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

Personal attacks, copy vio, removal of scholarly material at Wendy Doniger

Resolved

 – Civility addressed, NPA addressed, removal endorsed and copyvio reported at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22. Toddst1 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Article Wendy Doniger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs admin intervention, currently the article is in bad shape, with reliable sources removed and copyright violations and plagiarized content from WP:SPS. The scholarly material was removed by personally attacking as "Illiterate BJPers"....while cherry picked quotes from favorable book reviews dominate the article.

Here is the list of problems:

Removal of Scholarly material

User:Goethean (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has removed scholarly material and personally attacking edit summary as "illiterate BJPers". Few of the references that were removed include material from Rutgers University Press, Routledge, Rupa & Co., Cambridge: Harvard Oriental, Religion in the News (Trinity College) to mention a few, without any link to BJP.

Please refer to the References in this older version and compare it to the present version.

Also the Book Review section is full of opinion peices and cherry picked quotes, to give an example:

• Wendy_Doniger#The_Hindus:_An_Alternative_History has a quote from David Arnold's "Beheading Hindus", but this review also contains discussions of the shortcomings of the book, which are nowhere to be seen.

It is also interesting to note that only after that the copyright violations and plagiarized content was removed, the valid scholarly material present all these months ( or years ) are being removed.

Racial and personal attacks

Goethean is also indulgin in Racial abuse and personal attacks:

• racially attacking the contributors - "fucking joke that only a BJPer would utter seriously" and pls note that this is the response given to my comments of acknowledging scholarly presence.
• [1] : "You actually had a good point in the midst of all that self-victimizing blather"

Plagiarized material

User:Meetoohelp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) keeps copy pasting material from Doniger's CV, Publication list and Faculty page at Divinity School. The currently protected article also has plagiarized content and copyright violations. See : Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2009_October_22 & Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Copyright_violations_and_use_of_Self_published_sources where I have discussed this.

In appropriate page lock

Also interesting to note is that administrator User:Akhilleus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has locked the page from editing without paying any heed to copyright violations, personal and racial attacks. ( assuming good faith, he probably overlooked it ) The last edits resulting in a protection occur in the span of few minutes :

• (cur) (prev) 14:58, 25 October 2009 Akhilleus (talk | contribs) (20,014 bytes) (protection tag)
• (cur) (prev) 14:57, 25 October 2009 Akhilleus (talk | contribs) m (19,999 bytes) (Protected Wendy Doniger: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=sysop] (expires 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 14:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC))))
• (cur) (prev) 14:51, 25 October 2009 Goethean (talk | contribs) (19,999 bytes) (remove bullshit sections per WP:BLP. Illiterate BJPers will not dominate this article.)
• (cur) (prev) 14:42, 25 October 2009 Meetoohelp (talk | contribs) (27,178 bytes) (If you find a sentence that matches one on another site please delete it singly. Page blanking is vandalism per Wiki policy. This article is short on facts. No warring please.)

For all you know, this "illiterate BJPer" may be a non-hindu and a editor with scholarly background. I request the admins to look into it.
Rgrds,
Spdiffy (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics of the edits themselves, Akhilleus's protection seems fine to me. He/she appears to be an uninvolved admin and this is probably just a case of WP:WRONG. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 10:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before commenting on the specifics of the edits, I'm bit dismayed that Spdiffy would WP:Canvass editors about this ANI report (see here, and here) but not have the courtesy to notify Goethean of the ANI report. Toddst1 (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regarding the charges of racial attacks, this is nonsense. Bharatiya Janata Party is a political party, not a race. I see a WP:Civil issue at most here.
• The page protection seems well founded and I agree with RegentsPark that this is at worst a case of WP:WRONG. I see no need to change it.
• Regarding the removal of content, see WP:Coatrack as well as the discussion on the talk page. The Rutgers piece was presented as fact, rather than one writer's opinion and the removal seems justified and in line with our policies of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc.

This seems to be a simple content disupute about a WP:BLP with some WP:Civil issues thrown in on the side of protecting WP:BLP. I think we're done. Toddst1 (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The copyvio may have been reported, but we don't address listings at WP:CP for 7+1 day after the listing is open. Accordingly, I've removed the infringement I've found. There may be more, and I will remove it if I see it, but so far I haven't found other copyvio text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am sorry for violating WP:Canvass, feel free to revert any of my changes that you perceive as canvassing. As far as racial abuse is concerned, this is what I felt, calling a group of people illiterates and what they say as f* joke is not right Those who have visited a country like India know how strong a association with a party can be, as equivalent to a nation. ( May be you don't agree, but this is my opinion and also now I feel that I overreacted. ) I did plan to notify Goethean etc., but got side tracked while on his talk page. Thanks for all your comments. Spdiffy (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised how POV is dominating the article. I have started Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Blatant_POV:_The_disappearance_of_Criticism. Why is a section with RS references like BBC and views of other scholars been removed. The current version (read quotes) not only over overwhelm the article or but also appear to take Wendy praiser's side, ignoring her criticism, a clear violation of the [[Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise. If criticism is to removed, the admins should also remove the cherry-picked quotes POV quotes for NPOV, till the dispute is resolved. Note: informed User talk:Akhilleus and User talk:Abecedare (whose page popped up my watchlist with a Wendy Doniger section) about the section. I do not think User:Akhilleus made a mistake by adding protection to the article, I just think it was the wrong version. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"The Admins" are not editing this article. Rather we are protecting it so you can work out your differences in a civilized manner without edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Restrictions on Troubles articles (was: Another bad block on BigDunc)

Could someone have a look at the latest bad block on BigDunc here. This is getting beyond a joke. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Elonka's reasoning is faulty, as the 1RR/week restriction in WP:RfAr/The Troubles clearly doesn't apply unless the probation notice would apply. She claims there's a 1RR/week community restriction, but I can't find it. (Disclaimer: Elonka and I do not see eye-to-eye on much of anything, but I didn't research this because Elonka was involved. ) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Elonka has lifted the block, so no further action needed here. Discussion as to the precise nature of the 1RR probation going forward would probably not be amiss, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is ANI that forum, though? I'm not sure. Agree that more discussion is necessary, if only to clarify what restriction kicks in when. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To compare, I recently blocked two editors on Kosovo for 1RR/week violations. The talkpage there clearly states that there is a 1RR probation in effect, and the box includes a link to the precise definition of 1RR in this case -- "I am hereby placing Kosovo under 1RR sanctions for ALL users editing this article. This means that you are only allowed one revert per week to this article, except in cases of obvious vandalism. In addition, you will be required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page." There is also an editnotice setting this out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there appears to be good faith confusion about the definition of 1RR in the Troubles case. So, this situation would benefit from a community discussion on the matter, to clarify the remedies. As a summary:

• There was an ArbCom case in October 2007, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, in which the remedies required that editors first be placed on probation, and then limited to 1RR, one revert per article per week.
• The remedies of the case were then extended in October 2008, by community discussion[2] to include all articles related to the Troubles (British/Ireland article), with blocks of 1 week for even the first offense, to be extended to 1 month, and then discuss ban options after that. However, unfortunately, "1RR" was not clearly defined in the October 2008 discussion, so there is ambiguity as to whether the "all articles" restriction meant "1 revert per article per week", or "1 revert per article per day".

It is also unclear whether an editor still needs to be placed under formal "probation" before they can be blocked, or whether it is sufficient to announce that the article is under probation (In the case of Irish Bulletin, a clear notice had been placed on the talkpage that the article fell within the scope of October 2008 consensus).

Going forward, what are people's thoughts? For Troubles-related articles, how should 1RR be defined, and how much warning is required to an editor beforehand? --Elonka 18:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The wider problem here is the unreasonably wide interpretation of what constututes a "Troubles related" article. "When in doubt, assume it's related" is simply not a sensible basis to on which to operate. "The Troubles" are generally understood to have begun in 1969 (or 1966 by some reckonings) and to have ended, for the most part, with the Belfast Agreement of 1998. BigDunc's block was for editing an article about a rather obscure publication from the 1920s! To tar all of Irish history and indeed all contemporary Irish and Northern Irish politics with the brush of the Troubles is effectively to place unusual and unacceptable restrictions on editing articles about whole swathes of the national life of the Irish Republic and indeed The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This whole ArbCom ruling on the Troubles needs to be rethought, refined and clarified.Irvine22 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Without re-reading through all the existing discussion, it seems to me that 1RR per day would be reasonable, unless a particular editor is placed under 1RR/week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe a standard template to be placed on Troubles-related articles would help here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There's already a template, which was used at Talk:Irish Bulletin#Notification, though it could probably be expanded. --Elonka 19:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Or at least moved to the top of the page, where it would be more visible. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• (to Irvine22) Yes, but when it's the usual Troubles crowd fighting we can safely assume that nationalist WP:BATTLEGROUND lies behind it, even on a somewhat obscure article that's not obviously linked to the Troubles. Moreschi (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed: "Troubles" should be interpreted widely (after all, the grievances of the Troubles didn't materialise out of nowhere in 1969, or vanish overnight in 1998). The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as you know, that can be so widely applied as to mean that just about any article related to Ireland may be so tagged. And Ireland is so much more than just The Troubles, don't you agree? Irvine22 (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles issues may spill over into many Ireland-related articles, including ones seemingly somewhat distant. To repeat myself, "The aim here is to prevent edit warring on a series of related articles, not to be legalistically precise about what "the Troubles" as a historical episode was." Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting legalistic precision. Just common sense. Irvine22 (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could Elonka please remove this. BigDunc 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Amended, yes. It was in the queue to handle, though I was mulling whether to replace it with a formal probation notice or not. But I've definitely marked it for now as the block being lifted. --Elonka 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. BigDunc 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The only confusion about 1RR in this matter is with the admin with the trigger happy block finger, I warned her that 1RR creates nothing but drama and a few days later look were we are. 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing to consider is the impact[3] of ad hoc constraints. I'm not an editor involved normally in this area, nor has anyone suggested that I am (specifically I surfed the broad subject after a discussion here, edited maybe 3 articles) - indeed I was just working on an interesting stub that seemed to have easily accessible ref's to expand upon. But one of the unique things I've noticed here is the high degree of interaction between a tight knit group of editors focused solely on this broad area who edit as a group and are quite openly discussing cooperation amongst themselves in numerous locations or possibly seeking out[4] supporting editors. The problem may be as much an abdication by neutral editors due to the stresses involved in contributing in this area as anything else. Artificial limits - without consideration of the associated gaming consequences, should be fully discussed before implementation as broad official policy....-99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

To the IP above - exactly right. Irvine22 (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the IP, 99.135.174.186 (talk · contribs) has been steadily hopping from one IP to the next in this topic area and other areas of conflict, accumulating a steady history of warnings (and some blocks). So when they say that they are "not an editor involved normally in this area", that's not entirely accurate. For more info, see User talk:99.135.170.179#Multiple IPs. --Elonka 19:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This link[5] may be more informative as to the source of tension indicated above. _-99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

NB: created {{Troubles restriction}} to aid communication. Rd232 ^talk 19:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That helps, but only if it isn't too widely applied to articles that are clearly not Troubles-related as the term "The Troubles" is properly understood. And didn't you recently try to tell me that Birds of Ireland was somehow Troubles-related? You see how silly this can get...Irvine22 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly. I told you to exercise common sense and caution, asking if in doubt, and when you claimed inability to do that, I told you how you could be sure of avoiding the issue. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for common sense. Caution, not so much. Irvine22 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

While Rd232 is happily adding his new template to articles can someone tell me where breaches are to get reported to? And also are we going to have a situation were some admins will block and others won't, as Sandstein refused to block for 1RR previously, while other admins were blocking. BigDunc 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaches should be reported at WP:AE, just as the blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Judging by the arbitrators' comments on the talkpage there, they are aware that this means that the original ArbCom decision and the followup community consensus decision are a bit mushed together, but they seem to be okay on that. --Elonka 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m happy enough now that the BAD BLOCK was lifted, however suggestions that it was based on "confusion" as to what 1RR is, is nonsense. With this little flurry of activity I must of missed the apology that Dunc had coming?--Domer48_'fenian' 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• @ Elonka 1RR is not part of the arbcom remedy it was community consensus we had a situation I mentioned before were User:Sandstein refused to block at AE for 1RR breaches this will happen again. BigDunc 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That was more Sandstein saying that he was hesitant to use the AE subpage as an adjunct to Community Sanctions, but that seems to have been resolved satisfactorily with recent issues. I'd still use AE, myself, but I can understand where you're coming from, Dunc. SirFozzie (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Fozz I said it then and I said it on the page I got the bad block (in fact I was the only one who agreed to it) I have no problem with 1RR as long as it is universal and we wont have situations were one admin blocks and another admin comes along and doesn't block. All this does is open up the whole can of worms about bias. And as an admin that was involved you have got that from both sides. BigDunc 23:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, here is a link which should help. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone give me a quick summary of what went on here?--Tznkai (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin Elonka was under the impression that there was a one revert a week condition on articles related to WP:RfAr/The Troubles and under that supposed restriction blocked user Big Dunc and IP99 both for a week, there was some suggestion from other involved users that there isn't a one revert a week condition and so quite swiftly Admin Elonka unblocked them both and since then there has been continued discussion regarding the situation around the one revert condition. Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Off2riorob's summary, nice job.  :) I'd also add that BigDunc and IP99 were both very clear that there was a one-revert-per-week restriction on Irish Bulletin. In fact, I'd even mistakenly said one revert per day[6] when I first started monitoring the article, but errors were pointed out in my post,[7] so I struck out the "once per day" part.[8] BigDunc even repeated the 1RR restriction back to me,[9][10] because he had strong concerns about it. So it's clear that he knew about the restriction ahead of time. --Elonka 01:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: one issue is that the template {{Troubles restriction}}, like the notices it replaced, tells users "If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the guidelines laid out in the above link" (the link being Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/The_Troubles#Final_remedies_for_AE_case). What effect is that link likely to have on the average user wandering by, never mind the average newbie? It's bad enough to have scary restrictions imposed, it should at least be presented clearly. Otherwise the restriction is contributing unnecessarily to deterring new people from getting involved. Rd232 ^talk 07:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No question it's a deterrent. But then there are editors working in this area who quite clearly want to deter others from editing articles over which they feel proprietorial, and admins who seem willing to appease them. This sort of thing will drive people away from Wikipedia. (Not me though. I'm here to stay.) Irvine22 (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Rd232: I agree that part of {{Troubles restriction}} seems a bit confusing. How about changing it to, "If you are a new editor in this topic area, please follow these restrictions. If you have any questions, please post a message on this talkpage. If you get no reply, and no one else is editing the article, then you may assume that there is no immediate objection to any good faith edits on your part. If administrator attention is needed to enforce restrictions, please post a request at WP:AE." --Elonka 14:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@Elonka: Do you really think the tortured formulation you are proposing above is at all welcoming to new users?Irvine22 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should be as welcoming as possible to new users. However, we should also be fair and let them know what kind of drek they're going to be in for. I'd support new editors being given a different template going something like "Please be forewarned that controversial editing areas may invite extra scrutiny. Please make sure you're making every effort to comply with Wikipedia's policies, including editing restrictions that are in force on articles in this area.". (Please forgive, I'm typing quick, and just came up with that off the top of my head.) SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Mandatory registration is inevitable. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@SirFozzie: Hmm, are we talking about the same thing? I'm in agreement that new users should receive as gentle and welcoming a message as possible. But my impression for {{Troubles restriction}} is that it's a template which is to be placed on article talkpages, not user talkpages. So we can't modify it to display one message for new users, and another for established users (though such an option would be very handy!). --Elonka 20:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. fundamental disconnect, I have no problem with your message for talk pages. Perhaps we can produce a version of the welcome template to give to new users editing in the troubles area. Eh. Let's see... (I see that Dunc has already brought up a user over on AE as requested.. do you want me to handle it?). SirFozzie (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! It's always good when there are multiple admins monitoring a controversial topic area.  :) --Elonka 21:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Darn it, I was afraid you were going to say that ;).. needless to say, I have history in trying to resolve this dispute. History. that's a good word for it :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well your both looking at it and Fozz has been on the talk page so is anyone going to do anything? BigDunc 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy smokers. Some kinda stronger protection is needed at BigDunc's userpage. Things are getting ridicules. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking if Elonka or other AE admins familiar with this wanted to make a go at it, I will be giving it a shot shortly. and I'll see what's going on at Dunc's userpage *sighs heavily* SirFozzie (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's warnings for breaching 1RR great stuff, I don't breach anything and get a week block, another bad one to my list, but as I said it depends on which admin comes along whether you are blocked or not which is BS, either all get blocked for 1RR or none get blocked. BigDunc 22:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also for the record I didn't want the editor blocked but it just proves the point I have been making. BigDunc 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Dunc, You know my style. I give one warning before taking action in all but very egregious cases. I very specifically did not close it, I added sections for further discussion, and if any administrator wants to overrule me, place Jdorney on probation or issue a block, I have no problem with that. Do you want me to state as such on the AE request? SirFozzie (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No as I said I honestly don't want to see any editor blocked except for the blindingly obvious trolls and disruptive editors, but I wonder if it had have been some other editor would they have been blocked, maybe not by you but possibly another admin. You are well aware of the situation Fozz not all admins are and this is where the trouble begins with blocks for some and not for others. BigDunc 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, you ask different people they have different opinions. And as volunteers, no one person could ride herd on a topic area as far ranging as this because of the amount of time it takes. (and in my opinion, you couldn't pay me enough to make it a full-time job :D) SirFozzie (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would give me a mop and I would clean it up ;) BigDunc 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It just illustrates how some editors have block logs and others don't. One editor get a warning another get a block which all depends on which admin you get. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with IP editors in this area

I'm setting this section apart slightly to separate this from the discussion of the block of BigDunc to discuss a corollary situation to this one. There are numerous long term blocked/banned users in this area, who continue to disrupt Wikipedia even after they've been formally disinvited. (see: This link for only one such editor's path of disruption). What I think we're seeing is some of these disruptive users moving to IP addresses in an attempt to continue to effect the area without quickly being restricted out of the area.

I know, in general, that we Assume Good Faith with unregistered editors, but with the amount of disruption in this area (including the above IP-hopper), perhaps it would be advisable to put forward a request that any IP who comes in and shows signs of being a single purpose account, be immediately made aware of the probationary terms and have them applied ruthlessly (including blocks, etcetera).

I would also request that checkusers be made aware of current IP addresses to see if this is indeed block evasion, and to determine eventually if range blocks are necessary. SirFozzie (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and this can certainly be done, but my impression was that Checkusers weren't supposed to be contacted unless we had a rough idea of who we thought the IP might actually be, per "CheckUser is not for fishing expeditions". Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding Checkuser policy, I don't use it very often. But is there some sort of exemption for ArbCom enforcement areas, or what is the best way to request a Checkuser in these situations? What code letter would we use? --Elonka 22:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's happened before in ArbCom related areas where greater scrutiny is necessary, for example, Mantanmoreland, etcetera. Perhaps a formalclarification with ArbCom asking that in areas where there is significant amounts of IP disruption is happening, that checkusers be given greater latitude in rooting out problematic editors. Basically, there's just way too many articles that could be considered "Troubles" (ie, Republicanism/Nationalism, name of the island vs the nation, etcetera) related to consider lowering the threshold for semi-protection. I would also file a SPI (naming the Troubles as the representative case), for the IP, to determine if a range block can be done (ie, what is the collateral damage)). SirFozzie (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I have filed a case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. --Elonka 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez people

To quote Rodney King, can we all just get along? Or in wikispeak, why do we have these years long edit wars by the same users who simply care more about their own POV instead of building a good or great NPOV wiki article? I know the answer. The answer is that they see their POV being "perverted and distorted" and that hundreds if not thousands of years of real life ethnic wars render them unable to edit otherwise. Well, it's time to get over and stop this nonsense. And what's all this arguing about 1RR being a week or not? We all know that 3RR/1RR/0RR etc means PER DAY unless otherwise specified. As to "Whether an editor needs to be placed under formal *logged* ArbCom probation, before an admin can do anything", NO THEY DON'T because The Troubles editors have all been on notice FOR A LONG TIME. If I come upon this problem again, I'll be out of patience. Get on with building articles instead of all this incessant bickering. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• applause* SirFozzie (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Like one of my heroes said, "Nationalism is racism". We're all created equal here; let's try not to always see any disagreement in nationalistic terms. --John (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum to community sanction

To help clarify when 1RR means "per day" or "per week", it's probably best to spell this out. How does this sound?

• 1RR may mean 1 revert per article per day, or 1 revert per article per week, depending on context, as follows:
  • A limit of one revert per article per week is a restriction which can be placed per the original wording of The Troubles case from 2007. This is a per-editor restriction. The affected editor must be formally warned by an uninvolved administrator on their talkpage, with a link to the case, and an indication of how long that the editor is on on probation for, up to a maximum of six months. The notification and terms of the probation must be logged to the Case page. After an editor has been formally placed on probation, they are restricted to 1 revert per article per week, for the duration of the probation. If the editor is blocked while on probation, this automatically resets the length of time of their probation to the original maximum.
  • Per community consensus from 2008,[11] there is also a 1RR per day restriction, on all Troubles articles. This means that any editor who reverts on a Troubles-related article more than once in a 24-hour period may be blocked immediately, for up to one week, even on the first offense. However, administrators are still advised to use good judgment, to assume good faith, and to avoid biting genuinely new users. So, at the administrator's discretion, they may choose to issue a warning rather than a block.

Thoughts? --Elonka 23:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good. Nobody should be blind-reverting anything but cock and willy-type vandalism on any article related to Ireland, as there has been so much friction. I remain undecided if we merely need to clarify and enforce the existing sanctions more rigidly, or if new sanctions are needed. Let's try Elonka's suggestion anyway. --John (talk) 05:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

If the sanctions are enforced uniformly on all editors there will be no problems but already we have had 1 editor myself wrongly blocked for a week and a day later and editor who certainly breached 1RR get a warning. So either all get blocked or none get blocked, or we are going to have a lot more threads here from disgruntled editors complaining that they were blocked and X wasn't. BigDunc 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer: That was because the terms of the editor probation (1RR/Week, up to one week block) and the article probation (1RR/Day, normal size blocks) were mixed up. I will try to keep an eye on AE (as well as talk with a couple of the other AE regulars on this), so we can keep things moving smoothly. And I have no problem with what Elonka says up above. SirFozzie (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

SirFozzie, I think you meant "(1RR/week, normal size blocks) and the article probation (1RR/day, up to one week block)", yes? Just want to make sure we're clear, so we don't run into enforcement problems in the future! --Elonka 17:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree Dunc, if the sanctions are enforced uniformly on all editors there will be no problems but that not going to happen! [12] [13] [14]. Now if it were you or I, it would be a different story. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, I have looked at those three links, and am not seeing your point. Could you perhaps try to explain it more clearly? --Elonka 03:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Join or be banned?

Resolved

 – Per SPI report, IP has been range-blocked. --Elonka 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted this at the Jimbo Wales talk page, but A: He may not be around. B: It may not be the appropriate Venue.

I have been ordered to create an account:

As judging by the discussion at WT:SOCK, the unanimous consensus is that you should create an account and only edit while logged in. This is your last chance to comply voluntarily. If you choose not to comply, technical means will be instituted to prevent you from editing anonymously. Please do not make that necessary. Just login, create an account, and then only edit while logged in. Thanks, --Elonka 20:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I looked at posting at ArbCom on this issue but it is locked. I seem to be in the crosshairs[15] at the moment as User:Elonka and I are currently in disagreement[16] over an interpretation of a WP:RSN discussion[17] which itself was started, by me, but at the request of User:Elonka. I'm also not comfortable with Elonka baiting with leading questions editors engaged in a content dispute with me. [18] which interestingly may have produced this response[19] to my edit here:[20]. Further my participation on the page at the heart of this issue began recently when it was at this stage:[21] as a stub without references. This was my work:[22]. I don't believe that my edits are disruptive, I believe my contributions to be civil, well referenced and supported with clear, concise reasoning.

As an IP I have received some very quick blocks, the most recent was for a week because I made a revert after 6 days. (I reverted an Editor on patrol making multiple edits a minute[23] - and who never returned to the article, or any other page) Apparently Elonka thought I shouldn't make two within 7 days. This was immediately reversed[24] under pressure from the community, but is being used to label me as a troublemaker. As is this edit discussed here[25] for which I was also blocked and which was quickly lifted. No attempts to evade have ever been made, nor have I ever shown anything but the utmost regard for community rules and respect for sanction. That I've been blocked is without question, but I have done my time so to speak and moved away from the source of the tension. That blocks come quickly and easily to IP's puts me at a disadvantage on paper, the black marks are there. A previous discussion on the Wales page regarding IP editing can be found in this edit history[26] (not sure how to link to the archive of the section). I realize it's a narrow question, my thoughts regarding IP can be found in the section noted and also here[27]. I also realize that the debate over IP's is quite significant, many make no attempt to hide their contempt for non-reg users - and discrimination is simply a reality. But as anyone can see by my contributions they are the serious and well supported work of a dedicated Wikiauthor. And although I make a reasonable attempt at discussion I have always left articles if too contentious. None of my work shows any signs of being poor research, bias, SPA or deception through the artificial illusion of multiple personality's (Sock). I had the temerity to believe myself equal to my fellow editors and attempt to participate on administrative forums such as RSN and the like. It would appear that this has caused a great deal of strife as my mere presence as an IP is quickly referred to as all manner of bad things. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"None of your work" shows such signs? Seems that the way that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles is going, that statement seems a bit doubtful. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

99.1x has been using dozens of accounts, has accumulated countless warnings, and been blocked several times. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles. 99.1x, sorry, but we're onto you now. The disruption must stop. The only debate now is whether to completely block or ban you from Wikipedia, or give you a chance to start over fresh on a logged-in account. --Elonka 17:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)X2: From reading the entire section, WT:SOCK#Dealing with a disruptive user on changing IPs, things are apparently not as innocent as you'd have us believe. There are personal attack blocks, edit warring blocks, etc., etc. Since we can't tell when the IP is you and when it is someone else, we have to assume it is you. Low-key editors doing low-key activities in low-key areas over a range of IPs won't even be seen, let alone cause consternation. You apparently are not doing low-key activites, nor are you doing them in low-key areas. You need to register an account. Otherwise, you appear to be changing identities to obscure your record here. That is the part of WP:SOCK that you are violating. Wknight94 ^talk 17:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a discussion over Polanski[28]. I was accused specifically , as you can see by the blocking admin, of adding "fugitive" , and "convicted" and changing an S to lowercase s. As I said, it's pretty easy to get blocked. But I have respected the sanction and removed myself from the source of controversy. The discussion linked to is ample evidence of Ip editing issues, and my moving away is a positive that is being re factored into a negative. One can only imagine the accusation if I had not moved away but become entrenched in the article. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Even now, you're sugarcoating. The nature of that discussion began as you said, but then moved on to contentious changes at other articles - inserting text saying that Anjelica Huston was present when Polanski raped a girl, almost as though she were involved somehow. I'll repeat what I said: low-key dynamic IPs in low-key areas are fine - neither apply. You're editing subjects apparently include pedophilia and The Troubles - what's next, war in Iraq, 9/11 conspiracies, and Holocaust denial? It's as though you are looking down the list of closed WP:RFAR cases and editing only those areas! If you're going to do that, people need to see who they are fighting, so you need a stable user name. Wknight94 ^talk 17:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit at Anjelica Huston is still the stable version. I alone added each and every word of this and the supporting ref's:

...and included an incident in which she became a witness for the prosecution at Roman Polanski's 1977 trial regarding the rape of a 13 year old girl in Nicholson's home. Her testimony, in which she arrived unexpectedly at the residence she had just recently shared with Nicholson, was used to place Polanski definitively in the bedroom with the victim.

And although I was criticized mercilessly for "disrupting" Huston, that - and my Talk page comments, are the entirety of my edits there. Feel free to revert them if you feel they are still disruptive and inappropriate. I honestly believe them to be GF additions to the Encyclopedia. -99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Your original content was worthy of criticism. Your cleaned-up version was after being reverted and discussion - and even an RFC - on the talk page. Regardless, you're missing my original point - you're in contentious areas so you need an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not add the incident, this was my first edit there[29]. I improved, wikified and ref'd the mention. My editing there lasted about 60 hours, a handful of edits and one sentence.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see I'm also being accused of disruptive at Black and Tans. Here is the section as I found it:[30]. Here are my changes:[31]. Still the version. Added to this piece of supposedly disruptive editing in which I arrived at a dormant [32] stub without references and brought to this stage:[33]. Which again is still there and has been added to by others now.99.135.174.186 (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Get an account, get an account, get an account. Wknight94 ^talk 18:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, you're wasting your time, trying to persaude the editor to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. If he/she wants to be blocked or banned, that's his/her choice. GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no precident to block an ip simply because the person using it will not log in. If there is vandalism, then block, but no one should "rewrite" policy to require a person using wikipedia to log-in or be banned.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we as administrators lack the authority to compel someone to edit while logged in. Indeed, as was pointed out elsewhere, Special:CompelUser seems to be broken. We can treat this IP user (and the IPs connected to him/her) as one user, per policy, and block them from editing through technical means. If they choose to then acquire an account and begin editing while logged in, that is their decision. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not requiring, just strongly suggesting. S/he is going to be viewed with far less suspicion if s/he were at a constant identity. The more s/he protests with pointers to contentious areas, the clearer it is that s/he needs a constant identity. It would work out better for everyone. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on the wording of your "suggestion", it sure did sound like you were giving the person a choice of creating an account or being banned from editing. Perhaps a nice WP:Trout would be in order. We don't like it when the police tell us not to do something thats not against the law, nor do some of us like it when admins decide to rewrite policy to ban people.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "a protest with pointers to"... - and I didn't mean to leave the impression that they were being introduced without cause. I'm rebutting the charges that Elonka has directed at me and that are referred to above.99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note:(As a nod to the genuine sensitivities of the community at large, should I regain my privilege to edit I shall refrain from any discussions here or at other administrative forums for 3 months. If this requires some sort of formal direction and attachment to a neutral admin for probation oversight and ip id - that's fine.) 99.135.174.186 (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's explained it to me yet, as to why it's so difficult to 'create an account' and 'sign in'. What's the point of refusing to do so? is it out of spite? GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

allowing people to edit without requiring them to register an account is a founding principle. So, really, you need to re-word the question to "Why is it a problem that someone decides to edit without an account?" - it isn't; problem editors still get blocked, pages still get locked, etc. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does the IPs 99 prefer to go through all this hassle? It's so easy to 'create an account' & 'sign in'. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My earlier concerns were indirectly linked here [[34]], you'll see that I felt that IP editing had become quite difficult around two years ago, things had just changed. In a related discussion more recently[35] I said. "It may not honestly be possible much/any longer to contribute effectively without an account. Neither right nor wrong - just reality.". I accept that it's now time to part company with the project, "anyone can edit". Good luck on achieving your goals, whatever they may be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.174.186 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The editor-in-question, was given the option of creating an account & signing in, nobody prevented the person from being able to. Regrettably, the person chose not to. GoodDay (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

@NotAnIP83: To answer your question, the problem isn't that someone is editing anonymously. The problem is when someone is IP-hopping to continually reset their warning and block history. This is a violation of WP:SOCK, which states that alternate accounts "must not be used to avoid scrutiny". If an anon is making non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas, there is no problem with editing anonymously. But as soon as they're editing in such a manner that they're accumulating warnings and blocks, while using a dynamic IP to then mask the fact that they have those past warnings and blocks, that's where they're violating policy. --Elonka 20:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. There's some beans around the effects of IP hopping editors, whether they're logged in or not. Someone deliberately hopping IPs to avoid block-logs will continue to do so, they'll just use different accounts when the do. You mention "non-controversial edits in non-controversial areas" - what about "non controversial edits to controversial areas"? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeeed, the anon would've helped him/herself, had it stopped hopping from IP to IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Let's remind ourselves of WP:IAR: we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to protect the rights of people to edit using IPs rather than with a free, equally or more anonymous, alias. This crops up often enough that I'm inclined to say it should be written down somewhere (if it isn't already). There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such. Rd232 ^talk 22:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No one is telling you not to block IP editors when they're being disruptive. Editing from a dynamic IP without an account is not disruptive. I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

From long experience editing from IP addresses, those of us who edit without using accounts get a little more scrutiny on each edit, which is appropriate and is generally good enough to handle most issues. And as Rd232 says, users exposing their IP addresses are less anonymous than users with made-up account names. It is also harder (though not impossible) to manufacture IP addresses in large quantities than usernames. In general Elonka is right to have decreased AGF towards the activity of IP addresses (or named accounts) in battleground topic areas, and as she is an experienced admin her judgement towards that particular IP should be taken seriously.

Regarding GoodDay's query about not signing in, all I can suggest is trying editing from IP's for a while. If your edits are mostly of good quality, nobody will bother you much about not using an account, and you'll probably find that there are things to like and dislike about it. For some of us, the "like" outweighs the "dislike". If on the other hand your edits are persistently of poor quality, you should find something else to do instead, whether or not you use an account. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, many people can tell you that editing from an IP will get you accusations of socking, trolling, bad faith, etc, even if you're making good edits. Suggesting an IP is bad faith *just because* they're making edits to battleground topics without being logged in is not a good thing. Obviously, as soon as any of their edits are bad faith (even borderline BF) all bets are off.

It sounds like you're doing it out of spite or to make a point, to be honest. I have never seen one good reason given for why unregistered editing could be considered a positive thing. If you think it gives you more anonymity than a registered account, it doesn't. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter whether you think it's a good thing or not - it's a founding principle. Supposedly that means it's not up for discussion, but meh. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea behind allowing unregistered editing is that it allows users to make their first edits to Wikipedia with minimal effort; a person doesn't have to do anything besides click "edit this page" to fix an error, and that is a Good Thing for most people, since such drive-by edits are how most editors start off. The idea is that, for your first few edits you edit anonymously, and once you get "hooked" you create an account, and then spend the rest of your life commenting at ArbCom cases and voting at RFA... erm, I mean improving the encyclopedia. Anyhoo, the idea is that most people won't jump through the hoop of creating an account just to fix a spelling error; however the ability to fix that spelling error is the bait that gets most people to create an account in the first place. The downside is that people can continue to edit forever anonymously, either to game the system and avoid scrutiny or to Make a point about something or other. The deal in this case is we should probably take the good with the bad; there would be a drop off in good registered accounts if we disallowed anonymous editing, not an increase, since its the ability to edit anonymously that gets a person interested in the first place. --Jayron32 05:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I said "There are good reasons to give users the right to edit via IPs, but [long-term] editing from a dynamic IP can cause particular problems, and a user consistently refusing to solve those problems by getting an account is being disruptive and should be treated as such." Thanks for spelling out the good reasons, but that's not really relevant to my point. To clarify, my point is that we should have a policy that explicitly says something like "when a particular user's [long-term] use of a dynamic IP causes problems in communication or behaviour monitoring, that user may be required to get an account and edit logged-in." Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Totally agree with Jayron. --John (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that Jayron and Tarc are both wrong. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you could explain your thinking, instead of making cryptic remarks. Rd232 ^talk 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be cryptic. m:exopedianism discusses some of the motivation, though hanging out at ANI like I'm doing right now wouldn't fall under that category, unfortunately. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if you'd mentioned that, I wouldn't have complained about making cryptic remarks. However I don't buy exopedianism as a good reason not to get an account if you're making long-term contributions from a dynamic IP. It just makes communication and monitoring easier, which aid the purpose of creating an encyclopedia. You don't have to create a userpage or do anything else you consider non-relevant. Rd232 ^talk 18:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason monitoring is important is if someone is making bad faith edits. It is trivial (easier) for a person to sock with logged in accounts than with IP hopping. I'm gently worried that the desire to force people to log in is yet another example of the pettifogging overarching bureaucracy that engulfs WP. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I've heard anyone give for editting Wikipedia without an accounts was from Ward Cunningham, who once told me it is "because I can". However, he makes few edits, to the best of my knowledge none are controversial, & he has since created an account for himself here. The point here is, however, that we have an instance where you need to create an account so that other editors can have (to use the phrase as a metaphor here) a face-to-face talk with you -- which is essential in controversial subjects. Your refusal to create an account gives one the impression that you have little interest in discussing your edits -- beyond an exchange of anonymous notes. -- llywrch (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Communication on troublesome articles can (should?) take place on that articles' talk page. It's then easier for editors to hold a conversation with someone who's IP is changing. An editor that doesn't discuss anything anywhere is disruptive, and thus blockable. An editor who doesn't return to the pages they've edited isn't disrupting those pages (their changes either stick, or they get reverted, but if there's no revert war what's the problem?). NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Good points. Wikipedia is a community that works because of collaboration and transparency. When a user sets themselves outside the community and lays impediments in the way of collaboration, as well as refuses to edit transparently, they are being disruptive and don't deserve to be here. Editing is not a right, so get an account or find some other hobby. If you don't do it now, I move that you be blocked, and that all articles where you edit have semi-protection as their default status. In fact, all controversial articles at Wikipedia would benefit from such permanent/default semi-protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The key to editing controversial topics is exactly the same for named and IP editors: write from the neutral point of view, and source every disputable assertion carefully. If everyone did that, there would be no purpose to having user accounts. And feel free to identify any edits of mine that you think are improper, and to request default semi-protection for articles like Fundamental theorem of algebra, Decision problem, Prime number theorem, and San Francisco – Oakland Bay Bridge, all of which I've edited in the past day or so. I think such a request would be more POINTy than anything I've ever done. I therefore don't feel like discussing this any further. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(End indent): Actually I'm an admin who performs roughly 90% of his mainspace edits from an anonymous IP, and I have done so quietly for the last seven years. I obviously don't think there should be any attempt to deny IP's access to editor rights.

My reasons for editing anonymously are because I personally believe that "edit count scoring" is wrong and harmful and that edits should be judged by the content and not by the author. But rather than make any noisy protest over it, I choose to just edit away quietly and prove my point with actions rather than noise. (And apart from an impressive collection of "Welcome notices" and some trivial reversions by a handful of slightly over-zealous hugglers, I've never had a problem in all my years of anon postings.)

The issue here is someone (allegedly) attempting to use anonymity for bad faith purposes. That is a VERY different state of affairs. Manning (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. If Elonka is correct she should (gather and present evidence and then) just block. No one cares if someone is blocked for poor behaviour. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm also editing as an IP and getting demands that I register. I'm not doing because I was once burned by violent, extreme nationalists as I think can be seen operating here. As long as the community seems unable to control such people I'll not go back that way and I've since discovered the problem is severe in other nationalist topics. 86.158.184.158 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Then edit in a truly anonymous manner, by registering. Your IP is telling where you live! -- Brangifer (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A reverse lookup on your IP number (a free service you can find through a Google search) shows you are posting from London, UK. While there are a lot of people in that city, someone with sufficient time on her/his hands could narrow this area even further, perhaps as closely as the street you live in. -- llywrch (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only "anonymity" afforded by editing from IPs is the hiding and scattering of edit histories, and THAT is forbidden here. The basic rule is ONE person/ONE account/ONE edit history, and since every IP is counted as an account with its own edit history, it is not allowed for one individual to edit in that manner. Register an account and use it, then it makes no difference where you happen to be when you edit, or how many hundreds of IPs you happen to be using. It's all collected in one edit history, so there's no problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I told myself I'd stop posting here, but Brangifer is quite confused: editing from IP's is not forbidden and has never been forbidden, and it has never been limited to newbies. See m:founding principles item 2. While there have been some proposals to change the practice, they have not gotten anywhere. Brangifer, please stop posting incorrect information. If you want to post your opinion that things shouldn't be as they are, that's fine, but label it as such. (Better do something about all those enrolled users running multiple accounts, too.)

To 86.158.184.158: Brangifer and Llwrch are correct when they say using a pseudonym makes it harder (though not impossible) to track you down than if you disclose your IP address. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

??? I never said it was forbidden, and I'm well aware that multiple accounts are allowed when it's done properly and openly. It's the hopping and disruptive use of multiple IPs/accounts that's the problem. That's why I wrote the "basic rule" is... That principle still stands, even though there are exceptions that are allowed. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Suppose you opened an ccount and did most of your editing from it, but some anonymously. Even if checks confirmed it was you, how could they tell a computer glitch hadn't logged you off without your noticing? This happens quite often. It's happened to me a number of times. In other words, an order to edit logged on might be very difficult to enforce. Question: is it a good idea to have unenforceable rules & orders (e.g. NPOV &c.)? Peter jackson (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You misread policy. Nothing forbids editors from having multiple accounts - indeed, there are some very valid reasons to do so. Nothing forbids an editor from editing from an IP address. It does become disruptive when being used to circumvent policy (ie if your account was blocked, and you went on editing as an IP), vote multiple times in AfD's etc, play good hand/bad hand, and other similar issues. Using an account and IP address disruptively is enforceable quite readily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that it could be difficult to tell whether anonymous contributions had been made deliberately or accidentally. Peter jackson (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's usually solved by going back and signing your accidental IP edit. If one has malicious cyberstalkers who make your real life miserable, you might not choose to do so because you'd be outing yourself, but if you have your PC settings right, it should be a rare occurrence. I've had it happen when visiting friends and using their PCs, and forgetting I wasn't logged in. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anon-editors who don't hop from IP account to IP account, should encourage those who do hop, to stop. It's the hoppers who are causing problems. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

User mcjakeqool's block was unfair and disproportionate

I am rasing the concern that User mcjakeqcool's block was unfair and disproportionate, and it should be investigated by Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. In my opinion the biggest flaw was not letting User mcjakeqcool have his/her say at Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents, I have other concerns but I am not certain they are appropriate for Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard/Incidents. Also may I state that I have taken on board the unsolicited comments User Guyinblack25 has made on User mcjakeqcool's talk page, and I have taken on board what he/she has said or typed to be more acuate and I will work from NOW on with User Guyinblack25 and other users & may I state I have already worked with him. As I said above, the block was unfair & disproportionate, User mcjakeqcool should have had his/her say & finally I am working with user User Guyinblack25 other users, aswell as already doing so. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously referring to yourself in the third person? Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The block has expired. Learn from it and move on. Under Preferences > Editing there is a box marked "mark all edits minor by default". Make sure it is unchecked, that way you will have to fill in the check box to mark an edit as minor. If you forget to do that when making a minor edit no harm will be done. Mjroots (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet, every edit, including this complaint is still being marked as minor. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Jauerback - yes, he pretty much always refers to himself in the third person. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

McJ - as far as I can see you've never 'worked with' GuyinBlack, or me, or Tim Song, or anyone else who has offered to help you. Could you define what you mean by 'work with'?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IIRC there was substantial support for indef at the last thread, but I was of the view that Tan's one-week block might have some effect so as to avoid the need for indef. I think it is now apparent that he has no intention to follow WP norms, even after Guyinblack's detailed explanation on his talk page, and after Tan's warning that continuing his behavior may result in an indef block. As such, per Tan et al. and my comments on his talk page here, I'd support an indef block. Four ANI threads later, his presence is still not a net positive. Tim Song (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, Mcj, it was the folks at WP:AN/I who imposed this ban on you. Any reasonable person would assume that any investigation by WP:AN/I will simply confirm that decision -- especially with the lack of evidence you have supplied to show that this decision was "unfair and disproportionate". (see this archived thread for further details.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said on his talk page, McJackqcool has obviously learned nothing and refuses to edit according to how the community wishes, as such he's left us little choice. I support an indef.--Crossmr (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with those above who find Mcjakeqcool's actions bothersome. They have received multiple warnings and comments on his talk page to not mark non-minor edits as such and even received a one week block of editing privileges for it. What is the first thing Mcjakeqcool does when the block is lifted? Create a new section here at ANI and marks it minor. This is the fourth ANI discussion about this editor (admittedly, they opened it on themselves this time.) Mcjakeqcool does not get it, does not listen, does not cooperate. This has gone on too long. I'd support an indef block of editing privileges. --TreyGeek (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't opened a thread to discuss a community ban about this user is that maybe he is actually working with Guyinblack. (It's what Mcj claims on his talk page.) So the moment Guyinblack reports here that mentoring Mcjakeqcool failed -- or he has not even heard from this alleged Brit rapper -- we should take that step. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Guyinblack if he cares to comment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I must admit, I'm a bit confused by Mcjakeqcool's comments. My communication with them has been very minimal. Though I've posted comments to their talk page, I have only gotten two responses back: first to "deny" adoption, and second to enlist my help. However, Mcjakeqcool have never come to me after that for help on articles or discussions.

So I can't say that we've ever worked together. Not like how I regularly do with WP:VG members. I would welcome a collaboration with Mcjakeqcool, but no such discussion has occurred on or off the Wiki to lead to that.

The only conclusions that come to mind are:

1. This user is not a fluent English speaker and has a limited and different understanding of many English words used here.
2. This user is just trying see what havoc they can cause and attention they can get.

I hope it's the first one. Either way, not being able to communicate with someone because they are unable to or unwilling to gives us few options. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. But I'd rather exhaust all reasonable options before we resort to a community ban. The grounds for one would be, to put it bluntly, he's too stupid to edit Wikipedia. We should use that rationale as rarely as possible due to endless opportunities for misuse. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the term "stupid" but WP:COMPETENCE is sometimes cited with certain editors. A person who is absolutely brilliant but can't type well enough to be understood, or a person whose poor grasp of the English language precludes any positive contributions to the project are examples of people who aren't stupid at all but are still incapable of properly editing the encyclopedia. It's seems cruel but just because anyone can edit the encyclopedia, that doesn't mean everyone should. -- Atama頭 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We've exhausted all reasonable options at this point. He's been blocked twice, he's had several editors reach out to him, his behaviour is evident elsewhere on the internet as I pointed out before and goes well beyond wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't reform school. The only willingness he's shown to "work" with the community is when facing an indefinite ban and so far that has proven rather fruitless. I cannot see any compelling reason to keep beating our head against the wall here.--Crossmr (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) According to off-wiki sources, McJ is born and raised in the UK. Now we do have a few communities where children are raised in a native language and start school without a full grasp of English, but McJ doesn't appear to belong to one of these communities. This is what McJ says himself about his grasp of english: I can speak in english, however I can only speak politically correct jargon, think of a MP and the houses of parlament, medical communication, police delacet etc. And also I do have poor english skills, and I am not reluctant to admit my english teacher gave me a F- in english. Also this is wikipeida, so we are MEANT to speak in jargon! This was in response to Chocobogamer and myself both asking him what this meant: I have seen proof that it exists with my own eyes, however I still it's existence and it is therefore orignal research In reply, he copied the text, and reposted it below our queries, as if we hadn't heard him. If you try saying his comments, and imagine a dub beat of some kind behind them, you can almost hear him speaking, so I think it's fair to say that his problems aren't just because he is being asked to use written English -he may be hard to follow when he is talking as well.

For me, he is more a nuisance than disruptive. Even the thing about the minor edits is just a nuisance - he never actually says anything on talk pages that make much sense. As I said before, he made a mistake a year ago about minor edits [36] and promised at that point to do it properly [37], but for some reason when he made the error more recently, he decided that he was right and Wikipedia was wrong. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is the rub. There have been a few people who make good faith edits, yet just not capable of contributing to Wikipedia. We shouldn't ban them unless we are sure we are doing the right thing. -- llywrch (talk) 05:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But once again, wikipedia is not reform school. If he is incapable of editing and yet persists, then there is little choice. He shouldn't be banned, he should be blocked. If at some future point he can demonstrate that he can write an article or contribute positively, then he can be unblocked. Beyond his nonsensical talk comments, he has had issues with article creation and other main space problems. So long as that is an issue and he fails to recognize what is wrong, we can't force him to edit properly. I don't think anyone expects Elen to go to his house and stand behind him and watch him edit and barring that, I can't see how we're going to make a change here.--Crossmr (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I'll pass on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've read the discussion above and the recent contributions of Mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and agree that the lack of quality in his contributions, which mostly create cleanup work for others or are meaningless talk page comments, is a serious concern. I'm blocking the user indefinitely until he can prove to an administrator's satisfaction that he is competent enough to contribute productively to Wikipedia.  Sandstein  07:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He has requested an unblock[38], but added the request to that interminable blog of his at the top of the page, instead of using the unblock template - which he previously used correctly (ie he managed to add it to it to the page with the words he wanted to say in the proper place) but unsuccessfully (because he never gave a reason why he should be unblocked). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is, of course, part of the problem. I've never liked WP:COMPETENCE for a number of reasons, but Mcjakeqcool is practically a walking advertisement for it. NYScholar (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for being systematically incapable of following the norms of interaction here IIRC and he was a far more productive contributor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, Sandstein has not been involved in this matter previously, & his block is the judgment of a disinterested party. In other words, a decision has been made & the matter resolved. If Mcjakeqcool wants to be an accepted member of Wikipedia, he's got some larnin' to do. -- llywrch (talk) 20:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that User mcjakeqcool, should be unblocked, ONLY if he can follow wikipeida guidelines. 86.21.66.162 (talk) 12:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He has posted another unblock request [39] It is addressed to me, and in that wretched blog. This is what it says

I have decided that if I am to be unblocked, to some exstent I have to change my tactics, I will seldem argue against wikipedia and when I do it will be in a professional manner, I am going to create a restraint order, which will NEVER allow me to mark any wikipedia edit as minor, article space or talk page and I will take a english course of some kind, however I can not promise good english as my english is very poor, I can speak english fluently but my gramma is not far off abysmal. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin like to look at it? Should I post it into an unblock template for him (I have a feeling that will bugger the template up and the admins will think it is me making the request). Should I take up Crossmr's suggestion and stand over him until he gets it right? I feel involved because it's addressed directly to me. Advice would be appreciated. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

He's been told what he needs to do. He's not a child. If he cannot (or will not) follow simple directions, nobody else should help him and we should just leave him be. He's not the first and won't be the last editor who demands that we change the entire encyclopedia for their ego, so I say ignore him and move on. He's not worth the energy and in my mind, further help just tells him he doesn't have to follow any rules to get what he wants because someone will always be there to follow him around. Besides, he's acting like it's some sort of negotiation where if he promises to do one thing, we'll get the benefit of his help here, not that he'll do what's needed to continue the privilege of editing here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, while he's amazingly not marked those two edits as minor, he has continued his ability to create more work for other editors as it necessitated elen posting here, or creating the unblock request for him. Unless he can demonstrate, completely on his own that he is a competent editor, I can't see the point of spending any further time here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Attacks at AfD

Various articles in Category:Technocracy movement have gone to AfD recently. Pro-technocracy editor User:Skipsievert has attacked many of those who have initiated the AfDs or have spoken against the articles; these editors include myself, User:Lawrencekhoo, User:John Quiggin, and User:Beagel. I am concerned that Beagel in particular has today been drawn into this, see [40] and [41], as he is a very hard-working editor who is always civil and considerate to others. I am also concerned that the situation is escalating and that SS is discouraging editors from airing their views at the AfDs, and that a distorted outcome may result. The AfDs in question are:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urbanate (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Survey of North America
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technocracy Study Course (2nd nomination) -- Johnfos (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There was an aborted mediation attempt between many of these users. I recommend a conduct RfC. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not been involved in any aborted mediation attempt; could you provide details please. Johnfos (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

here's the abortive mediation attempt, with some context for why it ended here. I don't really recommend spending much time on it if you weren't involved. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. My main concern here is that many editors are being subjected to repeated personal attacks at Technocracy AfDs and so are being warned off registering their views and comments at AfD. Johnfos (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I also received attacks from Skipsievert accusing me of tandem editing and have already set up a discussion at WQA.[42] The Four Deuces (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert causes grief with other groups as well, but Wikipedia seems to have no procedures for countering an editor like this. Some administrators enable him. For example, this admin offers him protection and tutors him on how to play the system, while this admin blocked an attempt to seek community redress. Apparently all is well, and we should just let him get on with it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Inform me on my talk page for future violations of conduct. I'll see what I can do... before this hits arbitration, which seems otherwise likely. I hope this sounds OK. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's conduct is a frustrating problem for numerous groups. Regarding Geronimo20's problem with User:Protonk, I couldn't follow the dispute in detail, but I'm confident Protonk was acting in a good faith attempt to make the procedures work. JQ (talk) 06:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly something needs to be done. There is also this very recent ANI discussion regarding this editor: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Incorrigibly disruptive editor. Rd232 ^talk 08:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this has been dragging on, and obviously there are bigger issues about SSs behaviour to be considered here. But what are we to do with the AfDs where SSs intimidation has derailed the process? What about the hard-working editors who are getting innocently caught up in all of this nonsense? Johnfos (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But that is the whole point John, that probably nothing will be done. Wikipedia processes seem broken, and without oversight, when it comes to an editor like this. Yet another thread on Skipsievert has been started at Wikiquette alerts, but I doubt anything will come of it. We bluster impotently on various noticeboards while Skipsievert marches happily on, leaving behind an ever enlarging trail of discouraged editors. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, Skip has consistently refused to compromise and listen to other people, and he's spinning out of control into paranoia, wasting a lot of people's time. I'm one of the very few people who was able to work with him in a few times, but even I can't handle it anymore. He's using Wikipedia to preach Technocracy and thermoeconomics, and when people call him out on he says they're all in a conspiracy. Harassing people who disagree with you is disruptive and shouldn't be allowed. II | (t - c) 22:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran into Skip in Representative money and you can read my complaints in sections 5-8 of Talk:Representative_money, total POV misuse of sources, deleting WP:RS info in favor of WP:OR, etc. I haven't been involved in the AfD issues mentioned above, but have seen the accusatory pattern. Skip is the first editor I ran into who got me so frustrated that he alone made me want to quit editing - and I'm someone who constantly has been drawn into various Israel-Palestine related disputes over the years. At least one knows the opponent's motivation for policy violations in those cases! Wikipedia can't have credibility if this sort of chronic violation of Wikipolicies is allowed to continue. It just drives editors away. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, the only workable remedy for Skip's conduct is a ban from editing Wikipedia, for a period long enough to discourage him, and with the prospect of a permanent ban if he does not reform. Is there an admin willing to implement this?JQ (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Encyclopedia_of_Earth_.28eoearth.org.29 where editors who don't agree w/ Skip are lumped into a collection of "mainstream economists" with a COI who can be treated as "one voice". This appears to be the default mode of disagreement for Skip. Anyone against him is a solitary POV pusher until more than one person is against him, then it is a conspiracy. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Anon IP post

• 91.94.121.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[43] = not sure what this means. Any help here? Cirt (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's Polish, if that helps. No idea of who or why. Abecedare (talk) 05:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Left the IP a message in my admittedly bad Polish. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Google Translate gives some bad craziness about the poster being monitored by "them" since they were 16. I would assume you can dismiss it as a crank. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The Translation from google translate:

I'm that person-for whom are revised and made amendments Why Practically from the age of 16 I was monitored, irradiated in the media, observed, studied what was gained from the great series kożyści-policy carefully all a tragic consequence is now useless, I was abandoned without care and support of course went hard labor and torture to which I can not even write and talk loudly advertised my period now no employer wants to hire me-I do not want to be monitored, recorded tapped from me doing the fool-which is particularly awkward for the government because the government was right to and Justice which said note bene voted by 2.5 million unemployed-when I ask for help Just a minute but I am in this exceptional case, another served as a guinea pig-without my consent and without the permission of the tests carried out on me, viewed, reported tested medicines and not opposed to the case for glasses tossed me the drug issue now is trying to calm down. And pushes me to suicide-for lack of means of livelihood called for help everywhere-I ignored because I did not want to cooperate with Judaism from which all my misfortunes begun I wrote just for access to my file to the Institute of National Remembrance, I'm sure that this is just a particle of what about me = indi turn up in the United States-where the entire film business based on my life today I do not have friends, I do not have a family, what made attempts to calm down and cover up the alleged mental illness-which is even harder to find me a job-which of course leads to one, however, and I prepared for anything-please remember that I am not always the same helping hand than there is any evidence-that in due time-which will be presented will be a shock to the world, and what little has been done-my alleged that the disease is also emphasized accused and remembered every day ask straight-to-doctor increases your pacjęta saying that it is in a hopeless situation seems to me that there is only one answer, since as this one with 2.5 million unemployed people can not get work-Please take into account that 2.5 million was not monitored prześwietlanych The answer is simple the world is ruled not a man and a pig was used in a devious and brutal way and now there is help and let them handle this Made-Wait a minute after your monitoringach no one wants to even come close now I have 43 years of age and my fame, no one wants to hire me right Maybe Affairs respectable human rights violations have a plan on how am I to live-because I want to live--SKATER ^Speak. 06:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, WP:RDL is a better place to seek help with this type of thing. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, was brought here due to the nature of the content of the post itself. Cirt (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Freedom4korea

This user is the same person as User:HampshireCricketFan who was banned as a result of an investigation above. He is carrying on in the same vein by posting abuse on a number of talk pages including HCF. Needs to be blocked. Indefinitely, I would recommend. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support block. Edits since the recent discovery of the connection to HCF are unacceptable, and all prior edits seem to consist of telling the "truth" and insults. GlassCobra 22:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur, a disruptive joint-account. SGGH ^ping! 14:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi

User:Moreschi with the help of User:Grandmaster tries to merge the article of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan while no any consensus (3v3) at the talk [44] and no admin made any decision on merge. Using his admin privileges, Moreschi is supporting one-side actions at the Armenia-Azerbaijan enforcement area which is quite dubious and a neutral view on these actions could be very helpful! Gazifikator (talk) 10:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

it does look to me that he is abusing his privileges. maybe his administrator status should be challenged. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Gazifikator, if you want this to be able to stand on its own, you need to expand Islam in Azerbaijan to the point where summary style article is warranted if that article is not to become grossly swollen. Please read that guideline and abide by it, otherwise you are just disruptively content forking. Moreschi (talk) 10:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

so should we merge Fundamentalist_Christianity and Christianity or are those two separate things? 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could read Wikipedia:Summary style as well, and stop sticking your nose into areas where you patently have no clue just to piss me off. Shoo. Moreschi (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

man, are you unpleasant type. i'm going to "stick my nose" where ever i want. piss your self off as much as you want, i don't give a damn. Shoo you. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi, the policies regarding civility and no personal attacks apply to administrators even more than to other editors. Please observe them in the future.  Sandstein  10:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, since when is "shoo" incivil? As to the rest, it was a factual description of what this IP is doing. He's pissed off because I blocked his friend Ludvikus, posted in this thread, not because he knows anything about the long-running armenia-azeri wars, but just to annoy me. Moreschi (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know what it's like to do admin work in a highly contentious ethno-political subject area. Just keep your cool and try not to sink to the level of discourse preferred by the various ethno-warriors, is my advice.  Sandstein  11:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

i really don't need to have a harvard education to be able to make a distinction between radical islam and islam. it is quite obvious to me. no need to look into talk page archives for the "reasoning" behind their merge. (ps. i saw this thread only because it was right above my thread below -- i didn't "chase" you through this page to find you and "piss you off") 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

p.s. Ludvikus is NOT my friend, nor do i know him/her. I simply don't like seeing unjustice, and i see it quite a bit here on wikipedia. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Harvard education or no, you have clearly not read Wikipedia:Summary style, or, for that matter Wikipedia:Content forking. If you had, you might understand why it is the correct style to treat "radical islam in X" as apart of "islam in X" until the "radical" section becomes too big and has to be spun off into its own child article. Which it probably will do in most cases, but clearly not here. Moreschi (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

you're right, 212.200.205.163! That's what we discussed with other users, while Moreschi preferred to merge the article with no explanation and in the same 'civil' manner he/she has. Admins with such a 'civil' language and no interest to discuss or even explain his views do not add any honor to Wikipedia! Like in our post-soviet semi-democratic countries where the government is less civil than the citizens. That's sad... Gazifikator (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You are being highly disingenuous. I quick glance at the talk page shows 5 users supporting a merge with 3 opposing, one of whom just said "per Gazifikator". Looks like ample consensus for a merge to me, particularly as all the actual content is retained at (you guessed it) [[Islam in Azerbaijan, without, it seems, overburdening that article. Wikipedia guidelines take precedence over your desire to create your own content fork. Moreschi (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

your mention of Wikipedia:Content forking shows that you don't understand the distinction between radical islam and islam. they are not POV's, they are different things. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 11:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• To address the original point made by Gazifikator, after looking at the history of Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) it does appear that Moreschi has misused his admin tools to win a content dispute. After having revert-warred over the merger of the page to Islam in Azerbaijan previously ([45], [46], [47]), he protected the page in his preferred (merged) version ([48]). That is a very serious matter. I do hope there is a good explanation for this, because otherwise a request for arbitral removal of tools will be unavoidable.  Sandstein  11:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, please. Have you bothered to have a look at the history? 5 users support the merge, 3 oppose, all the content is retained at the target article, I do the merge as uninvolved admin. This is how consensus works, no? A couple of SPAS and IPs (presumably socks/meatpuppets of Gazifikator) revert, they are in turn reverted and the redirect semiprotected. Locked out because of the autoconfirm requirement, Gazikikator immediately logs back in to revert himself. The original consensus stands, so he is reverted and the redirect locked. This is in no way violation of tools, just administrative enforcement of legitimate talkpage consensus. The fact that I happen to agree with the merge is irrelevant, as I did not participate in the original talkpage discussion. Moreschi (talk) 11:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• (ec) I assume you refer to Talk:Islam in Azerbaijan#Merge. It is not common practice to enforce a merger consensus with page protection, since consensus can change (and 5 to 3 doesn't look like a consensus for merging to me). Should there be edit warring about a contested merger, your duty as an uninvolved admin would be to sanction the edit warriors or protect the m:WRONG version, not revert to your preferred version first. It is also not clear from the history that you acted as an uninvolved administrator in this merger discussion, and contrary to what you say I can't see where you made the merger. Your contributions to Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan are limited to repeatedly reverting the unmergers of others, without discussion, and finally protecting the page in the merged version.  Sandstein  11:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please bother to review the history? The merge was made (can't remember who by) Gazifikator reverted, I reverted back. By doing so I was signalling my approval as uninvolved admin that the merge should go ahead. Which it did with no dissent, apart from IPs, SPAs, and Gazifikator, who seems to have reverted to meatpuppetry. Gazifikator does not get to ignore a perfectly valid talkpage consensus (and, frankly, not only did the mergists not only have better numbers but also better arguments by far, and yes, we are supposed to evaluate that) simply by reverting back to his content fork. Edit warring, ignoring consensus, content forking, and apparently meatpuppetry. This is disruption. Moreschi (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that there's disruption going on, Moreschi, but (a) admins have no special authority in content issues, and (b) one can either act as an editor or as an administrator in a content dispute, not both. At no time during your reverts of the unmerger did you indicate that you were acting as an administrator to enforce a consensus (even if "enforcing consensus" was an admin job, which it is not). This means you acted as an ordinary editor, and can't later put on your admin hat to stop an edit war that you were a part of. I'm sorry, but I am very disappointed.  Sandstein  11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I'm sorry: it is generally accepted practice that admins close contested merge discussions. We have a whole page for it. The only valid criticism to be made here is that, yes, I arguably should have explicitly stated on the talkpage "I am closing this merge discussion". Calling for an arbcom case just because I didn't fill out all the form is just bizarre. Why not just AGF that was I not trying to edit war, and was instead trying to close the merge discussion? Clearly it seems I should have posted on the talkpage, although no one seemed to complain at the time. FFS, I think dealing with disruption is far more important than making sure each microscopic step of process is followed to the letter, in triplicate. This is process wanksterism, and it's highly unconstructive. Moreschi (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The page you link to is WP:RM, which is about moves, not mergers. Maybe you meant WP:PM, but that page does not mention the intervention of admins anywhere. I am sorry, but I do not see you acting as an administrator trying to close a merge discussion. Had you wanted to, you would have actually closed it. Rather, you simply reverted to a redirect multiple times without any discussion whatsoever. That would be bad editing practice for any normal editor, let alone an administrator.  Sandstein  12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein, why not AGF? Why are you assuming I am lying? The discussion had been done on the talkpage, and IPs, SPAs, and the article creator were trying to ignore it. Since we can assume the IPs and SPAs to be meatpuppets of the article creator, this is disruption in the form of ignoring consensus. While the vast majority of merge discussions need no admin intervention, it is common practice in nationalist disputes to get an uninvolved admin to help out (my talkpage archives are chockfull of such requests) as the parties realise any attempt to deal with a contested merge themselves will simply lead to a vast bout of revert-warring. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see it your way, because I appreciate your work in these topic areas, and fully agree with your essay, User:Moreschi/The Plague. But what I see in the article history simply does not match your explanation. All I see are three reverts (1, 2, 3), with no useful edit summary or talk page explanation or anything. That is typical edit-warring behaviour, but more importantly, by repeatedly reverting to your preferred version (whether or not it has consensus behind it), you became an involved editor in the content dispute. That was why it was completely out of order for you to suddenly put on your admin hat after the last revert and protect your preferred version.

I would like to have a committment from you that you will not use admin tools again to enforce what you perceive to be consensus in content issues, and that you will more generally not use admin tools again while involved in a content dispute. If that's fine with you, the matter is resolved as far as I am concerned, and we can go ban a few nationalist trolls together.  Sandstein  12:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverting a single-purpose account, or a random one-edit IP address, is not edit-warring. It is responsible use of the revert button in accordance with maintaining encyclopedicity and consensuality. Yes, I should have posted on the talkpage, but since everybody concerned knew who I was and what I do, they understood perfectly well what was going on. You are wikilawyering, enabling trolls and forum-shoppers, and seem totally unable to understand that banning or blocking nationalist trolls is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is encyclopedicity. You can either take this to arbcom or quit this thread. I am not going to change my methodology. I have used admin status and tools to nudge the nationalists towards WP:ENC for 2 years now. It has worked well, far better than any robotic enforcement of the rules, and is not going to be altered. Moreschi (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll drop it here, if only because I have no intention of supporting whatever assortment of POV-pushers are on either side of this dispute, but I do believe your approach of involving yourself in content disputes with admin tools is profoundly mistaken, and very likely counterproductive.  Sandstein  13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Unfortunately, if admins have no authority in content issues, Wikipedia effectively has no way to enforce consensus. There's a highly mistaken notion out there that consensus will enforce itself just by the continued editing of the community. In areas like this one that are classic nationalist hotspots, this is more or less guaranteed not to happen due to the truth crusaders who will stop at nothing. This leaves us with a need for occasional bending of the rules (which, may I point out, is entirely accepted within policy). Also, Sandstein, your patronizing attitude is not helping anything. If you cannot see that Moreschi is trying to enforce Wikipedia's content policies, you're missing the point completely, and being patronizing toward someone like that is also missing the point completely. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to be patronizing, but please show me the policy that says that admins have the authority to enforce consensus with administrator tools. The proper way to deal with truth crusaders is to ban or block them, not to take sides in their content disputes, as Moreschi did here.  Sandstein  12:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, lord. You just don't get it, do you? Our job is the maintence of encyclopedicity. Everything is secondary to that - everything. The nationalists actually understand that, which is why, by and large, my role as a neutral voice settling their disputes is largely accepted. The encyclopedia is the patient suffering from plague. Our role as admins in curing the plague consists largely of minimizing disruption, yes, but this dependent upon establishing which side of the dispute is most in accord with encyclopedicity. If we don't do that, we're doing more harm than good. Acting out of ignorance is worse than not acting at all. Encyclopedicity here means Wikipedia:Summary style, incidentally. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds good, but of course it assumes that we administrators are the judges of encyclopedicity. Wikipedia just does not work that way. Content is determined by consensus, not by decree, and we were elected as administrators, not as content moderators.  Sandstein  13:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern's post is correct, of course, but doesn't actually go far enough. People like Gazifikator are always going to revert as much as they can even when consensus is against them. They'll use up their 3rr allowance, and the other editors (Grandmaster, etc), if they are to "enforce consensus", have to revert as well. Of course, to people like Sandstein, this will look like nationalist gang warfare (as indeed it would be, to a certain extent). So everyone gets blocked and heaven knows what happens to the article.

This is clearly not sustainable, hence we have admins (that's me) dealing with disruption, closing merge discussions, and enforcing consensus. Yes, this may be skating on thin ice as far as WP:ADMIN is concerned, but the alternative is far worse. At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power, we get a massive reduction in disruption and drama (or we would do were it not for Sandstein stirring the pot here). A price worth paying? You decide. Moreschi (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"..At the price of (arguably inflated, yes) sysop power.." You said it all with that statement. 212.200.205.163 (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. The disruption that caused 2 massive arbcom cases has not revisited arbcom since - and that's only in this topic-area, let alone the other areas I monitor. I'd say it works fairly well, given the passion of the editors at hand. Moreschi (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • While I accept Moreschi's explanation in principle, I agree it looks a little bit borderline; however, I too find that in light of relevant guidelines and on the basis of strength of policy-based arguments there was a valid consensus to merge, so I have removed Moreschi's protection and replaced it with my own, as an entirely uninvolved administrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The article was a clear POV fork littered with weasel words and original research, and note that at least four editors including Moreschi were redirecting, versus Gazifikator, an IP and a clear sock. Whilst in a perfect world Moreschi should've asked someone else to protect it, There's certainly no need to get all dramatic and start asking for an ArbCom case. There's nothing here that demands that. Black Kite 11:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an example of OR from the article, please! And could you explain, why the only 2 uninvolved users are supporting that "weasel worded OR"? Gazifikator (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• In fact the far more serious issue appears to be that Gazifikator has either been sockpuppeting or soliciting meatpuppets. It is certainly highly suspicious that the minute my semiprotection locks out the IPs and SPAs he reappears with his main account to revert again. This suggests either a highly improper degree of coordination or just plain socking. Moreschi (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Quite possibly, but that is a matter for a WP:SPI investigation. Though I am frankly tired of seeing Gazifikator and Grandmaster (talk · contribs) repeatedly involved in every one of these A-A wars; maybe both need a long topic ban.  Sandstein  11:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, yes, this is a tempting way to look at it. Unfortunately if I banned every single one of these people, they'd be replaced by a new crowd of nationalists within about six months (including some reincarnations). And we wouldn't get anywhere. We just have to deal with the disruption as it comes and keep things at a low leve, periodically blocking those who sock, edit war or violate WP:BATTLEGROUND too blatantly. It's a perennial problem that has to be solved by constant supervision. There is no way around this. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again we have this [49], so I prefer to not be called a SPA-user by Moreschi. He can't attack me using non-confirmed accusations! Gazifikator (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't call you a SPA. Stop being silly. That comment was for the one-edit account who did a revert. Moreschi (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • The only 2 uninvolved users voted 'oppose', and what's wrong if one of them preferred just to support my view. While you failed to express your views on support of under AA2 users (you know, I mean the Azerbaijani users who obviously dislike the existence of such an article: one of them vandalized the article previously and another was noticed for non-civil comment). And about "SPA"'s and IP's - they have no relation with me [50] (I wasn't the only active editor), others also just see injustice in your unexplained actions! And FYI: there is still no admin's decision in your "5/3" Gazifikator (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: I have blocked the 212.200.205.163 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) for disruptive editing. It also appears to be a duck test sock puppet of, or else somebody with an identical agenda as, Ludvikus (talk · contribs), who is indef blocked. Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the IP's use of English was better than Ludvikus. Then again, I appear to have already made an blunder by WP:AGFing on Ludvikus for so long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Involved admin in topic areas shouldn't be using ops in any kind of regard. Ryulong was desysopped not too long ago with ArbCom making very clear statements to this effect. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of “A” “nationalists” [51] – looks like support of “B” "nationalists" [52]. May be such definitely not easy issues better to be handled not by opera prolific editor with a big admin guns?94.179.181.178 (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm late for the party, but if you read the entire talkpage, there is 5v3, not 3v3 as indicated above. Hope, that says it all. Moreschi's actions are entirely justified, no need for a storm in a teacup. Brand[t] 21:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy makes it clear that involved admins are not justified. By making such a claim as you do above, you do not benefit to Moreschi, but you undermine your future credibility in responses. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:7107delicious - seeking attention

I'm sure that 7107delicious (talk · contribs) has nothing but the best intentions leaving unwarranted username warnings, "clerk" notes, and now oversighted messages on Jimbo's talk page, but perhaps they could use a mentor? They are apparently the same user as "retired" RuleOfThe9th (talk · contribs). Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user name warning appears to be a good faith edit - possible suggestion of paedophilic tendencies. Agree re the clerk note though. That template should not be used by anyone except clerks. Mjroots (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(interjecting) No, what 7107delicious said is that "Kidshare" "matches the name 'Rapidshare', which is a promotional username". Given that "share" is a common word, this comment doesn't make sense. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I took off the bad use of template from User talk:Kidshare (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Another unusual behavior of User:7107delicious is that this user's displayed signature does not in any way resemble the actual user name and this user changes the displayed signature frequently. This, in effect, disguises who is posting and also makes it appear that the posts with different signatures are by different users. However, I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion, which would be a new form of socking. —Finell (Talk) 17:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You have never read the username change request page. On there, it specifically recommends changing one's signature in lieu of changing a username: "As an alternative, please consider changing your signature. This will change your "public appearance" on talk pages and other places where you sign your username with ~~~~." In situations such as votes in an AfD, an Admin would look carefully at the sig links. Pretending to garner consensus through multiple sigs (making it look like more people) would be bad. Some links to where this might have happened would be beneficial. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

But to change it so often? Why? Also, I specifically said above, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion", so I don't understand your request for diffs. —Finell (Talk) 18:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I tend to WP:AGF, so let them "personalize", as long as they don't disrupt. My comment about posting diff's refers to "if you ever actually see a violation in the future". Sorry if it was not clear. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked 7107 recently [53] about this and he did say he thought he'd settled on something he liked. Kidshare could potentially be a promotional username [54] [55] [56] [57], so a little more AGF wouldn't go amiss. Also 7107 reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#It.27s_User:Mikhailov_Kusserow_up_to_the_case_again. that he was having problems with a user who appears to be definitely bad faith templating editors (sticking on half a dozen vandalism templates without any vandalism reverts......what's going on there then?) Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did not say that 7107 did anything in bad faith. Again, I explicitly said in my first post here, "I have not seen this user use different signatures in the same discussion". Nevertheless, I'm satisfied, and I'm done with this issue. —Finell (Talk) 19:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. You certainly didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's OK, thanks. —Finell (Talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The user changed their name, and deleted the userpage at the old name, because they wanted to move away from a warning template on their page. (See their edit history for the conversation. ) I don't think they'll accept mentoring, but someone could try. Remember Civility (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I was only changing due to the fact that I can't seem to change my username. Again, the username is less frequently changed. And would you explain why your thoughts are thinking of incivility and WP:SOCK? I have never stated that I expected this account for any disruptive contributions, or for any incivilitized activities. Do you guys mean that I am following the bad faith duites of Mikhailov Kusserow?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, ok, ok, so I see that this all began with WP:CHU, the Kidshare issue, and my signature. First off, what's a clerk? If anyone joins a CHU discussion, other than a 'crat, who could that be? Next off, I just took a look at the link, and I see that this username (Kidshare) is something from an educational link. Thank you for the help, but why should the template be removed? I am concerned of the username given. And, to finish today's "script", I liked unique signatures. Then what signatures should I use? 7107delicious|Spricht mit mir?--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the angry-expressed posting, BTW.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:CHU is not a discussion - unlike say ... where we are now. CHU is the technical process. A Clerk is someone (usually an admin) who understands the related policies and has volunteered/been assigned the task of pre-vetting the requests for completeness, etc. A Bureaucrat then performs the actions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 14:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I just picked a few recent examples, but there are plenty more where those came from. They have now declared Das Sicherheit (talk · contribs) as an alternate account but it has no contributions yet. They also appear to be connected to 202.47.69.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is a school IP. If I wasn't brimming over with good faith, I'd suggest blocking the IP for persistent vandalism with account creation disabled and being done with it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

IP capitalizes everything in sight over a ton of pages with a new ip each day

Starting in about August, I began to revert edits by an ip address that capitalized lots of words like "best-selling", "platinum", "hit", "b-side", etc throughout the Anna Vissi article. For example: [58], and [59]. After numerously notifying the user that he was wrong and violating the mos [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] to no avail, I decided I would just have to keep changing everything back and hopefully he will give up soon. Sadly he has not and soon began to carry out his edits on numerous other related pages such as Vissi's discography [65], [66], her videography [67], and almost every page related to her on wikipedia [68], [69]. More recently, he has expanded to edit Despina Vandi pages as he did here [70]. It would be painfully time consuming to provide diffs for every wrong edit he has made, but these same edits have been repeated almost daily for the past 3 months and I have had enough. I've discussed the concern with some admins I know and they are clueless on what can be done. Page protection wouldn't work since he edits 20+ articles and last time the Vissi article was protected, the edits just came back when its protection expired. He edits using a 79.107.... ip and the end numbers change with each day/visit, never repeating, so an ip range block would wipe out half of Greece. What is there that can be done to permanently solve this problem? I don't have the energy to keep going around and reverting small capitalization errors day after day. Please help. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that a rangeblock is possible, probably no large than a /20. You could help if you would enter all the IP addresses you have seen in the rangeblock calculator and post the result here. Either that, or list all the individual addresses somewhere, perhaps on your user talk. A tool such as rangecontribs can then be used to check for collateral. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A list of the ips from the Anna Vissi page can be found here. The result of the rangeblock calculator was "Range 79.107.192.0/18 (up to 16384 users would be blocked)". Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we only have a couple of options: (a) we keep doing the same thing, (b) we give up, (c) we block up to 16,384 users, or (d) we semi-protect 20+ articles for a while, possibly as long as it takes him to get bored. Given the extensiveness of disruption, it seems (a) isn't possible and (b) is undesirable. Out of c & d, I think I'd put my backing on d. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the suggestion by Moonriddengirl. It's likely to be the least disruptive. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears that semiprotecting 20 articles is the best option. Since he's doing this for 3 months, I suggest that we use 3 months as the length of the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, if page protection is the best way to go then I'm all for it. It would be best to semi-protect all articles in {{Anna Vissi}}, including the template itself. There has also been some on and off again changing of Elena Paparizou's album count (ip believes that the English language album doesn't count), but I have not determined if it is the same editor or not and the ip range seems to be a tad lower, so I'll wait on those pages. [71] and [72]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Fun! I'll get working on it now. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so I know, are "gold" and "platinum" certifications supposed to be capitalized? I looked at an FA and they weren't in the prose, but it would be nice to have a clear answer. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No reason for them to be capitalized; they aren't formal names. And there's my ride! I'll pick up again when I get back, unless somebody else takes care of it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

←Just to note I'm working on the linked template from the top row down but am waiting for a ride and will be having to leave abruptly. If anybody else is interested, I've made a very temporary template of explanation for the talk page that can be used: {{subst:User:Moonriddengirl/temp}} Like all my templates, it creates its own section and automatically signs the user's name, because I'm lazy like that. :) I haven't added protection templates to the articles themselves. Is there a bot that will do it? (I hope?) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. User:Steel359/protection.js can make the tagging of pages quite simple though. NW (Talk) 19:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs in general

Collapsed discussion of a perrennial issue which has nothing to do with WP:ANI. If people really want to rehash old arguments, the proper venue is WP:VPP. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This points to a greater problem within more than just these articles. I've regularly had to request that pages get semi-protected. Anonymous IPs don't often contribute to the articles I watch. Why not semi-protect all of Wikipedia permanently? Why do we allow anon IPs to edit at all? Once these 20 articles are blocked, then the anon IP moves into another set of articles that Gk1011 isn't watching. (Taivo (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)) See discussion in #Join or be banned? above on just this question. Peter jackson (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Speaking as someone who has made considerably more than 125000 vandalism reverts, the majority of IP edits are not unconstructive. J.delanoygabsadds 16:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC) That does not square with my experience, but maybe I only notice it when they're not constructive. In any case, it's a core principle that "anyone can edit", which is not literally true, but wikipedia does its best to try and accommodate that axiom. Until that basic philosophy changes, we have to work around it, by only protecting articles that are consistently under siege, such as the subjects of recent news stories. Which doesn't explain why articles like banana and penguin get attacked so often. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This discussion won't change policy (obviously). But as long as it's being discussed at all -- allowing IP editors is idiotic. It encourages vandalism and game playing for no net benefit. If the 2 minute hurdle of creating a username and password is too much for someone, they're not really worth having. Most IP edits are vandalism.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I don't know if that's actually true, but it might be worth having a bot review to determine what percentage of IP edits were reverted for vandalism over a specific time period. Then we would have hard numbers to back up or refute the claim. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) And having that same bot review good faith, and calculating a ration my opinion in my vandal hunting career (no where as extensive as some others here) I'd guess maybe 1 out of every 15-20 is constructive.--SKATER Speak. 16:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I guess one of the problems is that even though an IP edit may be constructive, usually there is some work that someone with knowledge of wiki policy must fix after the edit like formatting, linking and stuff like that. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC) IPs are human too? NW (Talk) 17:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I've just made some edits to the IPs are human essay, and explained my reasoning on that talk page.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Yes on articles like Eurovision Song Contest 2010 the edits IPs make are usually in good faith, but usually they need to be fine tuned or in some cases reverted if they violates policies/guidelines. The problem is it often takes a long time for inappropriate edits to be fixed which damages article quality and has now resulted in this page being protected. This and similar pages would be a good choice for flagged protection in the future so IPs are still welcome to make edits but they can be checked before going "live". Camaron · Christopher · talk 17:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC) This is of course one of Wikipedia's perennial proposals. The fact is that a large majority of anonymous edits are helpful (anyone sufficiently interested might find it fun update that measurement with 2009 data). Typo fixing is probably the most common beneficial IP edit type, and I doubt most people would be interested enough to register an account just to fix a typo. It's not something you notice when you patrol edits looking for vandalism though. henrik•talk 17:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I've just checked out a couple of dozen IP edits at recent changes. As expected most are good edits, only a minority were vandalism. Personally I suspect that Huggle is responsible for the IP=vandal myth, as Huggle preselects for probable vandalism based on warnings etc. If you judge IPs by the edits Huggle is interested in you will take a dim view of IPs. ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Likewise, most if not all of our registered editors started out as IPs. I dare say that most of us registered accounts only after we discovered that participating here was fun. Inhibiting the abilities to IPs to get hooked on editing Wikipedia would dramatically cut back on our infusion of fresh blood into the project. — Kralizec! (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Constructive IPs should be encourage to pressure the disruptive IPs to mend their ways. Non-hoppers should encourage hoppers to keep to 1 IP account. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I personally have always held the belief that school-IPs should be soft-blocked, but this is because school-IPs more often than not end up being more trouble than they are worth. Random IP edits can often be helpful, but school IPs invariably degrade into random and continual vandalism. HalfShadow (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC) I guess it depends on the field. Mostly editing physics-related articles, I estimate that about 80% of the IP-edits are vandalism. DVdm (talk) 18:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It the Copper article is anything to go by, that applies to chemistry articles too. Mjroots (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC) It's not just that many IP edits are helpful (although that's true). Many constructive Wikipedia editors started out as IPs before becoming regular enough editors that they felt the need to create a login. Preventing IP edits would create a barrier to entry that would threaten the project by cutting off the supply of new long-term editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC) How silly, why bother banning IPs? If an IP user is unable to vandalise wikipedia, they will simply make an account and vandalise wikipedia with the account that took them 30 seconds to create. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You big collapser, you. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Weber

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has begun editing again, and asked on GlassCobra's talk page for his user and user talk pages to be unprotected. I have done so, and have also undeleted the histories of both those pages. I vaguely remember some drama around the time that Kurt left the community, so I would appreciate it if someone could look over my actions. Thanks, NW (Talk) 18:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the user vanished. Vanished means vanished; it's not the same as a wikibreak. Majorly talk 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This was the state of the ban proposal during which Kurt retired. I don't think there was consensus to ban then and he seemed to acknowledge that his behaviour had been disruptive in a way that he had not intended, so unless there have been developments between then and now, I don't see why he does not deserve a wait and see approach.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the consensus to ban was pretty apparent, but was made moot by the retirement of Kurt. If Kurt wants to edit again, then the obvious thing to do is to make a new account; if he stays away from the type of interaction that got people so exasperated then there will be no reason for the accounts to be linked. I don't know why Kurt is so keen to reactivate the old account, and am afraid that is indicates that Kurt still does not "get it" why people previously complained about him. That said, I would not be adverse to the content editor that previously edited as Kmweber returning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want him to create a new account. We should encourage him to stick to the old account if anything. Whether or not he should be allowed to edit is another matter altogether. And he did not vanish, he left. That's not the same thing at all. He left, he can come back, if he wasn't banned, he can edit; if he was banned (or would have been) then he can edit only if we let him. BTW, protecting his talk page was out of process.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug is right. Creating a new account would make it look as if he tried to trick the community into thinking he was a new user. Just let him edit from the old account, if he does exhibit a problematic editing pattern again, we can act upon it when it happens. It's not as if he does not know that. Regards SoWhy 19:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And looking back at the discussion, I do not see a consensus for an outright ban. A topic ban restricting him to article and article talk space does appear to have been getting solid support but I concur that we should let him edit and wait and see what he does. Has anybody talked to him about his choice to come back?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I just notified him of this thread on his talk page. I note that he returned on the 9th with four edits in the article/talk space and two edits yesterday, one in article space and one requesting assistance from an admin with a deleted page. That plus the request for unprotection don't give me a whole lot of concern yet. I think we can close this thread as resolved in that no one has suggested that NW's unprotection was improper.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I unprotected the talk page to let him do what he needs and so the tabs look right for other editors.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the community ban part, but it's certainly clear that there are a lot of people who would be happy if he refrains from posting in WP:RFA indefinitely. If he wants to prove to his detractors that he is interested in making good faith contributions to Wikipedia, I strongly advise him to stay far away from there. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The rfa stuff is fine; there's a fucking huge slab of text there now about ignoring some votes. anyone running for admin who doesn't even read the rfa rules doesn't deserve to pass. anyone who thinks he's trolling shouldn't be feeding his. anyone who thinks his point needs rebuttal can e pointed to the fucking huge slab of text, and reminded that closing vote counters ignore his votes. He's a lot less disruptive than many other editors. (eg most frequent poster here) Remember Civility (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

A general comment. Please stop recommending that past banned users should start up new accounts. Apart from the fact that such an action is technically possible (thought see Durova for an argument that evasion is eventually futile), it does us no good to suggest that obscuring account history is valuable. We have this bizarre community hallucination about the ideal banned editor who starts up a new account and edits productively outside a narrow topic area that got them banned. That either describes an exceptionally narrow band of editors or stems from rampant wishful thinking on the part of a community known for wishful thinking. I'm not disputing that some bans are de facto topic bans and that circumventing those bans may actually result in a net-good, just arguing that the track record is pretty shitty. The blanket suggestion should look like this: for bans imposed hastily or unilaterally, some unblock or unban without conditions should be considered (or with a topic ban as a sole condition). For bans imposed after some time (as KM's was), the standard offer should be extended. Not this garbage about starting a new account. Protonk (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Also a specific comment. Linking to the most recent ban for KMW obscures the fact that prior bans and topic bans had been enacted. Full disclosure, I supported one of the ban proposals after he left a particularly nasty comment to a new user on AN. But if he is back and wants to act like an adult, then welcome back. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I was going to make a rather snarky addition to this discussion, but re-wrote my comment here because Protonk is 100% correct. The Wikipedia community has an amazing capacity for giving people second chances and AGF in the rehabilitation of formerly-former editors. If Kurt is willing to stop doing the things that nearly got him banned last time, then welcome back. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987: implied threat of real life stalking etc.

Resolved

 – Checkuser completed, all known socks indeffed.

Durova³⁵² 00:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Mario1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not new to wikipedia. Originally blocked for using sockpuppets and only allowed back with the message "last chance" (see his block log). He was afterward the subject of this AN/I thread, where I brought up cases (acknowledged by Mario himself) where he had been disrupting wikipedia by providing false or misleading info in articles or DYK hooks, and that he had responded to my concerns with racist attacks. He was ultimately blocked for one month for the racist comments.
No sooner had he returned that, having started an FL application where I evidenced some problems (note: without even voting on the matter), he produced all sorts of renewed accusations and claims that I'm out to get him. I would have not especially minded were it not for the follow-up on my talk page: 1) this message in Romanian, where, among several subtle threats, he proceeds to ask me how old I am; 2) this message in English, after I deleted his original post, where he poses the question yet again; 3) after I tell him no, this post where he repeats the claims that I have an agenda against him, and again persists in making this look like a personal problem; 4) after I answered (trying to let him know yet again that he is walking down the path that got him blocked, and urging him t stop and reassess his position), this most disturbing post. I would like to administrators to assess the nature of this statement: "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." And: "I told you before and i tell you again that i know you have friends that tend to follow your oppinions and i know that i don't have any chances but i'm willing to fight to the last man just like this guy." Dahn (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're a real joke aren't you. I mearly reacted to ironical and demeaning comments like your loose interpretation of norms, and the irresponsible "devil may care" editing style that you posted at the same FL project, where you further threatened me. Regarding the FLC you should read what issues this user raised and than you should read the post of User:Geraldk who incidentally supported my claims. Regarding the supposed threat i don't know what to say, if he understands "Keep in mind that i know some things from where one can find many more information about another." as a threat that i willingly request to be blocked forever. Mario1987 19:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning your defense with a personal attack is not the best of strategies. Chillum 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know but this has lasted as long as it can and i am tired of it. Mario1987 19:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, Using this diff as an important example, I think this needs to either a) be oversighted, or b) be taken really seriously. Comments like that should not, and I repeat not happen. It is not a smart decision to ask people their age, as this can be taken in WP:STALK, which may or may not constitute other problems.Mitch32^{(The Password is... See here!)} 20:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Gimme a B! Gimme a L! Gimme an O! Gimme a .. so on, so forth. You were up here before for similar problems, obviously haven't learnt your lesson and as the cherry on the cake added some lovely extra threats into that "most disturbing post". "miss, miss, but he started it" is not a valid excuse; if you are tired of it, just walk away. If you refuse to do so, my suggested remedy will make it mandatory. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Ugh. Anyone who would allude to that travesty of a movie deserves what's coming. (Alluding to the actual incident is a far different matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not all, folks

Mario1987 was previously sitebanned for running a vote stacking sockfarm at featured picture candidates and for dozens of copyvio uploads--one of which was even promoted to featured picture (until his scheme unraveled). See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive131#Votestacking_at_WP:FPC. He was unblocked by a single admin without discussion. Time to reinstate the community ban. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And would anyone please explain how the copyright mark on the lower left corner of one of Mario1987's uploads from yesterday is anything other than resumption of the copyvios that contributed to his ban in the first place? Proposing that the admin who unblocked him be personally tasked with the cleanup. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this fellow not indefinitely blocked already? He basically said he has "people" who could track down and bring harm to an editor he doesn't like? (I mean, you'd think the serial copyvios would be enought, but this? What on earth is there to discuss?)Bali ultimate (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It mystifies me that he was allowed back, considering the seriousness of what he did before. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reviewing his uploads, and 9/10 of them are without doubt copyvios. Sadly only a few can be directly proved though. ninety:one 20:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The burden is on the uploader to demonstrate legitimacy, not vice versa. Durova³⁵⁰ 20:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• "We're sorry, Mario, but your copyvio uploads are in another castle."? HalfShadow (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted several of the images that Ninetyone tagged and pulled Mario1987's autoreviewer status. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Hm, yes, a random example: The "own work" File:Lotus Market Oradea.jpg, allegedly made yesterday (like about a dozen other photos from very dispersed locations) but with no camera metadata, is found on the Web at [73], on the website [74]. We do not accept serial copyright violations. I have indefinitely blocked the user.  Sandstein  21:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

He was never unbanned at Commons (thank goodness) so my ops have limited value to fix this. A couple of copyvios got bot-transferred and I've deleted them. Basically, everything that doesn't come with full camera metadata (as opposed to Photoshop data and scanner DPI notes) should go. He's trying to claim that Romanian Government material is under CC license, trying to claim that anything which looks 'old' (of ambiguous age) is under copyleft, and sourcing material to copyrighted websites with false attributions of GFDL license. Even the nonfree rationales need examination: they're supposed to be low res, but one was nearly half a gigamegabyte. Durova³⁵⁰ 21:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

How the hell can you have an almost half-gigabyte photo? HalfShadow (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the typo. Am working with a composite offline which will be in the 1 gigabyte range when it's finished. Thinking of the wrong figures. ;) Durova³⁵⁰ 21:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank god for that; you scared the christ out of me for a minute there. HalfShadow (talk) 21:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Durova, being a good manager, always keeps an eye on the Big Picture. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the Phase One P65+ medium format digital back ([75]) produces files which are 340 Mb or so - I wouldn't breathe that sigh of relief quite yet... :) --Xdamr^talk 00:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: TinEye is a helpful tool to identify image copyvios (but it will only find byte-identical copies).  Sandstein  21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support block / reinstation of ban. Found immediately two blatant copyvios, one with camera data. The one above (ec) and File:Plaza-romania.jpg deleted by another admin. Not to mention the other stuff above.--Tikiwont (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block/de facto ban. There were a total of 14 images so far tagged as F9s. Every one of them he claimed was his own work. All but one had a good link to a commercial website where they'd come from. The other one had a great big copyright tag on it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Sandsteins' block - if the editor has a problem with it, they can provide the rationale (like they are supposed to with the images...) for it to be overturned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Heading out for a bit. If any other probable copyvios turn out to have been bot-transferred to Commons, please leave links at my user talk and I'll check in on them. Thanks all for resolving this swiftly. Durova³⁵¹ 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef, generally per LessHeard vanU. Ironholds (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Mario, Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia. That is, "free" meaning "free content" and not "free beer". MuZemike 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support ban per above. Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• A little late as the block has already happened, but I support an indef block in this case. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Per that second diff Dahn provided, I'm not only endorsing reinstating the community ban, but I'm readding his listing at WP:LOBU as well. Even without the copyvios, it's not likely anyone who wants to keep his or her bit will unblock someone who makes that kind of veiled threat. Blueboy96 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• My only question is this: are we sure File:Hotel-Astoria-Satu-Mare-1.jpg, File:Nisco City Center final.jpg, File:Calvaria Satu Mare.jpg, File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG, File:Prestij.jpg, File:Ikarusbus.jpg, File:Irisbus vechi.jpg, File:Irisbusnou.jpg, File:Traian Plaza 01.jpg, File:04 - Hotel Aurora.jpg and File:Palatul administrativ sm.JPG are all copyvios? The reason I ask is because, yes, he did have a persistent tendency to violate copyright, but those pictures are all from his home city of Satu Mare, so there's at least a greater chance some of them may be his. I suggest an administrator double-check with this in mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Even in the unlikely event they aren't copyvios (it would be difficult to assume otherwise, given his history), this is beyond unacceptable, and would be an indefable offense by itself in my book. Blueboy96 00:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul's comment reverses the actual responsibilities here: it's the uploader's obligation to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the uploads are legitimate. When an editor has an exceptional history of copyright violations, all uploads may come into doubt. Our obligation is to comply with the law, and it's best to err on the side of caution. Remember, if this fellow hadn't been caught the last time he would have gotten a copyright violation onto Wikipedia's main page as Picture of the Day. We have no reason to trust him. Durova³⁵¹ 00:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I also support the formal community ban, just in case the user ever tries to obtain another chance and someone counts !votes. Even without the copyvios and the "last chance" the threats would be sufficient reason. Hans Adler 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Most obvious ban ever. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Pile-on support for this ban. Good call. --Jayron32 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Briefly returning from a wikibreak to endorse ban (as original ban proposer). MER-C 04:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• I deleted all of his remaining uploads; those can be replaced. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Not quite - Special:Nuke kills only the stuff in the recentchanges table (about 1 month). There are some left from June-August this year (e.g. File:Kolcsei.jpg). See User:Mario1987/Images. MER-C 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

  Duly noted, snagged the rest using the same edit summary. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more (related) things, ladies and gentlemen. Here is Mario's probable sockuppet. It's inactive, but one is never too sure; plus, no matter its uses, it was created to evade an earlier block. Also note the upload of images under that name, some of which are on commons! Dahn (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• What makes you believe it is a sock of Mario1987?  Sandstein  08:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Both have an innate interest in Romanian power plants, buildings, football teams and Satu Mare (see latest deleted uploads). Images on Commons that need to be dealt with: File:Calinestihydro.JPG, File:Manastire certeze.JPG and File:Calinestilake.JPG. I also remember that some of (the first batch of) Mario's deleted photos were taken with a HP Photosmart (537?). MER-C 09:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Well, for one he comes from the same geographical region, in the narrowest of senses (his name, "Terra Awas", is the quasi-Latin rendition of Oaş Country, right near Satu Mare). Terra Awas emerged out nowhere very shortly after Mario's second block, and was able to push a DYK entry within for this article that interval (when Mario had developed an obsession with DYK, and when it matched and matches his editing style). The moment I shared with the world my belief that he was a block-evasion sockpuppet, Terra Awas more or less vanished. This is harder to provide diffs for T:TDYK, where I mentioned it, doesn't keep an archive; I did discuss something on the issue with another editor, who seems to have shared my suspicion, and actually brought it up (see here). Of the other edits he made, 100% are in Mario's fields of interest: Romanian football and List of wind farm projects in Romania (for which he created a new spin-off article exactly where Mario had left of). Of the four images on his user page, two were Mario-made. I would keep going, but I don't want to give out all the clues and risk having him come back more subtly. Dahn (talk) 09:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds quite plausible, plus he has a history of socking. I've indef-blocked the Terra Awas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, but am reluctant to nuke the Commons images that do appear self-made (judging by camera metadata and lack of photographical sophistication).  Sandstein  09:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be worth filing SPI? Last time around, CU found more socks than had been suspected. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Mario1987 Durova³⁵¹ 14:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I apparently unblocked him after his last community ban with a last chance warning. I don't remember that situation at all, but obviously his actions here call for a ban reinstatement, and this certainly would qualify as a "last chance" violation. You'll find no objections from me over anything here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 15:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll go ahead and file SPI before deleting the Commons uploads. Best to make sure. Durova³⁵¹ 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mario1987 if anyone wants to comment. Durova³⁵¹ 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has turned up an additional account: Player bio. So far Player bio remains unblocked. Durova³⁵¹ 23:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Magyar nem ember (Which means "Hungarians dont belong to the human race") is back 3.0

This blocked user returned to the Slovakia related articles (again) with his or her sockpuppets (user:78.99.230.65, user: 195.30.17.81) and disruptive edits. Compare Magyar nem ember's edit with these edits. (Another: this + this and this) Contribs are also similar: Magyar nem ember, 78.99.230.65 and 195.30.17.81--B@xter⁹ 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the second ip for socking - the first has not edited again today. If different ip socks start popping up then consider opening an WP:SPI with a view to getting a rangeblock, otherwise it seems to be a case of WP:RBI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! If he returns I will request a checkuser.--B@xter⁹ 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.134.224.64

Resolved

What's up with that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP 72 hours for repeated willful violations of the WP:BLP policy and has strongly advised the IP to either create an account or make such requests for articles through WP:AFC. MuZemike 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Franklin.vp

I am not the easiest person to get along with, however that does not give other people free reign to attack me. The user Franklin.vp has launched three abrasive personal attacks at me on my user talk and one at WP:FPC. I have made it clear at my user talk page that I do not tolerate this, and as such left a less than kind series of replies to Franklin.vp requesting he stop posting at my page. My response has been less than good, however there is no excuse for this posting he made [[76]].

Quite simply, I want him blocked, or at least warned that posting on my user page ever again, or posting such content anywhere ever again will get him blocked.

Update After the continued attacks, I now am asking specifically for a block. He simply has gone too far.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Franklin.vp has been informed of this thread.

 Nezzadar [SPEAK]  06:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update After being informed of this threat, Franklin.vp has continued to post abrasive comments on my user space.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  06:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Update It's still going on. I am really losing my patience with this person.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

His edits are very troublesome. Considering that he's a newbie, I've decided to give him my very last assumption of good faith, and left him with a very stern warning, which includes a notice to avoid you in the future. If he does this again, he'll be blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. For my part I don't intend on going near him, and will try to be less controvertial at WP:FPC.  Nezzadar [SPEAK]  07:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

AUSC October 2009 elections: Vote now!

The election, using SecurePoll, has now started. You may:

• Visit the election "home page" for an overview;
• Review the candidate's statements: Dominic • Frank • Jredmond • KillerChihuahua • MBisanz • Tznkai;
• Or go straight to your personal voting page: here to cast your votes.

The election closes at 23:59 (UTC) on 8 November 2009.

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:The Party Pooper

• The Party Pooper (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

This user's first and so far(as of the time of this post) only contribution is to insult me on my user talk page. In my mind, this user stinks of either a sock or a meatpuppet of someone who I have been in contact with recently. I would like more eyes on this matter, and if anyone has any opinions regarding this, I would like to see them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man : WP:TALKO violation/warring and abusive edit summaries

Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) engaged in repeated deletion of an IP user comments on the Richard Gere talk page (diffs: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82]) with different reasons, sometimes claiming BLP violations while the comment -even if about a BLP-sensitive issue- was absolutely fair and by far not libelous or problematic in any way other than trying to constructively reopening a previous discussion.

When notified and/or approached on talk pages to discuss the issue by several users, he regularly deletes notifications and attempts at communication -which in itself is not a problem- but does it with edit summaries which are either insulting (diffs: [83], [84],[85]) vandalism accusation -even to editors sympathetic with his point of view (diffs: [86],[87]) or at best condescending (diffs: [88], [89] , [90]). Just for the sake of completeness, the user has a habit at condescending remarks also in unrelated discussions (example diffs: [91] , [92]).

Given that the user seems to dismiss any civil attempt at communication with him, I think some admin action could help. Thanks.--Cyclopia^talk 10:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Further comment: I forgot to include that the issue has been previously brought at the edit warring noticeboard by the IP editor; the 3RR issue was deemed "stale", and given the kind of violations the admin suggested to bring it here. --Cyclopia^talk 10:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread. The repeated removal of viable (IMO) talk-page material is a serious problem. Discussion of an article's (non-)inclusion of BLP content on talk-page, even if it comes to consensus to exclude, sounds like exactly what a talk-page is for, and this talk section does not even make the specific BLP-concerning statements. The repeated incivility in edit-summaries is a problem too. Makes it hard to WP:AGF that he is working collaboratively if he's that antagonistic towards everyone. DMacks (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment: I had notified the user too -it seems we did it at the same time. Thanks! --Cyclopia^talk 10:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of blatant BLP-violating material is well within the guidelines here. The consensus on Richard Gere is clear, plus an admin CSD'ed the separate gerbil page when WebHamster skirted consensus and created it on his own. Plus, an admin has my back. I'm all for drama and witch hunts here on Wikipedia, but it looks like some people need to grow up. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple other issues. First, 3RR on the talk page was never violated. Any accusations of such will require an immediate apology. Second, there should probably be a CU instigated for the IP in question. A bit too convenient that they jump into the Richard Gere debate with his/her first edit, magically knowing all this Wiki-policy. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is, the talk page comment was not blatant BLP-violating material. The fact that there is consensus, incidents with another editor months ago etc., are completely irrelevant. You cannot erase civil and constructive comments on a talk page, even if they resurrect a long gone discussion and you disagree with their content. If the IP is a sock, this is also not really relevant -two wrongs don't make one right, at least until there is certainity of such sockpuppetry. I am also curious to know how you justify your edit summaries with which you rebuke any attempt at a civil conversation. --Cyclopia^talk 13:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The gerbil stuff IS a BLP violation and theoretically should ALL be deleted. The dilemma with doing that is that it makes it appear no one has brought it up. What doesn't make sense is that Crotchety removed the recent comments while leaving all the other gerbil stuff intact. Consensus is not forever. If the one section is allowed to stay visible, then other editors can surely revisit the issue. However, if it's PROVEN that the IP is a sock of a blocked user, then the comments could be removed on those grounds, as blocked users are not allowed to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety: First I'm "vandalizing" the page, next I'm violating BLP, now I'm a sock puppet. This is getting to the point of being downright libelous. Please take your own advice and realize that you are wrong here and just walk away. As an aside, I think it's funny that you've asked for apologies from people about 10 times, all while insulting them and maintaining the same mocking tone. Also, if you want to debate the gerbil thing, please do so on the talkpage, that is the appropriate forum. This discussion isn't about that, it's about your inappropriate behavior. 98.251.117.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Oh, there's no more gerbil debate. Don't worry about that. It stays out of the article. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another snarky comment. Thanks. I've taken the liberty of going through this user's history and he seems to be a serial offender of incivility: [93] " you probably destroyed any chance you had at being admin. good work!" [94] "idiotic discussion" [95] "I have no idea why you think i care about your opinion." [96] "don't be dense!" [97] "this article is about the film, not any other crap". That's just from his edit summaries and just from the last 3 days. Looking at it I'm surprised this was the first time he's been reported. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I don't know how I missed it for so long, but just checked and saw that you were on the wrong side of the gerbil debate. I was dumb enough to think you were an uninvolved editor. That explains a lot. Commence the witch hunt. Maybe then you'll be able to add the gerbil crap to the article. LOL. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I am just following the talk page since the discussion. I have no intention to get such stuff into the article -consensus is against, and that's fine. But I cannot accept user's comments on talk pages being repeatedly deleted with preposterous reasons, nor I can accept incivility, no matter which side comes from. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You're being petty and vindictive. Like I said, I wish I had realized who I was dealing with just a bit sooner. Wouldn't have wasted my time replying to this absurd report. You're wrong about the gerbil debate. Accept it, and move on. For everyone's sake. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have done the same report if you agreed with me about the debate. The "gerbil debate" is irrelevant now. Your behaviour is not. --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP does not prevent discussing this issue on the talk page or else almost the whole talk page would need to be deleted. This is not about 'sides' of an argument. Simply thinking that another editor is flogging a dead horse or is potentially a sockpuppet is not an excuse for repeatedly edit warring to remove their comments. Crotchety Old Man has gone on to mischaracterise the edits of people including myself who have commented on his talk page as vandalism and has used abusive or mocking comments in his edit summaries. He's refusing to listen to reason or to discuss his editing in a mature manner. Fences&Windows 16:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If there's any actual, useful discussion that takes place here, someone be sure to let me know. I've had enough of the playground bullying for now, so I'm removing this from my watchlist. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tried my best throughout this whole ordeal to remain as cordial as possible, but I can't help but point out that "I've had enough of the playground bullying for now" could be read in one of two possible ways and given his repeated attacks and bad attitude I find it hilarious. 98.251.117.125 (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

University of Texas at Dallas assignment

University of Texas at Dallas has set an assignment (EMAC 2321) that involves editing wikipedia. Unfortunately some students have interpreted this as a suggestion that they vandalise wikipedia (eg http://aisharin.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/wikipedia-experiment/ ). An email has been sent to the person behind the course and the cases I've been able to trace have been reverted but something people should probably know about.©Geni 11:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly looks like a deliberate attempt to disrupt for the sake of an exercise. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

It isn't. Other edits from the assignment have been productive.©Geni 11:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is the vagueness of the wording of the assignment, or the malicious interpretation of it as an invitation to vandalise the site, the fact that this originates from a place of higher education makes me fear for the future. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This week, our assignment for EMAC was to make a substantial edit to a Wikipedia article and see how long our changes last. Beats watching paint drying! If that's what passes for university education, what about junior high school? Anyway, the course description (hereabouts) doesn't seem to mention it; has it been expunged, or have the kids just got it totally wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

http://emac2321.pbworks.com/Student-Blogs has a list of all the student's blogs, several seem to mention this Wikipedia assignment in terms of making a sneaky change. Prodego ^talk 16:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a sample from that page: "The key to this step is making a change that will be subtle enough to pass under the well-trained eyes of Wikipedia editors, but big enough to ensure that some poor Middle Schooler’s research project will be ruined." Nice. What's the name of this college course, "Furthering Stupidity For Future Generations?" Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Also shows mis-understanding of WP. Even wikipedia says don't use wikipedia for school, read the article and then read the sources. But that doesn't change the seriousness of the allegations. Remember Civility (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Meh. Wikipedia is used for school. Let me assure you of this. It is used (as the Medicine wikiproject will tell you and as they told the NIH) for self-diagnosis. It is used by incompetent airport cops to detain subjects based on a vandalized article. It is used in academic papers (yes, it is). We have no idea what level of credulity is present in the average reader, but we can't subscribe to the fiction that no one uses wikipedia as a resource of first resort. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Geni, I would like copies of the correspondence you have with the person running the course, if you can arrange that. Prodego ^talk 16:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The twitter hash-tag link for the discussion is: here. I'm somewhat bothered by this quote "Do we get bonus points if our entries got our IP's banned, the edit revised, & deleted from history?". Maybe someone wants to tweet to this group to let them know this is not the best of all possible ideas? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm it appears some people are sending hostile emails to the students. There is no need for that.©Geni 22:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• It appears that someone has started a school project whose intent is to fuck with wikipedia. Arguably there is no need for that either. The students shouldn't be getting emails, the professor should be. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Send them to the students, too. By that age, students should have the ability of questioning whether assignments are correct. It's like giving them paint cans and sending them out to do graffiti. Mature students should put the paint cans down and say "I'm not doing this."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just some subject that students can investigate. Wikipedia may not like this, but then there are also students who have to do experiments with animals. Such experiments are subject to ethics rules. The question is if perturbing Wikipedia is such a big deal. Count Iblis (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. But us wishing they didn't do it is part of "wikipedia not liking it". I mean, if their intent (I dunno if this is a minor part of the section of wikipedia) is to disturb wikipedia then they shouldn't be too shocked to see accounts and IPs blocked and emails sent off. It is how we respond to disruption. Protonk (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and this is then similar to how a animal that is not properly sedated would react when a needle goes into its body. Perhaps Wikipedia is itself a conscious entity and the ethic rules regulating animal experiments should also apply to complex data systems? Count Iblis (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

A lab rat is under no obligation to cooperate with its experiment, and thus it is caged, killed, or sedated. Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of UTD, and cannot easily be killed, caged or sedated by it. Accordingly, students there should not be surprised if their experimental animal is uncooperative.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Has the professor been referred to Wikipedia:School and university projects? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

User:DoDaCanaDa long term issues of COI and canvassing

• DoDaCanaDa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is the subject of Ray Joseph Cormier, which has been nominated for deletion. The user has a very long history of ignoring COI guidelines and has posted compulsively to the AfD, the article talk page, and the talk pages of other editors who he apparently thinks will help him get the article kept [98] [99] [100] [101]. He has already been warned about canvassing here and COI here and has been energetic in ignoring them. I posted the foregoing to the COI noticeboard a couple of days ago [102], but despite assurances his subsequent contributions show that he is still hyperactively posting on user talk pages in an apparent attempt to influence the AfD. I request that a block be considered for the duration of the AfD -- there is every sign he will persist in being disruptive, and a block for purposes of prevention is well in order. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Whadaheck and his edits in America's Next Top Model and Cycle 13 article

User:Whadaheck decided to change a color box (dark green) on a call-out order table (casting week) in America's Next Top Model, Cycle 13 page. It did change many times thus the color is unrelated to earlier cycles of that show. You can check the article's talk page that one user gave a warning on Whadaheck's talk page. ASAP. Thanks. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I moved it to Incidents discussion to discuss on his bad faith edits in America's Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin issue. See Dispute Resolution. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Whadaheck of this thread. Basket of Puppies 17:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Whadaheck has a history of making unilateral changes, that go contrary to the majority consensus on the talk pages. When those edit's are reverted, he again makes them. In the past couple of days, I've given him warnings, but he's done this kind of thing several times before. At what point does that become an admin issue? ... Misty Willows ^talk 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

When it gets reported to WP:3RRN. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war, please help

Resolved

 – both editors blocked, Balkan sanction imposed on Ceha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

User ceha has been causing problems on this page, Demographic history of Bosnia and Herzegovina, could the topic be locked for the time being, so that there can be some discussion? He just does not care. (LAz17 (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)).

Alteration of protected 'high risk' template without discussion

Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) altered protected template {{hat}} from stating that the template "archived" the contents to stating that it "refactored" it. Given that there was no discussion, and no indication that WP:REFACTOR is meant to cover the use of such a template (where the contained text is neither removed nor altered, merely hidden), I would seek a review of this unilateral use of administrative powers. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 17:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is suitable for AN/I, considering that no attempt appears to have been made to contact the editor and ask about the change. Further, while I agree the change should probably be reverted at least until some consensus is reached, I see the reasoning behind it. Archiving is generally understood to mean moving the content to a separate page and providing a link to it. However, many discussions are rolled up such that they are effectively archived through collapsing or enclosing in a box of a different color (see WP:DRV, WP:RFD, and completed WP:RFAs, for example), so it's definitely a gray area, but I don't think this rises to the level of an incident. Let's try a discussion elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  18:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

PBS is in an ongoing dispute about the use of this template, so this does appear to be an abuse of admin tools to gain the upper hand in a dispute. Verbal chat 18:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see anything recent on PBS's talk page; can you provide link(s) to ongoing dispute?  Frank  |  talk  18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[103], also see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive571#Refactoring or archiving. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 18:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin at least undo this change as it is unsupported on the template talk page, where two editors (myself and Hrafn) have disputed the change. I have asked PBS, but I'm not sure he's online. Verbal chat 18:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Since I have commented above, I'm now "involved" and won't make such an edit myself. However, I do support the edit being undone. I prefer if PBS would do so after a request for same so as to avoid a potential wheel-war, but I definitely don't think "refactor" is a better term than "archive".  Frank  |  talk  18:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is this dispute that Verbal is alluding to taking place? Unomi (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Unomi, thanks for dropping by. The dispute over the template use doesn't involve me, you'll be pleased to hear - I was just aware of it. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a matter for AN/I. I reverted the change (loosely citing BRD). Should it get restored or some other problem erupt, then we can worry, but at the moment "no blood no foul" Protonk (talk) 18:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will end this particular matter. Verbal chat 19:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so it seems that hrafn and verbal are defending a neologism by unilaterally 'archiving' discussions regarding it and then accusing PBS of being disruptive for another editor bringing up the same point? Or am I missing something? In the current context it seems clear that the previous discussion was not 'archived' in the traditional sense, it was refactored so as to be contained in a hat along with instructions to not bring up WP:NEO lines of argument. Clever. In either case PBS clearly objected to having the discussion cut short, if you want to call it impromptu archiving or refactoring does not really matter, hrafn and verbal should likely undo it. Unomi (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? I don't know what all the disputes are, but if PBS was in some argument over whether or not archiving was refactoring then he went over and edited an archive template to read "refactor", that's not too cool. Protonk (talk) 19:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with the use of this template at denialism, it's a shame Unomi is trying to make this personal again. This does show that PBS acted inappropriately, but he's willing to justify his edits now. Verbal chat 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't really understand how you can claim that you are not involved with it when you are the one utilizing it here? I would also ask you to refrain from deviating from WP:AGF, the fact that I read and summarized what I saw from the link that hrafn posted above does not make it personal. Yes, apparently hrafn added the hat (along with a rather unfriendly description) here, but verbal clearly supported and expanded its use. Being bold and changing the template text to reflect actual use is not 'inappropriate', but rather what we should all do. Bringing this issue to ANI, seemingly 8 (eight) minutes after before attempting to contact the user is, however, likely inappropriate. Unomi (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
      • The dispute I was referring to followed that, which is stale by now. The current dispute was to a pointer, which I had said I was ambivalent about. As you say, the renaming of the template was done during a dispute and therefore inappropriately. Also, the change in no way reflects "actual use", but that shouldn't be debated here. I think ANI is an appropriate place request administrators undo the change, as it could only be undone by admins and PBS wasn't around at the time. If a page is protected you should have a good reason to change it, leave a note, and not do so while you are involved in a dispute. Verbal chat 20:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just seen the comment on my talk page. I would have reverted the change that only an admin can make to the template, but I see it has already been done. Now that I know there are objections to my bold change, I will discuss it on the talk page of the template. -- PBS (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Koalorka for uploading unfree files

• Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Today, Koalorka added File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG to an article on my watchlist. I looked at the image and noticed that it was labeled as CC-BY-SA, but cited an author's permission (in German) that said, in relevant part, "I allow you to use this image on Wikipedia". That is, of course, not a sufficient CC release. I asked Koalorka about this at User talk:Koalorka#File:W+F Maschinenpistole E21.JPG, and found out that (see the discussion there):

• Koalorka did in fact not mention anything about the CC licence in his request to the author, but believes nonetheless that he may upload the image and label it as CC-BY-SA.
• Koalorka was and remains indef-blocked at Commons for "uploading unfree files after warnings".
• Koalorka has since uploaded many images to Wikipedia that are also of a questionable copyright status, including many Finnish army images (e.g. File:FDF BMP-1 IFV.jpeg) that he has labeled as "all rights waived", but that in fact are only released for free reproduction. For this reason, all such images were deleted at Commons, see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Template:FinnishDefenceForces.
• Koalaorka has a persistent problem with following or understanding copyright policy, and his Commons talk page and his talk page here attest to this; in particular, after being confronted with all of the above on this talk page, he believes that he has done nothing wrong.

To prevent continued copyright violations, I have indefinitely blocked Koalorka. I invite community review of this block. If it is upheld, I also propose to Special:Nuke all his image uploads because their licencing is unreliable, except those clearly sourced to a US military website (and hence properly PD).  Sandstein  19:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a notice, I have to be offline for a while now.  Sandstein  19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Support User doesn't seem to give a damn about or want to comply with copyright policy, repeated violations, followed by blocks followed by repeated violations. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

All images on US military sites are not necessarily public domain. Most are, but some have more restrictive copyrights if they're uploaded by certain contractors. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything that is not attached with a US-PDGov template, I have deleted. For those who want to check to see if there are still some more bogus images, contact me and they will be deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• User seems to have been a productive editor in other areas. I'm a bit hesitant on whether an indefinite block is warranted - perhaps a editing restriction in which the user may not upload any images would work? Then again, User:Koalorka seems to have a few other issues and a long block log. henrik•talk 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have no objection to an unblock if the user agrees to such a restriction, though the admin unblocking him should be willing to check regularly whether it is obeyed. I'm not very familiar with his other issues, but his ANI record indicates that he does have some.  Sandstein  21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Ezra Friedlander - likely sockpuppets

If I'm not in the right place, or did something wrong in filing this, let me know and I'll fix it...this is kind of a combination of edit warring, BLP violations, and sock-puppetry, so I figured AN/I was my best shot.

There are several users (Bogram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jessey09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jamessoar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Sams20091010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 24.188.59.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) who have been attempting to add the same unreliable sources and unsourced facts to Ezra Friedlander over the past couple of days. None of these users has any contributions outside of this article (except 24.188.59.164, who had one edit to Marty Markowitz, another Brooklyn politician). All are adding the same unreliable source to the article ([104], [105], and the same material added without the source [106]). What really leads me to suspect sockpuppetry is the tendency to put internal wiki links inside <ref> tags ([107] [108])...I cleaned these up when I still thought the article had potential.

I've nominated the article for deletion and so far nobody has !voted to keep. The article's subject is interesting, and he'd be notable if there were any good sources on him, but there aren't. The AfD notification template has been removed a couple of times, but as the level of disruption is fairly low I didn't think it was worth the effort to do an SPI. I just didn't want to keep reverting and get into 3RR trouble. What to do? MirrorLockup (talk) 20:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(I started a BLP/N thread about this on Friday, as well: [109]) MirrorLockup (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring noticeboard

It'd be useful if an uninvolved admin could close this report before it becomes messy. I can't (well I probably could, but no doubt someone would whine about it) because I commented in the AfD which was the subject of the original report. Thanks, Black Kite 23:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this request. I noticed 4 reverts on an AfD (1st revert: [110]; 2nd revert: [111]; 3rd revert: [112]; 4th revert: [113]) I have watchlisted and reported it. The dispute behind those reverts of which I have no opinion and which is why I am not going to revert either standpoint in the discussion seems to have spilled over onto that page now instead of it being focused on the four reverts, including one after a warning. The user I reported has reverted 4 times whereas those he reverted are a couple different editors rather than one other editor, i.e. why I did not report them as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I closed it. We'll see if that sticks. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

User adding clearly invalid nonfree use rationale

Can someone deal with the first template on File:Trans-Canada Highway shield.svg, claiming that it's "a logo owned by the Government of Canada for List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario"? Thank you. --NE2 00:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted; hopefully it sticks. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I added it a while ago, per discussion here, verified it with my reviewer, User:Jafeluv, who made an edit to it.[114] It is a logo owned by the government of canada, for use on the List of numbered roads in Kawartha Lakes, Ontario article. Both these users are involved in a bunch of debates with me right now. I myself have questioned the validity of it, but would like it discussed by editors who aren't involved in debates elsewhere with me. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding by User:IP69.226.103.13

"New" user IP69.226.103.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be singlemindedly Wikihounding me at my AfD nominations (and only my AfD nominations). I find this behavior harrassing to me, and disruptive to the AfD process. Can anything be done? Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have also noted the curious behaviour of this IP and I endorse the concern of the complainant. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

I must also agree that the behavior of this user concerns me. They have been very aggressive and almost disruptive when relating to bots and bot policy, the user in question is also threatening to go to arbcom over comments that I made regarding the fact that they needed to read specific information. they claimed that I had said that they could not read, making my informative comment into a personal attack. This behavior is on going and log term. I suggest something be done in order to address the issue now, before it has a chance to get out of hand and become a larger issue in the future. β^_command 02:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IP "threats"

Probably just stupid stuff, but just in case, could someone expunge this and its followup comment from the history? [115] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Bugs - I just saw it, and was looking for what to do. For the record, what is appropriate procedure to follow in a case like this (involving a death threat, however improbable)? Ray^Talk 01:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Typically, an admin would render the entry invisible in the history, or show it as being hidden. Likewise with the Sinebot followup, since it blindly redisplays the verbiage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked... please do not add a template to his talk page for this. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

On this issue, I did a bad thing. I deleted the page to restore it sans edit summary vandalism, but now my browser can't open the undelete page. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Threat to editor because of article deletion

I have an interesting situation that has arisen as a result of an editor's article being deleted. The editor has stated that because he has had an article he created deleted he has been physically attacked and been threated with death. See [116]. What is the course of action that needs to be taken in this situation? ttonyb (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Highly unlikely. Delete, salt, and indef block. Who goes to school on Sunday? Grsz¹¹ 01:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Current article baleeted. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

All threats of harm should be taken seriously. General practices can be found at Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. I will contact checkuser to locate the user so that the local authorities can be notified.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for moving quickly on this. I agree that all threats need to be taken seriously and cannot be discounted. ttonyb (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Right. Better to find out he was kidding, and slap him on the wrists for that, than to assume he was kidding, and find out he really wasn't...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

He was kidding. Grsz¹¹ 02:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Should this editor be banned indefinitely for this tasteless joke? ttonyb (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)