Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 740: Line 740:
*'''Endorse''' community ban. Should have been done before. Attempting (poorly) to destroy Wikipedia is, i'm afraid, not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">[[User:Firestorm|<span style="color:black">'''''Firestorm'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Firestorm|<span style="color:red">'''''Talk'''''</span>]]</sup></span> 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
*'''Endorse''' community ban. Should have been done before. Attempting (poorly) to destroy Wikipedia is, i'm afraid, not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. <span style="font-family:Copperplate Gothic Bold">[[User:Firestorm|<span style="color:black">'''''Firestorm'''''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Firestorm|<span style="color:red">'''''Talk'''''</span>]]</sup></span> 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* '''Endorse.''' — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
* '''Endorse.''' — [[User:Athaenara|Athaenara]] [[User talk:Athaenara| ✉ ]] 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The consensus here is clear and I have enacted this ban. I don't think this is cutting anything short. Discussion can continue and in the unlikely event that consensus changes then we can act on that. [[User talk:Chillum|<font color='black'>'''Chillum'''</font>]] 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


=== Diffs? ===
=== Diffs? ===

Revision as of 01:41, 3 August 2009


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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

    Drag-5

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

    Resolved
     – Blocked again for 3RR. Further reports should be made pursuant to the dispute resolution process. ANI is for serious matters that need immediate attention. Nja247 12:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

    I'm doing this in a new section because the old one is just a back and forth between a handful of users and this needs more serious input that is not disrupted by the subject, necessarily. For the tl;dr crowd, skip down to the Cliffs notes.

    Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. He had previously move warred over the location of Kamen Rider Decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), moving it to an alternate title four times until the page was protected from being moved again. During that time, he made these incivil and disruptive comments [1] [2]. Following a discussion where it was shown he had no consensus, he began a requested move discussion on the talk page. This is resulting in him still having no consensus for his request.

    Tonight is when the actual violation of WP:POINT began. He began a requested move discussion for the article Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which in the past had been moved from Ninpuu Sentai Hurricanger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) when several articles were renamed to match official romanizations from the parent company. This is a violation of WP:POINT because "Hurricanger" was for the longest time the title used by the Latin alphabet-using online communities, so he is making a point by stating that one page has an official title as its name and the other one has one that he deems is not official because of the existence of an English translation (despite various users on the talk page bringing up evidence proving him wrong). He is also following his actions on a different website concerning the spelling of this particular item, but that does not necessarily have to be brought up in detail in this discussion unless anyone wants any specifics.

    The Cliffs Notes

    Drag-5 is violating WP:POINT by pointing out the disparities of the use of the more common romanized title (but not official English title) on one page and the official romanized title (but not the more common unofficial title) on another by requesting page moves. This coupled with his inability to work with other users constructively, civilly, and calmly ([3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) should be more than enough for a block of some sort.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ryulong seems to be constantly attacking me and removing my comments and using foul methods to block what is an innocent following of wikipedia procedures.
    ryulong seems to show a personal bias towards me characterised by repeated references to thing that exist in my personal life. he does not concentrate on the articles and the discussion of editing rather he makes comments towards myself.
    I am feeling a very strong harrassment by this user and this is proof of it.
    I have requested the moves on illustrated pages for sound logical reasons according to wikipedia guidelines and have produced evidence to back up my cases. I have made no comments that remotely support any theory that i may be trying to prove some point. my actions are focused on making wikipedia a more full and complete information source as they should be.
    I was quite bold with my original mmove of said page. this is according to wikipedia policy. we are meant to be bold. when ryulong reverted my edit i perhaps should have not reverted it straight away, I cannot change what i did at that time, but since those reverted edits i have acted according to wikipedia policies completely. ryulong, however, seems to continually attack me and use personal information to try and block my discussions and he even has removed some of my comments on hte discussion page without my permission. Drag-5 (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, this is getting way out of hand. He and I have been edit warring over the inclusion of the move request at Talk:Ninpuu Sentai Hurricaneger, because we both claim that we are violating different policies. He is accusing me of violating WP:TPNO and I still feel the request is a violation of WP:POINT. I would like something definitive to happen and I don't care if we both get blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My impression is that the both of you have managed to make bogeymen out of each other and you are both taking it far too seriously. Also, in my experience, the common names rule usually trumps the official name. —harej (talk) (cool!) 07:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but google is confusing, as there are more results for the official name than there are for what he is claiming is the more common name. So it seems that the more common name is the one where the page is currently located.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the lead of CliffsNotes to be enlightening. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know. I always thought they were "Cliff's Notes".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Shazam! I had thought it was "CliffNotes" until just now. I expect they are called CliffNotes because that's a little easier to say than CliffsNotes. However, I never read Cliff(s)Notes in school. I tended to read the condensed versions, by John Moschita. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In any case, the specific nature of the personal attacks from Drag-5 likely say a lot more about Drag-5 than they do about anyone else. "TMI!" :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The disruption on his part (edit war aside) is obvious, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryulong reported for 3RR

    Just to let everyone know, Ryulong's been reported for 3RR violation here. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    By a user who I'm a dispute with several hours after the edit war had ended after I compromised and allowed the move request to go on because Drag-5 was most certainly not going to give up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How to solve it?

    I suggest an RfC over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu that would include all the recent naming disputes in that set of articles. An admin could be asked to close the RfC, with the expectation that blocks or move protection could be used to see that the verdict is followed, whatever it may be. After this RfC there could be a moratorium on new move proposals for any of the Tokusatsu articles for a period of time. I urge both parties to stop move warring, Ryulong to stop edit warring and Drag-5 to lay off the personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. this would be the best course of action. I laid off the personal attacks almost immediately so i can assure you that is no longer an issue. I would be very happy for an admin to see over this. also I would be very happy to get some unbiased editors who know wikipedia policies and guidelines well.Drag-5 (talk) 01:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is already a consensus on both talk pages that the articles are fine as to where they are. There do not need to be any moves of any articles anywhere, mostly because any subsequent requests by Drag-5 would indeed be intentions to make a point, although not necessarily disruptive. There is already no consensus to set a precedent and rename everything in Category:Kamen Rider, which was Drag-5's initial intentions. The subsequent request at Talk:Hurricaneger was a reaction due to the results of one requested move and a mutual knowledge of his activities on another website (which I reference here).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    there is no consensus on either page yet. consensus at the most basic level is an agreement. ther eis still no agreement oon either of these pages.Wikipedia:ConsensusDrag-5 (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a supermajority/consensus not to move at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. A consensus for what you don't want is still a consensus.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also agree that a RfC would be good. Powergate92Talk 02:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like Ryulong, Drag-5 and Powergate92 would have to agree to ask an uninvolved administrator to study all these discussions and see if there is consensus on the article names. (You'd all be prepared to accept the answer, whatever it was). If the admin thinks there was not enough discussion to resolve this, a further RfC or further move discussions would need to be set up. If so you'd all agree to support that. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Powergate92 is really an uninvolved party who just gets himself involved in everything. I brought the discussion here because I was waiting for someone to do something regarding Drag-5's WP:POINT violations, as I saw them. There is currently a supermajority against the move on one page, and I feel that the move on the other page is the WP:POINT issue as I state higher up at The Cliffs Notes (also there's very little input from other individuals on the second request).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You do not appear to have read Wikipedia:Consensus as it states quite clearly, concensus is not in numbers. EdJohnston, I support an admin checking over the discussions. Drag-5 (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus is against you. And if an uninvolved administrator has to look at the discussions, that is what their placments at WP:RM should be for.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support an admin checking over the discussions. Powergate92Talk 03:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryulong, Do you agree to abiding by an admins decision in this matter? Drag-5 (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What decision will be made? There's a general agreement that you are wrong on one page and no discussion on another. An admin does not have to decide anything like that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The decision will be if there is consensus for move or if there is consensus for no moveDrag-5 (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Renewed disruption

    So, Jafeluv (talk · contribs), an entirely uninvolved user, came by and closed the discussion as "no move". Drag-5 did not think this was right because of how he interprets WP:Consensus. I undid the edit, and began this thread on his talk page. He undid me again (currently the next edit is a comment by someone else in a different thread on the page). This is extremely disruptive behavior, especially with this renewed thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    i used the dictionary definition of consensus. also the wikipedia page says that consensus was not in numbers. we were not agreeing so there was no consensus. Drag-5 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Drag-5 continues to undo other's closes.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Take 2 where he clearly exhibits his lack of knowledge as to how WP:Consensus works: [10] [11].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User:Will Beback (Administrator)

    (Moved from WP:AN)

    I came across User:Will Beback on the Ridgecrest, California article. This user and others deleted allot of stuff in this article to get back at a user that they blocked. I wanted to add some of the stuff they deleted back and this user reverted it 4 times Potentially violating the three revert rule and then protected the article saying there been Vandalism , Witch there has not. This is what the article look like before they tore it up SEEN HERE. This what it look like now SEEN HERE. I just don’t think its fair for this Administrator to do what they been doing. I request that some of the info to be added back and the article not be protected. One more thing is this Administrator blocks users if they don’t like the IP address or user. I know frst hand.--71.105.39.114 (talk) 01:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well first of all you're not doing yourself any favors with comments like this which come off as rather uncivil. Nor is edit warring a good idea, which you are both doing. This does seem to be a content dispute and not a simple case of vandalism, and I think Will Beback was likely wrong to refer to it as the latter, though I could be convinced otherwise. It does seem rather inappropriate for Beback to have protected the article, since he is clearly working on the content rather than simply reverting "vandalism" (see the July 25th edits for example) and therefore too involved to lock out IP editors from the article. If 71.105.39.114, who again is clearly edit warring and needs to go to the article talk page and work it out there, has even a 5-10% legitimate point about some of the content than Beback's decision to protect the article has essentially given him an advantage in a content dispute.
    I'd like to see what Will has to say here - I'll check and see if he's been informed - but probably the article should be unprotected, and then re-semi-protected by another admin if necessary, and all parties should go to the talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken a look at the history and Will Beback's edits look fine to me. It is 71.105.39.114 readding and then edit warring over things that isn't cool. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite possibly, but the question is whether there is, to at least some degree, a legitimate dispute about content, which at least for me is hard to ascertain after looking through the disputed edits. If so then the edit warring is bad on both ends, and the semi-protection by Will was probably inappropriate since he is involved. Right now it looks a bit like that to me but I could be wrong, and regardless I'll wait to hear what Will says. I've informed him of this thread. However this shakes out it does not strike me as a major issue at all, and probably could have been avoided had both parties gone to the talk page sooner (Will ultimately did, whereas the IP editor started this thread instead). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can kinda see where Will was coming from though, with things being completely reverted over and over, I can see where he thought immediate protection was necessary. I don't think complete protection was necessary though. I also can see where he should have asked another admin since he was involved to lock the page down for him. But, I don't think it was a big deal that he locked the page down himself since there was vandalism edits going on. I don't think he should do it again though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to take a less strident approach with User:71.105.39.114. If they establish a user account, I'd be happy to mediate in some way, if at all helpful. No need to scare away everybody who has a rough start, is there? Two cents... Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely. Re-reading my first comment I can see that came out harsher than I intended. And even if they do not start an account, if they have legitimate points/concerns about the article content than User:71.105.39.114 is obviously just as entitled to edit as anyone else. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    New editors sometimes have a rough start in Wikipedia, for various reasons. I committed a copyright vio when I first started editing as an IP, but fortunately the responding admin patiently explained the policy and let it go at that. We should handle new editors with kid gloves at first. Cla68 (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bigtime, the IP did take a threatening tone, so your chastisement was timely. Cla86, I'm glad I had some interested people helping me at first. The best way to describe WP sometimes is morass. Although I am surprised at newly minted IP's who navigate so well into the treacherous waters of the various administrator notice boards! Let's try to get our -presumably- young IP friend to calm down a bit. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this an administrator issue anymore? Can we just resolve this and just let this happen in the appropriate venues, where it appears to be going anyways? --Jayron32 02:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, I only started editing this page the other day, so I'm not familiar with the full history that the IP user is talking about. I protected the page due to the IP's use of a false edit summary, [12], and his blind reverts. The editor appears to have been edit warring over the past several months and to have ownership issues along with a chip on his shoulder about the past interactions. I've asked him on his most recent talk to discuss his edits. Except for downgrading the rating of the article, it appears he's never used the talk page. If he would discuss his edits with the other editors I'm sure this could be resolved more easily.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, too, this message in which he implies that he can't be blocked due to shifting IPs.[13]   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If the IP editor is referring to his or herself with the last diff then that's clearly no good, and the cited edit summary did seem to be misleading (although some stuff was removed). You seem to be admitting though that this was not vandalism, since you protected "due to the IP's use of a false edit summary," and as such I don't think it was appropriate for you to protect the article since you were not simply reverting a persistent vandal. I fully agree that discussion needs to happen on talk, but perhaps you can unprotect for now, and if the IP returns to revert I'm sure you can quickly find an admin to block for edit warring (you should not be the one to do it). If the IP editor starts talking on the talk page or just lets things stand as they are now then we're all good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've unprotected the article. Let's see what the editor does.   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a charade. This editor (The one behind the IP) and his socks have approached exhausting my somewhat limited patience for silliness. While semi-protection might have been a premature tactic to combat further vandalism, such as deliberately adding false material[14], this editor (MasterUser:Michael93555 is well versed in Wikipolicy, has openly declared his desire to have me blocked [15] and cannot accept that they have been blocked for sockpuppetry) actually succeeded in having an innocent user blocked through deception (see here and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael93555/Archive)). This IP hopping user's intimacy and distortion of their own history as evidenced here plainly show malicious intent and a desire to manipulate everyone they come in contact with. If more evidence is needed I can provide it. Leave Will alone, he has acted within policy at every step of the way.Synchronism (talk) 09:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm, Ho is this User:Synchronism. How did this user get involved. I don’t even know them. I never talk or seen this user before. I never made a user name and I am not a block user.I think they think I'm someone else--71.105.181.222 (talk) 18:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This si the first I've heard of User:Michael93555, but now that I look it's quite clear that the IP user is him. The tone and word usage are very similar, as are the topics of interest. The IP is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. I think a range block may be needed.   Will Beback  talk  19:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that that would be a good idea. But if you do the range block you would be blocking thousands of people and they wont be a able to edit. Do you think that I'm worth all of the clitoral damage. I know for a fact you all can't do a range block. But, I may be wrong. I hope you make a right choice. I don’t want to be responsible for this.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll do my best to avoid any "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The preceding comments must be recorded for posterity after this discussion closes... Shereth 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My Disclaimer
    • I given good faith edits and with due care, but I accept no responsibility for the range block , either directly, indirectly, or implied. Any person or organization who is range blocked.. whatsoever, I tell them is not my fault.--71.105.181.222 (talk)--209.44.123.5 (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you guys need an uninvoled admin to institute a rangeblock, just compile a list of IPs somewhere, either as a subpage or email them to me if you want to avoid a BEANS issue. I'll set something up. And I will avoid any "clitoral damage". I'll be gentle, honey. It won't hurt a bit... --Jayron32 22:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's pleasing to know all proxy users seem to lack intelligence; they basically scream 'Hey stupid, I'm over here!' and then wonder how they got caught so fast. HalfShadow 22:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He was kind enough to leave a list of his recent IPs in this taunting message, [16], though they're fairly obvious.   Will Beback  talk  22:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I told you all that I can not be blocked. I think it’s a good idea to just to leave me alone and maybe you see that I'm not a big as a problem as you all are making me out to be. I'm a editor that wants be turned into a productive contributor, if I were "taken into hand" so to speak. That is, treated with some patience and a little kindness...--71.105.181.222 --209.44.123.1 (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, enough "fun" from the anon, a range block should be immediately put in place. The user is obviously not here for anything good and with posts that start with "I told you all that I can not be blocked", there is nothing good that can come from it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I think 209.44.123.1 is a seperate user from 71.105.39.114. 209.44.123.1 is located out of Laval, Quebec, Canada while 71.105.39.114 is located out of Victorville, California. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are open proxies all over the world.   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I think it might be high time to start finding them and shutting them down. The ones this anon is using to start. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest re-semiprotecting the Ridgecrest, California article. Cardamon (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Here are some of the Verizon online ones I used.

    • Doesn't it suck... that you guys can't block me. I have over 1,000,000 IP address all over the world. It will take 1 to 2 years to block all of them at the rate we are going here.--Chris Avery (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not that much good coming out of Tampa, Florida anyway, is there? Not that we should believe what he says.... --Alvestrand (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think he used any of those. Many haven't been used in years. I think he's just trying to get us to cause "clitoral damage".   Will Beback  talk  00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikifan12345's personal attacks on Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2009

    There has been a ongoing discussion on this talk page between myself, Wikifan12345, O Fenian, GeorgeWilliamHerbert, SeanHoyland and Seb az86556 about whether classifying incidents as terrorist without a supporting source is orginal research or not. I'll be honest -- I proposed significant changes that have been met with criticism (and some support); however I have continued to discuss the matter civilly and refrained from editing the article while discussions continue.

    Wikifan12345, on the other hand, is disruptively repeating personal attacks against me. He keeps bringing up "Jews", arguing that I am a "manic" anti-Semite. I don't thnk my character or mental health is really relevant to the discussion.

    Here are some excerpts: "Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV "... "everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel" ... "Or whether killing Jews in the Jewistan is justified under the ambiguous"..."Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews."

    Nobody else on the talk page seems to agree with his attacks and he has been repeatedly warned by GeorgeWilliamHerbert to stop the personal attacks. I am tempted to just erase the personal attacks myself, but I know he would just edit war against me. I did remove some Israeli incidents from the article in ONE revert, but to interpret that as a vendetta against Jews is nonsensical. Factsontheground (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This unfortunately came to my attention after the HRW ordeal. I think Wikifan12345 is being extremely belligerent in the RfC on that talk page. But in some cases I don't think your behavior has been much better. I would suggest that both of you take a break for a little while as the "terrorist incidents" RfC looks completely useless for its designed purpose and more like a war zone. I am not an admin so I can take no action, but for the moment it seems that tempers are way too heated to be productive. Awickert (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not angry but I have no interest in edit-warring if that is what you are suggesting. I just hope FOTG won't follow me to the next article I edit. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest speedy close. Moving legitimate content dispute to an ANI is dubious. FOTG has been following me around since last week, to BBC and HRW. I accused him of being "manically obsessed" with Jews and Israel because he edit-warred out almost all of the incidents in Israel without a single post in talk. 1 2, 3, 4, 5, and that is just a sample. History of edits at 2009.
    • The summaries were lacking, with rationales like "Source does not categorize incident as a terrorist attack." In fact, more than half of the sources explicitly referred to the acts as terrorist incidents. I mean, he removed a incident that involved an Al-Qaeda cell. Can we all agree Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization? :D
    • Then when I reverted the page back to a non-dispute state and ask that he explain his edits more thoroughly in discussion, he edit-warred again and accused me of original research.

    Real mature. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The content dispute is a separate issue. This is about a behavioral dispute. Anger or no, comments like "real mature" are vindictive, and likely to score you negative brownie points here. Now if you are suggesting that FOTG is being very WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and is wikistalking to push your buttons, that's another matter. The content dispute can stay on the RfC on the page, but I don't think I'll have any argument when I say it's going nowhere, so this is to handle the behavioral issues and get things back on track. Hopefully. Awickert (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As a number of people have agreed on the talk page and elsewhere, the article should only list incidents that are described as terrorism by a reliable source. Although it may appear obvious to you that an incident is terrrorism, that is not how Wikipedia works. Addition need to be supported by a source or justified on the discussion page. And I can't believe you are still complaining about edits I made a week ago! They have long since been reverted (by you and others) and the discusssion has moved on.

    You seem to think that instead of participating in the discussion you can derail everything by continually attacking me.

    Factsontheground (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC) Also the so-called "Al Qaeda" cell was actually belonging to the Janud Ansar Allah organization as the reference [states http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1244371116416]. Factsontheground (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    They updated the posting, it originally referred to the group as belonging to a Al-Qaeda cell. Either way, it is still a terrorist attack as confirmed by the article. But when "Al-Qaeda" was painted all over the article last month, you still removed it. You simply did not read the article and deleted everything remotely Jewish.

    Also, The Jerusalem Post is a reliable source. Most of the edits you removed described the incident as acts of terrorism, and yet you continue to deny this. A couple hours ago I restored only some of the edits that were 100% confirmed and obvious, but there are a couple others but should be debated - not viciously warred out. It is rather odd for you to suddenly feel a sense of emotional distress when you've routinely cast me as a troll, pro-Israel warrior, POV-commander, etc...etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to continue the content dispute here. It's not the place for it. All I want is for your personal attacks on the talk page to stop.

    So far you haven't even admitted that your behaviour has been wrong in any way. I don't think you have any insight into why people find it offensive when you continually accuse them of being "obsessed with Jews". Factsontheground (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you for real? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the place for this issue. AN/I is not a part of the DR process. IronDuke 14:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    From looking at the RFC on the article talk page it seems that FOTG's complaints about personal attacks have some basis (though some of the quotes would need diffs to substantiate them); and Wikifan's response seems to be aggression, not regret or discussion or understanding. Besides those FOTG mentioned, Wikifan repeatedly calls him a vandal and claims he "manically removed" sources, even bolding "manically". And his general attitude on the page is confrontational, rather than seeking a resolution. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Incidentally, in case there was any doubt about what Wikifan meant by those comments about FOTG in relation to Jews and Israel, a week ago in relation to the same dispute he wrote "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Which WP:ANI let slide, despite the blatant violation of WP:NPA. Rd232 talk 19:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing new apparently

    I don't know anything about this particular dispute but this is not the first time Wikifan12345 has engaged in unacceptable behavior as part of such a dispute. Not long ago I was having a hard time dealing with this editor myself and tried getting help on another board. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345. Perhaps both editors need warnings but Wikifan12345 may need mentorship or something similar.PelleSmith (talk) 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    AN/I and similar are littered with reports about this user, as any regular viewer of these boards can attest. Perhaps it is about time to consider larger sanctions, as polite warnings do not seem to be getting through. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle smith, like most of the users here, had a major content dispute and what warring CAIR beyond belief. He removed every single one of my edits, and then he accused me of being a troll for question his massive deletion of material with dubious summaries (OR, undue). I have since left the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment—Whether Wikifan was out of line or not, it is important not to give immunity to the editor who started this ANI, who has also been engaged in highly disruptive behavior, and has also tried to bring a content dispute into this ANI post (inappropriate). I suggest giving a more thorough examination of both users' editing patterns, instead of focusing on a single editor. —Ynhockey (Talk) 16:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding the content dispute - I wandered over there as an uninvolved admin and at this point, we have multiple uninvolved admins reviewing, pushing back on both sides and looking for a best policy / best content solution.
    I will leave to other admins a review of both primary parties' behavior here and there (and recommend both be reviewed). I prefer to either deal with a content / policy problem or a user / policy problem, but not both aspects of the same incident, to avoid COI on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think its appropriate for a comparison to be made between these two users. Wikifan has a block log that is quite shockingly long for such a short time editing here and the use of personal attacks constitutes his primary mode of communication. Every time he is brought to the board, there are editors who try to deflect attention from his behaviour by calling for a more thorough examination of the complainant. Not right. Not right at all. Tiamuttalk 20:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all the blocks are from edit-warring, and mostly came to be as a result of involved parties reporting me. It really cannot be applied here IMO. ChriO has his sysops removed because he had a major COI and was blocking several editors at Israel and the apartheid analogy with little warning. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are the one who steps over the line, it doesn't matter who reported you; you were at fault for violating editing guidelines. And I believe ChrisO resigned the admin the bit in the wake of the Macedonia2 ArbCom case. It had nothing to do with the article on Israeli apartheid. Tarc (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support trying to do something about Wikifan. His editing and use of sources is poor, he reverts constantly, and filibusters on talk pages, making normal editing close to impossible on whatever page he's working on. When thwarted, he reverts to insults. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been suggested more than once that there should be an WP:RFC/U on Wikifan's conduct (including here, less than two weeks ago - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive67#User:Wikifan12345). Based on the history at ANI, and his block log, and my personal interaction with him in a couple of places, I think that's certainly warranted. Rd232 talk 18:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They don't have grounds when FOTG mercilessly edit-wars out everything remotely Jewish/Israel exclusively with dubious summaries, then call me a POV warrior when I point out his summaries did not match the content of the source. FOTG has a serious issue with Jews and Israel and it is very very offensive. He's call me a troll, POV-warrior, and even implied I was member of the Israel lobby. Also, he is following me around to articles I've been editing and warring those additions too. Rd, I know you mean well but this is a COI because me and you have had serious content disputes before. Has anyone considered perhaps this is an an attempt to steamroll an unpopular user out of the List of terrorist incidents, 2009. The article has boiled down to me and FOTG, so if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, you think that: "if I'm gone he can once again remove all my edits at-will". But then, if he isn't the sole editor left if you are gone, how come not a single other editor will defend your edits? Count Iblis (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <outdent> Uh?

    • A) All the editors here have been involved in past disputes both content and personal.
    • C) You just dismissed everything else I wrote above.
    • D) FOTG reported me for edit-warring without even notifying me, and that went no where here I just discovered that today..

    I suggest a speedy close and returning back to the content dispute at the original article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    So all the editors commenting on your behavior here are just doing so in bad faith because they have been on the other side of a content dispute with you? Likewise any notion that the specific issue reported first above has anything to do with behavior is unfounded because really this is just a content dispute? If you truly believe that version I strongly suggest mentorship at the very least because you really don't seem to get what about your behavior is inappropriate.PelleSmith (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad faith? No, but this is not unique for ANI Pelle. And considering I lodged an edit-warring report against you (one of my first ever), then you posted an etiquette notice (after you called me a troll), and now you are here endorsing sanctions against a user you've had considerable differences with....certainly does not resonate faith-wise. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have come into this too late to see the build-up. I consider this genuinely about behavior. Wikifan may think that this is naive, that I am somehow furthering a conspiracy against him. I do not see it that way. Right now, the amount of non-content-related material on the talk page at "terrorist incidents" is unproductive and therefore intolerable. In spite of not being an admin, I would be in favor of, for fairness sake, week-long topic bans for both Wikifan and FOTG on Israel-related content so that real work can actually be done. As I see it there is waste-of-time drama unfolding there and here. (As for previous contact, I have only been involved in mediating HRW recently, so I can say I am pretty uninvolved overall.) Awickert (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did I say conspiracy? No, I did not. I don't understand why you would be personally comfortable with a week-long topic ban when you admit being "pretty uninvolved overall." This is my impression: "Yeah, I don't know these two users and can't say I've been very involved but clearly something's up so let's just ban em' both." :D I would never call for such a punishing act if I didn't have at least a general experience beyond "uninvolved." Maybe it's just me. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan, one of the main problems in the ANI has been that so many involved editors made comments about who should be blocked. We definitely need more uninvolved editors to comment, and whether or not you approve of Awickert's suggestion, it is a welcome step towards resolving this. Hopefully more uninvolved administrators comment here and give their opinions. —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True that. I interpreted Awicket's "uninvolved" description as unaware. As if he simply skimmed through the complaints and applied natural deductive reasoning that unfortunately was not consistent with objectivity. Or perhaps I'm downright guilty and this is a zealous game of mental gymnastics - an argument that is easily made and difficult to refute. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Formal mentorship

    I have talked to Wikifan12345 about this ANI and it appears that he supports, in principle, formal mentorship. I therefore recommend that, whatever decision is taken on this particular ANI, an uninvolved user/administrator takes it up to mentor Wikifan. Any volunteers? —Ynhockey (Talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To be explicit, I strongly support mentorship as an alternative to sanctions or if need be, accompanying whatever potential "punishment" is applied. This, of course, assuming the punishment is not a totally unconditional topic-ban which would likely void the need for a mentor in the Israel/Palestine subject matter. Unless, of course, the mentor is simply for behavioral-improvements and not party to a specific genre of knowledge. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A 1RR restriction for a few months could also work. If you can revert only once, you have to argue more on the talk page to find support for your edits. Making other editors angry on the talk page would be counterproductive. Also, when editing in the article, your best strategy to get your edits stick shifts toward editing in texts that are likely to be acceptable to people with other POVs. Count Iblis (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how well that'll work, but at least it's easy and doesn't involve finding a mentor and taking up their time (and Wikifan is hardly a weekend editor). Rd232 talk 16:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support mentorship if one is willing to take their time. My suggestion above was preventative, not punative, as such bans are supposed to be. I actually spent quite a bit of time reading (not skimming) in detail the various back-and-forths. I suggested the short topic ban for both parties because I saw next to 0 productivity in what seemed to be dominated by a giant brawl, and I thought one way to increase the signal/noise would be to take a break. My only feeling is that the talk pages should return to effectiveness. If mentorship is a more acceptable way to do so, then that should work well too. 1RR may also work, though I'm not sure that it will end the talk page mess. I think that what is needed is a commitment from Wikifan (and others) to WP:NPA and to not respond to personal attacks but rather to continue forging ahead on the content. (As a side note, Wikifan above disqualifies all editors from commenting; those involved are too involved, and those uninvolved are too unaware; someone has to do something!) Awickert (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively FOTG and Wikifan could collaborate to rewrite the lede for Julia Set so that it's less hopeless. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1RR without other remedies will only worsen what SlimVirgin aptly called "filibustering" on talk pages. In my brief and recent experience with Wikifan this is the worst part. Repetitive arguments which usually amount to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. If one doesn't respond on the talk page it seems like an unaware onlooker might think one is mindlessly reverting. Complete disruption and a total time drain.PelleSmith (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In my (limited) experience of Wikifan12345, he has come across more as an aggressive, tendentious crank rather than a useful editor. We've seen this editor being brought to AN/I repeatedly; the same kind of issues come up again and again. He seems to have learned nothing from these repeated AN/I discussions. His unwillingness or inability to change his approach makes me think that mentorship is unlikely to be effective. I would suggest blocking him and moving on - he's taken up far too much of other people's time already. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is certainly constructive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh? -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan's thoughts here read like a buy-out: apologise so as not to get a punishment. Great. -DePiep (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, more correct: here -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The thought of users who have a strong bias (outside of the one that is not "involved), users whom I have lodged complaints against and vice-versa, users who have taken part in bitter disputes involving teams of editors, and users who have demanded banishment before would no doubt express glee at the thought of removing an editor who they rountinly disagree with out of the equitation. Lest we forget, the fact that I submitted a similar ANI against FOTG not-so-long-ago about his wholesale removal of almost every Israel/Jewish incident at List of terrorist incidents, 2009 should raise suspicions over a counter-ANI. I have no problem with mentorship and collaborative process, but in my opinion this is nothing less than a bandwagon. Take me away I guess. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan wrote: Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.". Why do ëven admins faal back to the "you-too" talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DePiep (talk • contribs) 22:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Yes, FOTG is manically obsessed with Israel and Jews. He unilaterally warred out almost every incident about Israel and Jews, even those that were clearly of terrorist-nature. And when I restored what I perceived to be vandalism or premature deletion, and ask that he provide a thorough reasoning for his wholesale deletion, he accused me of being troll, pov warrior, etc...etc...etc. This is consistent with his behavior in other articles. So fishing for diffs that users might interpret the wrong way if they aren't fully aware of the discussion is suspect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Wikifan: no one is to be accused of anti-Semitism freely. You wrote the offensife line. Go away. (To be clear: why do editors and even admins here always end up: second chance? After ten?) -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality. I'm sorry if that's "out of line." Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote "manically obsessed" (with whatever). That's a disqualification beforehand. Then do not start reasoning afterwards. -DePiep (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if Wikifan wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship, the piling-on, especially by editors who have diametrically opposed POVs to Wikifan's, should stop now. IronDuke 22:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No offense IronDuke but this does not in any way sound like someone who "wants/is willing to accept formal mentorship." And then there is the fact that a fair amount of the commentators above also don't believe mentorship is going to solve the problem. Wikifan's own attitude only makes one wonder if they aren't correct.PelleSmith (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing inherently wrong with that post. I don't see how users who are active in on-going disputes (such as Pelle and R2), some of the disputes which have ended up pouring into noticeboards (OR noticeboard, edit-warring noticeboard, etiquette, etc...submitted by both Pelle and myself) should be allowed such a strong voice. I am very open to some kind of mentorship, but from my POV I'd say users like FOTG are in much dire need of assistance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "nothing inherently wrong" with your post??? You still don't get it. Your posts are wrong. Just stop insulting editors, and from there you may talk. Maybe other too -- but stop it yourself. Not a "strong voice", insulting is what I say. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Criticizing an editors edits is not insulting. It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users. You aren't recognizing or even remotely addressing the actions of FOTG, for good reason perhaps.
    No, criticizing is not insulting. Stating "manic obsession" is insulting, and personal only, and not relevant to the article at all. Drop it. -DePiep (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming from someone who believes that the Israel-Palestinian articles on wikipedia are dominated by a cabal of "organised, agendised Hasbara." FOTG has a manic obsession and whether or not you misconstrue that as "insulting" is of no importance. He has major issues and it is seen in his mindless reverting of everything remotely Israel. He follows me to articles I work on and reverts my edits, and then harasses me on those articles. So please, who is the victim here? I'm trying to be as cordial as I can be but FOTG has been given a free pass for far to long. And then posting an ANI to save face, well...that's not unique for wiipedia. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No one can speak from experience about your behavior unless they have witnessed it. Isn't it odd that while many such editors think this behavior is a problem no one has come here to say that they are wrong and that you have been behaving as a reasonable Wikipedian? The closest thing to support from a third party here has been "be fair and look at the other guy's behavior too," or "OK already Wikifan says he's willing to accept mentorship." Despite this you continually act like the real problem is with the supposed "cabal" of editors whose are only related to each other because of their negative interactions with you. Meanwhile people become less and less inclined to believe you will be able to change your ways at all. Keep it up.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle, I lodged an edit-war report against you when you started owning CAIR (and ownership that has been confirmed by other users). I also posted a noticeboard incident requesting a fact-check on how you continually edited-out all my additions with "original research" when the content was thoroughly cited. I don't see why I should have to sit here and be lectured by editors who have a compromising history. I'm open to mentorship, but dismiss all of this bandwagoning as pure harassment. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And your numerous disruptive reports at various noticeboards resulted in what exactly? Must be a cabal at work.PelleSmith (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OR inquire was never responded because you hijacked it, and the edit-warring ANI should have succeeded but as several users confirmed, its lack of response can be sourced from the personal feelings of the over-seeing admin. This ANI is the poster child for disruption. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikifan, can I ask you, just for the next few posts, not to focus at all on other editors, but only on yourself? Is there anything you feel you have done inappropriately in the course of editing Wikipedia, either in terms of the way you handle content, or the way you interact with others? Where do you feel you could have done better? Which issues do you feel a mentor could usefully help you with? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, like every user on Wikipedia. A mentor could help me navigate through Wikipedia bureaucracy, as many editors are very skilled at doing. Avoiding blocks, relying on civil POV-pushing, moving content disputes to ANIs, etc..etc. SlimVirgin, remember when you edit-warred at 1948 Palestinian exodus, removed all my additions, and threatened to send me to ArbComb if I don't heed to your demands? Then I was blocked for a week after I unknowingly reversed your reverts when you submitted an edit-war report. That was a carefully crafted strategy and I've watched many users do it to each other, and it's rather depressing. But to answer your question with all sincerity, I would hope a mentor could help me cite policy in-talk more competently. Maybe carve a slightly better tactful approach to discussion, even in the midst of heated and hostile debate. Normal stuff I guess. It's difficult to assess myself under the current circumstances and what I consider to be an extremely bad faith ANI. If this were closed, I would feel a lot more comfortable discussion mentorship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentorship won't work if you won't take responsibility for anything. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this thread increasingly illustrates why 1RR probably won't work, and why a WP:RFC/U is needed (that structure would discussion room to breathe, without Wikifan responding to every comment by attacking somebody (generally the author)). Rd232 talk 08:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you haven't noticed this ANI has nothing to do with edit-warring, so hats to ya. Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach @ the pertinent article and wikihounding - started the ANI. I'm more than open to mentorship etc. but you are asking for blood in a bad-faith and unfair circumstances. If you dismiss my assessments of this forum as "attacking" well okay. Also, for accuracies sake, the title should be changed to, "Reasons why Wikifan needs to go." Otherwise, the current charter is, for the most part, largely false.
    Cliffnotes: FOTG made a dubious claim of personal attacks, but sifting through the discussion you will find just the opposite. Anyways, commence banishment! :D Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If y'all need a totally uninvolved, experienced user for a mentorship, I'd be happy to help out. I only stumbled upon this conversation because I can't sleep and have no prior dealings with Israel related articles or any of the editors involved here. I do have experience dealing with conflict in my own areas of interest. Cheers, Gimme danger (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    More Uninvolved Admins

    While I'm not sure it is necessary it might be nice to hear from an additional admin or two who have not had any run-ins with Wikifan yet.PelleSmith (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to see this ANI be led by users who haven't expressed a personal dislike or have been the subject of ANIS/reports etc. submitted by myself. Pelle has taken an unusually strong interesting in keeping this alive, perhaps because of our on-going dispute at Council on American-Islamic Relations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is truly odd. I'm asking for your sake, because you keep on claiming that everyone commenting here has a vendetta against you.PelleSmith (talk) 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Pelle, I think it would be useful if you stopped antagonizing Wikifan here. You may not intend to, but it is obviously having that effect. You've had your say, more gasoline does not need to be poured on. IronDuke 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A general comment

    At the risk of straying from the immediate problem, I would like to point out that the kind of vicious conflicts we see here are inherent in the way the Wikipedia is edited and the way the Five Pillars are interpreted in conflict areas. This is a clear case of narrative war, with each side incapable of seeing neutrality as defined by the other side. In the Middle East, there is no neutral point of view.

    What is more, the word "terrorism" is editorial wherever it appears. That a reliable source refers to an incident as terrorism does not make it so. Reliable sources have POVs just like everyone else.

    Because of the way NPOV and RS are applied in Middle East articles, conflict of this type is inevitable. The warring parties are not to blame. The system is to blame.

    To avoid these conflicts, then, requires a radical rethinking of how to apply the five pillars in conflict situations. I suggested such an approach in User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, and would love to see a serious attempt to experiment with the ideas proposed there. --Ravpapa (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All due respect Ravpapa, when the same user is having the same problems over and over it no longer is just "the system". Now Wikifan will likely say I am only here because of content disputes with him, but I do not plan on arguing for his banning. But a bit of history should be made clear. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive534#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive33#User:Wikifan12345_and_User:Brewcrewer, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive532#User:Wikifan12345, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive515#Some_wikihounding_going_on. Above he pretty much says he would like a mentor to teach him how to wikilaywer more effectively, I think that would be a disaster. What he needs is to keep from writing anything about others motives or beliefs. It really is that simple, if he does not keep trying to call others "manically obsessed with Jews" or "antisemites" or other such insults he would not be here over and over. I have no idea about FOTG, I didnt look at the talkpage in question. But WF needs to do one of 2 things at this point. Either stop making such allegations to other users, or provide some actual evidence of racist editing. One of the two editors should be blocked, either for editing in an antisemitic manner or for making repeated false accusations of antisemitism. But wikifan cannot be allowed to continue saying these things without proving them. nableezy - 15:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All due respect Nableezy, it is pretty obvious that most if not all the editors speaking up against Wikifan are very active pro-Palestinian editors. Ravpapa has a very good point about the system not working well when you have a content/narrative war like in IP. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have content/narrative disagreements/wars with a lot of people, but it doesn't lead to ANI. There is a pattern of consistent personal attacks and bad faith assumptions peppering most of Wikifan's talk page commentary, and an inability to acknowledge its problematic. People shouldn't be asked to overlook that because there's a raging ethnic conflict in the background. Tiamuttalk 21:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Without talking about Wikifan specifically, it's pretty obvious that in this kind of dispute most of the people pushing for sanctions are those on the other side of the content/narrative war. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But this thread is "about Wikifan specifically" and not about some general IP narrative war (which I take no part in personally btw). So why are people incapable of speaking specifically in defense of Wikifan's behavior as opposed to simply trying to deflect the discussion? To reiterate Tiamut's point, major disagreements, some of which are very deep and very old, are an everyday reality here at Wikipedia but they usually don't end up at AN/I. When they do there is almost always a behavior problem that goes beyond content disputes -- whether the problem is with the person being grilled or conversely with the person abusing the noticeboards (or both). Either way, a discussion here signals something beyond a content dispute.PelleSmith (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't take part in IP but you didn't arrive here clean of prejudice, did you? Anyway, Ravpapa made a general comment (see section header) and I was addressing that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanction request

    OK, I've had enough. It's not enough that no-one is willing to defend Wikifan's behaviour, which encompasses comments such as "It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda." (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive553#Factsontheground removing terrorist attacks aimed at Jews and Israeli soldiers - List of terrorist incidents, 2009). Now Wikifan's continuing attempt to derail this ANI discussion by attacking others and doing everything except discussing his own behaviour (eg insisting that this discussion I hatted is constructive) demonstrates such a WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour that it makes me believe that a substantial sanction is required. I find it hard to believe that mentoring will be successful. I find it hard to believe that 1RR (which somebody proposed) will achieve anything either. Frankly, I'm rapidly reaching the view that Wikipedia - certainly on topics where Wikifan cannot play well with others - is simply better off without this particular 14-year old (User:Wikifan12345/About). Disclosure: I've had previous run-ins with Wikifan and we also have opposing views. Rd232 talk 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We have to try mentorship or 1RR (or a combination) first. If that fails then we can raise that here again. If a 1RR or 0RR is imposed, then Wikifan will know that the only way he can edit wikipedia is by cooporating with other editors. If Wikifan insults someone, then he'll only hurt himself. So, there is no need to make a lot of fuss about that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature 2

    See also:User:Aditya Kabir and misuse of rollback feature (Incident Archive)

    The roll back feature needs to be handled with care according to the policy. But it seems that User Aditya Kabir keep ignoring roll back policy by misusing this feature intentionally. His recent reverting action on this page ([17]) is indicating the violation of this policy. I left a message about this revert in article talk page ([18]), but he seemed ignore it. The user has again misused this feature by reverting this edit and made false accusation on user:Wbrz for vandalism and disruptive edit. Which is pretty much bad faith and personal attack. That edit made by user:Wbrz was not vandalism. According to Wikipedia:Rollback feature RBK should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism. But this is not happening here. --NAHID 18:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That first edit is distinctly dodgy. The editor had undid something the admin did, with the admin apparently in error, and an edit summary left to show where the error was. The admin used rollback to revert without edit summary. Prima facie, it doesn't look good.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have omitted to warn the editor about this AN/I. I have now done so.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Aditya Kabir is not admin.--NAHID 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we discussing the difference between this version and this version of the article Greater India? Yep, there was rollback involved, which obviously is a faster way to fix articles. Was there any wrong doing involved? And, why exactly is this person who is following me around, at times with some zeal (like here, here, and here... though it's kind of continuing process), trying to make an issue out of an edit summary auto-generated by twinkle? Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And, I propose that you guys strip me off my rollback status and block me for a significant amount of time, and also post hideous threats to my talk page. Do something, anything. I really need to get this borderline troll off my back. There is much more to do on Wikipedia than suffering from a vengeful stalker. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aditya, I thought you agreed back here in May 2008 that you would use rollbackonly for “explicit vandalism/improper humor/edit test and suchlike. For the rest we have Twinkle, and even more appropriately, a simple undo.” Now you say you use rollback because it “is a faster way to fix articles.” —teb728 t c 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, dear. I am not saying that. If my suspicion of deliberate disruption was wrong. It was wrong. I never hoped to play god. You are most welcome to the lynching party. Aditya(talk • contribs) 02:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inappropriate AfD closure on WP:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎

    Resolved
     – Duplicates deletion review. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts‎ was closed after being discussed for around 3 days. There was no chance of it being snowable, so it wasn't a legitimate closure of the discussion. Now users are edit warring over its closure. Could somebody please step in? I am somewhat involved as I placed my opinion on the AfD. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's about zero chance that we're not going to have an article on this eventually ... but the AFD shouldn't have been closed. --B (talk) 03:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Whack!!! - Wikidemon (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh bother. I guess there's a deletion review going on. I didn't know until I went looking at the talk page of the closing admin. Killiondude (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The better question is the peculiarly schizoid defense of this stuff by wikipedia lawyers, given the general paranoia about images here. You can steal these images from this art gallery is OK even though it might harm that gallery's income, but you can't "excessively" display team logos even though such display can only benefit those teams? Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's a difference. Wikipedia's mission is to promote free (public domain, creative commons, gfdl, etc) media. These images, Wikipedia argues, are public domain and claiming copyright doesn't change that. We do not honor false claims of copyright. For example, plenty of state or college digital libraries claim copyright on images that are obviously PD by age. We ignore their claims and upload them to our heart's content. Personally, I think Wikipedia is wrong in this particular case - even though under US law, these images would be PD, as a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, we are obligated to honor UK copyrights. But if Wikipedia prevails in court, then we aren't "stealing" any more than it is "stealing" to make a photocopy of a book by Mark Twain. --B (talk) 05:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I argued the last time this subject came up that the gallery did this to themselves by failing to prevent the public from just grabbing and downloading these things. This will be an interesting case, once it gets settled, probably sometime in Sarah Palin's second term as President. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, GMaxwell makes a great point on Commons - allowing someone to lock original works of art in a vault and then claim copyright on any copies of them effectively keeps non-widely-produced works from ever falling into the public domain. If I obtain - legally or otherwise - a rare work of art or literature, under the museum's theory, I can make a copy of it, destroy the original, and now claim copyright over it. This is not a tenable copyright policy. The Copyright Clause US Constitution says that copyright must be for "limited times", meaning that there cannot be perpetual copyright in the US. Unfortunately, even though the Constitution trumps the Bern Convention, Eldred v. Ashcroft said that "effectively perpetual copyright" is not the same thing as perpetual copyright, so I doubt the court would find that the museum's locking up the originals constitutes perpetual copyright. IP laws are insanely out of whack. Drug patents are 25 years, which is why medicine is so expensive - drug companies only have 25 years to recoup millions of $ in research costs. But copyright lasts generations after everyone associated with it is long dead. Go figure. --B (talk) 06:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read the actual court decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, it's at Wikisource. The judge analyzed the situation under both US and UK copyright law and determined that under both sets of laws, the NPG's images are not copyrighted. Of course, the NPG disputes this, and a US court decision is not binding on UK courts, but it suggests a blueprint for future action in the UK if the NPG ever wants to take the risk. Thatcher 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite all that, wikipedia does not seem to have the ethical high ground here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bugs, you are faulting the NPG for failing to to effectively prevent the public from downloading the high-res images. They tried their best. As the Guardian reported: "The gallery is halfway through a £1m project to digitise its entire collection: over more than 60,000 images are already on its website. In March a new feature was added – giving a low-resolution version of the complete works , but allowing viewers to zoom in on sections of images in high resolution. In March, Coetzee found a way past this software, and captured 3,014 complete images in high resolution". One of the issues that gets glossed over here is the circumventing of protection for the high-res images. And the fact that the lower-res images are freely available and not "locked up" at all.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not forget that the NPG offered the entire collection in medium resolution (the same as the two high profile German photo sets on commons) and were turned down, and then someone used technical means to rip and stich high res versions. I think it's Fucking Baffling that a person taking and uploading photographs of toys they own will (eventually) get all kinds of RfC, blocks, community bans etc. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The NPG offered the images in a "Wikipedia-only" license. We do not accept content contributed under such a license and have not accepted it since 2005. And even if we were willing to accept such images, Wikipedia's contention is that they are not copyrighted anyway, so there is no incentive to voluntarily restrict ourselves to low-res use. --B (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That argument amounts to "wikilawyering". Wikipedia will delete uploaded images that do no harm, and will retain images that could do harm. It's hypocritical. Wikipedia has taken the ethical low road on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Altoids Man

    Could somebody please suggest an appropriate course of action about User:Altoids Man's behaviour? I'm talking about an ongoing episode at Mark Weisbrot (see Talk:Mark Weisbrot as well as User talk:Rd232 and User talk:JRSP). Note that Altoids seems occasionally to edit as User:71.106.93.112 and User:156.80.10.182 (in a "haven't logged in" way, not a sockpuppety way). He has at least recently opened an Editor Assistance Request on the content issue, diff, which is something, but still, his comments and attitude have been problematic. Thanks. Rd232 talk 08:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor notified about this discussion. Exxolon (talk) 16:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think the discussion on the Weisbrot talk page speaks for itself. I have found Rd232 to be unreasonable, He/She has not offered a single compromise in the editing process, while I have provided voluminous justification for proposed changes. (including yes calling him a clown on one occasion). Having said that, I will continue to provide substantiation for my proposed changes on the talk page and I have requested assistance of other editors who are not possibly emotionally involved with defending the Weisbrot status quo. Other editors have said that RD232 can be reasonable, while I have seen little of that I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and move forward. Thank you. --Altoids Man (talk) 01:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well I'd hoped for something closer to an apology, but I guess that'll do if Altoids is now willing to discuss content, and do it civilly. Thank you to those who commented on Talk:Mark Weisbrot. Rd232 talk 08:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kookyunii needs to be reigned in

    Kookyunii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) This user doesn't seem to be communicating and appears to be doing some damage. I spent some time cleaning out the article Konkuk University where probably 90% of the article doubling content added by this user was cut and paste copyvio..which no on else seemed to notice making it all the more difficult to remove as I couldn't just revert. There are numerous warnings piling up on their talk page. There also seem to be some communication problems.--Crossmr (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've run across some of this user's edits, and can sympathize with Crossmr's experience... The edits are not simply wrong-- they could be easily reverted if they were-- but a mix of incorrect re-naming of subjects and article moves, combined with some good edits... In the editor's favor, after having been warned about the re-namings, this seems to have stopped. Dekkappai (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think so. Even after my warning about copyvio he got another one about category work. now I don't usually do much with categories so I'm not sure what he's doing, but I noticed he made several category edits a couple hours after being warned again, I'm not sure if those were bad or good but from his edit summaries, they seemed related to what he was being warned about.--Crossmr (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And we're getting ownership messages like this: [19].--Crossmr (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant only the odd re-naming (the only issue I had with the editor) seemed to have stopped after his warnings. Yes, that reversion and edit summary do look troubling also... Dekkappai (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientology edits

    I'm not up to speed on the situation with this, and these edits may be 'ok' technically, but there are two new editors, DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) and Scientologist Perspective (talk · contribs) busy turning Ron Hubbard into a philospher and apparently working together, see [20]. Whether this needs action or not I don't know, and I apologise if I'm wasting people's time or being unfair to newbies. Dougweller (talk) 16:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The latter was blocked under username policy, and I've left a comment here on the former name if anyone is interested. Nja247 16:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    off topic musing
    There is often a fine line between a philosopher and a salesman. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    They both try to sell you something, but one doesn't throw in a free kitchen knife set. HalfShadow 16:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Didn't Confucius say, "And if you buy my all-time best-selling book, Confucius Sez, you'll get Confucius: Sez Who? for half price! And as a free bonus, we'll throw in this personally-autographed set of electric chopsticks! Not available in stores! Limited time only! Call now! Operators are waiting!" To fill out this scenario, try to picture the distinguished-looking Confucius talking with the appropriate Asian accent, and delivered in the same manner as Billy Mays. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Billy has been about as quiet as Confucius these days ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those two appear to be the same editor. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's called a 'sense of humor'. Say it with me: Sennnnz uvvvv hee-yuuuuu-merrrrrrr. And now we've learned something. Isn't that special?HalfShadow 17:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've blocked DianeticsBridgeToKnowingness (talk · contribs) for WP:TE and calling two different admins trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And I'm filing an SPI report for good measure. I was skeptical about doing this at first, given the quacking. But this unblock request makes it pretty obvious those two accounts are somebody's sockpuppets. Blueboy96 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When they help us out by admitting it, standard procedure is to reduce the indef block by a day. Maybe even two. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The unblock requests are clearly not serious, hopefully we will find out who this is. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit warring

    This user 96.50.99.29 (talk) keeps trying to engage me in an edit war in the article Surviving the Game and calling my edits vandalizm. I have already warned this person before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Surviving_the_Game Dumaka (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you're edit warring as well. I would note also that you do not own that article - Wikipedia articles are collaborative works, and refusing to let others work on them is considered highly disruptive. Comments like "This article is not to be touched." and "Stop touching my article!" are not acceptable. Work things out on the talk page with the IP editor. I don't see any need for administrative action at this time. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, edit warring is a blockable action.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but the edit warring is not currently underway, and nobody's broken 3RR. I've cleaned up the article some, but that's all that needs doing right now. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    " This article appears to consist almost entirely of a plot summary. " -- so what is done, typically, to correct this? I mean other than nothing at all. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    the best thing to do is to add real world information about the production and reception, including references to reviews of the workDGG (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additionally, the plot summary can be pared down to a few paragraphs. The overarching basic storyline is fine, but a scene-by-scene recap of the entire movie is probably excessive. --Jayron32 03:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Legal threat at WP:BLP/N re Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

    Resolved
     – indef WP:NLT Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a spate of contentious editing at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and it seems to have spilled over into what might be deemed an impermissible legal threat at WP:BLP/N[21]. Maybe an admin should have a look?--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah. Block away. Clear legal threat. MuZemike 20:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow... um, that threat was awesomely misguided! Resolute 01:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure if this constitutes edit warring or a civility issue or something else...

    Please forgive me if I'm posting this in the wrong place; I'm not really sure what category it belongs in.

    User:Gorillasapiens has been reverting legitimate, good-faith edits to Same-sex marriage in Maine. He admits on another user's talk page that English is not his first language; this is evident in the wording of some of his edits, some of which are overly verbose and confusing. I have tried to improve these sentences by making them more easily understood and concise, but he has reverted my edits and seems to think that I'm trying to change the meaning of what he wrote. Additionally, he has been adding material to this article from other articles (Same-sex marriage in New England and various same-sex marriage articles from other states); User:Knowledgekid87 removed this material because there was no need to duplicate it, but Gorrilasapiens added it back, and also reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate edits without any explanation.

    Anyway, if this is not the place to discuss this, please let me know (and please accept my apologies). Thanks. —BMRR (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it seems like a potential combination of a few different things, so this would be an appropiate place to put it. Now, let's get some diffs so it can be easier to assess the situation.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some examples. External links that I added, with clear/concise/easily understood descriptions -- and Gorillasapiens' changes, which were unnecessarily wordy -- Those changes were reverted by another user who thought simpler was better -- but Gorillasapiens changed it back -- so I tried to come up with a compromise -- but Gorillasapiens didn't like that either. Then he made this edit in which he added duplicate information from another article and changed wording so that it seemed like a future date had already taken place -- I changed the part about the future date because his wording didn't make sense -- but he changed it back. So I changed it again because his way was confusing and inaccurate, but he changed it again with no explanation of why. Then he reverted Knowledgekid87's legitimate, good-faith edits here, here, and here -- without explanation. —BMRR (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This section of the user's talk page seems relevant to this discussion.--The LegendarySky Attacker 20:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been edit warring at United States Senate as well. —BMRR (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How does a member of the United States Senate find the time to be edit warring on Wikipedia? Is it his day off?--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The US Senate takes off every weekend (and they basically get a month off after next week). -- Atamachat 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello everyone well it appears as if my edits were reverted, I went ahead and redid some of what I had done as the user User:Gorillasapiens was putting things not related to the article and alot of Could's in place. Only things that were reveryed was talk about Same Sex marriage in New England in the Same sex marriage in Maine topic (Made a see also: link insted of putting the info in the article) and this one possible POV statement about what could happen if such and such happens.Knowledgekid87 (talk)20:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for closure of a thread

    Resolved
     – (Done and done.) — Athaenara ✉ 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would an uninvolved administrator or uninvolved experienced editor who has not yet commented please close the thread Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Circumcision with a resolution or summary, as I had suggested here. Thank you. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We've got POV-pushing mohels now? Gevalt! Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We've also got AN/I's main character A.K.A Baseball Bugs in this thread.--The LegendarySky Attacker 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, Baseball Bugs has been so active on this page that we should really rename AN/I "The Baseball Bugs And User Incidents Show"--The LegendarySky Attacker 23:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We can just create a new page, BN/I. Wikidemon (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We could just redirect this page to Bugs' talkpage ... or vice versa (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed it after seeing Coppertwig's note here and recommended that it be sent to COI/N archive 35 as soon as possible. — Athaenara ✉ 09:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Review of my block

    An editor has called into question my impartiality in blocking him. Any review of my actions would be appreciated. The blocked editor is Juniorxin (talk · contribs) who also edits under IP 76.73.154.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I have blocked him several times for inserting material under copyright into Beluga (sturgeon), as well as the disruptive editing. Juniorxin was concerned that his block was improper since the editor who first detected the issues and came to me was a real life friend of mine and fellow marine mammal scientist. I looked back and didn't see anything shady in my actions but I would welcome further scrutiny. --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive, incivil SPA. The mistake was that the block was so brief. --B (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a compromise possible to include a mention of the Beluga caviar meal between U.S. and Russian presidents? It seems interesting to me, although I admit I'm partial to that sort of trivia that provides illustrative examples of how a subject is significant to society, involved in a traditional cuisine and made part of social practice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Sanchez

    Someone should restore the block on Bluemarine (talk · contribs) as he is quite confused that just because his block was lifted, he thinks so has his community ban, which is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Bluemarine. As the ban is still in place, he should only be editing his own talk page. Also a word on name calling would be appreciated. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting that Allstarecho recuse from further intervention in matters related to Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine. Matt Sanchez is not community banned but in limbo (which is why his account is unblocked). In May I attempted to normalize Bluemarine's editing status; Allstarecho's participation caused delays that prevented community consensus.[22] Allstarecho raised a red herring sockpuppetry concern about an account that has since been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of somebody else, and insisted upon unusual stipulations to Bluemarine's editing restriction, such as a stipulation about copyright even though Bluemarine has never violated copyright on this site, nor been blocked for it at any other WMF site. A few weeks afterward Allstarecho's extensive copyvios came to light and resulted in an indefinite block.[23] During the discussion about Allstarecho's conduct I refrained from mentioning his double standard about copyright, and Akhilleus unblocked without discussion.[24] A discussion about Bluemarine's status has been ongoing at my user talk for several days,[25] and has stalled because Allstarecho insists upon exactly the same stipulations as before. PastorTheo has attempted to mediate and I left a note for Akhilleus, but Akhilleus has not edited for a week and a half.[26] Allstarecho appears to be leveraging the ambiguous situation to prolong Bluemarine's limbo, then Allstarecho initiates a new noticeboard complaint whenever Bluemarine does edit in an attempt to get him reblocked.[27] I had delayed re-initiating a status clarification request on Bluemarine, in hopes that the complications with Allstarecho could be worked out amicably. This appears not to be possible; he keeps pushing the matter. So requesting impartial administrative review of both parties. Durova288 01:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also relevant: Allstarecho was blocked by WJBscribe in June for edits to the Matt Sanchez biography.[28] Another thread started by Allstarecho about Matt Sanchez/Bluemarine in May.[29] Apologies for the less than ideal presentation here; this tends to catch me off guard during other endeavors. Will gladly answer questions as needed to clarify. Durova288 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The contention that he is "unblocked but not unbanned" doesn't make much sense - if an admin is willing to unblock him, he isn't community banned. I think the unblock (and unban) is a horribly bad idea, though. --B (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the Arbcom discussion seems to have stalled (perhaps another shiney bauble caught their eye?) though as I read it the direction was towards affirming a cautious lifting of the ban per whatever editing restrictions the community deems appropriate. Would this be an appropriate time and venue to sort out what those restrictions should be? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 ([[UTC)
    • Bluemarine's arbitration sanction has expired. So the logical thing is to clarify his status within the community. That was what PastorTheo and I were trying to work out with Allstarecho. Here's the sanction I proposed in May.
    Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he may be reblocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator.
    Discussion on that proposal got sidetracked and stalled until the thread archived. Durova288 02:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think allowing him on talk pages would be okay? That seems the normal course of action in cases of COI. Also, I think the last sentence can be shortened to: If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Short and sweet. We're all subject to the no personal attack rule and harassment is an overly broad and oft abused kind of accusation. Best not to open a can of worms and to keep things as clear as possible. The other article mentioned previously was Scott Beauchamp controversy. I like specific restrictions as opposed to "broadly interpreted" which (like harassment accusations) can be open to interpretation. Gray areas leave things open for dispute and controversy. Are there other articles of concern? I trust Allstarecho will weigh in. Also, I would add a statement along the lines of "is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial and of emotional investment so as to avoid confrontation and gain experience editing Wikipedia." ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your shortening of the last sentence sounds fine. I'm on the fence about talk page participation; not sure what's best with that. I think there were a couple of other specific pages where he got into difficulty before, mostly before I became aware of the dispute. The basic idea is that here's a fellow with an Ivy League education who speaks four languages fluently and travels to Europe, Afghanistan, and Iraq frequently. If we could cordon things away from the old areas of dispute, he's got a lot to offer the encyclopedia. He's sat out his arbitration ban; best to give him a fair shot. Durova288 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually Durova, the WjBscribe block of me you raise above was in January 2008, not June of this year or any year. You conveniently left out that that block was also removed by WjBscribe as unwarranted. Aside from that, Sanchez is indeed under a community ban as it was never lifted by the community. He was unblocked because via stipulations by Arbcom that he can only upload files "for making the projects more accessible to handicap people". Even then, his community ban was still in effect. While Arbcom's ban has expired, his community ban has not nor has it been lifted by the community. IN fact, Arbcom members have stated that his community ban is separate from their ban and is still in effect. Therefore, he is still under community ban and should be blocked. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 02:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally, here is what I proposed back in May (so saying I am stalling any attempts to resolve Matt's status is laughable at the least, ludicrous at the worst):
    Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a topic ban from the Matt Sanchez biography and its talk page, and from LGBT topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. He is limited to the use of one account:Bluemarine. He is not to upload any files of which he does not own. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction, or makes any comment reasonably regarded as harassing or a personal attack, he will be blocked indefinitely by any uninvolved administrator.
    As one can see, this is essentially the same as your proposal except adding in the uploading of files, which he has violated copyvio at Commons before. And yes, I know Commons isn't Wikipedia but since Matt seems to always get "confused" about these matters, it doesn't hurt to include the notice. Nothing unusual about that at all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec'd) Was that? Apologies for any inaccuracy. You caught me by surprise with this thread, so I scrambled to reply. Would really like to get back to Photoshop asap. Durova288 03:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The ArbCom still appears to be considering the matter.[30] Are we seeking to supersede their effort? Either way, the user shouldn't edit until his status is resolved.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see much indication they are moving toward a decision any time soon and what comments are there seem to indicate that the community should make a determination. I don't think anyone is trying to usurp Arbcom's role, just to help resolve the situation. As most everyone seems to agree that it's time the ban is lifted, the editing restrictions seem to be the main details that need to be worked out. I don't think continuing the current limbo is good for anyone concerned. Do you have an opinion on what editing restrictions would be appropriate? Or do you think we should anticipate something happening with the stalled Arbcom proceeding? When do you think that will happen? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The last vote came 24 hours ago, so it doens't seem entirely stalled. The ArbCom rarely moves quickly, and I don't see that there's any rush with this matter.   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My revised restriction would read: Bluemarine's community ban is modified to a ban from the Matt Sanchez and Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy article pages. He is prohibited from editing LGBT article topics and related talk pages, broadly construed. Bluemarine is encouraged to edit subjects that are not controversial or of personal and emotional investment so as to avoid dispute and confrontations and to gain experience editing Wikipedia collaboratively. As the community is extending good faith, please return it by limiting yourself to the one account and remember that personal attacks will not be tolerated. If Bluemarine violates the terms of this restriction he may be reblocked for an appropriate increment of time at the discretion of an administrator. I also think a mentor would be helpful if someone is willing to volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Durova is his mentor. Additionally, "advised to avoid" makes this whole thing pointless. It should say flat out "is to avoid" not "advised to". Also given the vile personal attacks in the past by him where he has referred to people as fags, gay jihadists, gay terrorists, etc., the part about personal attacks should not be removed. And finally, it's pointless to even discuss the stipulations of his unban here until the current discussion at Arbcom has ended. I didn't even start this thread to discuss stipulations but to request that while he still under a community ban, that he be blocked.. or at the least, told firmly not to edit anywhere except his talk page until he has been notified specifically that his community ban is no more. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec, to Child of Midnight)That proposal looks fine. Durova288 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally regarding Allstarecho's input (I repeat the request to him to recuse), I announced to the Committee my intention to resign from all mentorships in June. Am staying with Bluemarine only provisionally until his status is normalized and a new mentorship is underway. Durova288 03:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I will not recuse. It's obvious above by your misrepresentation of facts - even if they were done in haste - that someone else familiar with the issue should be allowed to weigh in as well, not just you. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Three things are obvious: that a hasty reply to a developing situation may be imperfect even when made in good faith, that you take a persistent interest in Bluemarine (with a decidedly slanted tone), and that you apply wildly different interpretations of the copyright policy regarding yourself and Bluemarine. I did all I could to prevent that from reflecting poorly on you at the admin boards, but by continuing to press the issue you force that to come to light. Durova288 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I take "persistent interest" in anyone that is community banned but not abiding by it, while being aided and abetted by others. Also, I have not applied any "wildly" different interpretations of copyright policy. In fact, as I stated at the discussion on your talk page, I am already under the same restrictions and the difference between Sanchez and I is that I know when to stop. He continues to violate copyright by uploading copyvio images at Commons. I have not requested anything for him that I am not under myself or woudln't accept myself. The only reason you keep bringing up my own transgressions is to deflect the attention away from Sanchez and to cast me as someone to be ignored in this matter. And I hold no grudge for that, but I won't let you or anyone else make false accusations and present blurry facts in this dispute. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's not get sidetracked. I have revised the editing restriction proposal per Allstar's comment. Are there other articles or topic areas that need to be included? Is it okay to let him edit the Matt Sanchez talk page? I'm not trying to rush things and I think we should leave the proposal up for a while to allow additional comments and to make sure it's agreeable and appropriate. I'm also okay with running whatever is agreed to by Arbcom to allay the concerns of anyone who thinks we are bypassing them? My understanding is that Durova would like to pass the torch of mentorship. She's served admirably in difficult circumstances and I think it's only fair to call for a new volunteer. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks fine to me but again, I'd await the outcome of the current Arbcom discussion before actually putting this proposal before the community. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to, arbcom only gets involved where the community cant solve the problem. A community ban is void as soon as one admin is willing to unblock, because the ban, by definition, works like that. Well, he's unblcked. We've agreed on the editing restrictions to apply, we're done here. --Mask? 08:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A community ban is set by the community. It can hardly be void by the whim of a single admin against community consensus, the community that set the ban in the first place. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the ban has been lifted and that I could add information to the Matt Sanchez talk page. The "non-controversial" ban seems very vague as controversy is relative. I've added some information to my talk page none of which is controversial, it was on the definition of reporter versus blogging.
    I've asked the editor Allstarecho to stop posting and taunting me on my own talk page. He hasn't complied, but I think this type of attention is exactly what he's looking for and unfortunately the editors on this board are giving it to him.
    Wikipedia and its editors have categorically singled me out for abusive punishment. Every single issue gets overblown and it's very tiring. What makes it more complicated are the obviously biased editors whose labor is to defamate me through this article. The editor Allstarecho is one of those editors and his edits both at Wikipedia and Wikiquote are proof of this. If you were to ban All starecho from the Matt Sanchez--where he obviously has an agenda--the article could reach a semblance of stability and standard. Blue Marine (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Defamate"? That would sound like a legal threat, if it were an actual word. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    While his comment here should be removed, since he is under a community ban and shouldn't be editing anywhere but at his own talk page, I'll leave it to reply... He says his understanding is that his ban has been lifted. I don't know how he came to that understanding as I've told him numerous times that it hasn't been lifted. His own mentor has told him not to edit anywhere except his own talk page until this issue was resolved. Surely someone as smart as Sanchez couldn't misunderstand when it's been plainly told to him, as seen in the diffs below. He also says I should be banned from the Matt Sanchez article but I'll challenge anyone to view the article's history and see when my last edit was to that article. Having said all of that, his latest round of personal attacks calling me a pervert and an idiot only offer further proof that he hasn't learned anything from his year long Arbcom ban or his current over-a-year-long community ban. He accuses me of "taunting" on his talk page. All I've done was reply to him explaining his community ban - [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] - and other procedural matters - [36]. No attacks, no sarcasm, no "taunting". - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 20:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ladgy

    User has been making frivolous and vexatious reports to WP:AIV, including Kww (talk · contribs), Charmed36 (talk · contribs), and TheWoogie (talk · contribs) with no warnings given whatsoever. I strongly suspect that this user is making such reports in retaliation to either reverts on watched articles or for talk page messages received. Can someone help out here, please? MuZemike 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If just trying to make them stop reveting the article for their is no need to and im not trying to block myself and it was not if grude or furiosity kk. And the solutuion that came to pass was 24 hr block and pg protcect thats all just to make them stop.Ladgy (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladgy (talk • contribs) 02:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ladgy has been edit-warring over a redirect on Broken-Hearted Girl for some time. It's one of those "rumored but unconfirmed" single articles that fails WP:NSONGS by a wide margin. There isn't any particular reason to even have the redirect, and, since Ladgy won't leave the redirect alone, I've taken it to AFD. At the very least, we'll get a consensus about what to do with it there.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ladgy, AIV is not the purpose for that. AIV, quoting the page, is intended to get administrator attention for obvious and persistent vandals and spammers only. Settling content disputes or revert-warring are not the purposes of that page. You are supposed to engage in dispute resolution, which starts at the articles' talk pages involved, and then you work from there if said dispute is not resolved. While I'm at it, don't continue to forum-shop at other places if you don't get your way, such as requests for page protection (see [37]), let alone cite "vandalism" as a reason for protection when it clearly is not. Nobody owns articles here; we discuss actions taken – not write them off as vandalism. Now that the article has been nominated for deletion, I suggest you start discussing there. MuZemike 05:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppet investigation on the run. — Σxplicit 06:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Similar IP edits at Katy Perry related articles

    This has been going on for months, and I've come to find a resolution to end it. These IP addresses all seem to begin with 201.209 (one is registered to CANTV Servicios Venezuela). They generally edit KP related articles, rarely doing helpful edits, but always leaving things to clean up and leaving many minor edits in a row (see Katy Perry discog history). Known relevant IPs: 201.209.224.71, 201.209.230.203, 201.209.250.7, and a brand new one 201.209.234.83. They seem to work progressively, one taking over after the other has had complaints on its talk page (with no reply), which along with the similarity between edits, makes me think it is the same person. As you can see I have left quite clear messages on a couple of the talk pages, of the IPs which were used for the most amount of time (as well as at the KP discog talk page). If you read those comments you will see a fair outline of the problems with their edits, blatently changing sourced material, removing vital parts of the tables, removing sourced and notable charts without requested discussion, removing sourced releases, altering table codes, etc. The IPs are also active on other articles mainly related to KP and altering charts, etc. There is never reply to talk page comment or edit summaries, so I don't know how to get the message across. Thought about taking this to RPP but am not really sure this could be considered recent vandalism or whatever. And I am also not sure what an Admin can do about this, especially if they keep popping up under different IPs. So what is the best course of action? Any help would be appreciated, I'm sick of coming to WP every day and having to revert the same old crap! At least I know what to expect though, hey? heh. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 03:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I doubt there's much to do but revert. I've chased down this particular rat-hole before, and I'm convinced that it's one editor. It would be possible to semi-protect all Katy Perry albums, and it might have come to that. My advice is to simply follow up the warning steps, treating each edit as vandalism, and report to AIV when you hit final. He's not very smart, and doesn't know how to reset his modem, so the blocks slow him down a bit, and I've managed to get it up to a week that way. I've also had good luck with getting response at RFPP with a detailed report showing how it's a hopping IP with similar garbage edits time after time. CanTV is a major ISP in Caracas, so I don't think a range block is viable.—Kww(talk) 03:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Death threats by User:86.150.30.99, et al.

    Resolved
     – User talk page semi'd indefinitely, various IP's blocked.

    See this diff: [38]. I have blocked the IP for one day. Not sure exactly what else should be done about it, but I figured posting it here was a good start. --Chris (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a recurring event on the editor's page, from various IP's. The page was semi'd for awhile but the editor asked for it to be lifted. I suspect there's some sort of playing around going on there, but it's hard to tell, since the targeted editor is only editing sporadically anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    81.158.102.90 now blocked as well for block evasion. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I just turned in 86.148.185.51 for the same thing. Should the page be semi'd again? Or, since the editor doesn't seem to care, should we care? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggestion: Would an admin please semi protect the user's page because it is unacceptable for a user to receive the nonsense posted there, and they might feel like they are giving in by asking an admin to do it. Why not protect it and leave a note that if the user would like it removed, please ask. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already posted a formal semi-protection request. Actually, it was semi'd before, and the user asked for it to be unprotected to see what would happen. The editor has not edited since July 22. I just don't think wikipedia should tolerate threats of violence, even if the specific user doesn't seem to care. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm kinda late to the party, but I was the person who lifted the protection, per the user's request. FWIW, I agree with reinstating it - this is just ridiculous. TNXMan 13:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The admin only protected it for a week, and I've asked him to make it permanent, since the original threats go back at least 2 months. There's something weird going on with this account. It was created 3 1/2 years ago and only saw half a dozen edits in 2006 and 2007 before popping up again a few months ago. The user himself was indef'd and then unblocked, but has done no editing (at least under that name) since July 22. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The very moment it is unprotected I'll be back. He he! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.28.34.132 (talk) 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently that's set for the 12th of Never. Be sure to check back, on or after that date. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, I'll find a way around it. Most probably creating an account, making ten edits, and then leaving the message. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH 81.130.89.224 (talk) 22:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm adding the above back here, for documentation purposes. Blocked for 3 months. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody please block that IP, it's still editing after the fact. MuZemike 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Token block issued. It's a shared IP. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Obvious sock needs a drawer to put him in...

    I'm about ready to block him as an obvious disruptive sock of SOMEBODY, but it would be nice to have a drawer to place him in. Any ideas? --Jayron32 03:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already contacted Versageek and Dominic to help out because he was all up in my grille.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, I caught that. I'm just looking for the go ahead to just block him as an obvious disruptive sock. I don't have someone to place him with, which would be helpful, but I'm not sure that is necessary here. Just asking for confirmations on my hunch. --Jayron32 03:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dominic gave me the following other accounts:
    We can't find a sockmaster :/—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    More names:
    "Powerline And Knife Guy" suggests the MascotGuy or MascotGuy copycat, but as Dominic told me, "Oh, looking a bit farther back on this range, I see there are dozens of blocked accounts. It's a banned user of some sort."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was recently in a discussion with this user on my talk page. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. I think we should block the lot. Is Dominic compiling a list of these somewhere? When I do block these, I'm going to credit him as the checkuser who confirms the abuse. Actually, it would be very helpful also if he could block the underlying IP/range as well. It would be helpful if he would comment here directly as well. Dominic? You out there? --Jayron32 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    He's doing something somewhere.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't we all. Actually, I gotta get some sleep. I have a long drive tomorrow, and will be away from Wikipedia for a few days. Could another admin possibly pick this up and block these accounts? I really havta split, and do not have the time to follow through on this... Sorry! --Jayron32 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). Remember them? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Could be. I just blocked and tagged them as User:IslamForEver1 socks. Should we discover the main account, IslamForEver1 can be linked to them. Jehochman Talk 04:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser filed

    I have filed a checkuser at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Singer Who Carries A Trumpet to see if the user is a sockpuppet of either TAway (talk · contribs), DougsTech (talk · contribs) or Frank Bruno's Laugh (talk · contribs). —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked Dominic and he's told me there's no crossover. All three users are not even on the same continent as the rest of the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So, in other words, they're not related? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not unless they moved across oceans.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could be using open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would someone use open proxies in the same nation on the same ISP repeatedly?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no clue, but it was just an idea (probably not a good one) that popped in my head when I read this. I have seen other socks/vandals jump across the globe on open proxies. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think my suspicions are correct? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have no idea, I was just interjecting an idea. No more, no less :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Now what?

    Now, where do we go from here? Are the checkusers still investigating? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive editing of User:Creatureking

    Hi. I'd like to get some sort of administrator involvement regarding the disruptive editing of User:Creatureking. I've filed a WP:AIV claim, however it isn't entirely clear whether the user is guilty of vandalism as much as simply being disruptive. I maintain that persistent disruptiveness in light of warnings constitutes vandalism, however others obviously disagree.

    Here's the story: User:Captaincold is apparently a fan of Space Ghost programs, and contentiously created a slew of new articles for extremely minor characters (ones that appear only on one or several episodes) from Space Ghost and a few other programs/movies. Here is a list of several: Tansuit, Thunder Cleese, Brak's Mom, Brak's Dad, Sisto, Creature King, Metallus, Council of Doom, Lokar, Alexander Knox (Batman). Other editors and I took these pages through ProD (declined) followed by AfD, in which all of them resulted in a Delete or Merge result. Captaincold began to revert the redirects stemming from these AfDs [39][40][41], recreate previously deleted material[42], and received a warning [43] for this behavior. All seemed to be going tolerably well up through July 24th, when Captaincold stopped editing Wikipedia. On July 25th, User:Creatureking's account was created, and the user began to exhibit identical behavior in editing identical subject matter, indicating that the user is a likely sock puppet. Relevant edits are here: Thundercleese[44], Brak's Dad[45], Creature King[46], Lokar[47], Tansit[48], Metallus[49], Blimp (Space Ghost)[50], and Sisto(edit reference deleted when article was re-deleted). I was responsible for all of the escalating warnings for this behavior with Creatureking[51][52][53].

    How can we take steps to get Creatureking to acknowledge and abide by Wikipedia policies and consensus decisions? I was thinking a three-day block for vandalism would at the very least get their attention. —  X  S  G  04:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an editor re-direct his userpage and talk page to a Wikipedia article/talk page

    User:Ray from texas has set up a re-direct away from his userpage pointing to a Thin Lizzy album. He also re-directed his talk page to go to the talk page of the album article as well. Seems to be "not quite right" to me. GripTheHusk (talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the user authored that article in their user space and then moved it, with the redirects as an unintentional side effect. I've removed the talk page redirect, at least; other editors need to be able to contact that user without confusion. I haven't altered the userpage redirect, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    personal attacks and libelous statements

    Resolved
     – for now at least - complaining editor blocked for EW, no personal attacks found Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been subjected to numerous personal attacks and libelous statements on this page Talk:Ninpuu_Sentai_Hurricaneger I hope there is something that can be done as i am concerned about defemation of character. Drag-5 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No such thing has happened. You clearly state (on another website) "hurricaneger ends in neger, which to me is offensive..." What has been said on that talk page is not a personal attack nor is it libelous. Stop trying to disrupt the project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    it is libelous. it is labelled as a racist comment which Is completely untrue and is deffamation of character. and ryulong, please stop saying "Stop trying to disrupt the project." I am not disrupting anything, this is getting more than a little annoying. I am trying to improve wikipedia. Drag-5 (talk) 05:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't toss phrases like "defamation of character" or "libelous" around with abandon. they are terms of art which might be interpreted as a legal threat. I trust that you aren't trying to make a legal threat, but just be careful. Protonk (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not tossing those terms about with abandon. I take this very seriously. The things that have been written about me on that page are indeed libelous. I want something to be done about it. Drag-5 (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok. Then I'll be serious. If you think that someone has libeled you on wikipedia, then stop discussion about it here and seek legal counsel. If you keep using the word 'libelous' in the fashion you are using it, you will be blocked for making legal threats. Protonk (talk) 06:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand, then i will stop using these words for the time being. I do not wish to exacerbate the situation, I do however wish for some action to be taken to prevent this kind of behaviour towards me. Drag-5 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you. I'm sure you are upset and want this to stop, I just want to allow us to discuss this productively. Protonk (talk) 06:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I reviewed the talk page and see no personal attacks or otherwise directed towards Drag-5. If you feel that there are specific comments I missed, a diff or two would help. TNXMan 13:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Another admin has blocked Drag-5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for violating the three-revert rule at Talk:Kamen Rider Decade. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SOPHIAN

    Resolved
     – Blocked for EW Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    SOPHIAN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has returned from a one week block he earned by edit warring and uploading a picture of Obama's birth certificate and spamming it in unnecessary articles as described on the noticeboard report Hopefully his block was meant to help him rethink his editing approach that had earned him five blocks in five weeks. Though he has not committed any policy violations, his initial edits since his return unfortunately do not look very promising. His first action was to delete all comments on his talk page, referring to the discussions there as "garbage" in his edit summary [54]. He can do whatever he wants with his talk page, but deleting comments is generally not best practice. He then proceeds to suggest a "compromise" regarding the use of a reference that all the regular editors to the article E1b1b agree is now obsolete. Before receiving feedback about his "compromise" he proceeds to implement it, and is even edit warring over his "compromise".[55], [56]. On the article Genetic history of Europe, he reverts without a single discussion on the talk page [57]. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's pretty clear this editor was engaging in a deliberate edit war on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) when his edit summary for the revert reads "Read talk page I know Muntuwandi will revert this edit without concensus." Blocked 1 month for edit warring upon release of previous block for edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyciol's redirects

    A couple of weeks ago I had confronted Tyciol (talk · contribs) about his redirects in which he took any red link he found on a page and redirected it to the article (as far as I can tell). This resulted in the names of real people ending up at articles that may or may not have anything to do with them. I advised him that this activity was not really helpful. Tonight, I just managed to find another such redirect and gave him another heads up. I've gone back a month through his edits, finding redirects made of common Japanese given names and surnames to the same locations as the articles for the combinations of these names. I've tagged as much as I could with {{db-r3}} as there is no way that people looking up these names will have any use in finding these articles (a redirect for the composer of a particular film was redirected to that film), and it also hinders new users or any user from making an actual article on the individual. This has made up my last 200 edits. I think some more indepth clean up will be needed, and I just want to make whoever is going through CAT:CSD doesn't think I'm crazy for tagging these pages.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've just cleaned up a load more, some of the redirects are ludicrous and more problematically he has recreated pages deleted for no notability as redirects. There are still more to do, which I'll look at later. Black Kite 10:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deleted. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 214 further redirects deleted so far, but I'm only back to 16 July on his contribs. Another problem is that he creates pairs of redirects for Western-style names, which are completely pointless and often misleading (i.e. for the person "Fred Bill Smith", he creates "Fred Bill" and "Bill Smith"). Anyone who wants to carry on is welcome :) Otherwise I'll finish them later. Black Kite 16:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Edit: I've just looked at the rest of his contribs - there are thousands more of these. This is going to be a huge cleanup operation, and I'm wondering if just rolling back all of his recent edits and deleting the redirects might be less time-consuming ... more eyes welcome. Black Kite 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you mean rollback as in undo? I think we can agree that Tyciol is generally a good contributor and rolling back his good edits would not be helping anyone. Unfortunately Toolserver is down now, but when it goes back up perhaps we could use Escaladix's tool to check out every redirect he's created and then delete the ones that need to be deleted. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undo would be good but may not be possible. Problems that need to be fixed are to
    • Delete all the redirects that are incorrect, misleading, problematic, or plain useless
    • roll back all the edits where he's added said redirects to disambiguation pages
    • roll back all the edits where he's done the same to article hatnotes
    • roll back to their original state all the redirects that he's changed to useless dab pages, because his spurious redirects conflicted with something else (i.e. [58])
    • roll back the circular redirects that he's created.
    • Now clearly some of his last 7,000 articlespace edits - stretching back a year - have been useful, but the vast majority of them are involved in redirect creation, and the majority of those are in one of the above categories. The problem is that going so far back, of ones that haven't been reverted by other editors (quite a lot have), many articles will have been edited since, making undo problematic.
    • Note: you don't need a tool to look for his redirects, just do a articlespace-only contrib search - you get pages like this. Black Kite 21:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Indef'd user socking as IP, WP:SPI backlog

    Resolved
     – Brzzap. Thanks, Tnxman307. TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've filed a WP:SPI report here, requesting a rangeblock, but it seems that there's a backlog at SPI at the moment. In the interim could I request an IP block for this IP sock? It's targets are mostly talk pages, so protection won't help.

    Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 14:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Brzzap. TNXMan 14:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aw, man, just when it was getting interesting. I was going to take bets on when or if he would figure out how Jimbo's name is spelled. Oh, well, that's show biz. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, this edit is very all your base. TNXMan 14:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he's right, I am veritably dripping with envy. Or with something, anyway. The A/C is busted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Mrgreen520, creation of bogus/deceptive pages; indiscriminate and narrowly focused

    The user Mrgreen520 (talk · contribs) has a history of creating bogus pages for record companies such as Sony BMG discography, Universal Motown Republic Group discography and Koch Entertainment discography. The user also created the Atlantic Records discography page successfully deleted by a nom. filed by user TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). The main problem with these lists is that they couldn't possibly be discriminate. The content gathered by the user on these pages is also bogus and deceptive because the listings appear to have no connection to the said companies, in fact, other unrelated companies and labels are indicated in brackets. I have begun by nominating what I believe is the worst culprit: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BMG discography. As user TenPoundHammer argues in the nom., these pages are "narrow, clumsy, rap-centric list that was maybe 5% complete and would've been browser-crashingly long if finished." Imperatore (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how you need any administrative intervention here. If you're requesting assistance with something, could you please be more specific? lifebaka++ 16:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Imperatore and I are stuck as to what to do with this editor. It's not really vandalism per se, but his edits are very troubling and need a few more eyes on them. I've prodded the other two lists. What should be done with this editor, since none of his edits are useful? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If there areonly these few articles, and they are as bad as you say, we will soon be rid of them by deletion. We can deal with new ones in a similar way, DGG (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yes. But eventually, the source of the issue needs to be addressed. Tan | 39 16:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would've just emptied out 90% of the page, since that's close to the proportion that is completely bogus (listings that have no association to the purported companies). I would imagine then that I'd end up being accused of vandalism and my edits would be reversed by bots. Definitely we need to address the root of the issue. Imperatore (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per DGG, if the articles are recreated after deletion there is some evidence that the editor is disruptive and can be dealt with in the standard manner (block, sock, drama, etc.). Another way would be to suggest moving them to titles such as "Atlantic Records Hip Hop/Gangsta Rap Discography". I note that the editor uses two formats; those by year only would perhaps be allowable under a more defined article header, those which are listed by artist really only duplicate the individuals article listing and can be dispensed with. How about discussing this with the editor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a fair proposal if the actual listings weren't bogus. The listings themselves have in brackets labels which suggest a completely different label under another unrelated parent company. I don't even see how this is in good faith to be honest. Imperatore (talk) 17:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, then nuke the articles and warn the editor against recreating - or creating similar articles with the same problems - and take them to AIV if it continues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Damian

    Peter Damian has once again started socking whilst blocked. He created Asockofcourse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to again attack FT2, despite being banned by the arbitration committee from interacting with him. Do we really need this guy in our team? Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to this, he's started attacking FT2 on his own talk page whilst blocked [59]. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we need him on our team? Absolutely not. He's clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, at all. iMatthew talk at 18:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Due to Peter using his talk page to violate the same ruling that led to his block I have altered the block so that he cannot edit his talk page. Regarding the sock puppets I suggest we reset and/or increase his block when he engages in sock puppetry. Chillum 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Asockofcourse (talk · contribs)

    Just ensuring other eyes on this for transparency: This editor is an attack SPA, created as an obvious sock to go after FT2 (talk · contribs). See now-deleted talk page. I've blocked the editor without rights to edit the talk page (given the attack was on the talk page). After several whingey emails from this user, I've removed email privileges from the account. Whoever this is can present whatever beef they have with FT2 on a more appropriate forum from their legitimate account. 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - see two sections above. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. I should have seen that. I've combined these two sections. I've removed email privs from Peter Damian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) too as some of the emails came from that account.. I think 5 emails complaining about unblocking the sock is enough. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Enough is enough

    Obviously has no intention with following the arbcom ruling, and is doing little other than cause drama. I move for a community ban, and one that will stick this time. Threatening to destroy the wiki is one thing - violating arbcom rulings, socking to violate them again and harassing/attacking contributors is another. Move for community ban, close the lid on this saga. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    May I ask what type of community ban are you requesting? Brothejr (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume the type of ban where he is not allowed back. Chillum 19:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; a full one. He's banned, full stop - his accounts are blocked. Any socks are blocked. Any IP addresses or additional accounts linked to him after the ban passes are blocked.Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No argument from me. Using sockpuppets to attack a Wikipedian while blocked... this leaves me with very little confidence that this person will ever work with the community. Chillum 19:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Chillum. The editor has shown no interest in working with other editors. Time for something much stronger and permanent. Brothejr (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would endorse a community ban as well. After the Arbitration Committee ruling, there is absolutely nowhere we can go from here. — madman bum and angel 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse community ban. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I don't understand why he wasn't permablocked after threatening to destroy Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment/Support: I don't see anyone moving to unblock him after this, so it sounds like a defacto ban to me anyhow. Nja247 19:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's currently only blocked for a month. He was previously indef'd but that was reduced to a month for some reason. So why is he not indef'd again? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, if there's consensus that this was the last straw I reckon he will be indefed with a link to the consensus for the block log. Nja247 20:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. As I said in the previous thread on AN, I think that anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. I think it's interesting to note that in his unblock motion, one of the arbs noted that he had "no confidence Peter Damian will abide by any conditions of an unblock." Apparently that hasn't changed in the 8 months since then. I agree, enough is enough. Time to cut him loose. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 20:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Peter has never done anything to befriend me, and we have fought a lot. We are not on good terms or on neutral. I also asked for a block reduction previously and he went and socked. Yes, I must look incredibly stupid. However, I also believe that the length of the block pushed this inevitable fate. Peter feels like a scholar who is being ignored and he honestly wants to contribute. He also has major problems handling himself appropriately with FT2. I cannot, in clean conscience, endorse an indef block, even though it greatly pains me for him to act in this manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse community ban, with no chance whatsoever of it ever being lifted. We let him game us for far too long. Good riddance. → ROUX ₪ 21:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse permanent community ban. I'm not sure if he's conducting some kind of odd experiment, or if he's just finally snapped completely. Either way; he's behaving extremely disruptively and in blatant violation of both policy and the relevant arbcom rulings. This is all despite vast numbers of previous chances - it's really time we stopped tolerating him and moved on. The positive contributions he's made are vastly outweighed by the acres of drama he seems to intentionally create wherever he goes. ~ mazca talk 21:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per Roux. I could not have said it better myself. →javért stargaze 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse any other user would have been banned already for his underhanded, destructive BS. This is just the icing on the cake. Bullzeye contribs 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Endorse indef community ban, per Mazca. I believe Ryan said it well (above); despite second chances, nothing tells us that this guy is on our side. On top of socking around ArbCom enforcement, PD initially stated that he wanted to destroy Wikipedia. It was an off-wiki comment, yes, and he can't simply bring this site to ruins, but his actions repeatedly confirm his intentions. This should have been stamped out earlier, but now is as good as any time; continuous drama and endless disruption lends us nothing worthwhile. Seriously, it's about time to shut the lid on this problem. JamieS93 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. I guess Law's indef should have been left alone. Lara 21:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Not only has he failed to meet us halfway, he's obviously not even on the same road; a wasp at the picnic. Rodhullandemu 21:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I recommend Peter make his own encyclopedia worthy of his vast intellect and expertise - a place where he and his fellow experts are respected. He is clearly too good for Wikipedia and he is better off without us.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. The community should not allow those who wish to destroy it to participate.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse He's wasted the community's time and patience with many points he's tried to make. Agree with the header, Enough is enough. iMatthew talk at 22:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Mr. Damian's behavior makes it impossible to extend him yet another chance to straighten up. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse full ban. Disruptive socking repeating the behavior that got him blocked through arbcom? C'mon. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an uninvolved administrator, I move for the ban to be enacted, the proposal seems to be snowballing and if their are no further objections, I or another administrator can put the ban into effect by blocking this user's account unless someone can find some evidence for a ban not to be put in place. Best, Mifter (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see a clear consensus to ban this user. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I object. Let this run its course with no room for doubt. When this is done, it should be done.--Tznkai (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I guess we should. Removing doubt would be a good benefit for the administrator who puts this future ban into effect. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Consensus at AN when I discussed the block seemed to be leaning for an indef and that was before any of the above happened. It is unlikely that anyone would agree with my statement above or oppose the ban. I am not saying this to close discussion, but more of how it looks from the perspective of the other side. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Full ban. He has been disruptive long enough. Until It Sleeps Wake me 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse this should have happened a long time ago. Jeni (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse Since he clearly cannot stay away from FT2. AniMatedraw 01:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse community ban. Should have been done before. Attempting (poorly) to destroy Wikipedia is, i'm afraid, not compatible with Wikipedia's purpose. Firestorm Talk 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse. — Athaenara ✉ 01:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The consensus here is clear and I have enacted this ban. I don't think this is cutting anything short. Discussion can continue and in the unlikely event that consensus changes then we can act on that. Chillum 01:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs?

    I ask for some diffs, please. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 19:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The diffs are available in the above thread - see also this ANI thread for the previous violation and this enforcement request. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Spanishboy2006

    User:Spanishboy2006 is threatening me, stalking me, insulting me:

    "You are being closely watched. [...] You are being watched, every change, move or reversion you will make which most of the time is violated will be reported. [...] Nice try, Cinema C, лажљивац.(google translator says so)" diff

    (лажљивац means liar or shammer in Serbian [60])

    User is already blocked for 2 weeks for edit warring on Kosovo related articles and received his warning to stop breaking Wikipedia rules. He seems to have not learned anything, so I advise the administrators to consider further action. --Cinéma C 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I prevented him from editing his talk page for the duration of the block. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DanaUllman

    DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

    I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

    On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

    From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]


    It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 183 FCs served 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

    On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

    We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website[1] Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllmanTalk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

    And then today he posts:


    In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllmanTalk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

    The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

    DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

    Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

    "The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

    Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

    Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [61].


    Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

    I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tenant23

    Resolved
     – A simple mistake, no admin assistance needed. JamieS93 19:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone please counsel Tenant23 (talk · contribs) about what is vandalism and assuming someone is here to help. I had fixed some wording when they came along and reverted it without explanation, and quite rudely gave me a warning for vandalism. (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry my bad, when I first read it I thought it was vandalism I'm sorry. I thought you were a vandal and I was wrong, apologies. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! --Tenant23 (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to revoke sanction

    Because of an edit war between me and User:William Allen Simpson , User:Aervanath imposed a certain sanction upon both of us. I think this sanction is unfair to me. User:Aervanath seems to be unavailable. At the end of that Wikipedia:AN3 discussion it says that this is the place to appeal. I have outlaid all my arguments there a week ago. (I was offline this last week because I moved.) Debresser (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That does seem like a little extreme of a restriction. Have you tried discussing it with William Allen Simpson to see if the two of you can come up with a mutual agreement? I think it should probably be reduced to "no reverts of each other's edits, widely construed". In other words, mandating that you review each other's contributions to make sure that the other hasn't edited a page within the last month is a bit extreme. But I don't see a reason to remove the restriction completely unless/until the two of you have an agreement that the disruption will not happen again. --B (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User: CanOfWorms : Bulk use of "Citation needed" tags and incivility

    I have come across a number of occasions when CanOfWorms (talk · contribs · logs) added "Citation needed" tags to pages on my Watchlist. Despite the fact that it seemed that there was no need to tag these pages in this way, I tried to add links as requested. I informed CanOfWorms that I had done this and noted that his sole activity seemed to be adding these tags and he responded rudely [62]. I have noted where he has done this on a number of other occasions: see, for example [63]. When constructive suggestions are added to his talk page, he either insults the user, or deletes the suggestions: [64]. It seems to me that he is not following the Wikipedia guidelines on citing but continues with his bulk tagging by a combination of high activity and incivility. Others have noted the same: [65]. I'm not really an expert on this, but his approach seems unconstructive and antagonistic to those trying to improve Wikipedia. Can anything be done to prevent this actvity? --Phil Holmes (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think telling another user to "get lost" is totally uncivil behaviour on Wikipedia. CanOfWorms needs to learn some manors and listen to other user's advice. Jolly Ω Janner 21:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified CanOfWorms of this section -- this should have been done at the start. Looking over the contribs, I see an editor who has been Wikignoming for a couple of years, but started on a binge of massive "citation needed" tagging a couple of months ago, and responds to complaints with brusque incivility. A bit of behavior mod is clearly needed. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing his contributions, I reminded CanOfWorms of the necessity to maintain a positive, collaborative environment, and that he needs to address concerns. I think that's all that can be done for now. If the tagging continues without attempts at civil explanation, bring back here. Tan | 39 22:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He's not disrupted the encyclopedia, all he's done is give a handful of curt responses. I don't particularly like it, but even if it continues I don't think more than what you've done should be attempted. CanOfWorms sometimes puts tags in the wrong place or where they are unnecessary. The thing is, he's probably only going to get it wrong on articles with a decent number of references, which are usually maintained. So the mistakes can easily be rectified. Therefore, the only real problem is CanOfWorms slightly abbrasive attitude. It hasn't harmed anyone and if someone gets upset by being told to get lost, they're probably going to get very upset later on on wikipedia when they run into a genuinely rude editor. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't disagree more with your opinions. While I am certainly not the civility police, WP:CIVIL is policy here, not a guideline. In particular, this policy requires editors to "participate in a respectful and considerate way," and also reminds them to "... not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I agree that nothing has been done so far that requires anything further than a gentle reminder. However, your stance that this attitude must be tolerated if necessary is, frankly, wrong. Tan | 39 23:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with your assertion. Please try to be dynamic in your use of policy, rigidly following does more harm than good. Telling someone to get lost is harmless, and CanOfWorms does no harm. Nev1 (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am very dynamic in my use - but the policy exists, and you seem to want to completely ignore it. Telling someone to "get lost" in response to concerns certainly is not harmless. It trashes the collaborative, collegial nature of the project. No one is talking about blocking anybody yet, but I reserve the right in all situations to close the door on editors who cannot abide by our policies. I suppose we can disagree here and it's really not a big deal; nothing yet has happened to invoke any further action. Tan | 39 23:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely support Tan's assessment here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (outdent) Not taking sides in this perticular case, but I have no problem with editors who mainly add citation request tags and don't do much else. I know there is more than that here, i.e. civilty, very mild case here imho, but I do get annoyed when editors are like "dude, rather than add a fact tag, go find a citation and help out". The idea of "drive by tagging" without explaination, ect is not helpful or collegial(I hate that word around here) or whatever, I diagree with. Again, no offense directed at the others who have commented, just my one cent. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that many editors take offence at maintenance tags being placed on "their" articles (as much as we are against it, its rare that an editor doesn't show some form of ownership towards an article). They believe their article is perfect, and if anyone disagrees with them then all hell breaks loose. This causes conflict between those who tag, and those who don't. Its inevitable in this, users get "grouchy" and end up snapping at other people. I'm not defending incivility, but its always a good idea to look at the bigger picture, and look into the possible reasons why a certian user has got to a point where they start snapping at other users. In this case, a simple warning should suffice, and that could have probably been delt with at WP:WQA. Jeni (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No question the user in question is being kind of a jerk about it. But are the tags legitimate, or are they frivolous? The poster of this thread was lecturing the editor in question about the specific way he's doing the tags. If the tags are legitimate, the original posters' focus should be on resolving the citations, not on pedantry about whether they go before or after a period. If the tags are not legitimate, they should be reverted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fisticuffs by three editors at Talk:Shell account

    All three of these editors have been, for no better of a term, slinging mud at each other non-stop for the past two days at least regarding three external links at the Shell account article. It doesn't seem like any user involved here wish to pursue dispute resolution. I have tried to initiate an RFC on the matter and warned everyone to lay off the attacks, edit-warring, and incivility, but I have failed. Can somebody please separate these three before we have to resort to tanks and planes? MuZemike 00:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MuZemike may have overlooked a few things here, so I will clarify. This issue has been on going for about 2 months. I have been trying to pursue a DR, but Tothwolf will not accept my proposal, and refuses to propose his own. Yworo has only made 1 comment on the article talk page and has little relevance here. Tothwolf has been disruptive throughout, and shown little sign of working towards a resolution. I hope this clarifies the situation a little. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) Just a quick clarification so someone doesn't have to dig through the contribs quite as much...User:Yworo has not been active on Shell account but left a personal attack directed at me on the article's talk page today. They've been wikistalking me after a disagreement over some images on Linux and several related articles. Issues with User:Hm2k and disruption on Shell account have been going on since June 17 and involve a lot more editors than myself. I finally said something on July 1st [66] after seeing User:Hm2k's edit warring over Shell account on my watchlist. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also feel I should point out this little gem of a refactored talk page comment on User talk:Hm2k. [67] Removing one ':' in an attempt to make it look like the warning was directed at me instead of Hm2k... --Tothwolf (talk) 01:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    1. ^ http://search.cochrane.org/search?q=homeopathy+Oscillococcinum&restrict=cochrane_org&scso_colloquia_abstracts=colloquia_abstracts&client=my_collection&scso_evidence_aid=evidence_aid&scso_review_abstracts=Cochrane_reviews&lr=&output=xml_no_dtd&sub_site_name=Cochrane.org_search&filter=0&site=my_collection&ie=&oe=&scso_registered_titles=registered_titles&scso_newsletters=newsletters&scso_cochrane_org=whole_site&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cochrane.org%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle_mini_xsl%2Fcochrane_org.xsl
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=305734197"