Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Yasser Latif Hamdani

I've indef blocked (overriding a related WP:3RR block) User:YLHamdani, who claims to be the article subject and was adding unsourced info the BLP Yasser Latif Hamdani; info which another user, User:Yasser Latif Hamdani (also claiming to be the subject), claimed was wrong and potentially dangerous to his person. Another editor claims to have verified the latter's identity (see WP:BLP/N). The indef-blocked user also published an email address on the talk page which appears to belong to the latter editor (though this isn't verified). I'd like another admin to review my actions and/or comment on what else might need doing. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk

Account espousing conspiracy theories; Intervention needed

• Raquel Baranow (talk · contribs)

This account is soapboxing and causing trouble:

my Wikistalker

User:Iamandrewrice has threatened to 'stalk' my future edits; we came into contact with one another on Maltese people: the article has since been semi-protected (after being protected for a while because of the same vandalism). Is there a standard procedure for this sort of thing? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That editor appears to have been banned in 2007. Was there a sock involved? Toddst1 (talk) 13:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP account was being used: however the situation seems to have taken an unexpected turn; [3] - we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

So... is there anything on Wikipedia in place to deal with this type of individual? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Unless you have exclusive checkuser data saying that I am "Iamandrewrice", that the rest of us don't have, I would appreciate it if you stopped calling me it.
2. I don't believe I mentioned the word "stalking" at any time - I said I'd be keeping my eye on your edits, or am I now not allowed to do this?
3. Oh and also, please note, the article was semi-protected previously because of your editing disputes then. Now, it was protected because of you again, and you still don't listen even though the community is backing me up on the talk page. 89.243.67.167 (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins, is there really nothing to be done about this individual? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First thing to do is to request a checkuser. The second thing, probably the best, is to simply ignore provocations. All the best. --Tone 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That user was indeed indef banned (as opposed to blocked) (details) for complex and highly disruptive sockpuppetry. If I remember correctly, due to subsequent actions any unban request must be handled by ArbCom. See here for just some of the SP investigations; there is also a good deal of CU information. Note that the IP above does not seem to appear in the SP investigation I've mentioned. Tonywalton ^Talk 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. It seems doubly odd because, under an alternative IP, the editor in question accused me of being User:Iamandrewrice. He's since been tagged as this character although the situation appears more complicated - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#IP editors on Maltese People. It's all rather confusing and time-wasting. we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 19:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Some checkuser is here. Note again that the IP you mention is not there. Do you have a diff for the stalking threat? Tonywalton ^Talk 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"the IP you mention is not there" - but it is from the same range as a third of the ones there confirmed by Alison, and traces back to the exact same place as all of them. Coupled with the behvioural evidence, the connection is more than obvious. Only a handful of fairly narrow bands of IPs are being used - someone ought to look into which of them can be rangeblocked without collateral damage. Knepflerle (talk) 09:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Are any admins willing to take this up and help out? we are a marvelous Machine (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

This could be Iamandrewrice but the evidence isn't stunningly strong. If the IPs were clearly violating policy in some way we could justify a checkuser pretty easily, but I haven't seen that looking at the page histories and IP edit histories.

Can you point to diffs of them being specifically abusive?

I can see the multi-IP pattern pretty clearly, but that's not necessarily any policy violation.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that that IP is in a /14 block we're looking at over 260,000 possible IPs from a large UK ISP. Along with George, I'd still like to see specific diffs. Tonywalton ^Talk 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A non-exhaustive list of recent problems: (only two diffs given here for each bout, but look at history for scale of warring)

• comments to Pietru "I'd be careful how you tread" "Pietru, I'll be watching your edits"
• edit-warring on Maltese language leading to protection [4] [5] and many others.
• edit warring on Maltese people leading to protection [6] [7]
• edit warring on Maltese people (again) leading to protection [8] [9] [10]
• edit warring on Latin Europe leading to protection [11] [12] (note the IPs and their traceroutes)
• edit warring at Relexification [13] [14]
• edit warring at Mixed language [15] [16] - again compare combination of IPs to those above
• edit warring at Olive skin [17] [18]

...and for information on the original reasons for banning, see the original ban discussion and further decision and the previous connected checkusers and sockpuppet investigations: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jack_Forbes, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice and Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/MagdelenaDiArco

A check for further accounts is the very minimum that is required here. Knepflerle (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What the...? First of all, I'm accused of being the IP who edited the same article as me several weeks ago - wow, two different IPs editing the same article - they must be the same. What's more, I didn't even edit the same thing as that IP, who seemed to obsess about returning the "language section" to his version- something I never even touched.

Then, one user comes out of the blue and starts saying I'm this. Well, let's look at this user. They are apparently (according to their old userpage) 1/3 Maltese - I'm Maltese; considering I edited a Maltese-based article, it isn't really that much of an odd coincidence is it? Or is it rare to get Maltese editors editing Maltese articles now? Also, has anyone even checked what this person's editing style was? Sorry, but are people seriously contending that my edits match this, this, and this, among others?

As if that wasn't bad enough, I'm now every IP address that has edited anything even remotely related to "Maltese people" - but Latin Europe, Olive skin, and Relexification?? How are they in any way connected to it? Apparently "Iamandrewrice" edited "Latin Europe", but where do the other two come from? Are you stating that because I'm Maltese, I would edit "Olive skin"? Is that not racist?

What is interesting is that User:Pietru claims that another IP (who he believes is me) accused him of being Iamandrewrice (I don't know when or where this was, so I can't find the diff) - I'm not suggesting either way, but we should bare in mind that the IP could be right, and Pietru could indeed be this disruptive user back, trying to frame others of what he's doing so as not to draw suspect himself (although of course, to those that think I'm that user, that is exactly what I'd be doing now?). It is for that reason that I suggest a checkuser between: "me, Iamandrewrice (to clear up that I am not him), Pietru (to see if what is written above about Iamandrewrice and he, has any worth), and also the IPs (if that's possible, although the users above stated there were thousands of linked IPs in the UK?) 89.242.102.233 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above I don't see any link between this IP and Iamandrewrice (that doesn't mean there isn't one, but I can't see it). In particular I don't see any claims made by the IP to be IamA, and his style has certainly come on a bit if that's him!I do recall IamA claiming to be part-Maltese, (but then again he claimed many things…) A CU might be a good idea, RFCU gives instructions on how to go about it. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue is discussed on the Maltese language and Maltese people talk pages. Whoever this IP is, their brand of editing is particularly insidious and destructive. Some sort of check is imperative (having undergone one in relation to this business already, I don't see why everybody involved on these articles shouldn't), it's a shame no admins seem interested in seriously following this up! Pietru (talk) 22:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking back the relevant checkuser has already been done right here - User:Alison, who has prior experience of this case, confirmed that IPs from both the 78.14*.*.* and 89.24*.*.* are used for this disruption by User:Iamandrewrice.

Those IPs were used to disrupt Latin Europe. The connection from that disruption to the Olive skin article comes from these contributions, which was disrupting mixed language with the same sources as were being used to disrupt Maltese language by a sockpuppet of a user who had been disrupting Latin Europe - one sock to push POV claiming Maltese's mixed nature in Maltese language, relexification and mixed language, the other to edit Latin Europe.

Just look at this sequence at Maltese people - 78. edit 89. edit and again 89. 78. and tell me they're coincidentally connected twice.

To connect the IPs to Iamandrewrice, how about these strings of edits - first from Iamandrewrice putting incorrect information on the origins of Maltese and editing the Latin Europe article, then using a confirmed sockpuppet on the same articles - now compare those to all of the edit-warring IPs above. Combined with User:Alison's checkuser, there is no doubt here. Knepflerle (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

To connect the IPs to Iamandrewrice, raise a checkuser case. I'm distancing myself from this one now - frankly I had enough grief, stress and drama over that sockpuppeteer back in 2007 to last me the rest of my life. I'm sure there are enough admins around here to take it further if necessary Tonywalton ^Talk 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins actually willing to help, as well as voice their opinions, would be appreciated. Pietru (talk) 13:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're getting at, Knepflerle - all you have shown is that IP addresses have edited these articles. You haven't proved any connection between them. Not only that, but the IPs you use are in fact further proof that all these IPs cycle, and that you can't just accuse someone based on that - see here, where it appears that the Dynamic IP cycled to another user. I'm sorry but the way it is, you don't have a leg to stand on. I also notice you ignored my comment about User:Iamandrewrice's editing style? 78.149.172.122 (talk) 16:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Allegedly Racist comments by CENSEI

CENSEI (talk · contribs) has made a couple of comments (diff1, diff2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama that refer to Barack Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah". At the same time, this editor has made a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles (see recent contribs). It is also noteworthy that he/she seems to be using WP:3RR as a way of attacking editors he/she disagrees with. I am not sure if this is the proper place (or form) to report this issue - I would welcome administrator guidance if this is improper process. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

His commentary is certainly repulsive and disruptive. Not sure if its sanctionable. But it should at least stop at this point.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that Scjessey is not above playing the race card in his ongoing eidt warring in all things Barack Obama. Typical I suppose considering that his actions has put him in arbitration. I also see that when Scjessey says I have made "a number of non-neutral edits to Obama-related articles", that exact # is one, and the neutrality of the edit is not in dispute, only Scjessey's overinflated sensibilities.

I suppose all we have to do now is wait for the army of meat puppets to chime in. CENSEI (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of this. Clearly some logged out editing/socking/meat puppetry going on over at Teleprompter now. Here's the contributions log. [19]Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean chocolate puppetry, right? Wikidemon (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this over to RFCU if your suspicions are strong enough. After all, I am certainly the only person on earth who has noticed this. CENSEI (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)It's so over the top it is hard to take seriously. Calling Obama the "chocolate messiah" is a clever turn of phrase and could probably be sold to certain noted radio personalities who enjoy such things, but the term is not in general circulation and Wikipedia is probably not the best launching ground for a new cultural meme. As far as I know "chocolate" is normally a term of affection for black people, often with strong sexual / homoerotic / fetishist overtones, as in Chocolate City. And as I said at the AfD, it kind of reminds me of chocolate Santas and Easter bunnies. Not sure if you intended all that. Wikidemon (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly revealing to read about you wide and deep knowledge of all things black and homoerotica, but I there was little affection in my comment. Now, can we safely put SCJesseys manufactured outrage to bed? CENSEI (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. I'm too dumbfounded to be outraged. So my reaction was more to think it funny, but still, tasteless jokes with sexual / racial overtones can get people riled up. Incidentally, methinks CENSEI doth protest too much. You're the one who brought up Santorum.[20] .... |.... Wikidemon (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, are you saying that there is anything wrong with having a knowledge of matters pertaining to black orientated homoerotica? Where, indeed, do you believe a line should be drawn as regards the right and ability to understand all aspects of the human condition? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the two diffs shown at the start of this thread are enough, all by themselves, to justify an indef block for disruptive editing of talk pages. Looie496 (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block for snark on an AFD page ... seriously, 90% of the users on Wikipedia would be gone if thats the criteria you are willing to use. If this wasn’t so blatantly over the top in its ham handedness, I might actually think you were serious. CENSEI (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Censei has been blocked six (6!) times previously for bad behaviour, an indef block seems like a reasonable thing to discuss. This editor seems to make very few useful contributions in proportion to the amount of bullshit generated; I would certainly support an extended block at the very least. Doc Tropics 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would not personally advocate for an indef block at this time, though if this kind of thing continues that would completely appropriate. Edits like this are not really acceptable in my book and suggest that the editor is editing with a strong agenda (there is also apparently some socking going on over on the Teleprompter article—never would have guessed a month ago that that would have ended up a controversial one!) From the little experience I have with the Obama articles, problematic, agenda driven editors of any ideological stripe really can't help but engage in disruptive editing, even once they've been warned. I'd prefer to consider this AN/I thread a "final warning" to CENSEI to avoid inflammatory, racialized language, to cease trying to push negative information about Barack Obama into other parts of the encyclopedia, to forego edit warring, and generally to discuss issues in a civil fashion with other editors. If CENSEI can keep to that, great, we don't have a problem, and if not I think this editor should probably be permanently shown the door. This most recent behavior, on top of six blocks since July, is just not acceptable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

← It is difficult to discern anything in Special:Contributions/CENSEI beyond single-minded advocacy and abuse of Wikipedia as a political battleground. Given that Obama-related articles are supposedly on probation, and given this block log, I'm going to ban User:CENSEI from Obama-related pages, broadly construed, for 6 months, per the terms of the article probation. As I'm not logging on much anymore, I'll preemptively open this to reversal should an administrator feel strongly that he deserves a 17th chance to reform into an encyclopedic contributor on these topics. MastCell ^Talk 05:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Per RayAYang, and also, the disturbing lack of warnings to this user. Typically, warnings are given, not immediate (6-month long) bans. Personally, I believe that is ridiculous. Also, note that this man serves in the military. If anyone is allowed to give their opinion (which, from the looks of it, this is an opinion of his), it is the men and women who serve our country. -Axmann8 (Talk) 16:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No warning? How about this one? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 6 blocks is substantial warning. And because he's allegedly in the military he can do what he want? I don't think so... Grsz¹¹ 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, can somebody define Axmann's topic ban? Grsz¹¹ 20:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

According to User:Axmann8/About me, he's under a topic ban on politics. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The topic ban, as I brokered it, applies only to editing articles related to politics or directly commenting on said articles on public noticeboards short of serious behavioral issues (i.e. sockpuppetry, Frankenstein's Monster, legal threats). It does not extend to noticeboard discussions about users (unless the complaint involved political biases) or to talk pages (so long as the deed and intent are not disruptive or otherwise violates core policies), so Axmann's topic ban does not apply here. IAR can't be invoked here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse this topic ban, though I doubt it will go far enough. CENSEI has a long history of pushing his own personal political views into a wide variety of articles, many of which are not even Obama related, and has several edit-war and related blocks over these issues. Still, we gotta start somewhere. Maybe this will curtail his behavior. I doubt it, but I can hope... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban. I was going to suggest something similar myself. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban (non-admin).The sock/meat pupetting and constant disruption to make points about something or other poisons the editing environment whenever he's about on those pages.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban, it all adds up to that. Chillum 13:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. It's a good middle ground between a "17th chance" (which, in a sense, I advocated above) and an outright indef block, though obviously it should not preclude the latter option if problematic behavior persists. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Qualified endorse (note - I'm not an admin). I've more than once been the target of CENSEI's bluster, and that has been difficult. Although I personally found CENSEI's comments funny because they are so ridiculous and over the top...sorry, sometimes tasteless comments are...I realize they are racially insensitive and would be offensive to many people. On a person-to-person level, I think hearing CENSEI out and explaining things patiently would be better than shunning him. However, we're building an encyclopedia, not running a sensitivity workshop, so at a certain point I guess it's fair to say allowing him to rant does more harm than good. Wikidemon (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I'm going to mention that the user has asked for the formality of an RFC on his conduct, and he should get one in a hearing before a broader group than merely those who frequent the ANI notice boards. I have been increasingly disturbed of late by the groupthink and one-sided tolerance for immature behavior by people espousing the "correct" position, and a corresponding rush to convict even established users with a history of valuable contributions to Wikipedia having the "wrong" position. This suggests that this project is turning into one which prizes consensus above neutrality and evenhandedness. It's getting pretty close to the point where I may, outside the walled garden of math articles, give up on Wikipedia altogether. We have a mechanism for discussing bad behavior by users of long standing, which CENSEI is. Use it. Ray^Talk 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  Well, I would submit that we have a mechanism for handling relentlessly disruptive agenda-driven editing on Obama-related articles. I used it. People who actually want to improve the encyclopedia shouldn't be forced to put up with agenda account after agenda account, and they shouldn't be forced to go through a directionless, soul-crushing, months-long process to deal with each new agenda account. If CENSEI is what passes for an "established user" these days, then I feel all the more comfortable with my decision to gradually bow out of this particular asylum. MastCell ^Talk 04:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  On the question of growing increasingly disenchanted with this particular asylum, MastCell, we agree. Ray^Talk 06:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  Since the election and their loss of power, some elements of the right wing have abandoned all pretense of civility, and have showed their true colors, so to speak, revealing what degenerate low-lifes they really are. We can't fix that problem all across America, but we need not tolerate it here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:38, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Highly offensive comments that demean wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, no jokes today. I'm angry. Why is the user in question not blocked already? Why is his kind of behavior increasingly tolerated at wikipedia? Are we that desparate for editors? I wouldn't think so. This kind of thing is going to sink wikipedia. Why is kissing up to a racist pig more important than protecting the content and the reputation of wikipedia? Where are the priorities??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I note the appropriately-dispensed topic ban, and also the usual rant that "liberals run wikipedia". I wonder how he explains the fact that a user was recently blocked (and not for the first time) due to a left-wing based assault on the Justice Roberts article? Meanwhile, I know other conservatives who continue to edit their merry way, with no block or topic ban in place. How could that be? Maybe the real "bias" is against POV-pushing? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Another editor used racist terminology in the same discussion. If something is offensive ask the editor to remove it. The comment was at the very least insensitive, but I don't think it warrants this kind of excessive reaction. Obama has been and will be called a whole lot worse, just as Bush was. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  To be clear, the topic ban wasn't based on the language used in a single diff, but on an extensive record of edit-warring and abuse of Wikipedia. The tenor of CENSEI's recent edits certainly made the call a lot easier, in a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back sort of way. But the point of the article probation (as I read it) is that the sort of editing practiced by CENSEI should have been nipped in the bud 3 or 4 blocks ago. MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  I understand that there are concerns about prior issues. But this report is about this incident (see thread title). An RfC or other process would be more appropriate for a more generalized investigation of behavior. It's also worth noting that many of this editor's critics in this thread seem to be as unhappy with the political content and this editor's perspectives as they are with any of his/her actions as far as civility. That's a dangerous way to go, and I think the utmost impartiality is required when such a serious enforcement measure is discussed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I could care less about a topic ban, maybe it will do me some good. Quite honestly though, it has become virtually impossible to edit any Obama related article as a small tight nit group of editors and their lackey admin buddies now WP:OWN every Obama related article and have done a wonderful job of chasing nearly every other editor they don’t approve of off Administration related articles and the entire encyclopedia itself.

Polices , especially WP:BLP, have gone from being “non-negotiable” to based on bullying tactics passed off as wp:Consensus. In truth its really the sound of one hand clapping.

Have I been blocked several times, this much is true. Some of it was pure unadulterated bullshit and some of it was legitimate, and considering the harassment I have received I could have reacted better to it. But to say that there hasn’t been constant provocation by some editors is laughable.

This wont stop until someone important decides its going to stop (I am talking to you Jim Wales).

And for the record, what the hell is so racist about calling him the Chocolate Messiah? I know how powerful all this manufactured outrage can be, but can we please give the PC huggers a break?CENSEI (talk) 19:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An RfC may or may not be carried out regarding CENSEI's overall conduct, but it would be a mistake to confuse the existence of an RfC with the legitimacy of CENSEI's Obama topic ban, which under the terms of the article probation requires nothing more than an uninvolved admin's discretion. I would also like to point out that continuing to refer to Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah" on Wikipedia may be viewed as a violation of that ban - though I'd welcome input from other admins on that point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And MastCell is an uninvolved administrator? You really buy that? And as far as continuing to refer to Obama as the "Chocolate Messiah" being a violation of the ban, how am I supposed to dispute these charges unless I can repeat them? Am I supposed to talk in code? CENSEI (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an Admin, but I fail to see how phrases like "Chocolate Messiah" can be construed as anything but provocative and disruptive. We don't have "freedom of speech" here on WP, and that kind of crap doesn't do anything to help produce higher quality articles. Doc Tropics 20:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Does this apply to all conduct on Wikipedia that offends people's PC sensibility? The next time someone says something that someone else deems to be offensive against msulims/Christains/Jews/Catholics/gays/Mormons/women whatever …. Are we going to have them prostrate them in from of the community and demand they say 10 novellas to the “offended” parties before they are allowed to edit again? CENSEI (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No. We might ask them to modify their behavior, as you have been asked to do multiple times. If they decided against modifying their behavior, and in fact persisted in their dirsuptive behavior, I presume administrative actions would eventually be taken. The last time I tangled with you in an editing dispute you, basically, challenged me to a fight. Your choices at the moment are to change your behavior, accept that your unchanged behavior is going to lead to restricted editing rights, or simply leave. It's all in your hands.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Challenged you to a fight ... thats quite the whopper, care to back that up with a link or something? CENSEI (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was an email you sent me - you don't remember? (The point of bringing this up is that you interact inappropriately and with hostility to lots and lots of people. That's what's gotten you into trouble... not your political views).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Email is off-wiki and off limits as far as discussion of conduct is concerned. Bali, it might be an idea to strike that one sentence above, in the interest of de-escalating the situation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:UNINVOLVED. You might also wish to review Talk:Barack Obama/article probation and consider how well your conduct matches the ideals laid out there. If on reflection you still want to dispute MastCell's suitability to do so, I will impose a six month Barack Obama topic ban myself. If on the other hand you wish to dispute the legitimacy of the top`ic ban altogether, it might be best to email ArbCom directly; feel free to use any terminology you see fit. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

CENSEI, it's certainly reasonable to ask that you refrain from using that phrase in the future. It doesn't serve a useful purpose as far as building and collaborating on the encyclopedia. As far as inappropriate conduct or phrasing by others that may be tolerated based on unfair and unequal standards of political correctness and political biases, that may be true. But it doesn't mean you shouldn't abide by the highest standards yourself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. CENSEI's reference to BA in this way belongs on conservative talk radio, as do most of his opinions, as I've experienced them. Block indef. ► RATEL ◄ 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero

• El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kartel King (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xcahv8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sabre Savage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polystyla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor recently made an appearance on ANI because of an edit war between himself and an IP editor. Both editors were subsequently blocked. Right after said blocks, the previously mentioned editor became the target of an SPI case, and was found to be using multiple unconfirmed accounts to avoid scrutiny. The master account, or what was assumed to be, was subsequently indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to avoid edit scrutiny.

The editor in question then started filing unblock requests, which mainly attacked other editors, including admins, the user also engaged in incivility, and personal attacks. To this date(check the second user page(the sock account), the user has not admitted any wrong doing, and in fact continues to attack other editors, myself included. Here are some great diffs:

• Disapointing how you can persistently abuse your powers and not even have the slightest bit of guilt in doing so. Almost seems as if you enjoy it. Disapointing. I would be ashamed but I guess we are completely different people. El Machete Guerrero(check the bottom of the page)

• Calling me clueless

Any way, I do not see the editor to be a productive one if he is going to act as if he is infallible, and not admit that when he attacked others, it was wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note, that after looking through the contributions of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, many of them have violated 3RR.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support a ban, although at this point it is just a formality; since none of the old accounts will ever be unblocked and any new ones will be blocked as socks the user in question is effectively banned anyway. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment Someone needs to remind him or/show him something: he claims that we are allowed to have multiple accounts. This is, as we all know, true. What we of course are not allowed to do is to use those multiple accounts to evade blocks, or avoid policy - such as multiple votes, avoiding 3RR, etc. Someone needs to show him where he used those multiple accounts to eithe evade a block, or to avoid a policy. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that using a sockpuppet to avoid scrutiny for one's actions, as the CU found, was expressly forbidden. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have declined an unblock request at User talk:Polystyla, and protected the page since it's been used for soapboxing, personal attacks, and editwarring (to a ridiculous extent) between Polystyla and Daedalus969. I am of the opinion that any unblock should only be considered for the master account (El Machete Guerrero). Comments welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse full ban. User is unclear on the concept. Personal attacks, edit warring, sock-puppetry, block evasion, combativeness, wikilawyering, forum-shopping, you name it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - After all the incivility, edit warring, personal attacks, soapboxing, and sockpuppetry, boot him from WP. Could Machete's behavior be considered trolling? →Dyl@n620 18:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban While I share BMW's concerns that Machete wasn't shown clear and concrete evidence that his use of alternate accounts constituted sockpuppetry, I think the recent abuse of the unblock template via those alternate accounts, combined with continued edit warring at these talk pages, is sufficient reason to enact a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Please note that Machete is making point-by-point responses to this thread at User talk:Xcahv8#Proposing a ban against me. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. I've posted a rebuttal of his most recent unblock request that I've read at User talk:El Machete Guerrero 2. Given that that page was locked when I posted the rebuttal, I'm not entirely certain he's seen it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• EDIT) Reposted it at User talk:Xcahv8#Unblock request. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 03:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - If merely to go from de facto into de jure. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban. Clearly not going to helpful until he learns and changes his conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - negative outweighs positive. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 10:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment From what I see, he just doesn't get it. Can we simply limit him to one account, and proceed with additional banning if they go beyond that? I feel that if we ban him, he's just going to come back worse in other ways. Tell him that the policy on alternate accounts does not apply to him ... monitor his sole account for bad edits. Maybe even mentor him? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • If he can agree to chill out, I'd absolutely support giving him another last chance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Against giving him another last chance - he responds to seeming unfairness by assuming ill faith on behalf of the person who did him wrong (In that instance, I had fulfilled an IP's request for full-protection of Reggaeton to stop a very protracted edit-war that breached 18RR rather than block the IP or El Machete). I don't want any more admins to face the same type of crap I did (and still do) get from him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right Jéské, this user is extremely problematic at present. Judging from his continued responses, I'm not confident that a last chance would work. However, I feel that if he can agree to some temporary sanctions (probably including mentoring) we can possibly gain a good and interested editor out of this mess. Is it not worth trying? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've written him and suggested a way out if he genuinely wishes to continue editing here. As he's now put up an effective "away" message at his talk, can we have a moratorium on further arguing for now? It's clear that arguing isn't working, and I think that if he doesn't accept this olive branch, we can consider a community ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm backing off the hammer here; he seems to see no wrong in what he's been doing (least of all the removals of the sock template that users kept adding per the checkuser findings). I fear my continued presence there will just rile him more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Consider this brief exchange from User Talk:Xcahv8 (where all the recent developments have been):-

Sheff:If you want User:El Machete Guerrero unblocked, you should request an unblock for that account, not this one. For more information, see How to request to be unblocked and expand the sections titled "Current unblock message" and then "What do I do now?"

Machete:I did and was until OhNoitsJamie protected the page using an invalid reason. That is why I was forced to come to my other accounts. And I do not want to use the email, as I want all discussions to be public so the admins can't avoid scrutiny.

This user seems to have an absolute belief in their own innocence - and that of no one else (including admins & checkusers). I think this is either a troll or they're going to become one, and I'll be pleasantly surprised it there's anything anyone can do to prevent that. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but this user adamantly refuses to back up any of their accusations. Every time I try to tell him to back up his accusations, otherwise they're personal attacks, he either refuses and deletes my request, or refuses to respond at all. So far, this user has only cited a single diff as evidence to their accusations, this diff to be specific. However, as I may have stated before, the cited diff above does not justify this user's claim of wikistalking.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this is exactly the sort of situation where the old CSN used to employ a transclusion template from the blocked editor's user talk to the discussion. Perhaps one of our code monkeys could install it for use here. He's attempting to communicate, and using that would allow him to do so on a more equal footing here where his ban is under discussion. If he's capable of reasonable compromise it's more likely to happen that way. Either way, that template usually makes the decision clearer. Durova^Charge! 20:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - I believe you're referring to Labeled Section Transclusion. This extension is not currently installed on Wikipedia, and I do not know what is required to get it installed. Other than that, we could possibly use a noinclude or includeonly tag.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what it's named, but anyone can head over to the WP:CSN archives and nick functional code there. We did it with Betacommand. Durova^Charge! 23:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I found an old CSN archive page that uses it. Basically, you just need to mark all but a single section of his user talk page with <noinclude>, wherein the user can make responses. Note that when this is archived, the transclusion should probably be subst'ed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Questions for El Machete Guerrero: you say that multiple accounts are permitted. They are, in some circumstances. But not in the manner you have been using them. Apologies are not required in this situation: acknowledgement of the problem is required, along with assurances that it will not be repeated. Sometimes editors who have used multiple accounts in violation of policy are restricted to one account for any and all purposes, as an alternative to sitebanning. That will almost certainly occur in this instance; would you cooperate with that? Another point: the bit about it taking two to tango isn't necessarily accurate. If a man dances the tango alone in a busy street, and a crowd calls to him, they may be asking him to stop before he hurts himself. You have a transclusion template now, which allows you to post to this thread on a more equal footing. If we make room for you here at the sidewalk, will you step away from the oncoming bus without shoving us? Durova^Charge! 03:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Evidence page underway

Machete (as Xcahv8 (talk · contribs)) has requested that I provide him with evidence as to why I am endorsing this proposal. So be it. An evidence page is currently under construction at User:Dylan620/Machete. →Dyl@n620 23:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No matter the evidence you provide, Machete isn't likely to agree with you and will just accuse you of harassment and personal attacks, as he is doing to me whenever I rebut his claims. He has an "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" mentality at present. Do yourself a favor and stop - nothing you provide will satisfy him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, OK, so let me get this straight; if I DON'T provide evidence, Machete will grow impatient. If I DO provide evidence, he'll accuse me of harassment? →Dyl@n620 23:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If you do provide evidence, he'll claim it isn't and rebut the lot of it, and will only serve to be agitated more. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I request that you delete my evidence page. It's no use making a page if it will only provoke Machete further. →Dyl@n620 00:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, go ahead and make it; see if you can find any incontrovertible evidence he cannot refute. It may irritate him further, but it will also give people just coming into this topic willingly or otherwise the story thus far. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 00:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's worth making for the benefit of uninvolved observers who haven't seen the background here and are trying to sort things out. Durova^Charge! 00:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the help, guys! I will continue with my evidence page, and will let you guys know when it's finished. →Dyl@n620 09:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently conclusive evidence

Sorry to jump the gun on what you're compiling, Dylan, but I think all that's needed at this point is clear evidence that Machete's alts were being used to avoid scrutiny.

• El Machete Guerrero (talk · contribs) primarily edited Reggaeton, but also edited articles pertaining to Latino Urban rap. In one case he edited a Daddy Yankee album and an article on Pitbull (rapper) (see below)
• Kartel King (talk · contribs) also frequently edited articles related to Reggaeton such as Daddy Yankee discography, Gasolina (Papa A.P. song) and Gasolina
• Xcahv8 (talk · contribs) edited articles related to Pitbull (rapper), specifically Krazy (song)
• Sabre Savage (talk · contribs) made one articlespace edit, which was to focus a paragraph more on Reggaeton than what it had already been focused on. Note the date/time of this edit compared to this one from Xcahv8.
• Polystyla (talk · contribs) edited articles related to Krazy (song), but also had tried to force the addition of a mention to a Reggaeton song to List of best-selling singles worldwide

Now, Machete has previously asserted; "None of the accounts are sockpuppets and all of them are legitimate and concentrate on a particular area of wikipedia" (earlier unblock request). It's pretty clear from the diffs above that all of these accounts work in the exact same subject area.

You know, it's for reasons like this that splitting up one's contribution history is frowned upon... WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY specifically says "it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts in order to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions". The only, and I stress only, reasonable explanation for this is deception. Machete's assertion that the accounts were used in different subject areas seem like a confirmation that his intention is deception, along with his demand that that all his accounts be unblocked should El Machete Guerrero be unblocked. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I still want to go ahead with my evidence page because a.) I'm not letting my effort go to waste, and b.) it will include further evidence such as personal attacks, harassment, wikilawyering, edit warring, etc. Also per Jeremy and Durova above. →Dyl@n620 21:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

More on one of the points raised above: Krazy was the subject of an edit war over whether it should be a redirect to a song or a disambiguation page. Both Polystyla and Xcahv8 took part in that: Polystyla moved the old article out of the way to Krazy (comic), then Xcahv8 made the article a redirect to point at Krazy (song). This left the other editor (User:Stephenb) under the impression that he was in a minority in thinking that Krazy should be a disambiguation page. If the accounts had been linked in any way, this would not have been the case. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to post this evidence to his talk page? Or just wait for him to read it here?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Dylan) Certainly do continue; I know I'm missing diffs and (as Sheffield indicates) missing points of possibly disruptive behavior. Plus I'm not addressing the incivility that's occurred since then. (to Daedalus) I'm not going to post this to his talk; we already know Machete is reading this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(@ Daedalus): It's OK, I read up on ANI frequently. :) →Dyl@n620 23:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylan: May I also suggest using the diffs from here for evidence of incivility and such? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It has now been two days and there is still no response from EMG about this evidence? Should we give him a time limit to respond? I ask this because when I was 'arguing'(if you will) on his talk page about sock puppets, he was extremely quick to respond. But now in the face of actual conclusive evidence that he can't deny, he is extremely slow to respond. It doesn't add up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's been a day since he's had an offer to agree to a restriction to one account, and hasn't responded to that either. Resumption of discussion seems fair at this point. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Resumption of discussion

• Pending a response to the questions posed above, endorse ban. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• Still endorse ban; evidence presented thus far indicates that Machete's intent was deception. Unless he can accept the community's restrictions (one account only, mentorship and possible restriction on reversions), there is no place in the community for him. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion has not changed whatsoever. Machete is bullheaded and either will not listen or, in the case of irrefutable evidence, take a powder. Endorse ban. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 01:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

EMG's response

This section was done off of the suggestion of Duvora. Since I have not been able to find the thread she noted, I decided to improvise. I am transcluding the user's talk page using noinclude tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

Category:Street gangs by ethnicity has been nominated for merging

Category:Street gangs by ethnicity has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Complaint

Plaxico'd but back for more

I wish make a complaint against a user for harassment and personal attacks on me on Wikipedia. I am using this new account because I feel threatened and wish to remain anonymous. Sincerely James Tucton (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your request, but more details are required. To which user are you referring? And to which edits/articles have these attacks happened? TNXMan 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand your concern for your privacy here, but you need to tell us WHO is harrassing you and what specifically they are doing which is harassing. Once you do that, we'll know what your old account is anyways, because it will be the only way we can verify your complaint. Still, with nothing more than vague allusions to harrassment, and no concrete complaint to go on, we have nothing here. Please give us some details so we can investigate and discuss! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the underlying dispute, but the new user making the complaint doesn't appear to be that concerned about folks figuring out what area the problem is in. He's opened up a sockpuppet investigation on User:Marek69 here [21]. I have no opinion on whether user Marek69 is involved in sock-puppetry or anything else, but it seems highly disruptive to allow a new declared sock to open up such an investigation and go around tagging an apparent editing opponent (under some other identity) as such as he's done here [22]. I propose a probationary blocking of the declared sock James Tucton; and if there's an actual harrasment/real world stalking problem that prompted his creation of a sock puppet and he is in fact afraid, he can contact admins/arbcom offline about it under his first user name.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right. The user in question is Marek69 and today I have received Off-wiki harassment from him. He had phoned me making threats of violence. Can you do something about him? James Tucton (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

And that scared you into making a largely frivolous sock puppet report, on the notion that such action would calm the situation and make you safer? I'm not convinced.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a load of shit, if you ask me, particularly given that James Tucton and this IP are clearly one and the same, and given (i) the unwarranted warnings given by the IP to Marek69 on the latter's talk page and (ii) the report to AIV all in the space of about an hour (whilst Marek has been offline, incidentally). The link between Marek69 and Acemandude5 is clearly explicable by the fact that the former created the latter as part of the account creation procedure. pushthebutton | go on... | push it! 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(I'm pretty sure that James Tucton is merely trolling, but on the offchance) I'm curious to know hoe he could have obtained your phone number? Theresa Knott | token threats 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

excuse me but I do not know James but user Marek69 has been harassing me as well with threats of violence. He got me blocked for a month for doing nothing and I personaly know four others who he is misabusing. Geoff Keen (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh, sure... -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think a checkuser would be appropriate here. On the complainants. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I just blocked User:Geoff Keen for trolling and admitted block evasion [23]. I have no problems with somebody else blocking the first complainant's account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Just block "James Tucton" and be done with it. If there were actual real-world harrasment going on (which there almost certainly wasn't) they could call the police and/or provide some evidence in email if the original user wants to stay anonymous. I also recommend a CU on Tucton, so the other accounts can be blocked (and unblocked if it turns out there is any merit to these claims, which seems doubtful, later).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the set of "warnings" on the page, since they were never legitimate (and were quickly followed by a false report on WP:AIV). I still recommend blocking the account to prevent further activity. --Sigma 7 (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another new "editor" has just popped up. Gerald1971 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Within the first 20 minutes of creation has been telling other editors they're blocked and asking for information about their IP addresses [24]. I noticed because he did this at Marek's page [25]. Marek is apparently caught in some kind of weird range block that doesn't make much sense (this may just be my ignorance of how wikipedia works). But i know the single user who's been sockpuppetting against him has been making threats [26]. It's all very strange. At any rate, the new editor Gerald1971 is clearly a disruptive sockpuppet of somebody.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Killed him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and filed an SPI [27]. May seem overkill, but don't think this is the end of it.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

And I've given it a more appropriate code letter. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Bali, Jerke, etc. I never knew that this page existed let alone modified it, but I would like to add in another user opinion to make us a bit less oligarchic. It really looks like Marek is being targeted unfairly as a result of an edit war over a local Oklahoma high school. I think an administrator should ensure that Marek is able to respond to what is going on before more blocks go out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardino (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry -- Marek's conduct is not what anyone here (except the blocked sock puppets) is currently concerned about.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

We aren't seeking to sanction Marek at all. We're seeking to sanction those harassing and targeting him. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 19:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Another one - JennyP1993 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been bagged and added to the SPI case. I'm going to check on the user Jenny claims they're socks of. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, she claims they're socks of each other - impossible. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 20:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of this vandalism seems to be linked to a aerial pest that has been harassing me for a while and vandalising articles that I have on my watchlist. He was originally vandalising and harassing as User: 767-249ER and has been continuing with many new IP addresses such as User: 114.77.199.50 and continues to create new socks such as User: Gerald1971. He obviously has nothing better to do than continuously vandalise wikipedia and create fantasy scenarios that other users are harassing him. J Bar (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from below

MarekMarek6969 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing user pages of several users whose usernames resemble females' real names. His autosignature points to the user page and user talk page of user Marek69 (talk · contribs), who has been having problems according to his talk page but is an otherwise productive editor. I would ordinarily have reported this at AIV, but I'd like a recommendation as to what other forum this issue belongs at. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism probably sock. Run a WP:SSI, and block account. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware when I originally posted this. I have added the account to the SPI. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am Marek69. Thank you to everyone who has help to tackle these pests. I've found another person signing as me, IP 93.97.167.197 to add to the list.

Unfortunately I am still unable to edit using my account. It is very frustrating as I cannot even edit my own talkpage. Today I have found out that my IP address 86.7.65.177, is not actually static as I previously stated, but in fact dynamic and can be allocated to someone else when I am not using it (please don't ask me how this works). I'm not sure if this may be something to do with my current technical problems. -- Marek69 using IP 91.135.6.121 (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Another sock just popped up Morek69 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Pretty obvious. Let's block.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind it this one Psychoanalyst5 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Trolling women's talk pages with crude sexual suggestions, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And right behind that one, this onw JellyWellyFish (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) per [28].Bali ultimate (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Exterminated. I've also suppressed email and talk page; I don't want whomever this is finding out that either still work. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 23:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the SPI page for Marek69 to prevent further nonsense there. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

State terrorism article

Some eyes are needed to monitor the edit warring and the suspected socks. On a related note, since there's State-sponsored terrorism, does anyone here believe that State terrorism should be AfDed? Awful articles gathering many nationalist POV-pushers from all sides carrying the 'my country is good and yours is so bad' flag. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between state- and state-sponsored terrorism, and I really wouldn't like to predict if an AfD would result in the nationalists having their toy taken away ;) Might be worth a try though, and certainly removing the entire "by country" section would help. EyeSerene^talk 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be good to delete the whole lot of them. They are mostly forks, owned by tendentious editors. We'd be better with nothing than "Allegations of state terrorism by X". Any useful content can be merged into the appropriate history articles. Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles will always be problematic, and there will always be a lot of POV pushing as there is for any other article or issue which arouses nationalist sentiment. But that's obviously not sufficient cause for deletion. As EyeSerene points out, there is a distinction between State-sponsored terrorism and State terrorism as the very names suggest. The idea of deleting the article on state terrorism is a bit absurd in my view, as there is an enormous academic literature on the subject (e.g. this WorldCat search), though unfortunately very few of the people who participate in the endless edit warring and argumentation about these articles are conversant with that literature.

And really it's not just about "state terrorism." There is a whole nexus of articles about terrorism that are deeply problematic, simply because "terrorism" itself is such a deeply problematic - and incredibly contested - term. Problems with its usage have not been solved in the real world so we're not likely to solve them here on Wikipedia. The best we can do is craft neutral articles describing the controversies which is admittedly difficult to impossible but still worth attempting. Jehochman and many others don't like these articles and find them annoying (which they are), but I don't think anyone can seriously deny that this is a serious and notable topic. To delete state terrorism would leave a significant and odd hole in the encyclopedia, though if there are creative solutions for dealing with all of the "Allegations of" articles other than blanket deletion I'm all for that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene and Bigtimepeace make good and valid arguments. I may have been exaggerating a bit. However, everyone can be pleased with having a disambiguation page directing readers to "Allegations of state terrorism by A/B/C/D" but having all those A/B/C/D entries duplicated and placed at State terrorism is inappropriate and a source for extra and additional conflicts between suspected socks, a bunch of IPs and unregular users who pop up everytime there's an edit warring. I believe the article has the shortest intro I've ever seen over here; the rest is a list which may have 10 countries today, 2 tomorrow and 192 the following day (the last time I checked a couple of months ago there were a dozen or so). Whether we maintain that (or those) article(s) as defining articles or get rid of them and use them as disambiguation pages. Keeping selective lists (depending on edit warriors) of countries there is not a good idea. Otherwise, as I requested, it would be great if some 'serene' eyes monitor the situation in order to reach 'big time peace ever' :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with that - all of the specific points about countries do not belong in the general state terrorism article. My Wiki time is necessarily limited for the present and I'm hesitant to jump back into the "state terrorism" morass, but I'll see if I can bring up cutting that stuff out of state terrorism assuming someone has not already. I like the approach of setting up a disambig page for the various articles as FayssalF suggests and directing readers to that from the article. It's far from an ideal solution, but it would (or at least could) keep much of the bickering off the general state terrorism article (which theoretically could be quite good and informative) and restrict it primarily to the various "allegations" articles which are of less importance. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That article and it's relatives have collevtively been a craphole ever since they were created. Good luck to anyone trying to balance it-- I'm burnt out after all the crap with Giovanni33, his socks, and his friends last year. Jtrainor (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As bad as these articles may be, any attempt to delete specifically the state terrorism article would likely raise drama because the nomination would likely be viewed in certain quarters as an aggressie attempt to push a pro-US POV. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would do that and some would view an attempted deletion that way, but that's hardly the reason we should not delete it. "State terrorism" is a completely legitimate - albeit highly contested - concept. Google Scholar alone shows over 6,000 hits on that exact term. We tend to get caught up in the crappy politics underlying these articles which is understandable but I think ultimately wrongheaded. We need an article on state terrorism because it's an important topic thoroughly discussed in all kinds of reliable sources in all kinds of ways - i.e. it's exactly the kind of thing a good encyclopedia should cover. The various "allegations" should be covered in some way as well, though obviously we have not done an especially good job with that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well expressed, yes. Of course we don't retain articles specifically because someone might complain (if they ought to be deleted anyway). However poorly written this may be, there's the potential for a serious encyclopedia article here. Probably the sort of thing that will remain contentious, unfortunately. But we're not censored. Durova^Charge! 23:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, these articles probably do belong here even though they'll always be battlegrounds, but I think we could mitigate their potential for conflict by removing the specific "By country" sections. I'm reluctant to do this unilaterally, as they are sourced, but when I ask myself "does their inclusion improve the encyclopedia?" I'm forced to conclude they don't. EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If the list were removed, and valid content could be merged into the relevant article or daughter article about the country. Allegations of state terrorism by Elbonia is just a POV fork of Foreign policy of Elbonia. Jehochman ^Talk 12:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Being bold... with a good reason; a selective list of countries which have already got their own entries. That was the main source of the edit warring and the suspected socks appearances. Check the history for further background. Feel free to revert. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No argument here, and I think the article - now concentrating as it does on the definition and concept - is more scholarly as a result. Per your well-'judged' hint above I've stuck it on my watchlist too. EyeSerene^talk 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a very reasonable solution to a tough problem. Durova^Charge! 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Less troubles though they may be redirected to the generic articles themselves—if they are not already. We may have to watchlist the problematic ones. Less is only more where more is no good. - Frank Lloyd Wright. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Good, bold edit by Fayssal. There's obviously more we can do with the article but it's much better without the country-by-country list. We might ultimately want to include those country articles in a see also or a subsection (maybe linking to a disambig page or list page) but that's hardly a pressing concern. I've watchlisted the page (which I avoided doing in the past) and will try to help make sure that specific accusations don't creep back into the general article - they just don't belong there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:UC Bill

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31, indeffed, then back to original length Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Over at Talk:Nancy Cartwright#Disambiguation (de-archived), UC Bill has responded to User:Scorpion and me (who opposed his idea) by calling us "morons," calling me a "waste-of-space" who engages in "fascism," calling Scorpion an "idiot" and "dipshit," and telling him to "go fuck [him]self." Much of this came after he'd already stated that he was walking away from the situation, so I don't trust his second such claim.
I would appreciate if an uninvolved party could please remind Bill of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, as I suspect that any such message from Scorpion or me would only fuel his anger. Thanks! —David Levy 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I just noticed this. Perhaps something more than a friendly warning is in order. —David Levy 22:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31. Unacceptable conduct. Feel free to lengthen or whatever you wish. Cheers,  GARDEN  22:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish I could if I was an admin. This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or 4chan. You cannot say whatever you want (if you frequent YouTube comments, then you know what I am talking about. We try to be civil around here. MuZemike 23:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts on this... looking at Bill's contribution history, today's actions seem in sharp contrast with his edits over the past while. (Look at the sudden burst of category edits, as well as abusive text that appears to be significantly more severe than the blunt speech he usually employs.) I'm not saying there haven't been civility issues before this, but one has to wonder about the severity of today's events. The threats of vandalism also appear to be out of sync with someone who has been contributing extensively to the project as a developer. Is it possible that something has happened over the past few days, or that the account has been compromised? It just seems that an indef-ban coupled with a full lock down and blanking of his pages is too much without further attempts to figure out what is going on. (If there are other details that can explain this, please let me know - but what I've seen today doesn't add up.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
(Addendum - just so everyone is clear, this should in no way be taken as a criticism of Hersfold. I've had interactions with Bill before today, hence my surprise at what has happened. If I hadn't worked with him before this, I might well have done the same thing as Hersfold. I've already left a note on Hersfold's talk page, and he is aware of this post; the idea is to try to figure out what the heck has happened to Bill. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

Possible. My previous comment aside, it is odd, indeed. MuZemike 23:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing, it seems like a totally over the top reaction. Who would go straight to deleting their own code and threatening to vandalize multiple articles? It's an over the top reaction for a prolific contributor and a probably pretty easily traceable and accountable person and given his own userpage. Mfield (Oi!) 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Although i'm a semi-retired non-admin, I do still edit wikipedia when I can and since I have Nancy Cartwright in my watchlist, I saw the posts made by Bill on the talk page. They are very offensive. I was going to file a report here myself, but decided to offer advice to the user on the receiving end of Bills abuse instead. Looking over the situation as it is now, I feel Hersfold is 100% correct in dishing out an indefblock (i've seen users indeffed for less!) and think Bills threat of vandalism should not be ignored. John Sloan (view / chat) 23:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted the history of his userpage, in line with his request, rtv, WP:BAN, common decency, and whatever else. If he comes back and wants it restored it can be. I personally think an indefinite ban with an indefinite lockdown on the talk page is over the top. Has there even been any abuse of the email? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Block reduced

After consultation with Hersfold - the block has been reduced from indefinite to 24 more hours, about when the original 31 hrs would have expired.

We have a longstanding policy that we allow users to vent on their user talk pages after a block. We know editors are human - we hope and expect that they will be adult about being blocked, but we're all human, and humans sometimes get upset. The best practice in these situations is to disengage and let people calm down before they come back - continuing to go back and forth on their user talk page just escalates the anger if they started out that way.

If a user starts actively threatening people or does something truly disruptive, there are limits. But UC Bill's behavior here was, while certainly aggressive, not nearly as bad as I've seen before in other cases.

We want to avoid piling on. Yes, there was a clear problem today. The original block was good and appropriate. But the next step should have been to leave him alone until the block expired.

I've also restored his userpage - if he's not indef'ed he may well want it again later. If he choses to walk away and vanish, we can (and should) delete it again, but we should take that decision out of the context of the then-current indef block and let him make up his mind later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this outcome. Bill made hurtful comments toward several people (including me), and the vandalism threat was unfortunate, but I'd hate to permanently lose a valuable contributor simply because he was having a bad day. The advice (and explanation of what's expected of him) that you posted on his talk page is appropriate. I hope that he takes it to heart. —David Levy 11:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

A ridiculous and stupid situation completely overdramatised, he should be unblocked at once and everyone given the opportunity to shake hands and move on. Giano (talk) 18:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that ain't how we roll, honey.  GARDEN  21:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not your honey. I have no wish to imagine how you "roll." I note your talk page says "I am not much of an editor " It seems you're not much of an Admin either. Pity! Giano (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Was there really a need for that, Giano? Seriously, was it absolutely essential that you include an insult there? You're behaving like a petulant child. //roux   01:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was a need, if admins want to behave like precious, delicate, little old ladies returning from an outback church meeting, then they should not be shocked if others disagree with such behaviour. Giano (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of your critiques against Wikipedia silliness are very astute; sharply cutting through huge swaths of bullshit and exposing the nakedness of our collective foolish behavior. Unfortunately you sometimes engage in a tit-for-tat with silly namecalling which I have a hard time seeing the usefulness of - it makes your well-founded arguments less effective, not more. henrik•talk 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, Giano. Telling Garden he's not much of an admin based on an idiosyncratic phrasing that was meant to mock how Wikipedia actually functions as opposed to the lies we tell ourselves? That was necessary? Get over yourself. You're one of those people who only feels good about himself when he hacks other people down, which is pretty goddamn sad. //roux   12:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, what is pretty sad, is incompetents becoming admins and exacerbating situations. It is common sense that if someone becomes angry, the best thing to do is stay away from them, keep out of their way and let them calm down in their own way and time. An intelligent person does not go and keep prodding and attempting to excite them to further anger. Wikipedia need to have a complete overhaul of its admins and their powers or at least attempt to train them before letting them loose on valuable editors. Of course it won't because any change is dependent on these self same incompetents agreeing to it. It's a complete miracle that thee are any decent editors left. Giano (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Way to ignore what I actually said. Namely, pointing out that not only was your attack completely uncalled-for, it was also wrong based on the actual meaning of what Garden said. But I suppose expecting you to take a moment for self-reflection and admitting that you're wrong, well... it'll happen sometime after the heat death of the universe. Maybe. I have no idea why your behaviour is tolerated here, but it's sickening. You seem to have free rein to attack anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason--or, rather more frequently, no reason at all. Grow up. This is not how adults behave. //roux   13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I await with interest Giano's bid for adminship; after this succeeds maybe he can show us how it's done. Until then, perhaps he could refrain from unhelpful comments and get on with something useful? --John (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the admns here is that at best their attitude to civility is provincial and their attitude to handling the policing of a project, infantile. Regarding something useful - I am of more use to this project than the whole pack of kids gtahered here put together. Giano (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Why not go and show us rather than telling us while you demonstrate the opposite with these pointless efforts to stir up trouble here? --John (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

We are not in a police state, pointing out the shortcomings of admins is not stirring up trouble, but merely preventing future trouble. No matter how upsetting they and their friends seem to find it. Giano (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Question @ Giano: Are you defending Bill's right to call people names, or are you merely saying that his block was unjustified? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 13:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

In answer to your question. I am currently writing a page on Versailles because it's such a famous place people will expect to see and read more than architecture so I have had to do a lot of very serious research outside of my chosen field, and the more I research Versailles the more I see Wikipedia. A crowd of aristocrats (Admins) obsessed with their status and placing nice pretty manners and etiquette above what's really important (writing the encyclopedia). Fawning aristocrats performing sweeping bows and doffing feathered hats to each other (as happens on this page) while failing to understand in anyway those trying to do a serious job. Of course, no one ever learns from history, which is a pity. Giano (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Giano, wiki-floggings of the serfs (editors) by the administrators is pretty common here. However, since wiki-serfdom is self imposed serfdom, those who are excessively dissatisfied can exit when they choose. The the freedom to leave is one of the few freedoms available to everyone. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

thank you, you prove my point perfectly. Many do leave because of the admins are so bad. Giano (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think one of the problems is that admins don't seem to realize that they are supposed to be the servants. The whole reason for it being called 'the mop' is because they do the clean-up bidding of the community. Unfortunately they are now too busy circle jerking each other and pleasuring themselves with said mop. Unomi (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just reverted the archiving of this section, One cannot archoiive just because one does not like what is emerging. Giano (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, conversation was archived because the matter is resolved and now it's just pointless (largely negative) chit-chat, addressed both at you and at admins. I'd have figured Giano you'd rather be working on Versailles. Have it your own way. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If anyone said, "That's not how we roll, honey" to me, I'd be livid. Throwing drag queen and faux "street" "disses" at people is not wit. It's rude. It's also using petulance for argument. If people have arguments, and Giano does, then let them present them. I also agree with Giano that politeness is not "civility." Furthermore, telling Giano that he has no right to comments upon admins until he goes through an RFA is just about stupid. It says that there really are aristocrats, and the serfs can't understand them. I had thought that someone with active editing (instead of "not much" editing) for five years would have the right to speak. Now me, I don't. I'm not an administrator. I wait patiently to be told what to do in hopes of collecting my wages. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And this has exactly what to do with the topic of this thread or purpose of this notice board? The matter is resolved. Isn't this supposed to be a notice board for dealing with behavior problems and other items in need of administrative attention? It is not a general forum. As such, Giano is wrong - admins can close a discussion when the job is done and further discussion is in their judgment unproductive. Re-opening a resolved matter so he can heap abuse on admins is pointless. If Giano wants to vent about what's wrong with other Wikipedia editors there is an open discussion somewhere he can pounce on.Wikidemon (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I do seem to have rufled a few delicate feathers. The matter is not resolved because UC Bill is still wrongly blocked. This genteel civility culture is damaging , pretentious and provincial. Soemone should have the guts and sense to unblock straight away.Giano (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I prefer your first edit summary Seicer [29] so typical of what we have come to expect from our noble admins. Giano (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[30]. Am I reading this wrong or did the block expire nearly 12 hours ago?--Jac16888^Talk 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The point is he should have been unblocked before being driven off. Giano (talk)

Well done Admins! You have surpassed yourselves [31] [32]. Giano (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Huckelbarry

Resolved

 – Proven Orkh sock, blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at the activities of the new user Huckelbarry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Since he created an account on 18 March, he has engaged in a campaign of tendentious editing with the purpose of aggrandizing Turkic peoples, deleting material he feels diminishes the Turks and adding a load of unsourced ethnic fringe theory. All attempts to restore consensus versions he immediately reverts as "vandalism". He has falsified at least one source and added it to Attila the Hun four times in twenty-four hours ([33], [34], [35], [36]). He appropriated User:Kansas Bear's userpage, presumably in order to cover his nationalist edits [37]. He has engaged in personal attacks ([38], [39]). His edit patterns, fractured English, and nationalist fixations are very similar to the banned user Orkh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It is possible that the two are the same person but difficult to confirm because Orkh seems to have used a number of public computers (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Orkh). More eyes and assistance would be appreciated. Aramgar (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The account has knowledge of wiki procedures, though it claims to be only a week old. It seems to be preoccupied with serial reverting and personal attacks as described above. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Read several of his sources in depth, and I agree that he's falsifying source information (claiming references say things that they do not).

Insults are also problematic.

Investigating the possible sockpuppet angle now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I see some similarity with Orkh, but not enough that the little duck is quacking for me. Aramgar, if you feel strongly that it's him, can you file a new SPI request for Orkh and Huckelbarry?

I will leave a warning regarding the personal attacks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the matter. Let's just hope he mellows, or goes away once he realizes that WP is not a tribalist battleground. Aramgar (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

i put only reliable sources in to articles. is it a crime in wikipedia? those are want me to quit wikipedia, so they would change articles with their racist opinions.--Huckelbarry (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

look at Aramgar's attacks to the articles Sultanate of Rum, Attila the Hun and other Turkic Peoples related articles. He is a pure vandalist, and a great enemy of Turkic civilization. I called him an anti-turk, and now he uses this term as an "attacking word" as same as " the vandalist". he like to mark peoples as a nationalist, racist but his opinions deserves a massive check up.--Huckelbarry (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tim Berners-Lee, birthdate, and night screams

Resolved

 – Both editors overreacted and made mistakes but there is no need for admin intervention

I've had an irritating interaction with Nightscream, who after I updated the birth date and age template for Tim Berners-Lee, removed the birthdate, place of birth and current residence lines, citing BLP and V. I've provided sources in edsums and correspondence, but this is inadequate for Nightscream, who threatens me with blocking. As he is apparently an administrator, though one with a poor handle on research and wikirules, could I get another administrator to have a quiet word with him? --Pete (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nightscream is correct in that you need to properly cite the source in the passage where you make the statement using a reference footnote. Putting it in the edit summary is unacceptable. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. That said, I think it was a little unfriendly of Nightscream to have reverted you again instead of adding the reference himself unless he actually has a problem with the source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The birthdate is in fact sourced from the biography listed as a reference at the end of the article. Just looking at his assertion that every item in every BLP needs an inline reference, I find that this is rarely the case for birthdates. Or indeed for anything much. One would imagine that citing a good biography as a source would cover all information extracted from it for use in the article, but apparently not. This point needs to be cleared up with Nightcream, who is pursuing a policy of purging articles of useful sourced information. --Pete (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Both of you need to be reminded of WP:3RR. If you have a dispute, work it out on the relevant talk page, don't revert back and forth. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct, the source should be added to the article. However, it looks to me like Nightscream is objecting to the inclusion of the birthdate regardless of sourcing. Seems like we need to get the word from him. Dayewalker (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've given him a hoy on his talk page.[40] Looking at WP:CS, using a general reference is appropriate: If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end. It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is commonplace with biographical articles. --Pete (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not objecting to the inclusion of the birthdate regardless of sourcing. I am objecting to the inclusion of information without a source. Sources must be placed at the end of the specific passage they support. Skyring quotes WP:CS thus "If a source supports a significant amount of the material in an article, it may sometimes be acceptable to simply add the citation at the end." What he fails to notice on that very policy page is that this is only if "It serves as a general reference, not linked to any particular part of the article. This is more likely to be appropriate for relatively undeveloped articles or those covering a very simple or narrow topic." This is because developed articles are not supposed to rely on merely one source. Pursuant to this point, WP:CS then states, "In most cases, an inline citation is required in addition to the full citation. This shows which specific part of the article a citation is being applied to." The Tim Berners-Lee article is not an undeveloped article or stub, nor does it even have a list-type References section. It has a Notes section with the properly-formatted footnotes. There is a Further Reading section after, but if this is a References section that someone mislabeled "Further reading", Skyring did not even specify which source in that section (or the Notes section) he was referring to. His only specific citation was in an Edit Summary. If he's willing to write it in Edit Summary, why not add it to the passage itself? As for his comment on my Talk Page that "if what you say is true, most of our articles are quite unsourced and should be quickly purged", well, yeah, they are, and yeah, I've been doing so. As for 3RR, 3RR does not apply to correcting obvious policy violations. It does, however, apply to the violations themselves, and Skyring has now violated it by reverting it four times in 24 hours, and ignored my final warning to him. If he had a genuine policy interpretation dispute, that would be different, but as aforementioned, he has ignored or failed to read WP:CS carefully enough, while accusing me of being "confused or poorly-informed.", and making cryptic or borderline uncivil comments to me, such one about "feeling better soon", and his distortion of my username in this section's title. Nightscream (talk) 04:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been more constructive to add the source yourself rather than blindly reverting? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting and giving final warnings simply because the source was in the wrong place seems quite excessive. We're not a bureaucracy here. I have to agree with David above, wouldn't it have been easier to just add an inline cite yourself if you felt it was necessary in that passage? henrik•talk 06:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All I did was reformat existing information, sourced within the article via the general reference which is commonplace. The information has been part of the article for several years. I regarded Nightscream's continued removals as borderline vandalism, and was in fact quite surprised to find that he held the admin bit. Sorry if he took offence at my gentle hint that he may have been in the wrong, but he could have been a little less self-righteous in his comments. --Pete (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Both editors here made mistakes, Skyring overreacted and Nightscream's handling of the situation was poor, given the fact he could have easily added the reference he thought missing in the time it took him to warn and revert Skyring. In no way was reverting Skyring exempt from WP:3RR because good-faith policy violations are not considered obvious vandalism.

Let's not drag this out any longer. Skyring, please remember WP:CIVIL and try to avoid comments like "confused or poorly-informed" and "feeling better soon" which can easily be seen as personal attacks and if someone reverts you, just talk to them first before reverting them in turn.

Nightscream, if you think an editor forgot to add a source, just do it yourself, if you clearly have it. You should not revert edits that were clearly made in good faith if you can as easily fix them. That's behaviour that, as we can see from the reactions here, reflects badly on you and the project and might be BITEy. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:RS or WP:V state that the source has to be provided as an inline citation, just that the material is sourced. If an editor presents the source another way, it's not a violation of those policies because that can easily be fixed. Regards SoWhy 11:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the burden of verifiability lies with the editor who insists on adding material to an article, not with editors who spot unsourced material, who are instructed by WP:V to remove it. This is specifically spelled out by WP:Burden, which states, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." One reason this is the correct policy is that if you obligate editors who find unsourced material instead of the ones who added it, then you're setting up an unreasonable burden on the former in upholding WP:V, essentially forcing them to go digging through a list of Notes to find the right source that the other editor claims has supported the material for several years, or through a webpage named in an Edit Summary. This seems right to you? No, I'm sorry, but that's the job of the editor adding the material, and WP:Burden backs this up. The reverts and warnings were not made because the source was "in the wrong place", nor did Skyring "reformat" anything. The material was reverted, and he was politely warned, without any "self-righteousness", because he didn't include one at all. As David himself pointed out, wouldn't it have been more constructive for Skyring to have added the source himself rather than blindly reverting? If he was willing to write it out in an Edit Summary, why not write it out in the passage, which is required? Regarding BITE, Skyring is not a newcomer. He's been editing since December 2004, and has accumulated over 6,000 edits since then. He should understand WP:V and WP:CS by now, as should you, as the policies I've quoted here disprove your assertions. This issue is not resolved, as the information has been re-added to the article, without a source. If the "resolved" tag that was placed at the top of this section signifies that this section will be eventually archived without further discussion, I will be reverting the material by then if it's not sourced.Nightscream (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also have been more constructive if you would have added the reference yourself? You knew where to find it, after all. I'm pretty sure it would've taken less effort to add the reference yourself than to revert and warn a user acting in good faith. :) --Conti|✉ 17:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you could have added a source, improved the article, and instantly ended the silliness in less time it took to write that paragraph. It certainly took me less time to do than writing this, very short note. henrik•talk 18:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already answered that question. Repeating it will not change anything. The burden is on the person adding it, not on others. That another party upholding WP:V "can add it" and "is required to" are not the same thing. As for what I've written here, well I really wouldn't have had to if Skyring didn't make an issue of this, now would I? I remove unsourced material every day as part of my wikignome/wikifairy duties, and I've never had an editor of 4 years challenge the validity of this, or claim that I am required to cite sources for material they add, much make an ANI case out of it that required my response. Nightscream (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not required to add citations to uncited material, even when you do know exactly where to find the sources.. But doing it anyhow (despite not being required to) kinda sounds like a pretty good idea nonetheless, doesn't it? --Conti|✉ 01:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on. Nightscream is not being honest here. I only came to the article - when it came up on my watchlist - to reformat the birth date and age template in this diff. I didn't add any new information. As I've pointed out a few times, TB-L's birthdate has been part of the article for years. Nightscream then came along and removed birthdate, place of birth and current residence, and began sending me warnings about verifying sources. I took another look at the article and noted that there was a biography listed as a source, and I googled the subject and came up with the info. I didn't need to provide a source. I don't have time to check every source of every article I look at, sometimes just to revert vandalism or fix a spelling error. The responsibility lies on the adder of the material, or if an editor looks at existing information and smells a rat. Tim's details looked good to me, for the simple reason that they were accurate. I'm not happy at being yelled at, threatened and misrepresented by someone who should know better. Pointing out to Nightscream - and you might want to work on that user name, mate - that the sources were in place and easily checked had no effect. He just kept right on removing good information.

Looking at Nightscream's past edits, he has a history of this. For instance, he removed accurate, sourced information on Natalie Cole's second and third marriages, even though that material was given in one of the listed references. He removed rubber pioneer Charles Goodyear from Naugatuck, Connecticut - Naugatuck's most famous son, gone! It just goes on and on - we're losing good, sourced, accurate information from our articles due to Nightscream's misplaced zeal. There's a ton of vandalism and dubious material in our articles, why doesn't this chap go hunting down and removing the bad stuff instead of getting rid of valuable information? I echo and underscore the earlier label of self-righteousness, and I again hope that he gets better in his performance as an editor. --Pete (talk) 00:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Five seconds on the BBC's website confirms details of birth date. – ukexpat (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Potential Gwarp Accounts Made

Was checking the recent changes page for vandalism and what not when I seen a mass of accounts being made by User:GismGism. According to the log it looks like the user made around 50 new accounts. Some of them has standard Gwarp crap in the user name, so have other usernames in them...probably should block all. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 25, 2009 @ 08:51

Someone's already started shutting them down. Quick note, addies: Block so that account creation, email use, and talkpage editing are all suppressed. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)}

Is there some way this sort of nastiness could be oversighted, by deleting any record that these accounts ever existed?

I'm amazed that a single regular user account is capable of creating so many other accounts in such a short time. I have a vague recollection that this was meant to have been throttled, but the throttling code, if any, clearly does not work. Is this something the AbuseFilter could fix? It would seem reasonable to limit account creation for regular users to, say, three accounts per day per parent account. -- The Anome (talk) 09:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement with The Anome - I'm sure there was a throttle?? Any event, I believe they have all now been blocked between me and The Anome. Pedro :  Chat  09:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There is supposed to be a limit of 6 accounts per 24 hours for users without the accountcreator flag. I'm going to raise a bugzilla for this. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Great. Could we also add a forced inter-account-creation interval of perhaps 5 minutes? This would allow admins to react in time to stop these sorts of rampages before they really get started. -- The Anome (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's needed as long as the 6-account limit stays in place. On a side point, I'm going to go do a clearout on users with the accountcreator flag who aren't using it. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, there are lots still left unblocked. More admin help, please! -- The Anome (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Raised bugzilla at bugzilla:18150. I'm at work so don't want to go and do the blocking, given the usernames involved. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the account creation log can be oversighted, and I know accounts can't be deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

There may have been a glitch as I was just looking at here Special:AbuseLog and a server error message came up... dunno if that helps.  rdunnPLIB  09:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

WORKSFORME. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I think we've now got them all, email disabled, user talk disabled. Pedro :  Chat  09:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  Good. While we're waiting for the next batch, anyone got any idea why Grawp doesn't have anything better to do? )-: Stifle (talk) 09:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  When he gets to puberty he mind find something better. Until then... RBI. Pedro :  Chat  09:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  Its probably someone organising people who want to vandalise together, sorta like a Wikipedia version of the Taliban or sommat like that.  rdunnPLIB  09:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

  I'd give very short odds that it's 4chan. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I know you can't delete accounts per se, but a couple/many of those ought to be renamed away so they don't show in the current user log... should be obvious which ones in particular... Arakunem^Talk 13:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't OSers just change log item visibility? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps... I'm more thinking of someone who brings up the Special:Listusers to maybe check the user rights of a user (to verify admin, CU, etc), and sees these other accounts, listing purported email adddresses and even phone numbers... Arakunem^Talk 16:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The cabal, cough, I mean oversighters have been alerted. -- Avi (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, WTF? Listusers isn't displaying it but the logs are. --Thinboy00 @114, i.e. 01:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll

Hello everyone. As many of you (or possibly very few of you!) may be aware, I've been trying to set up community poll on date linking to help try and resolve the issues from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. Whilst the poll is in very much in its final stages of completeness, it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page. The major problem I'm having is the edit warring and attacks/jibes being flung from the involved parties left, right and centre. From 0:00 (UTC) tonight, I plan to stop everyone who is already involved in this page from editing it or the talk page until the start of the poll on Monday so the neutral people are free to comment without being subjected to the attacks and comments already being given by the involved parties. Is this something that everyone feels would be ok? I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Well I'm an involved admin in the issue. I don't believe I have made any edits to the RFC Ryan is talking about, but if he thinks it is needed to ensure a peaceful resolution, I will agree not to comment at the RFC. MBisanz ^talk 09:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Absolutely the right thing to do, and if you need further admin assistance in enforcing it, let me know. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Seems fine to me if people can't just stop squabbling and vote. --GedUK  10:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, it is totally unfair to impose a sudden deadline on parties that have been working towards agreement on the text, who in good faith accepted a start-date of 30 March. The claim that "it's getting increasingly difficult to get comments and suggestions from neutral people because of the infighting on the page" is just that: a claim. The RfC draft is shambolic in structure, to begin with, requiring users to make eight entries and signatures, five of them redundant. I have just proposed a structure in which users are spared those redundant entries and signatures (with the chaotic edit conflicts that would ensue). All WPians should be able to comment on the streamlined structure, without a dictatorial edict by Ryan Postlethwaite, who owns neither the page nor the RfC itself. If he had proposed that participants not edit with more reasonable notice, it might be different. A few hours is not reasonable notice. I believe a compromise of more reasonable notice, such as three days, is in order. The downside may be that the RfC results may not be regarded as credible: no one wants that. Tony (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't look right to me, Ryan. Please allow more notice before imposing this. Bishonen | talk 10:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
  • The parties were lucky to get 12 hours - I was planning on doing it immediately. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 11:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Note that 12 hours is no use to people in some timezones, plus people everywhere have had reason to count on having more time. Your last comment sounds a bit like you're only interested in posts that agree with you, frankly, Ryan. If you've already decided what to do, and think the parties should count themselves lucky, why are you asking "everybody's" opinion on ANI at all ? Bishonen | talk 12:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC).
      • Based on the reaction above by Tony, the sooner the better, especially as he, for one, has been fighting this particular battle for, it appears, some years now, so he's had ample opportunity to date. --CalendarWatcher (talk)
      • As far as I am concerned, I am also not entirely certain why the whole poll is held at all, but one thing I'm certain of: it's crucial that a certain core of people on both sides simply needs to be told to shut up and let others work out the rest. Whether it's now or in twelve hours or in 48 doesn't matter much to me, but the sooner the better. It's long past the stage where continued input from the same set of people could provide anything helpful to the project. That's not to say they are being intentionally disruptive; it's just that the issue has taken up such a larger-than-life significance to them the intensity of their involvement is just out of scale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• I've never understood why you're doing this poll in the first place. Has ArbCom asked you to do it? Surely we should wait for ArbCom's decision in the case before launching any new polls - we've already been through very extensive community discussion and polling on this issue, and there is a hope that ArbCom might successfully interpret the results of that previous discussion and indicate what (if any) it considers are the outstanding issues to be resolved. But if you insist on doing things backwards and launching a poll now, then certainly don't impose a deadline of the type you're considering, because everyone will just rush to edit it just before the deadline and you'll end up with a more or less random version. The sensible thing to do would be to put up your version, don't let anyone touch it, but continue to invite comments (from everyone, involved or otherwise) and edit the version in line with those comments as seems sensible, until it becomes stable. But as I say, really don't do this poll yet (unless ArbCom has asked for it; but in that case we're entitled to know exactly what it has asked for and why).--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Another red herring, another hoop to jump through. The poll is a pointless exercise. The community spoke last in December 2008. The community does not want years, dates, months etc. bluelinked, or almost never. The score was 190 to 7. No one knows for sure why the Arbcom accepted the case for arbitration instead of rejecting it out of hand, as they should have. No one knows the official status of Postlethwaite's project. In the absence of hard facts, speculation grows. I am keeping my own counsel.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Another poll? Gah. --NE2 11:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, please. A little peace and quiet would be helpful. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: Many notices were posted to various talk pages, requesting input on the format. So far, the feedback from other editors has remained limit, although we have had a helpful anon. I don't know if topic banning and hoping for more outside feedback will suddenly rush in. I'm pretty sure the issue is that everybody is tired and bored to death over lamely regarded issue, and they just want everything to be over. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Good luck, Ryan. I'm surprised that there is still so much drama surround this; I had thought that it was resolved twice long ago with those nasty RFC's and commenting periods, but I suppose some individuals just cannot let it rest. seicer | talk | contribs 12:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm also surprised to see this still rumbling on. The whole bizarre episode has at times amused, baffled and appalled me; I wish I could say "only on Wikipedia...", but it reminds me of nothing so much as two neighbours fighting a 30-year court battle over six inches of hedge. I suspect part of the reason it's been allowed to get so far out of hand is that outside the interest groups, most of us really don't care if dates are linked or not (and seriously, do our readers?) There are some damn good editors on both sides who are muddying their credibility with this silliness and the sooner it's over the better, so, yeah, good luck Ryan ;) EyeSerene^talk 13:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the worst cases of admin bullying I have ever seen ("I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be."—I wonder on the basis of what aspect of WP:BLOCKING or WP:ADMIN?). Ryan, you are supposed to be the head of WP's Mediation process; I presume that you have expertise in the kind of facilitation that persuades editors in highly problematic disputes to resolve their issues in as peaceable a way as possible. There has been little evidence of this; instead, suddenly we are faced with apparently arbitrary dictating of "What's going to happen", and threats to block editors for participating on a page in which they have found themselves involved for weeks. I grant you that it is a difficult page to manage, but you did initiate it of your own volition. That you did so after several parties at the related ArbCom hearing expressed a lack of confidence in your clerking and called for you to step down from that position, has brought a particularly strong need for you to bring to bear all of your talents and attention to the page. I am surprised that you are now playing the role not of a mediator, but an aggressor; I am sure that this is not your practice as head of Mediation (is it?).

I note your statement that "I am willing to allow editing up until 0:00 UTC on 28 March", but I'm afraid it's not your place to dictate. You do not own the space, and it is not an ArbCom matter (you yourself have stated this). Rather, you might have said to all parties "I wonder whether we might agree on a closing time to let things settle: how about 0:00 UTC on 28 March?". People would probably have agreed and been on-board with you, respecting your good management. I'm afraid your aggressive actions have not created that situation. Tony (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand what has triggered this reaction from Ryan. It should have been no surprise to anyone that there would be sniping and edit-warring here, given that it came part and parcel with the MOSNUM saga. In case you haven't noticed, all this here is already extremely civil and cooperative compared to what went on before. This whole dispute is pretty lame alright, but the "I would plan to enforce this by blocks if need be" is not the correct antidote to this poison. The whole problem with Masem's RfC was that it was rushed out in a panic attempt to counter Tony's effort, and this sort of dominatrix act is just going to result in another poorly constructed RfC with a lot more bad blood and a perpetuation of this dispute. There is already an injuction on, and the RfC appears to be moving in the right direction, so where's the frakking rush? Then Mr Chairman of the mediating committee suddenly decides that he owns the whole process, and threatens to take the ball away... I'm not seeing very skillful mediating skills being displayed here. Quite the opposite - this behaviour is quite lamentable. Ohconfucius (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. About bloody time someone with a lick of sense did something about this mess. And typically for Wikipedia, a smart solution that takes a chainsaw to the giant blocks of bullshit sitting around is met with a bunch of screaming from the usual suspects. It really is interesting to note that the objections are largely coming from those who have been the worst offenders in terms of heaping scorn upon others, especially Tony1, who originally rammed through the whole delinking thing last year by a) claiming a consensus that didn't actually exist, and b) canvassing a whole bunch of article talkpages (claiming this nonexistent consensus) in order to generate a consensus of some sort, instead of c) actually discussing it at MOSNUM. The single reason why the majority of the community hasn't gotten involved in this is because there are about half a dozen editors on both sides who have made it their business to make this entire discussion as hideously unpleasant as possible to get involved in. I wholeheartedly support Ryan's actions, and would equally wholeheartedly support any blocks given out to the usual suspects in this discussion--on both sides, mind--who won't take a fucking chill pill, back the hell away, and let the community decide. Frankly, I see absolutely no reason why all of those people shouldn't be blocked now for the duration of the poll, as it absolutely would prevent disruption. //roux   16:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Tony did discuss it endlessly at MOSNUM and elsewhere, large numbers of editors did participate in the previous discussions and RfCs, and consensus was clearly and fairly generated. You seem to be joining in the scorn-heaping yourself with this attack on Tony and veiled attack on others. Why do you say "let the community decide", and ignore the decisions that the community has already made? (Perhaps because you don't like those decisions?)--Kotniski (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No, Tony went on a spree of canvassing about a hundred or so article talk pages, claiming a consensus that did not in fact exist. Pardon me for being a little put out with someone who disingenuously claims that they followed the way we do things while very carefully sliding around how we do things. But I'm not getting sucked any further into this absolutely insane issue. The battleground has simply moved from MOSNUM over to the poll, and all the usual suspects on both sides are happily sniping away at each other. I'm with FutPerf: block the lot and let some sane people make a decision. //roux   12:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. The little involvement I've had makes it clear to me that this debate has caused far more disruption than any good could be done by any outcome. Both sides need to step away, or in the last resort be forced to step away. However, I do find that claiming consensus and trying for force some result through pretty poisonous. Sometimes I wonder if the Wikipedia's impprovement is really the point here. RxS (talk) 12:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And for the record, I don't give a flying whozit which way the dispute gets resolved. I have a vague preference for keeping dates linked, for a variety of reasons, but it's hardly important. //roux   13:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been a deeply unpleasant process, and the only way it's going to get resolved is for the community's will to be assessed by an RfC that's carefully crafted to ensure the results will be unambiguous and enforceable. Anything less than that is a guarantee of an endless continuation of the dispute. It's more important to get it right than to get it quickly. A three day cutoff seems reasonable to me. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan

Some sort of period of neutral involvement is needed, as the participants in the date delinking arbitration are clearly too close to the issue to be of much use now (the base questions are formulated and generally agreed upon, but the longer this drags out the more it seems new issues are found and total rewrites are attempted). I won't comment on the threat of blocks except to say that, in his capacity as mediator/clerk, it's a tool he may need to use to keep order in the neutral discussions. I sincerely hope we can get something useful out of this RFC, and the only way that will happen is if neutral parties (those totally uninvolved with the issue prior to the ArbCom case) are allowed to critique the questions and offer their own input without fear of being hammered to death by people on either side of the debate. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with the above. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clerk involvement

Part of the reasons the Committee is so careful in selecting clerks is that they are expected to be neutral, yet have both the reasoning ability and the authority to keep a minimum of order and discipline to an otherwise chaotic and painful process. In order to do so, they are granted great leeway in setting rules of order during the heated debates that can arise out of Arbitration cases. Occasionally, maintaining that order requires application of blocks and bans.

When a clerk states that some bit of process should be followed, and warns that disregarding that process can lead to protective measures, they are not threatening or bullying, they are doing their job. They do so with the ascent and the blessings of the Committee. Should an editor feel that they are overstepping their remit, the proper venue to discuss this is with ArbCom who will then be able to either sustain or overturn the action. Trying to build a lynch mob because a clerk is doing his job is both fundamentally unfair and disruptive.

In this particular case, the committee did not request that the poll take place— but the initiative is both welcome and greatly appreciated. In fact, part of the reason a proposed decision has not been yet posted in Date Delinking is because we are hoping the poll will lead to a better sense of what the problem really is, and where the community actually stands. This poll should be viewed as an extension of the Arbitration Case. That a committee clerk is trying to organize that poll and to make it both coherent and conclusive is a boon to the dispute resolution process. If, in their opinion, stronger enforcement of both focus and decorum is necessary for the poll to lead to a reasonably useful result, then their judgment will be given serious consideration by Arbitrators and will not be taken lightly.

Again, if you have serious concerns that a clerk is being unreasonable (and, I should not need to point out, "He's not doing what I want the way I want it!" is probably not it) or that their behavior is not appropriate, then bring it to the attention of the Committee. Heaping abuse on a someone dedicating time and effort to attempt to help solve a longstanding divisive dispute will not be looked upon with kindness. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Coren, and to Ryan for extending the courtesy to give uninvolved and/or neutral parties time to comment on the process. seicer | talk | contribs 00:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Human Achievement Hour AfD

Resolved

 – WP:DRV is the venue for any further discussion

Human Achievement Hour an event that is an alternative to Earth Hour was deleted by speedy deletion today (3/25/2009). The event was under discussion with a count of 5 for and 5 against at the time of deletion.

The dispute with deletion is logged here instead of Wikipedia:Deletion_review because of the suspicious nature of the deletion.

The deletion discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_Achievement_Hour

The speedy deletion was absolutely unnecessary, as there was a quality discussion for its merit. User_talk:Yandman is responsible for its deletion and gave zero reason for the decision of deletion. His user account also indicates a spotty record and a itchy deletion trigger finger.

Furthermore, knowledge of the fact that the event occurs this upcoming Saturday the 28th of March, and the fact that no argument or reasoning was presented for a deletion case, creates reasonable suspicion that deletion was a directive of personal bias of the events nature, and not a neutral editor with good cause.

The event is notable, and has been mentioned in the National Post, a major newspaper with a global reach.

Additionally, the event has been mentioned by Michelle Malkin who has a nationally syndicated column reaching more than 200 newspapers, and is additionally a contributor on Fox News, MSNBC, and C-Span.

The event is also to be brought before the House Floor of the Oregon State Congress by Representative Matt Wingard with a youtube video to follow.

The O'Reilley Factor has contacted CEI about the Wikipedia take down as well.

Thehondaboy (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a speedy deletion, yandman closed the AfD debate. The consensus, discounting the meatpuppetry that made no attempts to justify keeping the article based on Wikipedia policy, was clearly to delete. A quick search through Lexis reveals that the article doesn't come close to meeting WP:N. Taking the discussion here instead of WP:DRV is improper; that's exactly what deletion review is for. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The consensus was clearly a tie. "Meatpuppetry" is your opinion. The weight is on those who want to delete to give reason why it does not meet Wiki guidelines. The only reason given was WP:SR which is the weakest argument anyone could have possibly given. The reason for the post here is not for deletion review. A critical read of the statement was that instead of allowing the discussion to continue awaiting an actual Wiki guidelines complaint as reason for deletion, it was taken down abruptly and conveniently 3 days before the event. Something that generally does not occur on Wiki when there is a decent debate, or no actual reason for deletion has been given. Therefore the deletion is suspicious as bias and not actual wiki guidelines. Thehondaboy (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, correct. The people that suggested to keep the article were either IP editors, or single purpose accounts relating to keeping the article. Again, this is not the place to debate whether the article was correctly deleted or not, that is deletion review. The admin was correct in closing the article with a delete. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "consensus" on the Keep side consists of an editor who votes twice, two IPs with few other edits (I can make a good guess on those) and - of the remaining two Keeps - one with a rationale which was basically "it's notable, the deleters have a hidden agenda", Still, just in case, this is what you want. Black Kite 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Yandman of this thread. shoy (reactions) 19:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't count votes here, there is no such thing as "a tie". Articles have to meet our notability guidelines, which in all honesty are not that stringent. AFD discussions last five days, which is how long the above discussion was open for. You're being willfully obtuse when you claim that no reason for deletion was given, since the reasons were quite fundamental. Again, please read WP:N, Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have started a review of the deletion at WP:DRV; you are welcome to contribute. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget "you are welcome to contribute once" :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh lovely -- anything and everyone that isn't contributing to Earth Hour is deemed to be part of this HAH, including the Smithsonian because they are showing a film that won't finish before the hour. Wikipedia is not here to be part of some sort of promotion. dougweller (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

An event whose acronym is HAH, we're supposed to take seriously??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Opinoso vandalising Rio Grande do Sul

User Opinoso edit warring to impose his POV that Gaúchos are not of Portuguese ancestry. Till when will is this disruptive behaviour be tolerated? Donadio (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How about providing a cite to support your view that Gaúchos cannot be of any other race?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said that they cannot be of any other race. People of Portuguese ancestry predominate in Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul. This is the information Opinoso wants to remove from the article. Donadio (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Donadio's version:

People of Portuguese ancestry predominate on the coast and southern parts of the state, being mainly of Gaúcho (especially in the Southwest) or Azorean background (especially in the coastal region).

Opinoso's version:

People of Gaúcho ancestry (who can be of any race) predominate in the Southwest. People of Portuguese, mostly Azorean background predominate in the coastal region.

Looks to me like they say essentially the same thing -- Gauchos (of whatever race) in the SW, Portuguese/Azorean people on the coast. To support your version, you'd need a cite saying that most of the Gauchos in the SW are of Portuguese ancestry. Failing that, stop accusing each other of vandalism.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Gaucho a background, and the nationality of one's ancestors deteriminative of one's ancestry? Donadio's version seems to be more accurate in portraying Gaucho as cultural, the others as geographic, though Azorean needs to be looked at in either version. Further, Opinoso's reads as three different groups, gaucho, portuguese, and azorean, in two distinct regions, whereas Donadios shows two origins of one group in two related regions. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are the IBGE racial data for Southwestern Rio Grande do Sul:

• Total.......................747.115
• Branca (White)..............606.650
• Preta (Black)................40.138
• Amarela (Yellow)................548
• Parda (Mixed)................95.404
• Indígena (Native).............2.078
• Sem declaração (undeclared)...2.296

(Go [41], select table 2094, chose all options in the Raça/Cor box, go down to "Níveis Territoriais", click "Fazer Seleção Avançada" in the Mesorregião Geográfica line, clik "Listar", find "4306 - Sudoeste Riograndense", click "Selecionar", go down and click "OK".)

Which means, while those people "can" be of "any race", they in fact are, in the majority, White - 606 thousand out of 747 thousand. Now nobody has claimed that those people are of Italian or German descent, because they aren't. Any source about the immigration of Germans and Italians will tell you that they settled, respectively, the Central region and the Serra Gaúcha. Donadio (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SYNTH. Find a source which shows the people are Portuguese, don't use your own personal research/synthesis. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here: [42]

O povoamento foi sendo feito a partir da chegada dos primeiros lagunistas, que se fixavam para criar gado. A ocupação do solo se adequava às características da criação de gado, e aos padrões de propriedade rural adotados em toda a colônia: eram doadas grandes glebas de terras a um proprietário, que as ocupava com gado.

Para o trato dos animais, usavam-se alguns poucos homens, livres ou escravos. A estância consolidava-se, aos poucos, como célula básica da vida gaúcha, e o estancieiro, senhor absoluto dentro de sua área, não era apenas responsável pelo cuidado do gado e dos homens sob suas ordens; também se encarregava da defesa do solo, garantindo sua posse à coroa portuguesa. Numa região permanentemente em conflito, a estância iria desempenhar o papel de defesa, de sobrevivência, de segurança, e seria a marca da presença portuguesa no Rio Grande do Sul.

Translating,

"Settling was made starting with the arrival of the first lagunistas, who established to raise cattle. Land occupation fitted the caracteristics of husbandry, as well as the land property standards in the whole colony: huge portions of land were donated to a proprietor, which would occupy them with cattle.

For the care of the animals, a few men, free or slave, were used. The estância slowly consolidated as the basic cell of the gaúcha life, and the estancieiro, absolute lord in his own area, was not only responsible for the cattle and the men under his authority; he would also take care of the defence of the land, ensuring its possession to the Portuguese Crown. In a region of permanent conflict, the estância would play the role of defence, of survival, of security, and would be the mark of the Portuguese presence in Rio Grande do Sul." Donadio (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A little light relief

Resolved

 – Diffs oversighted, IP told I wasn't born yesterday Tonywalton ^Talk 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it me, or are trolls getting... well.... dimmer? This appeared on my talkpage from an IP (obviously I've redacted the names, and the diffs have been oversighted). Spelling mistakes are as they originally appeared:

We at Fooglebuzz High School would like to apologize for the resent vandalism by "a user" (or as we know him "his real name") he is a bit slow. we will make sere it dose not happen agine.

To help us in this can you give us his account password so we may monitor him.

I'll send them the infrmation right after I've posted my passport to that poor chap in Sierra Leone who's offered to send me $1500000 for looking after some gold bars for him ☺ I'm flagging this as "resolved" straight away, but thought a bit of light relief amidst the drama might come in handy Tonywalton ^Talk 21:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

hey, for 10% of that, I'll go to Sierra Leone and bring the gold bars back for you. and yes, I take PayPal.

Thanks, Tony, made my evening at least :)  GARDEN  21:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually tell them my password is 'fuckyouyougreasyasshole' and wait for the fun to start. HalfShadow 21:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

lol :D J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You could also turn the tables on the Sierra Leone guy by asking him for a loan. That might evoke some interesting responses. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're after Scam baiting, Bugs. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful. Scam baiting could become an industry unto itself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobert300 - just a heads up

this user left a completely random disruption template on my talk page here, possibly copied over from one that User:Soxwon left on his page. I checked his other contributions and saw things like this on the George Bush talk page, this in an asian language I can't read, and this odd claim about getting soxwon banned. he might just be in a tiff with soxwon (other edits he makes seem perfectly normal and acceptable), but it might be something to look into before it gets any bigger. --Ludwigs2 21:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the good faith interpretation is that they didn't know how to warn you, and copied a warning from someone else. Did the section header mean anything to you? If not, Never mind - chalk it up to weirdness and don't worry about it. Still looking at their other contribs... SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

will do. it's not really a problem for me, just something I thought was bizarre enough to point out. --Ludwigs2 21:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have them filed mentally under "confused" rather than disruptive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese text roughly translates as:

==Hello prostitutes==

Hey! Is stupid! I hate! And I can not delete the page. Bye. HalfShadow 22:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

ROFL! confused it is. he did leave a note on my talk saying the tag was a mistake, so probably everything is ok. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a more accurate translation of the Japanese text is more abusive: "Hello prostitute. Hey! You're stupid! I hate you! You shouldn't erase my page. Goodbye." Just FYI, as this may influence your decisions regarding this user's conduct. silverneko (talk) 17:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you're more generous than me. I reverted some fairly inappropriate edits to the article Violent crime and deleted a clear copyvio article that the editor started. Looking further back, I wasn't able to find much in the way of contructive editing. Didn't block, but I'm not convinced that I shouldn't have. -Chunky Rice (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the newer translation above, I'm inclined to think that this editor may after all be disruptive in future. However, their last contribution was a "practice article" in user space (maybe they're getting a head-start on a {{2ndchance}}). I guess all we can do is wait and see. Please report any further disruptive edits here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:CUTKD

Resolved

 – Signature has been fixed, wasn't what I thought it was.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Awhile ago, I politely requested this user remove the <big> tags from his signature, as they can cause disruption. How did he respond to me? He added in three big tags.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably a joke. He's not using that signature anywhere else: [43]. He probably just missed a sarcasm tag. Mahalo. --Ali'i 22:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm it was a joke. I was hoping the sarcasm was obvious, but I guess not... C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunovic

Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) I need an administrator to review this person's actions. He has been accusing Wikipedia of spreading lies and vandalism at Darko Trifunović. He has made multiple copyright violations as well, and possibly made legal threats at the page he made, Wikipedia against individual Human Rights (I didn't read the page carefully at first because it looked like nonsense). He has also been accused of sockpuppetry LetsdrinkTea 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed some of the content of the user on their talkpage per WP:SOAP and WP:USER, and have suggested they take their concerns regarding the Darko Trifunovic to WP:OFFICE. I did these actions in response to the editor posting to the AIV board (I think he was reporting Wikipedia generally). If they fail to use the proper processes to resolve any problem they have with "their" article (I am AGF'ing that the account is the subject) then I think they should be blocked, for a short while initially. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I reported them at AIV because the page he made looked like the generic Wikipedia is fascism nonsense LetsdrinkTea 22:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a fair report, it just grew somewhat! --GedUK  22:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is altogether a curious business. The article started out as a straightforward attack article against the subject. I cleaned it up and reliably sourced it some time ago. However, over the past six months it has repeatedly been defaced by new or anonymous editors who have made essentially the same edit each time - replacing the content with POV promotional text, typically a poorly spelled curriculum vitae of the subject.[44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] Since mid-February, my user talk page has been repeatedly defaced by a series of anonymous IPs - I'm guessing open proxies. [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] I strongly suspect that the same individual is responsible for defacing the Darko Trifunović article and my user talk page. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

y is redpen allowed 2 stalk my edits?

Resolved

 – Frivolous complaint. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello admins: I need help. I being stalked by redpen, look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheRedPenOfDoom. Y is User_Talk:TheRedPenOfDoom allowed 2 stalk me & my edits. & when s/he raises an objection, I am blocked. Nothing no repercussion 4 him/her. S/h followed me to Elisabeth Hasselbeck, to Tim Hasselbeck, to Girlfriends, to Omarosa. Y is this ok?
After the Hasselbeck pages crazy I moved on to other pages, but was followed there. redpen repeatedly reverts when I add s/t to already saved versions of articles, then says the burden is on me for the WHOLE ARTICLE when I didnt write the whole article! I add a section or info that is sourced. So how am I responsible for the whole article?
Pls look @ the pages & look & the histories & see what I mean. After we strongly disagreed on the 2 Hasselbeck pages redpen followed me to Omarosa and Girlfriends. Thanks. 70.108.110.22 (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not using reliable sources? In fact, I see you *removing* seemingly-valid sources. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(3x edit conflict) From looking at your contribs, you seem to be either adding original research repeatedly adding copyrighted material including images, and messing up MoS and referencing templates on several articles—up to the point of revert-warring over all of them. Also note that you are at three reverts (3RR) in less than a 24-hour period at Omarosa Manigault-Stallworth; I furthermore have reason to believe that you are over 3RR at Tim Hasselbeck, assuming 70.108.74.81 (talk · contribs) and 70.108.110.22 (talk · contribs) are the same user. I also agree with TheRedPenOfDoom that [56] is a BLP violation, especially with the addition of unverifiable content. You seem to be also going against consensus at the Talk:Tim Hasselbeck talk page and, as I mentioned above, revert-warring over it. MuZemike 03:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The sock accusation could merely be a dynamic IP change, and not intentional. Marking this as resolved, frivolous complaint. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Aramgar

Resolved

 – See above at Huckelbarry section

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

---

Would someone please take a look at the activities of the user Aramgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). he spends much of his time for attacking articles about Turkic civilization and history. sure, he may call attention to other articles now, someone please look at his older activities in wikipedia.--Huckelbarry (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Nightscream removing valid, sourced information

Further to an incident above, now marked as resolved, Nightscream continues to remove valid, sourced information from our articles, citing WP:V and WP:BLP. A recent example may be found here. In this edit Nightscream removes the birthdate of Robert Pattinson. The birthdate is provided in the IMDB site listed at the end of the article, and may be easily checked elsewhere.

While I could, of course, restore the information and make an inline reference, I don't feel that I (or any other editor) should have to get a broom, follow around admin Nightscream, and sweep up his doings. I'm also wondering if this may be trolling behaviour on Nightscream's part, given the nature of our recent interaction. Could I get an admin to comment on this incident? --Pete (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

IMDB can be challenged as agents and other people can change content without verifying the information on it. Where are the other sources showing this birthdate? MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick google shows oodles. While the movie world and acting fraternity is full of misinformation, shadows and dubious characters, I don't think we really need a birth certificate to accept information so widely and freely available. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to get silly... Nightscream, please stop, the project does not benefit from such a strict interpretation of WP:BLP. We have much bigger BLP problems here to waste time on this... -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Football (soccer) edits by 60.224.0.121

The above user has been going through and changing a large number of pages from either "Australian football player" or "Australian association football player" to "Australian football (soccer) player" and the same for some clubs, templates and league pages. The change looks untidy and changing a large number of these pages but not all of them has led to a large amount of inconsistency.

The user has been unwilling to stop from making these changes while a discussion on the changes is attempted. He is on the border of the three revert rule on two or three pages (such as Charlie Miller) at the moment. I'm willing to discuss and compromise, and if the decision is that the change is appropriate, I would help apply it to all the relevant pages.

I haven't been undoing his edits as I was hoping he would be willing to discuss the changes and see if we could compromise, but he will only refer to a vote/consensus on a single talk page from 2-3 years ago and will continue to make the changes.

Would someone be willing to step in here and have a look and see if the user can at least be persuaded to stop making the changes until a discussion has been had please? I'm willing to compromise and to discuss the issue but it is difficult when he considers that I have a neutral point of view problem and that consensus has already been determined. Camw (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Also please see our talk pages here and here for some attempts at discussion. I have notified the other user that I've asked a third party administrator have a look at him continuing to edit pages while others attempt consensus. Camw (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfair blaming by Camw

This above user talk has been compalined about me editing the football (soccer) artcles, but has completely omissed the people doing the same thing as they were editing to what HE believed was right. . It was discussed and agreed on in great lengths here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. The person claimed I was "undoing edits". I was reverting edits from a user User talk:Portillo. When I asked him to to edit as it had been agreed on his answer was "I disagree. Football is fooball not soccer". Portillo (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC). To me, this is POV editing. I was simply reverting the edits what is atm the AGREED term. Camw did not report nor mention Portillo in his complaint above I suspect that Portillo was not complained about because he/she shared his/hers "preferred term". It will show that another user User:Dudesleeper edited the pages to Camw's preferred term while his term was opened for discussion, but still failed to mention that he was editing the pages while the discussion was open too. Both of those users have been editing the pages, despite that I have shown them the debate page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australia_national_football_(soccer)_team#Requested_move. It was lengthy debated and agreed on, but both have not given a real reason for their edits (apart from Portillo's POV comment). I am asking for a third party to to tell Camw that his complaint of me is not fair and biased as in it he did not mention the other editors presumably to make me look like the agressor in this. He also fails to mention that both users are close to the 3 edit rule too and that Portillo has been blocked several times in the past, where I have never been. The user also claims that I am only referring to a board that is 3 years old (which it isn't yet), but i have contacted several people to give their opinions, User:Grant65, User:MarkGallagher, User:*Paul*, User:Xtra, as at the moment there are only people in the discussion that have HIS POV. It seem that in Australia 4 sports claim the title of 'football'. To claim that one sport should have it and no-one else does not seem to be fair. He calls my editing to football (soccer) "untidy" but the reason it was agreed on was that the word "football" by itself was too vague as most Australians call it soccer. I am also furious at the automatic assumption I am male.60.224.0.121 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are at the center of the issue as it was your edits on 100+ pages that started the discussion. The consensus you have linked to a number of times here is from February 2006, that is over 3 years old. I'm sorry if you are furious about being mistakenly referred to as "he", but you've made the same assumption in a number of your comments (including the very first line above) so it is not really a fair complaint if you are going to do the exact same thing. My original note isn't meant to be a report against you, it is a request to have someone look at all the parties involved (including me) even if perhaps I did not express it very well. Camw (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• You are right though that it isn't just you on the edge of the three revert rule - can whoever checks into this issue please have a look at the other users involved as well. Camw (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My name is being thrown around here, but i only found out that there was an issue a few weeks ago. Also i had no idea that discussions or consensus' had been reached, if any. Portillo (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments on this are at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football_(soccer)_in_Australia#User_60.224.0.121_and_football_.28soccer.29_edits -- Chuq (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross (rapper) and Deeper Than Rap (album) edits made by Dumaka

The user Dumaka has been editing these two articles to support his dislike of the entertainer. Notably was his revisions to the entertainer's article where he revereted a legitimate revision to another one which included the line " Next album = "Carol City Correctional - Represent". That of course is not the entertainer's next album, yet Dumaka purposely reverted it to contain the line. A quick glance over his contributions should show his agenda is trying to disrupt articles associated with this entertainer.--97.97.160.121 (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is Deeper Than Rap. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the IP address of Lithium72990 (talk · contribs · count), who i blocked for messing about with AIV reports. I have just shortened his block on appeal, and told him not to use this IP address, though that was after this was posted. --GedUK  08:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. Everything I have post about this entertainer has been fact and NPOV. Everything Lithium as posted has been bias in support of this artist. The reason he is accussing me of this is because he doesn't like the truths I'm placing into the article. You can check the logs. " Next album = "Carol City Correctional - Represent". I didn't even make this edit. 98.14.64.86 did this edit. I reverted this by mistake. I was reverting the bias not the vandalism. I didn't notice his until Lithium decided to accuse me.Dumaka (talk) 12:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sunshinatic28

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has uploaded numerous copyright violations as own work, despite a final warning being issued. Could an admin have a look? ∗ \ / (⁂) 09:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

AIV is the right venue for this. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting assertion. I've never managed to get a copyright violation handled at AIV, and usually report at ANI. Can you document any cases of AIV reports resulting in a serial copyright violator being blocked for copyright violation?—Kww(talk) 12:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. I hope they can find some free images of this actress. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I always get my copyright violations handled there. I can list two recent ones straight off: this and this. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably depends who's patrolling AIV; copyright scares me silly. --GedUK  20:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Concern about the AfD for Neptune Island (Long Island Sound)

This AfD may achieve a consensus that amounts to condoning a known sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user's edits to Wikipedia.

That might be justified in the circumstances, but I thought it best to mention the matter here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is 'condoning' anything. It is not against current policy to not revert good contributions from banned users. From WP:BAN:

“ This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. ”

The presumption is that banned users will likely only make unwanted contributions. Keeping around constructive edits from banned users is already policy. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It appears that AfD is not a terribly efficient forum in which to address articles on otherwise notable subjects when written by banned editors known for creating hoax articles.Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably no efficient forum exists for this, one may have to accept inefficiency sometimes. WilyD 15:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Neurolysis—a user has expressed concern that the banned person has a history of introducing plausible falsehoods and disguised copyvios into Wikipedia. I don't know the truth of that. If you're confident these are "constructive" edits then as far as I'm concerned we can call this matter resolved.

Wikidemon—I got an edit conflict with WilyD when I was trying to say, AfD isn't efficient for any purpose, but then it's not aiming to be efficient.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and stubbified the article, with prejudice. Whatever the outcome of the AfD (and it's really a process question as to whether RBI should apply) there is less to be troubled by at the moment (i've also pointed out that it "was" an island, not "is" an island).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Since when are banned users allowed to edit? It has always been my understanding that banned users are banned, period, and that any and all edits they make are subject to reversion on-sight, regardless of the edits' so-called merit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. However with the caveat that any person reverting is taking responsibility for said edits that they meet WP policy and such. spryde | talk 21:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I would say the right approach, then, is (1) revert the edit; (2) turn the sock in and make sure he's indeffed; and (3) go back and make the edit, if necessary. That seems like tedium, but a banned user cannot be allowed a foot in the door, or banning becomes meaningless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats concerning American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

Resolved

 – user blocked for legal threats -MBK₀₀₄ 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Morgananderson82 has threatened User:John Nevard concerning sourced information the latter restored to American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine. User writes [57] "John, you may like to consult A4M www.worldhealth.net legal officer on your posting and involvement in editing the page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A4M or read careful page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism" followed by [58] "will send your message to A4M legal advisor to review". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse NLT block, seems blatant to me. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 15:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. -MBK₀₀₄ 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP has redone the edits the blocked user was making. Likely an IP sock of the blocked editor. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

And now User:Vernontnh has joined in. – ukexpat (talk) 16:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Seicer has semiprotected the article. 87.114.147.43 (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

on the reference desk I am being called a troll, racist, hatemongerer, etc.q

I addressed these personal attacks here, on the reference desk's talk page, moving them from the main page. However they were returned. I feel the main page is not the place for these attacks. Is it possible to remove them?

In general, am I allowed to remove personal attacks against me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.75.197 (talk) 18:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Tango's response on the linked page sums it up nicely. Let it go, stop soapboxing on talk pages and find something productive to edit about. You're beginning to get disruptive. Bullzeye ^contribs 19:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Star trek online

Star Trek Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can we get some eyes on this article - I've just become aware of it in the last ten minutes and even a cursory glance suggests that either there is an off-site campaign to get certain (unsourced) information into the area or it's someone using a lot of sockpuppets. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Semi is probably the best bet. Set for 24 hours for now. –xeno (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as best as I can determine they are pissed off over a competition to win a beta key where the winner actually run 200 words more than the rules allowed and they see the entry as being important to "get the truth out there!" and so on.. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

Proposal to Block indef

I personally don't see a conscructive contributor here, and I realize I can only speak for myself, but really, his actions speak louder than words. He was topic-banned away from articles, and then he goes to blantantly violate it with the edits noted above using WP:IAR. IAR is not some kind of tool to circumvent solutions found by the community, it's not meant as a catch-all to get yourself out of any situation, it's meant to be used to improve the encyclopedia. To make bold edits, not snide remarks in violation of one's topic ban. If he can't learn to follow policy, and his own topic ban, he needs to be shown the door.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, considering that I originally removed the userbox, even stating that it was probably "too polemic". Then, Orangemike (an admin, mind you), advised me that it was not too polemic, and he suggested I should put it back, since it's a stark statement about the person I am (which is the purpose of userboxes). An admin giving advice to re-add the userbox, then an admin blocking me for having it, would seem highly hypocritical and a lose-lose. Also, per Henrik's statement that I am, in fact, improving. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conflict of interest. This user is the subject of the proposal. Grsz¹¹ 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a block would be for a userbox, rather, treating Wikipedia as your battleground. Grsz¹¹ 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest here as well, considering you complained about the userbox initially. Also, treating Wikipedia as my battleground? Lol. You're the one who complained initially, or that comment would have never been added. Stop trying to find loopholes to get me banned, kthx. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm waiting for someone to pull out WP:NOSKINHEADUSERBOXES or WP:NOSKINHEADS, of which I see are both redlinks. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, it's time. He won't stop grinding his axe long enough to listen to a word anyone says. It should be clear from his conduct that there's precious little chance he'll ever become a constructive contributor. Friday (talk) 21:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note this user's conflict of interest, considering he's been critical of me before this proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 21:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder why?  GARDEN  21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• cmt axmann. You violated your topic ban. You're stirring the pot now. I advise you to either A. Apologize for violating the topic ban and promise not do so again, for any reason. Or B. Just back away from the carcass and be quiet here. Further attacks on the motives of other editors may sway more people into supporting a block of you just to get rid of the disruption. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, though if Axmann doesn't shut up pretty soon, he'll dig a deep enough hole that I'll change votes. I like the people who 'open their mouths and prove it', to take half an adage; those are the people who can easily be evaluated for their agendas. Axmann's on a short enough leash now, far better to have him wreck himself on actual content realted problems than this stupidity. -- ThuranX 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Ditch him. He's not worth the trouble. He's not a fabulous researcher, he has zero FAs to his credit, and if he tried to so much as fix grammar or phrasing on one of our really good articles I daresay he'd be reverted due to making the article worse, not better. In short, I believe in leeway for good contributors; I believe in more leeway for truly outstanding contributors, but this jerk? No, he gets no leeway at all. In short, Delete as antiencyclopedic. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I've every been involved with this editor so have no COI as far as I am aware - all I see here is a timewaster, I know we have our cadre of social workers ready and willing to leap in to enable people like this but come on.. He knows he's taking the piss, we all know he's take the piss. Let's just get it over and done with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Reblock, but not indef Administrator henrik is willing to work with Axmann8 so his problematic behavior can be corrected. He was unblocked and given a topic ban of five months so he could continue editing Wikipedia. However, given his recent conduct and him violating the topic ban, he should be blocked for a set amount of time for violating it. Give henrik a chance to continue working with him and if he doesn't improve, then indefblock him. — Moe ε 21:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Where did he violate the topic ban? I don't see any article space edits which are problematic. Please provide diffs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe it's these admissions: [64], [65]. "Per IAR" is a slap in the face to the admins who were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Grsz¹¹ 22:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed, per his own admission, he was violating his topic ban 'per WP:IAR' with the diffs above and [66]. He was topic banned from editing articles and discussion (which he agreed to) related to politics in exchange for a unblock. Why bother setting topic bans at all if the disruptive users can go and violate them willingly? Either he gets a block for violating the topic ban, or there shouldn't be any pseudo-restriction (which ultimately turns out to just be a threat) at all. — Moe ε 22:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Why the heck is henrik willing to waste his time? Wikipedia is not therapy, last I checked. henrik, you have better uses for your time than trying to talk sense into a neo nazi skinhead who seriously seems to think the US Constitution grants him the right to piss in our living room. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• As much as I despise polls, from his conduct in this thread and his block log longer than Gatsby (one block for every 300 edits? No thank you) I don't believe that this user will be beneficial to the project if he stays. We don't need a toddler rubbing crayons on the couch with both hands over his ears, singing "lalala" loudly.  GARDEN  22:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Is The Great Gatsby considered a long book these days? :P MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, first book I could think of. :)  GARDEN  22:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose and close - WP:IDONTLIKE objections notwithstanding, this user hasn't come anywhere near our normal threshold for community patience exhaustion. His viewpoint being offensive to many (me included) is not grounds to block or ban him. Barring specific evidence of more severe ongoing behavior problems, this ban proposal should be closed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not based solely on this issue.  GARDEN  22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • There's nothing he's done in the last few days that justified more blocking, as far as I can tell. The only reason further action is being discussed is the userbox - and the userbox appears to meet our current policy. If he manages to take more disruptive actions and gets himself indef'ed and it sticks - so be it. But this call to ban him is based on ... nothing, since he was last unblocked. We don't ban people for behaving themselves after being given another chance. If he stops behaving himself I or another admin will apply appropriate sanctions up to and including a block. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • If your assumption on why this indef blocked is being discussed is in regards to why I brought it up, you're wrong. I did not bring it up in regards to the userbox, but in regards to his violation of his topic ban.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Would someone please provide the diffs for what he did that violated the topic ban? People keep saying that, but I've been through his edit history and I didn't see it. Evidence, please? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Please see the links by myself and Grsz11 where he even self admitted it was a violation of his topic ban. [67], [68] [69] The topic ban, if you review his talk page history and his block log, is on all articles and discussions related to politics which he was the one who proposed himself in exchange for an unblock. [70] — Moe ε 23:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - You guys have already indef'd him twice and you keep letting him off the hook. He's under a topic ban, so...

  Enforce the topic ban already. Anything that violates it in an article, revert it on sight. And let him keep his white supremacist garbage on his page, so that there's no doubt where he's coming from. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Idef'd twice shows that he's been given two more chances, not that he's somehow immune to indefing. Your argument supports re-instituting the indef rather than not. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  If it were me, I would have blocked him for good the first time. This episode needs to serve as an object lesson to overly-lenient admins. This guy came in here with guns blazing and a mind full of Limbaugh mush, but the youngsters running this place somehow couldn't see it. So he needs to stay on here until he's unwound enough rope to hang himself and stay hanged, i.e. so that no admin would be foolish enough to trust him again. But he's not there yet, and he shouldn't be blocked yet. And, who knows? Miracles still happen. He might wake up some morning and become productive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to move to close this, an admin said it was ok for him to have the userbox, so that issue belongs at MFD and henrik has already addressed him about the topic ban issue which is self-imposed. –xeno (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

  Object to closing. Its not the ubox. Its not even the violation of topicban, altho that's bigger than the ubox. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) Wait a While. The box is annoying, but he is allowed to have it. It's a good thing to the extent that it gives insight into his character.

I'm impressed by henrik's dedication, and I hope, sorta, that it isn't misplaced. But Axmann is going to keep getting in trouble until he (at least) 1) respects the topic ban, and avoids nibbling lagomorphically around its edges, and 2) comes to understand that all the trouble is not the result of a cabal of leftist editors drooling for his scalp, but a product of his own intransigence and churlishness.

My feeling is that there's no way he'll last five months. PhGustaf (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Move to close this, as it is leading no where, and is only wasting time. Landon1980 (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• You are under no obligation to participate further, or even to read. Kindly do not prematurely close this while others are still discussing. It is very rude. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:46, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking to me I wouldn't dare close it, I was just rendering my opinion. You are wanting him blocked for past behavior, not how it works. Landon1980 (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I was talking to you, and you are completely wrong about what I "want". KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: You do realise he's probably named after Artur Axmann? Which makes a potential WP:U violation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Well its pretty obvious that its a play on Artur Axmann, but since its just Axmann8 it isn't much of a problem, (not to mention Artur Axmann has been dead for 12 years, and WP:U is only applied on living peoples names). — Moe ε 23:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Block, not necessarily indef. It seems odd to indef over a userbox - which is clearly some people's view of the debate here. It's also confusing to think that a user, whose indefinite block was replaced with a topic ban, would not be indef blocked again for blatantly violating that ban - which is the view that others are taking of this. I'm inclined to split the baby down the middle and issue a short-term block as a means of ban enforcement, since this editor obviously isn't respecting the ban voluntarily. IF henrik wishes to continue mentoring after the block, then that's fine. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? He should have most definitely been blocked the second he violated his topic ban. The only reason he was unblocked is he voluntarily agreed to it. I think his unblock was premature to begin with, and was asking for further disruption, but he was unblocked. There are plenty of people watching him, and he if he makes so much as a single mistake he can be swiftly reblocked. I feel blocking would be rather punitive now, as he stopped violating the topic ban. Some have said it is not for the userbox, or the violation of the topic ban, so what then. Can you list some diffs (dated after his last unblock) that will reasonably justify a policy-based block, that is preventative in nature? Can we not assume good faith and give him another chance? Landon1980 (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• (after ec) Well clearly I'm of the "he was indef'd; indef was replaced with topic ban; he blatantly violated topic ban ergo the indef goes right back up" opinion. I see no benefit to splitting the baby, but as so many here seem to be confused about the issue, I won't object too darn much either. However, if he violates again after his last,last,last,really truly last chance, I suggest we indef. Enough already. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you more than you know. I just think that Henrik should have blocked him the second he saw he was violating his topic ban. I am reasonably sure that Axeman will inevitably land in the indef block zone though, so maybe it is better to get it over with. After all, the best predictor of the future is the past. Landon1980 (talk) 00:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got it right. Hey, you're conservative, and you've been on here more than a year now without getting blocked. Maybe, if you're in a masochistic mood, you could visit with Axman and 'splain a few things to him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the userboxes, they're just a smoke screen that's distracting us. He was unblocked under a condition, and he willingly violated that condition soon after. He should be blocked for a substantial time at least, probably indef. Seal the vault. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Wow... Anyway, in my defense, this whole convo started over my userbox, which has already been ruled by an administrator as compliant with Wikipedia policy. I followed another policy, WP:IAR, by ignoring a rule to make a constructive edit to Wikipedia to make it more neutral, therefore I completely complied with WP:IAR, which is a policy. It states, "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it". I did just that. I made an edit to the warning on the politics userbox page, in order to make it more neutral, therefore improving the encyclopedia. If you don't want people to follow WP:IAR, then why don't you get rid of it as a policy? I haven't violated a thing, so I am not very clear about why we are having this discussion. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a rule for the improvement of wikipedia, not a way to get around an agreement you made with an admin to get unblocked. Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum comment to Baseball Bugs' comment about White pride: So, by your argument, "female pride"=female supremacy and "black pride"=black supremacy? Interesting. Correct me if I'm wrong, "bugs", but don't we allow "Feminist" and "Masculist" userboxes? Okay, don't correct me, because I'm not wrong. Anyway, why are people allowed to express "black pride" and "female pride" if we're not allowed to express "white pride"? I'm proud to be white, and I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that doesn't change the fact. Blocking me would only show the persistent insecurity of the black race, which is pretty pathetic considering "they" got their President. Why is the chip on their shoulder still? I'm proud to be white, and I'm not ashamed to say it. -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive AfDing by user Juvenile Deletionist

Resolved

 – Offending user blocked indefinitely by Friday, disruptive AfD nominations removed from log by Black Kite. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

As of this moment, the first 57 edits of today's AfD log have all been identical nominations nominations with identical rationale by user Juvenile Deletionist (talk · contribs). I've looked over a handful of them and although they look problematic and need improvement, it seems that this person has a grudge against standalone articles about songs. Given the username and the fact that his/her account was created four days ago my guess is this person is trying to cause a disruption. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC); edited own comment, 19:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was just going to request a mop. Clearly disruptive since there is no clear deletion rationale given for the nominated articles, and the speed at which they are nominated shows the nominator did not follow any of the BEFORE steps in checking the notability of the articles. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) From the time I copied the above diff to now he/she has added 17 more. [71] KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, these are all over the place. Something like The_Cha_Cha_(song) should just have been PRODded, it's clearly an uncontroversial deletion, others are reasonable for AfD, but some are almost certainly notable. I'd be tempted to remove all the AfDs, to be honest. Black Kite 19:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the songs nominated was a Grammy nominee. I've demanded an immediate stop for discussion here, and will block if they continue. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is a block for abusing Twinkle in order? KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Friday (talk · contribs) has blocked indef for disruption. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by Friday. I'm going to remove all the AfDs from the daily log, delete the clearly disruptive ones, and AfD, PROD or speedy anything that falls into those categories (which is how it should've been done in the first place!). Black Kite 20:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this really resolved in under 10 minutes? Wow, I'm impressed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, removed them all from the log and rolled back the addition of the AfD notices to the articles. I'll be AFK for a while, but will sort all those out later. I suspect quite a few are - by the law of averages - reasonable AfDs, but the nominating was completely random in places. Black Kite 20:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to try and NAC a bunch of these; let me know on my talk if I'm doing anything wrong. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No point - I've removed them from the log. Black Kite 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK - moving on..... KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hate to drag this out, but is this a sock? Certainly looks it...  GARDEN  22:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Very likely. The first edit is in his monobook.js page, and the second (and on) one already gets to work on AFDs. That or the user has learned very, very quickly. MuZemike 23:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shaheenjim

I need some assistance with this contributor in regards to the Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica) page and the inclusion of a simple statement about a ship bearing the resemblance to on found in the game Command and Conquer. Myself and and another editor, Edoktor, removed this entry as original research, but did leave the option open for its addition once a reliable source has confirmed that it is in fact an Easter egg.

Shaheenjim has argued that it should be included despite this, using "ignore all rules" as a basis for his argument and stating that common sense says it can be added.

The problem is not the argument, but the way in which he has been doing so. He has repeatedly violated WP:Civil when making his point.

My issues with him include:

• Profanity
• Accusatory tone
• Personal attacks on myself and others
• Making threats on my talk page
• Overt hostility
• Abusive language
• Rude and offensive comments

Because I did not wish to refactor his comments, twice I removed his comments on the talk page because of these issues while leaving clear notes or edit summaries explaining my actions. I have also left a message on his talk page regarding this, once telling that I will report him for the threat, and a second message to him in regards to the civility issue. His response was to delete one of his hostile remarks and leave another in its place (diff). I was mistaken, he had moved the comment when he cut and pasted the discussion to my page. The comment was still a violation of civility. I have been trying to maintain my composure in this matter, however I did loose my temper and leave a curt message in reply to a comment he had made on the article talk page.

I realize that I have not been a saint in the matter, but I have tried to present my argument using policy based reasons for my position and maintain a professional and productive tone in my correspondence on the page.

I would like an opinion on that matter from a neutral observer who can help sort the whole mess out, and will gladly accept the conclusions and actions of those who do look into the matter.

I would also like to note after reading his talk page that he seems to have a history of problematic interactions with other contributors with whom he disagrees.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 19:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's my side: I'll summarize my side of the argument, since it's been a pretty long discussion on the talk pages. Someone tried to add something to an article that is obviously and definitely true. No one is disputing that it's obviously and definitely true, but some people (like Jeremy here) are saying that it shouldn't be added anyway, since it's OR and doesn't have a RS. I said that the rules against OR and requiring a RS are intended to prevent people from adding things that are false. But since this addition is obviously and definitely true, those rules weren't intended to prevent it from being added, and it can be added to the article per the IAR rule and the Use Common Sense policy. But Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense. I have asked him, on several occasions, which part of my argument he's disputing, as you can see here. But he refuses to respond. That is, he refuses to follow Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution. Instead he just wants to have an edit war, repeatedly deleting the edit without discussing why he thinks it should be disputed.

And now, in addition to refusing to discuss his problems with my reasoning, he's started deleting my comments, claiming that they're in violation of the policy on civility. They are not. I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else, or been hostile, or used abusive language, and it's not surprising to me that he didn't give any examples of those allegations. He's also claiming that I'm making "threats." The only threat I made is to ask an administrator to block him if he continued to violate Wikipedia's policies. That's hardly a threat that warrants me being blocked. And I've only accused him of things he actually did, or been as rude and offensive as was warranted based on his conduct.

The latest development is our discussion on our own talk pages, rather than the talkpage of the relevant article. I invite you to read it here. I think it speaks for itself.

Finally, he's claimed above that I deleted one of my own remarks and left another in its place. If you look closely, you'll see that I didn't delete anything, I merely merged the comments from both of our talk pages by inserting his first comment in between my first and second comment. - Shaheenjim (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm disputing something. Essentially, we don't know whether it's the same ship, or a different ship that was made to look the same. I've posted on the Talk page to this effect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, putting "I haven't ever used profanity, or made a personal attack on him or anyone else" in the same post as "Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense." is just too obvious. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you alleging it was profane, or a personal attack, or both? If the former, then which part? And if the latter, then that's not what personal attack means. If you're attacking someone on the substance of the issue at hand, that's not considered a personal attack. A personal attack would be if I attacked his looks, for example. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

::::While we're on the subject of wikilawyering, would you care to comment on this remark of yours? Based on my experience on Wikipedia to date, I have absolutely no doubt that the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense. In particular, please explain why you think it is not a "personal attack against Jerem43 or anyone else". SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Scratch that, it's pointless. Blocked for 72 hours (considering previous block record) for disruption, personal attacks, and edit warring. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested

• Note to reviewing admin: I'm citing the people who comment will be little kids who will disagree with me because they're petty bureaucrats with no common sense and Jeremy here has some problem with using Common Sense as specimen examples of personal attacks. This revert is the only edit-warring this editor has recently taken part in, to my knowledge. Talk:Daybreak (Battlestar Galactica)#Kodiak and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Shaheenjim provide, I believe, adequate evidence of tendentious editing. Length of block was after consideration of prior blocks (24h for 3RR and 48h for NOR violations). Lastly, I consider myself to be uninvolved because my only contribution to the content dispute has been to provide outside input as to how I think wikipedia policies apply to the dispute in question - I certainly haven't edited the article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyvios by User:Mrc1028

I've got to give this guy credit, he's industrious.LeadSongDog come howl 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Krazy Glue. What's your point? HalfShadow 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Give them a final warning. They haven't edited since the last warning on their talk page. I'm a great believer in final warnings. I'm soft like that. --GedUK  21:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)