Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Eickman

User:Eickman has repeatedly added a link to his personal webpage into the Son of perdition article. He was questioned about it here and here, advised against it here (which he responded to here), and then warned here and here. And yet he has added the link repeatedly, the most recent occasions being here, here and here. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is sectarian nonsense from two individuals--StAnselm and Tawain Boi--to try and suppress the full release of factual information on Wikipedia representing all viewpoints on the given topics, including those of various Jewish groups, higher critics, minor Christian movements like the Unitarians and Idealists, etc, etc. And if you don't believe it, take a look at the articles before I started editing them versus after. (Better yet, take a look at what these two characters did after my last block for fighting with them over minority viewpoints--they immediately moved in to reduce the articles back to their sectarian positions.)

The pages are "Son of Perdition," "Historicism (Christian)," and "Book of Daniel."

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs provided by StAnselm demonstrate, this has nothing to do with sectarianism. A range of editors have objected to your idiosyncratic POV edits and your repeated breach of Wiki policy. One of your sources was rejected as a WP:RS by the WP:RS noticeboard. You included it anyway. It was taken out, and you were informed that the WP:RS noticeboard had rejected it. You put it in again. Despite a number of editors informing you that it was not a WP:RS, you continued to include it, along with a link to your own book, which you advertise on your talk page. You are also blocked more than once for repeated abuse of other editors.--Taiwan boi (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1) This is all about sectarianism.

2) I have included no "idiosyncratice POV edits" anywhere on Wikipedia--I've represented all groups and all points of views.

3) The finding of the "reliable sources" was unreliable, as the reviewers nor the requesters knew anything about Unitarian or Idealist theology or the significance of the source.

4) I have included no "link to my book;" I linked to a sound definition of triunism which is obtuse or overly complicated in the other sources listed.

5) You have repeatedly demonstrated that you know little to nothing about the subject matter, as per your latest questions regarding typology, declaring that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" when that is precisely what "typology" is, i.e. a prototype points to a FUTURE person, object, or action.

Why you're still meddling is anyone's guess.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I pointed out that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" with regard to the son of perdition. You really need to address the numerous problems with your edits, and start adhering to Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eickman you have been repeatedly asked for sources to support your various positions by the other editors. Linking to your own website and advert for your book simply does not cut the mustard. If you are sufficiently notable and mainstream as an academic in this field then your book could be a secondary source, but you would need to demonstrate that degree of notability. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not about sectarianism, this is about Eickman (talk · contribs) and his personal attacks and his failure to use reliable sources for his assertions as well as his insistence on original research and synthesis, not to mention citing himself in a clear conflict of interest. If Eickman can't be civil and can't abide by other Wikipedia policies then there is no place for him or his edits here. Elizium23 (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So now we have four independent editors reporting this issue, and a number of diffs proving it. What next? I'm interested to know, since Eickmann is continuing to edit pages repeatedly inserting his idiosyncratic POV, continuing to add a link which directs people to his book, and continuing to use sources which have already been rejected as failing WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be interested except me. I suspect that is because of the dense and particular nature of the subject matter. It's not something most people, including me, could even have a pot shot at getting the hang of without a lot of work. It's always a worry in case the person being complained of as disruptive in a dense content dispute is in fact the lone GF editor losing his cool against a sea of POV pushers. I'm not for a moment saying that is the case here, but it's difficult to get to the bottom of. However, it does seem to me that using his own webpage as a source is inappropritae. I should also say that I googled "Triunism" and on the first two pages, what came up where it was being used in the religious sense was Eickman's webpage and discussion boards where the participant using the word as usually someone called "Ike".Fainites ^barleyscribs 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that single link, it's the fact that he consistently, blatantly, ignores Wiki policy and even insists that Wiki policy is wrong. I added the statement "The "city on seven hills" in Revelation is understood by the majority of modern scholarly commentators as a reference to Rome.", and provided thirteen references supporting it. Not only did he revert this, he claimed that the majority view has no place in Wikipedia. His words:

• ""Majority" and "minority" are fairly irrelevant in an encyclopedic reference." (diff)
• "First sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "Majority opinion is what this encyclopedia insists on," then refers to other opinions as "fringe," meaning any group not in the mainstream, i.e. Unitarians, Mormons, JWs, minority Catholic opinions (like those of the Jesuits), etc, etc." (diff)
• "Second sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "The majoriy of scholarly commentators understand John to be referring to Rome." "Scholarly opinions" are like genitals--everyone has them, but it's rarely a good idea to discuss them in public. That's why every sect has their own "scholars."" (diff)

This is not the first time he has displayed willful disregard for Wiki policies, which he insists are simply wrong. He is currently tying up the time of three editors. I do not understand why he is permitted to continue like this. All the rest of us do our best to follow Wiki policy, and what's the point in me taking all the time to provide 20 or 30 WP:RS for an article if in reality Wiki policies aren't going to be upheld? The lack of enforcement of Wiki policy (including admins who refuse to act because they can't be bothered, or tell people they're not interested in that subject so they won't get involved, or say "too long; didn't read" when you post a report), is the worst aspect of this unruly mess of an "encyclopedia". What do we have to do to get Wiki policy enforced around here?--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is an out-of-control editor who is not interesting in following Wikipedia policy or submitting to Wikipedia consensus. He was blocked for one week for rudeness, and that hasn't changed his behaviour. I suggest he be blocked for a month now. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eickman. Please stop using your own website as a source. If what you say is a mainstream or recognised or accepted viewpoint then it should be capable of being sourced from notable secondary sources. This does not include your website. If you continue to try and use your website as a source - that would be disruptive. In addition, your manner of editing is becoming increasingly aggressive and offensive again. It is not acceptable to call editors who disgree with you liars or the like. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear yet, he isn't listening to you. Telling him "Eickman, don't be naughty" doesn't work. It didn't work the first five times he was told, and it doesn't work now. After his first block he simply repeated his previous behaviour. After his second block he simply repeated his behaviour. He will continue to repeat his behaviour because he is being allowed to get away with it. He has learned that he can do as he pleases and there will be no consequences.--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was giving him a clear warn ing with a view to taking it further if he ignored it. I see however Elen has beaten me to it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Eickman indefinitely for inserting material and links from his own website (which is only a reliable source for the contents of his own brain, and does not belong on the 'pedia) and for using misleading edit summaries (particularly the very last one here to disguise what he is doing. That last ploy moves him from the merely annoying and into the disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can all get on with improving articles.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

On question, has Eickman ever been conclusively proven to be the person who wrote the book, and officially given copyright permissions to Wikipedia? As if not then User:Eickman is a copyvio as well. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno how you'd "conclusively prove" it on Wiki. It's a not unreasonable assumption given the name, contents of the website and discussion boards. Nobody else seems to be talking about triunism in the same way other than an author called Eickleberry, an editor called Eickman and a contributor called Ike.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, it was definitely shilling for the book, so I've G11'd it. It's no different to someone advertising anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657 § Something_Unusual

Last Dec 15, CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) removed a statement in the public opinion climate change citing that this is the sentence by savillo as shown below.

1. (cur | prev) 18:20, 15 December 2010 155.99.230.57 (talk) (24,690 bytes) (→Issues: see talk page Talk:Public opinion on climate change#Sentence by Savillo Removed) (undo)

Savillo did not write this but his comment was used as a reference. The statement that was removed blamed the IPCC and if you go to the reference citing the comments of Savillo- there is no mention of IPCC. IPCC is a very sensitive issue and Cac 155.99.230.57 (talk) will just state freshly that this Sentence by Savillo removed. What kind of editor is CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk)? Does this person has the immunity to blame a statement to someone in the reference even the the author of the reference did not write it? and the reference's comment does not support the statement? It shows that CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) has a low IQ, doesnot analyze the situation, an imbecile or an idiot. Blaming someones statement to the author of reference is a very grave error and ought to be punished severely.I know CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) is old to be taught how to and to feel sorry for therefore she/he has to suffer the consequences. Documents are documents and she has to face them. He/she is highly irresponsible, worthless, uneducated, unethical, not urbanized and a bullshit!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.187 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The contributions from this group of IPs, including 69.31.68.51, 69.22.185.186, 69.22.185.187, 69.22.185.189, and 69.22.185.191, have been largely incomprehensible, but it is obvious that they need to learn about a number of Wikipedia's policies, including WP:RS, WP:NLT, WP:NPA, & WP:TPOC. As most of the recent IPs have been within one range, I wonder whether a range block would be appropriate? If not, a block for the last of the list would seem to be a minimum requirement. - David Biddulph (talk)

il garbagio
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Referring to the above CaC is of course mentally retarded ... why hire Cac for this job? am just a visitor to this site but like to comment...in addition who are you david to block the ips can you do that? or I'll piss at your smelly breath.. Wikipedias are not as smart in containing all the ips of the world...they cant even contain their immorality online!!! or flush their bad breath with pisses or HCL to have a good smart look.. am incomprehensible? am I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.38 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, have a look at [1]. Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just rangeblocked 69.22.185.184/29 for a week. Um, at least I think I did. I think I followed the instructions, but I'm not sure how to tell whether it actually worked (first time I've done a rangeblock). Looie496 (talk) 20:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The justification of the fault of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) who comes from the University of Utah or uses the IP of the Univ of Utah has been deleted in the Talk Page of Public Opinion on Climate Change. It was clearly written there. Now the users page of CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC) cannot be retrieved because it is owned by the Univ of Utah-- who cares if it is owned by U of U... as long as the user is irresponsible and has committed a crime... the user is always a criminal and will be charged..U of U you better look for this user and fire this user from your univ... This user is extremely a shame to your institution... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.70.39 (talk)

Brave acts can be ruined by accidents! Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

See also this recent A.N.I. thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Something_Unusual, which involves these same IP users (both "CaC" and the 69.xx IPs). Same users, same article (Public opinion on climate change). From the above comment, it looks like an even bigger rangblock may need to be placed. (?) This IP user (69.xx) also does not seem to know or care about WP:No legal threats, WP:No personal attacks, etc. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It is demeaning to use or cite Savillo's statement without his permission. If he wants to write something he'll have it published authored by him. So pls donot use him to play the tug of war between those who are in favor of IPCC and those who are not. When he makes his comment there was no mention of IPCC but Cac meant the opposite when Cac stated that the removed statement was Savillo's and it was clear from the beginning that it was not his... this is another display of plain stupidity among the editors of wikipedia supposedly a useful reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup, a better rangeblock may very well be helpful here... :-( [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CaC needs to say sorry to everyone whom Cac hurt while doing the reckless assertion... I think this resolves the issue..Will you accept this proposal-forwarding this question to all other concerned users: 69? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

@69.31.68.5: While I do apologize for your misunderstanding, I do have this in reply:

1. My assertion was simple: the sentence cited a forum post, which by Wikipedia's guideline was not acceptable.
2. I made my intentions clear in my first reply. It was not meant to be about Savillo or the IPCC. It was your decision to believe otherwise.
3. I do not find your claims credible. You may believe what you want, but the objective is to convince others of the same.
4. You are incomprehensible. While your tone makes your intentions clear, I have trouble understanding what your reasons are, or lack of thereof.

I apologize in advance if you find this brash, but I find a terse dismissal to be in my opinion an unsatisfactory resolve. I do not appreciate your threats against myself or my institution nor do I find them credible. While under the presumption of your threats, I do not find that a discussion with you will lead to a satisfactory resolve, and resign from involving myself thereof. --CaC 155.99.230.219 (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the Users 69 could not comment because they are blocked. Nevertheless, I have this opportunity to say that your tone is melancholic to dilute the heart but your statements are flirtatious that require a second look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.68.51 (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that the seperate 69.xx IPs are different people. I believe that they are probably the same person under multiple IPs (they may be dynamic, or the current 69.xx IP could be the result of the person resetting his own IP).

The fact is, the sentence that was removed from the article was taken from a forum post where someone was giving his own opinion, without citing any reliable sources in his post. Such forum posts are not reliable sources, thus they do not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. With as many harassments, personal attacks, etc. as you are throwing at this sensible IP editor (155.xx/CaC), it is a wonder that an administrator has not already blocked you by now. But one sure does need to block you, though. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought this issue has already been enlightened but what you did Retro00064 you fueled it to a more fiery piece... this will continue further.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.45 (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Retro00064 you need to apologize to CaC and Users 69 for re igniting this issue again amid the ongoing enlightening peaceful process between the two parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.108.46 (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Apologize for what? Making sense out of all of this? The fact is, it does not matter whether Savillo wrote that sentence or not. The reference was citing who wrote the forum post that backed up the sentence in the Wikipedia article. Here at Wikipedia, we write a generic sentence that makes a claim, then we cite a reliable source that backs up the claim in the article. It is not necessary to quote the source exactly as the source wrote, as in many cases that could cause a copyright violation. In this case, CaC removed the sentence and citation altogether, so any arguing about the sentence quoting exactly what Savillo said or not is just a pile of stinking crap.

There is no need to apologize to CaC, as I support his removal of the sentence. Read my last post in this thread (above), and read my explanation of the fact that the Savillo forum post is not a reliable source.

Are you hearing all of this?

The reason that you need to be blocked, 69.xx, is not because you disagree with CaC's changes. It is becuase of your harassment, incivility, legal threats, personal attacks, sock puppetry (and claiming otherwise), etc. What a foul mouth of yours that you expressed on CaC's talk page.

Any administrators to the rescue, to close this case? [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

I have been stalked from Commons to sv.WP to en.WP and back and forth for a long time by User:Pieter Kuiper. Before I created my user account, he had also stalked other editors, particularly User:EmilEikS, who quit those three projects because of it and turned his watch lists over to me. The stalking is always due to some kind of retaliatory urge on the part of Kuiper that he does not seem to be able to control, despite the fact that he has been warned many times by administrators about that and about uncivil behavior in general toward many other editors also (unconnected to me). The most recent occurrence in my case is this one, where Kuiper, blocked now for a month on Commons, puts in a brief appearance on this project, as usual only to try to find something to try to to irritate me with on en.WP. I have tried to get Commons adiministrators to help as you can see here. Can somebody please help us to get a ban enforced on interaction between us as started by either of us? I have never once started it, only reacted. I hope the links given here will lead to an investigation of this user's history, which pretty easily should reveal the inordinate amount of sarcasm and ridicule he always resorts to. SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I spent a couple minutes looking into this. Previous ANI:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing_behavor_from_User:SergeWoodzing_-_is_this_truly_correct.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter_Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter_Kuiper

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[2] appears bogus[3] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[4] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[5] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The first problem is that SergeWoodzing is introducing anglicized names for Swedish places and people that do not really exist, according to his own ideas of what the anglicized (or Latin) form should be. "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland"; "Vermillandia", "Elsinland", "the Smallands" are not current. There is no basis for pages like Carl of Vermillandia. The second problem is that Woodzing tends to makes discussions very personal and dramatic, see Talk:Värmland#"Wermelandia" as Latin ? and Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Small_lands_equals_Smallands?, User_talk:Frania_Wisniewska/Archive_2#Accusation, etcetera. (And I have no recollection of interaction with the ip-number above, who seems to be keeping tabs on me.) /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"Vermland" is just your invention, I will remove it and "Vermland" seems much less common usage than "Wermland" are not the same thing; do you understand why the difference shows that your interaction style has a problem? I'm not keeping tabs on you. I remember from one discussion involving Physchim62 that I linked above. The other stuff I found by clicking around, looking into SergeWoodzing's complaint after he made it. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This suggested it was an invention, based on Woodzing's taste alone; "will look for sources later" is not appropriate editing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think your diff shows collegial editing on your part. Deciding that "Vermland" was a Woodzing invention without bothering with a Google search shows serious lack of AGF. "[Famous athlete so-and-so] is gay (will look for sources later)" needs instant reversion. Treating this Vermland thing with the same urgency shows unnecessary combativeness on your part. It's better to talk it out, and explain your view with more tact, as you did here. My usual suggestion in wiki-disputes is to try to write neutrally to the other person, as if you were writing for article space, no matter how badly you think they are acting. If you find yourself reacting sharply, slow down and rewrite to cool things down. I think you're a good contributor so I wish you wouldn't find it so difficult to follow our norms. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit that I had become a bit too irritated after Talk:Duchies_in_Sweden#Removal_of_cross-reference. I suspect that terms like "Elsinland" may be hoaxes, to say it very bluntly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see some problems with SergeWoodzing's editing at that page. I can't find any English-language sources for "Elsinland" including in the OED. Google book search finds "Elsin land" is mentioned in The Faerie Queene and one other very old book, so Elsinland is either an error or a rare archaic word. Pieter, you seem to think SergeWoodzing is pushing some political POV about Swedish royalty. Is this some content dispute transplanted from svwiki to here? Anyway, getting into "street fights" across multiple projects isn't the way to handle such disputes. It's better to make a matter-of-fact complaint including some diffs, that uninvolved editors can look into. In this case we may need some help from uninvolved Swedish speakers--are any available here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing's anglicizations of Swedish names is mostly a local issue here on enwp. When this is about the names of ancient or mythical royalty, I am not really interested (which did not prevent Woodzing to start discussing me here anyway). But now he is introducing new names (or re-introducing antiquated names) of places and regions in Wikipedia that then spread over the internet. I find that undesirable. Maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden is a good place to find uninvolved editors that are interested. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Please let's discuss the bulk of these details about exonyms and such on the talk pages of those articles! If Kuiper feels he has a general case against me as disruptive or detrimental to the project with such or other things there are other ways for him to bring that to the attention of the community.

What I am asking for here is a further investigation into Kuiper's behavior and of mine. He is currently active on English WP only to nitpick and try to irritate an always easily irritated SergeWoodzing. Since Kupier is currently blocked for uncivil behavior on Commons (where he does most of his work asking for image deletions), in a way he is circumventing that block by attacking me here with his usual sarcasm and ridicule, as he considers me to be one of the several users there who have complained about him "for no reason" (as he always sees it).

I am glad to admit - again and again - that I make mistakes like everybody else and am truly grateful for the assistance of any constructive, civil user in correcting same. There is a big difference between that and the always abusive Pieter Kuiper, whose behavior has proven to be incorrigible (or I would never have asked this) and makes me lose sleep, even get physically sick at times - literally. I am over 60 years of age and have never in my entire life been subjected to anywhere near the amount of instances of sheer cruelty that this Pieter Kuiper has subjected me to. Not to mention the way he treats many other users, one of whom I know (above mentioned Eikner). That has nothing to do with the work issues on WP - just attitude and behavior.

There is sufficient evidence, I feel, to substantiate that that behavior stems from a very strong and thus scary personal animosity that developed long ago in Kuiper toward Emil Eikner, me, the Southerly Clubs and anyone else associated with that organization, for reasons that are unclear to us, perhaps political (wrongly assumed, if so). That animosity isn't going to go away.

So, again, what I would like administrators to investigate and neutral users to discuss here is whether or not we can get a permanent ban of this kind:

• Kuiper will not edit or comment on the talk pages of articles where I or my predecessor Emil Eikner (but not Kuiper) have done a lot of work, and I will not edit or comment on articles where he (not I) has done a lot of work.
• Kuiper and I well never complain about each others work except if we start a thread about it in this kind of forum.
• Kuiper will not comment on any other discussions where I became/become involved before him, and I will not comment on any discussions where he became/becomes involved before me, except where the behavior of either of us may be an issue, and then never on the talk pages of articles.
• Kuiper will not enlist known friends of his to represent him in circumventing the agreement, and I will not enlist any such people of mine to do so either.
• Kuiper and I will stay off each other's talk pages.

Please! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

PS If and when we continue to discuss them elsewhere, it is unlikely that many "uninvolved Swedish speakers" exist to discuss the issues of English exonyms and such - by nature and nationality they cannot be uninvolved. I am a professional expert on this subject, and I think such matters must be determined by editors who are qualifed to realistically assess the reactions to those items of all the readers of English (not just Swedes) who visit this project. Not many Swedes are qualified to do that, when it comes to matters Swedish. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence of SergeWoodzing being a "professional expert". And on wikipedia, also acknowledged academic experts will get banned when they believe that arguing from "extensive expert research" and "reliable personal sources" can replace proper referencing. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SergeWoodzing (SW's participation at Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong#Double_epithet_interpreted is pretty tendentious, enough that I wondered for a brief moment whether Ottava Rima spoke Swedish. He got considerable pushback from other users there too. This (after a disagreement with that user over another Swedish name) seems rather pointy. SW's enwiki edits are almost exclusively about European royalty (mostly Swedish, including historical/legendary kings like Styrbjörn the Strong), maybe making him unfamiliar with wider enwiki editing customs. He has 2390 mainspace edits to 890 articles, with 5 or more edits to 143 articles, and 20 or more edits to just 7 articles (a lot of the rest are minor stylistic edits). In the content debates I've looked at between him and Peter Kuiper (PK) so far, it seems to me that PK's arguments usually make more sense, and SW in some instances may be messing up wiki content. So removing one of SW's opponents via an interaction ban doesn't seem like a great idea on that basis. PK and SW have been / are in conflict on Commons (I haven't looked into that much yet), so maybe that is spilling over here. Short of a content RFC about SW's edits that would probably interest very few editors, I don't have bright ideas what to do next. PK, are there other issues with SW's editing that you want to bring up here? 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, this stuff about testing the reactions of English speakers isn't how we do things here--it is considered wp:original research and not allowed. When there is an issue, we go by published sources. I looked over the Talk:Styrbjörn_the_Strong discussion and I didn't find your "native English speaker" argument to be even slightly convincing. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

ADMINISTRATORS: In this section, can we PLEASE discuss Kuiper's uncivil manners as I see them - which is what I started it for - and start separate threads about any possible misdeeds of mine in article content? If they need to be addressed, what I am asking is that that is done by editors who do not go out of their way to insult me personally every time. Is that too much too ask? SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do next here. I was hoping someone else would weigh in. I guess I can ask at WP:SWEDEN for uninvolved editor comments to Talk:Värmland etc. I'm a bit sleepy right now but I'll see if I can post a few more suggestions later. Pieter Kuiper has only edited at that page once since commenting here, and his post was within reasonable bounds of civility.[6] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ban discussion regarding User:Kagome 85 and User:Blackmagic1234

Unresolved

 – Ban discussions need to be open for a minimum of 48 hours(I think, it may be more)— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 06:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Blackmagic1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• Kagome 85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · SPI · cuwiki)

I honestly do not remember how long ago this was, but let me start from the basic beginning, as I remember it;

Blackmagic and Kagome at one point were lovers. I'm not certain if this point was before or after they came to wikipedia.. but I do know each knows of the others' original username. At some later point, they broke up.. and began a two and a half harassment campaign against the other. I came onto this around maybe 2009; Blackmagic was being harassed and cyber-stalked by Kagome. I looked into the matter, got some socks blocked, and suggested WP:CLEANSTART to BM. I tell him to stay away from articles he has edited, and refrain from even mentioning his ex or editing any similar articles.. instead, as they came back on, this was thrown back in my face? They did more than go on a wiki-stalking revert spree of a previous sock of hers.. They listed off her real name in almost every single edit summary. Some time recently, at least int he past year, I took them both to this forum for the very thing mentioned above.. a two-way harassment campaign, and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

Reason for ban request

60+ socks later(combined, I've lost count, just check out their sock categories), I am frankly sick and tired of reverting the socks. Let's make it easier; block on sight, rollback allowed.. ban them from the site indefinitely until such time they can grow up and leave each other be. I really, really am sick of dealing with their disruption and harassment of each other. Wikipedia is not therapy.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Also, I'm not going to bother notifying each because nowadays, with their ever-increasing amount of socks, I'm not sure they would even see the message. I did also warn both prior about this discussion, so they knew it was coming. Lastly, if anyone can find each of their latest socks, feel free to notify them of this discussion, but I don't believe they'll see it because they'll just already be on to their next set of socks.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As a further note, I forgot to mention that yes, BM has socks but at some point, I just gave up and began tagging them all as Kagome 85. They're both using the same range, so as far as I'm concerned regarding technical, they're the same person(they act the same anyways).— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Unresolved

 – I believe it's been at least the required 48 hours; now we just need an uninvolved admin to issue the ban.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - As proposer.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

  Hi DaedlusIt'll be good if you were to summarize in one line what the editors are supposed to support or oppose in order to provide editors summarized clarity. Regards Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Per details provided above by the proposer. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 08:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question Are we banning one, the other, both, or are you claiming they're the same person and calling for a ban of them and their alter-ego? N419BH 09:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• From what I'm reading, he's asking for a ban of both, and noting that they share a range and act very similarly to one another. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 09:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Details appear convincing, so lets ban the both of them. Use of multiple socks is something I feel Wikipedia needs to take an extremely hard line on. Add in the outing and vios of WP:BATTLEGROUND and it looks clearcut for a double ban to me. Jusdafax 09:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• They've exhsusted my patience, that's for sure. Support showing both of them to the door until they grow up, which, at this rate, could be decades. - KrakatoaKatie 10:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Huge wasteful time sink. Ban both of them. I'm wondering though: are you sure they're really NOT both the same person engaging in a long-term trolling campaign? If they edit from the same range that makes it even more suspect. In any case, ban both, revert on sight without breaking 3RR. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"and they were both indef blocked by admin Georgewilliamherbert" Actually, Blackmagic is not currently blocked... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because George blocked one of his socks. He abandoned the BM account and created a sock under the pretense of CLEANSTART, but didn't follow CLEAN at all, and as noted began harassing his ex.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sock George blocked BM under, Burp.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 21:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban on both. If a new account is created and stays away from these issues then we will never know nor need to - as soon as an account or ip starts repeating this behaviour it can be blocked. Whatever the situation, it should not involve the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support, based on above, but they both need to be notified and be given a chance to come here and defend themselves. Maybe they have a case to make, maybe not, but they should at least be given the opportunity. Saebvn (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - valueless disruptive time sink. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Recommend periodic checkuser requests of each to check for all socks that haven't be found. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wuhsuohwey

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

---

Resolved

 – For now... I am going to speedily delete the articles the user created, as I am now convinced that they are hoaxes. I will not block the user for the time being since he/she stopped editing after warnings. (Sockpuppetry might have been involved as well as has been pointed out by one of the AfD commentors, but the prior account had not been blocked nor had it been under threat of block, so it wasn't a case of block evasion.) If the user resumes editing and does so in a vandalistic fashion, he/she will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wuhsuohwey (talk · contribs) has been adding Wu-speaking peoples-related POV forks that are probably hoaxes (as they are yielding no Google hits). I've opened an AfD on one of these articles, and since then the user has added more. In light of the user's behavior, I am now inclined to block and speedily delete the articles he/she created, but I'd like some second opinions before doing so. --Nlu (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Go with your instinct. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also (in case you forgot) I notified the editor of this thread.  :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that the interwiki links he placed on his new article Goetan actually correspond to Wu Chinese. (If you follow the "English" link back from them, that's where they take you.) Misleading, if nothing else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he can't be blamed for that; he linked the Chinese Wikipedia article on Wu Chinese to his new article of Goetan; I reverted it over there. --Nlu (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Persistent IP hopping vandal

Since December 2, an IP has been persistently vandalising various pages, especially those related to Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Some of the vandalism is fairly sneaky, such as wikilinking random words[7] or changing spelling, eg "Vain" to "vein".[8] Other vandalism has been blatant, like changing the gas in "Lilly's "Green Gas" science project" to "Dirty Tan"[9] and then to "Dirty Blonde".[10] Other examples are changing female names to "Chanel"[11] and there's just plain ridiculous stuff.[12] The random wikilinking is a trait exhibited in every one of 122123 edits so far made by this editor, who has used 1314 different IPs so far,[13] all of which are from Verizon's pool.

IPs used so far

• 2-5 December 108.17.101.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 7 December 108.17.99.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.100.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 9 December 108.17.96.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 10 December 108.17.106.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 11 December 108.17.105.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 12/13 December 108.17.102.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 13 December 108.32.6.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 14 December 108.17.105.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 16 December 108.32.11.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 17 December 108.32.15.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.3.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.32.4.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 18 December 108.17.100.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

new entries

• 19 December 108.32.1.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

There are too many pages affected to protect them all. Would a rangeblock be appropriate? --AussieLegend (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I'd think you need two or three. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 17:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Kids across the USA are off on Winter Break, apparently. Let's get the rangeblocks in there if we can. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And we have another one to add to the list. I see it's back to changing names to "Chanel" again.[14] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Verizon needs to be informed of the abuse, don't they? Shouldn't they? 123 edits is pretty ridiculous. Dusti^*poke* 21:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So they could do... what? No ISP is going to give a crap, sadly. However; perhaps a very short rangeblock for the holidays might suffice. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We have some options for the rangeblocks. We can get all the IPs with:

• All IPs listed starting with 108.32.x.x = 108.32.0.0/20, - 4,096 addresses
• All IPs listed starting with 108.17.x.x = 108.17.96.0/20 - 4,096 addresses

We can go smaller with rangeblocks for the addresses starting 108.17.100.x and 108.17.105.x, but there's no way we can get the rest of the IPs listed without blocking 108.17.x.x. What should we do, and for how long? - KrakatoaKatie 00:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like more input before I place these rangeblocks. In the meantime, I semi'd List of Hannah Montana characters, as it's certainly had enough recent IP disruption. I looked at the other articles in that genre and they haven't received nearly as much recent activity.

Thoughts, anyone? - KrakatoaKatie 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is winter break. I say we just hard block the entire USA. That way the little kiddies can't attack Wikipedia. I'm joking obviously. I'd say that someone file an Abuse Response thing to contact Verizon. Isn't there a bit much collateral damage on those rangeblocks? Sure the IP isn't using a proxy of some sort? I'd block for 3-5 months. If vandalism continues after the block is lifted, switch to 6-8 mo. If it continues after that, which I doubt, just block indef. Someone could file an sock puppet thing on this, if you think it would help. Mr R00t ^{Talk 'tribs} 04:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's why I haven't done it. :-) The smaller ranges, 108.17.100.128/26 and 108.17.105.0/24, block 64 and 256 addresses respectively, but his dynamic IP has changed from the 108.17.x.x range to the 108.32.x.x range just today. I agree that WP:ABUSE is a good idea, but they're backlogged and short on volunteers. Should I just semi all those pages? That's not as big a sledgehammer, but still... - KrakatoaKatie 05:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is interesting. Different IP, different country, no mention of Chanel but the rest is all still there. Is there some airborne virus they haven't told us about? And the first post by this IP was made only 22 minutes after the last post made by the last IP listed above (108.17.100.183). That seems too coincidental. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While I'm concerned that protecting the pages might just force the IP to go to other pages, another has just hit List of Hannah Montana main characters so I say go ahead and protect away. These pages don't see (m)any positive contributions by IPs usually, so nobody is going to suffer because of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't see any dissension here, so I've semi'd those that have been hit so far for one month, to get the entire US campus crowd back in school, which won't be until the start of the third week of January (guess how I know that?). If he/they does/do go to other pages, let me know or list them here and we'll get those too. I think this is more effective and with less damage than playing whack-a-mole with them. - KrakatoaKatie 21:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

As I feared, the IP has moved to Cory in the House. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons DVDS

Here there is some edit warring going on here by User:The Ultimate Koopa and User:Sergecross73. The Ultimate Koopa is being extremely uncivil in his edit summaries and this could escalate into further problems therefore Admin intervention is needed as dispute resolution is CLEARLY not working. --Addihockey10^e-mail 00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked The Ultimate Koopa for 24 hours for extreme incivility. --Jayron32 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone remove the summaries please? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Under what grounds? --Jayron32 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He called Sergecross73 a "f*ing hypocrite", along with some other disgusting words. I deleted the edit summaries, not the edits, but if you feel it's okay to have that visible you can restore it. KrakatoaKatie 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out that this isn't the first time The Ultimate Koopa has used edit summaries extremely inappropriately. Examples include the following: A, B, C, and D. I have addressed this to him on his talk page but he didn't acknowledge his behavior in any way. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand this is not my place but would a longer block (1 week) be more appropriate to get our point across? --Addihockey10^e-mail 02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If he comes back and does the same thing, I suspect his next break will be much longer than a week... Bobby Tables (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't "edit warring". I merely undid one of his edits once because his rationale for his past edit was something along the lines of "it's not available in stores around me so it's not released". Something like that. I have randomly run past him in the past though, and his edit comments can indeed be inappropriate. (Usually profanity, or attacking users instead of ideas.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to cause trouble, but I'm unaware of any attempt by either of you to resolve this problem with dispute resolution. I could be wrong, but it's what I saw. --Addihockey10^e-mail 04:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, you only undid once. For some reason I thought you had undid twice, my apologies Sergecross73. --Addihockey10^e-mail 04:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you now know what happened. It took me a while to figure out what was even going on when I got the alert on my talk page, because I wasn't aware of any disputes I was involved in. I was wondering aimlessly on wikipedia, undid an edit, and kept moving. I didn't even realize Ultimate Koopa had responded to me at all until I came here... Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation (mine) of personal attacks, uncivil behavior

I would like uninvolved editors to have a look at a dispute I managed to get into at Talk:Theoria. I was alerted to that talk page by this edit, which passed by while I was watching Recent changes; my curiosity got the better of me. I'll not say more, not wanting to stack the deck; please look for yourself. My first substantive comment was this, and you can see what happened. There is a note on my talk page as well, by one of the involved editors, and I asked User:PMDrive1061 for their advice, on their talk page--I believe that is full disclosure.

One more note: there is a content dispute, apparently, but I personally am only interested in the behavior. I'm placing an ANI notice on the talk page. Thank you in advance for your time and interest. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've given various parties to this advice at various times, and I have my doubt that the problems are remediable while the current editors are involved, which is my general position on the interaction between content disputes and personal attacks. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request

A long term vandal I'm tracking is currently active on the range 76.203.72.0/22. His last two used IPs are 76.203.72.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked when it was used last week) and 76.203.75.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (in use within the past hour).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The individual is now editing on 76.203.72.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The range above would indeed prevent this vandal from continuing his editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Socking and other baseless allegations by User AllahLovesYou

Please mind reviewing the activities of User AllahLovesYou, this User is very disruptive for nothing. He accused me of socking twice and his allegations were rejected here[15] for the first time and here [16] for the second time. Also when I asked this User to take a break he allegedly again accused me of abusing him as well as other editors here [17] when this user's actions were not echoed by others then he resorted to sock puppetry accusations. Also, time and again this user identifies others by religion and not by user name. He keeps on calling me Shia though I have never said what's my religion? Humaliwalay (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Humaliwalay" translates to "I'm a Shia of Ali" in Indian languages. The word "Shia" translates to "Party" in Arabic language. Someone who creates such a user name wants to be proudly known as a Shia and I only mentioned this one time in the SPI which is ok when helping admins for investigation purposes, and I don't see why in such a circumstance mentioning this would be considered wrong?
• I have not filed a single SPI on Humaliwaly. User:SyedNaqvi90 was using socks and was constantly reverting my edits at a time when Humaliwalay was also constantly reverting my edits in the same articles for the same reasons so there was lots of suspecions about them being the same person, and I filed that report on SyedNaqvi90.
• While I'm improving articles, I wanted to share my opinion so I left a comment for the community to read at a talk page.[18] Humaliwalay responded to that comment of mine by telling me "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." I think anyone can notice the rude tone in that, it's basically saying 'stfu you idiot, and go to hell'. I believe that such talk should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Humaliwalay is reporting me everyday and filling my talk page with bogus warnings, etc. I told him this was annoying but he said too bad. I feel that Humaliwalay is obsessed with me in a negative way, he probably doesn't like me because I'm not a Shia, and anytime I leave a general comment to the community somewhere he thinks I'm writing to him. I constantly advise other editors to learn to accept everyone regardless of race, religion, belief, nationality, etc. That's how I grew up.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

HUMALIWALAY no where contains the word "Shia". "Shia" when translated in Urdu means "Dost" "Friend" No where in my User name is the word DOST. Now this User is translating my Username as per his convenience. This makes me feel that I am discriminated [So far I have never revealed my Religion] I don't think that's needed here. - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever Humaliwalay or Hum Ali Walay translates to, it doesn't matter much anymore (unless there's some suggestion the name is offensive or used in a disparaging way). If it's true that it can be translated as 'I'm a Shia of Ali' then AllahLovesYou can be forgiven for thinking that Humaliwalay is Shia and happy or proud of it to be identified in that way. However now that Humaliwalay has stated they do not translate their name in that way, there's no reason why AllahLovesYou should continue to translate it that way and in particular if Humaliwalay has no desire to talk about their religion AllahLovesYou should stop talking about or referring to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't name Humaliwalay a Shia, instead I stated in a sockpuppet investigation "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" and that was needed to make the case strong. As I stated above, the word Shia is Arabic (not Urdu) and it translates to "Party" (not Dost). It refers to the party or followers of Ali (cousin and son inlaw of Islamic Prophet Muhammad). Hum Ali Walay can translate several ways, and one is "I'm of Ali's Party". User:Humaliwaly revealed his name on his user page [19] as "Mohammad Sajjadali Rizvi", and any Muslim who is familiar with the name "Rizvi" knows that it belongs to Shias in the Indian subcontinent. Other editors who know or have knowledge about Humaliwalay stated in the SPI case:

• User:Faizhaider: "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a"
• Aliwiki: "Rizvi Sayyeds of India are wel-know in all Shia world like Ali Asghar Rizvi"

This is not descrimination. Majority editors in Wikipedia are non-Muslims, and if they mentioned somewhere about me belonging to Islam I don't think I will be rioting about it because anyone can clearly see this in my name, my user page and the articles I edit. Humaliwalay telling me this "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." is unacceptable in Wikipedia per incivility and personal attack.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Basing assertions about someone's faith on their name is not only discriminatory, it is illogical if one truly believes in a 'world religion' as I understand Islam claims to be. Or does one's name predetermine whether on can follow a particular faith? In any case, the fact that someone is Shia rather than Sunni is of no consequence to Wikipedia, I'd hope. I'm not sure of the exact quote, but doesn't the Qu'ran say something like "let us compete in good works"? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrumo, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Me mentioning to an admin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizhaider "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" is not discriminatory because I was only trying to convince the admin that both accounts were used by the same person. The editor whom I filed the SPI on (Faizhaider) has stated "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a". You can't be going around calling every time someone mentions someone's race, religion, or sect an act of descrimination. For example, when a black man robs a 7-Eleven store and later a witness tells police the robber was a black guy that is not descrimination.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all participants for their just opinions. Now I hope the brother AllahLovesYou does not label me with any religion. I do not feel the necessity of Religion here. I am here to take what I do not know and to share what I know. I am a learner and want this to happen in acquaintance rather than sectarian division. I hope I won't be let feel discriminated henceforth. Thanks in anticipation to brother User AllahLovesYou. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, you're welcome. Just so you know I also belong to Sayyids, I have nothing against Shias, a people who I view as educated and progressing. But when it comes to religion, we all have different opinions so let's try not to force our opinions on everyone.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alleged inappropriate use of rollback

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

Resolved

 – Barts1a has helpfully brought up some editing restrictions, by which he says he'll abide and moreover, has sought out and gotten himself a mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had a reminder I sent to them about WP:NPA rather rudely reverted by Ryulong. Isn't rollback only supposed to be used for clear vandalism and not things like this? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And another one... this time removing their notice of this ANI report. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&curid=10736166&diff=402988351&oldid=402988332 Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you invited his wrath by deleting his entry at WP:AIV, which was totally inappropriate. As I said on your alternative talk page, it is not your place or mine to decide whether an AIV entry is "stale", unless it's an entry you or I created ourselves. That decision is to be made by the admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback can be used for other "problematic" edits, where the reason for having done is clear, such as was rolling back that unhelpful edit of yours. You've been told before, you don't understand enough about the policies here to be making edits like that. At least, you've shown little or no understanding of the policies. You're becoming disruptive again. If it carries on, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And how is informing them of this AN/I thread a "problematic" edit? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, you triggered this entire incident by removing someone else's AIV entry, which you had no business doing. Learn from it, and don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The entry in question was over 2 hours old at the time, having not been replied to and no action taken on in that time. While other reports were being handled. Clearly it was stale and would have been removed anyway. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was 2 weeks old. That page is for the admins to manage. Let them do their jobs in a way they deem appropriate in a given case. Don't mess with others' entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're lucky you got away with just getting yelled at by the user. I would have taken you straight here and asked for a block for disruption. Ryulong actually showed some restraint. I recommend you box up this section and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I agree with Baseball Bugs, its no wonder why Ryulong left you some uncivil comments but Ryulong, please remain calm when making comments. Bidgee (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing one's user talk page is generally not subject to the general rules of the rest of the project, at least the last time I checked. And honestly, you're the only person to ever pick up on this and give a shit. Your track record, Barts1a, when it comes to the interpretations of Wikipedia policy are tenuous at best, which is what I told you in admittedly much harsher words on your user talk page in this comment and in this comment, neither of which are personal attacks as you believe they are.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Second point here[20]: "To revert edits in your own user space." Not a misuse of Rollback. Doc talk 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already had one Admin threatening to misuse their Sysop tools over removing comments from my own talk page. Bidgee (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I always like to point to WP:BLANKING. If this guideline segment is incorrect, then that should be clarified. An editor in good standing can do what they want (within WP's rules) on their talk pages, I always thought. Doc talk 08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my thought also but I've pointed the involved Admin about the discussion in this thread/topic. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This diff is presented without context. This was the previous edit. The "Cut it out" I would have thought was obviously in respect to the acions for which I had just wanred him? - brenneman 10:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's "actions", not "acions". It's "warned", not "wanred". We try to sign our posts here, too. Welcome back, Secret... Doc talk 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a, I've asked you before, have you ever read a policy page here, or do you only try to, say, kind of copy what you think others are doing as you stumble along? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the various policies of wikipedia and thought I was editing within them (With the report at AIV being over 2 hours old with nothing done and all). But clearly I wasn't Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, this comment[21] is totally off the mark. YOU CAUSED THIS INCIDENT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an opportune time to add something similar to my user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't do something like that until you see how this turns out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball; regardless of who caused it: 1. It's my talk page and 2. Ryulong made the uncivil comments. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had not deleted the AIV stuff, which was more uncivil than anything he said to you, this would not have happened. You're starting to sound like the guy who killed his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened: It is still MY talk page! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not "own" your talk page. If you want an editor not to post on your page anymore, you ask him politely. You don't post a so-and-so is prohibited banner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be "Wabbit Season" for you after this. Doc talk 08:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's DUCK season and I insist that you fire! Whose Your Guy (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be da foist time, Doc. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"This doesn't look like Pismo Beach! I shoulda taken a left at Albacoicke!" Doc talk 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was flood season? No wonder why people are trying to sand bag me! ;) Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo, taken from a Bridgee over the Bidgee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Like a Bidgee over troubled water..." Okay - I'll shut up now. To the rest of you: "Shut Up! Shut Up! I'll sue you! I'll sue all of you!!!" Totally kidding, BTW, so don't try "reporting" me. "Andy Kaufman and the wrestling match... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah..." Doc talk 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late, I've already indefinitively blockaded you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself sued "Mister Lawlor"! Duhhhh! I'm from Hollywood: I've got the brains. I'm not some dumb hick from Nashville, Tennessee! You'll never see me again in Nashville! I shall return!" Doc talk 11:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough joking. Is Barts1a allowed to keep this up, even if he no longer singles me out?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's essentially an "enemies list", and that is usually not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's a baiting list. I shall ask the user to remove it, but I believe we should remove it ourselves should he decline. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it. Would you mind harassing this guy for having one as well? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't edit my page" is far more civil than "you'll be reverted on sight if you edit my page". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the normal practice, and if the user won't comply, then WQA can come into the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For both, it would be best to cite a specific rule violation before triggering another incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such lists shouldn't be existing anywhere, it's like users setting up their own interaction bans. Leave it to ArbCom, and don't advertise it to each other as a bright red flag to a bull. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally a request not to edit one's talkpage serves as a disengagement notice, to de-escalate a situation. Barts1a's notice violates NPA, as it accuses people of stuff. Regardless of whether it is true (and in Ryulong's case I don't think it's justified), Barts1a should not have that on his page. The other guy is just requesting certain people not to edit his talk page, which is acceptable. ALSO, Barts1a should know that while he can request another editor not edit his talkpage, he cannot enforce the request if the communication is reasonable (eg it's an ani notice which the other editor is required to give him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List has been removed. Next time i'll just state who and not why... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a

OK, I'm going to throw this out: Why are we putting up with this? Barts1a has already been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and now he's at it again. He's inappropriately removed a report from AIV, he's brought a user here for using rollback on his own talk page, and he's made a shitlist on his talk page (removed now, but still). I think this guy should be shown the door for an appropriate period of time in accordance with previous blocks. I'd do it myself, but I'm about to go to sleep and I don't like making blocks I can't answer questions about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Because he's enthusiastic, and it would feel like beating a puppy? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but however cute a puppy was, if it kept tearing things in your house to pieces, surely you'd restrain it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart has actually been on wikipedia for a good stretch now, so the trouble he keeps getting himself into is a bit hard to figure - but it mostly seems to come down to ignoring the good advice he's gotten from quite a few users. My first brush with him was at AIV on November 29,[22] in which he interposed himself into a complaint I made about the user "Lunalet" (who has since been sent to the phantom zone, but that's a side show). I advised him that he shouldn't be telling admins how to do their job, and that led to him posting a complaint here (sound familiar?) The current situation was right much mind-numbing: doing something way out of line, and then taking it to ANI when the editor became understandably livid about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am in favor of blocking him for a long time. The benefits of his Huggling are overwhelmed by the disruption he causes and the amount of other peoples' time he wastes. If I felt there was any chance that he was learning from past mistakes, and all of the advice he's been getting from lots of different people, I wouldn't feel this way. But coming off a 1 week block, it only took him a few days to resume disrupting multiple places, and the problem is not only lack of knowledge, but lack of desire to learn. I think there's enough evidence now that he is unwilling or unable to modify his behavior, that we really need to ask him to find somewhere else to spend his time. This is simply not working out.

  If someone disagrees, now is the time to speak up, because I'm leaving, but if he's not blocked when I get back, and no one has given a good reason not to, I'm going to block him indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - Barts1a has been clearly disruptive in the past and now. His disruptive editing has caused us to be exhausted with our patience. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - the amount of energy that multiple editors have sunk in to trying to help Barts1a learn to edit collegially and within guidelines has crossed the line from "useful input" to "giant timesuck". I thought perhaps with time Barts would catch-on, however, given that his editing style shows zero sign of improvement despite the daily stream of advice and assistance of others, I now believe this editor and Wikipedia are simply incompatible. Barts1a can always request an unblock in the future should he have an epiphany and is able to commit to editing in a non-disruptive, non drama-mongering fashion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution noting this is my consistent position, and one of the issues raised is not consistently applied, as Dylan Flaherty appears to have copied the these people are enemies of mine type of list. [23] which, oddly enough, includes Bart1a. If the "shitlist" is grounds for a block for one user, ought it not be grounds for another user? Collect (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The "shitlist" is merely the straw that broke the camel's back here. Barts1a has an extremely recent history of not having a fucking clue about what he's doing when it comes to various guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think "extremely recent history" is not entirely correct. A "continuous unabated history" is perhaps more accurate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Barts1a said a couple of days ago that he was going to stop trying to be a wikipedia admin, and take photos for commons instead, which he seems to have done [24]. If he would only contribute more to articles here, it would be much less problematic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer if he continues to do well on Commons. The amount of uncluefulness I've seen is blockworthy IMO; thses threads are a waste of time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block for a reasonable period of time I am afraid. Barts seems to almost wilfully ignore advice and cannot resist the temptation to go around ticking people off, telling them what to do, scattering inappropriate templates around and removing other peoples edits. He also removes complaints/advice from his talkpage. I'd have more sympathy if there was a GF content issue but content does not really figure much in Barts career. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With very narrow exceptions, there's otherwise no rule against deleting stuff from your user page, as it's assumed you've read it. Although in this case, I wonder if that's a safe assumption, since the advice he gets seems to go in one ear and out the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know there's no rule against it but given his inablility to absorb and act on advice, despite his complaints page, it's a worry at how selective he is about what he does and does not keep.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This may sound crazy, but if the complaints and criticisms were posted on his "complaints and criticisms" page, maybe they would be better received. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lengthy comment: Taking another look at Bart's history, I have to say that Ponyo is onto it. Bart created his account in October of 2006. It sat idle until June of 2007 when he made 4 edits. He then made 1 edit in August of 2008, and then 9 edits in February of 2009, including nominating himself for adminship. He was quickly persuaded to withdraw it, but it's clear he's had his eye on adminship almost from the get-go. He edited sporadically during the next 1 1/2 years until this past summer, in the June-July time frame, and has been pretty much full time since then. Now, the point of this megillah is that he's been on here off and on for 4 years, and has accelerated from valid corrections and vandal-hunting to where things are today. Around mid-November he nominated himself for the ArbCom, and proceeded to argue with the editor who had rightly told him that he didn't have enough mainspace edits, partly chiding the editor for being "unfriendly",[25] when the editor was merely being factual. A pattern begins to emerge, and keep in mind that was just a month ago, and it seems longer somehow. Soon after, he began began escalating his "playing-admin" approach, which is when he and I first crossed paths and when he started attracting a lot of attention, especially during early December, when he managed to get himself blocked 3 times in the space of 5 days. I thought things were getting better after that, but then this outrageous, and frankly laughable situation today, where he deleted someone's AIV entry and then complained here when the user got mad at him for it, has really made me wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from the accused I do hope that people have watchlisted my talk page on commons because if this proposed block goes ahead; that will be the only place where I can post photos I have taken for articles. If nobody has my talkpage listed on commons and I am blocked indef here; there will be no point in taking photos as they will never get to be used! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you respond to the issues presented here rather than worrying about your photos not being used. A little explanation and apologies, along with changes in regard to the worrisome behavior expressed here, will go a long way toward resolving this thread favorably in your regard. N419BH 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he said something a week or two back about how everyone dislikes him or something. That completely misses the point. Nobody dislikes him. They dislike his approach to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Sorry about that; just needed some time to formulate my response. Firstly I would like to show the diff that triggered this whole mess, the AIV report and it's removal. As you can see there were 16 revisions and 2 hours during which the report was neither commented on or acted on. I honestly beleived that it was a stale report and that I was acting within policy to remove it. I didn't realize I'd be getting a rather stubborn response from Ryulong for it. When I tried to communicate with him after he left this message on my talk page, I was rather rudely reverted which is what bought this here. I will admit that I didn't realize the rollback policy was way more lenient on use within userspace.
    • I would like to issue an apology to everyone involved in this dispute for wasting their valuable time putting up with my bulls**t over the past few months or so, I voluntarily forfeit my rollback and reviewer rights as clearly I do not deserve them at this time. I hope that I can redeem myself in your eyes. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll repeat here what I said on your talk page: You keep talking about "policy" at AIV. What policy? I looked at the AIV guidelines and didn't see anything that resembled "non-admins are free to remove reports they consider to be stale."
      • And adding here: And stop already with the apologies. Just stop doing stuff that admins are supposed to do. Article-correction and vandal-reporting are good things for editors to do. Just stay on this side of the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's part of the problem; there isn't one. When I say "policy" I mean the sum of the various policies as a whole. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • As I have said on my user talk page; I think a good solution would be a page ban from the various noticeboards; this way I can still contribute positively to the encyclopedia while having a very good incentive to stay out of problematic areas. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You can impose your own "page ban" by simply taking those pages off your own watchlist. That's how I stayed out of trouble at the political pages, for example: I simply stopped seeing them. But I'm still curious to know, where did you get the idea it was appropriate to remove someone else's entry from AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • See my talk page for a response to this question Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Well everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but he has gone a little too far. Block for a good amount of time, but not indefinite (maybe 6 months to 1 year). Or as an alternative, maybe we could try mentoring him? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution - If we had a rule against hit lists, then it would presumably apply to those kept by admins. This looks like selective enforcement of a non-rule to cover for general irritation. I am not Bart's #1 fan, and it's rare to see Collect and I agreeing on, well, anything, so take this as a hint that perhaps the feeding frenzy here is wildly inappropriate. Do not block. Dylan Flaherty 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O_O I honestly did not expect that! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Since I'm not sure what editing restriction Floquenbeam is referring to, I will add here that I Reluctantly support block. I think it's clear that Barts1a has no ill intentions here - he's not operating with malicious intent, he truly wants to help the encyclopedia, and he's doing what he thinks is right - but trying to explain to him that how he's going about it isn't working is like talking to a brick wall. So many threads, here, on his talk page, and even on the ill-fated editor review he started after his last block expired, have all told him the same thing - slow down, pay attention, listen to what people are telling you - and he's just...not hearing it. I've tried to talk to him on IRC, with the same results. Every explanation someone tries to give is met with a "yeah, BUT..." and he just goes on doing what he thinks is right.

  I would very much like to see Barts1a redeemed, because I think he's capable of being quite useful to the project, but I simply see no evidence here (or have seen, in the past month) that he has any willingness (or perhaps ability) to actually absorb the incredibly important advice people are giving him. And unless he can give any indication that he intends to at least try to become less (unintentionally?) disruptive, rather than this pulling-into-his-shell "I'm sorry that everyone hates me" routine that he's giving today, I can't find any justification for letting him carry his blundering here.

  The only out I can see at this point is if he is willing to accept very restrictive mentoring, wherein he clears all his policy-based (or "policy"-based) edits with a mentor before making them, but he would need to fully and enthusiastically commit to such an agreement and not try to dance around the edges of what's allowed. I have a feeling that will be difficult for him, and thus I don't hold out a lot of hope for a mentorship solution. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposed and accepted

Barts1a and I appear to have come to an agreement; even though I was one of the people above with a pitchfork and torch, if it's OK I'd like to give this a chance to work. Unfortunately, I'm logging off for the night, but I'll check in tomorrow morning. Although I guess I can't call dibs on how things are worded, I would appreciate it if people didn't decent en masse on his talk page with more ideas for other restrictions. Let's give this some breathing room. Only a request, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a's proposed restrictions

• a topic ban from all noticeboards (I think it a good sign that you thought of this independently)
• not using Huggle (I've gone back and seen several times you've reverted something as vandalism when it wasn't)
• avoiding contentious articles and their talk pages
• accepting a 1RR limit (ie you can only revert someone once in any dispute)

copied from my talk page, I have indicated that I will accept all of the above. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm encouraged that Barts1a has agreed to these restrictions, but I do think that having a mentor would help him to stick to them, and I would recommend he find one. In the meantime, I think it's worth seeing how things work out, so I oppose the suggested block and support the editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this over an indef. I would like to make the addition of

• may appeal these restrictions at ANI(?) after [time period, maybe two or three months?]
• any breach of these restrictions will result in an indef block with the standard offer

• Does this sound reasonable? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, sounds reasonable, possible request for a degree of relaxation after ten weeks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to see this tried - I keep hoping each time that Barts1a will finally modify his behaviour to avoid these problems, only to see that he hasn't. Maybe this one will work. If not, I guess we'll be out of alternatives. - Bilby (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Fetchcomm's proposal sounds very reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• And to me. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 04:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Barts has already agreed to this strongly encourages me. I would add that Barts should seek out a mentor to help guide his development as an editor. In particular, what defines a "contentious article"? A mentor will be able to help him make that determination, and a second set of eyes will help put out any embers before they become fires. N419BH 09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support these restrictions (and, that being the case, Oppose a block) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Propaganda328

I'm not sure where to report this, but this seemed like the most appropriate place. If it's not, I'd appreciate if someone could point me in the right direction.

I've been having an issue with Propaganda328. They've been inserting content into the Rafic Hariri article that I consider fringe conspiracies cited to a non-English source whose reliability has not been established. The content was originally inserted by an Iran-based IP address, 94.182.19.94, which is slightly troubling as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been implicated in the assassination, and I'm not even sure if Propaganda328 can read the Russian source they're reverting back into the article. I've removed the content three times; Propaganda328 reverted me three times. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining that I considered the source to be of questionable reliability, the content itself sounded like a fringe conspiracy, requesting a translation of the non-English source, and explaining that the verifiability burden was on editors attempting to insert the material. Propaganda328 replied that "All theories are to be included," and proceeded to reinsert the material. I then opened a discussion on the user's talk page, explaining the issues with the content, noting that I wasn't interested in edit warring over the material, and requesting that they self-revert, lest we have to go through the noticeboards. The editor refused, replying simply "Temper Temper".[26] So, that brings me here.

To be clear, I'm not here to discuss the content. I'm not asking if the source cited is reliable, I'm not asking if the content added was a fringe conspiracy, and I'm not reporting the editor for edit warring the material in. I'm here because of the editor's behavior. They've continued to push the material, while refusing to engage in constructive discussion on the article talk page or any sort of consensus building, failing to establish the reliability of the source they're citing, and failing to provide a translation of the Russian source they're citing, despite my explicit requests. Would appreciate if someone can look into the issue or advise. Thanks. ← George ^talk 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There are reasonable content edits in the contrib history, but major issues with interactions with other editors. I suggest an "official" warning regarding their communication behaviours. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Access Denied's bad-hand sock account

• Access Denied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From what I first saw of this editor, he didn't seem too bad. I remember him being brought to this page because another user thought his username violated policy, but community consensus found that it did not. I saw them again a few times, but I've been rather busy as of late, so I don't remember any of those times besides that one. For the most part, the appeared to be a constructive editor.

Now, when I see their user talk page, it seems that they are on an 'indefinite wikibreak'. Today however, I found this to be utterly false, it seems they had created a bad-hand sock account named Wpeditmanbob2 (talk · contribs), which they used to troll several pages including this noticeboard, and then their own talk page.

They were found to be a sock after smelling of one, and being CU'd when I contacted one in regards to the suspicious behavior.

I'm frankly disappointed that this user would do something like this, and I very much await their explanation. Below are two sections transcluded from their talk pages; one from their first user account, Access Denied, and one from their sock account, Wpeditmanbob2. Both master and sock have been notified: [27], [28].— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it was not obvious, I took their behavior to this noticeboard for review.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD's response

This account was previously indef blocked and community banned. The community ban was lifted on 31 August 2017: [29], with no additional restrictions. User is now editing as User:CactusJack.

Discussion (AD sock thread)

Forgot to place this section here. But anyway, currently AD's main account is blocked for a week due to the socking. I would be lying to say I think that's enough.. the only other thing I want is an explanation.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is another classic false-positive case. There have previously been several false-positive cases. Many trusted users know who Access Denied is. There doesn't seem to be anything that explains why Access Denied, a well-trusted and established user, would operate a bad-hand sock puppet account. I'd like to know how strong the CU evidence is. HeyMid (contribs) 09:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean you're afraid it -could be- a false positive; you don't actually know. And it's  Confirmed, not  Likely or  Possible, but confirmed.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see the technical evidence. Yeah, confirmed is the closest connection possible. HeyMid (contribs) 09:33, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, can we add some more accounts to the mix. I'm stating that the following accounts are  Confirmed as being related to Access Denied (talk · contribs);

• Wpeditmanbob2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Smiling happy pie man (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Dkfjb (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

There are also issues relating to vandalism and block evasion around an IP address which I will not identify at this time. However, and I really feel that I need to state this here, the case is rather unusual in that all these vandalistic socks are created on a mobile device (an iPod Touch) that AD uses. AD also uses a desktop system & interestingly, this system has never created any sock accounts. These edits from the socks are so inane and puerile that I really kinda have to suspect the 'kid brother' card will be invoked here. These socks are mostly on-and-done in around 10 mins or so. I want to hear what AD has to say, though ... - Alison ^❤ 10:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Access Denied was caught in the autoblocks as a result of the blocks of Smiling happy pie man and Dkfjb, so this is correct. We can't exclude that his brother was operating the above accounts; mobile devices may easily be shared by others than the owner. And if AD forgot to turn off the iPod (assuming he owns it), his brother then could create new accounts. The behavior of the above accounts seems to be too abusive to be socks of AD. Why would AD operate vandalism accounts? Also, how could you identify that the accounts edited via an iPod? I, too, am interested in hearing what AD has to say. HeyMid (contribs) 11:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you know the ipod actually belongs to AD, e.g. do AD logged-in edits come from it? Maybe we're seeing a wifi access point being abused. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the same iPod, over multiple disparate domestic IPs so that tells me it's not an abused WiFi node - Alison ^❤ 10:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also interesting that the edits all took place in a constrained period of time: Novermber 24 from 19:23-19:51 and December 18 from 1:41 to 2;38. If this has been an inappropriate use of AD's mobile device, perhaps this will help identify who the culprit is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brother would have made an edit like this, which seems too timely to be happenstance. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised by the fact that the most recent sock (Wpeditmanbob2) was knowledgeable about the help desk, WP:ANI, the blocking policy, and the {{unblock}} template. I'm really wondering how his brother would be that knowledgeable (if we assume that the sock was operated by his brother). Also, this inappropriate revert is interesting. I am fully aware of the fact that AD sometimes makes disruptive headers (see this edit, for example). Also, the "Wp" part in the sock's username (which is an abbreviation of "Wikipedia") is also something worth thinking about. If the three accounts mentioned above were all operated by AD, I'd support an indefinite block of AD. But before taking any further actions, I think we should wait for a response from AD himself. For now, I'd say we don't know either way (whether it was someone else or AD himself). HeyMid (contribs) 14:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This is all linked in some way with User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, but I don't know quite how. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree; the first impression is TFM. However, the problem here is that CU confirms the sock edited using the same mobile device AD has edited with, and CU has never mentioned TFM. The poor text language in the sock's edits explains why a mobile device was used. It is very difficult to make two edits within 4 minutes using a clean language. Also, in this edit, several users are mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the TFM account and associated socks were being run through a different device, and the AD account and associate socks were being run through his ipod. The same person could be editing from both a desktop computer and an ipod and easily maintain the subterfuge of being two different people by posting within minutes or seconds of each other. --Jayron32 15:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the CU above (at least as I understood it) the AD account (but not the socks) did use a desktop system. I presume this is not linked to the TFM account although it's possible this was not looked in to specifically. Of course the TFM could be using a different desktop system perhaps in a different location (or just using a proxy or different connection) from the AD account. Note of course if the iPod was used at the same time as the TFM account and if they are the same person the iPod will need to have a wifi connection different from whatever connection the desktop is using or otherwise one of them would need to be using a proxy or whatever or there would I presume be some linkage. Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

AD always struck me as an unnecessarily aggressive editor, though I wouldn't have predicted the socking. Go for a longer block if you want. Trolling that lame from a sock account sounds like a breaching experiment. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Very curious pattern. I would definitely like to hear from Access Denied over this. I do know that at the time he was asking for the autoblocks to be cleared, he was away from 'his desk' (ie the fixed system) and using the mobile device only. I believe he said he was at his parents. It does sound like an "ooh, can I play with your new iPod" scenario. Will we wait for AD to respond please. No damage is currently being done I believe. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well this is extremely disappointing; I agree with others that I didn't expect such behaviour from AD, but nor would I believe a "my brother did it" response given the nature of some of these edits (one edit to ANI was "lol I wish eagles wuz here to see dis", referring to another regular contributor). I suspect AD was trying to see if they could get away with trolling from a sock account, and fortunately they cannot. I note also that while I usually found AD to be a good editor, I did once see cause to leave him a comment about the list of "funny" vandalism on his user page, after viewing a diff he had just added and having to promptly ask User:TFOWR to RevDel it (the diff to which he linked, that is) and asking AD not to feed the trolls by linking to offensive vandalism. If that's the sort of thing AD finds funny, I suppose I can't be too surprised by this. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit you're referring to was not made at WP:ANI; it was made at their user talk page while the account was blocked. Also, do you mean you believe AD intentionally created a disruptive account in purpose of getting his main account blocked indefinitely? I do believe AD is aware that CUs can detect sockmasters of sock puppet accounts. HeyMid (contribs) 15:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, it was indeed the user's talk page. And no, I believe AD intentionally created an account to let off steam anonymously and to see whether or not it'd be traced back to him. Checkusers can and have confirmed the relationship, certainly, but that only happens when there's reason to suspect a connection already, since checkuser isn't used for fishing. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How reasonably certain are we that AD is not User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I must admit, when I saw what Wpeditmanbob2 was doing, my mind instantly went to TFM instead of AD for a connection. this comment in particular is interesting, since as far as I know, SandyGeorgia has not yet been involved in this case, but SandyGeorgia WAS an ardent supporter of TFM in the last case. Why the connection drawn here? I know that AD and TFM were seen "fighting" during TFM's most recent block, but given the propensity of both of them to run good-hand/bad-hand accounts, couldn't that have been simply more subterfuge? I'm not sure this is anything more than me just thinking out loud, but has any checkuser been run to investigate THAT connection?--Jayron32 15:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Spot on what I've been getting at above. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See also User:The Thing That Should Not Be. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? HeyMid (contribs) 16:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Look at the contributions style. This situation seems to be growing like last summer's oil leak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Was AD involved in the Bad edits r dumb ban discussion prior to the Fat Man one, Jayron? I'm about to head to bed so I can't check, but wasn't it established that Fat Man = Bad edits? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 16:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about AD's involvement in that case, but The Fat Man has himself positively identified that he was Bad edits r dumb. --Jayron32 16:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no doubt at all that Fat/BErD was one guy. I wonder if his "brother", user Mike R, could shed any light on this saga? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• The Smiling happy pie man (talk · contribs) account sounds really ducky, as Access Denied (talk · contribs) was renamed from I like pie it tastes good (talk · contribs); you'll also want to block:

• Access Denied's left shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right shoe (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's left sock (talk · contribs)
• Access Denied's right sock (talk · contribs)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mono (talk • contribs) mono 19:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Those accounts have not edited, so have not been used against policy. Plus, it is pretty obvious they are not trying to hide. If he uses them to avoid his current block, we can block them in turn. But lets not go overboard here... --Jayron32 20:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• This incident is extremely appalling. Although I've found Access Denied to be an editor who tends to feed the trolls, I never would have expected that he would stoop so low to sock disruptively. I think that Access Denied is disgruntled with the The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk · contribs) affair. His most significant edit before retirement was a reversion on The Fat Man's talk page. This socking is intended either as a protest, albeit immature, of The Fat Man incident or as an effort to dig a deeper hole for The Fat Man, incriminating him with more socks. If the latter, he probably did not expect a CheckUser to be run due to the ducky nature of the socks and so did it through his own IP/phone. Since Access Denied has shown himself unworthy of the community's trust, I would support a lengthier block, though first I'd seek to hear his account of this. Goodvac (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the kid brother hypothesis...You would be surprised how much information about Wikipedia friends and siblings can learn by knowing someone established on Wikipedia. If one of my close friends had the desire, they could easily cause issues on pages I frequent and with editors I associate with most commonly, as I discuss them offline as well. Sharing of iPods is also easy, as I loaned mine to a friend of mine for up to a month at a time in the past. It is also hypothetically possible that if it was a sibling of Access Denied they could just pick up the iPod and use it when he left it unattended for a bit, quitting their disruptive behavior a few minutes later when they got bored or Access Denied extricated the iPod from their possession. Socking disruptively like this is too far outside Access Denied's character for me to not believe this is a coincidence of unfortunate proportions. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

For me the mention of SandyGeorgia in this edit would seem to give the "kid brother" point away. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the allusion to SandyGeorgia would not be coming from a brother. In addition, Access Denied frequently complains about small text and recently increased the text size to 140% in his monobook.css. With his sock account, he complains that "the wikipedia font is so TINY is it almostzImpoSSIBLT2READ". Also, Access Denied seems to be the type of person that follows web evolution (or whatever you call it), explaining his sock's reference to the W3C. Goodvac (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must say I find your theory quite compelling: that AD was trying to imitate TFM, either to get TFM in trouble (less likely) or just plain troll (more likely). I can't say I'm surprised - I don't fully accept the "otherwise good character" statements in this thread. AD was on a downward spiral from the moment his premature RfA closed (refer: posts on TFM's and YellowMonkey's talk pages and involvement in the latter's RfC and RFaR). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oh geez, I am suddenly reminded of the Robdurbar incident that occurred a while back. Let's not further speculate on the matter and close down this thread; this entire discussion is already giving the trolls new ammo and more reason to come back, and we should not be doing that. The explanation from AD will come when it will come, so there is no reason to open up a new discussion about it. In the meantime, let the block stay in its place, as perhaps a preventative measure just in case it really is him. Highly unlikely, but not impossible. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)When an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community, of course there will be a thread to discuss the behavior. I'm not sure how many people have AD's talk on their watchlist, but I'm sure there isn't much. There is no guarantee that AD will ever give an explanation, but at least here we can centralize things a bit. Lastly, DNFTT is not a reason to close down a discussion of this type; this was a good-hand-bad-hand case, not a case of a user who has done nothing but troll. I don't really see how you could say DNFTT applies here.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, we still can't say for absolute certainty, judging from the dispute above, that whether or not the BROTHER clause does apply to AD, and by extension we lack knowledge of whether or not "an established editor has betrayed the trust given to them by the community" is true. But I am pretty sure that people (me for one) will be watchlisting his talkpage for a response. And the DNFTT case may go both ways; this user, be it AD or not, has trolled with the Wpeditmanbob2 account, and that's a definite no-no, especially when such person responds with stuff like this to ANI. But really, I feel we should move on. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm kind of distressed to infer that Ipods send info identifying the specific device as part of http queries, unless we're talking about a regular browser cookie that AD forget to clear. I'm glad I don't have an Ipod. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

UA's(user agents, Firefox for example, is a user agent) are usually unique to the device the browser is used on.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 04:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Browsers have a "useragent" which identifies the browser, and I would assume that a iPod's browser is distinct from ones like Internet Explorer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User agents usually don't uniquely identify the specific device. They normally identify the OS and browser version, but not the machine serial number or anything like that. So if you use Firefox under Windows, the UA would be something like "Firefox 3.6.1 Windows Vista SP2". If you had two separate computers both set up like that, the UA string wouldn't be enough to tell them apart. That's why there is controversy over flash cookies and the very existence of Processor Serial Numbers, for example. It could be that the Ipod Touch sends unique info, and that might be handy for sock detection purposes, but it's not welcome news from a general privacy perspective. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Batphone boy

Resolved

 – MuZemike (talk · contribs) indef blocked both as sockpuppets of Wiki brah (talk · contribs)

User:Batphone boy seems to be an obvious troll as evidenced by his comment on WT:WPTF. Can we get a block and checkuser to figure out who the hell is behind this? --6Shot (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Batphone boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 6Shot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am going to close this discussion since MuZemike (talk · contribs) blocked both as socks of Wiki brah (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing

SergeWoodzing (talk · contribs) has been, for the past couple days, been very insistent here that Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk · contribs) has a username that fails the name-pol as an impersonating username (specifically, as a username impersonating the Queen herself). QE2LS took it to CHU to get a name change, but when he got there both EVula (talk · contribs) and Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) told him that there was no username issue, and it went back to his talk page. Nihonjoe, myself, and Drmies (talk · contribs) came in there and told SergeWoodzing that QE2LS's username did not violate policy, but he responded with somewhat more belligerent posts (The last one refers to this diff, where I pointed out to him that his posts were getting increasingly inflammatory). Essentially, Serge is unwilling to lay off the dead horse, even after four people have told him specifically the username is not a violation. Since I don't think any further interaction on my part is going to help, could I ask an addie to intervene? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 10:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there was an edit conflict here, but you must have missed this where I have basically given up because I am outnumbered and also felt things were gettting out of hand over there. I apologize sincerely to anyone who has seen my honest opinion about that user name as any kind of an affront. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MHO impersonation is when someone 'might' be the real person, so impersonation is possible. Not I think a risk here - if the person claimed to be Zara Phillips, one of the Queen's granddaughters it could be a problem (well, she might be interested in editing wikipedia). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed she might, and so might a semi-anonymous representative of the Queen, or at least so many readers probably suspect (no matter how foolish they might seem to suspect it or wonder) when they see that name. That was my good faith point. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Carl Truscott

Carl Truscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of a low-speed edit war that has left the article that includes both peacock language and vague statements of misconduct, in the variations that it has. As I am completely unfamiliar with the subject, I would appreciate it if someone who is more familiar can look into it and hand out appropriate warnings and/or take additional actions on it. (As it stands right now, I feel I can't hand out warnings since I can't distinguish between edits that are accurate, good-faith but inaccurate, good-faith but POV, defamatory, and vandalism as to this article.) --Nlu (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Three Strikes and You're Out?

Resolved

 – The previous warnings were fair. I have blocked indef until the user indicates they understand what problems they are causing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think maybe its time for admin intervention with Lilbadboy312 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for repeated WP:IDHT

Previous ANIs (relating to this matter)

• September 29, 2010
• November 15, 2010

Today he's recreated the article in dispute at (I Only Know Him) In The Dark and despite repeated warnings he's added unsourced information to the parent article Can't Take That Away from Me. In this edit he uploaded an album cover which was of HQ and 1000×1000px (too big) as well as adding information about leaked songs and used twitter/youtube as sources for speculated information. Funnily enough after I reverted it an IP address made the same edits here without the change to the album cover. Lilbadboy has been warned before about uploading inappropriate images and I believe he simply cannot understand/comprehend or follow wikipedia rules. He has even uploaded a watermarked image here which he has claimed under fair use for being his own work yet on flicker the same image has even more watermarks and is clearly marked as "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED".

I rest my case. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

After looking at your difs and the editor you mention, I think enough is enough and a block is needed or even a ban. I am especially concerned with the copyright problems and lying about it. No, we can't have editors behave like this. Definitely need to stop this and now. I would also recommend salting the article the editor keeps recreating to stop that from happening too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block - Lilbadboy312 has caused enough disruption to Wikipedia and has utterly failed to understand the rules in a collegiate manner. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse blocks

Please note that I blocked Uachtar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and CanadaNoveScotia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for making the same inappropriate talk page additions as PLehany (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to talk pages loosely related to Child sexual abuse. It seems an obvious attempt to pretend to there being multiple editors supporting the changes, but it seems unlikely that new editors would make the same violations as WP:TALK without making exactly the same edit, using WP:UNDO.

As I have been involved in content editing in some of the articles, I'm putting the blocks up for review. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The edits have also come from 86.42.13.231. [30]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to mention IPs, but 86.44.252.83 was also used. (Do we need to inform those IPs by {{ANI-notice}} now?) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, it's almost certainly the same person each time anyway:)--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I support the blocks. Maybe the IP or if it's multiple ones though I only saw the one, should also be briefly blocked (unless it's one that doesn't rotate than also block it permanently). --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way I submitted an SPI request, in case the editor is sophisticated enough to have created additional socks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly disruptive to spam the same post across several article talkpages, using different accounts to possibly evade clean up. I am only concerned that the project is not being suckered into allegations of pro paedophile censorship, since the content of the disruptive edits may indeed be suitable for placement in the appropriate article. I am noting this concern in case the situation does arise, but otherwise I think WP:BEANS applies. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be closed now. The SPI that Arthur Rubin set up confirms they are socks and they are all blocked except of course the IP's. I don't think anymore is needed here unless there is more problems going on that have not been added here. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible abusive sockpuppetry

I am currently involved in an editing dispute with Rahlgd (talk · contribs) at Template talk:Ethnicity in Mexico and Talk: Nahua people - a new account has appeared recently Mapudunganpanzer (talk · contribs) - this account has only edited articles related to Chile and indigenous peoples of Mexico - both topics that Rahlgd has edited extensively - and more than half of his edits are in support of User:Rahlgd in disputes with me - arriving at articles the user had not previously edited. His name is a combination of Mapudungun the language of the Chilean Mapuche ethnic group and "Panzer" - User:Rahlgd's other big interest is weapons and military. Apart from the fact that both users argue based on their personal experience instead of by using sources. User:Rahlgd has a history of disregard for wikipedia policies such as copyright and WP:V (this can be seen at his talkpage User talk:Rahlgd). I am suspecting that something underhand is going on here, but I don't know how to deal with it. I would appreciate some extra attention on the issue.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry-related suspicions should be looked at via WP:SPI.  Sandstein  20:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI states clearly that in some cases it is better to go via ANI - in this case because I am not sure that an actual SPI is warranted - perhaps this can be settled by WP:DUCK or perhaps I am not justified in my suspicion at all. Actual advice would be appreciated.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mapudungan panzer is me too. i use that account when i log in through my phone. Sorry, not meant to be sock puppetry Rahlgd (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC).

It may be better if you use an account that is named similar to your main account, and that you cleary link the two accounts together on the accounts' respective user pages, to avoid confusion. Having a seperate account for use on less secure devices and networks is okay, but it is important that you cleary link the two accounts together on their respective user pages. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Balkan edit-warring only account

[31], removes refs and sourced text without discussion, and reverts incessantly. Any help would be appreciated.Athenean (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Problematic, but you have not notified Iliri001 (talk · contribs) of this message, as you are required to, and the user has not edited after the latest warning. I see no need for admin action at this time, but if problems recommence, see WP:AN3 and WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  20:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted page, sort of.

Resolved

I don't know if this really belongs here, or if there might be a better place to report/request intervention. It would appear that the deleted page Francisco Coll García has been recreated or, more precisely, its talk page has been with, i presume (not being able to see the deleted page), the same information. I imagine that this gets immediately redeleted, which is why i've come here. If not, a word to the wise will let me know for next time.... Meantime, i'm going to tell the recreator of this note. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Article talkpage deleted, and ip blocked for 31 hours for attempting to evade the earlier deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow quick work ~ so quick, what with the computer freeze-up, i didn't even get a chance to go to the IP's page. Thanks for the help. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has been going around removing succession boxes from song articles, despite multiple editors asking him to stop.

I first encountered Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars when I created an article with a succession box [32], which he then removed [33]. I didn't think the change was an improvement, but I didn't revert; instead, I went to his talk page to ask about it, where I discovered that multiple editors, including User:L-l-CLK-l-l (diff), User:Candyo32 (diff) and User:Yong (discussion) had already visited his talk page and asked him to stop. I added my request that he stop as well; he replied with his reasoning on my talk page (discussion), we discussed it a bit, and I proposed a compromise (diff) that would require stricter sourcing requirements for the boxes (which would incidentally allow him to remove practically all of them anyway). He rejected the proposed compromise [34] and kept plowing away at removing them from articles [35] while the discussion was ongoing, which caught the attention of User:TheRetroGuy, who reverted the removal and told him to knock it off (diff). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars then reinstated the change TheRetroGuy reverted, and continued removing boxes from other articles.

I found Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' changes irritating, but having no desire to get into an edit war (especially over something as trivial as succession boxes), I left his changes alone. Today, however, I noticed a budding edit war on Hungry Like the Wolf. I had added a succession box there on October 20 (article history), before I was aware of the whole debate. It remained in the article for two months, until Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars removed it today. Another editor didn't appreciate the removal, and undid it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars responded by removing it again.

I would like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to stop going around removing these. Since he's ignored multiple requests from multiple editors along those same lines, I feel I'm forced to bring it here. At the very least, I would like him to stop reinstating his changes when other editors undo them.

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and the other editors mentioned have been notified of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The stylistic question of whether song articles should have succession boxes seems to be undecided, judging by the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 11. I recommend starting a WP:RFC to determine whether some consensus can be arrived at with the input of more people.

Nonetheless, in analogy to WP:STABILITY, editors should not make controversial mass style changes unless there is consensus about which style is preferable. If Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars continues to make such mass changes, and edit-wars about them, they may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein  20:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Sandstein. I think an RFC for this would be a good idea and will start one when I return from vacation, if no one beats me to it. 28bytes (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been a battle for sometime now. I've been trying to keep the succession boxes on the pages, but the user has kept asserting that the consensus was to remove these boxes in favor of "See also" lists. So there are probably hundreds of music articles on #1 songs that no longer have these due to this user's biased opinions. I do remember a discussion about this, but there was never any consensus, and this user is the only one pushing it for some odd reason. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I have had follow-up conversations with many of the editors who have contacted me. I never infer consensus has been reached, but refer them to the long-running discussion on various Wikiproject songs/albums/chart pages, a history of which can be found archived at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 11, to make up their own mind.
   • User talk:Candyo32/Archive 3#Reply: succession boxes. User:Candyo32 did not comment on the record chart talk page and has never warned me again.
   • User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars#Succession boxes. Conversation with User:L-l-CLK-l-l revealed concern was with my replacing the boxes with a long list of links, not removal of the succession boxes.
   • User talk:Yong#Succession boxes. I responded with my reasoning as did another editor, separately. User has never warned me since.
2. If someone reverts my change of such removal, I am allowed to revert it back if I disagree with it, offering my reasoning or often referring them to the link above in the edit summary.
3. There is no "budding edit war" on Hungry Like the Wolf, nor was there on Joanna (song). If someone reverts a second time, I let it be unless the other editor has conceded through discussion. I've never approached WP:3RR. Country songs, in particular, seem to be off limits by a few select editors, and I've avoided remove them from those.
4. There is no consensus either to have or not to have succession boxes for #1 songs and albums. Thousands of articles have them, I've removed them from hundreds that haven't been reverted since. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Celibacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – we cool --Jayron32 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I got a negative response on my talk page from an IP that I warned for (what I believe to be) vandalism of Celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Dear Nlu,

I spent about an hour of my personal time to rewrite the intro of Celibacy. In comments, I have specifically stated that articles must be written in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. "Celibacy means having no partner" is very lame. Moreover, definitions were wrong. Yes, I also removed a source request there, which was not needed anymore anyway since I rewrote it.

You reverted my edit, came write about vandalism on my page, moreover, jumped to the last warning right off. I demand explanation within the next 24 hours, or I will a) revert YOUR edits and b) complain about your behavior to an administrator.

Thank you,

184.163.123.4 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This was my response:

Read WP:NPOV. Your "definition" of celibacy is not in accordance with neutral view of what the term means. If you continue to do what you've been doing, expect to be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I re-read 184.163.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edits on Celibacy, and I still believe that it was vandalism. However, I would like a second opinion on it. I'd also like a second opinion on whether I 1) should have given no response at all; 2) gave too harsh of a response; 3) gave too lenient of a response; 4) should reword my response. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits are not vandalism. They may have not belonged in the article, but vandalism is very narrowly defined as intentionally trying to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Insofar as the IP believes his edits to be improving the article, they are not vandalism. See WP:VANDALISM. Now, that does not mean that the edits are allowed, or should stay in the article. There are many things a person can do to run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and only a small subset of that is vandalism. Please do not call things vandalism when they are not, because it leads to undue bad feelings all around. --Jayron32 20:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified 184.163.123.4 of this thread. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, I believe it is vandalism because they were edits that the IP editor should have known to be not acceptable and still wrote anyway; note that WP:VAND's parts excluding bad edits from the definition of vandalism deal with good faith edits, which these are not. It is different from a situation where the IP editor's edits are only violative of, for example, WP:NPOV, but had done so without knowledge that his/her actions are violative. The edits were clearly made to provoke and to make an unwarranted point, and therefore count as vandalism as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk) 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Nlu, but I have to totally disagree. I don't see how the IP's edit counts as vandalism, by any stretch, so you'll have to explain your stance more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained — I believe the edits are vandalism because they were done in bad faith — and I believe that I also have indicated that I believe reasonable minds might differ on this. But in any case, what I am still not hearing is any additional thoughts on what should be done (if anything) as to this IP's edits. I am hearing no disagreements that the edits are inappropriate, so whether vandalism or not, the question now is what to do with them. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question took the "lame" definition of celibacy (the kind of explanation you would give to a child when you don't want to get into the gory details), and expanded it in an inaccurate direction. But it doesn't look like bad-faith, it just looks like the IP doesn't know what he's talking about, and that's not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how bringing my comment to a general discussion would resolve Nlu's incompetent action. Please explain to me how you consider my edit being of "bad faith". To me "bad faith" is intentional mischief on an article, which perfectly suits the definitions of vandalism. As I mentioned, I was rewriting the introduction, and unless you consider, among other things, me bringing in original research, unsourced material and claims, or subjectivisms, I see no way of you interfering with my edit. On a side note, none of your arguments, justified or not, can possibly explain why you jumped to a warning straight off, as on no occasions to my knowledge does Wikipedia have a final-warning-first policy, unless it is an edit consisting of vocabulary relating to the word "penis". And by the way, you have 12 hours left. Thank you, 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, reading your edit, it is clear to me that you are trying to redefine celibacy to mean 'being unmarried' - you even explicitly state that celibate people might have sexual intercourse, which is pretty much in contradiction to the standard definition of celibacy. While I don't think I'd call your edit vandalism myself, I can certainly see how it could look that way. You are clearly distorting the definition of the term to an exceptional extent, and it is only through a conscious effort of will that I can give the benefit of the doubt that you might actually believe what you wrote (which is the only thing saving this from actually being vandalism). --Ludwigs2 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I would call this "original research", however only if what you refer to as "standard" definition comes from a well-known dictionary. I was willing to include a paragraph that would state "do not mistake celibacy for sexual abstinence", as to my belief, and I do believe in logic and common sense, a celibate person can freely engage in a one-time sexual relationship with an individual, or to say so, lead a life of constantly engaging in sexual relations with different individuals. The key element of celibacy, to my point of view, is the absence of civil union, even if that union extends to the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". Also, a person deprived of sexual relations is not necessarily celibate, which proves by deduction of the contrary that thinking so is wrong, as many relationships within a civil unions can be of asexual nature. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP must gain a consensus on the talkpage, before implimenting changes to article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you treat IP like dirt? Maybe I'm just too lazy to log in. Geez, go outside sometime, people! 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your status is irrevelant, IPs & registered editors must get a consensus on a talkpage, so as to impliment such changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please indicate what policy you are referring to and since when is such a policy in effect? Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD - You Boldly made changes to the article. Your changes were Reverted & now you must Discuss why you wish to make the changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will henceforth inquire on this policy before editing other articles. Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not belive that the IP user was truely vandalising or acting in bad faith. From the way the edits look to me, I think that the IP was acting in good faith and trying to improve the article (regardless of whether any of it is the absolutely right definition or whether it follows the style guidelines), which is not vandalism, nor is it in bad faith. Vandalism and bat-faith edits mean that the edits are being made to disrupt, cause problems, etc. Trying to make the article better, whatever the style of the edits, is acting in good faith and is not vandalism. The IP user made the edits to the article, and Nlu reverted them. This may be a content dispute, so thus the matter needs to be taken to the talk page, so that the involved parties (and other editors) can discuss the changes, and come up with a consensus on whether to implement them or not. Is this not the way that we should properly handle content disputes? This is most likely something that needs to be discussed over at the article's talk page, as I do not se where any real administrator action is required. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, things are cool now. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks at User talk:Dylan Flaherty

With this edit by Anarchangel (talk · contribs). I think it sets a record for most admins/editors attacked in a single posting, hitting Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), Fcreid (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and myself. Anarchangel has already been warned several times about making personal attacks,[36][37][38] and here also appears to be trying to stir up trouble with an editor (Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)) who was recently topic-banned from Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Undo, maybe RevDel, block, move on. That's uncalled for. N419BH 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think RevDel would be a good idea. Kelly ^hi! 21:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section for now per WP:NPA, and left a level 4im warning at Anarchangel's talk. I think this edit meets the WP:RD2 and WP:RD3 criterion for revdel as it's quite degrading. I don't have the requisite buttons though so someone else will have to make the final determination. N419BH 21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NPA blanking is appropriate, revdel is not, given the way that diff documents aspects of a long-term edit dispute. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - those are personal attacks and there's no 'documenting aspects' of anything. It has no place anywhere on this project, and I've deleted the edit under WP:RD2. KrakatoaKatie 22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie - I see it's still in the history for the two subsequent revisions but I don't know if anything can be done about that. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The next revision needs to be revdel'd as well, and my blanking might need to be revdeled as well to get it completely cleared from the public archive. N419BH 22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly personal attacks deserving NPA blanking and maybe blocking the poster, but per WP:CFRD which says "not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" (emphasis as in original), revdel is inappropriate. The message made a bunch of disparaging comments about the editorial judgment and personalities of various users and admins, and it included a bunch of links to various news articles (cnn.com, washingtonpost.com, etc.) which had apparently been proposed for inclusion in the Sarah Palin article but rejected by opponents, i.e. it documents a content dispute. It did not contain any profanity, threats, wishes for anyone's personal misfortune, or anything like that. It just called people things like "arrogant tool", "major timewaster", etc., which is what I'd consider "ordinary" incivility of the type WP:CFRD specifically says not to revdel. So I think the revdel should be undone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, as I didn't see that it rose above ordinary incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad call, Sarek. That fully met the RD3 criteria, and to overturn another admin's actions without the slightest hint of discussion? In one edit we have grossly insulting four editors, and libelling a BLP. Courcelles 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It really, really didn't meet RD3. Nor are the BLP accusations of misconduct (with sources waved around, which may or may not substantiate them) obviously BLP violations when discussed on a talk page, never mind BLP violations warranted RD2 deletion. Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The post sets a record -- hitting BLP gross violations, including charges which would have to be instantly removed from any BLP, hitting NPA gross violation, and asserting that "every brain cell (I) have is turned towards evil" which rather reduces the amount of AGF I can provide the poster (heck - I am known for routinely opposing draconian punishments - which I would not feel obliged to oppose in such a case as this). Indef, I say. And mean it. BTW, it does, indeed, rise well above "ordinary incivility." Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was even a way to turn individual brain cells towards evil. Now of course I want to learn how to do it. ;-) 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much if the comment is stricken or not. The main thing is to prevent such gross incivility in the future, and a block would be a good start. I've been blocked for a hell of a lot less than calling other editors "evil" and "stupid". By the way, Anarchangel wrote: "Thank the stars Ferrylodge gave up WP." Anarchangel, if you're watching, please visit my user page.

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't rev-del it. It's a silly rant that serves to illustrate the editor's true colors. If rev-del'd, the editor's attitude might be harder to discern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Anythingyouwant, I'd support a 1 or 2 week block. Indef is excessive, as it is not a throwaway account. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the RevDels: We seriously need to back off on RevDeleting personal attacks. Personal attacks only reflect badly on the attacker, and there needs to be a public record of these things so that people who are not admins are free to read and judge for themselves when commenting here. This is twice in about a day that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill personal attack was deleted from the record, which is unacceptable. This is a clear over-application of the RevDel policy, and needs to stop. Because RevDel removes information so that non-admins cannot see it, it should be used VERY sparingly; overuse sets up a situation where non-admins are made to feel like second-class citizens, whose opinion doesn't matter. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be used in cases like this. --Jayron32 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Super-strength-family-size agree with Jayron32. Any trend to RevDeleting things which don't absolutely have to be RevDeleted (when blanking suffices, as here) should be stopped in its tracks. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with not revdeleting this and with a much more sparing use of revdelete. It's useful to have this sort of thing on the record when an editor becomes a continuing problem. Revdelete should be saved for the kind of thing that really makes even an experienced and jaded editor's eyes pop out of his head. I've had some personal attacks made against me that I certainly don't want revdeleted, in case I ever have more trouble with the same editor and need to show the community what sort of discourse he favors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Support - one week block, user needs to be aware comments such as that are personal attacks and will result in a removal of editing privileges, why some passing administrator hasn't seen the diff and just blocked for a week or so is hard to imagine. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment JW responded at [39] in reply to my query. Collect (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

JW is right. Anarchangel pulls this kind of personal attack all the time. You can go to his/her talk page (not talk page archives) and see warning after warning after warning for personal attacks. Anarchangel accuses one editor of "paranoid antii-UN fantasy", and says about another editor: "I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys. One or the other is in critical shortage". Now this, and still no block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "all the time" is overstated, but yes, those two PA's are there on the page. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• In light of this discussion I've blocked for one week with this proviso "Having reviewed the discussion and comments by various users, I have blocked you for one week. This block may be shortened if you give an unambiguous indication that you understand the reasons for it and won't engage in that type of abuse again. Alternatively, the block may be lengthened if your attitude is otherwise." Let's wait and see if the user clues up, adn then decide what to do.--Scott Mac 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an indication like that would be most welcome from Anarchangel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good block, given the past PA history visible on the user talk page. I started to think 1 week was a bit much for a 1-time incident, but I see there's already been a build-up. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats at User talk:Skovalinsky

Skovalinsky (talk · contribs) created her talk page imploring that Wikipedians "stop connecting the name 'SM Kovalinsky' with sock puppetry'. Skovalinsky proceeds to say that she was hired by some company in 2008 to write articles for clients and soon was banned. She threatens legal action if the supposed accusations of sockpuppetry persist. The sockmaster is Smkovalinsky (talk · contribs). While this may simply be a WP:DENY matter, should anything be done about the legal threats? Goodvac (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user must either withdraw the threat or face an indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even before seeing that I started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Wrong name concerning this issue. While the legal threat is unacceptable, this is an actual problem which we should address.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of not overlooking legal threats. I agree with Will's post at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations#Wrong name. Petrosianii is the older account, so it shouldn't be a big fuss to list him/her as the sockmaster. TNXMan 23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the sock tags are changed now. User:Smkovalinsky still has a tag, but as a sock instead of a puppet master. Since the username belongs to a live person, and other factors, I could see deleting that page outright.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This account claims to be a named living person, but provides no proof. This account has now posted the full name and address of that living person on their talk page, along with a lengthy rant about the purported misdeeds of another living person, again with no proof. Every post above assumes that this poster is who they claim to be, but without a molecule of evidence that it's true. The account should be blocked, their pages blanked, and the poster referred to OTRS. Only OTRS can adequately verify their identity. If this person is who they say they are, the OTRS volunteer can take the appropriate action; if they're not (if this is a joke, or a Joe Job) then we'll have done the right thing by removing the material that the real living person could, quite reasonably, find defamatory. Either way, BLP applies to user and talk pages too, and new accounts that appear and declaim "I'm XYZ and I'm mad as hell" shouldn't blithely be taken at their word. 87.115.159.188 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. How do we know you're really 87.115.159.188? You might also be spoofing. ;) If the user, real or otherwise, has further problems we can address them. I agree that blanking the two user and talk pages is reasonable, given all the circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with deleting the page as a possible outing attempt, and leaving a message advising the person to contact OTRS if they have a problem. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

 Jarkeld (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I created two templates today. I was intending to create a third when I discovered a repeated typo in the name of my subject, the subject of the templates. I am asking for Admin assistance to rename: Template:Roger Krodsma M55 Pentathlon to: Template:Roger Kroodsma M55 Pentathlon and: Template:Roger Krodsma M60 Pentathlon to: Template:Roger Kroodsma M60 Pentathlon Notice the extra "o" Thank you. Trackinfo (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a request for AN/I. WP:REQMOVE would have been the correct venue. Templates have been moved. Jarkeld (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock

• 66.71.97.39 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.71.97.40 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Antony1103/Archive

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: [40]. Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: [41]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

66.71.97.32/28 would be the range to block here. It's pretty small, but perhaps it would take care of this? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Trypto, do you think there is any chance this editor will do anything useful if unblocked? The history is somewhat difficult to parse. Looie496 (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HA (the blocking admin from SPI), thanks. Looie, I'm conflicted about this. It really looks to me like this person just wants to edit in WP:WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and they did some medium-competency work on Calcium reactor in the past. So, when I first got involved, my hope was that they would make a clean start and become a policy-abiding contributor. And there does seem to be some perception on this person's part that no one except me is willing to listen to them, and they just want to put their past behind them. But you will see at their talk that I tried very hard to get them to do this the right way, and they are pretty determined to ignore my advice. And I don't know the whole story of what got them blocked originally (the SPI archive seems to be incomplete). So I'd be hard pressed to endorse an unblock at this point. Previously, HA suggested to me at his talk to use WP:OFFER, but no unblock any time soon, and I suppose I could be talked into agreeing to mentor them if they came back under a pretty strict editing restriction (ie, no editing outside of aquarium fish), but I'm not confident about that, given what has happened so far. I'd be very much influenced by what other, uninvolved, community members think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(I haven't done the rangeblock yet; I'm curious to see that others think as well.) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

About that rangeblock, I should note that they say that they are at that IP through the end of the month (probably university semester), but will move to another IP in January. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• And now: TonyPSU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Blocked. Here's the part I'm not getting: in this edit, the user stated that "I went back to my account and protested the block", but I see no evidence of that on User talk:Antony1103. They were told on User talk:Toner89 (a confirmed sock) to go try on the original account, but all they did was blank their talk page. I don't really want to invoke WP:CIR here, but this is just getting worse and worse. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I also found that somewhat cryptic, but I think it refers, not to anything done since I started communicating with them, but rather to when they were first blocked, before the socking in response to the block began. I think they put a request to review the block on their talk, probably not very well thought out, and the reviewing admin (very likely correctly) declined, and that's what this is referring to. I've tried to go back and figure out what that was all about, and I'm afraid I haven't been able to piece it all together, because some of the record seems to have been deleted. I've seen mention of something about bad bots, no idea what that was, and I've seen the user make some incivil comments about those who blocked them.

I, too, am coming to the conclusion that this boils down to WP:CIR. But if you look at the last few diffs at User talk:66.71.97.39, the user may have made this decision for us, saying that they've decided not to edit here any more.

My advice at this point: go ahead with the IP rangeblock, including blocking new account creation, since we have no guarantee that they won't try again to come back. And then consider the matter closed and done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Timestamp. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Re: "I went back to my account and protested the block", User talk:Antony1103 has been blanked a number of times, and looking at previous versions reveals a number of old unblock requests, which I'd guess is what that comment refers to. Is there no possibility that this is someone who genuinely wants a clean start? Is there no way anyone can try to help rather than just saying "You didn't do it the right way, so go away" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

Lanternix (talk · contribs) has a long history of poor editing in topics related to Arabs as well as Christianity in the Middle East. The user has long been edit-warring to maintain the view that Egyptians are not Arabs. To give the latest example, at List of Arabs, Lanternix has been removing the names of all Egyptians, including Gamal Abdel Nasser (rvs: [42],[43],[44]). Because Lanternix believes that Egyptians are not Arabs, the user is forcing that view on every Egyptian. Never mind that Nasser considered himself an Arab, or that sources invariably call him an Arab (see for example the title of this book). Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him (rvs [45], [46], [47]). The user has also been edit-warring at the article titled Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. This article had been titled Arab Christians when others, hoping to put an end to Lanternix repeatedly removing any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article, agreed to rename it. This rename has not ended Lanternix's persistence in edit-warring on whether or not Egyptian Copts are Arabs. These are all of the edits Lanternix has made to that article since late November, see if you cant find a pattern: [48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55]. A similar edit-war has been taking place at Religion in Egypt with Lanternix and another user reverting one another without end or any discussion about the reversions (rvs: [56],[57],[58],[59],[60],[61]. In the article Egypt, the user has been edit-warring to include a passage for which there is not a single source cited, though the user laughably says in one edit summary that they are restoring "deleted referenced material" (rvs: [62],[63],[64],[65] (note the user has broken the 3RR on this article today). The user had edit-warred over this material in the past, and returned to reinsert it again a few days ago. The past discussion on the talk page is here. The user often makes no comments regarding their reversions in either their edit-summaries or on article talk page, choosing to only interact through the use of the undo link.

This user has repeatedly demonstrated an inability to edit in accordance with the policies of this website, regularly reintroducing poor sources and removing quality ones, edit warring until others are either exhausted or fed up to continue cleaning up their poor edits. I dont know what can be done about the user's editing short of a long block, but something should be done. nableezy - 01:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really funny how the user Nableezy is accusing me of things that he himself/herself does: edit warring, reverting for nor obvious reason, trying to impose pan-Arab labels on non-Arab people etc etc. I am totally willing to discuss matters and reach middle grounds, but I will not be doing so unilaterally. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 01:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - this issue seems a little complex for this noticeboard, a request for comment might be a more appropriate forum. Kelly ^hi! 04:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The issue is edit-warring across a range of articles, at times making edits such as this which can fairly be described as vandalism, edit-warring that includes a 3RR violation today at Egypt. If this board is ill-equipped to handle such an issue then I apologize. nableezy - 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I will comment only on edit warring on Egypt.Yes, Lanternix added not sourced info, but there are lots of sources that prove the added info.In his addition Lanternix linked to well-sourced Nag Hammadi massacre and Kosheh Martyrs. I am sure Nableezy knows about those articles . So at least some (most) information added to Egypt by Lanternix could be sourced, and should not have been removed from Egypt.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LouisPhilippeCharles avoiding block

This user User:LouisPhilippeCharles is blocked. But he is editing under his old account [66] User:Tbharding. - dwc lr (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, I have hardly caused a problem my fellow Wikipedians. If this is good bye, Adieu </3 The One And Only (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef'd the old account for block evasion. If they'd like to come back or have the block shortened, they need to work that out with their current account. Shell ^babelfish 03:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously blatant block evasion is not acceptable, and I know there have been a series of issues in the past, but I'd welcome a further attempt to reach a better resolution with this user if that is possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bush tax cuts

If there's anyone uninvolved on the subject left, could you take a look at Bush tax cuts? Thoroughgoodness (talk · contribs) moved it three times to Bush-Obama tax cuts, and after the third time, Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it to end the move warring. There's currently a move request open to move it from "tax cuts" to "tax rates", but a fair number of people (me included) have said to move it back to the original location. I don't know about starting a new discussion to move it back while the other discussion is still running. Also, I have notified Thoroughgoodness about the Obama article probation, which I believe he invoked by trying to hang Obama's name on that article, in defiance of pretty much all reliable sources to date. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Courcelles protected the page without reverting Thoroughgoodness's move first. :-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you know? Protection always happens when the page is on the wrong version! Kelly ^hi! 04:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is metaphysically connected with the theory that an open-faced sandwich always hits the floor jelly side down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend letting the move discussion play out, there seem to be plenty of editors working towards consensus without need for an immediate imposed solution. Kelly ^hi! 04:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Lets leave it where it is now, see where the discussion goes, and then move it to the most appropriate name once the discussion plays out. That is the textbook way this is supposed to be done, Courcelles handled this exactly right. --Jayron32 04:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• For what it's worth... Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Double L.O.L.! X-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

That's enough!! Any more bickering regarding this issue here will result in blocking. –MuZemike 09:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Likewise with the above. This waste of time should never have been brought to ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just now, User:THF reverted the removal of two tags from Charles G. Koch. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. The tags claim there are WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE issues, but two editors have tried for 6 days to get THF to list any open issues and he has refused. This is an example of tendentious editing and a violation of WP:NPOVD. Essentially, he is abusing tags to permanently mark the article with a badge of shame.
2. The edit comment reads "Reverted 1 edit by Dylan Flaherty (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by MBMadmirer. using TW". This is an abuse of the Minor status, an abuse of Twinkle, and a violation of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and most likely WP:NPA. This is entirely unacceptable under any circumstances, as it insults me by calling me a vandal.

I would like this dealt with promptly. Dylan Flaherty 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Promptly? Its a template removing spat - Usually it is better at ANI in cases like this where there is no immediate issue that is desirous of administration, it is better to take a little time for a look at the overall situation, there is discussion on the talkpage but no consensus that I can see for Dylan's removal of the templates, and it's not as THF claimed, vandalism to remove templates without consensus, its closer to disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 06:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rob has it right. If there's debate going on, the usual procedure is to leave the template in place until consensus is achieved; and reverting and re-reverting of potentially valid content is not "vandalism", it's edit-skirmishing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that it's not vandalism, which leaves the issue of THF calling me a vandal, twice. Dylan Flaherty 06:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he should not have called your edits vandalism. Now, what do you want done? --Jayron32 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misuse of the term "vandalism"; the correct characterization of the problem is slow-motion edit-warring. Four editors have added the tag, and Dylan persists in WP:IDHT and removing the tag in violation of WP:NPOVD. The extensive discussion on the talk-page demonstrates that there is not drive-by tagging by any stretch of the imagination; Dylan, however, several times a week, issues a demand that editors restate what has already been stated about problems with the article. THF (talk) 06:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm removing the tag due to WP:NPOVD, which does not permit leaving a tag on indefinitely as a badge of shame. Now that you've apologized, you can redact your accusation. Dylan Flaherty 06:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removal of maintenance templates is considered a type of vandalism (there are even warning templates especially for that issue), but yeah, this seems more like a content dispute and possible disruption by DF than a vandalism issue. It is bad form for Dylan to be removing the templates while the issues are being discussed, and I can see why the other editors' frustration level is rising. Kelly ^hi! 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, please be careful not to misstate the facts. It is bad form to leave tags on for weeks at a time without any clear list of items to be corrected. Thank you for trying to help. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is actually the same type of WP:IDHT behavior that led to Dylan's recent topic ban from Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See, now you're going from misstating facts to making inaccurate generalizations. Consider that multiple attempts[67][68][69] over the span of days were made to get THF to provide a list of issues, and all of them have been resisted. Clearly, if anyone is guilty of WP:IDHT, it's THF, and perhaps you. Dylan Flaherty 06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a personal thing, DF. Baseball Bugs is right on target. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused you of vandalism and called for a topic ban, that would be impersonal, right? Think it through. Dylan Flaherty 06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - As a note, WP:NPOVD is a wiki essay and as such it can't be violated and is not an excuse to remove templates without consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say to that, as it has no bearing on this discussion. But thanks for trying to help. Next time, you might want to do some research first. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to look up and see what you reported at this noticeboard just above, that , "This is an example of tendentious editing and a violation of WP:NPOVD." - as I said to you, it's only an essay.Off2riorob (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add the DF was involved in a conversation about an edit war to remove a similar tag. Here is the evidence: User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Removing_warnings where Magog the Ogre said: "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC is misrepresenting a separate incident -- one in which he (LAEC) was blocked for edit warring over a bias tag. He was attempting to use the tag as a bartering chip against talkpage consensus, and in bad faith. The quote from Magog was directed at TFD (who is not THF, though LAEC makes the switch below). LAEC's posts here are more examples of inappropriate piling on. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "in good faith". Excellent catch, there. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we have an admitted WP:AGF violation now, too. Anyone who thinks that I haven't discussed the reasons for adding the tag should simply review the talk page. Two other editors agreed with my assessment and readded the tag after Dylan edit-warred to remove the tag; others agreed with me on the talk-page. The problem here is WP:EW and WP:IDHT and WP:BATTLE by Dylan. He refuses to edit collaboratively, and wants to WP:OWN the page against consensus that his edits violate policy. That he's brought his one-man editing dispute to ANI and wasting editors' valuable time with this is further disruption. THF (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs for bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ask for what is already provided. Dylan Flaherty 06:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean where he called you a vandal? He already apologized for that. Is there any evidence besides that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology without a redaction is worthless. And, to be frank, it's not much of an apology, as it then falsely accuses me of edit-warring.

User:MBMadmirer is a big fan of Koch and has repeatedly brought up issues that he has with the article. Not everything he asked for was acceptable, but we've worked together to resolve the issues he's found. I mention this as a classic example of good faith editing.

MBMadmirer has joined me in asking THF to please list any open issues. We've tried for days now, with no effect. It's almost as if THF wants there to be uncorrected issues so that the tags remain indefinitely, as a badge of shame. I posted diffs of some of the more recent requests, as well a diff of the sort of evasive answers THF gives. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

THF says above, "Anyone who thinks that I haven't discussed the reasons for adding the tag should simply review the talk page. Two other editors agreed with my assessment and readded the tag....; others agreed with me on the talk-page." Is this not substantially accurate? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree: it's not substantially accurate. More accurately, THF is currently alone in claiming the tags belong, and he has been uncooperative in terms of offering any hint of what might induce him to join in the consensus against the tags. Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, care to respond (if you are not on vacation yet)? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, Dylan is lying: [70] [71] . See also the talk page, where I repeatedly listed my concerns with the article, editors agreed with me, and Dylan then claimed that I hadn't justified the tag. His 06:50 claim demonstrates his WP:IDHT. He actually left a remark on my talk-page thinking that this ANI discussion vindicated him, which shows how far he just doesn't get it. THF (talk) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for proving that you are still unwilling to follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Your argument ignores the diffs I posted, in which you are asked again and again and again to just post a list, and you have refused to do so. So, while I won't say you're lying, as that implies intent, I will certainly say that your argument is false. Dylan Flaherty 06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Kock Talk page for the first time, I think. I see TFD raising substantive concerns numerous times, e.g., in "POV tag redux". I'll have to agree with THF at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LEAC, then maybe you can help him out by doing what two of us have been asking him to do for days now. Take his "substantive concerns" and turn them into an actionable list. Until then, you'll have to pardon me for not taking that claim very seriously. Dylan Flaherty 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you asked me several times to post a list after I posted a list on 12 December, and while I was on a business trip. I then responded by pointing you to multiple threads that remained unresolved, something I have done a second time in a new thread. Your repeated demands that I repeatedly post a list that you then refuse to discuss is simply badgering harassment. Your lie is your false claim at 06:50 that I was the only one who wanted the tag: multiple editors reverted your edit-warring to remove the tag, and I provided the diff. Everyone here unanimously agrees that Dylan should drop this: admins, can someone close this disruption by Dylan or confirm that I don't need to waste time defending myself here? This is WP:CTDAPE when I have to spend hours on meta-conversations with vexatious accusations Dylan makes. THF (talk) 07:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Dylan Flaherty 07:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF, we are talking here about your removal of tags. You say he has provided no justification and applied them in bad faith. I have determined that he has provided justification and apologized for the vandalism claim. Game other. The tags stay, per my understanding of the Magog the Ogre quote I gave above and for other reasons. There is no additional hurdle TFD needs to jump to package them up into a list that you are demanding. Let's move on to addressing the issues raised. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC you're in no position to judge this situation. You misrepresented the quote above by implying that it was directed at Dylan. You (LAEC) were eventually blocked for that dispute over a tag. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting this as being about my removal of the badge of shame is a fine example of trying to boomerang this by blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 07:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PrBeacon, I was banned for restoring a BIAS tag I placed that several people edit warred to remove. I learned my lesson. So I have direct experience here. DF is wrong to remove the tag in this case. I base that on the discussion we had and my reading of Koch and my previous experience on exactly this topic. I supported that with direct quotes for the blocking admin directed to the one removing the tag I placed. Now DF is removing the tag. I am providing him with the benefit of my experience. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there wasn't much benefit. You were blocked [72] not banned. Then you continued to argue at the article's talkpage for several weeks. There are plenty of other more experienced editors who can judge the merits of this case, your presence here is more heat than light. It seems like you're only here to keep poking him. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. Yes, I was blocked, but as to your heat/light comment, the SPLC page to which I had added the BIAS tag because it looked like an SPLC advertisement turned out to be --- an advertisement. Numerous cases of massive direct copying from the SPLC were identified by me. Other problems of a lack of any criticism have been identified and addressed by numerous other editors. The page is substantially better now as a direct result of my adding that BIAS tag. I'm not poking--rather, I'm making effective changes and working with the community to make more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong again. The bias tag has nothing to do with copyvio problems, as others already told you. No one's adding criticism because of the tag dispute. Your continued attempts to take credit for current collaboration there are absurd. And rehashing it here is further disruption. If anything, it shows a parallel between the two cases, not the disconnect you keep repeating. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. The page looked like and was an advertisement. I added a BIAS tag for that reason. True, there was a better tag to add. But the purpose and the end result were the same and the page is vastly improved. I take credit because if you look at Talk you'll see others tried to do what I did for the same reasons and failed because of the buzzsaw of people protecting the advertisement. I simply persisted and broke through. As to disruption, you admitted on DF's Talk page that you are only writing here to spin me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating it over & over doesn't make it true. And you don't get credit. I did not say I what you claim at his talkpage. I am challenging your baldface lies because no one else is. Perhaps it's time we take the issue to WQA because you can't keep accusing other editors of this crap. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. It may be the only way to stop your spin machine that you wrote on Dylan's page you will continue to do until others join you. In the meantime, I am signing off for the night and will not be able to respond to your spin further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's your head that's spinning, because now you're just a broken record. What you see as 'spin' is what others are seeing as a collective reality -- which you've shown little regard for here or anywhere else. Apparently your book banning campaign spills over to other areas of censorship. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Waiting

I'm still waiting for this to be redacted. Dylan Flaherty 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming to ANI, starting vexatious threads, and making demands in a tone of righteous indignation is not going to go well. You'd do best to let this drop. --Jayron32 06:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd be fine with my using WP:NPA as a justification for redacting his insults? Dylan Flaherty 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what I mean is walking away from the entire issue, taking a few days to let things cool off, and then approaching the discussion at the article talk page with a cool head is what you should do. This entire thread is nonproductive. --Jayron32 06:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and how many days do you usually take off when someone falsely accuses you of vandalism and won't redact it? Dylan Flaherty 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's never happened to me, which should tell you something about how I tend to interact with other users. I also don't make demands for other people to redact anything. Things have never been said about me that I have felt need redacting. --Jayron32 06:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you've lived a charmed life. Great for you, but I'm not sure if it's provided the perspective necessary to understand this situation. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, even if you have the "right" to have the statements redacted, (I don't say that you do, I am merely conceding it for the point I am about to make), it doesn't make you look better by demanding that right. It only makes you look petty. If you want to come off looking better than people you are in conflict with, then don't act indignant and don't make demands. In fact, you look best when you ignore perceived slights, and move on with things. Even if you are in the "right" here (and I don't say that you are, I am merely conceding that you may be, just to make my point), then you overcome your own rightness by your behavior. Being right becomes less important in the face of the way you are acting. Eventually, people will stop coming to your defense even if they agree with you, solely because of the way you behave. --Jayron32 07:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing this. It sounds like you're suggesting that I should simply allow people to slander me and do nothing about it. But you can't be saying any such thing. Dylan Flaherty 07:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If what other say about you isn't true, it only reflects badly on them... --Jayron32 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe that at all, and it doesn't matter what I believe because the rules are quite clear on this. He abused Twinkle, he was uncivil and launched personal attacks. He needs to be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. In my humble opinion, your refusal to do that reflects poorly upon you. Dylan Flaherty 07:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have the rights to your opinions. It would not be the first time that someone has felt that I had done something which reflects poorly on myself. --Jayron32 07:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, I have the right to request that admins enforce the rules. I am asking that he be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. Are you refusing? Dylan Flaherty 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what you demand, merely because you demand it? If there is a consensus to sanction someone, via comments made by several editors, which indicate that someone deserves to be sanctioned, then admins will act. Admins don't block people just because one person makes a demand, no matter how forceful the demand. No, I will not block anyone because I don't see where there is any consensus among others that there needs to be a block. --Jayron32 07:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my demand or with consensus. This is a straightforward enforcement of the rules you are sworn to uphold. Admins do block people because they personally noticed that the editor broke the rules. Are you now claiming you lack the authority to block him? Dylan Flaherty 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that this conversation is going nowhere, and I am disengaging now. I can do no further good here. Other admins will read this and come to their own conclusions on how to proceed. Vaya con dios, Dylan Flaherty. --Jayron32 07:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you should be really careful about asking for a block, which would clearly be inappropriate here. Blocks are not punitive; per WP:BLOCK, they are preventative, to prevent disruptive editing. Like persisting in wasting editors' time with WP:TEDIOUS arguments after a consensus has developed against you, your edit-warring, and your WP:BATTLE tactics. WP:BOOMERANG might just happen if you keep asking for a block--especially since you are unapologetic about your own unclean hands. THF (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am, more than anything, reminded of how rape victims are treated on college campuses. They're told that pressing charges never works and will only make them look bad. In fact, the college just wants to hush things up so that it doesn't look bad. In the meantime, rapists escape to rape again. Dylan Flaherty 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:Battle and WP:Boomerang come to mind. Off2riorob (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall one time when I demanded an apology from a user. I don't do that anymore. It's about as likely to succeed as... as edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've been called a vandal and a liar. I fail to see why I should sit back and accept such treatment. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the price of fame. But if they call you an "upstart", then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a more serious response at this time, or none at all. Dylan Flaherty 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Um, folks, with this edit here[73], Dylan has once again done something he has been told repeatedly no to do: refactor (in this case removing) the comment of another editor, LAEC. I'm tired of correcting him on it, so someone else should probably restore the comment... Doc talk 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF. That was not something I did; it was a merge error by Wikipedia. Dylan Flaherty 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given the above, it's rather difficult to, especially since edit conflicts are in regards to two editors editing the same section, and there is usually(re, always), a notice that comes up speaking of said edit conflict. Given this was in a different section, it's difficult to see that happening. Further, if there was an edit conflict, it comes into question why you chose to let the comment be deleted.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC restored it. It was there before your edit and it was gone after your edit. And you are known for refactoring comments. Sheesh... Doc talk 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF's comment came at exactly one minute after LAEC's, so I can see an edit conflict happening, however, that does not explain why DF decided to not restore LAEC's comment, as as we all know, the Edit Conflict notice displays the new text and your text, showing you what was there, and giving you the chance to add in your edit again as well as the text of the person you came into conflict with.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Please consider assuming good faith on the comment removal. It is a problem with the edit conflict handling part of the MediaWiki software, I believe. I had it happen to me once, and almost warned the user for it, but another user had already asked if it was an 'oops', and it was. Accedential comment removal can be easily mistaken as a bad-faith edit. If the user was adding a comment in seperate section from the removed comment in the same edit, then it may very well be an accendential removal, and not a bad-faith edit. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Daedalus969, from what I remember, I had come back and discovered that my comment had been accedentially removed. The problem can easily occur without the user even knowing that they accedentially removed the other user's comment, especially if the latter comment is in a seperate section or thread from the former (when it happened to me, the otheruser was editing in another thread. It happened right here at waaaaay-too-busy A.N.I., also). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is something that has come up quite recently with Dylan[74], however. This isn't about failure to AGF on my part: he has a habit of removing the comments of others. Doc talk 08:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright; I'll resume AGF'ing for now.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the many edit conflicts, Doc. I got two edit conflicts when I posted my first comment, the second one containing Daedalus's comment. I continued with posating my original comment, and then did a seperate expansion in reply to Daedalus. When I then posted it, I noticed that there was no newline, so I fixed it. Then I noticed a typo, which I then corrected. I had no more edit conflicts in those 3 edits after my original comment. There was also another user who commented in the midst of my edits. They really need to add a feature to the MediaWiki software that shows whether someone else is currently editing or not (especially on a waaaaay-too-busy page, like here at A.N.I.). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this sure is taking WP:BOOMERANG to new lengths! I have a solid track record of taking full credit or blame for what I actually do, as opposed to what happens due to bugs. The fact that even this is pounced on just goes to show how far the blame-the-victim mentality of bad faith pervades this page. Dylan Flaherty 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is against you, just drop it now. As to your track record, I wouldn't say that's entirely true, and you know exactly why.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea, but I'm not asking, either. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan: I think you confuse WP:BOOMERANG with something else. Only an editor can "shoot themselves in the foot": it's not about the perception that others are doing it to you or "turning things around" on you. You opened this report, and it is not going your way. You can blame others, but this is a "boomerang"... Doc talk 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, and what's happened here is that I walked in and was shot in the foot. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what that means. It means you walked in and shot yourself in the foot. Really, just stop.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this conversation

I think "Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism" has proven to be false or has been apologized for. Perhaps someone should close this conversation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for LAEC to be asking for this closure? He has a dog in the fight. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's wildly inappropriate, but this whole report has been mishandled from the start, so just let it go. Dylan Flaherty 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But wait! Dylan just compared me to a serial rapist in his 07:36 comment. Does this mean I should hold ANI hostage for several hours and hector several administrators to take punitive action? Unlike him, I'm not here for WP:BATTLE and am now disengaging, but I do hope an admin eventually does something about his edit-warring and disruption and tendentious wikilawyering complaints. I'm not the first victim of his harassment; see also the frivolous WP:WQA complaint he made this week. Dylan has a very bad habit of provoking editors with WP:IDHT, and then throwing a disproportionate fit when they step a toe over an imaginary line, despite having been warned multiple times by multiple administrators that this is counterproductive. THF (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clear to anyone that it is not accurate to suggest that I compared you to a rapist. I'm also not shocked that you're eager to close a report that is, as hard as it may be to believe, against you. Dylan Flaherty 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The report has been proven false, and one particular incident has been apologized for. Time to move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not true. But thanks for trying. Dylan Flaherty 08:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict)))Partly true, actually; it's time to drop the stick. You aren't going to get your demands.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that your report of THF's "drive-by tagging" is true? We know your report of being called a vandal is true, but THF apologized for that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nether of those are true, but for people who claim they want this dropped, you sure are verbose. It's obvious that the admins here are not going to follow their own rules. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply claiming something doesn't make it so; consensus is pretty obvious, and if you don't drop it, Dylan, it will surely boomerang on yourself.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it when you threaten me. Never stop. Dylan Flaherty 09:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, claiming there is an "intentional boomeranging""[75] here again shows that you are not understanding what "boomerang" means. Or that blocks are not punitive. Read the essays/guidelines/policies: don't make up your own interpretation of them. Doc talk 09:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Might want to stop pushing your luck sometime soon, Dylan, before it bites back. Sooner or later, if you keep going, some admin is probably going to go rogue on you. And I mean that in the either the most threatening way possible or the least threatening way possible, whichever gets you to disengage. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I didn't threaten you, I just told you what you were already told by an admin; drop it or something will happen. Do I really need to cite the diff, when it is so clearly posted above?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting

At this point, I've been falsely accused of edit-warring, vandalism, lying and removing other editor's words. Does anyone assume good faith? I know I certainly assumed the admins were acting in good faith, but they've collectively chosen to endorse this feeding frenzy by allowing THF to go unpunished. Dylan Flaherty 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't going to stop unless something is done,

Per the above; this user has been told several times now to stop beating the dead horse, but they continue drag it on and demand something they won't be given. Given they were already warned to stop, I believe they need a stern-er reminder.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. -- This may surprise you, but I don't recommend blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The only blame that exists is the blame on yourself; only you are dragging this on with your demands, and there are only two ways to stop it; you do so voluntarily or you are made to do so.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to Agree. This page is a "Dylan sandwich", with lengthy bookend threads devoted to him. And now no one is assuming good faith here? This is getting kind of obvious... Doc talk 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Really now, this is ridiculous...I only read the bottom half third of this thread (so I don't even know what started this) and still got a good enough glimpse of Dylan refusing to lay off that I would agree with Daedalus here. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that this thread has been dead since the admins refused to enforce the rules. I wrote "Still waiting" and walked away, only to find these people still talking, and mostly just talking trash. This will go away when they let it.

In any case, if you've only read the bottom half, then you're not in any position to comment. We have enough trouble here with hasty conclusions; let's not add to it. Dylan Flaherty 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction, you were told to drop the issue after you created the 'waiting' sub thread by several users and an admin or two; instead, you proceeded to create another thread on the exact same matter. That is not 'walking away'. That is continuing to beat an already dead horse, a dead horse that by now is pretty much a smudge on the grass.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making hasty conclusions; I saw the dead horses you've left in your wake, so to speak, and had a large enough body count to make my own conclusions as to this point (I read starting at the bottom and moving up). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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