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:Commodore Sloat

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

---

If this user really is the owner of the blog linked to from his user page, then he and User:Jinxmchue are one and the same. Wasn't Jinxmchue banned, IIRC, for a death threat? [1] [2] [3] [4] 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• Not that I can tell. Also what is this complaint regarding, specifically? Protonk (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry. For some reason I remember Jinxmchue being banned for making a death threat, and the revision had been deleted, though that may have been someone else. I never actually got into a dispute or even had contact with this user, just saw his name on talk pages frequently and looked at his userpage. Then, I just followed the trail from the domain of the broken link on his page. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Jinx hasn't edited in 3 1/2 years, and your first edit was just a few months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So? What I was trying to say was that the person behind the Jinxmchue account, (NAME DELETED), may have created a new account, a long-undiscovered sockpuppet. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
        • So, which ID did you used to edit under? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi IP96, please do not post editors' real names even on ANI when they are not publicly disclosed on the editors' pages. I have removed the name above and replaced with (NAME DELETED) and requested a RevDel (which has also been completed). Thanks, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 03:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I deleted an edit which contained personal information about an editor. Do not post information like that. It will not help your case (whatever that is) and will result in your being blocked from wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger. Are they the same person? If they are the same person, shouldn't some action be taken? 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• It isn't shooting the messenger. Posting personal information about editors is strictly forbidden and normally would result in a block without warning. Protonk (talk) 03:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
• As for the original complaint, do you have any record of the ban discussion? Like I said above I don't see a block log that reflects a ban. Protonk (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

An editor who is not blocked, banned or sanctioned is allowed to retire and come back using another name. I do not know if this is the case here, but it would not matter. TFD (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

10 May 2004 - Commodore Sloat first edit (still active as of last week)

Has had several blocks - none since 2008

24 Sep 2005 - Jinxmchue first edit

02 Dec 2007 - Jinxmchue last edit

Had a couple of short blocks - no bans that I can see

20 Dec 2010 - 96.26.213.146 first edit

02 Jun 2011 - 96.26.213.146 talks like he's been around a lot longer("IIRC")

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

• FWIW, it's just an odd coincidence that two Wikipedia users (with wildly divergent views) used the same URL for their blogs. Commodore Sloat added the blog link to his userpage in *2005*; The Internet Archive has a snapshot from February 2006, showing the blog as it looked then.[5] You'll immediately recognize that that is not the same blog that is there now. Further, a post on the new blog indicates that Jinx McHue moved his blog to that domain in December 2010.[6] There is no connection. Horologium (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, his real name was listed, his logs are listed, he is accused of sockpuppetry, and it is insinuated he should be banned. With all of this trash talking of Commodore Sloat, methinks I will drop a note on his talk page, maybe giving him a chance to actually defend himself. Wait, this was done by 96.26.213.146, right? NOT. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Drive-bys seldom issue warnings. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Once Commodore Sloat has a chance to see this thread, assuming Horologium's correct, I am going to make sure I cut it from the archives. This defamation of character by 96.26.213.146 has no place on WP. Irresponsible posting, dude. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Your threat to "cut it from the archives" is out of line, and your "defamation of character" comment is pretty close to being a legal threat. "Knock it off" yourself, drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And what user ID have you been using since your last previous edit, 5 years ago? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

<redacted> or something. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Not bloody likely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) I know, sorry, this just ticks me off how this can be tossed around without any consideration for some user not even bothering people. --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What connection do you have to the wronged party in this case? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. OK, so I thought you were doing the right thing by looking into this, but obviously you just like stirring up things (as everyone knows). So, Bugs, what relation do you have to 96.26.213.146? And why are you trying to lay this socking on Commodore Sloat? --(Missouri)64.85.220.196 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

None. I'm just trying to figure out what's going on with two drive-by IP's making various accusations at each other, meanwhile refusing to edit under their normal user ID's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then. I'm not a drive-by obviously (it's a dynamic). I haven't had an account for about 2+ years. I minded my own business and eventually grew tired of users who violated WP:CIVIL as a method of power and then claimed ignorance. Here we have an unjustified claim of socking on a very public board, and it's getting swept under the carpet. In the meantime, this named user is left in the dark. Not good. (And of course I lose my internet in the middle of typing this thereby giving me a new IP, great) --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Things often sit here for awhile, as admins study the matter, behind the scenes. Nothing has been "swept under". And there's no apparent harm to Sloat or whatever. So, meanwhile, why did you give up your registered ID? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Did you not read what I just wrote? That's why. This long-winded tangent is of no use to the main thread and should be boxed and collapsed. If you say it's not getting swept under the carpet, then there is no longer a need for me to continue. If someone or an admin wants to courtesy blank this thread before (or after) it gets archived, then that would seem utterly appropriate (barring any contrary evidence). --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It doesn't explain why you're hiding behind a dynamic set of IP's... unless you've got something to hide. Go ahead and box it up, as long as you don't "cut it from the archive". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

(od) You just had to go and refactor your last comment to get in that snippy little jab didn't you? You just couldn't let it be and move on. You seem to enjoy violating civility and claiming "wit" don't you? Isn't an IP more open than hiding behind a fake user persona? ...In some ways, yes. Stop rattling the cage and drop it. Unless you think throwing out accusations is going to stop people from accusing you of whatever you are trying to hide. What is it you are so afraid people are going to find out about you Bugs? Just how exactly are you connected to 96.26.213.146? And just how long have you been beating your wife? Are we done here? --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we? That's up to you. You began this segment of dialogue. Feel free to box it up. Nobody's stopping you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious if you'll let me make the last comment, or if your fingers will get tingly until you get the last word in. I'll just let this hang out here for a while. Bis Später. --(Missouri)64.85.215.187 (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Side note: That was German for Hasta luego. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

To 96.26, I bet you aren't a Republican. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the point of that? Now you are baiting just as badly as Bugs. Drop it, for goodness sake. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Here is the point. This complaint seemed pretty oddly random, but I recalled that another user, SuaveArt, had a conflict with Jinxmchue. SuaveArt was not only banned, but actually was caught sockpuppeting and using said sockpuppets to attack Jinx. You might want to check if 96.26 matches any information about SuaveArt. I'd be very surprised if it didn't. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

And here is the issue I have with the both of you, and with other arrogant IP users as well. My editing history is out in the open, and you feel free to make snide remarks about my imperfections. You, in contrast, have no editing history. It starts over every time you reboot. That's why some users with dynamic IP's feel free to take drive-by shootings at registered users: because they have no history that can be scrutinized. They are hiding behind their dynamic IP's. Claims about alleged "good reasons" for dropping your registered ID are almost certainly bogus. The real reason is simply so that you can take shots at whoever you like, and never be held accountable for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I will fully admit that I don't have any "good reason" to not have a user account, but I'm certainly not avoiding accountability. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You avoid accountability every time you reboot - and also by refusing to tell us what your user ID was. And all of that raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you've confused me with the other person. Of course, the whole "accountability" thing applies as much to me as it does him/her. I just don't see how the issue applies to those without user accounts. If you examine it deeper, not having a user account is little different to having one. You claim that people "avoid accountability every time [they] reboot," but IP changes happen to many people with accounts. If one of them steps out of line and gets banned, can't they just reboot and make a new account using the new IP? Of course they can and they won't necessarily get caught, either. I'm sure there are plenty of users around who've done just that, some maybe even more than once. Also, there's nothing that says IPs can't be banned. So ultimately, the issue of "accountability" is really a non-issue. People editing with IPs are held to the same standards as people with accounts. Personally, I just don't want to be tempted to be obsessed with the wikidrama that I often see here. This ANI is a good example of that. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• 67.233.243.145 is not the same person. My IPs geolocate to Missouri. 67.233.243.145 geolocates to Minnesota. Do not confuse 67.233.243.145 with my IPs in the 64.85 range. I'm done here, but I did not want to be impersonated by 67.233.243.145. I added "Missouri" to my signatures above to differentiate. --(Missouri)64.85.220.245 (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, allow me to clarify a few things. I have no relation with the above dynamic-IP user or Baseball Bugs. What occurred was that I happened to encounter a strange case of a domain belonging to an established Wikipedia user (Commodore Sloat), that served as that user's blog, being bought by another Wikipedia editor("Jinx McHue"), who happened to have been blocked in the past. It seems that I was wrong with the alleged death threat by Jinxmchue; I probably had him confused with another user. The link to the former blog was still preserved, unchanged, on Commodore Sloat's page, and was actually broken; but when I went to the domain that Commodore Sloat's blog was formerly on, I saw another blog, and recognized the name "Jinx McHue". There's a possibility that this is not at all a coincidence, and that "Jinx McHue" registered the domain after expiration in an attempt to "get back" at Commodore Sloat for some Wikipedia dispute. Nonetheless, I apologize for the confusion.

67.233.243.145, being in Minnesota, is almost surely "Jinx McHue" himself (not the dynamic IP), and if so, I apologize for confusing you with Commodore Sloat, "Jinx". You are right that I'm not a Republican, and wouldn't want to be one. I hope this clears some of this stuff up. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to honestly say that absolutely none of that so-called reasoning about either one of those two makes a lick of sense to me. 67.233.243.145 (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters 67.233.243.145, there's this ("Jinx McHue's" blog, which has several references to being located in Minnesota), and if you look at the User:Jinxmchue user page, there are several IPs listed as being used by Jinx (put there by "Jinx" himself), all of which geolocate to Minnesota. Yes, it's suspicious that you come from the same state. Additionally, your IP has edits unrelated to this, which are on the pages Talk:Intelligent_design (a crank theory which Jinx loves to defend) and You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, a Jesusfreak fundamentalist ministry; "Jinx McHue" is a fundamentalist Christian.

I agree that the other, dynamic IP user is not Jinxmchue, or 67.233.243.145, but Jinx and 67.233.243.145 seem like the exact same person to me. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association? (After a fashion.) I can see why you were banned. Getting around a ban by using an IP identity is still against the rules here AFAIK. It's the same as sockpuppeting, but you know all about that, don't you? 67.233.244.224 (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

As do you, apparently. Tell us again, how dynamic IP's are every bit as accountable as registered users? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to insinuate that I'm SuaveArt? Well, I'm not. 96.26.213.146 (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to insinuate that I can't tell one IP address from another, especially when they float and leave no usable editing history, thus escaping scrutiny while "boldly" taking verbal shots at registered users whose histories are visible. IP addresses have no recognizability, no identity and no accountability. And then they wonder why they get treated like Rodney Dangerfield. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Jinxmchue's left in good standing with some minor blocks on his record. Whether or not Sloat is the same individual is therefore not terribly relevant. This conversation is going in unproductive directions. Let's drop it. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

False sockpuppetry accusation

Hi, I have been accused of being the "sockpuppet" of a registered user when I am not. These IP adresses are all mine: 78.176.91.37, 85.103.166.64, 85.103.129.110. I have requested an official review of the block yesterday in the talk page of the IP [[7]] but nobody gave an answer until now. Then, I also notified the blocking administrator for this issue [8]

You can also read my defense in here: [9]

Despite all these, the administrator HelloAnnyong recently blocked that IP as well and also extended the punishment of the registered user. [10]

I wonder what should I be doing at that point, clearly blocking administrator HelloAnnyong is not interested in reading the defense of the accused party.

Thus, briefly re-state my defense in here: -Firstly, The registered user participates in wikipedia from Cyprus, I am from Istanbul.

-Secondly, the only reason why we ended up being editing the same articles because I was following the editor Nipsonanomhmata as he was deleting cited content from several articles, for instance here: [11] and here: [12]These two editors have a history of edit-warring with each other and this is the only reason why I am being accused of being a sockpuppet.

-Thirdly, I and the said user are in fact have one time a little disagreement over the content; he thought that a particular quotation can be used by rewording and shortening when I strongly believed that this has to be a full quotation, thus changed his version, in here:[13]

Not being a registered user, I honestly can not understant how come two persons who do not know each other can be accused and punished without the slightests of an evidence.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? You admit to using multiple IPs to edit, but you're not the master? All of your IPs geolocate to Istanbul, which the last time I checked, is in Turkey. And Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs) admits that they're fluent in Turkish and are active on the Turkish Wikipedia. If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, someone's got a shiny new boomerang. They threw it in exactly the wrong way though. =( Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 16:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out, I initially blocked Seksen and one of the other IPs on behavioral evidence based on the similarities between these two edits. There was a little more evidence, but per WP:BEANS, I'd rather not divulge it entirely. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Those similarities, between one only edit each from each user, seem pretty thin block evidence to me considering the apparent evidence of the users living a very long distance apart - see my further comments below. And if there is more "beans" evidence, could you share it with someone else? I'd promise to keep it confidential if you'd email me with it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Above comments actually prove me right, you do not read the defending party before making a decision.

To answer your comments, of course all the IP's are going to "geolocate" Turkey because all are mine. The registered user is from Cyprus not from Turkey, two different countries. And here is my defense for having multiple IP's: [[14]] which says I have a dynamic IP adress, which can change over the course of time when I am using the same computer. Is there any wikipedia rule that prohibits IP adresses to make edits?

And about your supposed proof; A registered user deletes a properly cited quotation and I revert his changes explaining my reasons to do so: [15]

The same user again deletes the same quotaion and this time the registered user Seksen shorthens and transforms this direct quotation to a single sentence [16]

Then, disagreeing with that decision of Seksen I actually restore the quotation back:[17]

It needs to be added this quotation is included in the wikipedia by neither me nor by the registered user, it seems it has been there for years. Both of us simply tried to protect that quotation from deletion which made us the same person.

You also asked me that: "If you're not the master, then why are you coming to his/her defense?"

Seriously what kind of a question is that? You are making a clear mistake, accuse and punish two different people for a thing they have not done and then ask me why am I coming to his defense. I do come only to my own defense first of all, while pointing out the mistake you are doing as an administrator.

--78.176.80.214 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Just speaking Turkish and being active on the Turkish Wikipedia doesn't mean someone has to be in Istanbul and doesn't make them a sockmaster - loose criteria like that would make everyone on the English Wikipedia socks, for one thing. Also, people on dynamic IPs do get them changed, and with some ISPs in some countries it can be very frequent (and some people switch their modems off after every session, so will always get a new IP). If User:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş really is in Cyprus (where there are a lot of Turks), and the IPs geolocate to Istanbul, then there is no sock case. Can anyone do a checkuser to find out (but only tell us "not connected" results etc, obviously don't state where the register user actually is)? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, half of Cyprus is occupied by Turkey, so it's really not uncommon for a Cypriot to be fluent in Turkish.--Atlan (talk) 17:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

At User talk:Seksen iki yüz kırk beş, he points out that Northern Cyprus ISPs are handled from Mersin in Turkey, which really is a very long way from Istanbul, and invites a checkuser - and he does stress a number of times in that page that he's a Turkish Cypriot, but nobody seems to be prepared to listen -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The restoration of that passage by the IP looks a priori legitimate. I have never heard of that particular peninsula, but Greek atrocities to the Turks did happen and are (according to an informant who is a great fan of both Greek and Turkish culture and speaks modern Greek) the reason for the later atrocities by Turks to Greeks. Greeks are generally only aware of the retaliation, though.
• Editing from dial-up IPs without creating an account is totally legitimate, so there was nothing wrong with the first change of IPs.
• When the second IP was blocked, the user apparently acquired a new IP to defend themselves. While this is maybe not the approved way of doing things, it's not deceptive at all and should not be held against the user. Hans Adler 17:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering the IP first edited right at the time Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked [18], and that it shows knowledge of Wikipedia policies and terminology, we are either dealing with a) sockpuppetry via a proxy or some other way to disguise one's IP, or b) meatpuppetry. But there's definitely something fishy here. Athenean (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a dynamic IP, so you have no idea when the *person* first started editing or how much Wikipedia experience they have -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I personally use several ISPs. A couple are located in the United States. Others are located in Europe and others in the Far East and Australasia. The IP addresses that these ISPs use are allocated by their location. I can access these ISPs directly from one PC or remotely from a laptop or any other PC that is connected to the Internet (from anywhere in the world). If I use a Remote Access Server I can use an IP address that says I'm American (from a number of different states), European (from a number of different countries) and Taiwanese or Australian. I could be located in Sri Lanka and you will be convinced by my IP address that I am located in Taiwan. I personally choose to access Wikipedia using the same dynamically allocated range of IP addresses from one ISP. The effort required to wreak havoc on Wikipedia is minimal when you have the technology at your disposal. There is no technical difficulty in editing from an IP address in Mersin and an IP address in Istanbul. But that is not to say that this is what is happening here. I am just informing you of what is possible. But now I'm just giving you all ideas as per WP:BEANS.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible for people to use different ISPs - I have ISPs in the UK and Thailand, and I can route via either from either country. But it's actually pretty uncommon for people to use two or more widely separated ISPs, and we need a lot more than knowing such a thing is possible when blocking people - we need evidence that they actually did it, and we need to actually listen to and consider the defenses offered by the accused rather than just ignoring them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

What concerns me, and which is why I raised the concern, is the timing and the seamlessness between the edits of one IP address and the next IP address. It is more than coincidence and easily passes the WP:DUCK test. If the IP addresses are not sockpuppets, then the IP addresses are meatpuppets, and if the owners of the IP addresses did not communicate with eachother then the meatpuppet-like IP addresses were just plain unlucky to have got involved when they did. Let's face it an IP address with a short history does not have a very long watchlist. There is no way of definitely proving that they did or did not communicate with eachother to co-ordinate their efforts. Either way the blocking penalties are currently no greater than one calendar month. That is not a long time penalty for all the effort that we have all been put through to reduce the disruption.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'm not suggesting there was no disruption, I'm just primarily disturbed that the accused users' defenses were being totally ignored - it read to me like "You're condemned and you have no right to be listened to". But I do actually think the escalation to 1 month is too long for such a weak SPI result, for a user who may well be innocent (though we await further investigation) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Boing, if you actually take a look at the previous case for Seksen, the admin who reset his block the first time actually called for an indef this time around. I figured that a month would be a better choice. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, if two editors having the ability to use a common language edit the same article during the same day, this means that they are sockpuppets.

Then I wonder what happens if three editors having the ability to use the same language do the same. Editors Nipsonanomhmata (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Athenean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Alexikoua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) similary involved in the same edit warring of the same article, where I and Seksen are accused of commiting sockpupettry, making quite similar comments with each other. In a line of continuum during the same day, first the user Athenean deleted the sourced content: [19] then the editor Alexikoua deleted it providing almost the exact same excuses [20] andfinally the user Nipsonanomhmata deleted that passage as well [21] By merely restoring their deletions, we have ended up being the guilty, disruptive, sockpuppet.

In view of the comments by the editor Nipsonanomhmata, how come we can be sure of these three editors are not suckpuppets or meatpuppets, especially since Nipsonanomhmata admits that he "personally use several IP's"?

I do not want to develop a counter accusation, my point is simple; different people can have similar reactions and without you having any proof you can not accuse them of being the same person. As I have repateadly said, I have no relation whatsoever with the registered user Seksen.--78.176.80.214 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is turning into just a content dispute. Three Greek editors edit one way, 2/3 Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot editors edit another way. yawn and big surprise. Meatpuppets? It's like accusing all Greek or all turkish editors of beiing meatpuppets. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody else think that it is weird to be having meaningful discussions with IP addresses, who are communicating without registered userids, but clearly have lots of experience on Wikipedia? I think it's pretty weird. I also think that we are wasting our time.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 23:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing too special about that. With IP addresses from California (especially 75.*.*.*) we can see this all the time. One of them is a member of WikiProject Mathematics. Hans Adler 09:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty weird to be conversing with people with names like Nipsonanomhmata, let's face it. There's nothing unusual about IPs with experience on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has been around for ten years, some of them probably have more editing experience than you. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Even so, that's a recognizable and possibly meaningful name. Random strings of digits have no meaning, no identity. They all look alike. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - When are we going to get smart (I should say, "stop being stupiid") and require registration and logging in to edit? Carrite (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Never. It goes against what the Wikimedia Foundation wants for the site. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Never say never. But at this point there's no energy for it. The Foundation is about 10 years behind the times on this, since every other website that allows user input requires registration. There's no longer a need to allow anons to edit. But they still want it this way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Unless the foundation gives up control of Wikipedia, or has a fundamental change of priorities, we're never going to see required logins. I have a feeling the foundation will collapse in on itself long before they agree to that. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I had a comment I was working on to post here, but it got to be too long, so I stuck it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Should I be reminding that here we are dealing with a specific false sock-puppetry case, not with the benefits of enforcing to have a registered username in order to edit Wikipedia. Im sure you can have the latter and very important debate in another place.. Im sorry, I had to change IP again that is still me who started this section. After all these, I do agree though unregistered users better stay away from contentious topics unless they decide to have a registered account to avoid such confusion. --78.176.87.165 (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [22]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [23] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[24] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and Twinkle

• Walter_Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Relevant policy: Second paragraph

I am getting no where with this user, I think partly because of past. So I'll just quickly outline the last incident with them and Twinkle abuse. The ANI thread from that incident is here. Basically Walter violated 3RR by restoring content that violated the non-free content criteria and incorrectly called another edit vandalism. I temporarily removed access to Twinkle, and restored it later after it seemed apparent that the problem would not continue. It may also be worth noting this ANI thread, although I am not so familiar with it. But these kinds of edits, linked to from there, display the same problems.

Now, Walter is yet again misusing Twinkle and incorrectly calling other edits vandalism, with this edit. I brought this up on his talk page, but he does not appear to be willing to discuss this issue with me, as shown by this sarcastic response, and frankly, after his edit summary here I am no longer particularly keen to discuss this directly with him myself. He seems to think that the Football WikiProject has the authority to make their own policy and put them into practice without input from the wider community. It seems apparent to me that he is not willing to consider that the edit he reverted was not, in fact, vandalism. The latest argument seems to be that his other work excuses him. He skirts around the actual issue (of misusing rollback), basely accuses me of hounding, or talks about if the edit was "correct" or not (which as I explained to him, is a different issue, and "incorrect" is distinct from "vandalism"). This is becoming disruptive, especially his accusations of hounding. Please read the discussion on his talkpage for the full context. I would appreciate some input and advice from others regarding this. Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please see my talk page. He is essentially hounding me and abusing his power and attempting to intimidate me, which is what happened the last time he accused me of abusing Twinkle.

The issue is simple and I have answered his question, but on my terms. I acted in good faith and marked an edit that I perceived as vandalism as vandalism. The editor who made it refuses to discuss the issue despite being warned. At the time I accepted that it was a policy. It seems not everyone agrees it is and so I am discussing a change and I have determined not to assume it is until consensus has been reached on the matter. However, at the time, I was acting in good faith, and as such did not abuse Twinkle. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, if the edit was correct or not is a non-issue, if you were reverting it because of this policy you keep talking about (and still haven't linked to) you should have said as much in your summary, instead of hitting rollback (VANDAL). Just because you are acting in good faith does not mean you're not abusing (i.e. improperly using) Twinkle. You still appear to be unable to accept that the user was not vandalising. Do you still "perceive" the edit as vandalism? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, that the edit was or wasn't correct is the only issue. If someone does something not in good faith, that is vandalism. If someone writes obscenities on a page, that is vandalism. If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism. Based on my understanding, the editor was vandalizing. There's nothing to accept to the contrary.

I can't link to the policy because there isn't a policy. That was pointed-out later. However I linked to the place where someone said it was a policy. Sorry you didn't see that. I took the other editor's word. That is good faith. I attempted to discuss with the other editor. That is good faith. I only made edits that were in keeping with the policy. That is good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to suggest it wasn't in good faith (hence, it wasn't vandalism). It wasn't adding obscenities. There was no such policy. Please try to keep it relevant to the issue at hand.

Oh right, so now you decide to say there is no such policy. When exactly did you become aware of this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I know now that there wasn't a policy, but at the time, and based on the discussion I referenced, I assumed that there was a policy. Hence in my mind there was a policy. Hence my actions were based on the policy. Hence my use of Twinkle was in good faith and the other editor's actions were vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

"If someone refuses to discuss why they think they're not following a policy and continue to edit in such a way as to go against that policy, that is vandalism." No it isn't. We have a very clear definition of vandalism at WP:VAND. In the section giving examples of what isn't vandalism, I see numerous examples of policy violations that aren't vandalism. You are following your own invented definition, and have replied sarcastically when it is pointed out to you. Since you insist on misusing Twinkle, I don't see why it shouldn't be revoked. -- Atama頭 23:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I already said that your good faith doesn't really matter, although I'm not saying you were not acting in good faith. Again, when exactly did you become aware that there was no such policy? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm. That was irony. Good to know that my good faith doesn't matter. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

That editor's action were deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by going against what I perceived as a policy.

Your actions are also deliberately compromising the integrity of Wikipedia by attacking an editor who is acting in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait. The other editor was deliberately going against a nonexistent policy? In any case, as pointed out by Atama, policy violations are not vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good faith is appreciated, however, on the subject of if you were abusing Twinkle or not, it is less relevant than you seem to think. Just because a user is violating a policy does not mean they are vandalising, as Atama pointed out. Now please, when exactly did you learn that that policy didn't even exist? Also, this is probably a bad time and place to be accusing Atama of vandalism (or me for that matter, it's not quite clear who that was directed at). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I believed it was a policy at the time, and it was compromising Wikipedia by turning it into a scoreboard, which it's not. This entire issue is being discussed presently though and will go with whatever consensus makes it. My actions were in good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not your actions were in good faith, they were wrong. Twinkle is a tool that can cause havoc if it's in the hands of someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia well enough to use it safely. "Vandal" is one of the nastiest words we have on Wikipedia, and reverting edits as vandalism that aren't can cause a lot of harm, our policy on vandalism says as much. If this was a simple mistake that you would try not to repeat in the future, that's one thing. But you're being willful in your misuse, you're even accusing anyone who criticizes your actions as being disruptive. Frankly, the only reason why your Twinkle use hasn't been revoked is because I can't find where the blacklist for it is. -- Atama頭 23:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yet again, it does not matter if it is, or was, policy. It does not mean that the edit is or is not vandalism. As I've said already several times on your talk page, and others have said here: The issue of if the edit is "correct" or not is distinct from the issue of if it was vandalism, and if you were right to revert it as such.

Walter clearly is not capable of correctly identifying what is not vandalism, and is clearly unwilling to learn, I would support removing his access to Twinkle at this time. I'm interested in what others think about this? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I already said, I would have just done it myself, but don't know where the blacklist is with the new Twinkle version. So of course I support this. -- Atama頭 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's a general question: What are the criteria for giving a user the authority to do mass-updates like this Twinkle thing does? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the only requirement is that an editor is registered. It might also require that they are autoconfirmed, I'm not sure. But it's basically open to anyone as long as they don't misuse it. Getting Twinkle access involves putting a checkbox on your preferences page. -- Atama頭 00:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see it on the "gadgets" page. Seems like there should be some kind of training or minimum-knowledge test before someone launches that kind of tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am capable of both understanding what identifying what vandalism as, and am quite willing to learn. My actions were done in good faith and will not happen again if I am permitted to use Twinkle. Without it, I doubt that I will continue editing on Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, clearly not able to identify what's long understood to be vandalism. If you are willing to act in such a drastic manner on the basis of a hazy understanding of policy, you should lose twinkle until you can demonstrate a better understanding of what vandalism is and what it is not. RxS (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, you're threatening to leave Wikipedia if Twinkle is taken away? I don't have the words. -- Atama頭 00:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The guy's been here since October of 2004 and doesn't know what vandalism is? If he wants to leave, don't stand in his way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Not really threatening, I'm just saying I'll have to re-evaluate whether I can do the things I do now without it. If it's more difficult to edit, I don't know if there's a reason to stay. However, I do see the value in educating people rather than punishing them. Often, an explanation is all that is needed to educate, and that's what has happened here. That's what happened the last time Kingpin explained something. I learned, I adapted, and I'm a better editor as a result. Iterative learning is learning too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As for not "knowing" what vandalism is, that's not quite correct. I don't read all of the policy pages. I learn as I go along. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You've been here longer than I have, and years ago I learned what vandalism is. It's hard to imagine how you could have been here 7 years and still not known what vandalism is. Do you also have the rollback feature? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter only has Reviewer status. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I haven't taken the time to seek out the wikipedia definition of vandalism and I have learned a lot through discussion. If nothing has changed since earlier today, I should still have rollback status. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If by "I have learned a lot from discussion", you mean that you now understand why that sort of edit is not vandalism, and that you have learned what we mean by vandalism, and that you understand how carefully twinkle must be used, I'm not sure it's necessary to prevent you from using it, though I would advise a careful review of our policies in general. Otherwise, I think we do not have the option of removing it by protecting the javascript page, as we could have done previously, but we certainly can still say we would block someone if they continued to use it after we found they were using it improperly. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the middle of May my understanding has changed. Going against policy is not vandalism. Furthermore, going against what I perceive as a policy but actually isn't one is not only ignorant, it's probably closer to vandalism than the original actions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Something's out of whack here. You don't even have to have "read the policy" to know what vandalism is, because it is very frequently discussed. I ask again: How can an editor be here for 7 years and have no earthly clue about what vandalism is??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not discussed where I edit.

To suggest that I have no earthly clue is hyperbole as well. I do understand what vandalism is. We learned about it in Western Civilization. They're the people who sacked Rome around the fifth century. They wrote graffito on walls and made life miserable for the civilized world. Etymologically, it now means people who deliberately damage things. So since that and Wikipedia's definition don't quite line up, that's what's a bit out of whack.

The editor in question was deliberately damaging what I understood to be consensus, and refused to discuss changes. That to me is vandalism. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition you link above is irrelevant. The one you need to read and understand, which has been pointed out to you a number of times recently, is WP:VAND. —DoRD (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I actually like the second definition at Cambridge more any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:VAND doesn't contradict those, but elaborates for Wikipedia-specific purposes. In this case, any good-faith edit is not vandalism. The dictionary covers the general purpose definition. You're not helping yourself in the slightest by bringing in different dictionaries. If you don't want to take the good-faith aspect into account, then allow me to remove your dictionary citing edits as "vandalism." Ian.thomson (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz has not only demonstrated a misunderstanding of WP:VAND, xe has also demonstrated misunderstanding of what is, and is not, policy - and the fundamental way that Wikipedia operates. Xe seems to think that a brief discussion amongst a project group defines policy, and that such can be considered policy until consensus determines otherwise. Xe has adamantly refused to abide by actual, existing policies and guidelines, citing such things as an essay (WP:RECENT), and "WP Footbal group policy" [25]. In the discussion, xe wrote, Wikipedia is still not a scoreboard. Period. Nothing you say can convince me that this should change. If people continue to misuse Wikipedia, Chzz too, they should be warned and then banned if it continues. [26].  Chzz  ►  03:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

If you notice in that discussion there is a comment it states that there is a policy: "this policy is hard to apply". My mistake was taking the editor's word for it and acting on it without asking to point to the actual policy.

Chzz has not actually pointed to any existing policies or guidelines that contradict WP:RECENT and to the best of my recollection has only pointed to an edit by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales immediately after someone in a wedding said "I do" as if to imply Mr. Wales runs wikipedia. He is just one voice of many.

There are other editors who think as I do on the subject. My stand in the comment as quoted was one diametrically opposed to another editor's stance so as to generate further discussion. If anyone continues to do this - particularly if they misuse rollback, Walter - I think they could be classed as being disruptive. [27] Despite me not commenting for several days on the thread. I simply turned the phrase back. I further understand what vandalism is now as a result of today's discussions, however that doesn't change my position on that Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. I don't believe that this discussion belongs here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

It's merely a perception, which has been getting increasingly more popular, of what construes vandalism – which is any edit in which another user disagrees with. –MuZemike 03:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I don't see why this shouldn't be treated like any other newbie user to twinkle who misuses the "vandal" button on it. Given this is apparently not WG's first visit to ANI over such an issue, why should anyone believe they actually do, honestly, swear-to-god, understand what constitutes vandalism? Take away Twinkle and let him edit normally. Stuff can be reverted without Twinkle, and I think taking away TW would force WG to be more open to discussion over edits he disagrees with. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second that. If you don't know what vandalism is then you shouldn't educate others by labeling edits as it incorrectly, like the diff provided in the beginning of the thread. Taking away Twinkle (or Rollback) shouldn't make an editor quit if they're here to do it right. Doc talk 04:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Because I have shown that I can learn and I have demonstrated good use of the tool. The previous time was not for the same reason, but for a similar one. In the previous discussion, I didn't assume that the editor was acting in good faith. In this one, I attempted to discuss with the editor and the editor refused. I had to use a blunt instrument to get the editor's attention. However, had I understood at the time that I was not actually enforcing a policy but a strongly held conviction of many in the Football group I wouldn't even have done that. Again, I do know what vandalism is. Again, I didn't say I would quit, but that I would have to reconsider how I edit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, since WP:VANDALISM apparently doesn't contradict "any activity that is considered to be damaging or destroying something that was good" and I felt the editor was destroying something that was good, vis: an agreement, I do understand what vandalism is.—Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 04:20, 4 June 2011

(edit conflict) If you label an edit as vandalism when it's not, it's either being lazy or not understanding the concept. "Undo" allows you to use an edit summary, and is far more likely to educate an editor when it is clearly not vandalism. But this has been pointed out. Don't quit, and learn from this. Doc talk 04:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, you ask for some specific policy. Are you familiar with the WP:3RR policy? You breached it, in removing the score four times; [28] [29] [30] [31].  Chzz  ►  04:21, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Is adding an HTML comment removing information or is the removing of the comment?

As for a policy, that's not the one I was asking about. I was asking for one that opposed WP:RECENT and you knew that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) TW should not be used as a "blunt instrument". If you cannot get your message across then either you are saying it wrong or you should seek assistance from another person. - Sitush (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Most of the rest of the football project were watching the match that day. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter stills seems to be trying to nuance his definition of vandalism into Wikipedias. He seems to be saying that since his dictionary understanding of the word doesn't contradict how policy defines it, he understands it. I don't think the message is totally getting through, and I think his access to twinkle should be removed for now. He can still edit, I just don't feel comfortable with his attitude. RxS (talk) 04:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that's not what I was going for. What I was trying to say was that a week ago, that was closer to my definition. As of today's discussion I understand more fully what Wikipedia's definition is and I will adjust my understanding to match that of Wikipedia's while editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz - A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. WP:3RR. I would think it utterly obvious that <!-- commenting out --> text in an article is 'reversing actions' - it removes the content from display in the article - and is absolutely no different to removing it, for these purposes.  Chzz  ►  04:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

tangential discussion re. football live scores

Collapsed my own comments, see below - apologies  Chzz  ►  05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC) I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I do not seek any form of punitive action; I fully accept that Walter Görlitz is a valued contributor, and their choice to cease editing would be a loss to the project. I am "big enough and bad enough" to shrug off someone undoing a couple of my edits; that is not my concern, at all. I had no intention of raising this on ANI, but we're here now, so let me state my case in brief,  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Summary of issue I believe it is appropriate, and within all Wikipedia policy, to add appropriate, sourced facts to an article about an event such as a football game, whilst the game is in progress. I also believe that undoing or reverting such edits goes against Wikipedia policy. Walter Görlitz, and some other users, refute this and assert they will continue to remove such edits. I am particularly concerned because new users are likely to be attracted to such articles, and I would hate them to be put off editing at an early stage if such valid edits are summarily removed.  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC) This isn't really the place for this. RxS (talk) 05:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Desired outcome Either -Walter Görlitz, and the other users expressing the same opinion, accept that the edits are legitimate, and agree not to undo any such edits in future, Or -A new policy is created to justify their undo Or -Appropriate measures are taken to ensure such undo-edits are not permitted Or -Someone explains to me that I'm wrong, and I will accept it and eat humble pie  Chzz  ►  05:03, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Why have you hijacked the discussion about his use of Twinkle into one about a content dispute? This really isn't the place to settle the content issue. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sincere apologies; sorry, you're quite right. I've collapsed it. I guess this isn't the right place for that discussion. It got side-tracked; my fault. Feel free to remove it, if that's preferred.  Chzz  ►  05:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Allow me take a different approach

If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism? At the time, that was my perception of what was happening. It was my understanding that this editor's actions were detrimental to the image of Wikipedia. It seems that what editors are focusing on are my actions without understanding or accepting my perception of the situation. They are focusing on the way I marked the actions as vandalism when they would not have. They are focusing on how many edits I made. They are not focusing on whether I believed that I was actually preventing vandalism or not. At the time, I honestly believed I was preventing vandalism. If the match were tomorrow and I had gone through this discussion, I would not believed that it is vandalism thanks to discussions with several editors. However, my use of Twinkle has correctly identified vandalism on many occasions and so what is at question is the one edit a week ago, which as I said above. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by not discussing his changes, which were also against WP:3RR. I sincerely believed the other editor was not acting in good faith by going against what I perceived as consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

"If an editor consistently makes edits against consensus, without discussing the reasons for doing so, would that constitute vandalism?" No. That's not vandalism. Vandalism is when a person is intentionally trying to damage an article in some way. A person going against consensus is still trying to improve the article, they are just going about it the wrong way. And again, we get it, you thought you were using Twinkle properly. We're not accusing you of misusing Twinkle on purpose. But you still misused it, and even worse, you either ignored others who told you that you were misusing it, or accused them of being disruptive for trying to hinder your efforts.

Here's some advice in the future, when you're trying to determine if something is vandalism or not (whether or not you do so using Twinkle)... Go to WP:VANDTYPES. See if the edit falls under any of those specific categories. If it doesn't clearly fit any of those descriptions, it isn't vandalism. For example, look on the list, and see if "editing against consensus" is on that list. -- Atama頭 06:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So, someone edits an article to implement WP#NUMERO and adds an appropriate comment. Someone comes back to the article and replaces all of the edits with the original # signs without explanation. The first editor comes back and adds a comment to point to the policy in the edit summary. The second editor returns and undoes without comment. The first editor comes back and restores and then adds a polite comment to the other editor's talk page. That second editor returns and undoes again without comment. At what point is the behaviour significantly disruptive to constitute vandalism? I hear you saying never. But WP:VANDTYPES says gaming the system, evading the spirit of community consensus, is vandalism. So which is it? This is what I thought I was dealing with. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Constant reversion without discussion is rude, but not vandalism. It never is. Accept that.

How are you not going against consensus by refusing to acknowledge the site's definition of vandalism? By your definition of vandalism, you would be included.

Gaming the system consists of "Deliberate attempts to circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and procedures by making BAD FAITH edits go unnoticed" - Again, edits made in good faith are not vandalism.

Accusations of vandalism do count as personal attacks, however. Bringing in dictionary definitions to try and change the meaning of vandalism would be an example of gaming the system.

Deliberate introduction of incorrect information is vandalism, but that usually requires that you have pretty good evidence that the other person is totally wrong, i.e. a few professionals in a field and even someone uninvolved in the subject pointing out using the wrong editor's sources that the wrong editor's understanding is the complete opposite the truth. That's about the closest to vandalism "going against consensus" can be.

Walter, you just need to accept that you are completely wrong about what constitutes vandalism. You do not have anyone defending your use of the word "vandalism" here. That should indicate something to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ian, you need to back way off. I'm trying to understand what constitutes vandalism and the nuances of the terms. I'm not trying to change any definitions but understand what it means here since it's not quite what I would call vandalism. I am trying to bring my understanding into line with that of the Wikipedia community. To accuse me of doing something other than that is not good faith.

I think I have a better understanding now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Would this edit constitute vandalism? It was made in good faith as the first artist in question is "Catholic" and not part of mainstream evangelical Christianity and so not part of the "Christian rap scene" and that's why the edit was made. The second band is white, British, and is not primarily rap. So knowing why the edits were made, and knowing that they were made in good faith means they're not vandalism. Is this correct? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

None of the edits in that sequence are vandalism; they are merely edit warring and failure to cooperate--which is certainly bad enough. Misunderstanding and carelessness is not vandalism. Vandalism here implies the intent to damage. It can, by extension, also mean recklessness to the degree of not caring whether or not there is damage, but it seems that most charges of vandalism based on recklessness rather than actual maliciousness are hotly disputed. A dispute over contents or behavior or policy is not vandalism, no matter how pig-headed. The dispute may be disruptive to the extent of warranting blocking or even banning, but it is not vandalism. People have often used the term more loosely, but that is wrong because it's the strongest negative thing we can possibly say about actions here, and it loses its force unless reserved for the most extreme cases. Walter, you have repeatedly said you acknowledge the accepted meaning here, and then made a statement using it much more broadly. The only thing I can suggest is that you totally refrain from using that word ever again here in the future. It's almost always possible to substitute "non-constructive"--but even that has become a pretty strong term, and I have switched to using "inappropriate". DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I understand this more fully now. I would not have called it vandalism since they are editing in good faith, but it's clearly against references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

But... you did call it vandalism, that's what leaving the default edit summary implies. I notice that you are using the normal undo though, and not Twinkle. Does this mean that you plan to stop using Twinkle until you have a proper understanding of vandalism? You keep saying here that you're willing to learn and so on, but do you appreciate what I have had to do to even get you to listen to the concerns I brought up on your talk page? It's all very well saying you want to learn, but you haven't demonstrated that - infact, all your actions indicate the exact opposite. When I come to your talk page and point out a problem, the response from someone who wants to learn would be to say that they understand, and will read up on the issue. Instead, the response I got from you was: Being completely ignored; Being told I was hounding you (when this was most certainly not the case); Being told that you didn't take the time to read the relevant policies; Being told you would not change your approach; and the list goes on. So, to attempt to move this towards a conclusion, I would say some of the results wanted here is that (a) you lay off the Twinkle for a bit (which you appear to be doing already, so thank you for that), (b) you read the vandalism policy, and in future read and make sure you understand policies before you cite them in discussions (i.e. do not accuse others of violating a policy unless you are sure they have done so, and when in doubt, seek confirmation) and (c) in future, try to respond better to criticism of your actions - remember that often people are trying to help, not attack. Would you say these three points are all fair, and would you be willing to give a shot at abiding by them? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I mentioned earlier, and was admonished for thread drift, but there is an elephant in the room. I've questioned Walter Görlitz over simple policy - not a 'content issue' - and the response was, Nothing you say can convince me that this should change [32] - that isn't related to Twinkle, but is sure is related to this issue re. basic failure to understand, accept and adhere to consensus/policy.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes when there's an elephant in the room, it's best to take it outside before you deal with it. (It's easier on the furniture.) Yeah, Walter's comment there was a poor one, but it doesn't look like he's rejecting policy now. He's done a poor job of following it, and if he continues to do a poor job of following it after all of this he'll inevitably be blocked. -- Atama頭 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Branko Lustig wiki page and User:Biblbroks

Biblbroks is making constant changes on Branko Lustig Wiki page that make no sense. This, in my opinion, borders with vandalism. Please advise what to do. Thank you.--Eversman (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Biblbroks is under a 3 month topic ban from Kosovo-related topics, and I'm not sure if this is related. Removing the nationality from the lede, as he has been doing in edits such as this, the past several weeks could be related to this or another nationalist dispute. I don't wanna' touch any Arbcom stuff with a ten foot pole, however, so I'll be stepping out now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

As I was notified on my talk page regarding this report and was requested to advise it, I will try to give some background information and my opinion. Firstly I want to be noted that user Eversman never engaged in any discussion regarding the changes to the above-mentioned article prior to this. Instead the user acted on a first impulse - it appears. This should have be done differently I think; that's what the article talk pages exist. As for the mention of me being under a 3 month topic ban and giving an opinion that this could be related to a nationalist dispute - well, this could be regarded as a slander or at least a gossip, because of where was it posted. I am quite sure that such a comment doesn't belongs on this page - at least not a comment given in such a cynical manner, as it appears it was (at least to me). If anyone wants to discuss the changes to the above-mentioned article, I think the best place is the article's talk page. As for the slander/gossip of this being related to a nationalist dispute, I welcome anyone to discuss this at my talk page or some place else which might be more appropriate. If anyone is interested in this, I have some links to information regarding this issue on my user page. All the best, --biblbroks (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You have not addressed the point brought up.

This is not a Kosovo related page, but it's another Balkan country, and you appear to be editing disruptively with several other editors reverting the changes you are making.

As someone currently under an AE topic ban in a closely related topic, you are at least brushing up against the edge of the explicit restriction here and should back away from controversial editing in related pages.

Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right: I haven't addressed the issue as it was expected of me. I was a little irritated by the exact "bringing up of the point", and to be more specific by the sarcastic comment that followed. Sarcastic or cynical - anyway I perceive it as such. On my first thought when I started writing my previous comment I wanted to explain my edits and the situation more thoroughly, but then I changed my mind because I thought it would be better if I was short. Therefore I reduced my comment to what is above and I understand now I was wrong. I am sorry and I apologize to whomever I insulted with my comment. When writing it I completely forgot to think of how my edits can and are under stricter scrutiny than before. The scrutiny especially because of the Kosovo related case, in which I am involved and which was brought up not by me (I think) and unnecessarily (I think). As I think it is quite necessary to be precise here, I will try to be: my edits can and are, I believe, under stricter scrutiny because of the AE sanction upon me - a ban for particular topic. Exactly because of the name and the meaning that goes with the topic in question (Kosovo) I am not sure that your opinion, Georgewilliamherbert - that the article Branko Lustig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has a closely related topic to that topic - well, I am not sure that this opinion of yours has enough argumentation. I wanted to note this in the hope of avoiding further connection of the sanction imposed on me with the issue of edits to Branko Lustig article. Or with any other issue, of course - I hope my hopes aren't too high. Also, Georgewilliamherbert, if after reading my comment you still think it's necessary that I stop, please tell me exactly what would you like me to stop. I sincerely believe that won't be necessary, but of course I might be wrong - if that would be the case, anyone please correct me, because I am really trying to act in good faith as I am hoping others will, too. As for this issue - my edits and the explanation for them - I feel I must give a thorough and lengthy comment, so please be patient. There it goes:

• First I want to be clear that (prior to user Eversman edit) I thought I was engaging with one anonymous editor - an editor who is insisting to push up a pro-Croatian perspective of the Branko Lustig's origin and ethnicity (or nationality). The very first edit I made, before this "edit-war" started, was after carefully listening the whole youtube clip (link) of the interview with Branko Lustig titled Branko Lustig: "Plakao sam hrvatski.", which is given in the article as a reference. I suspected that him being rescued by a Croatian officer, what I read the very instant before I decided to check it, wasn't correct. This could be regarded as bad faith I understand - but bad faith of the content of the article, since I never checked who was that put this info in the article. Anyway it turned out that I was right - I think. I never found the mention of him being rescued by a Croatian officer in the interview, so I excluded this and replaced it with the mention of a German officer (this I was trying to explain in the edit summary of my edit: diff). Also I think it worth mentioning that the edit of Lustig's credits for survival to a Croatian officer (diff) was made by user Mirkofilipovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has only two edits - all this I found out while writing this comment. After I was editing the article some more, I noticed that it mentions that Lustig is a Croatian film producer - actually linking to Croatia, not Croatians - and since I suspected that this was done hastily as well (as the article mentions that Lustig was born in Kingdom of Yugoslavia and that he was an Auschwitz prisoner) I thought even more and suspected of this article being edited from a pro-Croatian perspective. As it turns out (just recently) the edit mentioning him being a Croatian (that is linking to Croatia) was done by anonymous editor 143.117.157.61 - here's the diff. In the diff you can find that apart from the mention of Lustig being a Croatian American film producer being changed to Croatian film producer in the first sentence of the article, also the categories for the article were changed from Croatian Jews and Croatian Americans to Croatian actors and Croatian film actors. I didn't go that far to investigate when the categories Croatian film producers and Croatian expatriates in the United States were introduced for this article. Maybe further investigation can find out that such changes of the article are questionable also - questionable as I believe those, which I mentioned previously, are. Also a day or two ago I investigated the refs in the article and haven't found any mention of him being a Croatian film producer. Instead I found mentions of him being Croatian-American film producer (["hrvatsko-američki filmski producent"] Error: {{Lang-xx}}: text has italic markup (help) - Serbo-Croatian, Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin - in all those languages/variants is the same). The mention of him being a "hrvatsko-američki filmski producent" can be found in this ref which is dated April 2007. Also when writing this I also found out that:

1. this ref dated July 2008 mentions him in the context of him being "hrvatski dobitnik čak dvaju Oscara",
2. this ref dated May this year mentions him in the context of him being a "hrvatski filmaš",
3. this ref dated May 2009 mentions him not sure about returning to "Hrvatska" i.e. Croatia (if I understand from Beverly Hills).

• Maybe further investigation of refs or some other sources might show different perspective from mine, but I think that this man and his ethnicity and origin is somehow propriated (propriate - as in taken into property) by some current Croatian media. And maybe some editors as well. If I am wrong, then it's my bad faith - I hope nothing "bad-faithed" on me from other Wikipedians, too. Why, because I am pretty sure that none of the other Wikipedians can explain when does a person become a Croatian film producer from a Croatian-American film producer, if being a Croatian-American film producer at all in the first place. Of course, if anyone thinks he/she is able to, or if anyone thinks that this is the issue with the article, I am ready to listen/read and keen to change my opinion.

Anyway, I hope this comment can clear the case. If not, I can take a recluse from editing this article or explain further. I hope none of the two is necessary. Best regards, --biblbroks (talk) 00:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Question; If he isn't Croatian Jewish producer, then what is he? Martian Jewish producer? Come on, this is BS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.109.123 (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On every Wikipedia page about Jewish person there is a nationality of that person, then follows his Jewish heritage note. What is the problem with Branko Lustig, is he a Croatian citizen, does he live in Croatia? YES. What is the problem then?--93.138.109.123 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The article didn't state he was a Croatian Jewish producer, but gave simply the attribute Croatian. As far as his citizenship is concerned, he might also be American - I don't know about his citizenship. Nationality usually has a different meaning than what your words suggest you think. If you know more about this citizenship information, you are welcome to contribute to the article, otherwise if sarcasm and rudeness are how you communicate, then you might as well register/login so we can discuss this on a more legitimate level. I think the problem is not with me, but with something else. I hope I am wrong, although I think other Wikipedians could agree with me. Regards, --biblbroks (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Gold

Not sure what do do here. Apparently this singer has died. Can't find any RS on the death, however. A user linked to what appears to be a blog and another user posted on the talk page that it has been verified through a mutual acquaintance. Don't want to get in an edit war here, however, I feel this does not meet WP:RS and falls under WP:GRAPEVINE. Comments, please? Many thanks. --Manway 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You're in the right - no source, no info. His official site makes no mention if it, and neither does any reliable news service. Obviously nothing more than malicious internet rumours. GiantSnowman 20:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you had left the info up and the guy was well-known enough, you would probably find it in RSs regardless of whether it was true or not. I remember that happening once because someone had vandalised an article (saw it on the news). It was quickly fixed on Wiki, but the news outlets had egg on their face. Moral of the story, it pays to be vigilant on BLP articles. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

• RPP requested. GiantSnowman 21:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
• Protected by Connormah (talk · contribs), much obliged if you are reading this. GiantSnowman 21:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Could somebody with rights to edit the article provide a reliable source in the article for his death? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a source there. If you think it's not a reliable source, maybe you could find one? Or, conversely, demonstrate that it's a false rumor? I went looking yesterday and one site hit my PC with malware, so I'm not that keen on looking at this matter very closely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no source at Andrew_Gold#Death. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check the source in the footnote in the very first sentence, right after the alleged death-date. Is that a valid source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The section I am speaking about needs a source. This is (or was a recent) BLP. If we're going to make claims, we need to back them up with sources. I can't edit the article, somebody who can, should put the source into the section that talks about his death. I can't do that. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article from Variety: Andrew Gold dies at 59, Posted: Sun., Jun. 5, 2011, 2:07pm PT JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's also reported on his mother's website [33], which should qualify as an RS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's finally been sourced. Thanks. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So, was the source in the first sentence valid, or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether it was or not had no bearing on the fact that the sentence which discussed his death was unsourced. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If the footnote in line 1 had been repeated in that section, would it have been a sufficient source? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:HXL49

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

---

Upon denying User:HXL49's request for rollback and request for autopatrolled rights, I received two separate personal attacks of varying degrees here and here. That said, I respectfully refer this issue to the community for review and action. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the guy thought being incredibly rude (dare I say obnoxious? I think you could go that far) would get him what he wants. He's definitely not in a cooperative (like working well with others, and I guess also cooperating with this) sort of mindset judging by what he said to you. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

He attacked me yet again. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Whine all you want for this single incident. At the Autopatrol page, you are completely at fault for your poor, brusque handling of my case, not at all basing your decision on what I have done with the articles I have created. This was casus belli for me to be aggressive (but not yet brutal) towards you. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, that reply for which HXL49 twice "attacked" you, here, was pretty provocative on your part. You had already denied his request for rollback, which he was getting increasingly upset about, so the prudent thing to do would have been to disengage. Instead, you followed him to a separate request, both denying it and misrepresenting it (he did not say he wanted to "avoid scrutiny"). Those were fighting words. Quigley (talk) 05:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

To quote the comment Fastily was responing to: "Also, when I create foreign language redirects or DAB pages, I wish to avoid hounding that could lead to PRODs, RFDs, AFDs, and the like, much less anything that leads to a massive debate like this one here". That sure seems like that was what HXL49 was asking for. And User:Fastily is correct that that is not what that particular user right is for. Heiro 05:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I had interpreted newly created DAB pages and redirects to be applied under Autopatrolled rights. And did I say that was my only intended area of usage for this privilege? Read my subsequent reply. Once I systematically begin writing the town, township, and subdistrict articles in earnest, the New Pages log could certainly take some less work. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any question to the existence of a personal attack when he told Fastily to "move your lazy ass." He also stated that "this is nothing but idiocy on your part." These are both attack worthy statements. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley Go back and carefully re-read the autopatrolled request again; once you've finished that, do amend your statement accordingly ;) Also, for the record, personal attacks are still personal attacks, regardless of whether alleged "provocative" behavior was in play. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't make a judgment on whether or not HXL49's comments were personal attacks; I just pointed out that that to someone who is unfamiliar with the autopatrolled policy, your reply to his request was curt, and the wrong approach for someone in a volatile state. Quigley (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily, that is hypocrisy for you to tell him to be carefully reading. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of a personal attack upon myself I will say that this user has a long history of being rude and uncivil. He once left [this comment] on my talk page. I don't believe he is able to grasp the concept of comment on content, not on editors and he is completely unable to "play well with others." He has appeared at ANI [here], [here], and [here]. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No you don't risk an attack from me. My dealings with Fastily are a shadow of what I can be. I never believe that this methodology bolsters my arguments, and indeed that is not my purpose; in most cases I instead attempt to intimidate the opposition to not proceed any further. Anyone can open even a WP:RFC/U on me if they wish, but in any case, my attacks have been nowhere near as severe as this, which was enough for a near-immediate 48-hour block. Even at my most distressed I would never descend to that level. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

[Here] is another incident where, although it is not a personal attack, HXL49 is quick to assume stupidity or ignorance in other editors. Ryan Vesey (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't abide by WP:AGF and instead operate by almost its complete opposite: Guilty until proven innocent. I won't comment on that incident now, as your awarding of the barnstar was enough of an "apology", but I will say that the facts speak for themselves. Also, remember that if you provide http:// links, you don't use double brackets on the exterior... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 05:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Vesey, your diffs do not support your statements. In fact, his was a very patient response for what you were trying to do (repeatedly adding unsourced statements to the Republic of China article, and then edit-warring to keep them because of conviction, rather than reliable sources). None of the ANI links you have posted have come to a definitive conclusion against him—they only show that HXL49 is active in reverting blatant nationalistic POV pushing, which is difficult to do without making a few enemies. Quigley (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Quigley, your comments are blatantly false and I ask that you rescind them. First, I did not edit war. I removed a section from the Republic of China page, HXL49 reverted my edit with an explanation. I had no problem with his explanation and did not make a change. Later, a citation needed template was placed after a sentence by Bdoserror. HXL49 reverted his edit with the explanation of "No". I re-added the citation needed template because the reasoning was poor and because I firmly believed that sentence needed a citation to back it up. HXL49 reverted that edit stating that it was well documented. My final edit on that page was an addition of a source in order to resolve the dispute without conflict. Not only did I not repeatedly add unsourced statements, I actually sourced a statement that did not coincide with my initial view of the subject. My diffs do support my statements. HXL49 left a message on my talk page, in that talk page he stated that I would never become the President of the US. That was completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Ryan Vesey (talk) 06:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Memory is faulty, and I admit my mistake. But regardless of whether adding or removing information was your weapon of choice, you can expect that if you waltz into a controversial article that is subject to constant IP vandalism, and make a major POV-unbalancing edit without an attempt at discussion, that you will be reverted and warned quickly. The correct response is not to nurture grudges or to throw tantrums against the editor who inducts you into the system, but to act humbly and reform your own behavior. You have a second chance to do this now by stepping away from the dead horse. Quigley (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fastily - please disengage, you are aggrevating him right now. I will leave a NPA final warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. I ask that you respond to the section on PopUps on my talk. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, stop, for your own sake. Quigley (talk) 06:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, HXL49, cool down and have a nice cup of tea. We don't need to continue aggravating the situation. Fastily has already agreed to disengage. —mc10 (t/c) 20:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

-HXL, I agree that it is ok to remove a section from your talk page with an automated tool. Doing so implies that you acknowledge the notice, just like a manual removal does, but you save one click. There are reasons why it is better to leave talk page sections on your talk page, but if you are going to remove them I agree with you that it is ok to do it with an automated tool (although an edit summary would have been nice). However, you should not use popups or any other means to vandalize talk pages. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This can probably be wrapped up. There's clearly an problematical editor whose been given a NPA final warning. I (among others I'm sure) will follow through on that warning if the problems persist, for example his attempts to "intimidate the opposition". RxS (talk) 06:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Why is this user not blocked for the lack of civility not only on Fastily's page but here? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I kind of wonder at that too. Especially since the editor self-admits to operating on a principle that is the opposite of AGF and hinting at the usage of "brutality" against the OP (I guess as part of the stated "policy of intimidation"). This editor does not sound like an asset to the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

A block is not a solution to every problem. This user has made over 12,000 edits, 70% of them in article space, most of them filling in information about much-neglected cities and towns in China. His attitude needs to be reformed, but he is definitely a unique asset to the project. Quigley (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps not a block, but he does seem to need some work done on his spirit of coorporation (or lack thereof). Also, while he may look like an asset judging solely by his mainspace edits, we can't know how many other potential 12,000 mainspace edit users his stated "policy of intimidation" may have scared away from Wikipedia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining. So, despite rules and policies against attacks on other users, it's the number of actual edits you've made which are more important than how you conduct yourself. Thanks for letting me know. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not what was said at all. Saddhiyama said, "This editor does not sound like an asset to the project." just based on HXL49's comments in this thread. I provided a more holistic view of HXL49's unique contributions to the project. We are all in general agreement that more civility is needed from everyone. Quigley (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

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

problematic anonymous users at articles about Singapore politicians, possible conflicts of interest and government censorship

I am an involved editor, and cannot use my tools in the dispute; since this involves elements of a content dispute, incivility and sockpuppetry it is my greatest regret that I have to use AN/I. It is my every desire to promote discussion and avoid edit warring; however various anonymous users often repeatedly blank sections (even when they are referenced!) without explanation that are critical of Singapore government / PAP (ruling party) politicians. These same users often write glowing or promotional articles on government ministries or government programmes with hyped-up language without any hint of neutrality. Originally my response to these actions was to revert on sight (especially if the removal was poorly explained or not explained at all) as well as introduce more critical language into the targeted articles; it's been a long time since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress (which I helped draft) but this I believe is an appropriate action to disincentivise conflict of interest editing by powerful parties.

Originally these editors started out rather bumbling (deleting entire critical, referenced sections on Tin Pei Ling without any explanation) and reverting sourced criticisms (well-known criticisms, in fact). For a while (many Singaporean administrators are away and did not catch this) they could build such biased articles on government ministries without interference -- see this revision on MCYS for as an example.

I also suspect that these editors may be employed by the Singapore government. I do not make this accusation lightly. The first hint (outside of Wikipedia) was that during the elections, there was already a massive smear campaign online against the Opposition, sending trolls to make homophobic remarks or cast doubt on Opposition politicians and so forth; the trolls were deduced to be trolls because they came from accounts with virtually no friends, airbrushed or artificial / out of place profile pictures, and were created shortly before election campaign season, unlike commenters (both pro-government and pro-Opposition) who generally had some sign of a real life (and had friends, were not completely anonymous etc). Bloggers also caught the PAP astroturfing with fake accounts, the link given is just one example.

My first major conflict with these editors -- who I suspect to be coming from the same interested party -- started in Vivian Balakrishnan. Because of a discovered very old fundamental copyright violation (an unrelated issue) 330 revisions were deleted, but they can be seen here. Please note the range of different IPs and different usernames that attempt to remove reliably-referenced criticism, but behaviour (involving little discussion and little use of community tools) that makes it seem like they come from the same party. IP User:160.96.200.34 is a Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore address (also are addresses 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37), all which have been involved in possible conflict of interest edits in Singaporean politics, often writing extensive promotional material for politicians and government ministries. Commercial ISPs are also used, especially IPs with a history of possibly COI editing -- see the anonymous editor which edited National Youth Council of Singapore in such an "official" and pompous way that makes me think these editors are from the government. The pattern of these editors have been to ignore warnings, avoid the use of talk pages, and try to battle it out through edit summaries, which is extremely frustrating. I used pending changes protection on that article in the middle of May for that reason, which I think was appropriate since the anonymous edits could still pass through, but other uninvolved editors could always look at the changes -- and generally they did not approve the unexplained reversions.

The latest conflict involves Teo Ser Luck, which I helped expand, and its talk page, over a section I added that discussed a video of a rally this politician spoke at, for which he was ridiculed online for, and made it to Yahoo! News Singapore. Despite the multitude of IPs reverting, I suspect they are one party and that sockpuppetry; government IPs were involved (User:160.96.200.36). When I posted my concern on the talk page about a) why I thought Yahoo! News was a reliable source b) that this was part of a pattern of whitewashing, an anonymous editor would constantly delete my comment off the talk page as "vandalism". It has now been moved out of BLP concerns by another user to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Teo_Ser_Luck, however I am puzzled because the talk page comment makes no problematic statement against Teo Ser Luck, since I try to discuss the editors involved, and the news source, not the politician himself. The removing user's awareness of previous history at Vivian Balakrishnan, despite the fact that the history has now been deleted (for unrelated copyvio reasons) and other articles at Tin Pei Ling strongly confirms my suspicions of sockpuppetry and common party COI editing.

I have made my case for the inclusion of the statement backed by a Yahoo! News Singapore source (which hires local journalists) on the BLP noticeboard, but I can further elaborate here if needed; my frustration is not with the content in fact, but rather the attitude of censor-with-impunity that possible government-hired editors seem to have. The editor(s) would rather delete entire talk page discussions rather than engage in discussion, and this alarms me. The user simply says "the source is unofficial" (essentially a one word argument) rather than referring to policy or how he or she disagrees with how I characterise the source. This is the most problematic part. I think I am complying with BLP policy as well.

I am glad to be proven wrong on any of my suspicions though. However, if I am not wrong, then I am frightened by the lack of action. If possible, can I have advice if a) CheckUser is an appropriate course of action, and if b) what administrative actions, if any, should be required. Except for pending changes protection I have refrained from using the tools in this issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would support a blanket ban/indef block on all IPs coming from government ministries (in Singapore and indeed just in general). On a related note, I have previously raised concerns with the OP at her talk page over her edits in the matter (which have often bordered on POV, even if admittedly to simply counter the pro-government, government-added POV). COI and POV editing is not new to Wikipedia, not even from government agencies, but they are a huge headache when they do occur and even more so when others try to add opposite POV to counter the existing POV. User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#TOC; User talk:La goutte de pluie#WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan and User_talk:Strange_Passerby#fair_use.3F are some relevant related links. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that government IP addresses seem to be mixed with a collection of commercial IP addresses; however the commercial IP addresses do not fluctuate that much. They seem to have the editing patterns of a single party. (see evidence above and below). I have refrained from blocking anyone at this point, or even using semi-protection, on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. Admittedly I am more likely to make edits involving criticisms of the ruling party, but this is really out of the fear that for the past few years whitewashing and astroturfing has proceeded for Singaporean articles with near-impunity, with little administrative attention paid to them. I do not see patterns of Opposition members editing in a self-aggrandized way about their politicians and their plans; if I did I would also be similarly annoyed.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ho! Since my name has been brought up, guess it's fair I jump in? I've already replied on Strange Passerby's page about where I'm coming from. And yes, while there is a reason to be paranoid seeing the recent unexplained blanket deletions by unknown IPs, it's also a tad unfair to drag in others who do try and make articles more balanced. If the negative incident is referenced and cited properly, and not overly represented in a page (which may be a tactic to try and turn the article negative, excuse me if I'm wrong), I don't delete them. I've learning to be more fair and balanced in my article. Where La Goutte and I seem to "butt heads" is where I view he's being overly negative. While we don't want whitewashing, we also don't wanna sway to the other end of the spectrum and turn wiki pages into "smear" pages. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to be rude or personal, but that's my rationale. If i'm wrong on intents, pls correct me. Thanks. Alverya (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Since you mentioned the earlier U.S. Congress problem, I would point out that part of the 'solution' to that problem was to use Template:CongLinks to provide reliable information about each person. That has a deterrent effect as it provides a check and balance against Wikipedians trying to spin and shade the facts. There's also Template:UK MP links. Perhaps you could find similar sources for Singapore politicians and create a similar template. Not a total solution of course, but it would probably help avoid the typical 'editing by newsbite' which causes undue emphasis on whatever makes the ooh!ooh! news reports. Here's an example of some sources I found. I don't know if they exist, but voting records and speeches in Parliament would be helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry suspicions

What especially strikes me as weird is that 218.186.16.10, a metastable IP involved in this dispute who kept removing my comments off Talk:Teo Ser Luck and in fact listed me as a vandal in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, was later blocked for being an open proxy; when this occurred, another IP Special:contributions/218.186.16.249 showed up to protest the block (a request that was declined). This to me lends more evidence towards my sockpuppetry suspicions. Both addresses are commercial StarHub addresses that are stable for weeks if not months; it's weird for one address to be detected as a proxy and for a customer to be able to switch freely between these addresses, unless the customer had some special privileges. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a block log entry for .16.10... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check again. "The IP address 218.186.16.10 is blocked globally (full details)." i.e. the IP is blocked on all Wikipedias. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see it on the global log, but not on the enwp block log. Must be admins-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Global blocks are separate from local blocks and are not visible on the local log. Nothing to do with admins. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see the line quoted by Lgdp at all anywhere, that line could be the one visible only to admins. I can see the block entry on the global log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, that line came from Special:Block, so it's admin-only. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The proxyip4 template, as in {{proxyip4 | 218.186.16.10}} should allow anyone (admin or not) to check whether rangeblocks or global blocks cover the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just tried that interesting template. For it to work, the space before the parameter (the IP address) must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI guys, 1.) please bear in mind that its the mid-year school holidays in Singapore right now; 2.) Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature, though one can still "connect and use" another person's household WIFI (stealing bandwidth, in other word), most likely due to an apparent lack of security setup (from my experience, it's a fairly common problem in some of Singapore's tightly arranged HDB flats and/or private apartments); 3.) from my professional/working experience, governmental organisations and linked companies/statutory boards are mostly served by SingNet/SingTel's network (which has always maintained and valued network stability and security). That is all. (PS: @Elle, if I were you, I would have just Semi-PP the articles, they'll move off once they find that they can't disrupt us anymore.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Very odd

Resolved

 – Vjr04jf0fr4 (talk · contribs), along with his other socks, have been blocked indefinitely. —mc10 (t/c) 18:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Would an admin please look over contributions? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the contribs, Vjr04jf0fr4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be an alternate account of 39vmds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Both editors make mostly nonsensical edits with a few useful ones thrown in. Probably a trolling attempt. Checkuser?  Sandstein  17:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Vjr04jf0fr4 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 39vmds (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Clommlon Fiepss (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gi5nfkr489rnJUHRic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Vjr04jf0fr4 was created for the explicit purpose of busting autoconfirmed, as evidenced by this edit here. 39vmds seems to be engaging in disruption and has similarly inquired about being able to edit semi-protected articles; moreover, 39vmds' edits do not seem to indicate any effort of being a constructive editor at all. The same applies to Clommlon Fiepss and Gi5nfkr489rnJUHRic. As such, I have indefinitely blocked all of them as sock puppets. –MuZemike 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Burntout123 and Neovandalism article

Backstory: About two days ago, Burntout123 (talk · contribs) repeatedly attempted to create an article for burnt-out diabetes mellitus. The article had been deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus; the text of the recreated article was identical to the version from the AfD. After repeated warnings, the user was finally blocked for 31 hours. He then created a new account, Burntout1234 (talk · contribs), which he then used to discuss the AfD with the deleting admin; however, another admin blocked him as a sockpuppet.

So, the original block to the main account expired today. There's been no attempt to discuss the deletion or file a DRV. Instead, he's created an article on neovandalism, which includes the following text: "The concept of neovandalism or regulated vandalism pertains to orchestrated efforts by old and new Wikipedia users to delete unwanted pages or information in Wikipedia using highly regulated approaches including obtaining supports from administrators. … The concept was first developed during a heated discussion about the deletion of burnt-out diabetes mellitus."

At best, this is a neologism and should be deleted—and a snowball-clause deletion, IMHO, would be in order. At worst, this is a personal attack against myself, the admin who closed the AfD, and the other editors involved with this user—although I don't feel attacked enough to tag it for G10 and blank the page.

I'm too close to the situation to either delete the page or to act otherwise as a result of this page creation. Accordingly, I'm filing this notice here so that administrators who have been previously uninvolved with the situation may address it. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

First, I truly apologize to C.Fred or anybody who I might have caused trouble for. This was not intentional. Second, the efforts to revive burnt-out diabetes mellitus via using what is apparentky called doppelgänger was the results of my deficient familiarity with the Wikipedia rules and regulations. In the past 30 hours I have made sincere efforts to learn more and am quite fascinated by Wikipedia and its resources and rules. I do appreciate the efforst and time by Wikipedia administrators. Third, please do not discredit the author in order to discredit the page neovandalism. We can adjust the content to make sure it not include any personal attack. Speedy deletion is not the solution. In the interest of true spirit of Wikipedia and true tolerance, please do not speedy-delete this page. Feel free to adjust the content and contribute, and please allow timely discussion. Many thanks. --To_Expand_Tolerance_ 19:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs)

The above editor also made some redirects: Regulated vandalism, Regulated vanadlism (sic!) which needs to be speedied as well. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the administrators managed to kill the new page neovandalism after just a few minutes of its short existence, one wonders if this is the future of Wikipedia, in that any new page or concept that criticizes administrators and their authority is subject to speedy-deletion and snow-balling? Is it not in sharp contradistinction to the very spirit of the original free Wikipedia? Do some administrators feel so threatened by a new concept? Do they really feel that they may be associated with neovandalism that they snow-ball it in minutes and burry it so fast? Eventually a courageous administrator from among yourself may raise the issue. Until then let's hope this was not the start of the end of free Wikipedia. To_Expand_Tolerance_

I see no purpose for such an "article" in article space. If you want to write an essay in your own User space, it might be allowed, so long as you make no personal attacks on individuals. See WP:NPA. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with the content in his userspace either, so I've taken the liberty of placing it there at User:Burntout123/Neovandalism. Burntout, virtually all content about Wikipedia itself belongs outside of the mainspace, so do not move this back. lifebaka++ 20:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of adding the "noindex" template (please confirm I did it correctly), as this seems to be largely a generalized complaint about wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Bugs, that's fine. Sorry I forgot to add it myself. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

No. You created Burntout1234 for the explicit purpose of harassing other users; that is clear and unambiguous disruption via sock puppetry, and you know it. I'm sorry, but even a newcomer should be able to realize that that is wrong. –MuZemike 21:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I will reiterate the new definition of "vandalism" to those who are unaware: any edit in which another user disagrees with. –MuZemike 22:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

After reading the so-called article, the only conclusion is that it violates wp:synth and wp:OR. Not to mention that it's also a thinly veiled attack page. --Blackmane (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is basically a complaint about another article having been deleted. It might help his case (or at least in the reading of the article) if he would define these various terms instead of putting red-links in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The way xe uses redlinks seems more like xe's emphasising those terms, instead of bolding them. Redlinks do stand out. --Blackmane (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, except that if he doesn't define them, they're meaningless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree that the terms become meaningless, I was pointing out that xe's using redlinks as an attention grabbing tool. Doesn't that then make his article also fall under soap boxing? --Blackmane (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Userfying that drivel was quite generous on the admin's part. Unless the editor intends to actually construct something useful out of it, it probably ought to get zapped... for a growing number of reasons, as you suggest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Bjornsonw

Bjornsonw (talk · contribs) is posting disruptive rants at Talk:Protocols of the Elders of Zion; I've reverted twice, so someone else should have a look. Acroterion (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from below, I had it open to a new section for the last hour or so =p) User:Bjornsonw posted something of a small, but mostly coherent, rant about the article not being neutral, and then myself and another editor commented. [34] He then proceeded to put in some other material [35] which made the whole thing well, utterly incoherent (though I do know the group of rebbes he's talking about, the rest is... idk what). This new version was then removed and he proceeded to re-add it, that was deleted and then it was re-added again, and then you can guess what happened next. You can see all the History if you want the play-by-play ofc. I don't want to make a personal judgement about the guy (that might be a PA), but it seems like he might not be all there. That is solely my opinion based on what he posted though, unless he is trolling and trying to make it look that way. There is also this [36] and this [37] Could someone look into this? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 23:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, his first post wasn't really out of line, but it went off the rails with later additions. Acroterion (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Question

Resolved

 – Misericord indef blocked for NPA and abusing multiple accounts, talk page privs revoked. Toddst1 (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is giving indefinite full protection to the talk page of a non-blocked user acceptable? User:Bwilkins thinks it is. I'd like to hear other opinions. Using his admin bit when he's clearly involved seems like a violation of every admin guideline I've ever read. † Misericord (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The user Rpeh probably ought to be blocked, but typically users who claim to be retired don't get blocked. Since he claims to be retired, though, full-protecting his talk page shouldn't really make any difference, eh? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Under all the circumstances, Bwinkins' action is understandable. There is nothing more that will usefully take place on Rpeh's talkpage unless Rpeh decides to resume contributing, and at that point he or she can request unprotection, which should promptly take place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it curious that this editor appeared almost immediately after the "retirement" of the supposedly mistreated user, has acknowledged use of an IP address that geolocates to the same (admittedly large) metropolitan area as the retired user claimed to edit from, immediately began editing with Twinkle, and uses pretty much the same edit summary phrasing as the retired user? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey, a little AGF, please. He's been online for almost a week now, and a week is plenty of time for socks newbies to learn the ropes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The account has to be new, they haven't yet found their way to User talk:Bwilkins, near as I can tell. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Misericord and Rpeh are  Likely the same person. TNXMan 01:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not the same person. Well done to the admin cabal for its usual closing of ranks - exactly as I said would happen. You're always allowed to violate your own rules but woe bedide anyone outside the club who does the same. Two editors lost. Looking at Misericord's edits he was doing a pretty good anti-vandal job. Good luck replacing him. 212.139.228.11 (talk) 08:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

...and nobody has ever said that either Rpeh or Misericord were not good content contributors. The "fine-I'll-take-my-ball-and-go-home" attitude is a tired bit we've seen thousands of times on Wikipedia. All contributors (including admins) are held to the same standards. All editors need to be able to accept constructive criticism about their actions...however, the key word is constructive. All editors need to be detached enough to take a step back when 3 or 4 (or more) editors bring a specific behaviour to their attention. I don't think that any admin around here likes to block people - indeed, it goes against my personal philosophy as a whole. Just like many teens these days, too many editors want to blame someone else for the results of their own behaviour. Every single editor has to follow the same rules, pointe finale. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Not true. You, for instance, used your admin bit on a user with whom you were in dispute, which should result in instant de-sysopping. Locking a talk page because somebody removed your comment? What rule do you claim to be following there? You also quite clearly do like to block people - a simple glance at your activity, including all the petty denials of unblocks, speaks volumes. 212.139.229.196 (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So, which one of the two blocked editors are you? And who's Mike? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's only one blocked editor: Misericord. I'm rpeh - I just can't be bothered signing in. Mike is Misericord's real first name, which I used by mistake. 212.139.230.126 (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Um, I'm not nor have I ever been in dispute with you. IIRC, I declined an unblock request, which did not make me involved. When you began a rather poorly thought-out tirade after your unblock, I blocked ... I'm not, nor have I ever been involved. The reasonings behind locking your talkpage are quite clear in the protection log, and the "rules" fully permit that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen quite enough. I have indefinitely blocked Rpeh for socking, as well as put down a rangeblock. I have unprotected Rpeh's talk page to try and allow for a constructive unblock request. –MuZemike 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

1) It wasn't socking. 2) It wasn't block evasion because I wasn't blockedf. THIS is block evasion and I'm only doing it to illustrate that it's the admins who keep escalating the problem instead of letting things lie. Let's add MuZemike to the list of admins that don't know what they're doing. Good luck extending the range block - soon you'll have most of the South East of England blocked. 85.210.8.233 (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

And when they complain, we can send them your way. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

IP hopping infobox bloater

Aware editors will note that a deleted template has been resurrected. I believe this was done in a deliberate attempt to curb the editor I am posting about, as hir current behavior stems from even more egregious edits before the template switch was currently implemented [38]. If one is adverse to the recreation of the template [39] please do not address it here: this is about an editor who is subverting/disregarding consensus.

173.61.156.122 is the latest address of IP hopper who believes trivial mentions should be added to Buffyverse articles. As an example, the recent history of Riley Finn shows repeated attempts to insert what is deemed "bloat" (trivial references that do little to nothing to explain the subject) into the infobox. Attempts at correction have failed [40], as have edit summaries [41] [42] (not an exhaustive list).

Said editor does, in my opinion, excellent work in formatting BLPs [43] [44] [45] (not exhaustive and does not show knee-jerk reverts to tag moving), yet not enough to override the above infobox bloating nor of adding unlicensed or inappropriate images to articles[46] [47] (not exhaustive), and the occasional bad ref [48].

I am aware that IP hoppers pose a problem in the way of censure, yet still I hope that some means can be found to show 173... that simply being able to change IPs does not give one a license to subvert consensus or project goals. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This deserves admin attention on its merits, I'm sure, but also because of the charming originality of its homely title. Anyone can issue a trout template, but it takes a truly imaginative person to come up with "IP hopping infobox bloater". I'll certainly use the phrase next time someone's being annoying.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to block disruptive anon/IP user

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At WQA, we are having a situation with a disruptive IP (24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has engaged in edit-warring (in excess of 3RR), incivility, trolling, and other forms of problematic behavior which are exhausting practically everyone it appears to come into contact with. It has blanked all of the warnings and messages it has received on its talk page too. Accordingly, I am requesting an admin to block this IP from disrupting the project further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to report 3RR violations (which I contest, anyway.) It also would have been nice for User:Ncmvocalist to notify me at my talk page that he/she was requesting a block. I'd encourage reviewing admins to consider that I'm not obligated to keep warnings on my talk page, and there are no diffs provided for the allegations of "incivility" and "trolling". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Some of the comments left by the IP indicate that we are not dealing with a newbie, and the overall effect of the edits was disruptive. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have also revoked talk page access for the IP because of his insistent removal of relevant comments. He has threatened to take me to arbitration when his block expires; I suspect that the three blocks for disruptive editing since the IP's first edit in May of this year will result in ArbCom declining to hear the case. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rule was that you could remove anything from your own talk page except for unblock notices while still under a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Anonymiss Madchen, undiscussed Eastern European page moves.

User:Anonymiss_Madchen has been engaging in a series of undiscussed moves involving controversial Eastern Europe topics. It would be apposite if they were warned regarding Eastern European matters, and their moves reverted until they are appropriately discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to improve Wikipedia by decreasing the chances that Nazi sympathizers would interpret the article as being only about German victims and use it as a way to publish their propaganda.

--Anonymiss Madchen 02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor an anti-fascist organisation. We do not write with an audience of Nazi sympathisers in mind, but with the various policies and guidelines regarding reliable sourcing, neutral points of view, original research, selecting appropriate article title topics, and through the use of consensus with other editors (especially when making inherently controversial edits). Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I would like the editor named warned in relation to DIGWUREN for the personal attacks (accusations of Nazism) and soapboxing in these edits diff Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Editor warned. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

Just FYI, there is a backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection going back several hours. Thanks. Zagalejo^^^ 03:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've cleared the backlog because I am awesome. AlexiusHoratius 04:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate responses to socks

This ANI is being opened in order to call attention to recent responses to sockpuppetry in the A/I and I/P topic areas that are potentially disruptive or that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. It's universally acknowledged that the A/I and I/P topic areas suffer more than any other topic area on Wikipedia from intense daily sockpuppet incursions into articles, discussion pages, and user talk pages. These socks vote at AfDs, edit war, provoke flame wars, and generally interfere with the healthy functioning of the Project. The problem, though, is that sometimes users' responses to sockpuppets can be nearly and even more disruptive. Below are some specific incidents:

Deleting Discussion page comments ([49])

It will sometimes happen that a sock will initiate a discussion parallel to a content dispute at an article. Another user will engage the sock under the impression that he's an innocent anonymous IP contributor. Later, though, certain clues will alert the registered user that the IP is a sock, whereupon he will delete all the comments, including his own. Meanwhile, though, the dialog will have attracted the involvement of other contributors such that deleting the preceding conversation interrupts the flow of the page.

A query at the Help Desk ([50]) suggested it may be best to simply leave the discussion intact.

Deleting or striking out Talk page comments ([51])

Other times the sock will be active at a user's Talk page – not necessarily posting vandalism in the strict sense, though WP:BAN does suggest that there's no difference. Ordinarily, users aren't supposed to edit each other's Talk pages beyond leaving comments on them. Can ordinary users edit the comments of socks at other users' Talk pages without the Talk page owner's consent?

Personally attacking socks ([52])

The worst problem is when a user will lash out at the sock with vituperative insults. In the case cited directly above, the attack was prior to the sock's formal conviction. Is it alright to personally attack a sock while an investigation into his identity is pending? Is it alright to personally attack a sock after his identity has been confirmed?—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's socks of blocked users you are talking about, they are of course not allowed to edit anywhere. I would remove threads started by such users also. In your example above, the only one to respond to the discussion started by the sock, was the person who ultimately removed the whole thread. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, when multiple people have answered, it is often better to not remove the thread.

As for the personal attacks, of course it's not alright to attack socks, per WP:NPA, whether it is before or after confirming their identity. I hardly consider calling someone compulsive and unethical an attack though. It's certainly not the nicest thing to say, but unless it was a completely baseless assertion, we generally don't have such a low threshold for invoking WP:NPA.--Atlan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I may need to move Biosketch to my naughty list of the many editors in the I-P conflict topic area who apparently seek to protect and facilitate the actions of sockpuppets that do so much damage to the proper functioning of the topic area through the use of deception. As I tried to explain on my talk page, there is in my view a rather important difference between objective evidence based statements of fact using terminology that conveys accurate information and evidence-less derogatory personal attacks. There is also a difference between the set of legitimate contributors here to build an encyclopedia based on policy and banned users who cannot be here and cannot do or say anything and a difference between legitimate editing and meatpuppeting for sockpuppets. It seems to me that Biosketch cannot recognise when I make personal attacks probably because I don't make them. They would look quite different from the entirely accurate comment I made on Nableezy's page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the examples Biosketch gave are all about socks supporting one side of the I-P conflict? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@SH: Although I agree with what you are getting at, the tone of the comment was close enough to a middle finger that you shouldn't do it. It only served to foster the battlefield mentality and bait the guy. If another editor raised an eyebrow at it, it shows that it caused some unneeded waves. Consider ow much easier it would have been if you would have not made the comment at all. Getting a lecture on decorum from me. Yeah, that must be getting a snicker.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded waves indeed. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is way too much attention Ledenierhomme deserves.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the particular sock (Ledenierhomme) that I made a comment about cannot be characterized as simply as supporting one side of the I-P conflict. They have broad areas of interest, part of which involves advocating on behalf of the State of Israel, but that is really neither here nor there. A sock is a sock. @Cptnono, a lecture on decorum from you is fine. I take your point but I disagree. What I do in the topic area can't depend on Biosketch's eyebrow movements. I considered simply deleting the sock's comment immediately since it was clearly cynically made to influence a discussion about the overturning of the unjustified indef blocking of an editor who had identified the sock and had them blocked on several occasions. I decided to leave it be, provide context and contact an admin to implement a range block. I've done it again for the same sock since then. This guy will not stop unless everyone helps to make him stop. I'm not fostering a battlefield mentality. Like many others in the topic area, he already has a battlefield mentality. I'm not a combatant in a battle, I'm an editor trying to stop sockpuppetry, one of the main catalysts for conflict and disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch; nothing there looks problematic, simply normal responses to socks. What specific administrative action are you requesting? (otherwise this should probably be closed for WP:DENY reasons, no need to give these socks another platform) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - these are standard responses to sockpuppets. It's standard practice to remove material added by socks in order to discourage them from returning under a new account (as by removing the material it means they've wasted their time writing it). Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio at Nico Colaluca‎

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 48 hours. —mc10 (t/c) 19:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• 78.79.13.192‎ (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Nico Colaluca‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This IP keeps on adding copyrighted material to this article; three times in six hours to be precise. I've had requests for help at both AIV and RPP rejected, so I come here in the vain hope that somebody will help. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 48h. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 12:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. GiantSnowman 12:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Block log of Mbz1

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.

The block log issue is resolved, and there are no current blocks or edit restrictions. If further dispute resolution for current issues is required, please use the usual mechanisms. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The purpose of this post is to establish whether or not the two harassment blocks of Mbz1 (talk · contribs), dated 24 December 2010 by Rd232 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and 27 December 2010 by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), were proper. I am asking for this review now, over six months after the time of the blocks, because Mbz1 has complained that he has been subject to harsh treatment on the administrator enforcement noticeboards because his record is ostensibly bad. I maintain, for the reasons set down at User talk:Mbz1/special, that the two blocks, and the subsequent unblock, were improper because Mbz1 did not engage in the harassment that was alleged (although I have recognised elsewhere that Mbz1 has an unimpressive record).

Ten days ago, I placed an 'annotation note' in Mbz1's block log, noting the contested nature of the two blocks, in order to prevent his block log being used against him at arbitration enforcement. This was subsequently disputed by User:Unomi, at whose request I am opening this review. Were the blocks of Mbz1 invalid, and, if so, should the block log annotation stand? AGK [•] 11:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an unblock on 27 December, and apparently in effect only a single block by Gwen Gale. Rd232's block was only to lift talk page restrictions. The annotation is a bit unusual, but personally I don't see any point in adjusting the block log further. If anything it'll remind people to look at the substance of the block instead of the size of the log, in the future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Block logs are very rarely examined to see what the block was really for, and this is an argument to allow for additional comments after the block by any admin stating that the block was contested by at least one admin, to indicate that the reasoning for the block might not have been sound, or that other factors existed. Too often we see "look at that person's block log! They must be really, really bad!" when the reasons for a given block may well show that they were behaving in full accord with WP policies in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Zzuuzz, Collect: Fully agree. AGK [•] 12:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications:

1. This was not two blocks, but one; my reblock was to restore talkpage access, and wasn't an endorsement of the block (this isn't clear from the log, unfortunately, I should have noted what I was doing instead of echoing the original block).
2. The relevant ANI discussion is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Mbz1_starting_up_a_dispute_that_was_6-months_gone_past.3B. My comment there was "I would suggest that whilst a week block might have been appropriate to allow the user to reflect on how they're going about things, an indef block of an established contributor really requires rather more discussion. I think Gwen Gale's indef block needs to be reviewed, and if there is a move to formally community ban Mbz1, record that appropriately." I closed the "block review" subthread with the remarks "I've asked the blocking admin to clarify issues some more - that's probably the necessary dialogue at this point since the intention was clearly not for the indefinite block to be permanent."
3. I don't think I can shed any more light on the circumstances beyond this; I don't remember any details. Rd232 ^talk 11:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• What this process reminds me of is a person challenging traffic tickets in court, seeking to have what they perceived to be wrongs stricken, or at least clarified, from their driving record so it will not appear unclean. I don't read everything at AN/I but I've poked around here enough so that I do not recall ever taking the time to quibble over anyone's block log entries that are long-expired. Shall we pore over, say, Malleus' block log and send the bad ones (i.e. many of them) down the memory hole? Tarc (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The block of Mbz seems to have been warranted. Saying "That user user:Daedalus969 will never drop the stick, and he wants to be an administrator!" is quite problematic, given the recently expired interaction ban with said user. (link: [53]). --Frederico1234 (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Commment:

• There are very few blocks that are not contested by someone at some point. I find the precedent of block log annotations based on limited community discussion an unfortunate one, in general.
• While I am not opposed to a review of circumstances regarding Mbz1's block, I do think that we should default to the 'non-annotated' block log until we have an outcome from it.
• 6 months is a long time, especially with the constraints that WP imposes. In this particular case there was voluminous discussion and a lot of activity on Mbz1's talk page which is not captured by the archives - sadly we lack a replay function. I think that we should ensure that this review discussion is brought to the attention of all editors who partook in the original one. un☯mi 13:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reference list of pages believed to be of relevance, feel free to add more:

• 1. AE Report brought by Mbz1 just prior to being blocked
  2. ANI thread which includes Mbz1's blocking and the subsequent block review
  3. Mbz1's talkpage when she was unblocked.

Flicking through this my reading of events doesn't look too good for Mbz1 - she jumped into a conversation about Daedalus969, an editor with whom an interaction ban was imposed. Assuming good faith on her description of events (i.e. he was hounding her, leading to the interaction ban) surely it is not a sensible thing to do and is definitely baiting.

The AN/I thread seems to teeter on the edge of things, but then the SPI was failed. That was a rash and silly move that clearly swung things against her and seems to be the straw that broke the camels back. At that point 1 week seems sensible given that she had been advised to quit involvement with Daedalus969 failed to do so badly.

That's where it gets shaky; things went south fast, and I think the extension to indef was perhaps a little harsh (and certainly controversial). Rd232 seems to have acted well throughout (enabling talk page access, getting a review, working through it).

It was really that SPI that tipped it over the edge, assuming good faith that it was a mistake, it was a really silly one to make especially in light of mzb1's past interaction with Daedalus969. I think that a lot of that event was a mess; but mzb1 behaved inappropriately and the week block at least was warranted. She should have used common sense, dropped the stick and not provoked the incident. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

To add, after a more detailed read; the string of poor judgement decisions, and assumption of bad faith in filing the SPI, that lead up to the one week block make it seem appropriate and probably would have been my response too. The indef block is hard to string into context so I can't really comment on that, other than it seems to have been worked out. Discussions on Mzb1's talk page indicate, though, that she simply did not seem to "get" what the problem was and felt victimized, I am concerned that this new discussion is prompted because she *still* does not understand the problem. To cast it in a metaphor; can you see how this would be inappropriate - If you were whistling loudly in a train carriage and your ex (who happens to be in the same car) asked you to shut it, followed a few minutes later by someone you've never seen before sat further down the train.... would you ask the rest of the carriage whether they had seen the two of them scheming together before you got on the train? That is why the SPI was an assumption of bad faith.

For the purposes of clarity; I think the indef block was not intended as "the end of it all" nor the unblock a "very last chance", and using the indef block against Mzb1 would be inappropriate. The incident, however, stands for itself. --Errant ^(chat!) 14:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nod, that is how I remember the indefinite block - indefinite blocks are often used when behavior modification is deemed a pre-requisite for further participation, forcing the user to reflect rather than 'wait out'. Here is where the indef is imposed, this is the contribs for Mbz1 around that time. The talk page restriction is imposed here and seems to be a reaction to Mbz1 edit warring to insert a block template at the top of the page ( potentially misleading a reader to assume belligerency on the part of the imposing admin ). un☯mi 14:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Your review of my block, Errant, could have been right, if the initial comment made by user:Daedalus969 and a comment made 9 hours later by user:tarc were correct, but they were not. Daedalus969 alleged: "Mbz1 immediately jumped in in an issue they were not, by any stretch of the imagination, involved in", and tarc alleged "fresh off the interaction ban"... (in both cases highlighted by me)
• In reality my interaction ban with Daedalus969 ended more than 6 months before my December post. Six months interval hardly could be called "imitatively" and/or "fresh out". When I read an AN/I post about user:Daedalus969 harassing another user as he harassed me I felt I have to support this editor, so I did.
• So, assuming my interaction ban with the user ended over 6 months ago, assuming AN/I is the place, where most editors comment on the issues they are not involved in, assuming my intention was to help an editor who found themselves into similar situation, assuming I made no personal attacks, Daedalus969's post was highly inappropriate and frivolous.It should have been closed out with no action. Instead I was warned, which is fine, but the post was not either archived nor marked as "resolved", which was wrong because it allowed other users to make an elephant out of a fly 9! hours later. Should I have filed an AN/I request for every one of those users claiming that they are commenting on the thread that they "by any stretch of the imagination, involved in"?
• SPI request I filed was silly, was filed in a hurry, but it was not filed in a bad faith. I filed it because I felt as I am loosing ground, and because I could not imagine how any reasonable uninvolved user would comment on AN/I such frivolous AN/I request.
• This current AN/I thread was initiated by continues demands of the user that was asked by an editor, and by an admin "give Mbz1 some space" and in spite of Beeblebrox asking to end such demands
• I believe this current AN/I thread is absolutely unnecessary and should be closed. Please let's go back to building encyclopedia, and not a new and absolutely unnecessary drama . --Mbz1 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You have to understand that it doesn't come across quite like that to the outside observer, so it is worth taking that on board and considering if you really are squeaky clean of blame. 3 Months is certainly not completely recent - but the fact you were on a mutual interaction ban should tell you something. Interaction bans are designed to disengage editors who simply cannot get away from each other - it's definitely not appropriate to then step back into that arena, even if you want to give moral support to someone else. It is simply re-involving yourself! The thing that kicked this off was unavoidably a bad mistake by you. I can understand you might have been upset and frustrated, hence the ill-informed SPI - but you should know people join in and comment on AN/I threads. There was nothing of substance to suggest that there was any sock-puppetry involved, and even as a mistake the filing of it reflects badly on your reaction. Had you simply ignored the issue and walked away from the (in your view) frivolous AN/I the block would probably not have happened. Both of the turns for the worse were a direct result of mistakes you made; so the take away should be - take responsibility and try to learn from that. We all make mistakes, the real test is whether we can learn from them. A block log is not an issue if you can express understanding of what those mistakes where and why you won't make them again :)

I agree closing this would be a good idea; you've been through this ad-infinitum and whether you agree or disagree with the comments little is gained by putting you through it all over again :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• The only thing this can do after so many months is create more drama. What good can come out of this? Certainly nothing remotely related to the goals of Wikipedia. - BorisG (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Boris, I've seen this response from you over and over again, whenever Mbz1 is scrutinized. I think you need to consider the possibility that it's not the scrutiny that creates the drama, but the actions being scrutinized.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

People seem to be missing the point here. The issue as I understand it is not whether Mbz's block was sound or not. As outlined by this thread, this is about whether or not administrators should be "annotating" block logs with their own opinions. I know that I for one disagree with many blocks that I see, but I don't make a habit of making entries in block logs to register my disapproval. Many blocks are also criticized by numerous users; that is not a reason to annotate a block log either. IMO, the only time a block log should be annotated in such a way is if there is community consensus that a block was inappropriate, and that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. Asking for approval after the fact, as AGK is doing here, is inappropriate. He should have sought consensus first. Gatoclass (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Errant, thank you for your posts. I assure you I gave a full consideration to the thoughts you expressed. may I please ask you to understand me too? There were 4 users that made everything they could to provoke me and to make me blocked, in which they succeeded. My mistake was that I took the bite

I made a correction. At the time of my post in question it actually was 6 (not 3 months) after my interaction ban with the user expired.

I do take a full responsibility for filing SPI request. It was wrong of me, and I apologize for doing this. I did learn from the mistake, and will not file another SPI as this one,but I ask you to note this SPI was filed not to harass anybody, it was filed only because I could not understand how a reasonable user could react on the frivolous request the way he did.I mean this user tried to bring an absolutely uninvolved editor to the thread artificially. This editor, user:EdChem exercised decency, and ignored that improper notification.

But I cannot agree that my initial post on AN/I thread made in a thread started by some one else, was wrong and warranted such an inflammatory reaction.

Neither of my action warranted a week long block, and indefinite block, and removing my talk page access were highly inappropriate.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gatoclass: As I have explained at length previously, I made this annotation because Mbz1's ostensibly bad block log was being used against her to ask for more severe sanctions than would normally be considered for an editor with no record of disruption. I appreciate that this action normally would require community agreement and I was not wrong to pursue that route in the first instance. However, I am not seeking "approval after the fact", but a review of the blocks I noted as being wrong. If that is not forthcoming, then I will remove my annotation. This is a review of the two blocks, not of my actions, because I already accept that they were unfounded (and that I ought to have considered the wider implications of my action). To respond to your first three sentences, you misunderstand this thread. (Of course, I am as always open to a separate review of my actions, but in my view that is not necessary here.) AGK [•] 16:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, you wrote: "I appreciate that this action normally would require community agreement and I was not wrong to pursue that route in the first instance." I suppose you just transposed the order of the two words?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What Gatoclass said. From what I understand of what I've read, this is not something AGK will be doing again. If so, that's about right. As for the question of redaction of the block log after the fact, I don't think there's a case to break that precedent either. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

zzuuzz, your understanding is absolutely right. AGK said he will not do it again. That is why I am asking one more time to close this thread.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think when a precedent is broken in such a way, there is every reason to reverse it. Leaving the entry there must inevitably leave the impression that there was a community consensus for the comment, when it's clear from this discussion there was none. What I find disagreeable about this entry is that AGK in effect took it upon himself to elevate his own personal opinion above that of the community. That is not appropriate and should not be allowed to stand in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - let's revdelete AGK's comment under RD#6 ("..correction of clear and obvious unintended mistakes in previous redactions, changes to redaction based upon communal discussion and clear consensus"). I wonder though, if we couldn't have a means to specifically annotate block logs, to help interpret longer or more complex logs, correct errors etc (a bit like a person's credit reference file has a place for explanatory comments). It could be a protected user subpage of that user, which a bit of Javascript transcludes on the block log. Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not care, if my block log is changed, but I disagree AKG annotation was a mistake. It was not. AGK reviewed my block, and definitely had more information (because I was able to provide this information in a peace) to make more intelligent decision than anybody who supported my block at the time of AN/I thread. An initial block was a mistake, AGK annotation was not.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The correctness of AGK's recent evaluation of your block is distinct from the correctness of annotating your block log without consensus to do so. Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply as a point of order, according to Wikipedia:Revision deletion#Log redaction, log redactions may only be done under WP:RD2 or with "required consensus or Arbcom agreement". –xeno^talk 20:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What Gatoclass and Rd232 said. As Gato put it, "IMO, the only time a block log should be annotated in such a way is if there is community consensus that a block was inappropriate, and that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance. Asking for approval after the fact, as AGK is doing here, is inappropriate. He should have sought consensus first." Unilateral annotations to block logs, absent strong consensus to make them, is just after-the-fact wheel warring, and should not be allowed to stand.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to break this out to a !vote structure, now that Mbz has done so with her motion? Or are threaded comments enough?  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• We need to cut though a mess of general hyperbole and bellyaching all around here. Remember what the 1-second log actually says;
  • "Log note, by request of Mbz1) The two preceding blocks were subsequently disputed, and have the opposition of at least this administrator."
• AGK's addition to clarify what in his own opinion was extremely improper, there are no two ways about that aspect of this. What we are left with is a question of what to do NOW, either everyone drop it, or the 1-second log is revdeleted. Which is it? Tarc (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel per Rd232 - lets sort out further details later / in a separate thread. un☯mi 17:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Comment First I would like to express respect and praise for AGK's decision to bring his public criticism of Mbz1's block here for open review by a wider community. The information Mbz1 provided to AGK is a very partial timeline of the events leading up to the initial one-week block. AGK is not disputing the original one-week block. He is disputing the final block, the decision by Gwen Gale to impose restrictions on Mbz1's posting to admin noticeboards such as ANI and AE. He is also disputing (I think) the decision to change the original one week block to indef. Most of the discussion here has centered on the SPI report that occasioned the one-week block, which was not the reason the one-week block got changed to indef. The SPI report was only a very small part of the reason for requiring Mbz1 to stay off admin boards for six months, later shortened by Gwen Gale to three months.betsythedevine (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support rev-deletion We shouldn't just leave it around just because he did it and won't be doing it again. That doesn't change the fact that such a note shouldn't be there whatsoever and rev-deleting it is the correct course of action in this case. I believe it is the only action necessary and then this thread can be closed, but I feel that it is expressly necessary and needs to be done. Silverseren^C 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I believe first we need to establish the purpose of this thread in particular: is this thread about annotation or is this thread about review of my block. AGK stated it is about review of my block.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close

• Support AGK was forced to start this topic by a very persistent demands made by user:unomi at AGK's talk page. This thread is unnecessary. Let's move on, please.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK's action on your behalf caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages. This is the right place to resolve the issues his action raised. As a deeply involved party, and the one who benefited by his action, and as one who obviously wants the log entry he made on your behalf to remain in place, I don't see that it's your place to keep suggesting that this thread be closed five hours after it was opened, and while it's very active. It needs to remain open.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a mess of your creation, mbz. Let's not forget that. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohiostandard, you would have a point have you not been an involved party too. So far this thread has attracted quite a number of Mbz1's, say, detractors. If they can expess an opinion, and even force this historical debate, she can certainly express an opinion. In my view, this is a waste of time, regardless of who is right and where it ends. As for your statement AGK's action on your behalf caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages.. Yes. By her detractors. Not, as far as I recall, by any uninvolved people (sorry I could have missed something). This has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia, and all with settling scores. - BorisG (talk)

Gee, Boris, it must be wonderful to be able to read minds. Nice of you to share that skill with us here. Maybe those of us who have a different opinion about this matter than you do could just let you post on our behalf, instead of taking the trouble ourselves? Since you understand our motives better than we do, with your "settling scores" comment, that would certainly be a more efficient process. Would you like to tell the community what I'm thinking now, too? ;-)

As for your suggestion that I'm an "involved party", I absolutely do think Mbz is a net negative to the project, and make no bones about it. If you think that makes me an involved party who thus has no right to express an opinion, then permit me to point out that you're one of her strongest supporters, so under your reasoning perhaps you shouldn't be allowed to express any opinion yourself.  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

::Ohiostandard, you've got it backwards. It is not me who denied your right to express an opinion, it is you who sought to deny Mbz1's right to express her opinion. I just say if Unomi, tarc and you can express an opinion, certainly Mbz1, who this is about, can too. BTW I am not arguing anything about the merit of the blocks, or Mbz1's action, or AGK's action. I am arguing about this excessive wikilawyering effort, which has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. But you are right, I can't read minds, maybe people who started all this wanted to calm things down, but they should have known better that this will cause more drama, and it has, hasn't it? - BorisG (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It is impossible to be more involved than you are. And if Mbz is a net negative to the project, I'd like to hear arguments as to why you're a net positive. I doubt hanging around admin board stirring up shit counts as a positive for the project. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Let's see: I could mention that friends and strangers both seem to like giving me barnstars for my contributions, and in about equal numbers, too. But maybe to be concise I'll just resort to this argumentum ad Jimbonem. Some people, at least, don't seem to mind my participation at AN/I.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Jimbo would be proud of your ongoing witch hunt. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support closing. @OhioStandard. AGK's action caused no controversy. No one should care about annotations of Mbz1 blocks except Mbz1 and uninvolved administrators. It was action by several other editors that "caused a tremendous amount of controversy, across many pages" including this one. Can you people just drop the stick please? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That is simply not true, perhaps you have not been following the discussions? See [54], [55], [56] and the comments of AGK here- he acknowledges that the move was controversial - how could you find otherwise? un☯mi 17:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It may or may not be controversial, but this can be decided by uninvolved administrators and does not require an aggressive pushing of the issue by the same group of people who continue their campaign at numerous pages. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment If we are seeking to limit this vote to uninvolved editors, then perhaps all votes so far should be erased? Uninvolved AFAIK editors who strongly objected to AGK's public critique of Mbz1's block log: Jehochman [57] and SilverSeren[58] betsythedevine (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

**OK good idea. I am strking out my comments and hope all other involved people will follow. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose until vote about rev-deletion above is given time to be voted on. Silverseren^C 17:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Motion to RevDel and then possibly move discussion to AN

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.

In the interests of minimising drama, I've gone ahead and done this on the basis of being a consensus here. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Per discussion above, RevDelete AGK's annotation, and then move the discussion to WP:AN to review the block itself (it's not really an incident), assuming anyone has the stomach to expend further effort on examining thise. Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. Oh sure, the very same users user:Demiurge1000,user:betsythedevine, user:tarc, user:unomi, user:Dayewalker that made me blocked and/or supported my indefinite block last time will be happy to "examine" the review of my block. :-)--Mbz1 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I had very little to do with your block as I remember - in fact I supported the review of the indef one, stating that you could be unblocked within the hour. Not everyone who isn't blindly supportive of you is against you Mbz1, a valuable lesson if there ever was one. un☯mi 18:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

unomi, you supported a review? let me please refresh you memory: "You do realize that she just came out of an interaction ban? and upon re-initiating interaction she was asked to refrain by prodego, yet she continued still? I don't think there is any good reason to set a time period on this", and there were a few more like this, but it was not enough for you, and as always you tried to explain the users who opposed my block that they were wrong. unomi, what is the point to make a statement that is really easy to verify as being absolutely false? --Mbz1 (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have to ask you the same thing. Anyone reading those diffs will see exactly what my concerns were, and are. un☯mi 18:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, per WP:NOTTHEM, "You are (were) blocked because of what you did and not because of what others did". Nobody "made" you blocked - you are responsible for your own actions, and you were blocked as a result of them. You opened a meritless SPI case against me, that was your choice; I didn't open it against you. And now your latest round of forum shopping seems to be an attempt to make sure that people who disagree with you are no longer allowed to express their concerns about your behaviour. You really seem not to want to even try to edit in a collaborative manner. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel, as noted above. un☯mi 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Support revdel to return the matter to the correct starting point, per Gatoclass, Rd232, Silverseren, Unomi, Demiurge et. al. If the community chooses to pursue a discussion subsequently about whether to annotate Mbz1's block log, or anyone else's, we can have that discussion once we're starting from the right beginning. Would also support subsequent move to AN.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as above. Owain the 1st (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support RevDel, as above. I commend AGK for bringing this to the board for discussion. I support removing the annotation, although I see nothing productive about continuing this discussion of old blocks at AN or ANI. The only reason I feel the block log annotation should be deleted is that Mbz1 has a mindset of never having done anything to deserve any kind of preventative measures. Either the admin is involved or canvassed, or the information was biased, or some other perceived circumstance occurs that prevents her from fully understanding why she's been blocked so many times. Finding one admin who disagreed with a previous block further inflames that situation. Dayewalker (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

  I confirmed my points with the differences, while you simply screaming.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for helping prove my point, Mbz1. "Screaming" is not something I've ever done at you, or any other Wikipedia editor. Dayewalker (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome, but I still see no differences to prove any of your points.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment let's RevDel it and let's stop this circus please. Just RevDel it, and close the thread. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as inappropriate use of block-log. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel. This would take us back to status quo ante and allow any further annotation to be the result of concensus rather than being unilateral. AGK has said that he should have sought wider feedback before making the annotation, and he has also said it would not be appropriate for him to revdel the annotation himself, for reasons of transparency. Revdel of the entry seems an obvious step forward to simply and easily resolve this aspect of the problem. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support RevDel – This seems to be an inappropriate use of the block log, and could allow further discussion on WP:AN, if needed. —mc10 (t/c) 19:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel as per Dayewalker, Rd232 and others. Not sure what if anything should be done about the request by AGK for review of Mbz1's blocks. The indef block by Gwen Gale was already reviewed at the time, does he want people to re-review that? It seems he wants people to review the December 27 restrictions on admin board postings, but in that case it would make sense to explain more clearly why he thinks they were wrong. betsythedevine (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel -- This sort of thing will allow disruptive users to suck up to likeminded admins who can write little notes for them to justify the behavior that got them blocked. If there is a problem with a block, it should be discussed by a large group of editors on a noticeboard, not "annotated" by a sysop who might happen to be biased in one way or another (perhaps holding similar political views as the blocked user, and feeling that the "other side" unfairly campaigned to get the user blocked). Mbz1's behavior is clearly what resulted in the blocks, but if Mbz1 really wants to argue that again, he should do it on a noticeboard, rather than finding a particular admin to favorably annotate things for him. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support - remove the 1-second block, it was inappropriate. Question for rd232 though; what block of mbz1's is to be reviewed? Is this user under a current restriction? I had thought these had all expired by now. Tarc (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I guess it would be Gwen Gale's various blocks and unblocks in December (perhaps AGK can clarify - he started the thread with the review request). The restriction noted in the 27 December unblock doesn't expire til end June. Rd232 ^talk 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Per this thread Gwen amended the sanction to expire on 27th of March. It is possible that this should be noted in the block log, subsequent discussion on AN or elsewhere could address that. un☯mi 19:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Egads, what a tangled pain in the ass. I'd say revdel the 1sec entry and just call the rest even, or time served, or whatever we need to do to stop talking about this person, and let's hope they do not reappear as a a subject in AN/I anytime soon. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've not examined the merits of the blocks underlying this TLDR dramafest, but in general administrators should not misuse their admin tools to turn the block log into a discussion forum in which they can voice their opinion about the merits of a block. Just imagine, if this catches on, we can conduct whole ANI drama thread discussions entirely via one-second block log entries: "Note that I support the block." "Note that I oppose it and the previous admin is an idiot." Etc. Yes, this would sure make the block log useful and readable. Delete this silly one-second block if that is technically possible, trout the blocker and move on.  Sandstein  20:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
• Support revdel with the additional comment that if you're concerned with it being held against you, quietly leaving this account and stepping in to a new user account with more mature behavior would be the preferred way to do it. -- ۩ Mask 20:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • cf WP:CLEANSTART. Rd232 ^talk 20:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

BLP violation on Lorraine Williams

76.185.142.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of edits that introduced a massive WP:BLP violation to the article Lorraine Williams. I reverted the change with the explanation that this violated a policy, but the IP user reverted my change.[59] They posted an explanation for these edits to their user page, but I don't think this excuses this action. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it on the grounds of editorializing. If the IP persists, semi-protection of the article might also be called for. See WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the user talk page comment infringe on BLP at all? I have no idea what he's talking about so I can't judge. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's something about scalps and trophies, which sounds like BLP editorializing. I've asked for semi-protection of the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, who is 76.185.142.155 and why are they so upset?; Shared IP addresses can make things interesting, but the details seem useful to add to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.142.155 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits that consist of undocumented accusations of destruction of property & an unflattering nickname, while "interesting," are not allowed on Wikipedia. We're not a smear rag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The POG thing (which sounds like insider-gossip) is in the prevous version of the article, merely in a footnote and apparently sourced; but moving that to the lead, along with the unsourced stuff about trophies and such (which also sounds like insider-gossip) seems to be strictly POV-pushing and editorializing on the part of the IP. Once the article is protected and/or the IP is blocked, it should be safe to revert the IP's junk out of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Much of this came up at presentations at a game convention where there was significant discussion about how the nickname POG did not have the connotations or denotations that it had picked up over the years. The material on trophy taking is something that Lorraine has exhibited a great deal of pride in, and her collection of trophies occupies a prominent place (or did) in her office.

The purging of TSR, both of artwork and of the detritus that was left behind is an historical incident, and one that has a great deal of discussion.

However, there are some good points made about the POV. From one perspective, trophy taking can be seen as negative, rather than a triumph. There are a number of people who would prefer that the nick name POG be kept, not as one more trophy, but instead as the other meanings it has picked up over the years.

The interaction between the purging, the material that was recovered, and the various auctions of historical memoriabilia that tie into it may be important for collectors, but may be very vulnerable to POV issues since some people see it as a clean sweep and others as vandalism. That could call for a more neutral approach and a rewrite.

As a result, much of this not insider gossip, but a response to industry gossip and the recent interest various historical events have drawn due to the attention they have been getting with the emergence over the past 5-6 years of a considerable market in D&D source documents and such.

Even responding to industry slang and terminology, and even discussions of the historical event, the artwork and other matters that were recovered, and how those ended up in auctions may (a) not belong in this part of the wiki and (b) if they do, would require edits for POV issues.

There is a massive amount of source material in the discussions at The Acaneum, along with the auction documents and authenticity issues.

Locking the topic for two weeks might well solve much of this, especially since the poster has stated that if there was disagreement, he was dropping out of providing content. Seems he would rather quit than object to what appears to be censorship and restrictions on knowledge, in spite of the well founded concerns. Perhaps he can not appreciate the difference.

A couple weeks and then it can be said what others have to say on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.222.1 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to the BLP-violating version after two weeks does not sound like a good idea. You can discuss this on the article's talk page instead, if you prefer. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The above verges on violating BLP, and the BLP-violating information is still on the IP user's Talk page. Isn't anybody going to remove it? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin should (1) remove all the editor's BLP violations; (2) semi-protect the user's talk page; (3) block the user for a suitable interval. UNLESS the IP voluntarily removes all his BLP-violations ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request to block User:Carachi

The following is the report I had posted on the vandalism reporting page where I was advised by an administrator to take this issue here:

Carachi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User has been making the same vandalizing edit (about 6 times already) to the article Soviet War in Afghanistan for the past 10 days or so. Myself and several other users are being continuously having to undo his vandalism, see revision history of that article. He has been warned several times already. There is an entire section on the talk page of that article relating to the vandalism he is doing but instead of discussing (as has been told to him already) he continues unabated. I did not check his edit history on the other articles he seems to be vandalizing, but this behaviour definitely deserves blocking IMO.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.210 (talk • contribs) 13:09, June 06, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Carachi is insisting on adding that particular banner to the article, since I'm unfamiliar with the politics of the region. The continued uncommented reverts, though, definitely constitute an edit war. This might be better handled at WP:ANEW. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Carachi and User:A young communist for 60 hours for edit warring, and counselled them both about editing professionally. I have also warned them both that their accounts will be blocked indefinitely if they continue to edit the article disruptively. In my view, we should do so quite readily if either editor continues this kind of behaviour, because edits of that nature are grossly unhelpful. If the edit warring continues after the blocks expire, any editor is welcome to file another report and cite my comment, or notify me directly. I also suspect that one or both editors are editing anonymously, in addition to reverting through their registered accounts, or that some other anonymous editors are disruptively editing this article. If somebody with checkuser access notices this thread, it would be helpful if they could look into this aspect of things. AGK [•] 14:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, help!

I don't know is this the right place, but here it is. I have a problem with user Nedim Ardoğa regarding the List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. Now, this problem can be seen as a "Content dispute", but it isn't. IMO, we are talking here about WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Now, all of mine 'good faith' is now 'gone with the wind', and I need professional help from Administrators. From the first day when I started editing this article (I left him a message on his talk page and the article didn't have any inline citations), I was constantly "sabotaged", although I informed user of any significant changes (edits, Peer review, changes and submission to FL). I have removed almost everything from the article which he has asked me on the talk page. I also left the article some time without any edits from my side (I only used talk page for discussion). On the talk page, his answer was this, and he left me editing. After I have informed user of submission to FL, he started edit war, IMO only to disrupt possible FL status of this article. Now, I am frustrated! What should I do? I can't solve this even with the quality sources, per his reply on the talk page "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable..." Please, can somebody look the talk page of this article, and give me some solution to this problem. All my talk has no effect, and while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, he is acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable ones (per his opinion, not per sources). He is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (I guess that I should have asked for his permission to start editing, since just notifying him wasn't sufficient). Now, I am long on Wikipedia, but this is mine first encounter with 'Administrators' noticeboard', so please excuse me if I have made any procedural errors while doing this complaint. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First thing, no, you have not made any procedural errors when bringing this issue here. Secondly, without reviewing the various histories of the article(s) or the user talkpage, it appears that you have not exhausted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes; you may suggest Wikipedia:Mediation in the dispute, or request a Wikipedia:Third opinion, both to try and initiate a resolution between the two of you editors, or you might try a Wikipedia:Request for comment at the article talkpage to try and get further third party opinion on the validity of your edits and the removal of same by the other party. Only when dispute resolution is either exhausted or when one party does not follow the consensus arrived at during the dispute resolution process should Admin intervention be considered - because admins cannot act to resolve content disputes, but only conduct concerns. Until it becomes apparent to other, uninvolved, parties that there are WP:OWNership issues, or other possible policy and guideline violations, there is little admins can do (except where such actions are obvious abuse). I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Russian-speaking administrator needed

Please could a Russian-speaking administrator verify whether File:SU-152 "Taran" (2).jpg and File:SU-152 "Taran".jpg are copyright violations and speedy delete them if they are. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Block user Hannahdina

Hi. I've repeatedly asked this user to stop vandalising pages, to no effect. Cheers Nikthestoned 15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No need to come here for persistent run-of-the-mill vandalism. The place to report is at AIV. User indef blocked. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Tendentious editor returns

In summer 2008, TopCat666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was engaged in editing the article Wandsworth Parks Police. He is a member of the parks police, but has apparently ignored WP:AVOIDCOI throughout. His editing pattern consisted largely of unexplained, or misleadingly explained reverts of valid changes, and comments on the talk page (now archived twice) that were disruptive, aggressive and unconstructive. He drove User:Dibble999 away from the article and nearly drove me away as well.

Over the course of the dispute, in addition to repeated talk page vandalism, he tried to out myself (using a name from an email I sent to the Council, and therefore breaking UK law) and another editor and ended up trying some form of legal threat ("My UNISON rep may yet report your action for official sanction", my wikilink, diff). In hindsight, his conduct then would have probably warranted administrator action then but I wasn't fully aware of this at the time. Eventually, we managed to leave it on a somewhat coherent version in autumn 2008.

He has now returned and has immediately taken up his previous editing style, using references that do not support the claims he is making (diff). Despite my warning him (diff), he reverted my edit 9 days later, and apparently found it rather amusing. I gave him what amounts to a final warning (diff), and the article was quiet again, until he again reverted it today (diff) with the edit summary "Removed POV revisions biased by failed applicant" (for the record, I'm not a failed applicant!) and left a fairly aggressive message on his talk page (diff).

At the very least, his actions this year amount to slow edit-warring, as he has showed no inclination to engage in discussion, which is all the more important as he has a clear conflict of interest. I frankly cannot see him adding anything constructive to the encyclopaedia; despite both myself and a host of other editors trying to guide him and alert him to our policies and guidelines for a considerable period of time. ninety:one 18:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The age of the initial activity, IMO, precludes administrator action, and reduces the issue to a content dispute that should be handled through the dispute resolution process. However, I do note that User:TopCat666 is edging toward fouling WP:3RR with (based on edit summary commentary) aggressive reversions. If TopCat666 does have a conflict of interest, he/she should definitely step back from the article. In the interest of looking at the "big picture", I also note another user has removed material that has been flagged with "Citation needed" since 2008, and I try to keep link rot in mind when I see citations being removed. Still, from an editorial standpoint, I'd prefer to see a citation replaced with a "dead link" tag rather than just chopped out of the article. Just my 2p worth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Editor asked politely to remain civil and collegial on talk page. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 18:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well first of all I am not that good at adding links so if should have put some in along with this message you will have to let me off of that one. So what have we here? This is blatantly ninety-one showing you all his true colours. This guy has ridiculed and removed what I have written. pretended to discuss edits and when he could not win those discussion resorted to the above. Accusing me of what he is actually doing and doing it right now. How could I chase off other wiki users? Dibble999 edited the Wandsworth Parks Police article after a lull of 3 years placing on it a proposal, this was unecessary(lets remove it). To prevent an editing war I added what I beleive to be a balanced argument to why these proposals will not take place and used citations. These citations are every bit as credible as anyone else's. Ninety-One dismissed and removed these without discussion, I have put them back, leaving a friendly message to that fact. He has taken the message and tried to turn it into ammunition to obtain other wiki users to help him. Please by all means look into the allegations by ninety-one that he states that I accused him of using a sock puppet, that I broke the law etc, etc. Please use an open mind and consider why he has gone to such a great lengths to tailor the article to what he wants and how the status quo has exisited since early 2008. In his own words the article was acceptable to him (ninety-one). By the way if it makes any difference I do not work for the Parks Police (rtd), but maintain a keen interest. I certainly will find it strange if no one thinks ninety-one is is somewhat unreasonable, uncivil and just maybe having an axe to grind with me due to me knowing his past history. TopCat666 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't work for them, you obviously work (or worked) close to them: in this 2008 edit, you state "Ninty:one I received your email; you failed to mention the Freedom of Information Act (FOI) anywhere in this email. However before you start with you do not have to mention it, I have authorised the standard reply you received as member of the public requesting such information.".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

RTD stands for retired if that helps TopCat666 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, got it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bite at any of that, but just to pick up on one bit there: I haven't said that you accused me of sock-puppetry - not sure where that's come from. ninety:one 20:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Zurich

User:TomZH3030 is constantly edit warring using sockpuppets. mgeo talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice User:TomZH3030 has already been blocked by an admin. As to the possibility of sockpuppetry, that should be handled at WP:SPI. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone block 95.178.250.68, he is clearly a sockpuppet of TomZH3030, see [60] and [61]. He also edited with the IP adress 95.178.250.35 ([62]). Regards. mgeo talk 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Trumpkin

This is an editor with a recent history of strange and disruptive behaviour associated with the hoax edits at St John's Jerusalem, and certified sockpuppetry by User:Stellas4lunch - though Trumpkin himself was cleared of being a sock of Stellas4lunch. Now, following the latest dispute at that article following which User:Jokaz1892 was also blocked as a sock of Stellas4lunch, we have Trumpkin adding a sock template to his own page, and creating a whole series of new beer-related usernames to which he is also adding sock templates. This is certainly disruptive and timewasting, at best. Not sure where to go next - a Checkuser on Trumpkin as a sock of User:Irvine22, perhaps? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... I didn't suggest that User:Irvinetwentytwo was a sock of User:Irvine22. That would be too obvious, surely? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

...or then again - [63]. Yeah, right. But I am confused - which is presumably the object of this whole exercise. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Irvinetwentytwo - whoever he is by his edits on this page he is attempting to incriminate me...Trumpkin (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain these edits? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I went somewhat overboard but as I said on User_talk:Dougweller, Stellas4lunch has made me look quite the fool on a couple of occasions now due to my naivety and love of historical buildings and I'm starting to get somewhat frustrated. He seems to be able to evade his block with ease and I was wondering whether it might be the case that a wider range block would help to sort out the problem?Trumpkin (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Irvinetwentytwo is  Confirmed as Stellas4lunch (talk · contribs); I am unsure of any connection between Stellas and Irvine22, and as far as I am concerned, they're separate sockmasters. –MuZemike 19:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see that sock account renamed out of the way, so that nobody gets the impression that Irvine22 has continued socking, which may likely not be the case. –MuZemike 20:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Trumpkin, you tagged a bunch of user pages as being sockpuppets of Stellas4lunch, was that reported anywhere or did you just tag them? The handful of users I looked at aren't blocked. We usually don't tag user pages unless they're part of an investigation or they've been blocked as sockpuppets. -- Atama頭 20:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A few of them are blocked and none of them have been used for constructive edits and extrapolating from Stellas4lunch's naming trend I considered them suspect and I just wanted to make sure that perhaps we could get rid of a trench of Stellas4lunch's puppets so that this doesn't have to happen again. Trumpkin (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

That's totally fine, it probably should have been brought up here or at WP:SPI so that someone would do something about them. If I have the time I might look at them but it would be better if someone more familiar with Stellas4lunch did it. Mostly I wanted to know if there was already someone working on them. -- Atama頭 20:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)