Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Dylan Flaherty and Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – User:Dylan Flaherty is topic-banned from Sarah Palin and related articles for 2 weeks

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

• Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:WQA#Dylan Flaherty
• recent: Talk:Sarah Palin#Africa (part I), (part II), (part III)
• archived: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42#Carl Cameron leaks, Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 43#Africa: Continent or country?

On December 9, an editor questioned on Talk:Sarah Palin why there was no mention in the article of an anonymously-sourced 2008 report that Palin believed Africa to be a country. The material was originally considered in 2008, and most agree the consensus was to not include the material due to sourcing issues. (The material has remained absent from the article since.) The recent inquiry triggered a new round of discussions, and the two ensuing conversations wound up with twelve editors generally opposing inclusion and four editors generally supporting inclusion. I think the reasonable interpretation of the discussion would be a consensus against inclusion, due to the poor sourcing.

One editor, User:Dylan Flaherty, however, has gone around and around, posing generally the same "questions" and using various debate tactics repeatedly — and interpreting the resulting exhaustion from every other editor as a wp:silent-endorsement of his "position." Although he has sought and been advised of several potential dispute resolution options, should he still wish to push for including the text despite consensus, he has thus far not pursued any of those options. Instead, he has just announced that "there is a consensus in support of insertion" of the material, and presumably plans to move forward unilaterally.

The article has long been subject to general sanctions and article probation, precisely due to this type of wp:blp-be-damned, point-of-view warrior-mentality. He has basically indicated on his talk page that he will not recognize any consensus from the editors that he believes "guard" the Sarah Palin article, and I think his intent now is to simply drive any editor that doesn't agree with him away through ad infinitum debate. Given the sheer amount of tabloid scheiße editors at the Palin article(s) must regularly sift through, I think his tactics to drive away any remotely objective editor can be particularly harmful (and are not unique, see User:Scribner and User:Manticore55 in particular).

User:Dylan Flaherty has previously been advised of the general sanctions and article probation in place at Sarah Palin, and I will also notify him of this posting. jæs (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User notified. I've also let User:KillerChihuahua know about this post[1], given that she has been one of the primary administrators in handling issues relating the general sanctions imposed on the Sarah Palin article, although her talk page indicates she may be away tending to real life at the moment. jæs (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a slight correction. I was the one who used the term "guard" at Dylan's talk page. And, as I state at the articles talkpage, most recently the discussion had developed to a point where a spot for inclusion, if approved, would be logical. I'm sure more discussion will follow.Buster Seven Talk 05:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think I'm supposed to respond here, but I'll keep it very short:

The question of whether, where and how to insert the Africa gaffe is not currently settled, as there are multiple editors arguing on either side. Apparently, the trigger for this report is that I offered to put together the proposed text for insertion, which I is something I was actively requested to do. I have not changed the article, and do not plan to do so without a clear consensus, so I'm not sure how this is a violation of anything. Having said that, it has become obvious that the discussion is not going smoothly and we are not moving towards any sort of consensus. For that reason, I believe that this complaint is, to put it mildly, premature and inappropriate. I would instead suggest that we handle this in the right venue: an RfC on the content dispute. Dylan Flaherty 05:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, Dylan, we absolutely do not need to start an RFC over whether to include anonymous gossip in a BLP. You've already been told to stop beating the horse -- it's turning into glue. Cut it out before you find yourself restricted from the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it is not the case that I am the lone voice, and it is also not the case that this is about gossip. I can show diffs in which I explain that the notable aspect is the McCain campaign's post-election treatment of Palin, and I can show diffs of people requesting dispute resolution. Quite frankly, the tone of your input here is an example of why we need dispute resolution so much. Dylan Flaherty 05:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that you're not the "lone voice" that has argued for inclusion over the past two years (although you are in the overwhelming minority). The distinction, though — and the reason I've raised this issue here — is that you're the one editor that is using a nearly daunting amount of wikilawyering and tendentious "debating" to, as best as I can tell, exhaust every other editor to the point at which they surrender and allow the content to be included, notwithstanding wp:blp and actual consensus. jæs (talk) 06:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood me. I meant that I am not the only person who is currently favoring some movement in the direction of inclusion. It is presently an unsettled controversy among editors.

I'm not speaking of what the consensus might have been two years ago, as that doesn't matter one bit. Past consensus is not binding on the present, and that's a good thing because our views change as we learn more. It is only in retrospect that it becomes clear how the Africa gaffe incident marked Palin's split from the GOP. Only now do we have the hindsight to see why it was important and where it fits into her story. Two years ago, I would have agreed with omitting this incident, but now we know better.

We do not have a consensus today, and we need to get one. However, trying to get me topic-banned is not a productive step in achieving consensus. Moreover, your claims about my behavior, in addition to being less than accurate, open the door to an analysis of your own behavior, and I don't think you would benefit from that. You have been highly aggressive in trying to derail and shut down this discussion. Dylan Flaherty 06:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's perfect. It would be far more useful to find out what Palin has to say nowadays about Africa, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The point I've been trying to make is that it was never really about her knowledge of geography, but rather the politics of the leak. I somehow suspect that, if she were quizzed today, she'd do just fine. :-) Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Please note: The link above to the WQA is misleading, the report was opened by Dylan about another editor for less-than civil commments. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Dylan Flaherty is certainly not the only editor who sees things the way he does. I involved myself actively in that thread for a few days, but withdrew after finding it virtually impossible to have a meaningful conversation with any who opposed my perspective. Points and compromise suggestions I politely made were responded to with totally tangential or irrelevant comments, at times quite abusive. As a non-American it was an interesting and educational insight into American politics. I saw people who would aggressively and irrationality defend their favoured politician's purity and brilliance, with no interest in sensible discussion. Seeing no evidence that such editors would ever accept anything I said, I judiciously withdrew, but kept an interested eye on the article. It's important to note that the absence of active editors from a discussion does not mean an absence of interest. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, HiLo48. I had wondered where you had gone off to, but correctly concluded that you had been driven off by the harshness of certain responses. I'm sorry you were compelled to withdraw and I certainly don't hold that against you in any way. I can only express my hope that you might be willing to participate in a more structured discussion, such as the RfC. Dylan Flaherty 07:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. That discussion was a very very frustrating experience. I admire your patience (even if driven by boredom.) HiLo48 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Oy vey. You have a clear point of view regarding Sarah Palin. It's evident in your absolute unwillingness to listen to anyone — other editors, administrators, uninvolved parties — who take the time to calmly, rationally explain to you that anonymously-sourced gossip is absolutely unacceptable for a wp:blp, no matter what level of unsourced synthesis you might be able to conjure up. You can't debate your way around or through such an obvious wp:blp violation. And while I admire your pugnacity and delicious sense of irony, your efforts are damaging to biographies, drive neutral editors away from controversial articles, and ultimately hurt Wikipedia. jæs (talk) 07:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That out-of-context link does not accurately reflect my view of Palin. Regardless, I believe we are all entitled to holding our own opinions as well as to making suggestions regarding article content. It would be very easy to find pro-Palin quotes from you, particularly if I wasn't picky about context and accuracy, but I would never deny you the opportunity to collaborate simply because we are not already in full agreement.

I think we've also established that it's not a WP:BLP violation, so please do us the courtesy of not bringing up arguments that have been shown to be false. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 07:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh? Where a consensus found the claim not be to includable in a BLP, and the BLP rules have significantly tightened since then, it is odd that you, as a single editor lacking clear consensus, can rule that it does not violate BLP. Amazingly enough, BLPs do not contain every single snipped about the person - the material must be of some significance to the person, and must, if challenged, have a strong reliable source which is not questioned. Meanwhile, becoming a denizen of the noticeboards as a topic is not wise, and a large cup of tea is prescribed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say to this, as it is riddled with factual errors. This is not constructive. Dylan Flaherty 11:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I won't even bother addressing your attempts to imply, falsely, that I'm anything but neutral when it comes to this subject, but I once again admire your irony. But I do wonder exactly how many other editors and administrators have to try to convince you it is a wp:blp issue before you will actually acknowledge that fact? (I also find this comment from a few minutes ago to be not at all subtle. I suspect you didn't intend for it to be, though.) jæs (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have twice now attempted to imply that I am not neutral. The point is that editors are not expected to be neutral, articles are. Simply having an opinion does not disqualify either of us. Dylan Flaherty 08:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

When editors clearly can't separate their personal opinions from their editing of a controversial article for a biography of a living person, there are serious ramifications for this project. If you cannot edit the article neutrally and objectively, that certainly ought to disqualify you. jæs (talk) 08:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have offered nothing to support your claim that my suggestions for editing are anything but NPOV. It helps if you prove your claim instead of assuming it. Dylan Flaherty 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Alright you two that's enough. Disengage. Dylan, if you want to add a sentence into the article about Palin thinking Africa is a country, find a reliable source for it, and state why you think adding such a sentence would improve the article. Make your case on the talk page, and see what happens. If consensus is that the sentence should not be included, respect that. If you have already done this and the consensus is that the sentence should not be included, stop beating the dead horse. N419BH 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that reliable sourcing is absolutely essential. It turns out that we have no trouble finding reliable sources for both the original report and the analysis of its significance. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• I noticed this at WP:WQA#Bonewah where Dylan Flaherty reported what they thought was a uncivil comment, namely this edit. I had a look at the issue and noticed the repetitive attempts at Talk:Sarah Palin to record an alleged blunder by Palin re knowledge of Africa. Given that the article is under probation, and given the extremely low quality of the arguments in favor of introducing the Africa material, I recommend that an admin let people know that consensus has spoken, and the issue should not be revisited unless a new reliable source appears (and it would be even better if WP:DUE could be explained, i.e. you need more than one report before suggesting that Palin does not know the status of Africa). Johnuniq (talk) 08:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but calling me a liar is indeed uncivil. Moreover, the issue is not the alleged blunder, but the actual report. This is a delicate issue, so I feel that it is vital to do the necessary research to get the facts straight, prior to offering suggestions. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, no one "called (DF) a liar" and iterating that claim here is bound to get the WQA revisited to your possible detriment. You appeared to take umbrage at one of the mildest reproofs imaginable on WP, and then iterate how "uncivil" the other editor is. One more cup of tea is called for. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you make claims that are false. The term tossed at me refers specifically to intentionally misleading, which is to say, lying. Note that, in contrast, while I am stating that your claims are false, I am not claiming intent, so I am not calling you a liar. I hope that clarifies the difference. Dylan Flaherty 11:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

N419BH - Many suggestions have been made on the Talk page. My reason for leaving it was that consensus is clearly impossible. I tried to present a different perspective and was howled down by those who cannot conceive of an alternative to their view that the content MUST NOT BE THERE. (Some of the comments to me were quite rude.) I am not American. This gives me both an independence from American party politics, and another perspective. I was not just ignored. I was attacked. Forget about consensus. It cannot happen. HiLo48 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I am quite sympathetic, but I must tell you that I felt much the same about Tea Party movement, but a long mediation forced both sides to the table and yielded a mutually acceptable compromise. On this basis, I believe an RfC has some potential here. Perhaps I'm an optimist, but I'd like to give it a try. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested confining it to the 2008 election page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, the suggested location is the end of the election section. Its significance is not for the election, but for the transition. Dylan Flaherty 08:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The alleged statement is presumed to have possibly affected people's voting choice, yes? And if not, why does it matter anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was my initial thought, too, but I was mistaken. The gaffe itself was supposed to have occurred during the campaign, but Cameron was not allowed to mention it until afterwards, as it was given to him "off the record". Instead, it came out just as McCain conceded, as part of an effort by his people to lay blame at Palin's feet. This, according to reliable sources, had the effect of distancing Palin from the GOP mainstream and eventually leading to her role in the Tea Party movement. As I said, the significance is in the transition. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, just read the proposed content. The usual badly sourced BLP mud slinging content. I suggest as a resolution an admin leaves Dylan a strong but polite note to drop the stick and back away slowly, there is no way the content (at this stage anyway) is able to pass BLP concerns. Sourcing is pants (mostly news from the time as far as I can make out with nothing but trivial coverage). Significance is not established (no indication of the relevance or significance). etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I did read your comment, but I'm sorry to say that you made some serious factual errors that undermine your conclusion. A key one is that you denied that anyone provided RS's for the "thrown under the bus" analysis. If you go back and read it more carefully, you'll see that there are two you missed. Dylan Flaherty 09:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I read all the sources in those three parts, perhaps I missed it. Care to post them both again? Stick them on my talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Dylan Flaherty 09:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, I requested that jaes not post further to my talk page. They have violated this request. I am requesting that an administrator take care of this. Dylan Flaherty 09:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Dylan find a way to stop making increasingly regular appearances as the subject (or reporter-turned-subject)[2] of so many threads that concern disruptive editing. Dylan isn't even four months old here, yet it's becoming "old hat" already seeing him surrounded by controversy. It isn't looking like a "rosy" future at this rate. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 09:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have said nothing about the subject of this report. Instead, you are bringing up your general opinion of me my editing "style", which is not relevant. On the whole, I do not find your comment helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would find it helpful. I have no negative opinion of you as an editor (or a person) whatsoever: your editing "style" is the issue. You must have noticed a few "objections" to it by now... Doc talk 09:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason I don't find it helpful is that it does nothing to resolve the issue that this report is about. At best, it is harmless commentary. At worst, it is mudslinging. In neither case, nor any in between, is it productive. While I will assume good faith here, I cannot conclude that it is helpful. Dylan Flaherty 09:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since you clarified your intention, I redacted my original comment. Dylan Flaherty 09:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that :> After being here almost 3 years and never been the subject of even one AN/I/WQA/AN/3RR/etc., maybe my advice truly isn't helpful. I can't keep you out of them... so go with your instincts! Cheers :> Doc talk 09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying that your advice may be helpful in a general context. However, my feeling is that offering it here in the place of an analysis of the situation that was reported is not helpful. I hope I have made this distinction sufficiently clear. Dylan Flaherty 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have to again contribute my comments from the thread, since everyone else is just repeating their stubborn opinions. I'm in Australia. The "Fact" that Palin does not know Africa is a continent was widely publicised here. No refutation of that "Fact" has arrived here. I acknowledge that some editors believe it should be refuted and have some evidence for that claim. This is a global encyclopaedia. (Hence my spelling of that word.) To have an article about Palin and not mention that rather sensational "Fact" would make it look like the article has been censored. Hence I proposed mentioning both sides of the story. This proposal has nothing to do with US politics, apart from making the description look complete. Believe it or not, the rest of the world does pay attention to US politics. Let's tell the full story. HiLo48 (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an American. "Methinks he doth protest too much". Doc talk 09:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc, that's a silly response. Do assume good faith. If you want, I'l scan my Australian birth certificate and post it here. You have to start trusting us foreigners! HiLo48 (talk) 09:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm an Aussie and I support HiLo48's post. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 09:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What it boils down to is that Dylan just wouldn't take No for an answer. And the basic reason for that was that editors failed to grasp the subtle difference of Dylans request from what they were percieving. And now he is being charged with wasting editing time and harming WP. But lets look at where this took place. Talk:Sara Palin. There are 62 Archives at Talk:Sara Palin; 61.5 since Aug 29, 2008. Almost 62 archives in 28 months. I challenge someone to find another WP article talk page with as many in such a short time. My point is that conversation/discussion at Talk:Sara Palin is looooong-winded. It takes time and effort to shake out the wheat from the chaff. Its a part of the "scene" there. This African gaffe stuff is nothing compared to the Bridges to Nowhere discussions. Editor:Dylan may have stepped in some dog-droppings here and there, and upset an editor or two, but I hope administrators can consider the nature of the Sara Palin article and the development of an obviously talented editor. Buster Seven Talk 10:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I'm beginning to notice something here. The actual story of Palin's Africa gaffe would, if it were true, make her look ignorant. It get the impression that some people get this far into the issue and then stop. They immediately react to a perceived attack and they never go any deeper, so they miss the point.

Yet, if they kept reading, they would understand that the significance is not that the story makes her look bad, but that the story is intended to; that it was told by the McCain aide to Cameron precisely because they wanted her to look bad. In this context, Palin comes across as a sympathetic figure, scapegoated by the establishment so that McCain doesn't have to take the full blame for losing the election.

Wikipedia is not here to praise or damn Palin, but to report on the facts. If we report that the gaffe was claimed and then explain what it means about her relationship with the GOP mainstream, we are just doing our jobs. Dylan Flaherty 09:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the sources you suggested and did a bit of digging; I agree, there is content here. On the other hand the "Africa gaffe" is a minor part of that, worth probably less than a sentence as part of the overall story. (but this is not the place for such a discussion really - we should figure out if admin action is needed, and if not then move on) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't yet posted my proposed paragraph, but I assure you that the Africa gaffe does not get more than a sentence, and is presented only in context, without being declared true. I believe the best action at this point is to allow the RfC to proceed and to watch it carefully. Dylan Flaherty 10:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that what Dylan is proposing (on this page) is synthesis--taking a relatively minor incident (which is rather sketchily sourced, as all of the media reports refer to a single reporter's claims about the statements of anonymous staffers), and extrapolating that into a discussion of Palin's relationship with the Republican Party establishment. Unless there is a reliable source which explicitly links the two issues, we can't say that, because it's original research. Horologium (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, I would appreciate it if you would do me the courtesy of visiting User_talk:ErrantX and reading the two sources I posted there. Dylan Flaherty 10:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Horologium and Errant - did you actually read my posts? Nothing you have posted indicates that you are paying any attention to what I have posted at all. This has been my frustration all along. Those who don't want the content repeatedly post stuff that simply does not take into account what others have said. It's really bad manners, and guaranteed to occasionally lead to less than ideal interactions. Why behave in such a confrontational way? Dylan is being attacked here for alleged unacceptable behaviour, but bad behaviour is all over the place on this topic. Please try a little harder, all of you. HiLo48 (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read what you have written, and simply dismissed it out of hand. You aren't paying attention to what others have been saying, and you mistake media assertions for facts. The only person who has claimed that Sarah Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent is an anonymous McCain campaign staffer, whereas multiple McCain staffers have stated, on the record, that the claims are false. Horologium (talk) 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You have totally missed my point. My opinion of what Palin said is irrelevant. When I said "Fact", it was to highlight that without any further information, everyone, all over the world, who has only heard the claims that she did say it will believe it to be true. And will wonder why WIkipedia is hiding the story that they have all heard. That you're happy to have the world know only one side of this story, the side that makes Palin look silly, stuns me. Because the world does know that side of the story, and not the refutations. HiLo48 (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have dismissed it out of hand, since you didn't take the time to understand that the very fact the claim was made is the point. We don't really know whether it was true, although it's entirely plausible that it was a misstatement or misunderstanding on her part rather than a reflection of actual ignorance about Africa. But, as you admit, you just dismissed it out hand. Dylan Flaherty 10:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(after many E/C)Yes, both of these sources explicitly state that their source was Carl Cameron, and neither have much to do with what you claim to be trying to achieve here (since they date from less than a week after the campaign ended in 2008). I have addressed this on the article talk page, but you haven't bothered to reply to my concerns. Horologium (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I fail to see how you could have viewed a 6.5 minute video in less than 4 minutes. I have to suspect that you did not watch it. This is strengthened by the fact that you made some basic factual errors just now. In particular, the video very clearly states that McCain leaked negative information about her for two days, which is exactly the point. Please understand that this is not a vote, and that the weight of your comments cannot exceed the merit they earn by virtue of reflecting serious scholarship. Dylan Flaherty 10:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have to watch it this time; I watched it after you brandished it on the article talk page earlier. If you were actually coming up with new stuff, it would be a different story, but you're recycling the same links. Horologium (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree that you only have to watch it once. However, that one time, you do need to watch it all the way through and pay close attention. Dylan Flaherty 10:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Dylan Flaherty may be right about this. Google Books search[3] finds lots of mentions of the incident, including some by respectably uninvolved authors, plus Palin herself apparently discusses it on page 87 of her autobiography "Going Rogue". Palin is a major public figure (she may even be the next US president) and as such, we should take a firmer stance about her biography's neutrality than we would about biographies of semi-private people whose biographies tend (for good reason) to get tilted in their favor. Assuming the allegation is false, the reliably sourced info about who spread it and why they did it sounds potentially relevant to her biography. We have a whole article about the birther movement for about the same reason. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm yeah... youtube and the Huffington post are REALLY reliable sources(!) Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor: remove your face from your palm and actually look at the video before declaring it unreliable. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty 10:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you knew ANYTHING about our policies you would know youtube is NEVER even REMOTELY considered a reliable source. PERIOD! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Now, tell me, have you ever heard of this minor cable channel called MSNBC? If so, do you think it's somewhat reliable? Dylan Flaherty 10:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright infringement. That's one reason why YouTube is an unreliable source. Arf arf... Doc talk 10:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will note for the record that you did not answer the question. I think you're done now. Dylan Flaherty 10:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Doc ignoring what others post, eh?. Trademark behaviour it seems. HiLo48 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a; just for edification :) Youtube can definitely be a reliable source. The issue with it is twofold is that a) it is often self published material (which either is not reliable, or must be used with care) or a) the content is not adequately licensed, and you are right, we do never link to copyright infringing material. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing more authorized uploads which seem reliable; and more aggressive protection of copyrighted info. However, youtube is still primarily for entertainment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the link is just presented here for your convenience. The actual RS is the cable broadcast itself. Dylan Flaherty 10:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Where would one access a cable broadcast other than on youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a smart-ass, but the answer is "your local cable provider".

Accessibility is distinct from reliability. We have articles that reference books that cannot be found online. In this case, someone who would prefer not to use YouTube would need to contact MSNBC and request video of the broadcasts for that time period. Of course, some people would use YouTube for verification, even though we wouldn't necessarily want to link to it. Dylan Flaherty 11:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Shazam! My local cable provider is piping 2-year-old MSNBC shows to my TV on request? I did not know that! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, for something like that you need print sources by not-too-partisan writers. Page 6 of "On rumors: how falsehoods spread, why we believe them, what can be done" by Cass R. Sunstein might be an ok source (shows up in Google book search but there's no preview of that page). Snippet: "In 2008, many Americans were prepared to believe that Governor Sarah Palin thought that Africa was a country rather than a continent, because that ridiculous confusion fit with what they already thought about Governor Palin. ..." 67.117.130.143 (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but do you know what would be even better than non-partisan writers? A report from a partisan journalist who would be expected to be hostile towards Palin but is instead sympathetic!

I don't know of any TV journalists more partisan against the GOP than Keith Olbermann. Now check out the video and see it for yourself. Dylan Flaherty 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple EC) We don't even need to discuss copyright infringement, we need to note that Olbermann is on the same level as right-wing crazies like Glenn Beck, and I seriously doubt that any of the people pushing the Olbermann clip would similarly support clips of Glenn Beck on the Barack Obama article. Horologium (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making my point for me. Dylan Flaherty 10:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is quite subtle. jæs (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What's unsubtle is your attempt to repeatedly introduce material that is irrelevant. In fact, I redacted that comment immediately, so quoting it at all is an act of bad faith. Shame on you. Dylan Flaherty 10:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You "redacted" your personal attack with the edit summary of "true, but out of place." Seriously? It's remarkable to me that, when it comes to your inappropriate behaviour, everything is irrelevant or out of context, or the mere mention of it is "intimidation." Shame on me, indeed! jæs (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What I redacted was not, in fact, a personal attack at all. Note how no persons were mentioned. However, even if it had been a personal attack and I removed it without prompting, it would be inappropriate to post it here without that context. I'm not sure why you posted the other links, as they only make you look bad. They show, for example, how you were ordered not to post on my talk page but you did it anyway. Dylan Flaherty 11:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan Flaherty, Please note this... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 10:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't hear you say whether MSNBC was a reliable source, and I didn't hear you reply to ErrantX's correction about YouTube. Dylan Flaherty 10:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That certainly looks like a refusal to get the point to me. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming this ANI thread is an exception until it's completed. Or is it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would have dropped the stick by now... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a stick, so no. Dylan Flaherty 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus you're sticking to your story. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ouch. :-) Dylan Flaherty 11:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I believe that the topic ban laid down by User:Gwen Gale is unreasonable and unjustified, so I am requesting that she lift it. If she won't then I'm requesting that someone else override her. Dylan Flaherty 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

To be specific, I consider my edits on the talk page to be persistent but productive and in good faith, hence not disruptive. Dylan Flaherty 11:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comments as a result of it above are. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was not banned for my comments, and actually, they're not. Dylan Flaherty 11:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You're overinvolved and staying away for 2 weeks sounds like a good idea. There is more sourcing for the Africa thing now than there used to be, so other editors can find and use it if they determine that it's worth reversing an earlier decision to not include the material. Just find something non-Palin-related to edit for a while. Variety is healthy.67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This behavior of Dylan Flaherty's is completely in line with my experiences with him on other pages. His behavior reported here brings contention wherever I have seen him edit. In expectation of his usual personal attacks for my having said this, let me add that numerous editors have the same experiences as I do. It is good to see that some people are not dismissive of his behavior. I am certain disciplinary action taken here is well deserved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: The topic ban is fully and 100% in effect. Any additional discussion here, or anywhere related to Sarah Palin will result in an escalating series of blocks. This topic ban is in effect for a period of 2 weeks. Additional similar transgressions will lead to longer topic bans. Final answer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If so, then it's probably time to box this up. Oh, and also to block the rabble-rousing IP, farther down, who's trying to encourage socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreasonable block topic ban

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

Appeal declined. Everyone, please cool it with the bickering. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

---

While in the middle of discussing an issue, I was put on a topic ban that prevents me from defending myself. I find this highly unreasonable and request that the ban be removed, at least for the context of this page. (I apologize if this seems unclear, but I am not allowed to speak of the topic of the ban.) Dylan Flaherty 11:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been informed now that I am not banned from Sarah Palin-related topics on this page, so I will continue this matter in the previous section. Dylan Flaherty 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for you but the editors here thought they are gods that no one can put them down.. they dont respect anyone and even their co- editors have errors they try to help him/her by masking the errors... this is what they are.. they are as corrupt as as their souls and minds are... if you entertain them further you'll get stressed and you'll be unhealthy at the end.... the best way is to trail them and give them the correct punishment that is outside of wikipedias rules... the best idea then.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.185.182 (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Naturally, you're from Chicago, a city known for its impeccable integrity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is not the place for you to be a snarky bigot to IPs with impunity. Keep it to yourself. Jtrainor (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, wait... Are you saying Chicago is not known for its impeccable integrity? Them's fightin' words, son - Chicago is my favorite city. It sounds like you've got your own bigotry issues that you need to address before lecturing others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, apparently BWilkens says I can't speak of the forbidden subject of horror anywhere, so I won't. Instead, I will request that the ban be lifted. If I get blocked for requesting the removal of a ban, then we'll have reached new levels of perversity. Dylan Flaherty 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"What is your fascination with my forbidden closet of mystery?" Oh well: good luck :> Doc talk 11:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't know the difference between a WP:BLOCK and WP:RESTRICT by now there may be little hope for you ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction, but please note this extract from WP:BAN:

Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned editors, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.

In other words, don't kick a man when he's down, especially when you tripped him in the first place.

To clarify, I believe that preventing me from defending myself is unreasonable, that the topic ban itself is unreasonable, and that any sort of block or ban or restriction is entirely inappropriate. This is a content dispute that multiple editors have requested an RfC for. By topic-banning, you are disrupting this process, among other things.

For these reasons, and all the ones listed above, I am requesting that the topic ban be removed and the discussion be unlocked so that it may continue. Dylan Flaherty 11:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing up a WP:BAN and a topic ban. Don't. This is not a ban. You have been given permission to improve your editing and understanding of policies by discussing it directly with User:Gwen Gale - take advantage of that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to first discuss this with the original banner. So long as that discussion is ongoing, please consider the unban request here to be on hold. Dylan Flaherty 12:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The ANI discussion is concluded, so no further defense from you is necessary. At Talk:Sarah Palin, there is a clear consensus that the information you are interested in will not be added. Here at ANI, there is an equally clear consensus that it is time for you to accept that consensus, and find other ways to improve the encyclopedia. Part of participating in disagreements at Wikipedia is recognizing when you have lost, which means not having to have large number of administrators inform you that the argument is over and you did not win it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As it turns out, you are mistaken about the consensus. There is, in fact, no consensus right now, and the process of arriving at one has been substantially delayed by these mistaken administrator actions. Part of participating in Wikipedia is understanding that terminating a discussion prematurely to declare a winner is poor sportsmanship. Dylan Flaherty 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from the peanut gallery: Closing an ANI discussion after less than 8 hours seems odd, to say the least. And the fact that it so quickly resulted in a topic ban is even more dumbfounding. -PrBeacon (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

PrBeacon, if you wish to follow the conversation on the talk page of the administrator who did this, you'll note that the basic argument is that I need to shut up and accept consensus. My problem with this is that, as the number of dissenting voices clearly showed, there is no clear consensus at this time. Rather than supporting the natural formation and enforcement of consensus, the ban silenced the debate and propped up a failing consensus.

That's why I've asked for an unban so that I can launch the RfC that people have been agitating for in the last week. I will continue to try to get through to her until tomorrow evening, at which point I will be forced to give up and return to this page. It's easier for the ban to be lifted by her than anyone else, but we don't have to do things the easy way, given the questionable nature of this ban. Dylan Flaherty 15:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's try this from the top. As the discussions have stalled, I am once again asking for this topic ban to be removed. It serves no positive purpose and only delays the RfC that we need to gain a consensus. Once the ban is removed, I will immediately file an RfC. Dylan Flaherty 18:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That's great, but why? Do you have a reason? Dylan Flaherty 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - could be longer for me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to be topic-banned? I don't understand. I also don't see any stated reason. This is not a vote. Dylan Flaherty 18:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. Sarah Palin is not an obscure subject, and this user has already stated his case. He seems now to be arguing that the topic ban must be lifted because others cannot reach the right consensus without his participation, which I do not think is the case. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Thank you for offering a reason. I think if you look at the banner's talk page, you'll find that they admit there is currently no consensus. If an RfC proceeds without me and arrives at the conclusion that we should exclude the Africa incident, this will be a glass consensus that shatters as soon as I am ungagged. Dylan Flaherty 18:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

One person does not make or break a consensus. No editor is so indispensable that an inability to participate in a discussion, precipitated by his own actions, renders said discussion invalid. Horologium (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban. I think taking two weeks to calm down, organize your thoughts, and carefully prepare an RFC on the subject before getting back into public discussion is well recommended. There's no hurry to add the disputed text. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 18:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose removal of topic ban, largely for the reasons outlined by FisherQueen. Horologium (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Oppose removal of topic ban. Banned user shows evidence that he is willing to use tactics which aren't conducive towards collaborative work, including a refusal to "get the point", a willingness to repeatedly use the same arguements and tactics ad nauseum, even in the face of significant opposition, and a willingess that by sheer volume and repetition, he will somehow make his points the consensus view rather than his own personal view. I don't see where the Sarah Palin universe of articles has benefit from this persons behavior; indeed if he does have any valid points they will likely eventually be incorporated by others, he provides nothing uniquely valuable to the articles except his own disruption therof. (post Edit conflict addendum) The belief that your participation in the RFC would somehow cause such a landmark shift in consensus is the exact reason why the topic ban is needed here. Your opinion is exactly as valuable as anyone elses; and your opinions on the matter are already public record, and have not generated much support. The fact that an RFC has started is unlikely to magicly change consensus on this issue merely because you get to make the same tired arguements there again. --Jayron32 18:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oppose If an RfC is truly required, it will most certainly not hinge on any one single editor to get started. As there is a serious and ongoing case of WP:IDHT, the topic ban is amply justified. MLauba ^(Talk) 18:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose removal of topic ban. If a user fails to drop the stick and continues to ignore people who point out he is wrong then this is a needed step. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I articulated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjiboi, I think there's a reasonable chance this user is a sockpuppet of Benjiboi, although the ongoing behavior here makes me question my initial suspicions. A checkuser might be appropriate if there is ongoing disruption sufficient to enact a topic ban from a contentious area. Jclemens (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Could we have a CU on this? I have not a clue as to what the outcome would be. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Thanks for pointing that out Jclemens. This Dylan Flaherty user account does have a precocious knowledge of Wikipedia, as evidenced by its very first actions; this person did not start editing Wikipedia on the first day the account was created, so there is some past history which is being deliberately hidden. No idea what that means, but it is suspicious. --Jayron32 19:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, the overlap is interesting, but Dylan Flaherty's editing style is substantially less collegial than that of Benjiboi. I have interacted with Benjiboi on other contentious topics (particularly Matt Sanchez); he was not so quick to stonewall and wikilawyer. Plus, he's been around long enough to know that an RFC is going to draw lots of attention; if he were planning to continue to edit, he'd lie low and not call for an RFC. I don't buy it, although the account creation date, the knowledge of certain arcane policies, and the editing overlap is startling. (The fact that he still doesn't seem to have a grasp of posting diffs offsets some of that.)Horologium (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Guess I must say, this was Dylan's third edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

! I think he can safely say that he's SOMEBODY's sock. JClemens says Benjiboi; my first guess would be User:Scribner, who has a history of disruption on this article and a similar focus on politically-fraught topics. Horologium (talk) 19:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting theory.[4] 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, that we have 3-4 disruptive editors who are known to edit from the same political point-of-view as this, and also have a pattern of refusing to back down when faced with overwhelming consensus against their edits, among them Grundle2600 and ChildofMidnight. Now, this obviously isn't Grundle, totally not his style. He doesn't even try to hide. It could possibly be CoM; CoM does hide, but this guy doesn't seem as abusive towards others as CoM usually is. Scribner is an interesting connection... What we do know is this is somebody who is not as new as his account indicates. --Jayron32 21:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, this guy has the opposite political viewpoint. Darn it, I have such a hard time keeping track of the difference between American political rhetoric. And I am an American... Urgh. --Jayron32 21:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is clear evidence of socking enough to get a checkuser involved without knowledge of the sockmaster's identity? N419BH 21:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Will the claim that Dylan is or is not a sock be verified and the results presented here or is there another forum for that? Unverified charges stated by administrators have an increased sticking power. I'm not sure what to make of these sockpuppet claims. I would rather know than suspect. Buster Seven Talk 21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

JClemens has posted a link to the SPI for Benjiboi, in which he addresses some of the possible links between Dylan and Benjiboi. I'm not sure who is doing all of the C/U stuff, but if they are reading everything, rather than just the list, they'll notice what JClemens has posted and run the check. Horologium (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

A CU has not been run on JClemens request at the SPI. Given the size of that SPI request, and the number of discussions going on there, it may have been missed. --Jayron32 22:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I suggested a cup of tea for him. DF, however, seems to respond with such by an increased argumentativeness. Here is a user who appeared as Minerva, spinging forth from the head of Zeus. Until we find out who Zeus is :) my usual opposition to draconian measures is vastly reduced. [5], [6], [7], and (a personal favourite) [8] posted in response to a suggestion that a cuppa would help. Collect (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Jayron. That means no report is forthcoming? As the example above shows, some editors will begin to assume and state that the claims of sockpuppetry are factual...without any evidence.Buster Seven Talk 22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I made so claims other than his argumentativeness. Which is reasonably clear. Collect (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Really!?! Dylan Flaherty 22:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice the conversation has shifted to whether or not Dylan is a sockpuppet. We all can see that he may argue a bit too much! Buster Seven Talk 22:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) For what it's worth, Dylan responded elsewhere that his account is not a sock. I also recall him mentioning recently that he is not editing under a pseudonym, and that he had some concerns about his on-Wikipedia activities becoming associated with his real life identity (at which point I suggested he exercise his right to vanish and select a pen name). I don't know what to make of all of the information above, especially the peculiar nature of his earlier edits, but I suspect it may just be simpler for us to wait for the checkuser conclusion rather than speculate. jæs (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose removal of topic ban, and recommend an extension beyond the original 2 weeks. The massive "I don't get it"-ism has simply wasted more time than anything. Sometimes WP:COMPETENCE raises its ugly head. At the end of 2 weeks, he still will not understand WP:CONSENSUS ... or indeed, any of the WP:5P. His chat with User:Gwen Gale was supposed to help enlighten him - he simply refuses to take any advice like an adult would/should. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. I have made the same observation regarding the User:Gwen Gale chat. Truly striking. It is amazing how User:Gwen Gale continues to respond as well as she does. I hope to learn from User:Gwen Gale. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 01:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, please stop piling on. You already had your say earlier, although that too should be qualified. You have your own share of contentious editing, and not just in discussions with Dylan or me. -PrBeacon (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You followed LAEC to Southern Poverty Law Center, and Dylan followed shortly afterwards: both you and Dylan have an astonishing talk-to-article edit ratio there, with way more arguing than editing the article. Neither of you much like LAEC either. If I had to pick one editor as a possible Dylan master, it would be PrBeacon (talk · contribs). The wikistalk is impressive[9] (interest in giving talk page advice but no article edits at Koch Industries for PrBeacon[10] stands out to me as a minor "oddity", especially when one considers that Dylan started editing both the article and talk page after that), and I'm not seeing much in the way of edit overlap (I could be wrong). If a CU is run, I'd put my money here. Doc talk 06:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Then you'd lose. I didn't follow LAEC anywhere and your various accusations are ridiculous. Is this your way of trying to weaken an ideological opponent (DF) and anyone who dares to offer a modicum of support? Or perhaps the timing of your comment here is more than coincidental to another editor's disruptive exchange [11] elsewhere. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Now your obsession with me bleeds over into things I'm not even involved in? Keep me out of your drama Beacon.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, get over yourself. This is not my drama and anyway you could've stayed out by not responding here. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• You dragged my edit into this. I have nothing to do with this affair. Yes, I could choose to ignore your bringing my name into something I'm not involved in, but I'd like to hear you explain why I need to be brought up? I made no edits in the sections being discussed. I haven't had any significant interactions with the others involved. So why on earth would you couple what Doc9871 said with me? Please, show me how I became part of your conspiracy theory. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone verify that a CU is in fact being run? I see alot of conjecture..."if a CU and when a CU and should a CU"...but I don't see any hard evidence that a CU is taking place. I see [this] but Im not sure what that has to do with Dylan. Thanks Buster Seven Talk 06:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

What a lot of bullying! Dylan may be persistent, annoyingly so to some, but he's far more polite than some of those opposing him and dragging up all sorts of possibilities as to who he might really be, rather than actually discussing the issues. And there is obviously not a consensus. Majorities don't define consensus. One of my favourite lines to those who like squashing dissidents with majority views is the very truthful "Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right." And a consensus must arise from extensive, constructive discussion. Until I see my proposal properly discussed it hasn't been a full discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A polite disruptor is still a disruptor. (Of course, if he is a returned user, one of their habits is often to be overly polite ...) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

But by the same token, consensus is not unanimous agreement. Generally speaking, when a group of editors mostly are in agreement any vocal minority is irrelevant. Someone will always disagree; if they can't sway the bulk of editors to their argument then consensus is against them :) Simply being persistent doesn't undermine consensus, it just pisses people off. Hence all this. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And again, your approach has been to simply insist that there is consensus, rather than actually paying attention, noting that I'm concerned about no discussion of my proposal, and hence discussing it. What's that? You don't know what my proposal is, and why I proposed it? Hmmm. Maybe you haven't paid attention, which brings me back to.... HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows what your "proposal" is by now: please provide the diff here to refresh some memories. Again. Sorry for the "short attention span"... Doc talk 10:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If nobody is paying attention to your proposal and discusses it, you can make a safe bet that it doesn't have a consensus for it either. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Missed the point. You cannot choose to ignore what others say, then claim consensus, no matter how popular the vote. HiLo48 (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"No matter how popular the vote." But, that would literally mean... oh, never mind. Doc talk 10:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Are we talking about a specific proposal you made that was ignored? In which case, fine, I can't comment on that. But in the context of Dylan and his proposal; discussion appears to have been going on for a good while. The problem that exists is that if, as proposer, you define the margin for which something has been "properly discussed" you're always likely to be disappointed. The issue on that page is, I think, that the original content wanted to be added was trivial nonsense. In an effort to get it in the scope of the content was expanded, which met with rejection for its intent as much as anything (it is a common approach when someone can't get their preferred content in; and sometimes is good, sometimes less so). There may be content to be added, but while focus is maintained on the Africa gaffe trivia nothing constructive can happen. Sourcing for the content is marginal at this stage and extensive work (by which I mean several hours of research, this is not an easy 10m job) needs to be undertaken by those wanting to add that content to find sources, figure out what to say, write it and present it. At the moment the focus is very clearly on pushing the specific gaffe into the article; that is very definitely resisted by numerous people and will never go in because they have a clear policy reason for resisting it (BLP). Of course; it is easy to claim no consensus; that might be true, but as it is a BLP a stalled "no consensus" falls in favour of the "do not include" camp. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that little rant just reinforced my point. You, and others here, have been so obsessed with wanting to condemn everything Dylan has said (some of the opposition clearly politically motivated) that you failed to notice that someone else was even here. That's not just bad manners, it's just plain dumb. If you don't consider all points of view, how can you possibly claim consensus? Yes, I am talking about something I said that had a different perspective from Dylan's. As usual, it was ignored here. Not refuted. Just ignored. All very sad. I retired from the discussion at the article's talk page because of a total absence of rational discussion. I think I'll do the same here. Some topics on Wikipedia are never going to be objective. I accept that. Most of the content is great. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If a "total absence of rational discussion" is what dissuades you in this community project, you're not being "rational" enough for most, I suppose. "Wikipedia is not a battleground". I didn't make that up, so don't blame me for quoting it... Doc talk 11:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said; I can't comment on anything of yours that you feel was ignored - point to it and I will be happy to comment. But what you were saying was ambiguous and could have been a general point - my "rant" was simply an attempt to explain. All I will say (prior to you pointing me at this proposal or whatever) is that if something is ignored then it is possibly the fault of the proposer; because it is bad, or confusingly worded for example. Generally I take the approach that if my comment is ignored there is a problem somewhere, so I should try again. Calling me dumb for missing something you're vaguely alluding to is not going to help your case; point me in the right direction and maybe I can comment. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess I see the comment you might be talking about. I did read it, but it didn't really address anything meaningful and I thought the replies set that approach to rest (if you want a brief explanation; we are not in the process of "setting it right", plus the comment was simply rhetoric designed to play on our apparent view that such content reflected negatively on her and so, by extension, we'd want to consider mitigating that.) And this, I think, highlights my point about setting the bar for what you consider "meaningful discussion" of your own point - almost certainly no one else replied because, well, they felt it had been dealt with. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"You, and others here, have been so obsessed with wanting to condemn everything..." That couldn't be more of a red herring, User:HiLo48, nor could it be more of a baseless bad faith accusation. If you're going to go through the project assuming that anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is "rant[ing]" and simply ignoring your recommendations, I'm afraid you're going to run into more than a few issues. But I think it's particularly ironic that User:ErrantX invested a considerable amount of time in reviewing this content and, in fact, even expressed some support for further considering it above. But since he doesn't endorse disruptive behaviour, he's somehow ranting? Give me a break. jæs (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo48, the kind of civil disruption for which DF was topic banned can stir up all kinds of kerfluffle, in which other editors post things which get missed (this is one reason why we have topic bans). I would think, if you go to the article talk page and bring up what you have in mind again, it'll at least be read this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt the feeding frenzy of baseless accusations, but sometimes a person is polite because they're polite, and sometimes they're persistent because it's plain that the responses are evasive and inadequate, and sometimes unpopular speech is just unpopular speech, not "disruption". Labeling it as "disruption" simply because it's saying something that not everyone wants to hear and won't promptly shut up is a pretty obvious way to silence unpopular speech. Is that really what Wikipedia is about?

Of course, if all I knew of Wikipedia was this conversation, I would probably conclude that it's some sort of e-lynching site, based on the ugly and unconstructive tone. This crowd is here to hang a man, not to find out the truth or enforce justice. If there's anything I know about mob uprisings, it's that it's best to let them thoroughly work out their anger before confronting them. Therefore, I'm going to leave you to deal with your own issues. Assuming you don't just keep flailing at CU's until you luck onto some banned user who once lived within a 100 miles of me, I'll be back later. Dylan Flaherty 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S.

For extra credit, see if you can misinterpret the note above as an excuse to block me for some imagined offense. I know you can do it if you don't let common sense and decency stand in your way. Dylan Flaherty 13:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, after reading all of this I have to say this, esp. after this last comment made by Dylan. I am not involved in anyway but I think the topic ban should be extended for at least a month after all of the above discussions. It's obvious Dylan doesn't agree but all of us have to listen to what others have to say and when they disagree with us we have to stop. Dylan is not doing that and it's time to force it. So I support the topic ban and say it should be extended so that what I am saying is clear. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

socking allegations

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

Resolved as best it can be. Someone can re-open if they disagree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

This needs to be announced, even though the discussion has been closed: the checkuser has confirmed that Dylan Flaherty is not a sock, of Benjiboi or of any other user. Since there was a good deal of discussion about this, I wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the sockpuppetry speculation was unfounded. Horologium (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alison did not say DF was not a sock of any other user, though socking was never my worry here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated socking accusations have been one of the many tools used against him by some Dylan's opponents, many of which look from my perspective as attempts to get him silenced for what are really internal American political reasons. The allegations were wrong, but they have won, and suffered no consequences themselves. I do wonder how those editors would respond if they saw such behaviour in Discussion on an article about another country? HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to see retractions from the editors posting such false allegations. If not here, where is the appropriate place to ask this? -PrBeacon (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Would this also be the appropriate place to ask for one over the implication of some sort of conspiracy made in this edit? [12] Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Did you post the wrong diff? There is no apology there. There is a strike through, where nearly 4 hours later, you decided to quietly try to act like you didn't make the allegation. But I don't see an apology or a retraction. I mean if it's ok for you to ask for them, it should be equally ok for you to give them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, again. I made no accusation against you. You claimed to not want to be included in this 'drama' yet you keep replying. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• You implied a comspiracy or some sort of collusion between us. You can sit here and act like you didn't, but everyone can see you did. I've shown what I wanted to show about you, so now you can have the last word that you crave so much, then cut and paste it all over to your talk page and have yet another conversation with yourself there. But thank you for the entertainment. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't imply that, you inferred it. But I'm sure everyone else here is as happy to hear that you've gotten what you wanted, including a silly dig about my talkpg (really?) because your nonsense is unwelcome there. Do you need a shovel? -PrBeacon (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

en.WP is riddled with socks, editors would be startled to learn who runs some of them. The posts about socking were made in good faith and taken to CU, where no socking was found. This happens at ANI, it's not so untowards. Speaking only for myself, I was happy to hear CU did not link DF with Benjiboi. Meanwhile, as ever, DF is welcome on my talk page, to talk about the topic ban and find a means to lift it before the two weeks are up. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its not bad faith to have a good faith claims that edit history , etc a possible sock report, its part of how wikipedia works. Alison has said that the user is not a sock of any of the users on the Benjibo case, and that is a simple checkuser fact. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good faith? Maybe. Maybe it's my evil mind, but I really can imagine some editors using it in bad faith. And it was while those allegations were still active that the block under discussion was decided upon. Did the "good faith" strategy achieve its goal? Hmmmm. Anyway, as PrBeacon has suggested above, an apology or "I was wrong" from the accusers would be a real sign of good faith. 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Horologium, for taking the time to announce it here. The claims of sockpuppetry were made as tho it was a fact. What was unknown was WHO Dylan was a sock of. What I foresaw yesterday was a scerario where, in two weeks, two months, etc. some editor would start to claim that DF was a sock and the proof could be found here. The admins involved said as much! It was all to ambiguously worded for my taste. But now we know...all of us...that DF is NOT a sock! And, Gwen, even when I re-read the sock accusations above, Im having trouble finding good faith. But I'll get over it.Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor's immediate familiarity with wikipedia upon creation August 30th suggest to the average reader that he was not brand-new to wikipedia. If the checkusers did not find anything, then the question has to go on the back burner until or if new evidence arises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. There isn't any. Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like I'm a sock just waiting for a foot to be found, sort of a Cinderella story with cotton instead of glass and an unhappy ending. The reality is that there was never a credible basis for claiming I was a sock. It was, from the start, a combination of paranoia, wishful thinking and just plain malice. I'm not going to ask anyone to apologize, because no amount of WP:AGF can convince me they're sorry, and my reputation here will never recover from this smearing. This whole thing has been a lynching held during a witch hunt, and it reflects poorly upon the entire "community". You should all be ashamed of yourselves, doubly so because you're not. Dylan Flaherty 00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You were created at 1:00 and within 2 hours you were messing with your monobook stuff. That kind of thing looks fishy, though it may be totally innocent. But the typical editor comes to wikipedia to edit articles first and foremost. You made a couple of changes to an article about a turtle, and then did something with the monobook thing. I'm just curious when it was you first learned about that technical detail? P.S. Don't be closing threads that are about yourself and which someone else opened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, one of the life lessons that was dearly bought but I now hold in high regard is that, if you want to know why someone did a thing, you must ask. Until you ask, it is foolish to speculate. Dylan Flaherty 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a question already. What's the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you never asked me. You talked about me, but that's not the same thing. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I distinctly said "You", but perhaps you missed that. One "life lesson" I learned about during the Watergate era is the "non-denial denial". So, let me ask you again: At what point in time did you learn about the monobook thingy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I remember Watergate, but this is no Watergate. This is just you still making assumptions when you should be asking questions. In this case, the right question to ask is not when did I learn about the monobook thingy, but whether I ever did. And the answer is no.

My oldest son, who's a good deal more technical than I ever will be, introduced me to Wikipedia, signed me up and walked me through some of the basics. The reason my first edit was to Bog turtle is that it was the article of the day. Before the end of his visit, he also configured the account for my needs, set up a bookmark for the watchlist and fussed with some sort of Javascript addon for a bit; that last part would be your mysterious monobook. He couldn't get it working and I've never tried.

I think you'll find that life is both simpler and more complex than you make it out to be, but until you learn to ask instead of assume, you will forever be a prisoner of your own premises. Dylan Flaherty 07:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So... he's basically wrong about everything in life and you're right? Your posts are often so pompous-sounding that it's a small wonder that you are constantly defending yourself. Everyone is wrong sometimes Dylan, even you. Yes: even you. Doc talk 08:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My first year or so of using Wikipedia was under another name which I decided to abandon for personal reasons, so when HiLo48 began posting he was already fairly familiar with the place. (Although I still stuff things up often enough.) But the name change was innocent. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I smell a fish, too. But I don't jump to conclusions about the source. I was also hounded and stalked just after I started to edit. The stalker made the same kind of claims and I considered a new identity. So, maybe, some of us are more sensitive to false claims and unfounded innuendoes than others. Buster Seven Talk 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions is risky. Raising questions is fair. I've been accused of any number of things, but I don't worry about an allegation here unless it's true. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This stuff about using sock accusations to somehow "weaken" or "silence" an editor is absurd: the accuser has the egg on their face if they are wrong, not the accused. Most editors that get accused of socking have "disruptive tendencies" to begin with, so it's usually not a complete accident that someone in that position might find themselves accused of it. When you're a regular subject at "misconduct" boards, accusations often fly around. If you two are looking for apologies from every editor that mentioned the possibility of socking going on, I doubt that's going to happen. I'm sorry if I'm wrong about you two, but no CU has been conducted on these two accounts. Seeing that a CU has somehow cleared Dylan of any socking, I'm not going to press for one. Cheers: and remember that the drama isn't really worth it so much... Doc talk 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If he addresses that one loose end about the monobook, it would be fair for him to box up this section as being resolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I edited WP as an/several IP/s, but didn't want to register at that time. Then I created the named account. I actually don't remember any of the IP numbers or the articles they edited." I'm hoping he does better than that... Doc talk 04:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Eickman

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

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

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

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

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

1) This is all about sectarianism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CaC 155.99.230.57 (talk) grave errors

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, have a look at [13]. Attacks and garbage being thrown around by the same series of IPs, all from the same ISP. Perhaps a rangeblock/checkuser is in order. I've blanked the attacks and vulgarities from that talk page- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of appeal closure

• A recent appeal from an topic ban extension by Captain Occam (talk · contribs · email), closed by me.
• The thread where the sanction being appealed was imposed.

Could a few more administrators put eyes on this and share their thoughts here regarding Captain Occam? The matter about MathSci is being discussed at an arbitration clarification thread. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Vassyana for posting this thread. One other discussion that I think admins ought to look at is here.

Although I didn’t state in that thread which arbitrator I was referring to, the context should make it should be fairly clear. Relevant diffs are here (describing the personal connection between these editors) and here (in which the arbitrator makes a proposal about the editor to whom he has this connection.) According to HJ Mitchell’s comment in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, Roger Davies should have recused himself about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you give it a rest, please? Go do something positive, edit an article, upload an image, contribute something to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know why Captain Occam chose Jimbo's talk page to reenact his version of the Shootout at the OK Corral. The script could be improved but the cinematography is stunning :) Mathsci (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales offered his opinion in the thread in his user talk: that even though there probably isn’t an actual conflict of interest, it would still be best for Roger Davies to recuse himself in order to avoid the appearance of bias. Getting Jimbo’s opinion was what I was after by posting there, so I’ve basically got what I wanted from that thread. How much you want to drag out the argument there beyond this point is up to you. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam is locked in a dispute with ArbCom at present. He has made a series of unfounded accusations over the past 12 hours which seem to be fairly serious personal attacks. I hope for the sake of his own future as an editor on wikipedia that he can somehow manage to find a way of deescalating his dispute with ArbCom. One way might be through a private dialogue with members of ArbCom, as at least one of them has already suggested in a slightly different context. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Moot now [14] Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So is this issue over with now? You’ve agreed not to participate in race and intelligence related articles anymore, and this is the condition under which your topic ban was lifted. I obviously won’t be participating in them either. The articles I’m intending to edit are articles you probably don’t care about, and the articles you’ll be editing are articles I probably don’t care about. So there’s no reason we should have to interact with one another anymore.

I’d prefer that we didn’t. I’ll be glad to leave you alone if you can return the favor, but this will have to involve you not following me to discussions about my sanctions that don’t involve you, or making apparently frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry against me. (I say your accusations about this were frivolous because during the month since you claimed it, no one else has appeared to agree with you that this claim was justified, and none of the alleged socks have been blocked or sanctioned.) I think it’s best for everyone, ourselves included, if we stay away from one another from now on. Can you agree to that? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to make a small correction here, the accusations of meatpuppetry seem quite well founded indeed as you should know since I emailed you to discuss the information privately. They've not been blocked because we want to give them a chance to become editors in their own right as we initially did with Ferhago, but if they continue with your disputes or other issues in the topic area, they will be banned from the topic area as well. Shell ^babelfish 14:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell, for clarifying that. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Shell: you e-mailed me asking me what I knew about these editors, and in response I answered your question and asked you what your suspicions were based on. You never got back to me again after that. If there actually is evidence of meatpuppetry, that’s news to me, since you never replied to my e-mail asking you about it.

I’m also confused by your comment about Ferahgo. The whole time Ferahgo was involved in race and intelligence articles, they were never the focus of her involvement in Wikipedia. At this point they only make up around 2% of her contribution history. The reason she was topic banned by NuclearWarfare wasn’t because she was acting the same way I had been, but because she and I share an IP address, and NW decided that this meant my topic ban should extend to her also. (And he stated this when he topic banned her.) Is what you’re saying that even if these editors participate in race and intelligence articles only as much as Ferahgo did, they’ll still be considered meatpuppets and I’ll be assumed to be the puppeteer? --Captain Occam (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually my first email explained the evidence and where the connection came from; you disclaimed any knowledge of these editors and offered the suggestion that the connection was simply a coincidence, a response I didn't find credible. You seem to misremember the various comments made regarding Ferhago and her eventual topic ban including those which pointed out her only contributions to the topic area (and her first edits here) were simply to bolster your position or continue identical arguments in remarkably similar language. It's difficult to fathom how three editors, related to you via an external site would appear of their own impetus immediately following both of those topic bans, posses in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia, the dispute and the arbitration case, continue your arguments on the topic and immediately move to a properly formed user RfC in under two weeks of activity here. Nevertheless, in an attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt, they were not immediately blocked in the hopes that they would develop their own interest in Wikipedia. The amount of participation (or lack thereof) has little to do with the issue; behavior will be the deciding factor. Shell ^babelfish 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, it’s three editors? The only editors I know about who were under suspicion are Woodsrock and Sightwatcher. Who’s the third one?

You told me in your e-mail that there was evidence that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are members of the DeviantArt community that Ferahgo and I run. You didn’t tell me what that evidence was, or what names you think they’re registered under there, when I asked you about this. I would still appreciate an explanation about this. You seem to think I already have a perfect understanding of all that’s going on regarding this, but I’m really in the dark here, and now I’m worried that at some point in the future I’m going to get hit with an additional sanction for supposedly using meatpuppets without ever understanding what it’s based on. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2. Please read WP:BEANS to see why you could not be shown the evidence. Mathsci (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, fine, I can’t make you or Shell tell me what evidence there is about this if neither of you want to. And I guess it isn’t really necessary at this stage anyway. ArbCom hasn’t sanctioned any of these accounts, and it doesn’t accomplish anything to argue over the merits of a decision that ArbCom might make sometime in the future but hasn’t made yet. I just hope that if at some point in the future I get sanctioned under the assumption that these accounts were my meatpuppets, ArbCom will be willing to tell me what evidence this sanction was based on, as well as how it was determined that these accounts were my meatpuppets and not someone else’s. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can work out the connection between TrevelyanL85A2 and Ferahgo the Assassin, once it's been pointed out. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Will this ever end. It seems that every decision is an excuse to start a new discussion or manufacture a new controversy with the usual long walls of text. The amount of hand holding and attention seeking is getting out of hand. We shouldn't lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians, that is to build an encyclopedia. It is my opinion that users who are a constant distraction and constantly diverting time and energy from building an encyclopedia are disruptive. If such users are unable to demonstrate that they can contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, then it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia if such users were shown the door. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we wouldn't want to lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians while people are being banned due to spurious charges and secret messages. Flobbably (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just reported the above user on WP:SPI as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you know so quickly that this is a Mikemikev sock? I’m not saying it isn’t, but I really don’t see how you can tell this when he’s only made one edit, and it’s not to any of the articles or talk pages where Mikemikev used to participate regularly.

I think the unique problem here is the general atmosphere of paranoia that exists in discussions about controversial articles. (This is mostly an answer to Coren’s question.) Based on the ruling from the recent climate change case, the same problem seems to exist there also, particularly with regard to the number of editors who’ve been blocked under the mistaken assumption that they were Scibaby socks. In this case, I get the impression that the efforts being made to identify and block suspected sockpuppets are causing more disruption than the accounts themselves are causing. At the very least this was true of User:TisTRU, who was blocked four days ago as a Mikemikev sockpuppet despite having edited nothing but art history articles. (The blocking admin eventually reconsidered their decision and unblocked him.) --Captain Occam (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Groan. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev So much for Captain Occam's statements about "paranoia". Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment mentioning that I’m impressed you figured this one out based on a single edit. But you know, I really think this is a Scibaby-like situation. The estimate of how many editors were falsely blocked as Scibary sockpuppets was around 20-40% of the total. (40% early on, and with enough effort it was lowered to 20%). If the same principle applies here, then TisTRU was one of the 20-40%, while Flobbably was one of the remaining 60-80%. In either this case or climate change, you can’t point to a single correct block and say that it means there isn’t any problem with editors being falsely accused. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not so far been wrong with Mikemikev. However, since honesty seems to be the issue here, I believe that your current conduct, including the remarks addressed to Roger Davies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Jimbo's talk page, warrants an indefinite community ban. Just my 2 cents worth. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My original suggestion to you in this thread was that we go our separate ways and leave each other alone from now on, and I asked you whether you could agree to that. You didn’t reply to my question, but it looks like you’re answering it in a different way. In response to my suggestion that we both walk away from this issue, your intention is to begin lobbying for me to be site-banned now? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was only my 2 cents worth, no more. It is time to draw a line. Please try to take responsibility for your actions and stop continually blaming others for your own weaknesses or failings. Everybody has their weaknesses, including me. Once we've recognized them, we can move on. Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I’m just sick of thinking about these issues in general. Right now I don’t feel like analyzing my own weaknesses or anyone else’s. What I feel like is taking a Wikibreak until sometime after Christmas, and then when I come back, editing an article that has nothing to do with race or intelligence. I’ve had more than enough Wikipedia drama for one year, and I hope that at least for me, 2011 will contain a lot less of it than 2010 did. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I wish both you and Ferahgo a happy festive season. Be careful of the bones if you are considering pterodactyls for dessert :) Mathsci (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It will always remain interesting to me how thousands of editors work every day on Wikipedia without running into all those horrible systemic flaws and the evil admin secret police, yet the same couple of dozen editors keep stumbling onto the vast conspiracy over and over and getting into trouble through no fault of their own. It's also amazing to see how the "spurious charges and secret messages" seem to affect only a microscopic fragment of the editorial corps. But of course, the problem couldn't possibly lie with the poor victimized heroes. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's sort of where I am on this. Some people are willing to invest in any idea, however far-fetched or paranoid, except for the possibility that they might be wrong. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the outdented statement above, "We shouldn't lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians, that is to build an encyclopedia. It is my opinion that users who are a constant distraction and constantly diverting time and energy from building an encyclopedia are disruptive." I had a good time at last week's International Society for Intelligence Research conference in DC meeting scholars who in some cases disagreed quite starkly with one another on issues of fact but who in all cases were civil in dealing with one another and thoughtful in discussing current research studies. There is a lot to learn about many of the subjects related to the articles under dispute. There are many good examples in the scholarly community of authors who gather statements about the agreed conclusions of research into reliable secondary sources, while making clear what issues have yet to be completely resolved by primary research scholarship. As Wikipedia's role in the worldwide process of informal education is to be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should mostly deal with the agreed statements found in reliable secondary sources. The conduct of actual, grown-up professional scholars is a good guide to all of us on how to verify factual statements in reliable sources and how to edit an encyclopedia collaboratively. Happy New Year wishes to all wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Stalked for a long time

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

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

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

I've had some interaction with Pieter Kuiper in the past. He is knowledgable but very abrasive. There was apparently some conflict between Pieter Kupier and SergeWoodzing and/or EmilEikS on Swedish Wikipedia, discussed here with reference to sv:Diskussion:Sofia_Magdalena_av_Danmark though I don't read Swedish. 85.226.44.13 appears to be another svwiki editor, or at any rate I don't know who s/he is. 66.127.52.47 in this discussion is me. Physchim62 was one of Brews Ohare's angrier antagonists in that branch of drama, and Pieter Kuiper was beating him up over some dumb errors he had introduced into physics articles. Pieter Kuiper's reversion of "Vermland"[15] appears bogus[16] and may be retaliation for SergeWoodzing's removal[17] of a somewhat risqué cartoon from Sophia Magdalena of Denmark and other editing of that article, which was possibly also the subject of an edit war on svwiki. On the enwiki talk page, 85.226.44.13 made an angry post but nobody else seemed to care.[18] Some kind of DR is called for. I haven't looked into the Kuiper-Woodzing conflict enough to have a view of whether placing an interaction ban would amount to taking sides in a content dispute, and I haven't looked at SergeWoodzing's edits enough to say he's innocent himself, but Pieter Kuiper is acting at least moderately inappropriately. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ban discussion regarding User:Kagome 85 and User:Blackmagic1234

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

Reason for ban request

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

Other stuff

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

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wuhsuohwey

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

---

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Persistent IP hopping vandal

Since December 2, an IP has been persistently vandalising various pages, especially those related to Hannah Montana, The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck. Some of the vandalism is fairly sneaky, such as wikilinking random words[19] or changing spelling, eg "Vain" to "vein".[20] Other vandalism has been blatant, like changing the gas in "Lilly's "Green Gas" science project" to "Dirty Tan"[21] and then to "Dirty Blonde".[22] Other examples are changing female names to "Chanel"[23] and there's just plain ridiculous stuff.[24] The random wikilinking is a trait exhibited in every one of 122123 edits so far made by this editor, who has used 1314 different IPs so far,[25] all of which are from Verizon's pool.

IPs used so far

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

new entries

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

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

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

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

And we have another one to add to the list. I see it's back to changing names to "Chanel" again.[26] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of The Simpsons DVDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accusation (mine) of personal attacks, uncivil behavior

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

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

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

Range block request

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

Repeated Socking and other baseless allegations by User AllahLovesYou

Please mind reviewing the activities of User AllahLovesYou, this User is very disruptive for nothing. He accused me of socking twice and his allegations were rejected here[27] for the first time and here [28] for the second time. Also when I asked this User to take a break he allegedly again accused me of abusing him as well as other editors here [29] when this user's actions were not echoed by others then he resorted to sock puppetry accusations. Also, time and again this user identifies others by religion and not by user name. He keeps on calling me Shia though I have never said what's my religion? Humaliwalay (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Humaliwalay" translates to "I'm a Shia of Ali" in Indian languages. The word "Shia" translates to "Party" in Arabic language. Someone who creates such a user name wants to be proudly known as a Shia and I only mentioned this one time in the SPI which is ok when helping admins for investigation purposes, and I don't see why in such a circumstance mentioning this would be considered wrong?
• I have not filed a single SPI on Humaliwaly. User:SyedNaqvi90 was using socks and was constantly reverting my edits at a time when Humaliwalay was also constantly reverting my edits in the same articles for the same reasons so there was lots of suspecions about them being the same person, and I filed that report on SyedNaqvi90.
• While I'm improving articles, I wanted to share my opinion so I left a comment for the community to read at a talk page.[30] Humaliwalay responded to that comment of mine by telling me "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." I think anyone can notice the rude tone in that, it's basically saying 'stfu you idiot, and go to hell'. I believe that such talk should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Humaliwalay is reporting me everyday and filling my talk page with bogus warnings, etc. I told him this was annoying but he said too bad. I feel that Humaliwalay is obsessed with me in a negative way, he probably doesn't like me because I'm not a Shia, and anytime I leave a general comment to the community somewhere he thinks I'm writing to him. I constantly advise other editors to learn to accept everyone regardless of race, religion, belief, nationality, etc. That's how I grew up.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Alleged inappropriate use of rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Second point here[31]: "To revert edits in your own user space." Not a misuse of Rollback. Doc talk 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bart, this comment[32] is totally off the mark. YOU CAUSED THIS INCIDENT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barts1a

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

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

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

Bart has actually been on wikipedia for a good stretch now, so the trouble he keeps getting himself into is a bit hard to figure - but it mostly seems to come down to ignoring the good advice he's gotten from quite a few users. My first brush with him was at AIV on November 29,[33] in which he interposed himself into a complaint I made about the user "Lunalet" (who has since been sent to the phantom zone, but that's a side show). I advised him that he shouldn't be telling admins how to do their job, and that led to him posting a complaint here (sound familiar?) The current situation was right much mind-numbing: doing something way out of line, and then taking it to ANI when the editor became understandably livid about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Support block - Barts1a has been clearly disruptive in the past and now. His disruptive editing has caused us to be exhausted with our patience. So with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - the amount of energy that multiple editors have sunk in to trying to help Barts1a learn to edit collegially and within guidelines has crossed the line from "useful input" to "giant timesuck". I thought perhaps with time Barts would catch-on, however, given that his editing style shows zero sign of improvement despite the daily stream of advice and assistance of others, I now believe this editor and Wikipedia are simply incompatible. Barts1a can always request an unblock in the future should he have an epiphany and is able to commit to editing in a non-disruptive, non drama-mongering fashion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution noting this is my consistent position, and one of the issues raised is not consistently applied, as Dylan Flaherty appears to have copied the these people are enemies of mine type of list. [34] which, oddly enough, includes Bart1a. If the "shitlist" is grounds for a block for one user, ought it not be grounds for another user? Collect (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The "shitlist" is merely the straw that broke the camel's back here. Barts1a has an extremely recent history of not having a fucking clue about what he's doing when it comes to various guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think "extremely recent history" is not entirely correct. A "continuous unabated history" is perhaps more accurate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Barts1a said a couple of days ago that he was going to stop trying to be a wikipedia admin, and take photos for commons instead, which he seems to have done [35]. If he would only contribute more to articles here, it would be much less problematic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Lengthy comment: Taking another look at Bart's history, I have to say that Ponyo is onto it. Bart created his account in October of 2006. It sat idle until June of 2007 when he made 4 edits. He then made 1 edit in August of 2008, and then 9 edits in February of 2009, including nominating himself for adminship. He was quickly persuaded to withdraw it, but it's clear he's had his eye on adminship almost from the get-go. He edited sporadically during the next 1 1/2 years until this past summer, in the June-July time frame, and has been pretty much full time since then. Now, the point of this megillah is that he's been on here off and on for 4 years, and has accelerated from valid corrections and vandal-hunting to where things are today. Around mid-November he nominated himself for the ArbCom, and proceeded to argue with the editor who had rightly told him that he didn't have enough mainspace edits, partly chiding the editor for being "unfriendly",[36] when the editor was merely being factual. A pattern begins to emerge, and keep in mind that was just a month ago, and it seems longer somehow. Soon after, he began began escalating his "playing-admin" approach, which is when he and I first crossed paths and when he started attracting a lot of attention, especially during early December, when he managed to get himself blocked 3 times in the space of 5 days. I thought things were getting better after that, but then this outrageous, and frankly laughable situation today, where he deleted someone's AIV entry and then complained here when the user got mad at him for it, has really made me wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from the accused I do hope that people have watchlisted my talk page on commons because if this proposed block goes ahead; that will be the only place where I can post photos I have taken for articles. If nobody has my talkpage listed on commons and I am blocked indef here; there will be no point in taking photos as they will never get to be used! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you respond to the issues presented here rather than worrying about your photos not being used. A little explanation and apologies, along with changes in regard to the worrisome behavior expressed here, will go a long way toward resolving this thread favorably in your regard. N419BH 22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he said something a week or two back about how everyone dislikes him or something. That completely misses the point. Nobody dislikes him. They dislike his approach to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Sorry about that; just needed some time to formulate my response. Firstly I would like to show the diff that triggered this whole mess, the AIV report and it's removal. As you can see there were 16 revisions and 2 hours during which the report was neither commented on or acted on. I honestly beleived that it was a stale report and that I was acting within policy to remove it. I didn't realize I'd be getting a rather stubborn response from Ryulong for it. When I tried to communicate with him after he left this message on my talk page, I was rather rudely reverted which is what bought this here. I will admit that I didn't realize the rollback policy was way more lenient on use within userspace.
    • I would like to issue an apology to everyone involved in this dispute for wasting their valuable time putting up with my bulls**t over the past few months or so, I voluntarily forfeit my rollback and reviewer rights as clearly I do not deserve them at this time. I hope that I can redeem myself in your eyes. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll repeat here what I said on your talk page: You keep talking about "policy" at AIV. What policy? I looked at the AIV guidelines and didn't see anything that resembled "non-admins are free to remove reports they consider to be stale."
      • And adding here: And stop already with the apologies. Just stop doing stuff that admins are supposed to do. Article-correction and vandal-reporting are good things for editors to do. Just stay on this side of the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's part of the problem; there isn't one. When I say "policy" I mean the sum of the various policies as a whole. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • As I have said on my user talk page; I think a good solution would be a page ban from the various noticeboards; this way I can still contribute positively to the encyclopedia while having a very good incentive to stay out of problematic areas. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You can impose your own "page ban" by simply taking those pages off your own watchlist. That's how I stayed out of trouble at the political pages, for example: I simply stopped seeing them. But I'm still curious to know, where did you get the idea it was appropriate to remove someone else's entry from AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • See my talk page for a response to this question Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Well everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but he has gone a little too far. Block for a good amount of time, but not indefinite (maybe 6 months to 1 year). Or as an alternative, maybe we could try mentoring him? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution - If we had a rule against hit lists, then it would presumably apply to those kept by admins. This looks like selective enforcement of a non-rule to cover for general irritation. I am not Bart's #1 fan, and it's rare to see Collect and I agreeing on, well, anything, so take this as a hint that perhaps the feeding frenzy here is wildly inappropriate. Do not block. Dylan Flaherty 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Editing restriction proposed and accepted

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

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

Barts1a's proposed restrictions

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

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

Propaganda328

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

I've been having an issue with Propaganda328. They've been inserting content into the Rafic Hariri article that I consider fringe conspiracies cited to a non-English source whose reliability has not been established. The content was originally inserted by an Iran-based IP address, 94.182.19.94, which is slightly troubling as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah has been implicated in the assassination, and I'm not even sure if Propaganda328 can read the Russian source they're reverting back into the article. I've removed the content three times; Propaganda328 reverted me three times. I opened a discussion on the article's talk page, explaining that I considered the source to be of questionable reliability, the content itself sounded like a fringe conspiracy, requesting a translation of the non-English source, and explaining that the verifiability burden was on editors attempting to insert the material. Propaganda328 replied that "All theories are to be included," and proceeded to reinsert the material. I then opened a discussion on the user's talk page, explaining the issues with the content, noting that I wasn't interested in edit warring over the material, and requesting that they self-revert, lest we have to go through the noticeboards. The editor refused, replying simply "Temper Temper".[37] So, that brings me here.

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

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

User:Access Denied's bad-hand sock account

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

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

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

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

I'm frankly disappointed that this user would do something like this, and I very much await their explanation. Below are two sections transcluded from their talk pages; one from their first user account, Access Denied, and one from their sock account, Wpeditmanbob2. Both master and sock have been notified: [38], [39].— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

AD's response

This account was previously indef blocked and community banned. The community ban was lifted on 31 August 2017: [40], with no additional restrictions. User is now editing as User:CactusJack.

Discussion (AD sock thread)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Batphone boy

Resolved

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

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

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

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

SergeWoodzing

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

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

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

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

Carl Truscott

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

Three Strikes and You're Out?

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

Previous ANIs (relating to this matter)

• September 29, 2010
• November 15, 2010

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

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

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

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

Child sexual abuse blocks

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

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

The edits have also come from 86.42.13.231. [41]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Possible abusive sockpuppetry

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

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

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

Balkan edit-warring only account

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

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

Recreation of a deleted page, sort of.

Resolved

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

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

I first encountered Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars when I created an article with a succession box [43], which he then removed [44]. I didn't think the change was an improvement, but I didn't revert; instead, I went to his talk page to ask about it, where I discovered that multiple editors, including User:L-l-CLK-l-l (diff), User:Candyo32 (diff) and User:Yong (discussion) had already visited his talk page and asked him to stop. I added my request that he stop as well; he replied with his reasoning on my talk page (discussion), we discussed it a bit, and I proposed a compromise (diff) that would require stricter sourcing requirements for the boxes (which would incidentally allow him to remove practically all of them anyway). He rejected the proposed compromise [45] and kept plowing away at removing them from articles [46] while the discussion was ongoing, which caught the attention of User:TheRetroGuy, who reverted the removal and told him to knock it off (diff). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars then reinstated the change TheRetroGuy reverted, and continued removing boxes from other articles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Celibacy

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

Dear Nlu,

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

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

Thank you,

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

This was my response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personal attacks at User talk:Dylan Flaherty

With this edit by Anarchangel (talk · contribs). I think it sets a record for most admins/editors attacked in a single posting, hitting Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), Fcreid (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and myself. Anarchangel has already been warned several times about making personal attacks,[47][48][49] and here also appears to be trying to stir up trouble with an editor (Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)) who was recently topic-banned from Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Back to the RevDels: We seriously need to back off on RevDeleting personal attacks. Personal attacks only reflect badly on the attacker, and there needs to be a public record of these things so that people who are not admins are free to read and judge for themselves when commenting here. This is twice in about a day that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill personal attack was deleted from the record, which is unacceptable. This is a clear over-application of the RevDel policy, and needs to stop. Because RevDel removes information so that non-admins cannot see it, it should be used VERY sparingly; overuse sets up a situation where non-admins are made to feel like second-class citizens, whose opinion doesn't matter. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be used in cases like this. --Jayron32 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Super-strength-family-size agree with Jayron32. Any trend to RevDeleting things which don't absolutely have to be RevDeleted (when blanking suffices, as here) should be stopped in its tracks. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Support - one week block, user needs to be aware comments such as that are personal attacks and will result in a removal of editing privileges, why some passing administrator hasn't seen the diff and just blocked for a week or so is hard to imagine. Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats at User talk:Skovalinsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistake

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

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

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

Deliberate block evasion by IP sock

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

I'm reporting two IP addresses used for socking and block evasion. I had tried to counsel this person not to do this, but they have stated unambiguously that they intend to evade the block: [50]. Beyond that, I think it's pretty self-explanatory if you look at the two IP talk pages and the archived SPI case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Notified: [51]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Lanternix

Lanternix (talk · contribs) has a long history of poor editing in topics related to Arabs as well as Christianity in the Middle East. The user has long been edit-warring to maintain the view that Egyptians are not Arabs. To give the latest example, at List of Arabs, Lanternix has been removing the names of all Egyptians, including Gamal Abdel Nasser (rvs: [52],[53],[54]). Because Lanternix believes that Egyptians are not Arabs, the user is forcing that view on every Egyptian. Never mind that Nasser considered himself an Arab, or that sources invariably call him an Arab (see for example the title of this book). Lanternix has also been edit-warring on issues related to conflicts between Muslims and Christians in the Middle East. For example, the article Damour massacre includes that this was retribution over the Karantina massacre. Lanternix has repeatedly edit-warred to remove sourced material on the death toll at Karantina and replacing it with a much lower number despite sources disagreeing with him (rvs [55], [56], [57]). The user has also been edit-warring at the article titled Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians. This article had been titled Arab Christians when others, hoping to put an end to Lanternix repeatedly removing any mention of Egyptian Christians from the article, agreed to rename it. This rename has not ended Lanternix's persistence in edit-warring on whether or not Egyptian Copts are Arabs. These are all of the edits Lanternix has made to that article since late November, see if you cant find a pattern: [58],[59] [60],[61] [62],[63]

[64],[65]. In the article Egypt, the user has been edit-warring to include a passage for which there is not a single source cited, though the user laughably says in one edit summary that they are restoring "deleted referenced material" (rvs: [66],[67],[68]. The user had edit-warred over this material in the past, and returned to reinsert it again a few days ago. The past discussion on the talk page is here. The user often makes no comments regarding their reversions in either their edit-summaries or on article talk page, choosing to only interact through the use of the undo link.

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