talk) 05:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Just took a look at that edit summary and have to agree that Mbz1 dealt with it appropriately. If she wants to call something nonsense on her talk page I certainly think she has the right to do so it being turned into a capital offense. I notice that Daedalus969 has no problem calling others' contributions BS without getting a reprimand. It is hard to see you as evenhanded. Stellarkid (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not "collecting the troops". Following the instructions at the top of the page: "You must notify any user that you discuss." — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling your contributions BS. I'm calling your refusal to see that Mb has insulted users, and that Mb refuses to stop insulting users is bad and unacceptable, BS. I'm calling the fact that this report is about Mb's recent behavior, not that stuff that was a week ago that you brought up, BS. Behavior of others does not excuse the behavior of yourself. Stuff that happened a week ago has no bering on the fact that Mb was banned from interacting with Facts, and right off the bat at the end of the ban, they proceed to personally attack that very user again. That's what I call BS.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the fishing expedition, it seems odd that you would do as much research as you say, yet miss the fact that Bree isn't an admin. Other than that, I'll retract the accusation for now. As you can see, by this edit, it is struck through above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment There are so much more behind the story. If there's is/are some fair administrators, who have a time and a wish to hear my side of the story, I am more than willing, and more than ready to provide all the differences and explanations for each and every one of them at my talk page step by step, yet I see no reason to post it here. That's why I am banning myself from posting to AN/I for the next 72 hours, and I will respect that ban, unless I would be asked to comment on something in particular by somebody, except Daedalus969 of course. Here's my last wish :) before I leave AN/I: No matter what happened please, please, please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely. I am begging you! And with that, please have a nice talk, everybody :) --Mbz1 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Comment by unomi

I was very briefly involved with the last ANI bruhaha on this, I believe all my comments were to the effect that these editors should try to stay clear of each other and that mbz should contact an admin if problems continued.

I am very dismayed to see that Mbz1 chooses to taunt and poison the well wrt factsontheground:

• March 18:PA in ES.
• March 18: Templates a regular, even though mbz1 was fresh off an ANI where mbz1 stated that this was unwelcome.
• March 18: accusations of intimidation is apparently better.
• March 18: In an ES of post to LessHeard VanU factonground should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later.
• March 18: Unnecessary taunting.

General Inflammation:

• March 17 practically everything that factsontheground and daedalus969 are doing is "a pointless mess". Glad somebody understood it at least :).

• March 18 Awards barnstar to NuclearWarfare with digs at Daedalus969.

General Responses:

• March 17: Responds to GWHs suggestion with Empty words of so called uninvolved administrator, who has no idea what he's talking about.

• March 18: Responds to LessHeard VanU's suggestion with I see no reason to respond the nonsense.

• Mbz1 is also maintaining a page of perceived wrongs yet has not at this point stated that they are preparing for a RFC/U

It does not strike as though the editor in question is acting in a manner that is consistent with our behavioral policies. It also seems unlikely that the editor is able to interact with peers in a positive and cooperative fashion as it relates to I/P or middle east articles. Unomi (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Finally, something which addresses the main issue at hand, with evidence no less.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some notes by editors purporting to be neutral

Bree and Stellar both purport to be neutral in this case, and they both purport to have seen the ANI thread because they are regularly on ANI. However, they have been in contact with Mb prior:

• Bree's message from Mb
• Stellar's message from Mb

The point here is that there is a chance both these users thus put Mb's talk page on their watchlist, and only found this ANI report, and the last one, because of this.

The same for Avenue (talk · contribs).

But the above is not the first messages Mb has sent to these users. She has been in contact with them for awhile, dating back to January 25, 2010 for Bree and February 27, 2010 for Stellar.

As to neutrality, take this interesting edit. Not surprising that they come to Mb's defense, and obviously, per this, it is obvious they didn't just stumble upon this thread as they purport.

Lastly, here is an interesting diff between Stellar and Mbz1:

• More insults, calling other its and talking about indefinitely banning them

If only Bree and Stella had the courtesy to come forward with their contact with the user, unlike Facts here who, right off the bat, posted that he had been in contact with the user before, instead of claiming otherwise(or perhaps they never explicitly denied it in the first place).

To conclude, I would then request, aside from U above, that people disclose important information like this. I also hope that admins use the above, when reviewing this case.

Second last thing before I end this section, admins should review this page, in case any other editors, mainly the ones listed there, stop by to comment.

As the last thing, one should note Bree has come to the defense of one of the editors listed in the above page. Seems Mb, Bree, Drok, and Nab know each other quite well, at least enough to watch their talk page, and jump to their defense.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

please ban Daedalus969 and me from interacting to each other ever again indefinitely

Here are only very few differences, there are way to many to count all of them, but I could present them by request.

Few days ago the user left 11! warning messages at my talk page, few after I asked the user to stop:

1. [155];[156];[157];[158];[159];[160][161] [162] [163] [164] [165].
2. daedalus969 reports me to vandalism board, calling me a "vandal". The request was deleted.
3. reports me for edit warring, which was declined declined with a message by closing admin: ":What a pointless mess
4. follows me to NuclearWarfare talk page
5. after which is warned to stop constant pursuit of me across multiple fora, but the user never stopped.
6. Here's the user reverts me once again

Please, please help me to get a restriction order from that user.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support Stellarkid (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want me reverting you, perhaps you should stop personally attacking other users. You you need to be indef blocked from this site, as you are obviously incapable of doing anything but attacking people.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Number 5 is also complete bullshit, as I had ceased from responding to you, only until you began attacking me and others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support mutual separation of these editors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I obviously oppose as if this user does not want people reverting them, perhaps they should stop attacking others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support Let's make it a few months, and maybe you'll both grow up in the meantime. AniMate 06:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Please vote in the section below, Malik and Ani.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support I would support a 1 year ban with the condition that upon any further drama after the 1 year, the ban is reinstated permanently. 4 months is not enough time for some people to grow up. Breein1007 (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You should talk. Complete denial that mb has done anything wrong despite the evidence above, not to mention a refusal to practice what you preach. You go on an on about AGF, but refuse to retract a bad-faith accusation. Your refusal to admit any fault speaks volumes of your maturity. I retracted my edits, reverted my edits, and admitted fault in the matter. You however have yet to admit your own fault.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support, although a year might be enough. -- Avenue (talk) 07:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about you disclose the fact, as noted above, that you've been in contact with this user for awhile? The above, per what I just said, should be taken with a grain of salt. Funny how all the buddies of Mb are jumping to her defense, but failing to disclose their relation regarding her, while all the victims of her attacks are disclosing what is relevant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I have now done so in my !vote on your proposal below. --Avenue (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support It seems that Divide and rule is in order. Broccoli (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

6 month ban on interaction between Mbz1 and Daedalus969

The title sums it up. Half a year.

• Support - This whole thing is causing me too much stress.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1 week block and 3 month probation for user interaction for Mbz1

Luckily, the uninvolved admins that placed the first week long ban in regards to the previous debacle were able to see the obvious, that Mbz1 was sniping and personally attacking others. As this user continues to personally attack other users, giving barnstars that insult them, and accuse them of racism on their userpage, directly after the week-long ban expired, something sterner than a slap on the wrist is required, which really, is all they have been getting. This is obviously why they think they can continue; because they can't be touched.

• Mbz1 is blocked 1 week
• After this block expires, this user is placed on probation for 3 months regarding user interaction
  • Should the probation be violated¹, user is blocked for 1 week
    • These blocks will escalate in time, with the minimum being 1 week if user continues to violate¹ their probation
    • If this user continues to violate¹ their probation, the probation is reset, with the starting time being the last violation¹ the user has committed.

1: Personal attack, taunt, snipe, award of any kind referring to users Mb has been in conflict with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Obviously, as I am the writer, I support for the reasons outlined above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support on the condition that Daedalus969 does not interact with Mbz1 during the probationn period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with that. No reverts. No messages to them. No replies to them. I will only report edits that I may think are attacks to the acting admin in this matter. I will only say that I think they are attacks, and I will not push for any blocks on the matter, nor warnings, nor extensions, nor bans. I will simply report, and leave them to make up their own mind on the matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Your over-reaction to what you perceive as personal attacks has been a big part of the problem here, in my view, so you proposing to keep watch over Mbz1 seems counterproductive at best. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I may have over-reacted a week ago, but this discussion is not about a week ago. It is about their most recent problematic edits. Further, why don't you disclose your full involvement here, before I do.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You continue to see personal attacks where I don't, as in your interaction with Breein1007 below. On the scope of this discussion, I think the situation has been building for a while, and needs to be viewed as a whole. On disclosure, see my !vote below. -- Avenue (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Daedalus969, your behaviour in this whole childish escapade has been much more deplorable than that of Mbz1. That includes comments you have made in this very AN/I report. Struck out or not, it is clear that you are unable to handle yourself appropriately and interact nicely with other editors. There is no sane reason that Mbz1 should be blocked for a week and then put on probation while you face no consequences. I will consider supporting proposals that include sanctions on Mbz1 if these proposals include harsher sanctions on you. There is really no doubt that if you compare the comments and edits that the two of you have made in relation to this issue, you have been way more out of line. Breein1007 (talk) 06:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, what precisely is more deplorable than insulting, sniping, name calling, and taunting? Really, I would like to know. By the way, wikipedia isn't a democracy. Sanctions are enacted upon regarding the strength of the argument, not the strength of the vote numbers. I haven't been the one attacking other users. And really, do not bring up AGF until you apologize for your bad-faith accusation of deliberately twisting the facts.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to let your comment speak for itself. I'm done with this discussion... I've put in my votes with good reason. It's not up to you to judge the strength of my argument. That would be silly! :) Unless any new developments are made in this report (ie: new proposals), I'm done commenting. Breein1007 (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So in other words, you're going to accuse me of something without base. Nice job there. My actions are worse than calling people names, sniping them, insulting them, and taunting them. The same is true of your own argument, where you accuse me of worse than an NPA and refuse to back it up. WP:BURDEN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I know I said I was done commenting, and I really wish I could let this go, but it's just too good..... WP:BURDEN??? You want me to find a reliable source stating that you attacked other editors? .................. lol. Breein1007 (talk) 07:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Take back your personal attack. I haven't personally attacked anyone. Your baseless accusation, as defined by NPA, is a personal attack. Lastly, a diff is a reliable source in this matter. The point of bringing up burden is that you have not provided any proof of your accusations. So really, put up or shut up. If you refuse to provide diffs, it will surely speak volumes to the reviewing admins here of the strength of your argument; less harsher restrictions on the user who has personally attacked others and continues to do so, you laughing at my request for evidence, your refusal to admit any fault regarding your bad-faith accusations... the list goes on.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're trying to play the neutral, you sure aren't showing it. Less harsh sanctions for the one who continues to attack others, despite continued warnings. Right. Good luck with that argument.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I am obviously deeply involved in this dispute and I understand if my opinion is thus taken with a grain of salt, but I am personally amazed and bewildered at how many personal attacks Mbz1 has gotten away with whilst refusing to apologize or even acknowledge wrongdoing. Sometimes I just don't understand Wikipedia. This is one of them.

It seems that the lack of any consequences has emboldened her, as Malik put it, and now she has moved beyond attacking myself, Daedalus and other editors and is attacking admins who are merely trying to mediate the dispute. I believe this shows a disrespect of not just the administrators but of the project itself. A block to cool her down and reflect upon how she relates to other people in the project could be useful for everyone, particularly Mbz1 if she wants to continue to edit in the long term.

It's true that she has contributed positively to Wikipedia in the past -- mainly her excellent images -- however her recent edits have become and more weighted towards pursuing drama rather than improving the project. Perhaps a topic ban from Israel-Palestinian issues, which seem to provoke Mbz1 into behaving badly, whilst explicitly allowing her to keep submitting images would be the best of both worlds. Factsontheground (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

How about instead you refrain from accusing Mbz1 of having a "racist anti-Palestinian agenda"[166] and similar assumptions of bad faith? I think that would help her cool down even better than a block. You have some cheek suggesting that editing Israel-Palestine articles in itself has provoked Mbz1 into behaving badly here. -- Avenue (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think anything I can do (or anyone else) is going to cool Mzb1 down. Her own misbehaviour is her own responsibility. We've all tried being civil, ignoring her and hoping that she will go away, but that hasn't worked. You can see right there that I was attempting to ignore her so she invaded my talk page.

And as for WP:AGF, the policy is not a one way street, nor does it direct Wikipedians to be blind to others agendas and misdeeds. Why did Mbz1 defend the insertion of hate material into Wikipedia? If anyone inserted material from Stormfront or Jew Watch they would be, rightfully, banned immediately. I don't see how Masada 2000 is any different from those websites. Hate is hate. If she wants me to stop mentioning it and to assume good faith, she can start by apologizing, which she refuses to do for _anything_, and we can start again. Until then I am not going to shut my eyes and pretending nothing is going on. I don't see why I should have to put up with people who view me as less than human because of where I Come from. Factsontheground (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong support as per Factsontheground above - I have been the target of a recent campaign by an obsessive and childish attack by Mbz1 and everywhere I go on Wikipedia there is a childish drama with Mbz1 at the centre. Anyone who edits in a manner which contradicts Mbz1's political agenda is attacked by her. Just today I saw her tell an administrator regarding Factsontheground That user should be taken care off, and rather sooner than later. - This is really childish behaviour as far as I am concerned and Wikipedia can do with such agendas of editors to attack other users in this manner. Vexorg (talk) 07:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Breein1007. If blocks are being handed around, I believe Daedalus969 and Factsontheground have acted to escalate this wikidrama at least as much as Mbz1, so blocking her alone would not send the right message. I have worked with Mbz1 recently on a list whose Afd was also a cause of conflict, and I believe she can edit constructively on controversial topics when not being hounded. I have also tried to help defend her against two unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry in the last 2 months. Although I had no real contact with her before that, I've also admired her photography since at least 2007, when I put together a gallery of featured pictures for the Volcanoes WikiProject. So no doubt I am biased too. --Avenue (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It takes two for a tango-and this case just doesn't seem to be any different. Taking Mbz1 out of the context she was acting in will actually miss the point. There are two different approaches to edit on Israel-Palstine/Jewish people related articles. All of the editors involved here, or at the least the very most, editing on very similar articles and many times on the same. It got to this that we virtually have two different "armies" which sometimes warring in different ways on editing. It will take a lot of work to follow the entire history of interactions between Mbz1 and other editors and so on. But if you follow it then you will find that many times she was treated unfairly, with some editors being incivil toward her, buzzing wikidrama around her and so on. So, if someone realy want to be helpful here and to solve this issue once and for all, without getting time and again to the different boards, he/she should review the entire history of interactions any maybe even the history of editing on involved articles. Where there is no respect to wiki rules of editing, all "sore evil" is soon to follow. A lot of work, but the only way to make things better.--Gilisa (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Gilisa. If Mbz1 is blocked, then I think a few other editors should be block. Grow up a little. Broccoli (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User:NavalExpanse sockpuppet of User:Barneystimpleton?

Can an admin please see if NavalExpanse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) meets the criteria of being an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and block if appropriate? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. NavalExpanse (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Mmmm.... I'm just a birdie, too!  NavalExpanse (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Obvious sock is obvious. This rather pointy edit [167], paired with his reverts of Arthur Rubin's edits, certainly makes it seem as if he's here to just try and get under AR's skin. Dayewalker (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not working, yet. <g> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Make up your mind. Am I an obvious sockpuppet of Barneystimpleton or am I here to bother the entity known as Arthur Rubin? Or am I an alien from a nearby star system? NavalExpanse (talk) 08:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert only wp:spa account User:Kushtrim123

The above mentioned account has been created on March 2 (he previously edited from this ip [[168]] according to his user page). His contribution is the definition of an spa account, consisting of reverts [[169]] with the typical edit summary 'rv vandalism', in articles suffering from edit wars. Apart for supporting revert wars in a limited variety of Albanian related articles, Kushtrim123 created major disruption especially on Vasil Bollano (a wp:blp) and Gjin Bua Shpata unsing wp:idontlikeit arguments [[170]][[171]]. Both pages were semi protected as result of this activity.

Kushtrim123 has been multiple times advised and warned, by several users, to follow the basic rules about dispute resolution but his reaction was to remove the msgs [[172]]. Recently he learned to fill reports, accusing me for 3rr vio but using wrong diffs as reverts [[173]].

I believe some restriction as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia might be appropriate.Alexikoua (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Younus AlGohar & MFI Disputed articles

Banned user can quit socking with IP addresses...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
These articles have most of WP:SPS references, this is to request all the administrators to look into this.--116.71.8.240 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC) This is part of a long and complex edit war also involving the use of socks, SPI and previous AN/Is. If you need details, please let me know what info you require. Scientizzle (talk · contribs) and Jpgordon (talk · contribs) may perhaps add their input and bring clarity and focus to this issue. Esowteric+Talk 10:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You mean to say in this case we condoned WP:SPS.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC) These articles are totally biased I have spent hours to research and verify the claims on this article but the result is before you. All supplied links are biased. I found only three neutral references. Rest you can see and verify. Links in question Biased links: http://www.kalkiavtar.net/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO584eefpjQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EllOThFusRo&feature=related http://www.younusalgohar.com/about.html http://www.riazaljannah.com/book/index.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yestbUQK8hs http://www.divine-signs.org/manifestation_of_human_images.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2009/dec/page09.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/intro.htm http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/2009/09/mehdi-foundation-international.html http://goharshahi.net/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page05.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/0908-the-Island-Interview.htm http://www.younusalgohar.com/mission.html http://www.goharshahi.plus.com/ http://hisholinessrariazgoharshahi.wordpress.com/2008/11/29/the-function-of-messiah-foundation-international/ http://www.theawaitedone.com/Universality-of-RA-Gohar-Shahi-teachings.htm http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/do-you-await-messianic-personality.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/in-the-mirror-of-our-observation.htm http://www.riazaljannah.com/teachings/2008/dec/28_2/ http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=4 http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAnNNYFyKI/AAAAAAAAAJM/EOQxcCjuW_Q/s1600-h/Spritual-Path-and-Western-Spiritual-Concept.jpg http://www.goharshahi.biz/persecution/?p=3 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4NbHm-uoC1I/STAhD5vnvTI/AAAAAAAAAIs/S8oUf9DAih0/s1600-h/A-Peep-Into-Mfi.jpg http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Moon.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Sun.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Mars.html http://www.divine-signs.org/01-Sarkar-Nebula-Star.html http://www.theawaitedone.com/the-awaited-ones.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/messiah_herald/2008/dec/page03.htm http://www.theawaitedone.com/correspondence/Islamic-Terrorism.html http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/2008/11/anjuman-sarfroshan-islam-opposes-mfi.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Z1mWtgXsc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj1pQoYBQzc&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/user/younusalgohar http://rariazgoharshahi.blogspot.com/ Unbiased links: http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk /news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49997ae7d.pdf This is wikipedia and I strongly recommend all administors of wikipedia to take immediate notice and action on these articles.--116.71.11.217 (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Yes I agree, as far as referencing goes, there is certainly "a case to answer". I have tagged both articles with "self-published|date=March 2010" templates. Esowteric+Talk 11:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Comment- Assuming this is in regards to the Messiah Foundation International article, There are a few more to add to the list of references that are not self published. http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,PAK,,3ae6a88b4,0.html http://www.indianexpress.com/news/hc-stays-deportation-of-67-pakistani-nationa/387834/ http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/blog/2008/11/67-pakistanis-in-tihar-who-dont-want-to.html http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1454 http://nhrc.nic.in/disparchive.asp?fno=1435 http://www.telegraphindia.com/1091127/jsp/nation/story_11792499.jsp http://ericavebury.blogspot.com/search?q=mehdi+foundation http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_pakistani-prisoners-in-tihar-won-t-get-asylum-centre_1316993 http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/provinces/18-is-there-an-end-am-01 www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A-HRC-7-10-Add1.doc http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cities/delhi/pakistani_nationals_seek_asylum_burn_passports/articleshow/1947194.cms http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005\12\28\story_28-12-2005_pg7_7 http://wwrn.org/articles/19879/?&place=pakistan&section=other-nrms http://www.pakistanpressfoundation.org/usermediafilesdetails.asp?uid=6008 http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/4645892.Croydon_religious_leader_faces_life_in_Pakistani_jail_for_his_beliefs/ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-7-2004_pg7_43 http://www.zikr-e-ilahi.com/english/zikr-english.php http://www.island.lk/2008/09/07/news9.html Although even I agree more third party sources would be useful. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the administrators of wikipedia should an action agsinst the editors of these articles as they not only playing with wikipedia but they are using wikipedia for their ill-deeds & self-promotion.--116.71.8.155 (talk) 11:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Phase 1 of the operation was to end the months-long edit warring. While that was going on no progress could be made on the several articles involved. That involved blocking several sockpuppets. Now we have a little breathing space to work on the articles and address concerns on all sides. Esowteric+Talk 11:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I think the wikipedia and its administrator are a biased on this matter, that's why they have blocked one-sided users and attention of above mentioned disputed articles only given when asked?--116.71.17.41 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) With respect, IP-hopping block evasion and continued AfD vote-stacking is not the way to go if you would like puppetmaster Iamsaa (talk · contribs) to be unblocked. Esowteric+Talk 12:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Why only Iamsaa (talk · contribs) unblocked? I think all block users should be unblock either block the both parties.--116.71.11.102 (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC) ...you have got to be kidding me. I blocked these new IP socks of Iamsaa (talk · contribs). There is no possible way I am going to unblock that account. — Scientizzle 13:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat regarding the Will Hanrahan article.

I received a message on my talk page by Willhanrahan regarding vandalism of the Will Hanrahan article. In this message he states that he reported a static IP user\vandal to the local police station for harrasment.

The article itself has been reverted and locked by JohnCD and the issue was raised on the BLP noticeboard. The user seems to be quite reasonable as evident by a message on JohnCD's talk page, yet the WP:NLT issue remains. Furthermore, the user is apparently requesting a temporal take-down of the article in question. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support deletion if the editor is the subject (after confirmation at OTRS), if we can't stop defamatory content being inserted into the bios of people then we should accept his request. We should report more defaming IP editors to the cops imo (no this is not a legal threat) Off2riorob (talk) 11:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think perhaps the spirit of the NLT applies here. According to NLT, the rationale is that legal threats (a) quash neutral article development, (b) poison collegiality, (c) damage the reputation of the threatener. Given edits like this, [174], [175], I can see why he might be upset. This particular legal threat does not seem to be an issue under a or b, given that the contributor who vandalized the article is evidently not interested in either, and "c", well, his reputation could have been far more damaged by the article itself than reporting an IP for harassment. I would be inclined to just let your explanation of why legal threats are a bad thing stand and not take further action on it unless he repeats it. I can imagine he would be quite unhappy to find that written about himself and then to have it reappear every time he tried to remove it. Deletion of the article is not necessary; we have other tools (protection & blocking) to handle that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My thought exactly. I deemed the explanation sufficient myself, but i thought it was better to report it here as well - if not for WP:NLT sake then for the sake of discussing this particular issue. As for the Willhanrahan (talk · contribs) claiming to be the article's subject - we have multiple confirmed claims, and we actually have a list of Wikipedia editors who are also the subject of an article. Similarly we have had previous legal threads regarding defamatory content in article's, which is exactly the reason why we should remain vigilant regarding BLP pages. As one of the most viewed - and perhaps even trusted - websites on the net defamatory content can have high impact on someone's life. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Why would someone with legal training go into a police station and report a so-called libel and/or harassment? Libel isn't a criminal offence and harassment via a wikipedia article would be laughed out of the nick. AGF aside, I very much doubt that Willhanrahan (talk · contribs) is actually the real deal. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the IP who is vandalising the article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• That seems unlikely, given the edit history of the article. The first blanking was by 81.149.199.65, a static IP whose only prior edit was to correct a spelling error in that article over two years ago. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Harassment at least in the United Kingdom is not a laughable issue. The editor WillHanrahan has left a note on my talkpage commenting in a similar vein to MRGirl that he would prefer to avoid deletion and I have requested he take more care as regards legal comments and have suggested confirmation of his identity to OTRS. Off2riorob (talk)

• Although harassment itself isn't a laughable issue, the fact that a couple of comments on a wikipedia page could make a legal case for a prosecution or even for sending the boys in blue round is. Anyone with a legal background would know this. They would also know the way to go around hurdles like this, which would probably be accomplished with a couple of phone calls to the right people. Walking into a nick is not the way to go to actually get anything like this done. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, regardless of whether he is the individual or just somebody who objected to the content and thought the username might help him remove it, the material was inappropriate, and he does not seem to be the same person as the individual who added it. It's gone now, which is good, and I don't think the legal threat is a real issue at this point; Excirial has explained why legal threats are a problem. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think you would be surprised. Have a look at these Altavista search results and you can see quite a few convictions for Internet libel. Besides, Wikipedia is larger than just one country. For example, one particular country (Anyone who remembers which one?) has laws in place that forbid insulting the emperor, and bloggers have indeed been convicted and imprisoned for doing so. And for the record, we at least have 1 previous case where the user who blanked the page was confirmed trough OTRS. Yet the case i remember is 1-2 years ago, so you have to forgive me for not being able to link it. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any more action is required, though it will do no harm if a few more people watchlist the article in case the vandal returns. It seems to be an individual - all the edits were from Roboteyes (talk · contribs), who has no constructive edits and who I have indef-blocked, and from a single IP, 90.196.49.246 (talk · contribs), which I have no doubt is the same person but which we cannot be sure is static.

The only reason the user requested taking the article down is that a Google search at present shows a few lines of the vandalised version. Taking it down would not help that: is there anything we can do to accelerate Google's picking up the clean one?

What might be considered a legal threat (I'm joking here, sort of) is the user name of the new user Petercarterruck (talk · contribs) who intervened with two edits during the attempt to clean the article up. Peter Carter-Ruck was a famous libel lawyer in the UK, now deceased though his firm is still active. I gave this user a username warning, to which there has been no response, and I doubt if we shall hear from him again. JohnCD (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of admin powers

Hi, I am being hounded by NawlinWiki at [176]. Basically, I need to get in touch with Jimno Wales to discuss some personal issues. Unfortunately, NawlinWiki has decided to appoint himself judge jury and executioner, describing my messages as "threats" (which they certainly are not!) [177], [178] & [179]. He then won't let me appeal and argue my case, (by blocking me, declining unblock requests [180] & [181] and protecting my talk pages [182]), and has reverted any "toned-down" (there were no threats in the first place!) messages as I have "abused multiple accounts" (which is extremely unfair given that i was never given a chance to do this with the first IP I was on). Please can someone sort this out, and let Mr Wales know that I need to speak to him urgently in private. Thanks, 79.75.181.144 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)