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

AvengerX

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.  Sandstein  10:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• AvengerX (talk · contribs) - Some hours ago i've notified him for vandalisms specialized for his personal POV and nippocentrism, tagged many times by another editor.
• see his career here
• ja:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for vandalisms and sockpuppetry)
• it:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for write-only vandalisms)
• After my first notify he answered threating me. Please provide immediately --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think both of you need to spend another year or so studying English before editing en.wiki anymore. Tan | 39 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a helpful comment Tan, and WP:CIVIL states not to belittle other users. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spitfire, it doesn't matter. PS (Tan): I edit here rarely. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very helpful comment from Tan. The user above does not have sufficient grasp of English to contribute to an English-language encyclopedia. That's a fact. Civility does not call for ignoring the blindingly obvious truth, or for setting aside the need for basic competence. To the IP -- try to edit here less often until your English improves dramatically.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bali, i have not to try to improve my english for an encyclopedia because I don't edit here. My rare edits are too little to be considered as a work on en.wp. My actual knowledge of english language is not for an encyclopedia. I know it perfectly, it is not necessary to repeat it. I've asked for an incident about personal attacks. I'm not interested to do a training course for encyclopedical english. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its not an appropriate or civil thing to say to a user who has just come to AN/I complaining of a threat from another user. Not really interested in debating the point, just to make my opinion clear. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to disagree with Bali on two accounts. First, many non-native English speakers contribute much valuable information to the English Wikipedia. If their contributions are in less-than-perfect English, we can address that through simple copy-editing. To tell anyone that their contributions of useful information are unwelcome violates the spirit of the project. Second, the point of this board is to address problems that require administrator intervention. The IP came here because of a perceived threat made against him. Tan's response was not at all helpful toward resolving that issue, and was uncivil to boot. We users expect better of our admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've drunk the koolaid to such an extent that you no longer understand what the word "civil" means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not have meant to be rude, but that's the way it came across. I have personally helped copyedit articles written by one of our Polish editors whose first language was not English - that article went on to be featured. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wrote here only to notify a [personal attack who sounds like a threat. A threat showing my host and some of mine personal datas. It could be simple trolling but, anyway, it is againist the policies of Wikipedia. I don't thing that this i know who you are is "funny". --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to be offended by anybody, ok ? My English is not for academy but my politeness in what i wrote is out of disputation. I'm here only to notify personal attacks. I don't want to read some of my personal datas used as a threat by AvengerX. This is the only reason. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The folks thinking I was somehow being insulting are the same knee-jerk civility police editors that are currently plaguing this project. Would you please try to analyze the situation before you start leaving self-important, tsk-tsk messages here and on my talk page? These editors' grasp of English is very poor. This is the crux of the problem. I didn't belittle anyone, or make light of any actual problem, or even remotely insult anyone. I stated a fact that was extremely germane to the problem at hand. I notice that neither of the police here commented on the actual problem or bothered to look into this issue; that shows their priorities here. The patently obvious solution is for either or both editors to improve their English skills - that will a) improve communication and b) improve comprehension to a point where the numerous communication and comprehension errors that make up this issue will be solved. Tan | 39 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If this "jerk" is refered to me, i send to you back. What part of "i don't edit here" or "i've received threats" haven't you understood ? I think both of you (you and Bali) need to spend another year or so studying the basis of politeness and civility before talking to me anymore. Ok !? Go to joke with another jerk ! --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a little pragmatism, such as that from Tan, would be rather useful at times. Anyways, on the original topic, it's kind of hard to tell what exactly to make of that comment, but it's obviously nothing good. Something has to be done, but this isn't my specialty here. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tan actually means well by that statement. It's just that for non-native English speakers it can be extremely hard to give a definition for the very very specific window we call things to be versus other disruptions or incident-starting events. Actually, most native English speakers here have no idea we use it a tad differently than the norm. It can just be extremely hard to try to piece together some very specific details of these disputes as the quality of the English changes frequently. For the record, however, the jp.Wikipedia icon for a sock as being a shadowed stuffed bunny is incredibly cute. We can try to find versions from before the string of contented edits started, but without further disruptions, it would be punitive and not preventative to act at much length. Oh, and of note, it's possible for many IP users to have their general location pinpointed via the Geolocate link on the tools menu given at the bottom of contribution pages for IP users. This is not intended to be used as an invasion of privacy in any way since it's information that can be found many places online anyway, but more for basic research toward WP:SPI cases. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

← Yeah. You both need to back away from each other. His "threat" was in response to your "threat" about knowing who he is. You are both in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX (2)

AvengerX (talk · contribs) I've still notified this user yesterday for threats. He continues today leaving me an absurd message of threat involving my government. Tell me what have I to think about an user who send me threats reguarding "i know who are you" and "i will inform italian government about you if you don't reflect". --79.27.142.88 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope for the restriction to this IP user. (It is guessed that this IP user is Mr.Pil56). I expect wise measures of all of you. --AvengerX (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck and good hope in another place mr, bye bye. No, it is guessed that i'm not Pil56 of it.wp, if it was your axis to threat me. Greetings from my national goverment --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have left a notification of this discussion on the user's talk page. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Shirik and Closedmouth. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is him blocked or not ? The user continues vandalizing his talk page adding offences and total false accuses of racial prejudice --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, their talkpage is NOT blocked, as they may request unblock. It's often normal to allow some degree of "venting" as long as it's not disruptive. Do not poke the bear, however (in other words, stay away from them). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

His edits are distruptive: False accuses of racism, offences to italian people (read edit summary), lots of threats and offences to Pil56 (inscribed here), and admin of it:wp who provided to block him over there. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, he has his right to defence. But he can't continues offending and threating Pil56 (believing that me and him are the same person), that's a regular en.wp user. He can't use edit summary to start offences to him and so offences to italian people. He has done to my people, i'ven't done to japanese people. I admire japaneses, but i don't like trolls, of any nation or culture. I wish you'll delete from the edit summary the offensive references to the user Pil56 --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay away from their talkpage - poking is disruptive. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not in and of themself disruptive. He will be suggested to file his proper SPI request once he decides calm down and get himself unblocked. You've done your part, now back away slowly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I request for a check user within myself and Pil56. I want to prove that me and Pil56 are two different people. So, i could stay away when he will stop to use the edit summary to offend him. He is only using the e.s. for this. I don't know who is Pil56, but i know that's a regular member of en.wp, out of this history. I've notified to his it.wp talk page of this usage. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can drop by WP:SPI yourself - they are rarely allowed to be used to "prove innocence" because they never can prove innocence. Leave the current situation alone. A report was made to ANI and the things that can be handled here are being handled. Let the admins deal with AvengerX, and the further away you get, the better. WP:DRAMA is not needed as we already have enough. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Crikey Mr IP .. was this really necessary? "Mr lamer"?!? You were advised to stop poking the bear, and to let admins deal with it. You have spent much of the day escalating this situation beyond necessary, and then wonder about why he retaliates? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After being advised to stop with racist vio's of NPA, and to refrain from accusing of sockpuppetry unless they are willing to file an SPI once unblocked, the user added this to their talkpage. I have removed it, and left a message explaining why. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note The removed attacks have been re-added and he has now turned his sights to me. It's probably a good thing that I cannot see the youtube video right now. Maybe he needs to have talkpage access removed, and I'm disengaging (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well since it didn't look like it was going anywhere, I revoked his talkpage access and reverted his latest edit. Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And now the user has decided to send me poorly written diatribes on my racist leanings, so they have had their email access revoked as well. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

low-grade edit warring and extensive personal attacks by Pyrrhon8

sorry to send this here, but I no longer know what to do with this person. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) has just gone off the deep end.

background: the article Dignity was at one point in time a personal essay here before I began working on it. ultimately the article went through and AfD discussion which resulted in a merge (with Human Dignity) and rewrite result. I carried that out. Pyrrhon periodically tried to revive certain portions of the old essay-like construction, which I mostly reverted as against the AfD consensus; he was combative, but not excessive about it. recently, however, I did some cleanup on one section of the article, with the following result:

• my cleanup edit, here
• Pyrrhon reverts, no summary
• my first revert to the cleaned up version
• my talk page request for information
• Pyrrhon's insulting talk page response
• revert by pyrrhon with insults
• my request for 30
• the 30 response
• several edits by Pyrron reinstating his old version and ignoring 30
• my revert using twinkle
• my incorporation of the 30 results
• another talk page request from me for discussion
• Pyrrhon's revert, with insulting summary
• my revert back to 30 version
• pyrrhon's next revert
• my next revert back to 30
• pyrrhon's most recent revert.
• the final straw: Pyrrhon's protracted and totally unwarranted attack which has almost no bearing on the article at all; he draws in random comments from material that's months old from multiple pages.

In short, he's editing against consensus, engaging in extreme personal attacks, and refusing to engage in discussion about any of it. If it were up to me, I would ask for a short block and a six month article ban from editing dignity, but that might just be because he's starting to irritate me. I would appreciate any action that gets him somewhere back in the vicinity on normal, civil editing practices. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my goal to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the solar system. It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia. The conflicting goals make it difficult for constructive editors to work with Ludwigs2. I have presented a list of examples here to help anyone who wants to understand why constructive editors find Ludwigs2 disruptive. I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks. I suspect he is going for some sort of record in being blocked. (He has been blocked 5 times.) As far as I am concerned, he has exhausted all the wikilove he deserves. PYRRHON  talk   23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig isn't in the wrong. You were going against consensus. The blocks of Ludwig don't have anything to do with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2's edits have improved the article. The original essay read like a Grade 10 school project; it's biased, poorly organized, and awkwardly worded with many weasel words ("some have noted" - who?). Pyrrhon's edits have not improved the article, and his actions give the appearance of article ownership - he's ignoring consensus to preserve a version which is both unsupported by consensus and unencyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off the deep end indeed. There was no malicious intent in the edit, it was a simple, regular cleanup. Pyrrhon8 reverted it without any sort of explanation: when Ludwigs2 politely and respectfully asked for one, he replied, "I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia!" (emboldening mine.) Pyrrhon8's behavior strikes me as just unacceptable and to an extend ridiculous: In his response above, he says, "It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia... ...I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks."

If you want it in policy terms, Pyrrhon8 has demonstrated complete disregard for WP:AGF ([1]), WP:NPA ([2]), and honestly, an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. The talk page discussion pretty much sums it up.

Pyrrhon, you need to be open to the idea that Ludwigs is not an evil adversary whose sole purpose is to destroy Wikipedia. Try and cooperate with them on this. You can start by talking about what content is objectionable to you, and then try and work towards a mutual solution. Does that help? ALI ^{nom nom} 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both editors are engaged in an edit war (and should be duly warned for it, both of them). That is not constructive. Regardless of content disputes, Pyrrhon8 needs to stop the personal attacks occurring in edit summaries or will be risking a block. That's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I was engaged in an edit war - I made 4 reverts over a period of 3 days, and that was in an effort to retain the consensus version and get some discussion going. I may have my flaws, but this dispute isn't an example of that. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Side question: can I go ahead and revert Dignity back to the 3O version of the article? I can wait if people prefer, but any subsequent discussion about article changes ought to start from that version. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a better question asked on Talk:Dignity. We are not in a position to judge content here. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Pyrrhon

About red herrings and consensus

Re Dignity, I am not editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. No one is editing to recreate the article that existed in November 2008. The idea is a Red herring (idiom), a rhetorical device that is very popular with disruptive editors.

On 1 March 2009, Belasted nominated Dignity for deletion. He suggested that Wikipedia make do with a deplorable article called "Human dignity." The article on Human dignity had two sections. One section was Christian dogma. The other section was about the laws of Germany.

I proposed that Human dignity's section about the laws of Germany be moved to Dignity, and that the article "Human dignity" be deleted. The issue of consensus arose. There was no consensus to delete Dignity so the nomination failed. There was general agreement that the articles should be merged. On 5 March 2009, Ludwigs2 mashed the contents of Human dignity into Dignity. He deleted Human dignity.

Ludwigs2 moved the section about the laws of Germany to the end of the article. He inserted the dogma as a sentence here, a phrase there. I had no objection to the section on Germany. I did not like the poorly-written mishmash that the remainder of the article had become. (Back in September or October 2008, I had to undo a similar mishmash when Ludwigs2 inserted a different example of dogma into the article.) Despite the disruptive efforts of Ludwigs2, I eliminated all the bad writing. In May or June, Ludwigs2 insisted on having a badly written introduction. I appealed to the Administrators to stop his disruptive editing, but no one was helpful. I gave up on the article. I had other articles that I wanted to write and to improve.

Now, Ludwigs2 says I am "editing against consensus." A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus I suppose Ludwigs2's idea of a group is himself and NativeForeigner. They have agreed, it seems, that Ludwigs2's changes to Dignity would make it better.

Let us consider just one of Ludwigs2's changes. Ludwigs2 wants this line about Mirandola in the article: This oration is commonly seen as one of the central texts of the Renaissance, intimately tied with the growth of humanist philosphies. I do not understand how this assertion is pertinent to what dignity is. I am not told what percent of the population is caught up in "commonly." I am not told who sees the oration as a "central text." I am not told what a "central text" is. I am not told what the central texts have to do with dignity. I am not told what the "humanist philosphies" are. I am not told how it is that they grow. I am not told what it means that texts are "intimately tied" with philosphies. There is no explanation for the assertion. The assertion has no references. Who said this? Is the assertion original research?

I picked this line from Ludwigs2's writing because it is typical of his style. His style is full of complicated phrases, undefined terms, and weasel-words. He has never added a reference to Dignity. I do not know if he has any use for references. Because he is not familiar with the references, he makes statements that misrepresent what an author said or what an author meant. He deletes sentences that are critical to understanding the concept being discussed.

It is a tedious and thankless job to turn Ludwigs2's writing into something meaningful and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I have had to sort out his messes twice. I do not want him spoiling Dignity again.

And yet NativeForeigner says that Ludwigs2's writing makes Dignity easier to understand—not impossible to understand, but easier. NellieBly says, "Ludwig2's edits have improved the article." Ali says Ludwigs2 performed a "cleanup." How is nonsense a cleanup? How do weasel-words improve an article? Ludwigs2 says he has consensus to use his style. In effect, he is saying he is improving Dignity by complicated phrases, undefined terms, weasel-words, and original and unreferenced research.

How do we reconcile the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 with articles like these: WP:WEASEL, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, and on and on? If Ludwigs2, with his way of doing things, is the constructive editor, and I am the disruptive editor, then it must be that many articles about how to edit on Wikipedia are just plain wrong. Clearly, those articles have their ideas about good editing and bad editing upside down. If bad writing makes an article better-flowing and easier to understand, then we should all take it as our duty to write badly. We should believe, it seems, bad writing is really good writing. Nevertheless, until Wikipedia changes its articles, I will not take the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 seriously. I will continue to pay attention to WP:DUTY!

About personal attacks

I understand that many people interpret any statement of fact or any display of logic as an affront or as a "personal attack." I am reminded of the case of the Scottish lad, Thomas Aikenhead. He remarked one day that religion was nonsense. The priests had him killed for his "attack" upon religion.

I do not regard a statement of fact or a display of logic as an "attack." I am pleased to say I have nothing in common mentally with anyone who does. PYRRHON  talk   05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

for reference, here are the first and second deletion nomination discussions, and their results: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity_(2nd_nomination). I've gone ahead and restored the article to the most recent consensus version, since there was no commentary on my request above. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

P.s. Pyrrhon, if you're really trying to improve the article and not just reinvent the [august 2008] version, then this would go a lot more smoothly if you discussed the matter with me on the talk page. I have taken a profound dislike to you, but I will deal with it if you get over this and start behaving civilly. --Ludwigs2 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us get back to the issue here. Is it time to ban Ludwigs2? I say YES. Does anybody else say YES? It takes only two to make a consensus (so I am told). PYRRHON  talk   17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

well, he reverted the consensus version again, with another uncivil edit summary here and continues on protracted rants against me. Is someone going to deal with this inveterate troll, or are you all going to wait until it escalates into a full-scale conflict? I will eventually lose my temper. The endless reverts at dignity will not go away until (a) he settles down and talks the issue out or (b) he gets blocked, and the possibility of (a) given his current behavior is so remote that I find it inconceivable. really, I don't fucking mind if he wants to edit the article, BUT GET THIS LITLE PIECE OF @#$% OFF MY BACK! --Ludwigs2 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, no, there's no reason to ban Ludwigs2 because you are in a content disagreement with him, that's uncalled for. The only person whose conduct suggests some sort of sanction, in my eyes, is yourself for refusing to participate in dispute resolution efforts at the article and for your repeated personal attacks.

Ludwigs2, while personal attacks have been made I fail to see how the edit summary in your most recent diff even comes close. I wonder if I'm missing something there. -- Atama頭 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave the wrong diff, sorry. correct one is here. very mild by comparison with his other attacks, but he was really pissing me off there for a bit and I got flustered. I'm better now. . --Ludwigs2 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a nice thing to say, and definitely editing against consensus. However, apart from posting to ANI, what dispute resolution steps have you gone through so far to try to resolve this issue? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for clarification and discussion on that talk page a couple of times, with no positive results (Pyrrhon ignored the requests for the most part, and posted anti-me rants when he did post something). I opened a 3O on the conflict and got a response, but Pyrrhon ignored the process and the result. I opened a wikiquette - Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dignity - which as you see only got a string of abuse and not much else. after that, I brought it here. I might have tried mediation if I could get him to respond to me with anything other than abuse, but his responses to me have been so over the top I doubted that would have made one whit of difference.

I really don't know why he is quite this POed at me - I've just come off a multi-month wikibreak, so I haven't interacted with him in ages. I made what I thought was an innocuous cleanup edit and he came out swinging. it's possible it wasn't innocuous (please tell me if you think I overstepped), but heavens!, he went from 0 to arrggh in 5 seconds flat.

maybe the best thing here (since he refuses to communicate with me) is for someone else to speak with him and figure out what's going on. if it's something personal I can redress I'm happy to oblige, but I'm just at a complete loss. --Ludwigs2 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds like instituting a 1RR on this editor might be a good idea. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Response2 by Pyrrhon

Ludwigs2's remarks above at 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) constitute an example of the argumentum ad baculum. The "argument" is nothing more than a threat. Bullies, thugs, and assorted belligerents favor this "argument". It shifts a dispute away from logic into the realm of madness, where the bully, thug, or what-have-you has an advantage. No reputable philosopher has ever found the argument persuasive, but many philosophers and scientists have had to retract their theses and agree to madness because of it. Galileo is one example of a scientist who had to repudiate reason when confronted by madness. Kant is a philosopher who had to put a bridle on his atheistic tendencies when King Frederick observed that Kant would have difficulty teaching without a head. I mention Galileo and Kant because their circumstances illustrate that the "argument" usually governs the interaction between the bully, thug, or what-have-you and the intended victim. This interaction is the conventional application of the "argument".

Here, Ludwigs2 has played a variation on the conventional application of the argumentum ad baculum. He has cut the intended victim (me) out of the picture. He has issued his ultimatum not to me but to the editors of Wikipedia. He has commanded the persons around here to do something, or HE WILL LOSE HIS TEMPER. The persons around here have to consider whether it is worth the risk to Wikipedia to have Ludwigs2 lose his temper.

It might be expedient to sacrifice one constructive editor and one article for the sake of all the other editors on Wikipedia. The persons around here have to consider what Ludwigs2 might do if he is not obeyed. How will they feel if he holds his breath and his head explodes and there are no super-slo-mo cameras to catch the action?

Ludwigs2 may have stumbled upon a winning strategy to get his way. It seems that some editors cannot understand what a disruptive editor is. It seems that some editors have faith that "Ludwig isn't in the wrong." It seems that some editors devoutly believe that inserting inane gibberish into articles is what editors should do. If Ludwigs2 can gather enough birds of a feather around him, he may prevail.

Because Ludwigs2 has shrewdly played a variation of the argumentum ad baculum, some editors may contemplate the issue as a choice between compliance and mutiny. They may be asking themselves: should they obey the commands of Wikipedia's self-appointed captain, or should they make him walk the plank?

I hope the editors of Wikipedia will not frame the issue in that way. I would rather that they consider Ludwigs2 a cancer that needs to be cut out of the body if the body is to survive. There is no point in hanging on to a cancer. I say cut it out, and let us get back to work. PYRRHON  talk   17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 "threatened" to lose his temper (if you want to put it in those terms), that "threat" was ignored, he later calmed down, and no harm was done. The only person making a big deal out of this is yourself. My question to you is why you've bothered to write this diatribe. Are you trying to stir up drama? And a further question, will you commit to no longer putting ad hominem attacks in edit summaries? Will you agree to using dispute resolution to come to a peaceful and collaborative solution at dignity rather than demanding that your version be the version that is in place? Those are what I am concerned about, I really don't care of Ludwigs2 gets mad and has to go punch a pillow now and again off-wiki. -- Atama頭 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay this is getting out of hand, the two of you are not doing any sensible discussion with each other, just sniping back and forth. I've protected the article now for two weeks. Please discuss the article on the talk page. Do no discuss each other, do not complain about frivolous edits and no reverting of each others comments. Discuss the article and how you can improve it. If you can't get along on the article then we may need to revisit this, but I protected it before people start getting topic banned or blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

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

Hi, all. I'm really not sure where to start here. I've been running into trouble with Badagnani pretty much every time I run into him. Edit warring, incivility, AGF problems -- pretty much everything except outright vandalism. A lot of my edits are geared toward removing spam and listcruft, and to that end, I've been working a lot on pages of professional sports teams, and musicians and their instruments.

Currently, I'm finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid an edit war with a user who seems bent on provoking one. At goblet drum, I deleted an a set of spam links, a list of allegedly notable players (some so notable they were redlinked), and a list of translations of "goblet drum" into other languages. On the last point, I was removing the material because it was unsourced and because it violated WP:WWIN, specifically WP:NOTDIC, which specifies that lists of translations are appropriate for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.

I was quickly reverted by Badagnani, who claimed the information was "absolutely essential." He said he wanted to discuss the change at the talk page, but he never posted. In turn, another user reverted him. All was fine for a month, until Badagnani again decided that the edit was "ridiculous" and reverted it, again without discussion.

Although his edit summaries frequently implore other editors to discuss their changes, Badagnani consistently declines to participate himself. Just the same, I attempted to get a conversation going at the talk page, but was met with dismissive comments, mild insults and no effort to address my concerns. I reiterated my concerns, but after nearly a week, they were still left unaddressed. I therefore left a message at Badagnani's talk page, which he answered only to accuse me of attacking him and being ignorant of Persian translations. I made a final effort to get my questions answered, but to no avail.

Because he made it clear he was not interested in providing sources or explaining why WP:NOTDIC should be disregarded, I went ahead and removed the material again. Inside of 10 minutes, I was reverted again, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary.

Badagnani then went on an editing tear, adding references (some germane, so less so) and the like. In hopes of finding a middle ground, I tried to begin tagging different types of goblet drums with the "Goblet-shaped drum" category in hopes that it could serve as a sufficient collection of the different subtypes that Badagnani was trying to assemble. In doing so, I happened upon Badagnani engaging in an edit war with User:Ronz at Glong yao, where he was fighting [3] [4] [5] to pass off a coatracked advertisement as a reliable source. At that talk page, I discovered a discussion nearly identical to the one at Talk:goblet drum: another editor raises concerns, Badagnani (1) dismisses them; (2) makes accusations of bad faith editing; and (3) reverts.

Additionally, a review of his edits shows that he is removing "unreferenced BLP" tags from articles he's written but failed to source [6] [7]. Of course, restoring them only invites him to revert without discussion [8].

The most annoying thing about this is that Badagnani really could be a very useful editor. The bulk of his work consists of good-faith, high-quality edits, especially in areas that are typically neglected by most editors or where most editors lack the expertise to work confidently. But like Terrell Owens, he is creating a distraction that prevents other editors from moving forward and that is sure to be a turn-off to newbies.

I'm hoping someone here has the charm or heft to effect a change. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the unsourced BLP, he may be counting the ELs as sources; did you try explaining that inline cites are better for verification and that we need significant coverage in reliable sources? He should know better than to be obstinate in his editing, so have you thought of filing a WP:RFC/U? I can't see any behaviour that requires admin intervention. Fences&Windows 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there does seem to be a pattern of low-level incivility and edit-warring, if this block log is anything to go by:[9] Fences&Windows 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This behavior is identical to that which lead up to some of his previous blocks. See his RFCU for more details. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

We almost indef blocked him the last time I remember this coming up. We didn't, so it comes up again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The last ANI on him appears to be Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Badagnani_category_blanking_again.

1RR was discussed as well as an indef block.--Ronz (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to respectfully disagree that there isn't any behavior that warrants intervention. It appears to me that Badagnani has become adept at gaming the system, pushing his edit wars to the edge of WP:3RR and then coming back when the time is right. If you'll take a look at his record (and it took a while for me to compile this, so I don't blame you for not getting around to it), you'll see that Badagnani's behavior has been marked by the same tendentious patterns, incivility and disregard for consensus-building for several years now.

Allow me to demonstrate. I am not the first to find that Badagnani is quick to revert constructive edits that he happens to oppose, ask for discussion then refuse to particpate. Nor am I the first to suggest that he is a habitual edit warrior. In fact, his disruptive edits have been brought to the attention of adminstrators numerous times.

I'll hasten to add that he wasn't found to have been in the wrong every single time someone had a complaint with him, but it's clear from his record that he is either unable or unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia in a manner that will keep the project moving forward. Like I said above: A lot of the work he's done has been fantastic, but at this point, Badagnani has proven himself to be more trouble than he's worth. — Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I'll end with a salient quote:

   Please, one can't talk oneself out of 4 reverts. It's just not permitted and the editor has been editing long
   enough that he should be well aware of our policies on this matter.
   Badagnani 3:58 am, 11 May 2007, Friday (2 years, 7 months, 27 days ago) (UTC−4)

— Bdb484 (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, what about that 1RR again? I got turned down last time. And yes, his approval rating among the folks at WP:VIET seems to have steadily gone into the floor YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 07:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support imposition of WP:1RR. Badagnani's contributions are valuable enough that we should try anything we can to avoid an indefinite block. At the same time, he needs to understand that the community's patience with his disruptive editing patterns is stretched very, very thin. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Badagnani. He hasn't indicated yet that he has any idea what the problem is, but maybe this'll work. It would be great if he doesn't have to go, although I'm not optimistic. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 1RR for Badagnani. --Kleinzach 23:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The content at the center of this issue is - the local names of an instrument (Goblet drum#Names specifically).
-Adding alternative names is in-line with advice at Wikipedia:Lead section#Alternative names, but in conflict with information at WP:NOTDICT.
-Per examples like Vodka and Sushi, we clearly have to have at least some local names. Per examples like Harry Potter in translation and List of Asterix characters#Getafix it is sometimes very informative to have long lists of translations/local names. But we also clearly don't want 250 translations of the word "spoon" at spoon.
-This whole issue needs a wider discussion, somewhere appropriate. Badagnani is not at all clearly in the wrong here.

That said, Badagnani is very uncommunicative, and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication. Having 2 editors hounding him for years isn't helping though. I'd support 1RR for Badagnani, if Ronz and Grayoshi2x could refrain from reverting/harassing/poking Badagnani (eg this kind of provocative behavior is pointy and unhelpful). -- Quiddity (talk) 03:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "the content at the center of this issue", I'm not sure I agree that it's the name of a musical instrument. I think whatever edit you're talking about is absolutely not why we're talking about Badagnani here at AN/I. The "center of this issue" is precisely that: "Badagnani is very uncommunicative and prone to exaggeration and opaque communication," as you say. That's the only problem. It's not the nature of the one straw that matters; it's the back of the camel.

If Ronz and Grayoshi2x agree to give him a mile's berth, his communication style will simply create more Ronzes and Grayoshi2xes. Do we have to issue restraining orders, one by one, to everyone that Badagnani unintentionally treats like shit? I don't agree with the way Ronz in handling the situation, and I've let him know that, but if Ronz were to go on extended vacation to Mars tomorrow, Badagnani would still be causing problems here. That will remain true until he somehow grasps that the way he's dealing with other people is crap, and needs to change if he's going to work on this project. We're doing a terrible job of sending him that message so far, because it's been this long with virtually no progress.

Can anyone even get him to recognize what he's doing that upsets so many people? I tried to tell him for weeks, and then I gave up, and I'm not welcome on his talk page anymore. Can anyone tell me how they see this resolving, realistically in this universe? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your approach and attitude very disturbing GTB. Badagnani edits in good faith and he does an ENORMOUS amount of content work. Like other editors who are prolific, he sometimes comes into conflict. That Ronz and Grayoshi have been allowed to pursue conflicts with this editor for this long is outrageous and your involvement has encouraged these highly destructive behaviors. There are lots of areas of the encyclopedia and they don't need to seek out his work. As Quiddity points out, there are good reasons and policies for his editing. He's not easy to work with, but many many many many many editors do okay with it. So the obvious solution is for those who can't work with him to avoid him. Putting him on a 1RR while allowing stalkers to continue harassing him is outrageous. You have a long history of conflict with him, and it's unfortunate that you've returned to trying to box him in instead of working with him and helping him in a collegial manner. Why don't you follow dispute resolution on the drum naming issue and whatever other CONTENT ISSUES there are, and cease trying to block anyone who doesn't toe the line you think they should. Alternatively, enforce an interaction ban with those causing problems. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions, ChildofMidnight; I'll think about what you said. At present, I disagree with almost all of it, but I'll inevitably think about it, and possibly modify my behavior accordingly. I'm glad that you recognize my extreme frustration that stemmed from attempting to help this editor in the past. I don't trust your judgment six inches, though, and I'm extremely glad that you're not in any position of power here. I find your "approach and attitude" at least as disturbing as you find mine. Jolly. You really burned your bridge with me; good work.

Also, I like how you assume wrong shit about what I believe, and what I support. Bye now; I hope not to hear from you again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a 1RR restriction and/or another RFC/U. I have also seen Badagnani revert very constructive cleanup efforts and subsequently refuse to engage in discussion over the reverts. I feel this behaviour is very disruptive to the quality of the project. ThemFromSpace 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose GTBacchus has been well aware that I'm no fan of Badagnani at all. Granted, I actually gave up long ago that he would listen to my repeated pleas not to insert annoying hidden questions or original research and urge me to find materials or expand articles for satisfying his curiosity. Just like some editor said last May, if we want to peacefully cooperate with him, we should use special conversation skills for him (yeah, that may sound too lenient). Though I bite the bullet since his general contribution is very helpful to improve Wikipedia especially articles with a small viewership. I also highly doubt that "informal" WP:Mentorship would work for him since as he's promoted himself, he has a high pride as a "long-term productive editor". In his view, mentors should revert for him or block his opponents from engaging in disruptive blanking campaign no matter what they complain. Due to the outright misunderstanding on purposes of mentorship, GTBacchus's efforts got no gain.
• However, I think the aforementioned one-sided IRR would be not effective but rather increase high chances for his "current" opponents such as User:Ronz and User:GraYoshi2x to take advantage of it to block him. For example, Grayoshi2x's had been poking on Badagnani for quite a while by intentionally removing Wiktionary links from Chinese characters within articles" against the formed consensus on WT:CHINA in May. After both were recently reported to WP:AN3 and admonished by admins, User:Rjanag and User:EdJohnston, the consensus that Grayoshi2x solely objected was reconfirmed at WT:CHINA#Wiktionary_redux. Neither did bother to open a discussion on the issue. After the incident, Grayoshi2x has now introduced a new way of "provoking Badagnani" by removing "names of subjects" from many articles including Napa cabbage[10][11][12], Longan, Hoa Kỳ, List of pasta, Ron Kovic, Kai-lan, Daikon, Lychee, Lettuce and others. Unlike Grayoshi2x's edit summaries, he also has not bothered himself to open a discussion at the pertinent talk page. I was just close to report the both to here due to their another set of endless WP:LAME edit-wars. I'm sure if I had informed of their warring to the mentioned admins, they both would've had at least one-week vacation together. So if Grayoshi2x, Ronz, and Badagnani or others who may conflict with him over content disputes are not equally judged by the same ground, I won't support the 1RR patrol only applying to Badagnani. Either enforce 1RR to the three or WP:ARBCOM.--Caspian blue 05:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'd be comfortable with a group 1RR. I think it's stupid how long we've let this situation fester. If it makes people less unhappy to do it via ArbCom, then do it via ArbCom. I wouldn't use the word "judge" for any of it, but whatever. We don't need to talk philosophy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm interested though... if Ronz and Grayoshi2x dropped off the planet, how many other editors have been driven to frustration and anger by Badagnani's... style? Conversely, if Badagnani magically weren't here, how many other editors have Ronz and Grayoshi2x been having issues with? Do they "stalk" a lot of people, thus justifying the label used above by ChildofMidnight, or are they just reacting badly to a particularly difficult editor who refuses to listen to anyone?

      This knowledge would inform any decision about which preventative measures would be most effective. I don't know the answers to those questions, but if we're trying to solve whatever problem we're talking about, these questions seem to matter, perhaps. Again, I don't oppose 1RR all around. Hell, I think it oughtta be site policy for everyone. Second reverts are silly; how many times do you try a locked door to decide if it's locked? Once is enough. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

      • User:Ronz seems to have been reported to WQA quite many times for his incivility and harassment of editors (5 WQA files) beside Badagnani's matter. As for User:GraYoshi2x, he has not been that much active, but his contribution for the past 9 months are largely edit-warring with Badagnani. One of which even chased down Badagnani to Commons by using WP:SOCK ips. That definitely an "immediately blockable offense" (perhaps, up to an indefinite block). However, Badagnani was also poor at defending himself against such unacceptable behaviors. Therefore, it is unfair to say that Badagnani is the only guilty party. Given this circumstance, if Badagnani is the one getting the IRR sanction, sadly, he would've been likely baited and blocked. Then, he will leave Wikipedia for good which is not beneficial to Wikipedia in a long-term perspective. If any sanction must take place, I can support the idea of the group 1RR, mutual interaction ban. Or strong mentorship program in which his mentors can guide or block him if he refuses to abide by policies could be an option. However, my idea would sound unpleasant to the mentioned people, so that's why I suggest WP:ARBCOM to equally judge the involved party's conducts.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely and totally irrelevant. When's the last time I've been reported to WQA? (Hint: Long ago) What was the outcomes of all the WQAs I've been involved? (Hint: I was being harassed by others).--Ronz (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct is "true" unlike your "baseless accusation"[13] left on my talk page to harass me. I'm only mentioning the fact just because Badagnani should not be solely blamed for the whole issue. In fact, Badagnani's problem became on the big highlight in a row ever since you and GraYoshi2x began conflicting with him. I don't know why you're so upset about the neutral statement on who did what since you've quoted Badagnani's RFC/U so many times in reference with his behavior. I had tried to meditate (rather defended you) and advised you, while you were not willing to compromise different points of view such as violating WP:3RR and even bullying me so you were warned by admin.[14][15] Considering that Badagnani has been one of "top content builders", I can put up with Badagnani's obnoxious behavior than yours. I am very skeptical of the 1RR sanction only imposed to Badagnani.--Caspian blue 18:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Then you admit that my assessment on your conduct" Quite the contrary. Your assessment of others' conduct appears biased and disruptive, being based upon your personal grudges and an inability to assume good faith.

I stand by my comments on Nihonjoe's talk page. I stand by my claims that your accusations are irrelevant and baseless. --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then, you did not learn any lesson yet from the warning. My assessment on your conducts including harassment and personal attacks are very much relevant indeed to the issue. Your "grudge-driven motive" makes you hound Badagnani even though the article in recently named had originally nothing to do with you.--Caspian blue 20:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, I can't agree that questions about your conduct are completely irrelevant. If you're acting in a way that provokes Badagnani more than necessary, then you're a direct cause of any resulting disruption. I'm not saying this is true; there's an "if" there. However, if this were to go to ArbCom, they would definitely examine your behavior and Grayoshi2x's as well as Badagnani's.

@Caspian: people don't tend to "learn lessons" from warnings, especially if those warnings come from someone they don't accept as an authority. Thus, your warnings to Ronz are no more effective than Ronz's warnings to Badagnani. Unless you think there's a realistic chance that Ronz will read your words and say, "gee, I guess you're right; I'll change", then there's no good reason to post those words.

Warnings among established users are worth extremely little, and their use tends to generate entirely more heat than light. I fail to see a good case for heat-generation, which I why I leave Badagnani the heck alone now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The evidence which Bdb484 provides is troubling. Caspian blue makes some good but not as convincing points too though. I agree with Caspain blue, please escalate this to arbcom. I am extremely leary of ANI imposed sanctions. Therefore I strongly oppose sanctioning the editor here. Ikip 06:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions. I see things like this [16] where Bdb484 seems determined to delete things without reason, not understanding the subject, and Badagnani makes a good case for keeping that information in there. I see he has on many occasions reverted what he considers to be mindless deletion of information by people who know nothing of the subject. And in some cases, like the example I mentioned, he is right to do this. Other times, more discussion on the talk page, and seeking additional input from people, to form a consensus on what should be in the article and what should not, would be preferred. Dream Focus 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get too bogged down in the details, but in this instance, I made the change, and after Badagnani, I took the issue to the talk page. By my understanding, that's how WP:BRD is supposed to work.

But before you click on that link, feel free to guess whether Badagnani has bothered to participate in that discussion. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban?

Why not just initiate an interaction ban? I don't understand why this feuding has been allowed to spread to new articles. If there is a general issue, like these concerns over including names or translations, they can be discussed on the project page until consensus is reached. But the individual editors who don't get along should just work on separate projects. There's no reason for anyone to pursue Badagnani to incite conflict and those doing so should be blocked post haste. The conflict is damaging and the attacks on an extraordinary content contributor are disturbing. Let's resolve whatever the underlying content conflicts are and seperate the disputants once and for all. Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble. Changes should be done with consensus and using ANI to win conflict disputes and to go after people with different opinions is wholly unconstructive and an odious practice. If anyone is out of patience then go work on something else. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also a fine suggestion, although I think it postpones the inevitable. I wouldn't oppose it; it's another road. Let's go there, and then see. Sure. Good idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Since CoM seems not to be responding to the RfC on his conduct on Project pages, now might be the right time to point out that here yet again he is making intemperate comments on disputes in which he is not involved. He has been criticized for this in the RfC and most recently by members of the new ArbCom.

Ikip and Caspian blue should remember that community sanctions are normally enacted here and are usually considered a step in WP:DR that precedes escalation to RfAr. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"intemperate" i.e. unrestrained comments? COM made a suggestion which GTBacchus agrees to, which I think is a good idea. I appreciate his assitance in this matter.

COM's non-response to his RFC is irrelevant to the issue here.

Community sanctions are sometimes inacted without escalation to arbcom. That is what I would like to avoid.

Although I support WP:Equality the reality is there is preferential treatment given to veteran editors. Few editors are more veteran than Badagnani. Badagnani has been here 4 years. With 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. #28 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits/latest Ikip 16:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Both CoM and Badagnani are members of WP:FOOD and have worked together for some articles. In fact, Mathsci, your business here seems to be only related to your relationship with CoM. I don't support community sanction since people calling out "burn the witch" are either largely filled with "angry people" or "angry people's friends", or ANI regulars who do not know well about the past history. The latter tend to pile on a majority's view by adding "per whose comment" without checking the whole issue. Though, I can support "group 1RR" or "mutual interaction ban" that would be fair for everyone.--Caspian blue 17:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My post above was a low key friendly reminder to CoM. A response from CoM would have been good: your own comments don't seem either helpful or accurate. Many other users, including admins, have participated in his RfC; some new arbitrators have commented on ArbCom pages. It has been pointed out recently that if CoM ignores other users' comments in the RfC, he could find himself the subject of an ArbCom case. It would be best to avoid that possibility, but that depends on CoM, not on other editors. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "low key friendly reminder" for CoM would've been much accomplished at CoM's talk page (not sarcasm), but here is not a good place to persuade him. Since the issue is about Badagnani, if CoM wants to defend his "friend", that is CoM's right. CoM's proposal is good, but I don't know how effectively it would work in the circumstance. --Caspian blue 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Badagnani has been behaving exactly as this ANI report describes (baseless accusations, insistence on doing things his way while refusing to discuss his objections or provide any kind of supporting information, ignoring all attempts to try to find a compromise) for years, and been brought to ANI over and over for it, as Bdb484's list of links indicates. And he almost always escapes punishment here, despite refusing to even acknowledge the situation or speak to his own defense at all, because he has some friends who always stick up for him and other people who will agree that when he's not in a dispute, he makes a lot of good contributions. Which doesn't excuse his absolutely horrendous behavior when he does get into a dispute.

He's going to keep doing the same stuff, over and over, because he very rarely suffers consequences (and apparently even the 30-day block didn't help). Yes, there are some specific people he has run-ins with over and over again, because those are people who work on the same topic areas and will try to improve his articles and who have the knowledge and motivation to bring the issue to another venue when he refuses to allow changes he doesn't like. The situation is not that those are the only people he has conflicts with and if he doesn't talk to them, he'll get along just peachy. (Has Bdb484 been accused of chasing Badagnani down and provoking him into a dispute?) The other unproductive "solution" that I've seen bandied about is that ever y single person who ever disagrees with Badagnani should have learn some special set of rules for communicating with him in a way that might possibly potentially convince him to discuss an issue productively, and it's that person's fault if they just try to speak to him like a rational human being and he won't respond like one. That's obviously ridiculous. As always, my opinion on Badagnani is he should be sitebanned until he shows a real willingness to acknowledge his poor behavior and improve it. (Of course, he hasn't acknowledged this ANI. If he avoids ANI discussions because he thinks they're unfair, as some of his friends have suggested, I don't see how that's an excuse; if I get an unfair parking ticket, I don't get it thrown out by simply failing to acknowledge it.) Propaniac (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

About a year ago I completly gave up watch listing my 100 plus articles I have written, and the hundreds of articles I have contributed too. Why? Because I found that I was spending more time policing my contributions than writing new contributions.

Badagnani has 138,234 edits and 1,344 articles created. I would guess that he has those 1,344 articles watchlisted, despite WP:OWN editors tend to police their articles they spent hours and hours and hours on, and get frustrated when editors come along and delete large portions of well refenced text.

Not being involved until yesterday, I can't vouch for this statment: "Badagnani has been editing the Goblet drum article since 2005 with no apparent problem. So Ronz shouldn't be coming in and looking for trouble."

But I can say that in my interaction with Ronz in the past, Ronz tends to WP:Bully. I can probably guess how the Goblet drum interaction between Ronz and Badagnani went, but don't want to make any assumptions.

Many of the editors who are calling for Badagnani's block above have the same characteristics. Instead of writing articles and contributing content, most of their time on wikipedia is spent deleting other editors good faith contributions.

Ikip 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Goblet drum:

Ronz first edit to the Goblet drum is to re-delete what User:Bdb484 had deleted. 17:20, 30 Nov 2009.[17]

Ronz has never added a single source to the article. Ronz only edits were deleting other editors contributions and tagging the article.

The first time that Ronz discusses his deletions/tagging on the talk page is 00:13, 5 Jan 2010.[18]

56 edits to User talk:Badagnani.[19]

I guessed it right, same modus operandi as I have seen repeatedly before:

# delete

# edit war

# spilling over to talk page arguments.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ronz 2? Ikip 20:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you do that, don't go directly to 2. The first "RfC" on Ronz was never certified, and was abandoned in draft form early last year. I've therefore deleted it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lord knows I would never start it. But thanks for deleting the first one.

I think a mutual ban from each other would be good. Never having worked with Badagnani before, but based on the list above, Badagnani's editing habits are probably like Ronz.

Badagnani appears like he gets in enough (stupid) edit wars. I am at a complete loss at how an editor can have been here so long, with so many edits, and not know all the ins and outs of 3RR. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that I've held myself to 1rr there. Quite the edit war! --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz. Honestly, if we are talking about Goblet drum would Badagnani, Bdb484 agree to 1RR, of course there are ways around this (off-wiki meatpuppetry) but it is a start.

Unfortunatly after my comments about Ronz, I think it is better if GTBacchus make comprimising suggestions, as I will probably be seen as too (justifiably) biased at this point against Ronz.

If an interaction ban were to be seriously proposed this is a good template to work off of, (the only one I am aware of) which offers very little wiggle room. Ikip 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz just messaged me on my talk page that he would be happy with a 1rr.[20]

I must say, Ronz, I am very impressed by your mannerism. It is like talking to a completly different editor than early last year, late 2008. Nice job (sincerely). Maybe I was completly wrong, and I will strike many of my assumptions, and will refactor them out with only a link remaining if anyone asks. My apologies. Ikip 21:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If Ronz (and possibly Grayoshi2x?) hold themselves to 1RR in interactions with Badagnani, it could help us determine the source of the problems. If it's true that Ronz's and Grayoshi2x's treatment of Badagnani is what sets him off, then their disengaging should lead to peace. If they back off, and Badagnani gets into the same problems with other editors, then I think we can say that Ronz and Grayoshi2x weren't the problem. Make sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ikip!

Yes, I'm happy to stick to 1RR with him if editors feel that would help the situation. I had also agreed with GTBacchus that I'd be more cautious with using his talk page, not repeating myself there. --Ronz (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz, on wikipedia, in a sea of forced civility it is hard to make sure if an editor is sincere or simply going through the required motions forced upon all of us. I appreciate you taking my comments at face value, because they were sincere. I am sure you have become a much more effective editor now. Some of us learn faster than others (it took me much much longer). Maybe Badagnani can learn something from you about how to conduct himself on wikipedia more effectively [although he would probably never admit it :)]

GTBacchus, I am so uninvolved in this dispute, I don't know who Grayoshi2x is. I do know that the Ronz's reversion of Badagnani was to User:Bdb484 edit, who seemed to be also edit warring with User:Bdb484. User:Bdb484 also initiated this ANI.

If there was a 1RR requirement excluding User:Bdb484, and User:Bdb484 and Badagnani got in a protracted edit war, what would this show?

A Bdb484/Badagnani edit war would show that Badagnani was edit warring, of course. But what else?

Has Caspian been involved in these edit wars too? Ikip 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't understand why anyone edit-wars, ever. It's clearly the wrong way to do things, and there are so many smarter strategies. The thing is, it takes two to edit war. If Badagnani is on 1RR, then Bdb484 can't really edit-war with him, because you can't tango with a tree. I'd support putting everyone in this thread, myself included, on permanent 1RR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would be fine with me (and I'd rather just stop interaction with him altogether for a while). It's not like our edit warring is solving anything, so a 1RR/wikibreak will help relieve tensions. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

It sounds like the main objections to imposing WP:1RR are that (a) the whole thing should be bumped up to ArbCom for a more definitve solution; and (b) Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi.

To be honest, I'm just don't know, procedurally speaking, whether this is appropriate for ArbCom, but perhaps I could propose a compromise that would allow us to solve this without further escalation. If Badagnani has chronic communication problems, regardless of which editors he's interacting with; and concerns have been raised about Ronz and Grayoshi interactions with Badagnani alone, perhaps we could impose 1RR on Badagnani, project-wide and impose 1RR on Ronz and Grayoshi, as well, but only with respect to edits made by Badagnani.

Given the pattern of these editors' interactions, such a rule might give R & G a leg up, but given Badagnani's history, that may be acceptable. If Badagnani reverts, then Ronz reverts, they're both at a dead-end. The pre-revert version of the article will be maintained until consensus can be reached at the talk page.

This seems to me like it might address all the problem areas. Anyone else? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to find ways to work with him, and interject when he's in conflict with others. Mostly, he doesn't respond, which is an improvement for him. For example, in All in This Tea, when I removed some linkspam [21] he reverted [22] with the edit summary "+". I reverted [23], and left him a comment on his talk page about it [24]. He didn't continue the dispute, nor did he remove my comment on his talk page. While the edit summary is strange, this demonstrates that editors can work with Badagnani in a way where his behavior is acceptable.

As far as I can tell, Bdb484 first interacted with Badagnani in an almost identical situation at Oud. Sadly, it resulted in an edit-war, and likely led us to this ANI. 1RR would definitely had helped in Oud, and might have prevented this ANI discussion entirely. --Ronz (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that in the case of Oud, I noticed the edit-warring but kept out of it, other than to comment at the end of the talk page discussion [25]. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RECAP

1. The chances of a 1RR for Badagnani being imposed here at ANI are slim. But everyone wants to avoid arbcom.
2. GTBacchus and Childofmidnight come up with a possible solution.
3. The agreed upon proposal thus far was GraYoshi2x, Ronz had 1RR. Badagnani has yet to agree or disagree.
4. I brought up a concern that there seems to be a pattern of edit warring with Bdb484 and Badagnani too. I also ask Caspian blue if he has edit warred two. I have not yet received a response.

^^^^^

1. Bdb484 then proposes further restrictions on Badagnani.
2. Ronz then follows up with more edit diffs about Badagnani possible bad behavior.

Bdb484 offer, Badagnani's stark choices. Ronz comments.

Bdb484, I cannot speak for Badagnani, but if it was me personally, I would reject Bdb484's new proposal. This is because Badagnani was given a better offer before. GraYoshi2x, Ronz, Badagnani equally have 1RR. That better offer is still open. Bdb484 is now offering something more restrictive now. Compromise usually doesn't involve a good offer, followed by a worse one. "Badagnani will simply be baited into a block by Ronz or Grayoshi." Let me give an example to illustrate my concern. Lets take the article Goblet drum lets say that Ronz and/or Grayoshi get in an edit war with Badagnani. Each editor does there 1RR for the day. Ronz and/or Grayoshi then e-mail you Bdb484 and ask you to revert Badagnani. With your 3RR available Bdb484, this puts Badagnani at a definite disadvantage. The first comprimise is already bad for Badagnai. He already has three editors who have edit warred with him, and who may work together to edit war together with him again. Badagnai has three stark choices: A 1rr in some form. The editors have a combined 2rr or 3rr, which means his edits will be deleted. This does not even take into account meatpupptry or sockpuppets. This means many of his edits will be deleted, and he has no recourse (except for his own meatpuppery or sockpuppets) Arbcom, in which his edit history is pretty bad. If what you say is true, his communication skills are bad, so he will not be able to compile an adequate defense without help. Ignore this and hope it goes away and editors will loose interest. Ronz's most recent comments: I agree with Ronz and Bdb484 that there has been bad behavior by Badagnai, based on Bdb484's above edit differences. The majority of the editors here agree. So Ronz, bringing up more examples of bad behavior does not help at this point, it only hurts the chance of comprimise. Per rewrite of Ronz. Sorry again Ronz.

[removed per Caspian blues request]

Compromise is giving up something to get something in return. If the answers to the questions are yes, what are Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption and to see Ronz, Grayoshi, Badagnani have 1RR? Ikip 01:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, would you remove this weird table format singling me out of the bunch? Your assessment and questions are also troubling me as well because the assessment is incorrect. Caspian blue and Bdb484 willing to giving up to stop the disruption What disruption? I'm neither one who edit wars with Badagnani nor has an issue with him. You forgot the fact that I'm the one suggesting the group 1RR to everyone who deal with Badagnani. I of course haven't edit with Badagnani for more then 9 months unlike Ronz and GraYoshi2x because I've always provided "reliable sources" and used discussions with him to persuade him (and it worked well). Don't forget that I opened the two discussions to form a consensus about the Wiktionary matter. So I've already practiced 1RR when it comes to Badagnani (haven't feel to revert so). If the ArbCom is open, well, there should have more people other than here. Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi are the main party for the ongoing 9 months dispute and the other include me, CoM, Viriditas, GTBacchus, Jerem43, Tanner-Christoper, Melonbarmonter2, Sennen goroshi, and many others in dispute with him on XfDs. If you remove the (interrogating) table, I will tell the reason. --Caspian blue 02:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of that analysis above bothers me because we seem to be assuming that reversion is helpful. If I'm in a dispute, and the other guy reverts and I can't revert back, that puts me at no disadvantage at all. I always hold myself to 1RR, and that's never been a disadvantage. It's only a disadvantage if you don't know about the multitude of strategies that are so much smarter and more effective than reverting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL GTBacchus, so true. I keep seeing so many of the problems here on ANI, and I keep thinking, that guy just doesn't get it yet. Ronz seems to "get it". Badagnani does not yet.

There are the rules and then their is the way wikipedia works, and they are often not the same thing. I had a really hard road learning this. Many editors who are smarter and better with people learned much faster. I am still learning, usually the hard way :/. Ikip 02:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ronz wrote the following on my talk page:[26]

Ronz, I will strike anything you like. I apologize, I felt a little flustered because it seemed like we were so close to an agreement, and it got side tracked, and we moved backwards. My apologies if I offended you. It was my (flawed) perception of the status of the compromise.

I sense that what Ronz said is true (slightly edited):

"If you look at Badagnani's past behavior, you'll see that he's unlikely to participate in the ANI, nor an ArbCom for that matter. If by some extremely slim chance he does participate, it's safe to assume that he'll respond as he always does, with grandiose language that doesn't address the issues at hand...This is not a judgment of Badagnani, but simply a statement made from the perspective of someone that's worked very hard to understand his behavior and find ways to successfully interact with him."

Have you all been to mediation? Should I ask Badagnani if he will agree? Ikip 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that Badagnani has never responded here. I think Ronz is right in that he is "he's unlikely to participate in the ANI" frankly, all options from here on out feel too tedious to pursue and I have grown bored of this. Best wishes all. Ikip 02:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

From the edit history, it looks like there have been some comments put up and then taken down requesting some information from me regarding any past history with Badagnani, etc. If those are still outstanding, I'll be happy to address them. I'm honestly not sure where everything stands now. To be clear, though, my preferred outcome does not involve formal sanctions against anyone but Badagnani. I'm not familiar with Grayoshi beyond what's been said here. In the case of Ronz, I've seen a rash of persistent, unconstructive posts on Badagnani's talk page trying to get him to talk. I don't think that requires 1RR; I only suggest that imposition because he's offered to accept it and it seemed like it might keep the ball rolling.

With respect to the new proposal, though, I just wanted to say that I was throwing it out there because it seemed like a possible compromise among the parties involved in the discussion. It may have been worse for Badagnani, but I hadn't really considered whether he would reject it, as he has gone radio silent since the ANI case was opened. It's my hope that he'll join in at some point, but his edit history reflects that the likelihood of his participation in any discussion is inversely proportional to the number of level-headed people involved. — Bdb484 (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe 1RR all around, and interaction discouragement between the 3 parties, is the way to go.

There are enough people currently watching Badagnani's userpage (150!) that I would suggest Ronz unwatchlist it, to prevent the urge to 'jump in' during random future discussions.

Badagnani is unlikely to join the thread here - he's a classic exopedian. -- Quiddity (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that number? (I think that's an excellent suggestion, by the way. Un-watching people's user pages is like getting paid to win the lottery - so good.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(eg) At the top of every 'history' page, are (currently) 4 links to various "External tools". The third one, "Number of watchers" , will show how many people have that page&talkpage watchlisted. If the number is under 30, only admins can view the exact number (a "–" gets displayed to everyone else).^{see here for details} I think it was added in Oct/Nov, but hasn't never widely advertised.

Bear in mind that "watchlisted" != "actively watching" in any way, a thread about which is currently at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Ignore watchlisting by inactive users (might be about to be archived). -- Quiddity (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Quiddity's proposal is the only one which will prevent this from going to Arbcom. btw, I don't think this edit by Badagnani has been mentioned edit; he uses a very misleading edit summary "rm commentary" for what is essentially a revert of this edit by Bdb484. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice spot; that one got past me. Tricksy little hobbitses..... — Bdb484 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My two cents on this is block and forget about it. Badagnani is not above flat out lying about other users and basically making up strange claims in the middle of a discussion to disrupt it. An interaction ban is pointless because it doesn't matter who he interacts with. Anyone who disagrees with him gets treated the same. So I suppose I do support an interaction ban, a ban on his interaction with this community. You can see in link 12 (under AN/i) above the flat-out lies he spurts and bold face bad faith accusations he makes over and over and over. The guy has been brought up 15 times at An3...15 times.. I don't really care how "good" his contributions are. This is a community and if he can't work with it, he can't be part of it. An interaction ban with 3 users is pointless when numerous people have brought him here to complain about him. It shows the problem extends far beyond three users and anyone ignoring that needs to go back and re-read those links and see all the various users that have complained about him or certified there are issues. He completely refused to participate in the RfC about himself which shows further unwillingness to work with the community. If someone is trying this hard to avoid working with the community we don't need to try that hard to force him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure why you're holding your feeling on the one-time conflict with Badagnani for that long, which happened more than a year ago. You could've let it go long ago. You appeared to be able to "let the past go" and amicably work with your opponents (you know what I mean). As you see the latest ANI or AN3 files are all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x or a couple of AfD things. I'm gonna leave a message to your talk page later.--Caspian blue 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom

I've read through this whole discussion, but it seems to me that ArbCom needs to get involved here. Is there any reason why we can't get them involved? This seems to me to be the most suitable course of action. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this essay, User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem, is the best insight into this problem.

Specifically, from my own tinted perspective (and oversimplified for brevity of communication), we have 2 extremes of editor-archetype butting heads. Badagnani is an exopedian eventualist, who enjoys creating stub/start quality articles. I would guess that he is an older gentleman. The people he tends to clash with, are our janitors, often those of an immediatist and exclusionist persuasion. (one of whom has lots of experience policing the Spam and EL noticeboards.) I would guess that they are a fair bit younger than Badagnani (20s-30s?).

Badagnani just wants to add information to the encyclopedia, but sometimes doesn't pay close enough attention to the details of our WP:RS guidelines, or, because he deals in esoteric subjects, he often finds the fine-line of "do we include this?" that consensus gets tricky at (eg List of gamelan ensembles in the United States, or the example that started this thread at goblet drum). His opposition just wants to clear up what they see as listcruft, or delete imperfect content.

Both archetypes, somehow, need to be made welcome here, and not step on each others toes (especially not on purpose!).

If we can get Badagnani to agree to 1RR (I can try later), I think that would be preferable. I don't think he would do well with the legalese of arbcom. I'm running out the door, but I'll try to add more in a couple of hours. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can get him to agree not to do any more reverting, that would definitely be better than taking to ArbCom and having something enforced, I agree. But if the behaviour continues, then I do think that ArbCom need to get involved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on this. The discussion above shows that we don't have a great idea for fixing this issue. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the arbcom would pummel him more than the petitions at this ANI YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well then, so be it! ArbCom are usually quite fair in their decision making processes. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this going to arbcom. We don't give infinite chances, and we don't bend over backwards for someone. We're here to form a community, not massage badagnani so he graces us with his contributions. No community can function doing that.--Crossmr (talk) 05:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support indefinitely blocking him until he grows up. He's been told to knock it off, he was unblocked under a promise to stop it, and he continues to do so. This isn't brain surgery, he knows what he's supposed to do. Enabling him just lets him avoid it (and I've had my own dealings with him). Punting it to ARBCOM doesn't solve anything and he's just going to continue because people seem to find certain editors irreplaceable (which time and time again proves to be wrong). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? ArbCom are perfectly placed to make a reasonable decision on this one. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, is anyone volunteering to put the case together? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to put it together as the workday permits, provided there isn't a huge rush. Given the that this spans such a long time, how far back should I go in naming "involved" parties? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anyone has any comments on anything I need to remember, the draft is here. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Although I'm the one who've brought up taking the matter to WP:ARBCOM or first group WP:1RR in the report, that was because one-side 1RR sanction would be unfair in the circumstance. We induced that the involved party agree to keep the group 1RR except Badagnani, so at least we have to wait until Badagnani appears to here to defend himself. If he agrees to abide "1RR", I don't think ArbCom is necessary "at this moment". Moreover, if my memory is correct, Ricky81682 you had a couple of sour interaction with Badagnani. I highly doubt indefinitely blocking him would work for him to "get it". Bdb484, I appreciate your effort to resolve the issue, but your compiled files includes complaints from "sockpuppeters" and "indefinitely blocked user" as well as mere content disputes. The latest AN/I and AN/3 were all related to Ronz, GraYoshi2x, and Badagnani's clashing with some admin for XfD. You appear to be not knowledgeable of the history, so if the issue must be filed to ArbCom, there would be better people out there.

Here is a list of roughly "involved party" for the possible ArbCom though.

Badagnani, Ronz, GraYoshi2x = main party for the 9 month long edit warring

Me, Melonbarmonster2, Jerem43, Tanner-Chistopher, Sennen goroshi mainly for Korean cuisine

ChildrenofMidnight, Viritidas, Quiddity - criticized on Ronz, GraYoshi2x's hounding of Badagnani.

YellowMonkey, Amore Mio - Vietnamese topics

Gordonofcartoon, William Allen Simpson, Bulldog123, Hmains, Crossmir, for list articles or incivility

Ohconfucius, Cordless Larry, Jza84, Propaniac, and many others.

However, I want to first see how effectively the proposed group 1RR would work. If this turns out to be a waste of time, then we can go to ArbCom.--Caspian blue 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The worrying file uploads of User:Persia2099

Persia2099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Check out their log. An image they recently uploaded, File:Parthian cataphracts.svg, was deleted not that long ago, as an obvious copyright violation. What is concerning about this is not so much the copyright violation(although that is a pretty big concern), but several key factors, mainly with the point that this user is lying about what they are doing.

The key factors(in no particular order):

1. Images uploaded to file types do not match their file types. Examples: (File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg(gif), File:Parthian cataphracts.svg(gif), File:Achaemenid Infantry.svg(I'm assuming this was a gif as well))
2. Images uploaded give false information, such as the above File:Parthian cataphracts.svg was uploaded with the information of being a picture taken by a camera, when it quite obviously was not. Other examples where the meta-data doesn't match the summary: (File:Dead wolf.jpg(Summary: Canon Sure Shot Z135 camera, Meta-data: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-410) .. there are more, but I don't think listing them is necessary.
3. User has violated copyright several times with the first 3 listed images.

Concerning these points, the behavior of their uploads is worrying. Sure, the images can't really be found using TinyEye or the like, but that doesn't mean that the user didn't upload them. Not all images that people take are uploaded elsewhere.Notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave a standard copyright warning message to the user based off the evidence from the deletion logs. I also added a note about OTRS just in case the user does in fact have permission but doesn't know the proper avenue in which to get it uploaded. This is basically a 4im-level warning at this point, in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

While false information is certainly an issue (which can easily be fixed), this post just reeks of copyright paranoia. Seriously. Why are people so ridiculously OCD about this? It's just ridiculous. No site has ever gotten into trouble for fair use images. For some reason, Wikipedia editors feel the need to have a 500-page legal document below every image, or else it gets deleted.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment is entirely unuseful. Copyright is an important issue, and if not controlled, could lead to willy-nilly copyright violation by anybody who wants to upload anything, and then what leg does Wikipedia have to stand on? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to be doing just fine...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:General_Disclaimer#Fair_Use_and_Copyrighted_Materials You seem to have absolutely no idea of what you speak. They follow copyright just like we do, because they know that if they don't, they might be sued.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, using ED as an example that Wikipedia should follow? Woogee (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. Why would we care what EB does or doesn't do? They are entirely unaffiliated with us. If they have copyright infringements, then this doesn't mean that we should. This is a very silly argument. Please don't use it again. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the fair use rules are just about getting sued perhaps you misunderstand the "free" part of free encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand the free part, do not assume things about me that you don't know, I was simply citing an example that the wiki cited follows the rules we follow here as well, and I listed a possible reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, my response was to the IP claiming the post was copyright paranoia. Not sure why you are so quick to jump in and take offence--82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that I'm the only one who actually used the word sued, I find it difficult to believe you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the indentation, I indent one deeper than the IP I was responding to, you know as pretty standard practice, and my post is essentially supportive of the notion that we should give a fuck about copyright issue. Please if you can point out how caring about being interested in being a free encyclopedia is contradictory to your concern over these images, then I'd be interested to know. Ultimately if you don't believe me, then that's your problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios

This list will increase as more are discovered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• File:Bisotoun inscription Darius the Great.jpg(Image, CP information at bottom of page.)
• File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg(just check the file page, it will be deleted soon)
• File:Derafsh e kavian.gif(Obviously exists elsewhere)
• File:ShapurII statue.jpg(Again, exists elsewhere)

I just looked at random at this user's edits to Darius I of Persia. This unreferenced diff [27] was copied and pasted from a posting on a blog from 2006 here. I am also wondering whether there is a possible link with the indef blocked editor Ariobarza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also edited articles on Ancient Persian history. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

warning

I would suggest that someone give them a stern warning, as they have claimed copyright over work which is not their own, indeed, they have even lied about making it themselves. They have also done this on commons, where I requested the speedy deletion of both of their files, which were blatant copyvios.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They have been warned already. But the last time they did an upload seems to have been December 2nd last year... have they uploaded since they were warned? If so, then probably they need to be blocked. Otherwise, it looks like they've corrected their behaviour. It's good that you have caught the copyright infringements though - good work! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cremepuff222

Resolved

 – Per below, there's a consensus to maintain the block, and review upon request after 3 months have elapsed, i.e. after 7 April, 2010. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi all,

I'm sure most of the regulars here are familiar with the recent Cremepuff222 debacle. I recently proposed a provisional unblock on User talk:Cremepuff222 which allows the editor to create or rewrite an article while blocked in a subsection of his talk page; and if the result is satisfactory, we unblock one week later barring any further issues. There have been some objections to this proposal, but also a few endorsements, so I'd like to hear some more opinions before going forward. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse {{2nd chance}} approach. –xeno^talk 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (though, before anyone calls me on it, I know this is their 3rd chance (or something) - it will also be their last)

Here's an opinion: Don't feed the trolls. Friday (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's the troll? I only see a long-term user and admin who got bored one day and, after being blocked a couple times, turned himself around. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things, one - Whats to stop him getting bored again?, and two - I seem to recall he "turned himself around" after he got blocked the first time--Jac16888^Talk 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. As much as it is your time to waste reading whatever Cremepuff wants to put up, I don't put any real faith in his protestations that 'OK, NOW I'M SERIOUS AND WILL NO LONGER BE AN ASS DESPITE ME SAYING THAT LAST TIME AND THEN BEING AN ASS'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a very helpful comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• All you need to really read is the 'No' part then. I've been an admin for far longer than cremepuff, from far fewer supports (since that is one of your arguments on his talkpage), and I've never had a day of being a tosser on wiki because there was nothing good on the vid. Is that more helpful? Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I strongly believe cremepuff should remain blocked, his block has nothing to do with his content editing, its down to his behaviour. He had his last chance and he blew it less than a week later, now he comes back saying the same crap he did then, even openly admitting that his actions were because he found the reaction funny. Add to this his sockpuppets, vandalism etc, I can't see how we can trust this user ever again. And as a final note, take at look at cremepuffs own opinion on a situation very similar to this, taken from his rfa.

:9. Let's say this happened: You came across a user who had done serious damage, then got unblocked and did even more damage. He says he really won't do any more damage, and please unblock him. He says that at the slightest bad thing from him, please block him. What would you do?

A: One thing IRC has taught me is that people who say this often will continue doing disruptive things. This can be applied to Wikipedia as well. The user would likely continue vandalizing if unblocked, and if not, he or she can create a new account and start over again.

--Jac16888^Talk 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No thanks. Blocked for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after a week, and is blocked again for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after another week and requests unblock knowing that doing so after such a short time would be disruptive and would waste time. I'd assume we'd only have to wait a week after another unblock before that wasn't enough and he started being disruptive and wasting time again and got blocked again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked liar, vandal and a waste of time who already had his "last" chance. Let him work constructively on some other wiki for six months and then come back, maybe.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unsure He was given a second chance already, and was reblocked. No doubt that he can be useful, and I believe in second chances, but thirds so quickly? It sets a bad precedent. JC, let me ask this: are you honestly willing to risk your personal reputation on Wikipedia by being linked to this situation? Hypothetically, would you put for example your adminship on the line for this kid, based in his actions since mid-December? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. I'm willing to take full responsibility if I unblock him and he resumes being disruptive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per my notes on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Preserve the status quo. Got another chance, and blew it. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I found it disappointing how long it took us to deal with him last time, and don't think we need to make it worse by unblocking. Here we have a user who has clearly abused the admin tools, created sock puppets, and used them for vandalism, among other disruptive actions. They've been given a second chance already, and I see no good reason to give another. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why are we wasting time on this user? Tan | 39 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. Has long since squandered the good faith of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, at least for 1-year. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I don’t go along with the proposer’s benevolent approach. CP himself has suggested 3 months; I’d just about go along with that. I simply don’t get this “develop an article on a talkpage” idea. Obviously he’s going to keep his nose clean for a week so what would it prove? I’m also unimpressed by another Admin’s idea of getting him to “agree” that any further disruption will lead to a swift re-block. Agree? Why does he need to agree to potential sanctions? As the same Admin. goes on to say, “we just need to ensure that the problematic behavior will stop.” Well it has stopped, so take up the editor on his own 3 months block suggestion. Leaky Caldron 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Blocked: see longer note on Cremepuff's talkpage. Maybe in six months Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Go for it We have nothing to lose and something to gain. Either he helps us make the encyclopedia or we just block him again. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts exactly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, this user did? Some vandalism is far worse than others. If he got bored, wrote "LOLDONGS" on a page, and then apologized, I think it's safe to unblock him. If he posted a user's address and threatened to kill him... no. And how many times did he do this? EXPLAIN, dammit!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? why aren't ya signed in? GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst... don't tell anyone, but I'm Jesus Christ. I'm not signed in because I don't want God to know what I'm doing with my spare time...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• He posted a few silly messages on talk pages and created some mostly harmless sock accounts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• He also abused his admin tools by deleting pages for fun and blocking himself for fun; edited while logged out to vandalise articles and harass other users; and made disruptive comments on RfAs. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Mostly harmless...? HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the spamming of editors using the "e-mail this user" link, played a bunch of silly games, ran around saying "Oh, I did nothing at all wrong", etc, etc, ... should we link the two recent ANI threads here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, deleting an article for fun was not a good idea, but that's why he's no longer an admin. I still can't see any cases where he actually vandalized an article. Could you please provide diffs? This all seems extremely putative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Firstly, as I keep saying to you, he doesn't need to have vandalised in order to be disruptive. However, this is him vandalising while logged out, for one. His vandal-sockpuppets also vandalised multiple articles. As Bwilkins points out, I received multiple spammy emails from him after his indef-block. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the user is just bored, jittery, and a bit immature. Sure, he definitely shouldn't be an admin... but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh for such a silly thing.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep him blocked. Sorry, but the links above are quite convincing. Julian, if you can provide some sort of rebuttal, I might reconsider my opinion. HJMitchell You rang? 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Ta We have enough drama without inciting more. had a second chance, blew it. Fool us once... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Messed around, said sorry, messed around again, got blocked, said sorry, unblocked, messed around again, blocked again, rinse repeat. Once was a forgiveable offence, shame on them. Twice was shame on us. Several more times? We shouldn't waste any more time on this. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked per Redvers, just one too many chances blown I'm afraid to say. I fully understand Julian's commendable good faith, but feel the communities continued extensions of good will have now been exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 Not yet - I have no problem with a 2nd chance, but a test edit to an article on his talk page? It was a behavior block, not an ability to create/edit content. Having said that, it's too soon to even consider it. Try again in a couple of months if they're still interested in coming back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do the people who are suggesting that Cremepuff be unblocked really think that harrassing another editor is not significant? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked At the risk of WP:BEANS, I can almost guarantee that if left blocked, Creampuff will disappear for a short time, refresh his DHCP and get a new IP address, create a new account, and go off to edit articles he has never, ever touched before in order to evade his block. He will abandon the Creampuff account completely, and come back as either a total prick, or as a totally fantastic article editor. God forbid, however, that he *ahem* applies for adminship under that new account - we've suffered through that one enough already. I am all in favour of WP:AGF, but as I say here, I am not willing to ride the AGF toboggan into the trees below. The maturity level simply is not there to ensure consistency in his editing at this point - someday, he may prove me wrong, but today is not that day. Although Juliancolton may wish to continue riding the AGF toboggan, and hats off for that, I simply cannot (I was also one who recieved silly e-mails from Cremepuff). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you !voted unsure above, care to strike this? Ikip 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you saying it's better to drive the editor underground - and into further socking - rather than cautiously unblocking them so they can be monitored in place? –xeno^talk 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(to xeno) we should never use the threat of possible future socking as a reason to unblock. If we keep him blocked and he comes back as a disruptive sock then we'll also block that sock when discovered. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, threat of further socking is a good reason to keep the user blocked. Unblocking does not prevent socking anyways, ie good hand/bad hand. I am assuming though that his sock drawer is closed for now, but either way sock puppetry is no argument for unblocking. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't... I was responding to BWilkin's statement, which doesn't make much sense to me. I think the editor should be invited to complete the {{2nd chance}} process and be unblocked given their assurances the tomfoolery of the holiday is behind them. Though I understand the opposition per "fool me once...". –xeno^talk 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

xeno, I see this situation as significantly different than say ... the WGB situation at the top of the page. We're already past the fool me twice point, and the consistant "I've never done anything wrong, others just seem to think so *shrug*" attitude across his talkpage shows that he does not have the maturity to accept his "change". I almost encourage him to start afresh and keep his nose clean forever and prove me wrong, but I cannot - based on the reading - he's taking goodwill for granted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked Although I was originally in favor of unblocking him, the spamming and deletions are concerning. Hopefully he leaves and comes back better than ever though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, stop feeding, and move on. We expect admins to know what is acceptable. Jonathunder (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Nobody should ever question authority...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr IP, will you ever post anything actually useful on this board? Just askin' (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, who cares? He's a random IP; his opinion automatically has no value. HalfShadow 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the fact that he's contributing to a discussion he's not involved in about another editor's behavior while wearing a mask. And that's not typically helpful, especially if the IP is being provocative. Auntie E. 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's less anonymous than you are, and he has a right to his own opinion, which is just as valuable as yours. Prodego ^talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a wikiface, over 5000 edits, my record here is open to perusal, every conflict, every screwup, it's all there. If you want to call that "anonymous", go for it. Auntie E. 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've been here longer than you have. And yes, contrary to popular belief, IP addresses are indeed living, breathing human beings.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this separate discussion in a separate section, if at all, to help keep the threading clear. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I just got really pissed off with the "you're an IP, so you don't exist" bullcrap. I am trying really hard to refrain from personal attacks, but some people just make it really, really, really hard. And I'm on a medication that's making me jittery and agitation. I apologize if I've caused any disruptions.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm all for forgiveness and second chances, but this user has already had theirs. We all know the saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... CP already made us the fool by reneging on his "first second chance". Lets not make the fool of ourselves this time around. Shereth 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's fine if the community wants him to stay gone for now, but the wasting time argument is flawed—the only person wasting time would be me and any other admin who volunteers to monitor CP222 while unblocked... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I’m not convinced that your persistent lobbying on his behalf isn't actually doing him more harm than good, not that I’m bothered about that. You’ve had an idea, it has not received universal support, yet you persist in chiming in with your counter-arguments. There IS more at stake than your time being wasted – it’s called credibility. Why not show a bit of wisdom and let it rest awhile because to me your stance is beginning to look OTT. Leaky Caldron 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the verdict here is pretty clear, and anyone following Cremepuff's talk page already knows this, but since we're here now I also feel he should remain blocked. Why don't we call it WP:OFFER and be done with it for a while? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFER sounds good...almost willing to reduce the time myself. Didn't CP suggest 3 months anyway, or did I read wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

he suggested 3 months on his talk page. Leaky Caldron 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see no consensus to specify an end-time, and absolutely no agreement on what it should be. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not quibble over the exact details. How about we just say "don't ask to be unblocked or engage in sock puppetry for several months" and leave it to CP to decide when it's been long enough. That puts the ball n his court, and how long he waits will be a factor in the next discussion of his unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• strong unblock I find it ironic that most of the editors who are screaming no second chances here have screamed for lienency in other forums.
  Creampuffs crimes that I am aware of were incredibly minor and trivial. Treasury tag's smoking gun
  "abused his admin tools by deleting pages for fun and blocking himself" sounds bad on its face, but are obviously harmless when editors actually click these links. There was no disruption at all.
  In the spirit of WP:EQUALITY, compare this to editors blocking other editors they are in a dispute with dozens of times over several years and protecting pages they are in edit wars with, this infraction is a complete joke.
  From the edits differences I have investigated thus far, Creampuffs two real crimes are #1 acting immature, #2 not building a network of powerful editors to support him.
  User:Jehochman was talking about civility and NPA, but I personally feel this can be applied here:
  The problem is that our enforcement...has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them.[28] Ikip 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Number 2 looks silly and irrelevant, but your number 1 is a great reason to leave him blocked. Wikipedia only benefits from editors who are able to behave like reasonable adults. Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is treasury's number 2. For those of you not familar with this crime:

02:19, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (132 revisions restored: oops)

02:17, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (:D)

02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (78 revisions restored: Just for giggles)

02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (Just for giggles)

A grand total of 2 minutes the Giggle page was deleted, in the space of 15 months, and then restored by cream, and editors are calling for an indefinite block. Was this during an edit war? Not to my knowledge. Was any other editors editing priveledges blocked? No.

Beeblebrox brings up the giggle deletions for the first time ever (to my knowledge) on 09:55, 17 December 2009 here at ANI, 6 months after the 2 minute 24 June 2009 deletion.[29] There has never been any conversation about the deletion before that, including on the Giggle page itself.[30]

I weigh this against other editors repeated disruption which is sanctioned by the community and there is truly no comparison. Ikip 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ikip and belated Happy New Year to you. I agree your point that objective standards should be used, otherwise there's a risk of what you called "selective enforcement". Are you talking about situations where repeated disruptions similar to Cremepuff222's were apparently sanctioned by the community, or do you mean disruptions that aren't similar but are arguably just as significant? BTW, I'm not going to !vote here, so this question is just about the wider wiki-jurisprudential issue(s). We can discuss elsewhere on-wiki if you prefer. - Pointillist (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I shy away from casual discussions with editors. I have seen how those casual philosophical conversations can sometimes come back and bite. Thank you for the generous offer though. :) I refer you to the essay WP:EQUALITY. Creampuffs behavior was stupid and immature, I have said this repeatedly. Thanks. Ikip 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. My question wasn't casual: I was specifically asking you for examples from historical cases that would help identify general principles for future situations. Of course there's a risk such principles would "come back and bite", but that goes with using "objective standards" as you proposed. It doesn't seem reasonable that you can argue points about other situations without identifying them (apart from this). I've always seen you as being on the side of greater transparency and straightforwardness, so I hope this is just a little misunderstanding. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:

• User:TreasuryTag: "[ User:Cremepuff222 ] also abused his admin tools by...blocking himself for fun." (above)
• User:Wehwalt blocked Cremepuff222 stated reason: "User not allowed to unblock himself" (after Cremepuff222 blocked himself)[31]

I sampled 135 of the 1698 current admins.

These user included all admins with bureaucrat and checkuser rights, in addition to the first 87 admins (alphabetically) with edit filter manager rights:

• 23 admins (17%) had tested their accounts by blocking themselves.
  • of these, 6 admins had blocked themselves for fun.
  • of these, 2 admins had blocked themselves then unblocked themselves later.

All 1698 admin self-block links can be found at User:Ikip/test57.

Sample of administrators who have blocked themselves

Testing Angela Rdsmith4 UninvitedCompany Brion_VIBBER Deskana Tim_Starling Fred_Bauder Mackensen ABCD Antandrus Carnildo Dragons_flight Graham87 For fun Animum "with an expiry time of a partridge in a pear tree" "with an expiry time of a hoagie, two water fountains, and a blue jay" "Obvious sockpuppet" Anonymous_Dissident%E2%80%8E "let me just see what its like ;)" Ilyanep "I've never been blocked and am wondering about what the screen looks like ;P" "can I really block myself?" Acroterion "Creating nonsense pages: Disruptive account - extending to indefinite" Chris_G "ZOMG SKYNET!!!!!!" "Oppse must be careful with DerHexters Tool" DarkFalls "What does it feel like to be blocked?" Unblocking self Icestorm815 "I am back and able to edit now" Chris_G "Stop anyone missusing my account while on wikibreak" Other admins not included in this sample which have blocked themselves Juliancolton Moreschi A+Man+In+Black

Rules about editors requesting to be blocked by admins:

• Wikipedia:BLOCKME#Self-requested_blocks
  • Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_15#WP:BLOCKME
  • Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_15#Self-requested_blocks

Ikip 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for going to all that trouble, but it proves nothing. I expect that a high proportion of people living in London have committed insurance fraud, say; while it's widespread, it doesn't become any more acceptable.

Cremepuff's messing about with the admin tools in terms of blocking himself was symptomatic of his general abuse (such as the deletion-and-undeletion) as well as non-admin-related nonsense. The fact that some other, respected, contributors have done this occasionally in a non-disruptive way doesn't reflect well on them, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Cremepuff. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:MASTADON#Avoid_angry_mastodons: When people are involved in disputes there is a tendency to take offense, sometimes called "mock outrage", at statements that are either not intended as slights, or that transgress the norms of discussion only in a technical sense but are not in fact hurtful to the target of the comment." Ikip 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked, why do we need a "bored, jittery, and a bit immature" editor around? Stop feeding him. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. Enough disruption. Pcap ping 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked but... not an indef block. I think it should be until the end of January, and then if JulianColton (and any other admins) want to monitor CremePuff222, then they can do so. Alternatively, is it possible for specific editing restrictions to be set in place as a condition of unblocking? I think that there would be enough people who would notice his actions that a listing at WP:RESTRICT could be policed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock or reduce block length - someone who was trusted enough to be granted the bit can be productive again. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The fact that he had the bit and still did all this makes him far less trustworthy as far as I'm concerned--Jac16888^Talk 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it means that he was once trusted and productive but then got sidetracked and bored. I think that he can come back and make a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Actually, I feel that the potential benefits outweigh the negatives by such a large margin that I am willing to propose this. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ed is absolutely correct. I don't know of any troll who's willing to spend years being productive, mature, and well-behaved—sufficient to pass RfA, one of Wikipedia's most strict forums for criticism—just to make a few silly edits at the end. Maybe your trolls are more advanced than mine, though. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a bit of a disconnect here, with regards to reducing the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. That is what we always say, and how this block should be applied. If CP does not have community support for unblocking at this time (it seems clear he does not, although a minority do support his return) then the block should simply be left on until such time as the community will sanction his return. If he doesn't engage in socking and doesn't keep requesting unblock once a week he wold most likely be unblocked in a few months, but even then yet another discussion of the matter will probably be warranted. When he feels enough time has elapsed, he can request unblock again, and if he hasn't jumped the gun or evaded the block, the block will most likely be rescinded at that time. Giving him a specific length of time where all he has to do is wait it out and then he's automatically let back in seems unwise in the case of a user who block is upheld by consensus. But consensus can, and in these types of cases almost always does, change over time. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever," it simply means that the length is not defined. Rather than prolonging this debate with a discussion of block length, I really feel we should just leave it lie for now. CP wants one more chance to prove himself, seeing if he can just sit there and not edit and not ask ask to be unblocked for a few months is that chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reduce block length, long probation Having interacted with Cremepuff on his talk page, he seems to be contrite and aware of what he did wrong. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. We must weigh the potential damage to the project against the potential gain. We have in Cremepuff a long-term productive editor who made a few silly edits then renegged on his promise not to. He never really damaged the project, just annoyed a bunch of people. Let him think about things for a month or so, then let him back on probation. I can think of several editors whose behaviour has been far worse that have never received more than a 2 week block. Cremepuff is correct in saying that the reaction to his behaviour is overblown. His block is well-deserved, just as his eventual unblock will be. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Message from Cremepuff222

I am reproducing the below message from Cremepuff222 that was just posted to their talk page [32]. –xeno^talk 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm glad that the community is providing input on the situation, but I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far. As I am not able to post there, I will instead post them here. If someone could bring up at ANI that I have said these things on my talk page, I would much appreciate it.

First of all, it seems that everyone is under the impression that I want to be outright unblocked. I have said a few times that I feel the block length is unfair, and that is what I wanted to be discussed. I did post the {{unblock}} template on my userpage, but only did so in order to bring editors to my talk page to discuss the matter. My apologies if I didn't make myself clear, but that is why I brought this up in the first place. I didn't do it to cause more disruption.

I have been accused of being a liar, a vandal, and a troll, among other things ("jittery", "immature", ...). I have been very upfront about my doings, and throughout the whole ordeal I have been very cool, I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't responded to anything "immaturely" (in my eyes at least), and I have certainly not engaged in any trolling. My actions were certainly not called for, but I find the responses to them rather harsh.

Much of this debate is related to my allegedly harassing another user. Are edits like [33][34][35][36] really that big of a deal? Would it not have been easier to discuss the edits directly with my rather than going off to the administrator noticeboard? I have also been accused of abusing Special:EmailUser. I do not deny that I used them for non-constructive purposes. However, I never went on a massive email spam rampage like it sounds like at ANI. I sent one to User:Anonymous Dissident thanking him for this edit, and one to User:Bwilkins regarding this comment. I sent User:TreasuryTag three, all asking him to discuss the issue with me, rather than bringing more people into the drama. I don't see that any of these are abusive, and if the receivers thought they were trolling, they should have asked.

I agree and acknowledge that my actions have caused much disruption and waste of time, but I still find the actions themselves not very disruptive in themselves. I still see users bringing up certain admin actions that I am not proud of. Sure they look bad, but what harm actually came from them? I doubt anybody would have even noticed if I hadn't engaged in my recent edits.

If the community feels that I am not ready for an unblock right now, I still feel that the block should not be indefinite. Anywhere from a month to a year seems reasonable to me. I think the community should move away from this "guilty/not guilty" phase and decide on an expiration time for the block.

Much appreciation to everyone for discussing this matter. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I don't see why the bar should be set at "very disruptive". Why not just refrain from being disruptive at all? I've been here for more than five years, and have never made a single edit "for the lulz". If you think dicking around a little bit is ok, I think you should go away until you don't think that anymore. This isn't romper room; it's an encyclopedia. Play silly buggers offline, and when you're here, play it straight. Thousands manage to do this; CP222 should be able to do it as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said sir. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points, really. Firstly, despite what is claimed above, I did try to discuss the harrassy-talkpage-edits with Cremepuff first; he ignored this, so obviously I came to ANI next. What else did he expect me to do?

Secondly, his multiple emails to me were not "all asking [me] to discuss the issue" – the first said, "Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun!" (very constructive!), the second simply, "How predictable. :) Thanks for your help!" (not really how Cremepuff described it above!), and the third was vaguely threatening in tone: "You make me giggle, you silly goose you. :) Making it sound like I'm spamming you hundreds of emails? Okay. How about instead of going off and complaining to the big old administrators you talk to me yourself for once?"

So, even now, he lied about me going straight to ANI rather than coming to him first; he lied about the contents of his spammy emails... and it's so blatant, too :( ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He also appears to have forgotten the email he sent me, so his account is slightly short of being comprehensive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is disturbing. Could you specify the dates that those emails were sent, so we can see how they stack against CP's recent statements? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I received mine (the only email contact I've ever had with him) at 12:03pm, 12:09pm and 12:15pm – UK time – on December 24th. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Redvers, Throwaway, TT: [37] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption elsewhere

Per a template I have been developing, I ran across something on test-wiki. To that effect, I have asked 222 this question. I realize that test wiki is not wikipedia, but this should still count for something.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, off-wiki behaviour has no bearing on an editor's on-wiki status. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You do not recall correctly. Several times now, editors have had privilages removed for off-wiki behavior, such as creating a blog to personally attack others outside the site, release their personal information, calling another's employers because of an RfA vote.. the list goes on. Indeed, if Cremepuff can't even follow policy at the test-wiki, letting a clear nonsense page remain against policy, what evidence is there that they will here? They already broke a promise once.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the instances you listed were due to gross misconduct with possible legal implications. We're talking about protecting a Douglas Adams quote. I fail to see the parallel. For example, were I to violate the policies of some other wiki, say, encyclopedia dramatica, that violation would have no impact on my status here. It's a similar situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is trolling in encyclopedia form, not a good one to cite... Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

~~

My thought

• Give it a month: I get a funny feeling that we are still the subject of a big running joke. Give him a month to produce several nice sourced articles. If, after a month, there is enough content to satisfy folks, he can be unblocked. That would be long enough and enough reward to make me not feel like a dupe. If it happens again, we go for two months - and will look for two months of content. We have countless people who have far worse records and waste far more time, that are allowed to continue almost unabated. Also, for the record, put me down as not caring in the least what happens at a test wiki. Wknight94 ^talk 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how article contributions are even relevant here. The user was blocked for troll-like interactions with other users, not something to do with poor contributions to the mainspace. They should not be judged upon their contributions to the mainspace, but by the ability to follow key policy, such as their interaction with other users. Take for instance, the question which I asked them, linked above. They replied that they thought the page was awesome/funny, despite the fact that it was against policy on the test wiki. If they are unwilling to abide by policy there, what is stopping them here? Oh right, a block. Let's keep it that way until they can show to not keep a page because they think it's funny.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions are always relevant. That's what we do. Troll-like interactions can be shut down in minutes (esp. if the usual ANI whirlwind is shut down more quickly than usual). That's an acceptable price to me if the reward is a whole month's worth of good content. It gets the encyclopedia built with only a few minutes of intermission. Wknight94 ^talk 02:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I share Daedalus' reservations re: relevancy, I can certainly see no harm coming from allowing Cremepuff to edit articles in his userspace then copying them over. Let's give it a shot. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Thought from Cremepuff222

Cremepuff posted the following on his talk page and asked for it to be copied over:

It seems that the general consensus of the community is that I should remain blocked, though most editors have expressed that the block should not be indefinite. This is perfectly understandable, and I'm willing to wait out my block. I think all of the evidence has been brought forth, but if there are still any questions feel free to ask.

I feel that this is dragging on a bit too long... is anyone willing to draw a conclusion as to what should be done? Should I ask to be unblocked again in a month or so? Or should a block expiration date be set? I am also willing to write/rewrite an article to prove that I am still dedicated to the project, if that is what the community thinks I should do. Any ideas? --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with revisiting the matter in a month. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't suggest less than three. That was the minimum mentioned above. Auntie E. 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wouldn't suggest any less than three; the fact that he openly lied about the contents of his spam-emails, and still feels hard-done-by because I told him to stop edits like, "Do you like apples?" on my talkpage, rather than discussing it with him (!) suggests that he is nowhere near ready to return yet. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support 3 month block -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support review of block in 3 months. It seems a reasonable amount of time to allow the wounds to heal somewhat and for him to learn his lesson, though I don't think we should guarantee an unblock after that time. It should either be up to an individual admin or decided via a thread here or at AN. HJMitchell You rang? 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I haven't weighed in before now, but I think a 3 month block (then another review) is reasonable as well, and seeing that Cremepuff222 is amenable to such an idea it seems fair. -- Atama頭 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think he should stay blocked for 3 months, then at said time he should write an article or something of content contribution, that shows that he is again serious about contributing to this project. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A review in 3 months seems fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this is effectively what was suggested above as WP:OFFER, as was the 3 month period before a review. Such review definately has to come with SPI checks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 3 month review per emerging consensus. Would be open to further reduction upon steady controversy-free article improvement from Cremepuff. I do find it slightly distressing that Cremepuff's block appears more punitive than preventative, given that nothing he did really harmed the project. Annoyed many, many people, sure, but no real harm to the project. I've seen people who were much more malicious get much, much shorter blocks. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support closing this thread and being done with it since CP seems to have agreed to try again later, and he's already blocked, there is really no need to keep !voting/discussing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Users Collectonian, and SchmuckyTheCat...

I'm here to report these two users for uncivility, violating Wikipedia guidelines, and personal attacks. BTW, I'm User:OBrasilo, I just forgot to log in.

1. User SchmuckyTheCat keeps redirecting the Windows Neptune and Windows Odyssey articles against consensus. We have tried providing him reliable sources, but he rejects all of them, for no reason. Another member, and I, have tried talking to him already, but he refuses to listen.

2. User Collectonian is being utterly un-civil here: Talk:Tokyo_Mew_Mew . I tried to re-start the discussion on the non-English adaptations of Tokyo Mew Mew there, and she first deleted the section, even though that's against Wikipedia guidelines, and when I reverted her edit, she resorted to blatant personal attacks.

The personal attacks consisted in:

1. Accusation of letter fakery. I posted a letter from one of the authors of Tokyo Mew Mew, on her talk page a while ago. She claims the letter is fake, based on no evidence, whatsoever. This is therefore a blatant personal attack.

2. Accusation of harassment. I did not harass her. I did not post on her talk page ever after she told me I shouldn't. And the only reason why I mentioned her in the talk page post, was to warn her (but others as well, really) not to delete messages, because it would be against Wikipedia guidelines, since I knew she would delete the section. This is not harassment, this is an attempt to demand respect for the Wikipedia guidelines.

Also, I was being completely civil in my discussion this time, so her actions are NOT in the least understandable.

3. Accusation of sock-puppetry. This accusation is completely fault, as I made it clear, who I were (I mean, I even clearly wrote, that *I* posted the letter from one of the Tokyo Mew Mew authors, LOL), so how is this sock-puppetry, I do not know.

I'd like action to be taken against her, and possibly, against SchmuckyTheCat as well. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

They both need warnings. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the situation before responding? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

First, this IP is User:OBrasilo, who also filed another ANI against anyone and everyone he had a complaint with, archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#Eik Corell, Rehevkor, Collectonian, and judgement based on no knowledge on the subject..., and threw in some more complaints in defense of his friend OutofTimer during the same time period. During those discussions, it was shown he was engaging in off-site canvassing[38] Eventually he "apologized" for his behavior ], even promising "I also formally apologize to user Collectonian for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap, and to stay back from the Tokyo Mew Mew articles. Rather, I'll create my personal website about Tokyo Mew Mew, and copy onto it the now-deleted informations from those articles about the various non-English adaptations." but he has now gone back on that and is one again trying to push in appropriate content into articles, and edit warring with people he disagrees with. Further, it is not uncivil to point out that his claimed letter from a famous manga-ka was never shown to be valid. Anyone can write anything and claim it was from someone famous. No proof - its not real. Also, note he didn't bother giving me notice of this ANI, and repeatedly made threats against both myself and SchmuckyTheCat. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An additional note, per his last message on Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew[39] , his defense fo the claimed letter is "Also, I can easily prove that it's real. It was sent to my close friend, Nakamura Hiroshi, from Tokyo (but used to live in Kyoto before), Japan (who has been proven to exist by a mention on a reputable Kyoto academic site), who then kindly forwarded it to me. As for the other half of the proof (proof that it really came from who he claims it came from), ask him. His e-mail address is email redacted _{— The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)} , feel free to e-mail him about it." The rest of the seems to speak the complete lack of sincerity is in early apology and seem to indicate it was made only to deflect admin attention from his actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec ... this "letter" from an author, that sounds awfully fishy, and is obviously not verifable as a reliable source. Also, if it's direct to you, does that not make it original research? Being accused of faking a letter is not necessarily a personal attack. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Rutherford didn't bother looking carefully. In the first case, OBrasilo's claim that the articles are being redirected against consensus is untrue; the only one objecting to it is him (see here) along with a few IPs on the other talkpage which are geographically similar. I haven't followed the second case but it appears to be that Collectonian is reverting persistent attempts to add large amounts of trivia into a featured article. Probably not the best idea to remove the talkpage section but frankly the IP which is OBrasilio (who strangely appears to forget to log in a lot - how difficult can it be?) is just reposting arguments which have been discussed and rejected. 86.148.109.82 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

the articles ARE being redirected against consensus, obrasilo posted the consensus on the talk page of windows odysses article, please read it.

And I myself was now warned by Collectonian about disruption of these two articles even though i was just keeping consensus (which was clearly posted on the windows odyssey talk page).

As for what happened in the other article mentioned here, i read that too and i dont think obrasilo is bullshitting about the letter, i dont knwo why but he sounds convincing to me.

and no im not a sock puppet of obrasilo, i dont even know who that guy is and i welcome any admin of this site to IP check me to prove that.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet...you, a "new" editor pop in to defend him despite your having no knowledge of this discussion through visible Wikipedia communnications, and somehow he came to your defense on articles in which you have a clear COI with as an employee of MS (or former employee, depending on the day it seems).[40]. Both you, Obraislo, and his IPs have all been the only reverters of those articles as well. He also stated that "we" have provided sources - which would seem to indicate some possible meatpuppetry or socking. I think an SPI wouldn't be unwarranted in this issue. As for the issues with the Windows articles between OBrasilo, Lin, and Schmucky, it should be noted that most of this occurred in November and December. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, I didn't notice you, because you explicitly told me not to post on your talk page, which I respect, so that's why I didn't notify you there. And I did notify you on the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, though, so please.

And you warned Lin Godzilla for disruption? Read the consensus of those articles he edited, LOL. He was the one keeping the consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat went against consensus. Six out of eight people are for keeping those two articles as is, this means 75% consensus. This is a huge consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat keeps going against it, rejecting the articles as "speculation", just because he refuses to acknowledge that information.

Also, please notice, that the guy isn't un-related, he admitted to have worked on both Neptune, and Odyssey projects, which means, he COULD be trying to push a MS Marketing POV by redirecting those two articles.

As for the stuff with Collectonian, I admit my apology there. However, she should have simply reminded me of that, and ended it there, instead of throwing accusations at me, that's all I wanted to say. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT me, Collectonian, they go to Dallas, USA, whereas I'm in Slovenia, Central Europe. And they aren't proxy IP's, so you just slipped up big time here. How nice of you to accuse everyone who dares agree with me of being a sock-puppet of mine. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

those ips arent me either. my ip starts with 70, not 76, and im from florida, not dallas which is in texas.

and collectonian here seems to be bending facts to prove that obrasilo is a bad user, so i have a question for here - dear collectonian, have you maybe thought that the guy simply forgot the content of his apology and then did his action in forgetfulness? because thats the first thing someone assuming good faith would assume, but i think youre clearly assuming bad faith here.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The contiual concerted efforts of these two to deliberately try to escape 3RR on the Windows articles in question seems to speak for itself, as does Lin's assertion that he is "from Florida" while also claiming he is from Seattle Washington[41] Will wait for admin responses. IPs are not the only info used to determine socks, nor as their being in different ranges really relevant. They can be spoofed or proxied. Behavioral evidence can also indicate either sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and as OBrasilo has already shown he will engage in off-site meatpuppet recruiting, assuming that much good faith would be beyond naive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So because they agree with Lin, and me, they must be sock-puppets? Come on, get real. And you just violated 3RR yourself in the Windows Odyssey article.

Please, do some research. I'm the founder of three Beta forums, and sorry, but a lot of members there agree with me about those articles, and yes, I can give you access there, so you can see for yourself, that I haven't been involved in any meat-puppet recruiting there.

Yes, I tried to recruit meat-puppets on the Magic-ball forum for the LBA versions stuff, but only there, and I also acknowledged it's wrong, and stopped with it. Now you're trying to use what I did just one time in all my period of Wikipedia membership, to prove that that's how I am.

You're just trying to bend the facts to support your view, that is, that anyone agreeing with me, is a sock-puppet, or meat-puppet. This is lame, at the least. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

collectonian, i was born in seattle, WA and now live in tampa bay, FL

also you violated 3RR in the odyssey article, why are you even editing it? you dont WP:OWN it. and the consensus youre defending is non existant - the only three people agree with with the redirect are schmuckythecat and two others, but the only one actively pushing the redirects is schmucky. had he never started his redirect war in the first place, we wouldnt be here right now.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The December AfD clearly shows that consensus was to merge or delete. You "two" are the only ones who feel otherwise and are the ones acting against consensus. You don't WP:OWN it either, though through the obvious back and forth, the "pair" of you continue to try to act as if you do. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, about the message you left me in the talk page - I have provided reliable sources, namely, the site by Paul Thurrott, and the Microsoft Anti-Trust law-suit. It's just, that SchmuckyTheCat keeps rejecting these two sources as un-reliable, based on personal dislike about Paul Thurrott, and on no reason as for the law-suit.

Also, again, I'm a founder of three Beta forums, it's obvious that people recognize me, and that my friends, and other members of my forums, will support my views. No meat-puppetry involved here, since my friends supprot my views without me having to tel them anything. It's their decision. It's obvious they're going to be against redirecting those articles, I don't need to resort to sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, sorry.

So, please, you're rejecting our consensus based on no reason here. As Lin Godzilla said above, were it not for SchmuckyTheCat, no-one would be redirecting those articles, as of now. He started it, and refused to discuss it, even resorting to snippy comments. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, what? The AfD ended in no consensus, as for deletion. And the merge vs. stay as is dispute, was to be resolved on the article's talk page, which I attempted to do, by starting a new section there, and the only person to express the support for the merge was SchmuckyTheCat.

There are four people against the merge. One is me. The second is Lin Godzilla. The third is 142.47.132.6, which is user Marcello from my OSBetaGroup forum. And another is 76.x.x.x which is another member of my OSBetaGroup forum. And I can easily give you access there, to prove, that no meat-puppetry is involved there.

So, if anything, it's 4 out of 7 people against the merge. And this is majority. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the Meatpuppetry.[42] You recruited friends from your forum, again, to try to help you in an edit dispute. I politely request that an administrator take over at this point. This is not the first time this has occurred, and per WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK, blocking would seem to be appropriate. Please advise if a formal SPI is needed since he has now admitted it.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not admit any meat-puppetry about the Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey articles, so please stop bending my words to fit your own POV. I simply stated most of the editors come from my forum, but I also stated I did NOT ask them to come here, and edit the articles. They did so of their own accord, which means there's no meat-puppetry involved, whatsoever. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (

So, several editors from your forum just "happened" to all decide to come those articles that you were involved in an edit dispute on, despite having not edited here before or since? Hmmm....-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Several? Only one, 142.47.132.6, which is Marcello. Only him, and I, among the editors, are from my own forum, and I didn't even know he was editing these articles, until he stated so himself in my forum's chat box. Lin Godzilla I met for the first time here in Wikipedia, and I don't have direct contact with him even here on Wikipedia, let alone off-site contact, which I don't have with him at all.

And the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, whom I only met on IRC, once, and he even insulted me then. So he even hates me, and he's not a member of any forum. Hardly someone I could ask to help me. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Collectonian removing someone's post on the talk page[43] is totally inappropriate. She states in the edit summary "nothing more to discuss - its been discussed and its not going to chan)". She decides something shouldn't be done, and then dismisses the opinions of others, trying to shut out any discussion about it. So the complaint about her being uncivil, I believe is quite valid. Recently, in the article for Characters and wildlife in Avatar she insisted the article had no reason to exist, kept trying to replace it with a redirect despite protest, even during active conversation on the talk page about this(please read the responses of others to her actions [44]), others agreeing with those complaining here.) And yet, during the AFD that followed, the overwhelming majority of people said Keep, and the AFD was closed as Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_and_wildlife_in_Avatar Just mentioning that as another example of her mentality. Wikipedia is decided on consensus, not the opinions of someone who decides something shouldn't be there, and tries to eliminate it. Dream Focus 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As you are about as far from neutral as possible in anything related to me - I'd request you stay out of it. You are not an admin and randomly throwing out AfDs that have nothing to do with this topic is irrelevant. The complain about any incivility with be dealt with people who do not have an ax to grind with me and love to accuse me of stalking while doing s0 himself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with me commenting on your removal of someone's talk page message, nor me mentioning a previous case where I find similar, to demonstrate your are, as the accusser claims, uncivil towards other editors. In both cases you reinsert a contested redirect into an article, and argue on the talk page in what I would say is clearly an uncivil manner. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A redirect contested by a single person (which meatpuppets are considered) against the AfD consensus is neither uncivil nor inapproriate. And as long as your maintain your lengthy attack piece, I'd suggest you not attempt to lecture anyone on incivility. It only makes you look hypocritical. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you may not remove or re-factor another users talk page comment without good reason. It is against policy and it is disruptive. It sounds to me like you are trying to silence those who disagree with you. Jeni ^(talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the entire history before making such a claim. It is not against "policy" nor is it disruptive to respond to a disruptive editor. Whether it was an appropriate response does not make it an incivility issue nor an administrative issue. The sock/meat puppetry, claims to be speaking for a famous, living person (WP:BLP), and OBrasilo's continued ANI filings against anyone who disagrees with him are far bigger issues. He has now basically asked for action to be taken against, what, five/six other editors? Who is the one being disruptive and acting against policy here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The key words being "without good reason". WP:TALK and WP:UP entirely allow refactoring of disruption. Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason, just disruption by the person doing the removal. Jeni ^(talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I felt there was. When he restored it, I then left it there to allow someone else to review it instead. What is disruptive about it? Editors are not perfect, and I presume you have never had any minor misjudgement (which is all the removal was). It would be useful if the real disruption issues could be focused on instead of a single thing, which had already been addressed between us and was obviously not an admin nor disruption issue. Disruption would have been to continue to remove it rather than attempting to address the issue despite the past history. Further, the other claims made are false. No personal attacks were made, they were a summary of the previous ANI filed by the same user that resulted in no one believing his "letter", his never doing anything to actually validate said letter, his "forgetting" his apology where he himself stated "I promise I'll stop harassing her with my crap", and the obvious shadiness of the coordination of edits by himself and others, which he has already admitted were done by "friends" from his message board. Stating facts is not incivil. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, I don't claim to speak for the author of Tokyo Mew Mew, I copy+pasted her own words here. Accusing me of fakery is a deliberate personal attack, targetd at circumventing and nulling any, and all, opinions, that disagree with you.

And stop with you meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry accusations, un-less you can provide hard evidence for it. Because subjective obviousness is NOT evidence for anything, which you do not understand. So please, cut it off with you accusations.

Me never doing something to validate said letter? Of course, maybe because the letter wasn't sent to me directly? I don't even know, what e-mail address my friend (mr. Nakamura Hiroshi) received it from, I told you to ask him, and even gave you his e-mail address, he'd be glad to help you validate the e-mail address. But of course, you never did that. You keep asking me for validation, whereas rejecting the one means to validate it, which I provided you.

And yes, I admitted were done by members of my own OSBetaGroup forum, but not because I recruited them to do so. And first of all, only two of us who edit the article are from my forum - mr. 142.x.x.x who is user Marcello, and me obviously. Andrew Lin is NOT from any forum of mine, I have no off-site contact with him, and the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, who even hates me (but just so happens to agree with me on Neptune, and Odyssey), so hardly a viable meat-puppet. Mr. Marcello edited just a single talk page of Windows Neptune, to add an innocent comment, and didn't even tell me about that. I didn't even know the IP was him, until I asked him on IRC, and he told me it was him.

After Lin Godzilla, and Lad Hattiur (76.x.x.x), I don't have any contacts with them out-side of Wikipedia, with the exception of Lad Hattiur, whom I met on IRC, once, and only once, and got even insulted by him then.

So, apart from me, the only one from my forum editing those two articles, was mr. Marcello (142.x.x.x), who did it of his own accord, so where do you see meat-puppetry here?

And Collectonian, the stuff you attempted to remove from the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, and the last thing you removed from your own talk page, was not disruptive stuff. It was, in the first case, me attempting a civil discussion, and in the second case, my apology, complete with the author's letter. Nothing disrupting in either case. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did claim to be posting a letter for the author, which is claiming to speak for them. You have never proven that the email was from them (obviously because you can't). It isn't my job to validate your claim, it must actually be validated BY the author. Claiming it came from this person who got it from this person isn't proof at all. Further, if she has something to say, I'm sure she is more than capable of actually doing it herself without having to daisy chain some email between multiple people (and funny how you originally claimed she sent it directly to you, and now it supposedly came from other folks). You continue to admit the people reverting for you were from YOUR forums and NONE have edited at Wikipedia before or since except to revert for you. That is meat puppetry. And, FYI, I can remove anything I want from my talk page and yes it was disruptive. You agreed to stop harrassing (your own words) over the issue and that you were wrong, yet you started right back at it again. That is disruptive and just provides further proof that you seem to be less than honest and straight foward in your dealings here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just what the heck are you on about? Obviously I never claimed the letter was sent to me directly. I always clearly stated it was sent to me through my contact, also because the author of Tokyo Mew Mew doesn't speak English well, so it would be use-less for her to send me the letter directly. She sent it to my contact, who is the one who knows her, and who translated the letter to English before sending it to me.

As for validating BY the author - again, she does NOT speak English well, or she would have registered here herself. Use some damn logic. Also, I told you to e-mail my contact, so he can validate the letter, but you refused that. I can't prove squat myself, I'm not the one who got the letter from her directly, I don't know from what e-mail address it came, nor anything else. My contact knows, and he's not a member of the Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you want to validate it, you MUST contact him, since he's the only one who can help you here. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the letter is WP:OR, and is not likely usable as a reference. Do not try to use it until it's been approved. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla

There is something shady going on here. I suspect that the WP:SPA User:Lin Godzilla probably isn't who he claims he is on his user page because of this edit. More likely he is related to the Slovenia IPs mentioned above than a real former MS employee by the name Andrew Lin as his user page claims. The concerted use of multiple accounts, be they sock- or meat-puppets, used to circumvent WP:V at the two AfD'd articles by edit warring in a team to evade 3RR is very troubling. Pcap ping 21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The question is what to do about it? Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the Windows Odyssey article down to the verifiable part. I hope some admin has the gall to block the POV pushers that insert unverified info in that article. These are far more detrimental to Wikipedia than the silly drama in Cremepuff thread above, but somehow almost nobody pays attention to stuff like this. Pcap ping 12:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also wondering what, if anything is going to be done about the pretty obvious meat puppetry, at best, going on here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla also relies on the (dubious) assertion of his employment to push his POV: where do you see speculation? im a ms employee and agree, enough?, Do we need another Essjay-level drama here before some admin intervenes? Pcap ping 15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla is not my sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Please stop with your base-less accusations. Prove I have off-site contact with Lin Godzilla, and/or that my IP's match his, or stop. I'm tired of your continuous denigration of me, and anyone who dares agree with me. See, this is exactly the problem of Wikipedia. A few select editors decide to keep some articles one way, and whoever doesn't agree, is automatically grouped together under the meat-puppet pretense. Please provide hard evidence for your claims, before pushing them further. Subjective obviousness is not hard evidence.

As for the user editing the CHWDP article - maybe he has Polish relatives, or maybe he travels to Eastern Europe often, and so knows about the subject? Again, you're trying to judge based on circumstantial evidence. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess: a Chinese American (by name) working at Microsoft cares enough about an utterly obscure Eastern European topic that's not even remotely IT related to tag spam the article in his first few edits on Wikipedia? An knows how to link to some Polish organization in it? An that's his only edit beyond revert warring on the Odyssey/Neptune articles? WP:DUCK. Pcap ping 17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence has already been given and I am not the only one who strongly suspects your going on. A few "select" editors who do no edits except to support the two of you, and which you have admitted multiple times are people you know and magically just happened to only have an interest in supporting your view of those articles? That is meat puppetry whether you want to admit to it or not. Nor are the accusations "base-less", as noted by others above, and by your own past history. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For any admin reading all this, another 76.x IP has popped up and is reverting those who are actually attempting to salvage Windows Odyssey to see if should be merged for deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption from IP socks has begun again: [45] [46]. They restore an unsourced version of the article full of speculation, and mark their reverts as "reverting vandalism". Pcap ping 17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What evidence has been given? You're only given subjective interpretation. There is NO meat-puppetry involved, and you do NOT have hard proof for it. You only have subjective interpretation of events, and facts, which is NOT hard proof in the least. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, the 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT MINE, so stop saying they're my sock-puppets. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said the latest edit warring IP was your sock. Why are you so defensive? It is obviously a reincarnation of someone previously involved in that article though. I don't expect some random IP to begin editing Wikipedia by reverting some article to many versions ago. The IP hopping guy is obviously disruptive and may need admin intervention if he doesn't stop of its own accord. Not every ANI post is directed at you. In fact, I haven't directed any insofar, but I find it strange that you jumped to the defese of Lin Godzilla inventing various excuses for him, even though you claim you've got nothing to do with him. Pcap ping 18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's end it here

OK, I'm going to stop here, since it's obviously use-less to argue. Feel free to believe, whatever you want, you won't see a single contribution from me on Wikipedia, except on the CHWDP article. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know you edited that article too. Pcap ping 20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

comment

SchmuckyTheCat has copied the new message bar, which according to the policy, is NOT allowed... Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a variation of it on my talkpage too, but for a very different purpose than as what was once a common joke - do you have a concern about that? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is generally advised to avoid doing this. See Wikipedia:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"generally advised" != "forbidden". Looking for additional reasons to give an editor "shit" is nto a good plan. In other words "so what?" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Obrasilo

As seen on multiple articles now, and repeated other occurrences on ANI (where I am not involved), O-brillo is a disruptive advocate of using original research to write articles. He is argumentative, disruptive and has shown repeatedly that he will bring in people (meatpuppets) from his forums and fansites to argue here. As an advocate for including original research in articles, his contributions to the project are unhelpful. Over the last year he has repeatedly failed to "get it". Combine a lack of clue, a lack of compromise, a lack of attempting to conform to our requirements, with the disruption and puppetteering that follows everywhere he goes, it would be better for this project if he were banned. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another IP sock of the 76 range has popped in at Windows Odyssey to revert the cleaned up version to the OR ridden one from Obrasilo.[47]-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SPA has officially been filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OBrasilo -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing by User:Binarygal

No WP:OUT-ing, nothing to see. Collapsed as an early show of Drama Out
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In this edit Binarygal (talk · contribs) makes the statement "some have actually worked out why you changed your name, and a lot more", this appears to be a threat about my professional details and name. I consider this a personal attack on the basis of threats of outing. Considering several previous contributions have alleged the existence of a cartel (see example diff), I am concerned that no company is named or any implication that any organization I am professionally involved with may be part of a cartel. In the recent previous ANI for Binarygal, the ANI was closed on the basis that Binarygal was leaving Wikipedia. As this has evidently not happened I am requesting more positive action to ensure an end to this long history of accusations against other editors, claims of an active cartel supporting ITIL interests (presumably in breach of competition law) and threats of outing editors.—Ash (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Anyone reading this should be informed of the repeatedly hyperbolic nature of the comments by Ash directed toward BinaryGal. The failure of Ash to stick to level phraseology in regards to BinaryGal's claims of a conspiracy may be indicative of something deeper, and it may only be reckless speech. At any rate, I feel that it is harmful. I am absolutely, and will remain indefinitely, only interested in the parties both being civil, as I am not in the position of being able to investigate the alleged conspiracy's truthvalue. I will also point out that I am not intent on replicating everything said back and forth over time, and can only report that what has been said recently by Ash, that BinaryGal expresses negative thoughts against the rest of the world, is blatantly false.Julzes (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry. Simply see the full portion, including Ash's words, from the example given by him- or herself. It's more complete and accurate.Julzes (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure I understand your point about hyperbole or "truth value". Are you suggesting that to counter unsubstantiated accusations of a conspiracy I have to professionally out myself? Apart from stating that there is no conspiracy either within or outside Wikipedia and that I have no direct interest or potential benefit from whether the link to http://www.itlibrary.org is in the article or not, I'm not sure what you are expecting (or how much clearer and with much less hyperbole you expect such a statement to be). You appear to be accusing me of failing to prove my innocence for something that I have not actually been clearly accused of and for which no evidence has been produced or will ever be produced (because it is not there to be found) while at the same time stating that you are not interested in the truth of the matter. Your opinion as stated seems overly Kafkaesque and in no way a rationale for Binarygal's threats.—Ash (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC) I'm really only posting in regards to civility over the short period that I've examined. Anyone else is welcome to look at the detailed history of the matter. This is the second time you have responded to me. I haven't spoken to you before. Keep a level head in your own use of words, please. What I appear to be doing according to you is in your own head.Julzes (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) The incident raised here is not an issue of civility, your comments are off-topic.—Ash (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I am interested in the truth value of the subject; I don't ask you to reveal any details about your professional affiliations; and my comments are not entirely off-topic because of your own choice of words. Where a conspiracy is alleged by someone with seeming verisimilitude who displays no personal vested interest, and where hyperbolic remarks about that person's words are used, the possibility exists that there may be an attempt to silence someone. Try to choose your own words more carefully, and perhaps there won't be an issue. That much said, anyone reading this should be informed that I am ignorant of the subject matter and the long-haul of the dispute. I just don't have time to fully engage.Julzes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I can not accept an argument that I share any responsibility for Binarygal's threat of outing. If you have nothing to add to the unsubstantiated claims then you appear to be side-tracking this ANI for no reason. You will note that you introduced the word "conspiracy", the ANI I raised referenced Binarygal's claims of a "cartel" which is a different issue. The term cartel in this context falls under the guidance of no legal threats as if any evidence were published on Wikipedia this has immediate legal implications for the companies involved.—Ash (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I have stopped editing because of what has gone on with that article. It is abuse of the worst kind, quite sickening, and nobody is listening or taking it seriously. I didn't ask to spot what was going on there, but I did. I then had the choice of watching the article being abused, or kicking up a fuss and trying stop it. I did what was right. I was then confronted with abuse and hostility. Easy words to say, but the truth. Please, please read ALL the talk pages and all the pages he has created about me. I have been accused of being some sort of conspiracy fruitcase, through to being tedious, boorish, and so much more. You will see that I have been rather restrained in the circumstances. I am just a simple topic editor, and know little about Wikipedia protocols. This guy has therefore used them as a stick to bully me with, over many months. He has used them to take some sort of perverse high ground, rallying others who know the protocols, to avoid the core issues and place focus on ME instead of the where it should be. He hasn't just abused the article, but has abused the Wikipedia protocols as well. He has been allowed to. I have been screaming since day 1 for someone to help, for some really senior Wikipedia person to fully investigate the abuse of this article, and everyone involved. This is a matter of record. Go through all the material and see for yourselves. The core issue is actually pretty obvious if you examine it in sufficient depth with a basic understanding of the market it pertains to. There is a cartel like structure in place within the ITIL domain, revolving around licenses, all driven by money of course. Free ITIL and Open ITIL are aggressively marginized out there, but both are significant and vibrant. Attempts to subvert the Wikipedia article were always going to happen, something which was obvious. From this reality, look at the talk pages from the start. Look at the insidious methods used to slowly remove all references to open entities. Look at the ruthlessness, the aggression, the very clear campaign. This isn't in my head. For example, why would someone embark on such a lengthy determined drive, taking so much time and so many words just to remove a simple link... if that link wasn't central to what I have said? They wouldn't, especially as there were other links there to hopeless lightweight websites. As others have said, if this WASN'T about marginalizing the open movement that much effort and determination would be insane, over a trival link which is in any case is to a half decent site. He has used a variety of methods to hide this, including branding me a conspiratorialist and more, using words and Wikipedia procedures to pander to the prejudices of others, simultaneously discouraging them from taking this seriously and embraking upon the investigation which I have begged for. In the end I got sick of it. I stated clearly that Wikipedia would end up with the article it deserved, and wouldn't edit again. The article is left as a sales pitch for ITIL rather than a description of it, and is a wholly inaccurate description of the landscape. Did they stop abusing me though? No. Again, look for yourself. He continued to abuse me on the talk page, backed up by has newly acquired friend. It was over, the article was hopeless, and I had walked away... but they STILL kept at it. I responded, stating that I had every right to defend myself, and asked them to stop. Did they stop? No. They continued, as though it was some sick little game. This passed the point of being acceptable some time ago, but nobody has stepped in. Editors who tried to help here and there were quickly rounded upon too, and disappeared. The situation now is that I have lost all confidence in Wikipedia and won't edit again. I will respond though if they continue to abuse me. I have not outed anyone (despite vested interests), and have only ever responded to abuse, never initiating anything unpleasant. This ANI, or whatever it is, is the latest stick being used against someone who is walking away, still having childish names thrown at them. It is pathetic, but typical of what has happened. If there is anyone who actually takes the principles of Wikipedia seriously here, and will finally undertake the investigation I have requested so many times: you will discover a subverted article and multiple vested interests. You will discover that I am just a person who tried to improve Wikipedia, spotted abuse, and ended up being chased away for resisting it. Or you can continue to believe that a large number of edits and knowledge of Wikipedia protocols equates to integrity, and pass me off an an unhinged conspiracy nutcase. It no longer matters to me. All I will do is respond to any further abuse I am subjected to here. BinaryGal (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Reading the above, you appear to be stating that your core issue is that my interests are as an advocate of a cartel with vested interests in protecting ITIL for profit. Is that a fair summary?—Ash (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I would prefer it if this whole thread stopped completely. Far too much Wikidrama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC) To stop the wikidrama, I have archived Talk:ITIL. No real conversation was going on about ITIL, and as the page has degenerated into personal attacks there was no point any of the conversations continuing. I am also archiving this thread. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I am not convinced that user:Tbsdy lives as a previously involved editor is sufficiently independent to mark this ANI as resolved when there is case of WP:NLT being breached due to repeated allegations of a cartel in operation. This is not only a case of personal attack as in Tbsdy's summary but a direct allegation of companies and contributors to the ITIL article and talk page involved in a breach of UK competition law.—Ash (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) There is far too much wikidrama around this article. It's a bit of a long bow to stretch that they are making legal threats. ITIL is meant to be incredibly boring. This is far too exciting here! :-) There is no evidence that the editor has any information on Ash, and Binarygal seems to have said it in the heat of the moment. Certainly they should not have said it, but they have since been warned by another admin. Let's stop all this drama now? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC) I have re-opened after discussion on my talk page (See User_talk:Ash#Binarygal) as Tbsdy lives has been heavily involved in the discussion on the ITIL talk page and has also been subject to accusations by Binarygal. Consequently although motivated by good intentions, he/she is not a suitably independent person or currently an admin in order to credibly investigate or close this incident notice.—Ash (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC) As an uninvolved (& perhaps senior) Admin, I took a quick look at this matter, since Binarygal's allegations that conflict of interest are harming Wikipedia are serious concerns. However, from what I can see, this contention is about adding a couple of external links at the end, which one editor has argued violate Wikipedia's guidelines. Instead of directly responding to the reasoning for their removal -- I found her initial response to their removal a passionate expression of disagreement, not an example of persuasion -- or pursuing the option of incorporating the links into the body of the article, Binarygal has been on a crusade to restore them as External links. Which, IMHO, is an example of tendentious editting. At the moment, this is still a content dispute. Barely. As another uninvolved party commented about 8 months ago: "If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it." My advice to Binarygal is to drop the club and back slowly away from the dead horse. Continue in this vein, & you will be shown the door. (This is not a threat or warning, just an explanation of how Wikipedia works.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC) As a PS directed to Ash, I don't consider Binarygal's comments to be a threat of outting (as defined in our rules), but I can see that this matter has gotten under your skin. I strongly suggest that you leave this article alone for a long while, say 1 to 3 months. The worse that will happen during your absence is that Binarygal (or someone else) adds those External links back -- & what will harm will this cause? If Binarygal does it, she'll be blocked for disruption. If someone else does it, they can't help but be more amenable to persuasion. (And after all this, there is that slim chance that she just might be right & these websites should be linked to this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC) You don't get it do you? Perhaps nobody here actually WANTS to get it. You say "I took a quick look at this matter". Is that it? A quick look? Do know what you will find with a "quick look"? Nothing. A "quick look" will have you supporting the guy with protocol knowledge, and a big edit history. Can't you even see that? No? Wikipedia has been horribly abused, and you offer "a quick look at this matter". The abuser has profited, and an honest content editor has walked away, and NO-ONE can be bothered to actually go through ALL of the history in the context of the article topic. Does no-one actually CARE here? Is it too difficult for you to confront, that a mere content editor has identified long term abusive editing, and vested interest? I guess the answer is that no-one cares sufficiently, and it is much easier to brush it under the carpet, and pretend I am deluded. Makes for an easy life, eh? Honest Wikipedia principles, RIP. No, don't bother to reply. I guess you have the article you deserve, and you have the editor you deserve. BinaryGal (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Even on this page, now, I am being insulted and portrayed as some sort of unstable personality: "Collapsed as an early show of Drama Out".

This appears to be what happens then, when a simple but honest topic editor uncovers systematic abuse and tries repeatedly to get someone to take it seriously.

For almost a year I have been asking for Wikipedia to investigate fully and not superficially. For my pains I have been ignored, abused, and ridiculed. Nobody has taken it seriously: far too easy to portray me as a nutcase.

It is an object lesson for anyone who uncovers article abuse by one or more established editors: you can't do anything about it - this is where it ends. I guess it is also an object lesson for anyone who trusts what they read in Wikipedia articles. BinaryGal (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of articles on Wikipedia that need work. As you know, the Truth is not as important as WP:CONSENSUS, and unfortunately that would be difficult to change. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't several articles which currently are being owned by someone with a financial stake in the content. (With over 3.1 million articles, can anyone seriously doubt this is the case?) However, the way to fix this is by providing a reasonable & persuasive explanation -- which you have not done, BinaryGal. And I remain unconvinced that excluding 4 external links are an undeniable example of "article abuse" -- even if someone like Bwilkins made the accusation with as little substance as you have done here. Let me put it another away: go work on another article. Now. -- llywrch (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there wasn't consensus to remove that link, or to exclude all reference to Free ITIL and Open ITIL, and there never has been. If you read all the talk pages you will see how those abusive edits have been pushed through, using everything from gross repetition to bullying. Just read the whole catalogue over many many months, and you will see where the abusers are coming from and how they have operated.

Regarding arguments, I provided rationale many times, but it became lost in the sheer volume of vitriol coming my way. You really have to read it in full to understand it.

And I guess you already know the answer to writing an article: what is the point? If I write a replacement article why would it have a better chance than my defense of the honest aspects of the existing one? It wouldn’t, and I won’t go through what I have had to go through in the last year again. Given that Wikipedia hasn’t cared enough about its integrity to support me, why would I continue to expose myself to the stress of the bullying, abuse and ridicule I have suffered?

I was more than happy for these bogus complaints about me to be made, because I imagined that they might encourage an admin or someone to actually undertake the full investigation I have pleaded for from the start. But alas, it never happened.

And to be frank, neither do I buy the line that this particular article abuse is ok, just because there are other ‘owned’ articles. Surely the way forward is to properly sort them out as they are identified.

I did my best and have been let down. It really is that simple.BinaryGal (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Indefinite block against User:MisterWiki (applied for sockpuppeting & indef evasion)

I am writing this after being made aware of the above sanction against the user mentioned. I have had contact with MisterWiki both on and off site (via IRC) and i am quite concerned over this block.

MisterWiki has admitted to ban evasion and creating doppelganger accounts, but since his new username, almost 2 years ago, he has been a consistently hardworking editor who has tried his best to mend what was past for him. I appreciate that a block is in order, i don't contest that, but in the circumstances and taking into account his current 2 year period of good behaviour, i'd suggest that an indefinite block is harsh.

I know i'm not an admin, and there is no limitation on how long after an event action can be taken, but i'd ask that another look be taken at the block length, maybe with a view to reduction, upon admission and tagging of all known sockpuppets of this user, in circumstances, i can't suggest how long but i feel a reduction would warrant based on his recent good work.

Thanks for listening. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest a reduced block; maybe 6 months? On the plus side, MisterWiki has been a far better editor under this account. On the minus, not only did he break the rules for a long period of time he did so knowingly, and until recently has edited under two different accounts excluding his old one. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An indef does seem a bit harsh and he seems quite sincere in his latest unblock request. I'm not going to admit to being the world's biggest fan of MisterWiki (his welcoming templates, attitude and recent misguided use of rollback al concern me greatly) however, he is a good editor and edits, for the most part, in good faith. I think a block is in order for recent conduct, but, as I say, an indef is slightly over the top. Maybe a month (assuming he doesn't sock in the meantime) would be enough time for him to learn his lesson? We have very little to lose by unblocking after a suitable period of time and, in the form of content editing, a lot to gain. HJMitchell You rang? 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Works for me. Support HJMitchell's idea. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• A month may be too short. MisterWiki's deceptive sockpuppetry – which he has outright lied about and tried to cover up in the past – is block evasion that definitely requires a block of some length. Given his running of an unauthorized bot to distribute bizarre welcome templates, history of rollback abuse, edit-warring just a few days ago at Guitaret, edit-warring shortly before his block at Chilean people, and his apparent violation] of WP:POINT at RfA... well, to be honest I don't really think a lengthier block is unmerited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no. We don't reward people for block evasion and sockpuppetry. Jtrainor (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Point; I was unaware of that. Keep the block as it is. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given ASaW's diffs, I would suggest a 6 month block is the minimum that can be expected. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block as is and if he behaves himself and doesn't continue socking, he can appeal in six months (or whatever). I had a look through his contribs, though, and I have to say that I really don't think he's been a great editor. His writing skills are poor and it seems to result in him having communication problems and then offending people and ending up in silly disputes. He was also recently stripped of rollback for misusing it after having been warned twice before for misusing it. I'm not saying these are reasons not to let him edit or anything, just that I'm not convinced that he's really been that great an editor. Regardless, the ban evasion is enough reason for him to be blocked. If he really cares about this project as much as he claims, he can show us by abiding by our policies and not creating socks to evade the block. If he wants to contribute to a project in the meanwhile, he can show us what a great editor he can be by contributing honestly to one of the other WMF projects or the es, pt or one of the other language editions of Wikipedia which he can read and write. Sarah 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose long block: MisterWiki is very young, and was really very young two years ago. I'm sure a lot of people did really daft things in Lower School that they have rather grown out of by the time they are ready to sit their first set of public exam, and also I submit that young persons are often naively confident that earlier bad behaviours are gone and forgotten. I understand the desire to impose some kind of penalty, but would encourage probation and mentorship by a more experienced editor rather than a lengthy block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• In addition to socking and hoaxing, he's abused rollback, edit warred, left bizarre warnings, hounded new users and very nearly driven several away. Or at least, if this user is unblocked, it should be under a strict civility and anti-hounding parole, given that he's driving away, or been very close to driving away several new users with very aggressive behavior. For example, see this afd where he made a total of very aggressive 18 edits where he accused a new user of spamming, being the subject and improperly struck other people's comments simply because he disagreed with them. [48] [49]). He nominated this casual user's all images for deletion, repeatedly rollbacked non-vandalism ([50], [51], [52], [53]) and finally caused the user to say in frustration "right now am pretty much prepared to give up on Wikipedia completely" [54] (It seems he did too, he's only edited once since). And this is just two specific incidents in the last few weeks, goodness knows how much more we'd find if we went digging. His intentions may not be malicious, and he is a kid, but competence matters. We can't have people driving away new users left and right. henrik•talk 12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is also a very interesting page to say the least. Sarah 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure of the point Sarah is trying to make with that link- I don't see anything obviously sinister, perhaps you could elaborate? Also, to clarify the misuse of rollback, I commented in the resulting ANI thread and it appears MisterWiki meant well, and was not edit warring or intentionally abusing the tool. He was rightly stripped of the tool, but was not "abusing it". I'm not advocating an immediate block by any means, but I think an indef is harsh and the block should perhaps be reconsidered (though not necessarily lifted) in around a month. The problem here is that people are very quick to jump to conclusions about, in this case, User:MisterWiki, and don;t take in to consideration his other good faith contributions (even if not all of them were entirely policy-compliant). HJMitchell You rang? 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say it was sinister. If I thought it was sinister I would have said, "Hey this is sinister!" I just found it interesting to see him spend a whole page social networking with a self-declared block avoiding sock. Sarah 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. For what it's worth, the original account's block log is clean; maybe she was hit with an autoblock. As for the social-networking, I agree that it's problematic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right and the prior account. I didn't even notice her former username there on her userpage when I read it last night (that will teach me not to edit in the wee hours of the morning :p) Regardless of that, though, my main point was the social networking. Sarah 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Luckily, I was unblocked today, after a long talk with users in IRC, and my reasons on my talk page. However, I will be checkusered weekly, but I don't care, because I'm not going to use any other secret account. --MW talk contribs 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Okay then; please do behave this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• HJ Mitchell, perhaps "abuse" was the wrong word; "misuse" is more appropriate. But I don't think the commenters were jumping to conclusions. This is not an isolated incident; it's part of a pattern. I agree that MisterWiki has acted in good faith, and that he's done good article work, but some of his behavior has been disruptive. Furthermore, policies like WP:SOCK, WP:WAR, and WP:BOTPOL, and guidelines like WP:RBK and WP:POINT apply to all editors, even those with excellent content work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• As does the assumption of good faith, WP's most violated (but, IMHO, most important) guideline. As I say above, I'm not the world's biggest fan of MisterWiki, but most of his contributions were made with the intent of building an encyclopaedia, rather than an intent to disrupt it or the wiki as a whole. If (and I don't feel qualified to judge whether he has) MisterWiki has learnt his lesson, then keeping him blocked would be punitive, not preventative and blocks are "not intended for use [...] as punishment". Anyway, since he's been unblocked, it's something of a moot point better raised of his behaviour is the subject of yet another ANI thread (he has now racked up quite a few). Let him be for a bit and see if he does some good because it's easy enough for an admin just to re-block him should any further issues arise. HJMitchell You rang? 04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

Following MisterWiki's conditional unblocking, and with the approval of Drini and DragonflySixtyseven, I have added an entry to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (see here), detailing the conditions accepted by MisterWiki. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think it was at all wise to unblock this user while there was an active ANI discussion happening which was indicating consensus towards at least some period of block. I also don't like that MrWiki says he was unblocked as a result of IRC discussion. IRC isn't transparent since non-irc using members of the community can't read it or participate in it and it should not be a replacement for on-wiki discussions. I kind of thought that was long established. If consensus is to unblock him, then I don't have any problem with him being unblocked, but discussion on-site was heading in the direction that he should be blocked for at least some period of time and I really don't like someone being unblocked while subject of an active ANI discussion as a result of discussion that's taken place elsewhere. Sarah 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Consider this, then. MisterWiki is, for the most part, a decent editor who is here to help not hinder the project, thus blocking him serves no use, not least since blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. If, as it seems, the block has been lifted, the best case scenario is that he goes back to doing some decent editing and in the worst, he can be re-blocked as easily as he was unblocked. Let's give him another chance? HJMitchell You rang? 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's hardly the point. The point is we make Wikipedia decisions on-wiki, not on irc. And the on-wiki discussion was heading in the direction of at least some period of block. I'm also very surprised to see that it was Drangonfly67 who made the unblock because the last time he unblocked a user who was being discussed on this noticeboard, also after an irc conversation, we ended up at arbitration. I'm very glad that this time he apparently spoke with the blocking administrator, but I'm still not happy that he unblocked a user while a.a discussion was actually taking place on-site, b.that discussion was leaning in the direction of a block of at least some length of time and c. that the unblocking administrator still hasn't bothered to come here and explain his rationale to the community. Sarah 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I don't mind the unblock. This is one of the cases, when you have a young and unintentionally problematic editor, where having an uninterrupted longer conversation where you can thoroughly explain the problem is more helpful than a somewhat chaotic ANI discussion. I'm sure Dragonfly67 made it absolutely clear what mine and others complaints were and what MisterWiki needed to change. henrik•talk 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I have to say that I do. Not necessarily for the fact that he was unblocked, but I believe that Sarah makes an excellent point. Discussion was underway here, and there were some pretty decent reasons for not unblocking him. A decision was still pending. I'm even more concerned that this decision was made via IRC! This sort of this should really be discussed on here first. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's exactly right, Tbsdy. I don't care so much about the unblock itself - if there's now consensus for it then so be it. And I have no problem with them having an "uninterrupted longer conversation where you can thoroughly explain the problem" with Mr Wiki, as Henrik says, but that's got nothing to do with circumventing or bypassing a community discussion which was in process. I'm actually quite shocked by all of this; after the various arbitration cases and dramafests about using irc discussion as a replacement for on-wiki discussion, I really thought this type of thing was in the past. Sarah 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note, I typically avoid AN/I as if it has a case of explosive diarrhea (and when I say "explosive", I mean "explosive"), and I avoid arbcom as if it that case of explosive diarrhea was virulently contagious and transmissible by proximity. So I'm not really up to speed on all that sort of thing. Sorry. DS (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I was asked about it, and I always said: "I'll follow whatever is decided". I didn't ask or argued about block or unblock All I said was "whatever is the outcome, I'll be fine with it". -- m:drini 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of DragonflySixtyseven's unblock of User:Pickbothmanlol (who was reblocked after ANI discussion), not so long ago. Back then, it was e-mail correspondence that lead to an unblock. Again, his excuse for unilateral action after off-wiki discussion is wholly unsatisfactory. Last time it was "I'm too busy to discuss my unblocking" and now it's "I avoid ANI". I find this pattern where DS doesn't care about community input and defends it with lame excuses somewhat disturbing.--Atlan (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he did the right thing, since I'm not a large scale sockpuppeter. I owned 3 accounts in the past, and I don't wanna do the same again. If I create another account I will tag it properly as an alternate account or doppelganger. --MW talk contribs 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a constructive addition to conversation. The unblocked account feels it's good that he's been unblocked, my! Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anyone expects Misterwiki to disagree with this course of events. Anyway, I'm not suggesting MisterWiki should also be reblocked. The Pickbothmanlol case was a different one entirely. What bothers me is DragonflySixtyseven going around unblocking people at his whim, with no more than a shrug of the shoulders when asked about it.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Block again

MisterWiki has repeatedly socked, repeatedly lied about it, repeatedly and directly made efforts to portray that his old socks were someone else, posted bizarre warnings and messages, run a bot against policy, abused rollback, repeatedly edit-warred and made WP:POINTy RfA contributions, as documented above. After an indefinite block, his case came up before ANI, where consensus was growing that while an indef was inappropriate, a block of some kind was necessary. In the middle of this, DragonflySixtySeven unblocked based on an IRC conversation. I'd suggest that this was (whether knowingly or not) in breach of a growing consensus, and we should reiterate the need for some kind of block. The editing restrictions are insufficient, since they only address a couple of elements of his problematic behaviour. Time off is more likely to be effective, and more likely to convince him of the need to reform. As a result, I suggest we re-impose the block, in my opinion for around three months. Ironholds (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on Jews by User:Tholzel

Please could some deal with the anti-Semitism and being spouted at Talk:David Irving#Hints of religious bias haunting this page and Tholzel's tebdebtious arguing.

The way he keeps on referring to "religious" editing despite being challenged on it makes it quite evident that he is referring to Jews. He has been given multiple references to how both the English High Court and the Austrian criminal courts have described Irving as a "Holocaust denier", the latter jailing him for it, the former rejecting a libel case he brought on this very point. Yet Tholzel persists in prolonging this thread in order to push the claim that unnamed "religious zealots" have distorted the article by calling poor innocent little David Irving an "anti-Semite" and "Holocaust denier" using only reputable Historians, judges and mainstream newspapers for reference. This has got far beyond the stage that WP:AGF applies and needs firm action to prevent further right wing propaganda from being added.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're required to notify editors when you bring them up here. I've done that now. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery to wade into these waters again, but here goes: Tholzel's comments, to me, do not represent antisemitism or an attack on Jews. His claims that a Jewish cabal attempts to push its POV may be disruptive and paranoid, but it is not racist. If I were to claim that a group of asian editors were attempting to push a particular POV on Tiananmen Square, that would not be racist either. Tholzel has demonstrated poor editting behaviour, and that may be worthy of a block, but let's not go labelling things as anti-semitic when they may not be. The overapplication of that label dillutes its meaning and reduces its impact. If Tholzel feels that the article on Irving violates BLP, then he is more than welcome to attempt to improve it. The mere claim that editors belonging to one group or another are conspiring to see their POV is accepted is not racist. In fact, such claims are made all the time by various editors against various groups of various nationalities. Let's not overplay the race card. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with this article, and so am not totally uninvolved so I won't action this report, but I agree with Peter's comment's completely; it is clear that this editor is claiming that the article is a Jewish conspiracy against Irving and their language is extreme (eg, "there isn't actually that much historical evidence to support a lot of historical opinion" on Hitler, "Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, so calling Irving one—without having to say what that means—is a terrorist act" and "But there is no warning that certain sites like this one are off-limits to contributors, and which is watched over by a secret priesthood that has taken over complete control of the entire article. Not kosher!"). As a result, this is clearly POV-pushing by a member of the far right and a block is in order to stop it. Throwaway85; several courts have found that Irving is a Holocaust denier, and as a result It is a fringe view to regard him as anything but. The editor's repeated references to religion make it completely clear that he believes that this article is part of a Jewish campaign against Irving, which is the standard defence of him by far right wing figures. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether Irving is or isn't, I'm merely stating that no article is so sacrosanct on Wikipedia that an editor cannot challenge it. If they can provide good sources to back up their claims, those claims get included. If not, they don't. No article gets special consideration in this regard. Similarly, claims of conspiracy do not equate to racism. It may well be a standard defense amongst fringe and even racist groups, but that does not make the claim itself racist. I fully agree that much of Thozel's other language is wholly inappropriate, and administrative intervention may be required. I simply disagree with the "antisemitic" label being applied in this case. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't even know the article existed (well, coulda guessed to find it in 3million...), but reading through the entire thread (link above), I can't help getting away with a similar impression. Nick's quotes ("priesthood", "kosher") are just snippets. If I was editing an article on, say, apartheid, and somebody consistently threw rants about "those low pigmentation folks" at me, I'd know they'd mean "white-asses"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not been involved and after reading the exchange and brushing up on the latest Irving propaganda, this looks very familiar. To make the claim that Irving no longer denies the Holocaust is disingenuous at best, and part of the many word games "Holocaust deniers" use to confuse the issues. For instince, the user User:Tholzel claims that Irving's sentencing plea in 1991 absolves him of being referred to as a 'Holocaust denier', but Irving went on to detail his belief the Holocaust never happened in that same plea. Even later, in 1993, Irving made the claim that only 100,000 Jews died in the war, and the causes of those deaths were 'epidemics'. So these words games fit right into theAntisemitism displayed by Irving and his followers, which makes the insinuation that there is some Jewish Cabal all the more antisemitic. DD2K (talk) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, there is nothing antisemitic about what Tholzel posted. Labelling him an Irving "follower" is disingenuous and baseless. It is fully possible to challenge what an article says about someone without being a "follower" of theirs. An accusation of collusion is not ever racist, unless it is accompanied by specifically derogatory language. Furthermore, if Irving did in fact recant, then revisiting the issue is absolutely required in accordance with BLP. His later comments may make changes to the article unnecessary, but it is never wrong to question the status quo in such an instance. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the talk page I see Tholzel (talk · contribs) having a pretty strong POV and trying to get that captured in the article. Since exceptional claims require exceptional sources it appears that our system is working in that way. I haven't found any "attacks on Jews" that would be characterized as WP:NPA or even WP:CIVIL violations. If you disagree, please provide diffs. If this editor's WP:TE is more widespread, I think we have more to discuss (please provide diffs if you think this is the case) but this edit seems to indicate the editor is done with this article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Tholzel went back and taunted the editors on that talk page and has now been blocked by me for 31 hours. I would suggest indef block if/when this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of civility there,to be sure. I wouldn't necessarily jump straight to the indef, but he does need to understand that behaviour is unacceptable. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, can I suggest that you note the block on the talkpage in question? To any passer-by, it looks like no-one has challenged the comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that this is largely a content dispute, though I am of course quite concerned about their bad faith allegations that the article is being controlled by "religious zealots"... which strangely he denies means Jews! I have added my comments to the talk page. I don't think this editor is the most uncivil editors I've come across, however. He at least largely sticks to commenting on the article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Having been blocked, this user is now editing from an IP, still taunting other editors: [55], [56], [57]. RolandR (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While he has been editing while under a block (which is bad), I'm afraid that I just can't see how that last link here is an example of baiting! Especially as he wrote

"On the zealous cabal, I apologize for that graphic overstatement. But the essence of it, I believe, is essentially true. (If not, please say so!) The Irving article appears to me to be a corporate piece, very carefully researched and very well written. It is in no way the usual amalgam of various conributors. Indeed, the rapidity and sterness with which any changes were excised, seemed to me to indicate that the piece was closely guarded by an ideologically-motivated entity (thus my "cabal")." etc.

It sounds like he's genuine in wanting to change the way he edits, I think that its only fair that we give him a chance to show that he can edit that article harmoniously (once his block expires, of course). - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. Whilst it is of course acceptable for a user to challenge specific examples of bias where they see them, the comment "Why didn't you say you were Jewish? Then I would have understood why you are totally unable to present Irving's biography in a neutral, disinterested manner" strikes me as a very clearly offensive comment of the kind that ought not to be taken lightly. I also think that any editor who weighs in so strongly to defend the reputation of a proven and notorious holocaust denier and anti-semite, a poster boy for the far-right in Britian, ought to be allowed to express themselves within the rules, yes, but also ought not to be given a long leash to go around making abusive remarks. I think if it continues then it would be appropriate to deal with it harshly appropriately. --FormerIP (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we should treat someone harshly... but certainly if personal attacks continue then we should take further measures. Perhaps a topic ban on anything related to holocaust denial? That said, I do hope that the editor stops making the personal comments. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything here that can't be dealt with through the usual WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL policies. Attacks on someone's religion should be treated the exact same as any other personal attack. That the editor questions the status quo on David Irving should not be counted against him, and should not be taken as evidence of racism. There's nothing extraordinary here, just an editor being a bit of a dick. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Tholzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be lurking on Talk:David Irving. His sporadic edit history is a bit hard to fathom. However 4 months ago he raised the same point and got a comprehensive explanation here. Why is he now repeating the same thing four months later? One possible interpretation is that his comments are trolling on the talk page, designed to cause offense. He doesn't seem at all interested in discussing sources (like for example the book on David Irving and Holocaust Denial by Richard Evans referred to in the explanation above). Mathsci (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly bemused that Tholzel's repeated and explicit references to 'religion' are being dismissed out of hand here - he even included them in the headings of the discussions he started ('Blatant Relious-based Misuse of Edit Freedom' and 'Hints of religious bias haunting this page')! Given the declared intention of the discussions he started and his repeated claims that the article is a Jewish conspiracy against Irving, it is clear to me that this editor is a bigoted troll. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to an open-minded, equal opportunity troll? I don't really see how claiming people are conspiring on religious grounds is any different from claiming they are conspiring on political, nationalistic, or any other grounds. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No form of trolling is acceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential legal threat by User:Crackofdawn

During a hotly contested AFD regarding the John Rosatti article, User:Crackofdawn stated that "these stories are all fabricated lies which has caused me to contact johns attorney . If these sources are used as reliable sources then wikipedian editors are supporting slander and defamation of character without proper research." [58]. Much of the AFD and related BLPN discussion centers on the extent to which published accounts of the subject's criminal history (there seems to be no dispute that he's a convicted felon, or that court documents describe him as associated with organized crime) are reliably sourced.
This may not be an explicit legal threat, but I believe it comes close enough to the sort of comment intended to intimidate editors in the same way as explicit threats do that I'd like some comments and, if appropriate, action, per Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#Perceived_legal_threats and WP:NPLT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning that you have contacted an attourney is not a legal threat, this is more reflective of seeking legal advice, Crackdown has only sixty odd edits rather that drag him here it would have been better to have mentioned to him the policy and asked him to have a read of it. Did you give him a warning or direct him to the policy? Off2riorob (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you hve brought the matter to the attention of someone else's attorney is not "reflective of seeking legal advice," and other editors have been blocked for similar comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a legal threat but more of a polite, coherent complaint regarding what Crackofdawn sees as an attack, I have left him a note on his talkpage informing him of our position here as regards legal threats and directed him to the policy page and requested him to read it. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? "This is slander, I have spoken to a lawyer" is not a legal threat? Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I don't feel it was a clear legal threat, no, also the editors inexperience as regards policy should allow us to assume good faith and point him towards the policy and assist him to understand the situation, which is what I have done. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious legal threat. Read WP:NLT; there is no proper extension of good faith for blatant threats like this. Ironholds (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not threatening to personally take legal action, thus there is no legal threat. Think of it backwards. If he were to be blocked, the way for him to be unblocked would be to rescind his threat of legal action. However, since he hasn't made a threat of legal action, he can't rescind it. What legal action is he threatening to take? --Smashville^talk 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

However, definitely not contributing to a healthy editing environment. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, it's a blatant legal threat. "You're doing what I don't want. I've bought a can of gasoline and a match" is a clear arson threat. It obvious that this user is using the threat of legal action to force others to accept his personal view in a conflict. It's not important that he speaks in hypotheticals or that he speaks in a passive voice. The compelling part of this is the use of potential legal action to force other people to do what HE wants. He may be in the right, or he may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is "I've talked to a lawyer, now do what I want!" is the clear intent of his message. If it is NOT his intent to say that, it's up to him to clarify or redact his statements. --Jayron32 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see the clear and present danger or the desire from the user to use the comment to get people to do anything, lets allow him the good will to explain his position. Off2riorob (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has stated that they have contacted a person's attorney, and in the same breath has accused people of supporting criminal acts, all in an attempt to sway debate in a deletion discussion. That shouldn't be tolerated or overlooked. -- Atama頭 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This particular editor is naive and doesn't understand wikipedia very well. He is frustrated at his inability to control the content in an article that is clearly very important to him, involving someone with whom he is closely associated. I do think there was an implied threat of legal action in his comment about the lawyer, and I agree it was disruptive to the already-contentious debate there, but still I would cut him some slack over this first and probably unwitting offense. A matter for education rather than punishment IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie

Agree with Melanie here. (I have participated in the AfD discussion.) Note that there has been relatively broad agreement at AfD that the article had (and the google cache version still has) significant BLP problems, so I think we should sweep in front of our own door first before attacking those who may reasonably feel aggrieved and exasperated. --JN466 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I have participated in the Afd thread. User:Crackofdawn is clearly naive about Wikipedia policies and standards, I have invited them to participate here and think that they should be given one chance. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First they need to be told to retract the legal threat immediately. That is non-negotiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I find all of this a little absurd. Editors here wrote an article that, in the opinion of several well-respected Wikipedians (including one arbitrator, who confessed himself "disturbed"), clearly violated our own sourcing policies for BLPs. I am not aware that anyone has apologised on behalf of Wikipedia. Yet we, who have not been personally aggrieved at all, now become all huffy and tell the person who complains about our breach of policy that they should withdraw the information they volunteered about having discussed the matter with a lawyer and should conform to our communication standards. Next we'll be telling them to "assume good faith", while Wikipedians include defamatory material in the articles they are concerned about, in violation of BLP policy.

Let's face it, our BLP reputation is crap, and deservedly so. I think we need to do a little better with people who have legitimate cause to feel aggrieved with Wikipedia. First of all, it would be nice to say sorry and assure them that there won't be a repeat of these policy breaches. That might help everyone calm down. If we don't do that, we come across as a bunch of immature gits who think they have the right to throw stones at people in the public spotlight from the safety of anonymity. --JN466 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the bloody article should be fixed. But legal threats are an attempt at intimidation, and editors should not have to stand for that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have no idea what all the hoopla was about. This was a clear legal threat. We don't invite people who do this to discuss their threat on ANI; we block them indefinitely. I have done so. Tan | 39 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:DOLT might apply here... Soxwon (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Soxwon, I think this banning was over-hasty. Found at WP:DOLT: "This page in a nutshell: When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

(EC) Support, it's clearly an attempt to intimidate using a legal threat. Even if it's not directly phrased, this editor is attempting to get the upper hand through a legal threat, and should be blocked for it. If he understands and recants, lift the block. If the article is crap, fix the article. However, an attempt to intimidate through legal means should be met with a block until it's understood that's not the way to gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Question (and I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know): How is he supposed to recant if he is blocked from posting? --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

On his talk page, like every other person ever blocked for making legal threats. Also, to everyone else, please note that I am not looking for evaluation of this block (although you are free to give it if so inclined) - this was a close-to-textbook legal threat and an indefinite block was the appropriate action. Tan | 39 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK - so a person who is blocked can still post on his own talk page? I didn't know that, and I don't imagine the inexperienced editor under discussion here knows it either. Maybe that information should become part of the "you have been banned" notice. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

LATER: I see he apparently figured it out - he has retracted his "threat" and has asked that the block be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

• Support block. --John (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have spoken with the user on IRC. I told them they would have a chance of getting unblocked if they tried to clarify, retract the threat in an unblock request. They have done so. They have tried to clarify what they meant, in that, what they meant was not meant to be used for intimidation and, in the event that that is how it was taken, they retract such threats.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we could have just politely told them to retract the threat and explained the possibly instead of blocking someone who had obviously been ignorant of policies, was obviously a newb, and immediately retracted after the block was in place. But of course that would have been sensible. Soxwon (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT is policy, and what Tan did was the standard response to such issues. Blocking someone until they recant is completely fair, all that a person really has to do is say "I didn't really mean it as a legal threat". -- Atama頭 07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that they have recanted, is there anything else preventing them from being unblocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I forgot Atama, policy over-rules common sense here. Obviously it is their fault that they are unaware of the rules and it is in our best interest to drive away potentially positive editors who simply need to be informed of the rules. Soxwon (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should Assume Ignorance of the Rules (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked their account now as they've clearly retracted any legal threats - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't really see how they've recanted if they've contacted an attorney and then merely said, "I recant". However, as Alison (for whatever reason) wields considerable clout here, I'll let it go. 2) Getting huffy (a la Soxwon) is a bit silly. We didn't beat them or insult them or tell them to go away. I took away their ability to edit articles until the issue was resolved. Try not to read more into this situation than what actually occurred. Tan | 39 16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT

WP:DOLT is a good essay, actually; thanks for linking to it. I think our NLT policy should evolve to take some of these sentiments on board. Excerpts:

---

In August 2006, Jimbo stated:

“ There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well ... And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right. ”

And in September 2008, further stated:

“ The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually. ”

---

--JN466 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the WP:NLT talk page. --JN466 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that why it's standard in cases of legal threats to refer the threatener to our lawyer? If we can't expect people to go on wiki to fix BLP violations, isn't that why we have a legal team for those who wish to deal with issues in that manner? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

I'm curious why nobody told this obviously new editor about OTRS? He could have filed one or contact the WMF to inform them that he felt he was being libelled. Surely this would have satisfied WP:AGF and at the same time courteously dealt with possible legal action? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it would have helped when the editor was not personally taking any legal action.--Smashville^talk 14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the point. If he felt he was being libelled and he felt strongly enough to get legal advise (no, not a legal threat, I know), then shouldn't we at least point him to somewhere he can have his grievances addressed more effectively? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Except he didn't feel he was being libelled. He felt someone else was being libelled. --Smashville^talk 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually was told about OTRS, and OTRS told him to try and tell everyone of what was going on. He did so, and it was interpreted as a legal threat.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's tough. Our customer service clearly sucks. --JN466 00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we'd better apologise and unblock him then! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience folks like this are best handled by patient discussion via OTRS and advised to note, either via OTRS or on their talk page, any specific and actionable issues with the article. That means the changes they propose have to be shown to be verifiable and supported by reliable independent sources, the policies we know and love. You have to look carefully at the article history to see if there is an attacker at work, and you often have to spend time patiently explaining that if the New York Times calls John Doe an idiot, then we say "the New York Times called John Doe an idiot" and if John Doe says he's not an idiot then we ask for an independent critique of the New York Times' article, we don't simply remove it because he says it's wrong. This is not easy work and if anyone here has that kind of patience and the ability to assume good faith with hurt and angry people then I am sure Cary would love to hear from you, new volunteers are always needed. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I might be interested in helping... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Cary? --JN466 15:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

meta:User:bastique. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeblur0

Threeblur0 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sleepydre, but was unblocked in March 2009 by Versageek with a promise to not use multiple accounts and to discuss things on talk pages and work with other editors. Here is the diff of their agreement.

Threeblur0 has, as far as I know, not used multiple accounts. However, Threeblur0's behavior in editing has been fairly disruptive. S/he edits mostly the Akron, Ohio article and related articles - see here. Threeblur0 does not seem to have learned much from nearly a year of editing here. S/he keeps adding material which is trivial / crufty, keeps adding material from sources which are of doubtful reliability, and engages in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Recently Threeblur0 has made edit summaries which approach personal attacks - diff. Please see the Talk:Akron, Ohio page for more details.

Several users, including JonRidinger and Beirne have repeatedly tried to point out where Threeblur0's edits are wrong or could be improved. Threeblur0's behavior was cited by Stepshep as the reason he left Wikipedia - diff.

Threeblur0 is not a vandal, but his or her editing seems to be getting more and more disruptive. What should be done? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Threeblur0 to take a break from editing the Akron page and he's agreed to do so. --Versageek 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But it should be noted that Threeblur agreed to only take "the rest of the week off" according to his talk page. Not much of a break for someone who's made over 800 edits (just with that specific username) in less than a year to one article nor does it indicate that there will be any difference once he returns. I'd say suggest a longer break and hold him to the original agreement. Along with that, despite numerous and lengthy explanations from myself and other editors citing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and examples about a number of topics to help him improve the article and just be a better editor, he has continued to add or restore unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or trivial information. Being a new editor is one thing, but he isn't a new editor anymore. This is in addition to the personal nature of many of his comments and edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see how they go after a week. They sound like they had resolved not to edit the page so much. The comment of a personal nature was a bit uncivil, but really not that bad I think. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparent wp:COI (& mini edit war) on Accrediting Commission International

• Accrediting Commission International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Acischolar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the Accrediting Commission International article, an editor user:Acischolar keeps trying to add a long tirade wp:SOAP that is primarily wp:SPAM in my opinion. I have been unsuccessful in getting any interaction on the talk page. It would appear that the editor has made the same addition again, only they have used an IP address instead. I've reached the three revert limit so I'm done with the reverts for a while. Another editor's view of this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, TallMagic (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just soapboxing; it's copyvio cut and pasted from the organization's website. Click the the "Answers to Critics" section at the ACI site to confirm. I've left a message for the editor at user talk about how they can edit in compliance with license and policy. Durova³⁹³ 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention, help, and clarification. Regards! TallMagic (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and best wishes. :) Durova³⁹³ 06:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Would people consider that username a username violation? I mean, the initials are a dead giveaway, but maybe there are other reasons... –MuZemike 08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The user probably needs blocked. It's a self-evident WP:COI and his only edits are whitewashing a credibly identified accreditation mill. I have left what I think is a suitably unambiguous warning on user talk:Acischolar, if he edits the article again or continues the disruption then we should show him the door. Guy (Help!) 13:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Guy is handling it, so I won't take any action, but a user with the name Acischolar editing the ACI article is clearly in violation of WP:ORGNAME and I'd ask them to change it. Like Durova, I think the copyvios are the biggest concern myself. -- Atama頭 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic AFD spree by User:SuaveArt

Resolved

 – Not a problem. Thanks for the input from everyone. Carry on. --Jayron32 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

SuaveArt (talk · contribs) has been on a spree of AFD and PROD nominations, and appears to be working very hard at nominating articles about Christian topics. All of his nominations don't appear to actually have the problems he notes, and he does not appear to be following WP:BEFORE in any way before nominating articles for deletion, including checking sources cited in the articles themselves. Normally, there is nothing wrong with nominating lots of PRODs and AFDs, but the fact that all of these AFDs have a WP:POINTy-theme to them is problematic. --Jayron32 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd endorse closing them all as WP:SK and warning the user. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So if they had been about Buddhist topics, would this be an issue to you? The fact that you mentioned "Christian" topics before you did the actual alledged "problems" with my AFD's suggests that you're concern is that I'm "biased against religion" moreso than whether my noms are legitimate or not, which I believe they are.

Currently I spend time patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets. Just take a look at International House of Prayer for example. The article on Carman (singer was also just a long promo before I cleaned it up. "Christian spam" is still spam, and doesn't get an exaempt status just because it's "religious" spam instead of "secular spam". I believe so anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of his nominations don't appear to actually have the problems he notes, and he does not appear to be following WP:BEFORE in any way before nominating articles for deletion, including checking sources cited in the articles themselves.

I believe they do (and some of the articles I've nom'd have already been deleted, so apparently I'm not the only one who agrees with that). I have checked the sources (and even mentioned this in my AFD summaries and why the sources don't cut it), and I believe the articles in question do not have sufficient mainstream coverage or assertion of notability. If you disagree, then you're free to put your two-cents in at the AFDs instead of taking up admin time on ANI. That's what the AFD's are for - to determine consensus. If you know the article's meet our criteria, then obviously my AFD's will fail, so problem solved ;) I don't see why you'd be this defensive unless you aren't confident that they meet our criteria for inclusion.

Normally, there is nothing wrong with nominating lots of PRODs and AFDs, but the fact that all of these AFDs have a WP:POINTy-theme to them is problematic.

Well you essentially proved my 'point'. Apparently your real issue is the fact that the articles are about a religious subject, not that my AFDs are "illegitimate", and you have nothing to back that up other than unfound claims, which simply aren't true. This isn't an "incident". You said yourself that "normally", multiple AFDs is fine. If these AFDs were on football topics, would you have considered it "problematic"? Put your two cents in at the AFDs. That would be the mature way to handle this. Coming here asking admins to "help" when there is no urgent issue just because I "offend" you isn't very mature on the other hand. God bless.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're long diatribe here, which accuses me of attitudes, intents, and feelings which I have shown no evidence of says a lot more about you than it does about me. --Jayron32 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read it, because I elaborated on the claims you made about my AFD noms and why they were unfounded. But your initial complaint was that the articles were on "Christian topics" (which you reaffirmed at the end of your own diatriabe about me). If that is the case, then you don't have much of a complaint, because my AFDs were in good faith. I was not "nominating multiple articles on Christian subjects without reading the sources". Many of the articles were created by the same user(s), contained blatant spam and promotional content, and in my view, failed to assert any real mainstream notability (some of them have also been deleted). Why don't you comment on the individual AFD's instead of creating a pointless ANI?--SuaveArt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You implied that it was the Christian nature of the nominations that was why I raised an objection. Au contraire. Its merely because you seem to be picking on a single, narrowly defined topic area that seems to be a problem. Had you been mass-prodding and AFD-ing a wide range of topics from any other random area, it would have raised the same red flags. Your response has done little to alay these concerns. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I would caution Suave to be more, well, suave, I'd also like to say that the AfDs being on one subject area is not in and of itself problematic. I'm inclined to AGF when he says he patrols Christian topics. That just leaves whether the AfDs are legitimate or not. If they are, then there's no issue. If, however, a large proportion of them aren't, then perhaps some form of intervention might be required. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, none of this are disruptive, and most of them do have the concerns raised (I could only dispute IHOP). I would still recommend SuaveArt WP:CHILL'd a little bit. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this isn't the first time this has come up, less than a month ago there was this report. The exact same behavior, except it was with prods rather than AfDs. -- Atama頭 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well while accusations and words have been thrown around, I've yet to see any evidence of an improper PROD or AfD. If you disagree with a PROD, take the tag off, if you disagree with an AfD, comment there. That said, a check of SuaveArt's contribs (filtered to project space) shows a large number of AfDs so perhaps Jayron or someone else can draw a selection that were obviously improperly nominated? Failing that, one is inclined to conclude that this is a case of one editor disagreeing with another's methods, not an incident requiring administrator attention. HJMitchell You rang? 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the next time the nominator thinks to accuse someone of improper use of Wikipedia tools they could first provide actual links to specific examples, rather than making a general complaint about perceived behaviour. This would at least make it easier for the people he wants to become involved to follow his reasoning. Weakopedia (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Um, a lot of that looks like Godcruft to me. Flywheel (film) and Charisma (magazine) are certainly of questionable notability. This looks like a resurgence of the walled garden problem with Christian culture articles; nobody outside a small circle of US evangelicals gives a toss about most of them, but they have their own parallel ecosphere of publications and spend all their time writing abut and boosting each other. Bands which if they were mainstream would not get a mention anywhere, get articles because the usual suspects rave about how they glrofy the Lord. It's a long-standing problem, one I always think of as Gastroturfing (some here may recognise the reference). Guy (Help!) 12:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

to start with, Christian evangelicals are not a "small circle" -- our article Christianity in the United States gives 24 million. This is not fringe; it's a group, but not a splinter. We cover all social or religious groups in a fair manner without the sort of invidious discrimination implied by "Godcruft", a term I find exceptionally offensive.

Second, it is entirely reasonable for someone to concentrate on a particular topic. It is even reasonable for someone to concentrate on removing spam from a particular topic (there are one or two topics that I keep in mind only for that purpose,) But the pattern of editing is disturbing. 1/Removing the list of someone's publications, and proposing the article for deletion [59] 2/ Simultaneously removing what sources there are and challenging for unsourced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Christian_Post&diff=prev&oldid=336332806] . FWIW, I have !voted delete on some of the articles the user proposed for deletion, and keep on others. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I don't think that he said that U.S. Christian evangelicals are a small group, he said that a small number of U.S. evangelicals cares about some of these articles... there is a distinction here :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I found notability for Flywheel very easily. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy violations re: Wrestlemania 23

Resolved

 – Content dispute, consensus is absolutely clear at the article's talk page and has been for some time. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A dispute has been taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Proposal. The original edit dispute was straightforward: should an alternate attendance figure published by Dave Meltzer of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter (which differs from the official total) be included in the article? Although the Wrestling Observer Newsletter had already been accepted as a reliable source per WP:PW/SG, three editors persistently challenged the Observer's verifiability ([60] and others). The weight of WP:V and WP:NPOV were too strong for those objections to succeed. The opposing editors then moved on to complaints about the wording of the edit, repeatedly citing "opinion" and "bias" while never defining any specific violation. A variety of different NPOV wordings were rejected. At this point, the dispute revolves around that wording. One side wishes to include a contextual reference to Meltzer's methodology in the article text or its source link; the other side says any such context violates Wikipedia policies.

The above account is for background purposes only-- I understand that this board does not deal with questions of content. However, the response has escalated beyond an editing dispute, and it is that response which I am listing here. During the course of the discussion, several policies and guidelines have been ignored or broken, including ongoing misreadings and misrepresentations of WP:CONSENSUS; violations of both WP:OWN and WP:AGF when warnings were given ordering an editor to "Leave Wrestlemania 23 alone" ([61]) and threatening "You will not push this project any further. That is all." ([62]), along with various comments such as "That's it. Case closed."([63]) and "this discussion is clearly over"([64]) and " if 208 talks on here again just ignore it"([65]) and multiple urgings on the discussion page and their own userpages to band together to block future changes to Wrestlemania 23; two deletions of content on my talk page (the first declaring "you will be blocked"([66]), the second claiming "rules do not apply to IP talk pages."([67]); an aggressive Level 3 warning on the same userpage for adding information with a reliable source, despite the "good faith" instructions at WP:VANDAL; disregard for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which may have been violated by the title of the topic itself ("IP opinion pushing...") and which were certainly broken when User Justa Punk stated that "only a fool" [68] would want to add the alternative number and that the problem centers on UserGaryColemanFan being his "usual stubborn self" [69] as well as when User 3bulletproof16 objected to the absence of a direct quote in the edit, and then upon being supplied with a direct quote, responded in full, "Now you're just being a troll"([70]); and WP:TPG, which was violated when one side intentionally misrepresented the other side's argument (detailed at [71]).

I have behaved civilly throughout this process. When I saw that GaryColemanFan had listed some of the above complaints last week ([72]), I did not pursue an administrative hand because I still felt resolution would be possible through normal talk page means. But following the last abusive post from User 3bulletproof16([73]), I have changed my mind. The post constitutes likely violations of WP:OWN, WP:ASF, WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:CONS.

I would appreciate any intervention-- guidance, direction, warnings, blocks, mediation, etc.-- that might bring this matter to an appropriate solution. Given the users' indifference and/or contempt for policy and guidelines, accompanied by inappropriate and sometimes abusive behavior towards other Wikipedians, I think administrative action of some kind is needed. Thank you.

(To avoid any confusion, my IP rotates; in this instance, I am both 208.120.152.75 and 208.120.153.110. I have been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years, and have never encountered a response like this.)208.120.153.110 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You want guidance? Fine. The matter is well below the level of trivial and simply not worth fighting about. Disputed information which has a single source and is utterly unimportant (in an article which is itself basically trivial) can be omitted with absolutely no detriment whatsoever to the encyclopaedia. Here's some more guidance: sometimes when everybody else tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. And one more: when WP:CONSENSUS is against you but you insist on being a lone holdout, visiting the WP:ADMINSHOP is a great way to get sanctioned for stonewalling and obduracy. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would only point out that the editors in question claimed WP:CONSENSUS from the onset of the discussion, which proved not to be the case. I agree that the content dispute is unimportant. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual solution is to open a request for comment on the content. WP:RFC. That often draws in more opinions and gives a broader consensus. If you're right, people will show up and agree with you. If that doesn't happen, be prepared to drop the matter and move on. It's a good idea to be short and to the point at an RfC, to get maximum responses. Durova³⁹³ 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- this is is a pretty straightforward WP:DR matter. It might be considered a content dispute but the primary issue seems to be civility and other misc violations and the content is arguably secondary to working this out.. The RfC would presumably clear up misunderstandings on both ends on policy and article adjusted accordingly. If truly the holdout, it's quite the WP:PLAXICO to go admin shopping to try to find a more sympathetic view. Consensus very rarely can make everyone happy, regardless of how benign a topic. If you truly don't think you have anything to worry about, go on ahead, but think very carefully before you act. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark as resolved as go to RfC?

Thank you all for the responses. I concur with the above poster's observation about civility vs. content in this matter. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC problems at Talk:List of alleged alien beings

Resolved

 – As I am entirely uninvolved in this article (and never likely to be involved in it!) I have closed this RFC as no consensus. Involved editors really shouldn't close contentious RFCs though. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RfC about the inclusion of certain images on the List of alleged alien beings last month.[74] This received a decent amount of input, and was automatically removed from the open RfC list after a month by a bot (so far, so good).

An involved editor then closed the RfC and decided what the consensus was.[75] I (also involved, obviously) undid this change[76], but was reverted again[77]. After some discussion, he still refused to let someone else close the discussion, but changed the supposed consensus[78]. Meanwhile, the same editor acted upon the perceived consensus to edit the article immediately after his closure of the RfC[79]. My revert of this was undone by another editor (also participant in the RfC).

Questions:

• Can someone previously uninvolved please reopen the RfC and close it with whatever conclusion they find?
• Can someone please look at the conduct all around (especially by me and by User:Camilo Sanchez) to indicate where we went wrong?
• Anyone who would like to join this rather WP:LAME dispute is welcome to join the discussion, as I don't believe a clear outcome has been reached yet.

Thanks, Fram (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is lame. If you think about it it really addresses a very important point on how graphic contributions should be handled under the current policies. Nothing lame about that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have reopened the RfC. It is not appropriate for the person who created the images to close the RfC (especially, as originally, in favour of inclusion of his own images). I have also commented on the RfC. I would urge other long-standing editors to do the same as the discussion has not had a great deal of input from outside the small group of editors already involved. Fram, you can relist it on the RfC page if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Wow, totally wrong move to close a discussion that you're involved in, especially when you close it in your favor (which it clearly was not). I commented there as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I welcome the involvement of more editors in this discussion. Be certain that whatever decision will not be contested from me in any way so long it is reached on the sake of the improving of the article and the Wikipedia. Thanks!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus was for support - as I read it. The RFC closed in the beginning of January and had started in the beginning of December, so it wasn't by any means a fast close, the only problem I saw (and I've been called on this myself) is who closed it.

I'd lean to WP:IAR on that close, since it was supported. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, since the support did not seem to be founded on credible interpretations of policy. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we include the British royal family in this list? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are, sir, a bounder! Pistols at dawn? – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest light sabers in a crop circle by the light of Venus. seems more fitting... --Ludwigs2 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind this fellow's hypothesis. In any event I do not fear light sabres as I've been washed in the blood of a tree. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input (here, even the last few jokers, and over there). Discussion is progressing, although I am not certain in what direction yet :-) Fram (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been open for quite a while. I've closed as no consensus. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia content dispute; block evasion by IP

70.57.228.12 was blocked for 3RR against Fibromyalgia, now User:97.115.198.139 is performing identical content removal. Perhaps a one day of semi-protection on Fibromyalgia will quieten things down? Josh Parris 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And now User:174.30.135.4 is at it [80] [81] Josh Parris 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rais this at WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 3 days. I hope this will slow down the revert battles and encourage some talk page discussion by the IPs. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are also threats of organized disruption involved. They are in this section:

• "LOL there are like 10 ways to work around being blocked on Wiki." 97.115.198.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

... and this section:

• "You can block whomever you want but I can bring back the whole entire Fibromyalgia Sufferers Group from Facebook and we can see how 80,000 people feel about that invalid comment." 174.30.135.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

People who make these types of threats can create significant disruption through sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. We'll need more eyes on the article to stop it if and when it comes. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I refactored the recent personal attack by the IP on the article talk page and gave them a warning. At the moment, there appears to be no disruption other than the single account. I'll keep the article watchlisted for a short while -- but if the disruption increases or returns after the block, you can raise the issue again at WP:RFPP to request another block.

I do note that the issue with the IP appears to be a simple content dispute focused primarily on the words "non-disease" used in the lede paragraph -- and the talk page indicates that there are other editors who questioned that wording as well. It would be best if this was resolved first through independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TfD Close?

Resolved

 – Discussion closed as keep. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please snow keep close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Template:VG reviews. The pile on is getting a bit silly at this point and as far as I'm aware, non-admins can't close TfDs like you can AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. For what it is worth, non-admin closes are allowed at TFD in appropriate circumstances, although non-admin WP:SNOW closes are discouraged generally. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the images at the bottom of User talk:MisterWiki appropriate?

Resolved

 – Licensing issue has been taken care of. The rickrolling joke is way past its prime anyway.

Durova³⁹⁴ 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go to User talk:MisterWiki, you see two images at the bottom of the page, whether you scroll or not. I have no idea who the one on the right is, but the one on the left is Rick Astley. If you point to the images, they go to other pages, not to the File pages associated with the images. I have no idea what File pages these images are associated with, but I really don't think the Rick Astley image is appropriate on a user's Talk page, it's probably almost assuredly fair use. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as I know, this user is blocked. The Rick Ashely picture is probably not acceptable. But the old man pic is (given that it really IS his granddad. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked yesterday. -Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Astley picture is derived from File:Rick Astley-cropped.jpg, which is CC 2.0. If I'm remembering correctly, I believe the other image is of the user's grandfather. You could also try asking MisterWiki on his talk page about them. --Onorem♠Dil 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

slightly embarrassing to have a three way edit conflict on something this silly The file is File:MisterWiki_1.png, on Commons, and is CC-licensed, not fair use. It's in the transcluded User:MisterWiki/Chile. I find this significantly less annoying than the fake "You have new messages" bar that we evidently tolerate, so I see no reason to make an issue of this. If you click on an image of Rick Astley anywhere on the internet, you pretty much know what's going to happen... --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that since the image is not public-domain - it requires attribution - the link must go to the image page and not (presumably) a Youtube clip of Rick Astley's Never Gonna Give You Up. –xeno^talk 17:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Come to think of it, that's probably true... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been rickrolled :D. Although I did expect it to go to the image page... --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we seriously have nothing better to do than argue over rickrolling? At any rate, the image is gone. I, for one, am slightly disappointed. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No-one's arguing; Xeno just pointed out a serious copyright/legal issue. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I restored the image, but deleted the link to the rickroll. Now it links to the image page. --MW talk contribs 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Nothing wrong with the rickroll, I think it's the image copyright that people had trouble with. If you can find a public license version, I see no problem with your userpage remaining as it was. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will never give you up, or let you down. Tan | 39 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you ever tell a lie, to hurt me? [82] –xeno^talk 00:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, that's so funny, 'cos inside we both know what's been going on. --MW talk contribs 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the rest of us a starting to get an idea of what's been going inside you... Throwaway85 (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Merfishpreservationsociety

Resolved

 – Blizocked by User:PMDrive1061. Problem solved. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Merfishpreservationsociety (talk · contribs) breakes many Wikipedia rules and policy. This includes but not limited to:

1. . Group user names
2. . Improper username
3. . Username used for creating Hoax articles
4. . Username is used for uploading Hoax images.

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA is thataway --> (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And we've sent it elsewhere... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism denied because no recent activity. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

UAA suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted there as well. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No recent activity unless he has a sockpuppet voting on the AfD. There's a recent SPA there who has only edited the article and the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whew ... all that work for an account that made 20 edits over a period of a week? (As far as content, the merfish (effectively the reverse of a mermaid - a fish with human legs) is a well-known myth, and clearly not a hoax) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy WP:FORUMSHOP Batman. My goodness, someone is taking this Merfishpreservationsociety thing rather personally. As noted, its a relatively inactive account, isn't likely a real-life organization, and isn't promotional. Blocking is a relatively severe thing, and is only done when absolutely necessary. UAA and AIV have already determined that it doesn't meet that criteria. How far are we going to take this? --Jayron32 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No further I hope since the RfC is concluding that it's not worth their time either. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of this site's premier "rouge administrators," I've deleted the article and blocked both accounts. Seriously, that nonsense took up way too much volunteer time on the debate of its "merits." And yes, he did create an AfD sockpuppet. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Over 50 warnings and still no block...

193.60.133.203 is a shared IP address in use by Birmingham City University. There are well over 100 contributions, the vast majority are disruptive edits and vandalism. Because of this they have received over 50 warnings on their talk page, but haven't been blocked since 2007, the shortest block being 1 hour, the longest being 1 week. I reported the IP address on WP:AIV only to be told that they haven't been warned properly or correctly and to re-report when they inevitably do it again.
I have seen this happen before with educational institutes using a shared IP and the subsequent vandalism from numerous members of the establishment using it. In past cases, a soft block (schoolblock) has been put in place for 1-2 years to stop the constant vandalism from the school/college, and the option given for good intentioned students to be able to register as an editor so as not to exclude those who adhere to the rules (user talk:194.82.16.252). Can they be soft blocked ("schoolblock"), or at least considered for it due to the very long past of disruptive editing, and failure to adhere to the numerous warnings given to them? Thanks. _Will^dow (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, extreme caution should be taken to avoid blocking other users (registered) editing from this IP. This would lead to a snowball affect. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but the schoolblock on the example I added (user talk:194.82.16.252) allows registered editors to still edit from that IP address as long as they log in; so as not to be anonymous. I think completely blocking an educational shared IP address would be wrong for the exact reason you state, but if it can be blocked like the example I linked to, registered users (generally the one's who stick to the rules!!) will still be able to edit from this University, and the anonymous users who vandalise will be stopped. _Will^dow (Talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If they begin vandalizing again, please report them to AIV. The contributions now are so sporadic that a block wouldn't accomplish too much. TNXMan 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Last time I checked, there was only one warning in one month. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with the schoolblock concept, there's no immediate requirement to do so as there is not immediate negative activity. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a tactic many anonymous vandals use. They vandalize, then they stop for a while. Then they vandalize again. Then they stop for a while, and so on. This is how they avoid blocks.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, at Univerisities, they get busy on real homework. The purpose of the many-thousands of dollars spent on education is to become edumacated, not to be a weenie. Mom and Dad don't like to hear "I spent the weekend getting drunk and vandalizing Wikipedia" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, duh. They're only vandalizing Wikipedia when they're not busy copying stuff from it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To 66.177.73.86: How would that look different than a public computer terminal in a high trafic area where every few weeks, a different person sits down and comitts one vandalism, then goes away? --Jayron32 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted me. I was only relating it to this.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow you actually know most vandals! Impressive. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting a little side tracked here. I still stand by my suggestion for a schoolblock. This university has 23,000 students [83]. Warnings aren't likely to be read by the actual people who are vandalising. Perhaps sporadic disruptive editing can be contributed and aligned to the university terms/semesters... I notice that there is little/no editing over Christmas, but as soon as they return to University in January it starts up again for example. I think that this will continue, with short breaks from disruptive editing during holiday times making it appear that the editing isn't all that often. If there weren't so many edits and warnings stretching so far back, I probably wouldn't push this point, but the facts are there for all to see. If people there want to make a positive contribution, they can register an account and bypass the schoolblock; that way, no innocent people with good intentions get punished. _Will^dow (Talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see this IP is now on a final warning. I'll check their contribs from time to time to see if they take heed of it. _Will^dow (Talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Smuconlaw

This user was reported at WP:UAA, and while the name may technically violate policy as it represents a group, it looks to me like a well-meaning project that will improve Wikipedia and I don't see any harm in letting it go, but I thought I'd just ask here in case I'm in the minority in seeing it that way. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they're not going to cause a problem, I see no harm in letting them be--Jac16888^Talk 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess WP:IAR applies. I notice on that user page that participants are told to create new accounts, and if that's the case then there shouldn't be any harm. If we had a bunch of people sharing the Smuconlaw account I'd be more concerned. -- Atama頭 21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the others who've commented: this appears to be a perfect example of how universities should be using WIkipedia to teach. I see absolutely no problem at all with this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I assure you that there is no intention to do anything wrong. The username doesn't represent the institution I work for. It will only be used by me for the purpose of the project. Smuconlaw (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simonm223

Someone ought to check out the behaviour of Simonm223 on Global Consciousness Project and Talk:Global Consciousness Project. In my opinion he is bringing wikipedia into disrepute 92.26.147.184 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Difs please? A cursory examination reveals no policy violations. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article about psychically detecting "major world events" by rolling a lot of dice and waiting for statistical fluctuations attracts WP:FRINGE proponents - nothing to see here. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Theplanetsaturn and ownership issues

I've noticed Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) trying to assume ownership on several articles - recently El Sobrante, California and Landry Walker - this user constantly reverts to his preferred version, undoing any changes, even when his reversions break links. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User warned (3RR). His/Her response. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, you need to notify all parties of this thread. Done that for you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted contentious information twice on the article, thereby keeping it in line with previous consensus. Both reverts have included a call for civil discussion on the talk page, and on teh talk page I plainly state that I will abide by a new consensus. That does not warrant a 3RR warning. Furthermore MikeWazowski has been following me from article to article, reverting whatever I add. His wiki-stalking is the issue here. Not my supposed "ownership" issues.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice attempt to deflect attention - too bad it's not true, as my record of contributions and edits to the Landry Walker article will show. MikeWazowski (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's absolutely true. You and I had a difficult exchange at the Tron page, and suddenly you are reverting the majority of my edits. Our exchange of edits shows one thing quite clear. Me telling you that I will not continue to revert your edits if you please cease reverting the aspects that are not a part of what you describe as a "minor incident". You are ignoring my polite requests to work together. requests that include a concession, and you're following me around on multiple Wikipedia pages. That's not deflection. that's fact.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

oh-oh. both of you are talking yourselves into the same hole right now. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem. Look at this compared to this. There's a conversation occurring in edit summaries during an edit war, and absolutely nothing on the talk page. That's backwards. If you are going to argue about the content of the article, that's fine (that's how things are done) but do so in the appropriate location. I don't even see a request from either of you to take the matter to the talk page. It looks like you two finally talked it out but just remember next time that the talk page is an important tool, in this case failing to use it brought both of you close to a 24 hour block. -- Atama頭 02:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hezbollatte

User:Hezbollatte is a single purpose account who keeps removing factual information from the entry on one fringe candidate at Toronto municipal election, 2010 without providing justification. Getting annoying. Fred the happy man (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report the user at WP:AIV if the disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of William M. Connolley

Resolved

Block, block, semi-protect. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• 82.71.49.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)
• 207.195.123.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

At least two anon IP's are currently harassing User:William M. Connolley on File talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png. Could an administrator take a look at this and put a stop to it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2over0 has done this. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to user contributions format?

Resolved

 – Revisions were deleted, but the user asking the question wasn't at fault. ~ mazca ^talk 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed two entries in my contributions that looked something like this:

• (del/undel) 04:52, January 8, 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎(comment removed)
• (del/undel) 04:48, January 8, 2010 (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (comment removed)

Was there a change to the MediaWiki interface today to do that? If so, what does it mean, and where would I find it announced/documented? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:RVDL. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. I made a comment in a section where the section title contained a person's name. When it was deemed necessary to suppress the person's name, the name had to get suppressed from the automatic edit summary in my edit history as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. So is there any other issue, or can we close this? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:64.184.121.97

Resolved

 – blocked ~ mazca ^talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the past seven weeks, User:64.184.121.97, who has been blocked three times for disruptive editing and vandalism, has been adding uncited, speculative content to List of characters in Madagascar. On no less than nine occasions he/she has added "It's possible that she and Skipper like each other, and that an episode will appear on Valentine's Day".[84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92] This edit is usually in concert with other, similar and related speculation such as this.[93] Each addition has been reverted with an appropriate edit summary indicating that it was original research, with a link to WP:OR. After the ninth occasion I left a more detailed warning on the user's talk page.[94] The editor now appears to have received the message that the specific claim I listed can not be added, but continues to add other uncited speculation. Since the final warning that I left, he/she has continued to add the other speculation to List of characters in Madagascar,[95][96] and has moved on to add the speculation to The Penguins of Madagascar.[97] This editor clearly isn't getting the message and, after three blocks already, more punitive action seems necessary. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for another month - this seems to be a very persistent bumhat on a static IP. Re-report for another speedy block if he comes back again once this one expires. ~ mazca ^talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More anontalk spam

Resolved

 – quite old, but now filtered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The filters need to be adjusted to prevent this from happening. I've been told they can block edit summaries.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole Cyrllic o-slash thing is what helps circumvent the filter. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Man Kimmo is pathetic. May need to adjust the regex filters a bit. Maybe if we did 6 or 7 characters out of 8, in order. Anybody know where the proper forum is to bring the issue up? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted one of the filters accordingly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean Kimmø? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He has many names, most of which can't be repeated in polite company. Thanks for the speedy action, zzuuzz. BTW, do you have to be an admin to view private filters? I'm interested in the matter and am creating similar programs for school. Is there any way for a normal user to request access? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to view private filters is generally restricted to admins - I don't think the abusefilter-view-private right is assignable, or whether anyone would assign it to someone who hasn't been around a while. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be assigned the abusefilter-modify right, which is the current alternative. You'll find more discussion of this topic at the WT:EF archives - viewing the private filters is generally not particularly enlightening for other websites. It's also worth pointing out there are at least five filters dedicated to anontalk spam, and they are generally rewritten each time he starts another campaign. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ritamaj removing speedy deletion templates

Resolved

User:Ritamaj has removed the speedy deletion template from her new article Kristian Bertel five times, despite four notifications including User:OliverTwisted's final warning here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really worth reporting. If they re-create the article and continue, then action may be taken. -Reconsider! 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, it's just that when someone lays down a perfectly justified "last warning" that "you will be blocked" and the conduct continues anyway, I'd hate for him to come off looking like a faker when it turns out not to happen. (I'm not referring to myself, of course.) That's why I thought it merited notice here, but I appreciate your response--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll note the friendly little post I left on their talkpage - they appear new, and they may not fully grasp the "rules", and they may not have even read their talkpage. I'm WP:AGF'ing with them. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff!  Glenfarclas  (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User persistently ignoring WP policies

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

During over a thousand edits over 3 years user regularly adds unsourced material and original research eg [98], leaves few edit summaries, removes valid unreferenced and refimprove tags (amoungst others) eg [99][100]. Told me that I was discourteous when I warned them of this. Told a regular IP user who correctly raised concerns about their removing valid tags ie [101] "It is not really a good idea for people who do not even have accounts to tell others what to do and not do in their posts." and "I would appreciate you not stalking my posts"

Please stop this user damaging the project and abusing those who inform them of the policies and guidelines. What options are there for dealing with the amount of unsourced/original material added ?

Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any currently ongoing issues? The diffs you provided are at least a month old and stretch back to June. Nothing that you provided seems actionable. Has there been any attempt to engage the user on the respective articles' talk pages? If so, what was the result? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked through some of the issues, I don't see anything that I would call "brutal" or "current". When pressed (such as in the November WP:AN report against WP:NLT) he generally finally "get's it". If you're trying to establish a long-term pattern of disruptive behaviour, I don't see it ... but maybe you've got plans for an WP:RFC/U. Yes, some action is uncivil (esp the post to the IP address), but that's a job for WP:WQA or a simple warning when it's still fresh. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog

Resolved

 – blocked by Redvers (talk · contribs) Nev1 (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

93.142.183.46 (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet of the above user (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orijentolog/Archive and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Orijentolog); they require blocking. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Buffysboy292818 and Rugrats

Buffysboy292818 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been making a lot of unsupported changes to Rugrats articles, inventing new seasons and making sweeping changes to episode lists. Does this fit a pattern of any known vandals, or is this just a confused user? Fences&Windows 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

The above user has requested unblocking at User talk:Bowei Huang#Blocked promising to use on the Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) account. The problem is not that the user has two accounts (or three User talk:Bowei Huang#User:Brickfield Brickfield (talk · contribs)) but that the editing history is at A1DF67 (talk · contribs). Of the two accounts only the Bowei Huang is blocked meaning they can still edit with A1DF67. I have no objections to the Bowei Huang account being unblocked but only if a clear connection is made between the two or, if possible, the editing history is restored. I thought that it would be a good idea to bring this here for further review and will inform Bowei Huang that they can comment here as A1DF67. If it's felt to be OK to unblock Bowei Huang then go ahead and don't wait for me to notice as I will be in and out during the day. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should leave the Bowei account blocked and tell him to use the A1DF67 account; or else revert A1DF67 to Bowei and block A1DF67. It appears that he wanted the account renamed just to hide his past problems. He doesn't need two accounts. Given his contentiousness, one is more than enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

David Sills

Can someone take a look at this page? I've removed copvio text (from here) several times now, User:Fellin333 keeps replacing it.

Examples: me, Fellini

me, Fellini

There's another in the page history but you get the idea.

Talk page edit, me.

nb I'll be offline for a couple of hours.   pablo_hablo. 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873

This thread was archived with no action:

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created inappropriate pages (see User talk:Mainman873 for a history of the warnings he has received). Template warnings and personal warnings do not seem to deter him in his desire to create articles on albums that are non-notable, or that do not yet exist. User received a level-4 warning in December, but has continued to create inappropriate pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty dismayed to see him back after all his articles got deleted following his last editing spree. He is clearly here to hype a small clique of artists and is prepared to introduce unverifiable, speculative and outright fictional content to do so. He has no interest in discussion, makes no serious attempt to reference anything and ignores all advice and warnings. None of the albums he writes about checks out on Allmusic or is available to buy on Amazon. He claims that they feature guest appearances by major rap artists, which would pretty much guarantee coverage if it was true, yet Google News has nothing. I don't see why we should have to continue to waste our time checking this stuff and shepherding it to deletion. He has had quite enough warnings. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I tried to help them by pointing out how to verify notability, but they never responded, and continued the same sort of editing. Woogee (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs to be blocked for disruptive editing; I'm just conflicted as to the proper length of the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking indefinite, till they discuss it on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) is still active, creating hoax pages (here and here) and vandalizing existing pages (here). Since an indefinite block was suggested even before these new events, can someone please address this user? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)