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

Wikihounding and disruptive editing?

Crossposted to WP:VPM

I just tagged every single subpage and article in progress within my userspace as {{db-u1}} and if things continue on as they have been I suppose I'll be posting a {{retired}} notice soon as well. Despite repeated AN/I reports regarding the disruptive and tendentious editing behaviours of Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme over the last year and a half, it seems I still cannot edit without these editors wikihounding me while working together as a group.

My main editing focus had been to topics related to computing and online/electronic forms of communication. These were not areas in which these three individuals previously edited (the sole exception being Miami33139's prods/AfDs of multimedia-related software articles).

Even after taking the behaviour issues all the way to ArbCom, where the case was unfortunately delayed and overshadowed by the EEML case (which was in progress at the same time), very little was addressed. [1] [2]

I personally made a huge mistake in allowing myself to be baited by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma who were editing my comments on an article talk page [3] (where they then also edit warred with others [4]) and reposted parts of my comments out of context (and in a manner in which made them appear to have been posted that way by me) on a talk page that was part of the ArbCom case. [5]

Allowing myself to be baited resulted in ArbCom handing out a "civility restriction" for me, [6] (which maybe I really deserved for allowing myself to be baited in the first place) with the behaviours of the three individuals largely still not addressed. [7] The case evidence I presented [8] was not used by the drafting arbitrator and no mention of Theserialcomma's disruptive behaviours were brought up in the proposed decision he drafted. (I suspect this is because I was the only editor who presented evidence of Theserialcomma's behaviours.) The omission in the proposed decision was openly questioned by others but was still not addressed. [9] The way in which the case name was chosen most likely did not help matters all that much either. [10]

After the ArbCom case was closed, the wikihounding increased and I finally took a break from editing articles. I tried doing Commons work for awhile but I found I still needed to update pages on Wikipedia which used the images. In doing so I found that just making those small noncontroversial edits was enough to trigger the wikihounding so I cut back on my editing even further.

I made another huge mistake when I vented some of my frustrations via email at Sandstein with being wikihounded and harassed off-wiki by Theserialcomma. He responded by blocking me for 18 days. [11] After I was unblocked by another administrator who reviewed what was said and had transpired, I immediately apologised to Sandstein for the venting [12] [13] as I had already realised that venting my frustrations at him really wasn't the right thing to do and I felt bad about it. This incident generated an enormous amount of email discussion.

While blocked for 18 days, I spent the better part of it reviewing my own behaviours as well as my interactions with Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme. While doing so I also began to review their interactions with other editors. [14] I documented Theserialcomma's interactions with others in detail [15] and began to do the same for Miami33139 [16] and JBsupreme. [17] Due to time constraints, I stopped work on this and never picked back up on it after I was unblocked.

A civility restriction was later put in place for JBsupreme [18] due to his continued behaviours but it really doesn't seem to have had much of an effect. [19]

I just took an entire month off from editing due to both the continued wikihounding and my workload. [20] In that month, Miami33139 regained his internet access and picked right back up where he left off. [21] Some of his very first actions were to MFD and CSD pages I had sandboxed, [22] including one which JBsupreme moved from the sandbox to mainspace. [23] [24]

Some of Miami33139's next actions included MFDing subpages from within my userspace, [25] [26] (which both Theserialcomma and JBsupreme then became involved in as well. [27] [28] [29] [30]) Miami33139 then restarted his previous behaviour of going though my contributions and removing/prodding/AfDing things which I had edited many, many months earlier. Miami33139 has done similar things to editors other than myself (such as Beyond My Ken/Ed Fitzgerald and others), but like Theserialcomma and JBsupreme, Miami33139 seems to try to make just enough non-controversial edits or edits to related/similar pages to disguise his other actions.

A number of editors and administrators contacted me via email and let me know of Miami33139's return and subsequent MFDing of subpages within my userspace. Several further suggested I not become involved in those MFDs as the actions by Miami33139 and Theserialcomma appeared to be an attempt at baiting me shortly before my civility restriction expired (see above).

I really have tried to do some good here on Wikipedia and improve coverage of computing topics which have been in dire need of expansion. Due to the wikihounding however, I'm beginning to feel as though my efforts have largely been a waste of time.

As I finish writing this, I also note JBsupreme removed my CSD tag from one of the in-progress subpages within my userspace, moved it to his own userspace, and then blanked it. [31] [32] [33]

Sigh.

I think I'll take another short break from Wikipedia as my workload really hadn't decreased just yet anyway. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• just one preliminary point--moving the material and then blanking with the history intact preserves the content, and I think it's acceptable behavior. At least I hope it is, because I once did something similar myself to preserve content for future use. However, surely he should have notified you he was going to do it. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It doesn't really tally, though, does it? JBsupreme wants the page deleted because it "borders on abuse of userspace", but will go to all of this effort in order to retain it under xyr own user space, including reverting a deletion request by the person who is, purportedly, "abusing" xyr user space with it in the first place. This just doesn't add up. Uncle G (talk) 01:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Something else I noticed after posting the above is that Hm2k did something similar with another draft I had within my userspace. What was odd is after he moved it to his userspace, Miami33139 immediately initiated a MFD for that in-progress article. [34] I know Hm2k has good intentions as far as improving the draft article so if he wants to work on it, he has my support. The immediate MFD by Miami33139 is certainly strange though. (It is probably also worth noting that Theserialcomma wikihounded and baited Hm2k previously as well, eventually leading him to lash out and be blocked for a short while. Theserialcomma is also the one who initiated an AfD for mIRCStats in the first place, when the wikihounding by Theserialcomma first began.)

      Shortly after JBsupreme moved the above mentioned draft from my userspace, he also removed the majority of the content of Comparison of mobile Internet Relay Chat clients [35] just before initiating an AfD. [36] This is actually the second time JBsupreme has attempted an AfD for this page and the MO of blanking the article before nominating it for AfD is one of his regular tactics. Considering how JBsupreme argues against reliable sources and so on in AfDs [37] and considering that even an ArbCom restriction has failed to curb his behaviour, I honestly don't see any point in even trying to participate in that AfD because I feel he would just attack me (as he has done previously) anyway.

      Sigh. What a complex, tangled mess. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

    • Given this edit [38] I moved the page back to my userspace and redirected it for the time being. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing for admin to do here, this has been to Arbcom

This is wrong forum. Arbcom is over here. Paranoid ramblings of Tothwolf that everyone is out to get him were not found credible by Arbcom. I went through and suggested deletion for two of his walled garden of previously deleted articles, which were stale from 6 to 15 months. 6 months is normal timeframe at MfD to improve deleted content or have it thrown out. This is normal followup on the deletion process of things I have been keeping track of. Other than his walled garden, I ain't following his editing or hounding him. He thinks anyone who edits his toys is hounding him. Enough paranoia.

Thank you to all who previously commented for letting those mentioned in the paranoid ranting know about it, as expected by the header on the noticeboard. Miami33139 (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While not meaning to be a prosecutor or some such, but isn't calling the fellow's comments "paranoid ranting" a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL? I am sure it can be described with a bit less crass? Basket of Puppies 07:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Persistent unfounded accusations also a violation of NPA and civil. It is not ad hominem to say he is paranoid. It fit pattern. You see above he accuses three editors of persecuting him. What shown in previous dispute resolution was all disagreements result in Tothwolf writing long screeds about being persecuted. For two years when someone edit his articles in a way he don't like he runs to a noticeboard talking about people out to get him. Enough of that! Paranoid is simple adjective succinctly describing situation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So then there should be two blocks- one for him and one for you. And how is it not ad hominem to call him paranoid? It's minimally NPA. Just don't do it. Basket of Puppies 08:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

BOP, paranoid can describe a pattern of behaviour as well as a mental illness. It would be better if Miami says "displays paranoid behaviour" but I can't see it as a PA myself.Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think intent also has a lot to do with whether or not something can be considered a personal attack. Shortly before Jehochman tried to help me with filing an ArbCom case, [39] Miami33139 made this comment [40] in which he also called me "paranoid and delusional". While the term "paranoid" can be used in a way in which it isn't a personal attack, I think the way in which Miami33139 uses the word both above and in previous discussions really does seem to be meant as a personal attack.

I believe this comment made by Miami33139 yesterday could also be considered a personal attack. It is also clearly an attempt at escalation, which is something he been warned for previously. [41]

To refocus this back on the behavioural issues (which as I noted above is why I brought this here), Miami33139's current behaviour seems to fit the very definitions of tendentious and disruptive editing to the "T". I found that the only way Miami33139 and the other two named above would leave me alone was to be completely "absent" from Wikipedia and not edit anything. This doesn't seem right.

Disruptive editors who engage in tendentious editing, wikihounding, bullying, etc have a history of being restricted and eventually blocked if restrictions fail to curb such behaviour. Unfortunately, it seems like many times such disruptive editors end up doing a lot of damage to the community (often including the morale of other editors) before the community notices and finally decides to take action. It seems like the random page blank/junk text/explicit image type vandals, etc (which in general really seem to do far less overall long-term damage to the encyclopedia) are dealt with much faster than those who take steps to attempts to evade detection and scrutiny of their actions. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF applies here. From what I can tell you have a prior history with Tothwolf, so your objective judgement is questionable. Simply express your concern and don't make asumptions about other users behavior. Hasteur (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, calling someone paranoid is a violation of NPA any way you look at it. It's not appropriate at all for this project. I'll have a look at the NPA policy, but I doubt there is an exemption for calling someone paranoid. Basket of Puppies 22:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. In the circumstances, its also baiting. I would be somewhat reluctant to block on the basis of what's said at this intrinsically contentious page, but I think it's way over the line. Tothwolf is certainly entitled to come here and say that disruption has continued even after an arb com decision which should have put an end to it. The question is whether we can do anything about it without a second arb com. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is and combined with the tl;dr comment above, I'd say a block is in order. It's very obvious that he's come here to try and inflame the situation, troll and harass the other user.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't use NPA as a bludgeon. The whole statement above was basically baiting (as DGG says) and shouldn't have been said, but we are getting really parsimonious in referring to words describing actions (paranoid ramblings) to mean words describing actors. when accusing someone of making personal attacks, a semantic discussion shouldn't be necessary. If you find yourself in a good faith semantic discussion after leveling an accusation that someone is making a personal attack, they likely haven't violated NPA. Remember, NPA is a big stick in policing discourse, don't use it unless it is abundantly clear that it is necessary. Protonk (talk) 01:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you misread DGG's comments. DGG says that calling Tothwolf paranoid is baiting and that he is entitled to make his statement. Stop calling other people paranoid. As far as I can see, there is a concerted effort by at least JBsupreme and Miami33139 to hound Tothwolf off Wikipedia, so I wouldn't say Tothwolf is at all paranoid in suggesting this. Miami's comments to "Call the Waaaambulance"[42] are crossing the line into mocking. Fences&Windows 03:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Tothwolf is not being paranoid in suggesting there is an attempt to hound him off Wikipedia, it's a reasonable perception of what is going on. See the comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Arbitrator views and discussion. Dougweller (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intent to "bait" so I have removed my statement and will restate it. This accusation that I am hounding him is false. I work on deleting a lot of articles and it is not a personal crusade against him. Arbcom listened to him bring this argument months ago, maybe even a year. They found it baseless. I am tired of hearing this accusation. Making persistent unfounded accusations is against NPA, That Tothwolf violates NPA by making persistent unfounded accusations is part of Arbcom finding of fact. Miami33139 (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What was your intent with the "tl;dr" comment? Did you think that was a helpful comment to make towards someone you're engaged in a dispute with? Do you honestly think that could be reasonably seen as anything but?--Crossmr (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, Miami33139 removed that statement you are referring to along w/ his strikeout of the above remarks. So it might be right to assume it to be retracted. Protonk (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would consider his statement "It was not my intent to "bait"" to be a bald-faced lie. Taken in conjunction with the previous tl;dr post, his nomination of articles in Tothwolf's userspace and his canvassing of cohorts JBSupreme and Theserialcomma with blatantly taunting language (whaaambulance, whine one one) , there should be no other interpretation of his behavior. Redacting a comment days later in an effort to avoid being blocked is not a real redaction. Seth Kellerman (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Placing {{[[wikipedia:Substitution|subst]]:[[Template:ANI-notice|ANI-notice]]}} on their talk page not canvassing when they are mentioned here by the original poster who did not follow instruction do it himself. I use joking language with people who have been through this accusation before on their page, because it would be inappropriate here. I am obvious frustrated after ArbCom say Tothwolf should stop making these accusation, and here he is still making accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes perhaps canvassing isn't the proper legal word for it. Though there must be a wikipedia policy out there which discourages contacting your cohorts so they may participate in a pile-on against your rival. WP:TAGTEAM, perhaps? (I am of course aware that citing WP:TAGTEAM may itself be considered incivil; I feel that there is adequate evidence of malicious collusion between Miami and JBSupreme targeting Tothwolf to justify the citation)

But more obfuscation from you - you didn't use Template:ANI-notice, did you? No, you accused Tothwolf of "dialing whine one one" for the "waahmbulance".

Let us read WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility, section 1d. belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts

Would you care to explain how your tl;dr post and your posts to JBSupreme and Theserialcomma's talk pages were not gross violations of civility? Seth Kellerman (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You miss the part that I did use ANI-NOTICE template and it was Tothwolf responsibility, not mine, to apply that notice. The pile-on here, is on me, even after Arbcom found six months ago I was not hounding him. What is your part here, Seth, to inflame against me? Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That was 6 months ago. That isn't a carte blanche to do whatever you want for the rest of your wikicareer with impunity. Just because you weren't hounding him 6 months ago doesn't mean you aren't now.--Crossmr (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Retracted or otherwise, it goes to his claim that he wasn't trying to bait. There is no other way to see it. Using joking language with a user that you're that embroiled with is just inappropriate. It can do little beyond inflame the situation.--Crossmr (talk) 06:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not use joking language with a user I am embroiled with. I used it with users who were similarly accused without being notified of the accusation. Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Tothwolf seems to have taken great issue with you and you replied to his comment with "tl;dr" I asked you specifically how that could be seen any other way. If it isn't joking language, and it wasn't baiting and it wasn't hounding, what was it?--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is the appropriate public/admin response to a comment like that after it has been retracted? Protonk (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is how and why it was retracted. The retraction seems just as bad as the comment as his reasoning is quite poor and comes across as disingenuous. The appropriate response is to determine whether the user actually acknowledges the problem and if there is a likelihood the behaviour will continue. So far he seems to be attempting to excuse it away and deflect blame and not genuinely own up to it which is an indication that the behaviour may continue at a future date to me.--Crossmr (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even notice the section header Miami33139 used in this edit until Seth Kellerman linked to it: "==W<span style="background:white; color:white; ;">h</span>ine suggestion==" [43] This renders as "Whine suggestion" with the 'h' in white text on a white background. It seems to fit the same pattern of the other edit. [44] --Tothwolf (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for transparency I want to mention here that someone posted this strange message on my talk page today: [45] --Tothwolf (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

About 2% of my editing since June overlaps with Tothwolf. I am tired of his accusations. I wish to ignore him. I'm sorry you think 5 characters an exasperated comment is capital crime on Wikipedia. Miami33139 (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

5 characters, your reference to him as paranoid, your inappropriate comment here[46], here [47] and then your disingenuous attempt to cover it all up. If you are saying you made all of those edits unintentionally then I think you should be blocked because it is quite apparent you are not in control of your actions.--Crossmr (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested Amendment from Arbcom Miami33139 (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Moving on - to block Miami33139?

There seems to be a fair amount of consensus among administrators and regular editors that Miami's actions warranted a block. As such, I would prefer this discussion not die with no action being taken.

Since one of Miami's collaborators, Theserialcomma, was blocked 5 days for baiting, I propose that Miami also be blocked for 5 days. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To add to the above, Beyond My Ken made a statement on July 16th regarding Miami33139's wikihounding behaviours which I think will be of interest to the rest of the community. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think an interaction ban including a ban on nominating articles or user pages for deletion that were created or significantly edited by Tothwolf would be a good idea, but events may be moving on regardless of the decision here, as Miami33139 may have chucked a WP:BOOMERANG: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Request to amend prior case: Tothwolf. Fences&Windows 23:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I noted my concerns with a simple interaction ban in my reply to Carcharoth [48] on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment: "Jehochman and I discussed just such a potential solution before the original ArbCom case was filed [in November 2009]. I have a strong feeling that if a simple interaction-type restriction were put in place, these editors would still follow my edits in order to remove content from or nominate articles and pages for deletion, or attempt to superficially involve themselves in related topic areas such as technology and computing where they did not edit previously (as they've already been doing) in order to block or restrict my edits while claiming they were already editing articles in those topic areas."

One example I noted in my statement [49] is {{IRC footer}}, which the edit history will probably explain far better than I could here. There were also events like these diffs document which I'm not sure a simple interaction ban as proposed would prevent: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] There are also other examples such as Category:Internet Relay Chat games (CFD) and others which I did not note in my statement. I had been in the process of populating them when the wikihounding began and Miami33139 attempted to depopulate them in order to have them deleted via CFD. Sigh.

I really do wish Theserialcomma, Miami33139, and JBsupreme would stop the personal attacks though (calling me "paranoid", "delusional", etc and claiming WP:OWN, WP:COI, etc). --Tothwolf (talk) 05:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

the reviewing arbitrator is apparently waiting for further comments. [57] DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

and at the same time they seem to think his conduct was inappropriate and personal attacks. Unless he's indicated that they're going to stop and we're buying it, then he should be blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed, but arb com is actively considering sanctions, and if they want to do so, they have priority. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They can carry on independently. If there is an open threat of disruption its an administrator's job to prevent that. A note can be made at the arbcom case, and they can visit his talk page or he can go through the appropriate steps to be unblocked if he wants to contribute further.--Crossmr (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme's current behaviour is also troubling. Comments such as "so non-notable its just laughable, but in a sad way" [58] as a prod reason are clearly inappropriate, even more so with this being a prod of a BLP article. Isn't this and a number of other similar actions [59] [60] a direct violation of his edit restrictions? --Tothwolf (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd suggest an admin take a long hard look at his editing restriction and those two edits.--Crossmr (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Middle 8's talk page comment

Resolved

 – Take it to WP:WQA

if you really want to - User:WLU

Middle 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sample.

I think administrative attention may be appropriate. This user has a tendency to leave and return.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have called someone an idiot on a talkpage and retired...what kind of Admin action are you requesting? Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a variety of admin actions happen in these situations from nothing to warnings to bans. There's a bit more in the contributions boiling-over-wise and I just fear that people who leave Wikipedia in a huff sometimes return and do damage. Analysis by those who are not close to this situation is appreciated. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, this user has gone through a number of identity switches and has been embroiled in controversy over acupuncture for some time now. This kind of activity makes me extremely uncomfortable, but unlike Off2riorob, I don't believe in WP:PUNITIVE. What I think might be appropriate is an administrative warning. If I give the warning, he'll just dismiss it as hounding. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't speak as if for me, your report is rubbish. Utter rubbish and nothing more that reporting an opponent. You are edit warring to keep your worthless report open it is hilarious. Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• ScienceA, you cannot keep deleting two other editors' "resolved" notices from a thread which you started. Especially not with edit-summaries just as snippy as the material you are complaining about. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  Should you, as one of the editors in question who is being snippy, be criticizing me for being snippy? When does the WP:KETTLE circle end? Will you please wait for an administrator to give an opinion? Sheesh. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You, ScienceApologist, complaining about someone else and WP:KETTLE? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day! You're whining about a single lapse on my part (me: never been blocked, never been sanctioned despite your frequent baiting and occasional, inadequate efforts), whereas you have something like 30 blocks, and are among the most disruptive editors still active on WP. I think you deserve to be sanctioned for just this sort of time-wasting hypocrisy. Wonder if any admins are up to it? --Middle 8 (talk) 02:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Two questions. 1) Can you please provide a diff of any comment I have made which has been "snippy" and/or impolite? 2) Can you please explain how deleting my comment because of its – alleged – grammatical irregularity is appropriate? Please note that I will take failure to answer these questions within a reasonable amount of time as an indication that you have no satisfactory response. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this satisfactory...middle 8 you naughty little boy, if you don't stop calling people idiots I will put you on the naughty step for five seconds. Off2riorob (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You aren't an administrator. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No but I am the next best thing. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

reporting your opponents

Users that make weak reports when they are in content disputes or opponents of users such as this should be blocked for wasting the communities time. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Does this comment give a reason for why you've taken a peculiar interest in this thread? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No, so what, its more rubbish, get over yourself, take five seconds on the naughty step yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to you asking for your own blocking, then, per the comment you made in this section. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You can look forward to whatever you like, if this is a school project I have some stickers you can have. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I love stickers! How do you want to get them to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice here. And this certainly looks like good reason for administrative action to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What kind of Administrator action are you suggesting? Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought blocks of various lengths were traditional for such things. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a police state, it is a contributory website. Users should be aware that teacher and mummy have left the building and they should use adult type discussion in an attempt to work things out with their opponents. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, however, the current discussion is occurring, it seems, because such idealism has broken down. I was referring to the actions usually taken after the ideal is already broken. Further, the opposite of a "police state" is not anarchy or license. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, i see nothing weak about this report, considering the diff provided. I do not necessarily recommend blocking, but just closing it as if there was nothing worthy here seems wrong to me. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this sort of thing shouldn't be allowed and passed over. Calling someone an "idiot" and using the F word in the context that they did is a blatant break of civility. Silverseren^C 22:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A third-party warned him, so I think this is pretty good. He may never come back, in which case, no harm no foul. If he does come back and continues to be uncivil, well, then we have evidence that we at least went through some sort of due process. Thanks all! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, but in my opinion this belongs on WP:WQA and not here. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be right about that. It just occurred to me moments ago. We should make some sort of flowchart to keep these things straight. I just plumb forgot about WP:WQA. Sorry. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As the one called an idiot, I don't really care. M8 does make good faith suggestions that I think are misguided and incorrect, and it can be frustrating. He can leave and come back if he wants, so long as he honestly attempts to improve the wiki - which he does try to do. There's a lot of strong opinions on acupuncture, but overall there's little to suggest in my mind that M8 consistently engages in personal attacks to the detriment of pages. I've dropped more than a couple f-bombs in my time and had to deal with the consequences - usually the fact that my editing is more difficult. Personally, since I see no patter I see no reason to make a big deal of this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, WLU -- it's true that I don't consistently engage in personal attacks. And we seem to have the same opinion of each others' edits, i.e. good-faith (I hope) but misguided and incorrect. I do apologize for calling you an idiot (which I didn't mean seriously) when I could have just said "O, ye whose edits are too often misguided and incorrect!" Still, in some cases there can't be two right answers; attribution of a well-known source is one (see below, hidden text).

WP:SOAP — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think any objective observer knows that there are double standards on Wikipedia in terms of editorial conduct. Because I don't edit like a hardline skeptic, there are editors watching me (and others of my ilk) like hawks, waiting for missteps so that they can run to WP:ANI, as ScienceApologist once again has done; meanwhile these same editors routinely engage in personal attacks, outings, and harassment, all in the name of standing up for "science", and all with the intention of causing editors they don't like to leave, since that's part of their jihad for improving the wiki, and is easier than engaging actual WP:DR. Some of the current divide on acupuncture reminds me of the divide between the right and the left in US politics. Large parts of the right (birthers and teabaggers) take positions that are simply not reality-based, and often are disingenuous in reporting the facts (see: Faux news). Similarly, I find it impossible to believe that certain recent edits or discussion at acupuncture can be both in good faith and reality-based. Since we like to AGF around here, I can only assume that a dearth of information was responsible for the examples that follow. The most amazing is one from WLU, who insisted (along with others; see ES in that diff) that the WHO report on acupuncture wasn't really by the WHO, despite every kind of evidence that it is. (My horrible, blameworthy response to WLU's stainless, wonderful edit is here.) Another good example is WLU's asserting that an article on a Quackwatch site is as strong or stronger, WP:WEIGHT-wise, than an NIH consensus panel consisting of a dozen researchers' collective review: WLU opines, "Quackwatch would be considered a reliable, third-party source that could adequately comment on the committee and its findings. The committee itself however, would be considered a primary source for its own motivations."[61] I think most scientists understand that the process of peer-review under the aegis of an organization like the NIH squashes Quackwatch like a bug. (But the ones who can't/don't grok it are disproportionately vocal, mirroring the situation on WP. It works the same way in politics.) What is happening, if you can't tell, is that a few editors are nitpicking even the most non-controversial evidence in favor of acupuncture, causing editors with opposing views to have to bring said evidence before a wider audience of editors. But that's a time sink that I can't engage, and neither can some other editors, e.g. the one who made this edit (the best edit the article has had in a long time); that editor contacted me offline expressing disgust with the hyper-skeptical, POV nitpicking. When editors of a certain mindset find even basic "water is wet"-type assumptions nit-picked at every turn, they get disgusted and leave, taking any chance at NPOV with them; only the skeptical jihadists remain (and yes, many of them are as tenaciously fanatical, in an online way, as any religious fundamentalist), wikiality reigns as a default. That's the kind of encyclopedia you've collectively chosen. Now, if I were a ScienceJihadist type editor complaining about pseudoscience, I'd be able to tell everyone to go fuck themselves, and maybe someone would leave a warning on my page which I'd remove, and a bunch of editors would cluck over how terrible it is for Defenders of Science to be under such pressure, and that we really need to be more gentle with him, poor thing. But I'm not going to engage in that kind of drama. So I'll leave you with the considered opinion that Wikipedia remains an unreliable source in large part because it self-selects for editors who have lots of time to push their agendas in ways that are ignorant, disingenuous or both. And some of you, I suppose, can freak out about what a horrible thing I just said. I do appreciate the recent performance-art from the hyperskeptics at acupuncture; it makes a great case study in why Wikipedia's approach isn't working. All it takes is persistence and you can get your way here. That's the wikiality way. --Middle 8 (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Brews ohare is being hounded by a few editors

Take this elsewhere, please. Or nowhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy

User:Preciseaccuracy continues to attack other editors. The editor is relatively new and has been focused on including material on allegations of Israeli espionage at Art student scam. Things have not gone in their favor and the editor resorts to using multiple talk pages and noticeboards to accuse others of grouping together in scandalous manner. I had provided the editor with yet another reminder but the behavior continues.User talk:Preciseaccuracy#Reminder.

• [70] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at their talk page
• [71] "It is clear what is going on here. A group of users pass through and do drive by delete votes. You are using this page as a weapon to delete reliably sourced content" at AfD
• [72] New section titled "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• [73] Refers to another editor's "phony drama" at the NPOV noticeboard
• [74] and [75] accusing others of diluting the discussion and making misleading comments at the NPOV noticeboad
• [76] and [77] Saying that Huey45 is a liar at Rschen7754's talk page
• [78] Saying that those at the AfD are only "politically motivated" at Fences and windows' talk page
• [79] A new section titled "Government Propaganda Organizations and Wikipedia" at Jimbo Wales' talk page
• [80] Says that it seemed that I "pretended to give in a little so that you could later recommend the deletion of almost the entire section at the article's talk page after I denied allegations of whitewashing and said that the editor needed to stop making such accusations.
• [81] An ANI titled "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli"
• [82] "user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli" section at the article talk page
• [83] user:mbz1 colluding with user:broccoli at RomaC's talk page
• [84] Attempt to make Shuki look bad (pointing out the unrelated blocks) after Shuki removed potentially inappropriate talk page material[85] (a warning instead of removal would have sufficed, IMO)
• [86] Accusing Mbzi and others of "ganging up" to whitewash the article at Edit warring board.
• [87] Repeatedly calling Huey45 a liar at ANI
• [88] Saying Huey45 lied at article talk
• [89] Saying there was "politically motivated collusion" at the article talk page
• [90] Saying users are "colluding to sabotage article" at ANI
• [91] Section at ANI titled "User: Huey45 acting in “bad faith” and colluding with others to sabotage article “Art Student Scam” about the Suspected 2001 Israeli “art student” scam and spying"
• [92] and [93] Accusing editors of "ganging up" during an unblock request

I understand that the editor is new and actually think some pointed words are sometimes necessary. However, to continue to assume the worst of faith from other editors after being repeatedly asked not to is simply not acceptable. There is also behavior that borders on forum shopping with inquiries at several different noticeboards and talk pages. I understand that it can be hard for a new editor to take in all of the dispute resolution process but copy and pasting the same sources in at all of these noticeboards and talk pages is disrupting any chance that uninvolved editors will even look at what is going on. And they are certainly not worded as neutral requests for feedback.

It is my opinion that a block is necessary to encourage a rapid understanding that this cannot continue. A firm reminder from an admin might be a little less knee-jerk so that would be cool instead.Cptnono (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Of note, User:Preciseaccuracy has posted his version of events to User talk:Jimbo Wales#Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested (say that three times fast!). I'd say forum shopping is a given. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else he should get a warning for his personal attacks on Huey45 (calling him a liar), a warning for canvassing on Jimbos talkpage, and a warning for disrupting wikipedia by repeatedly accusing anyone who disagrees with him of forming a cabal and being part of a conspiracy against him. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I also see on Preciseaccuracy's talk page that someone else seems to think Preciseaccuracy is a reincarnation of Factsontheground (talk · contribs) (who also edited as Factomancer (talk · contribs). Maybe a checkuser is in order? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Why? User:Factomancer isn't blocked or banned, and she hasn't been active for four months, so why should is a checkuser appropriate? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I spoke too soon. Evidently Factomancer is under an interaction ban with Mbz1 and Gilisa. Since Preciseaccuracy has interacted with Mbz1, perhaps a checkuser is appropriate to see whether Factomancer is evading her ban. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Burpelson, should Huey45 also be warned, for this edit suggesting Preciseaccuracy is lying about being new to Wikipedia?

My Defense

Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. That is why I posted there. Before I began editing, an article about spying allegations in the U.S. had been twisted into being about a chinese tourist trap in China. This group of users is once again using the articlesfordeletionpage as a weapon to remove reliably sourced allegations and whitewash an article of references to Israel and the spying allegations. Below is a partial list of misleading tactics the group of users applies to the article "Art student Scam"

1. Continually Referring to allegations documented by reliable sources as myths and wingnut conspiracies.

2.Saying that the israelis were only typical israelis when they had military training that is far behond compulsory.

3. Saying that the allegations were completely dismissed when sources point to the allegations as inconclusive.

4. Saying that the Forward dismissed the spy ring when it was dismissing an entirely separate incident in Canada in 2004 while treating spying on the United States as inconclusive.

5. Users saying spying has been thouroughly debunked when only a one lone 12 sentence article claims to debunk it while later articles treat the allegations as inconclusive.

6. Saying art students are not Israeli.

7. Continuously attacking the reliability of the salon.com source while ignoring other reliables sources.

8.Forming polls in which friends of other users show up to leave three word or one or two sentence wp:idontlikeit comments as demonstrated on the talk page and more glaringly on both the first and second articlesfordeletion pages. Most glaringly on the first.

9.Users insulting me and linking to conspiracy websites on the talk page.

10.Users mistating information and then faking confusion.

It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins

The user above cptnono, at first pretends to be interested in adding reliably sourced material about the spying allegations to the article and then suddenly claims that the spying allegations portion should be cut down to only two sentences. Note: I only recently found out that meanwhile she had been attempting to get me topic banned.

Response to more of cptnono's links:

User huey 45 was directly lying

Huey45 says…

“I called it "the fake Israeli thing" because all of the previous sources (yes, you're not the first person to mention this) suggested that the salesmen weren't even Israeli, let alone art students.”

In fact, all of these sources unequivocally state that they were Israelis, and mention art students. Huey 45 was repeatedly deliberately lying about the content of the sources, but my ai complaint didn't receive any attention due to friend of mbz1 gilisa showing up and diluting down the discussion declaring that most of the sources were unreliable. She was referring to haaretz, the Forward, the sunday herald, the newspaper creative loafing, Janes intellgence digest, salon.com, ect.

• With regards to mbz1, the comment about mbz1's "phony drama" was in reference to his above quote where he stated that I am making him sick with my additions to the article. Mbz1 is an editor whose block log goes off the page and has a history of harassing other editors, in some cases so much that they seem to have quit editing wikipedia and that mbz1 is banned from interacting with them. On my first day editing on wikipedia mbz1 goes out of his way to try to get me blocked, he completely deletes direct quotations, I even make concessions and agreed to leave out some of the direct reliably sourced quotations but mbz1 continued to revert. He said to address the issue on the talk page and stated that there had been some consensus, which as user:binksternet later pointed out, there was no consensus. I had carefully taken my time to read through the numerous sources in depth and had logically reasoned why the spy ring allegations don't fit the description of “urban myth” on the talk pages and the discussion board. Whereas mbz1's only response along with other users had been.

“I agree it is fine as it is.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)”

He then completely deleted a direct quote from a salon.com article. He didn't even bother to trim it down. Later mbz1 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring because he continued to remove the very same salon.com quote when user binksternet added it back in.

• With regards to my comment about shuki deleting my comment. My comment was about jiujitsuguy who suddenly showed up to vote without any previous involvement in the article and made a misleading statement that the salon.com quote was from a blog. I've done some digging since then and apparently jiujitsuguy is good friends with above user cptnono. I questioned why shuki is deleting my comments, apparently he is currently topic banned from editing articles about land and places in and around the country of Israel. He also seems to show up to make short agreement comments with mbz1.

My accusations of user broccoli colluding with mbz1 were justified as well. Only a few weeks before my accusation, on a completely unrelated article another editor had made these same accusations in detail.

With regards to the article "art student scam," Until brocolli nominated the article for deletion, his only two comments were 3 or 4 word votes stating his agreement with mbz1. Its interesting after months of no interaction with the article, brocolli suddenly showed up and stated his agreement with mbz1's proposal very shortly after mbz1 proposed it. Since then, the only other action that brocolli has taken is to nominate a reliably sourced article for deletion.

Once again, It is very difficult for one user to continually have to correct the misrepresentations of a large group of other users. Especially, when they are constantly trying to have me blocked and my ai noticeboard and neutral noticeboard requests seem to have only been viewed very passively by other admins. Jimbo's webpage is the most neutral place on wikipedia. Hence I made my appeal for external input into the articlesfordeletiong discussion there.00:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preciseaccuracy (talk • contribs) Preciseaccuracy (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• The pattern of personal attacks and forum shopping is indeed very worrying. Last warning for the user, then if personal attacks continue, I'd go with a short block. --Cyclopia^talk 00:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Jimbo's page is the most neutral place on wikipedia. — No. The most neutral pages would have been Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Village Pump. Jimbo's user talk page, in contrast, is often used by people who want to grandstand. It happens time and again. Uncle G (talk) 07:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban the user on Art students scam article

Last warning , short block? The user is a single article account. 99.99% of her edits are in one way or another connected to the article in question, and at least 80% of her contributions are either forum shopping, or personal attacks,or filing unwarranted AN/I reports or jumping to Jimbo talk page (today's post was not the first one), and so on, and so on, and so on. The user should be topic banned for that single article she spends so much time at. It is only for her own good because sometimes she takes only 4 hours break in 24 hours. On August 1 she was given the last warning by User:Fences and windows "I chose what I respond to, and when. You need to stop badgering people including me, and you need to stop forum shopping. If you do not voluntarily take a break from editing and discussing this article, then I will request a formal editing restriction to temporarily ban you from the page. The amount of time and energy you are spending on this single article is completely unhealthy, and you are becoming increasingly disruptive to collaborative editing".

So how many more "final warnings" the user should be given?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support 1 month topic ban on the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support indef topic ban, since it is clear to me that nothing will change. Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support for the users own good. Seems to have an unhealthy obsession--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

more context on user mbz1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AMbz1 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And this is relevant because...? Broccoli (talk) 03:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Preciseaccuracy, I have already told you once: stop counting my blocks. It is none of you business. Better count your positive contributions, if any. have you heard about WP:NOTTHEM?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow brocolli, your managed to comment only 11 minutes after mbz1 this time. I wonder...Preciseaccuracy (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of wp:AGF?--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not sure what Precise's prior block history is if he/she ever used another account or IP address, but expect that bears little on the proposal. Seems like a red herring, given his response above. If someone agrees, I invite them to delete his comment and Broc's response ... and, as a sign of good faith, encourage him to do it himself. If Mbz were the subject of this proposal, I would of course have had a contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk)

Red Herring, that's the word for it, the allegations of spying were pushed to the bottom in favor of an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I think it is disappointing that PA has failed to acknowledge that the behavior may not be acceptable. Choosing to deflect is even worse. A short block might be a great idea but I might be overreacting. We should probably not restart the mudslinging and let some admins take a look.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And since it can be hard to AGF sometimes: No, I did not email anyone or ask for any assistance.Cptnono (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow mbz1's other friend/defender epeefleche stops in only a few minutes later. Just like this other time mbz1 was accused of collusion by another user....http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&diff=next&oldid=372294357 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You edited at this discussion before I did. Are you suggesting that Mbz notified you, or that Broc did so? Or ... is this just a red herring, to deflect attention away from the focus of this thread?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I really don't think that's necessary at this point in time, especially when there does appear to be some sort of malignancy toward the article, of which i'm also noticing in the AfD. Silverseren^C 04:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"malignancy toward the article"? What in the world are you talking about? This is proposal about a disruptive user, not about the article. I find your comment completely offline.I do not hide my dislike of the article. That article should not have been written in the way it was. That article is a bunch of non confirmed conspiracy theories as it is clearly seen from this document see page 18. Please also notice the name of the document. It is how that article should have been named. And it was my last comment here.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The information about the 9/11 link should probably be spun off into a separate article and have a link to it from the appropriate summarized section in Art student scam. But the rest of the article itself seems appropriate to me and doesn't appear to be unbalanced at all. From what I saw on the talk page, parts of the article were continually being picked at and dismantled and there were comments made, like yours, about deletion of the article. It is understandable for Preciseaccuracy, as a relatively new user, to worry and panic about the integrity of the article and I can easily see how s/he came to the conclusion that there is a "cabal" of users out there that are against the information proposed in the article. I think people on all sides need to tone things down and everyone should have a cup of tea, yourself included. Silverseren^C 04:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the split. However, I do not agree with your assessment. The article was relativity stable until PA read the Salon piece and decided to change the scope. There was no evil shenanigans. I even attempted to expand the espionage bit but realized it was not possible to make the editor content and reversed my position. I received a little personal attack for that. So even if PA was right in feeling that editors were ganging up, it is not appropriate to handle it with personal attacks, filibustering, and forum shopping. PA's transgressions need to be looked at by themselves, but even if the perceived faults of others are considered it does not excuse the behavior.Cptnono (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your twisting the argument mbz1, this article is about spying allegations and not 9/11. You added an entire section about 9/11 to the article about spying allegations.

The adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york, once again your whole argument rests on one or 2 sources and ignores these.

• http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/spies-or-students-1.45243 Haaretz
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/1387069/US-arrests-200-young-Israelis-in-spying-investigation.html The Telegraph
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2002/mar/06/internationaleducationnews.highereducation The Guardian
• http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220 Sunday Herald
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_12_18/ai_84396672/ Insight

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07 washington post, this was written before many of the other articles and is the only one to claim to dismiss the allegations, however; the post admitted to not bothering to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document

• http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/index.html Salon.com
• http://web.archive.org/web/20020321021731/http://real-info.1accesshost.com/janes1.html Janes Intelligence
• http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/2002-03-20/fishwrapper.html Creative Loafing
• http://www.forward.com/articles/5250/ This article refers to a different situation of Israelis spying on Canada in 2004 that was dismissed, but treats the 1999-2001 allegations of Israeli spying on the U.S. as inconclusive
• 20 minute Four Part Fox News Special with Brit Hume and Carl Cameron about Allegations of Israel Spying on the United States

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• "adl is part of the pro-israel lobby, right now it is campaigning to have a mosque removed from new york" Oh, thank you so much for opening my eyes on that matter. How that "pro-israel lobby" could even think about campaigning against building a mosque at ground zero, where 3,000 innocent people got murdered by Islamic terrorists?! If I only new how sinister that adl really is, I would have never ever linked to it site.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Question for you, Preciseaccuracy. Since it wasn't you that added in the 9/11 info, would you be fine with that info being removed and split off to its own article? Silverseren^C 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course she would not mind to split, after all instead of one conspiracy theory there will be two. I assume you were so busy looking for "malignancy toward the article" in my edits that you have missed this very interesting exchange, and now I am really outtahere, and going to have a cap of tea before an admin offers something much stronger to me .☺--Mbz1 (talk) 05:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Would be better answered at the article's talk page?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just that a major part of PA's panic from what I can see, besides that about the AfD, is about the addition of material that makes it that much easier to say that the article is unreliable. Which the 9/11 info does. Silverseren^C 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But the panic should not have lasted this long or been vented as it has been. We can discuss 9/11 at the talk page where sources correlating the two can be provided. Actually, the source was first presented by PA.Cptnono (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually 9/11 was first referred to in march http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&oldid=347356423#September_11_allegations

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't realize. I was trying to say the 9/11 line I added was per the sources you presented. My bad if it looked like I was misrepresenting the article history. That is still better discussed on the talk page and not here. So do you have any other response to the diffs presented? If you think your actions were totally acceptable then it is time to see if an admin wants to give you another warning or a block. Not sure if either will happen but I think it is clear that at least one of those options is necessary.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It was also already mentioned in the version of the article that existed right before I started editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I added this quote from Haaretz regarding the washington post article. It seems relevant to the Israeli espionage allegations. What do you think Silver seren?

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey, on September 11, of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly."[7] " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mbz1's 9/11 section has already been removed http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=376086286&oldid=376086173 Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What if the haaretz quote was trimmed down to

" Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious. The five were employed by a moving company and did not have valid work permits. According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad, and that the moving company was nothing more than a front. This story also died out quietly." " Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Or how about this version

Haaretz treated the spying allegations as inconclusive and noted with regards to the Post article. "Even this report was not enough to finally kill off the affair. Two weeks later, the New York Jewish weekly, Forward, published a report connecting the spy affair with the arrest in New Jersey ... of five Israelis whose behavior was defined as suspicious.... According to Forward, the FBI concluded that the five were on a spy mission on behalf of the Mossad.." Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you answer the question I had for you above? And Cptnono is right, this isn't the place for specific source discussion. Silverseren^C 06:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The only part mentioning 9/11 is the haaretz quote. Someone also added a link to a 9/11 advance knowledge debate. I think that the link to the 9/11 advance knowledge debate should be deleted. I think some other user added that link when mbz1's 9/11 section was deleted.

I think the haaretz and forward quote that connects the alleged art student spying to alleged spying through a moving company in the same year seems relevant to the spying allegations and should be kept, but I'm willing to make concessions, that could be split off into a separate article about spying allegations through the company "urban moving."Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment/Suggestion to PA - I can't remember precisely, and frankly I'm too distracted in other matters to look into this fully, and look up the specific guidelines or policies I cite, but from reading your posts here, 3 come into mind. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and most of all, WP:NPA. PA, nothing you do here is really winning you any points, but rather the opposite. You are showing the community that you are incapable of assuming good faith, and therefore your editing here falls in the category of disruptive. Therefore, I suggest you stop commenting here, and accusing of those who do of either being sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or some kind of cabal. I can assure you, that if you do not, you will likely end up as another user who I remember quite well; Frei Hans (talk · contribs). For any who do not know, this user started a disruptive tirade(I'm sorry if this word is uncivil, but I cannot think of a better verb) of bad-faith accusations against what some would call 'the community as a whole'. Simply, they accused everyone that tried to help them or inform them of the relevant policies and guidelines as either being a sock or meatpuppet of a user or users who previously did such. As was stated, they were banned... granted, this happened after they appeared as a sockpuppet and began doing the same thing again, after they were previously indef blocked for the behavior noted above.

Either way, to the point of this post, I suggest you stop posting here, and accusing people of things. Another one would be to listen what the experienced editors here have told you, and try to follow suit. Continuing to assume bad faith will likely end for you, how it did for Frei Hans.

Anyway, back to research. I likely won't comment here again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that most users on wikipedia are acting benevolently. With regard to this article. This is unlikely the case. A reliably sourced article is being nominated for deletion due to a group of users wp:idontlikeit comments.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

To someone who both thoroughly looks through the sources and then looks at the comments that that this group of users have made it should be obvious what has been going on. Just look at the diff. that was the result of the first nomination for the articlesfordeletion page. Once again, notice how the focus had shifted from being about spying allegations in the United States to being about an unrelated tourist trap in china. Also, notice how the inconclusive spying allegations are pushed to the bottom of the page and stated to be an urban myth despite the description of most sources both early and later of the spying allegations being at the very least inconclusive.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Topic/article bans that are initiated by and largely supported by opponents in said topic area are unlikely to be of any value. A user RfC where this user has an opportunity to receive feedback from uninvolved editors and (hopefully) be receptive to their input may be better here. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Note - I'm involved. Considering how editors are ganging up to try to get this article deleted, and the same editors are trying to get Preciseaccuracy topic banned, this is an appalling proposal. Not liking a topic and trying to get opponents banned is a terrible approach. I did say that Preciseaccuracy needed to stop forum shopping (and they do need to), and I even drafted an AN/I case myself last week, but I found that the case against them was remarkably weak and shelved it. The problem is that Mbz1 and others view their position of labelling this an "anti-semitic 9/11 conspiracy theory" as "The Truth" (the ADL says it, so it must be true), and thus they assume that anyone who wants to add details about the espionage allegations to Art student scam must be anti-semitic. Nice well poisoning. Fences&Windows 13:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think independent uninvolved editors should get involved with respect to improving (or deleting) the article in question and moving (or not) relevant and sourced information on the spying question to somewhere suitable. In the meantime, Preciseaccuracy's behavior issues are a separate question, and the forum shopping, single purpose editing, and general badgering needs to be addressed. As an uninvolved editor, a couple of things seem clear to me: first, if there is an "art student scam" that is possibly worth a separate article, though I doubt it, that's entirely separate from this particular incident. Second, the incident seems to be pretty unconfirmed and is likely evidence of general paranoia in the media after 9/11 than of anything else. But I've only read about half the sources - enough to suggest to me that Preciseaccuracy's summary of them is anything but precisely accurate - but not enough to give me a firm opinion as to where and how this information should be handled.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• OpposeReading more of the sources might leave a better understanding of the notability of the topic, and the AFD history indicates a general dislike of the article's subject rather than objections based on notability, on the part of some editors. The muzzling of the one editor in question seems a bit overdone in a topic dispute. We go from "IDONTLIKEIT" to "TOPICBANANYONEWHODISAGREESTOOLOUDLY." Edison (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, thank you for founding Wikipedia and thank you for your input in this matter. Could you please explain why you seem to believe that my characterization of the spying allegations as inconclusive is unfounded? The majority of the sources seem to be of this view and some of the original sources such as the guardian that reported it don't seem to have run corrections. Some of the sources are from several years later and most of the sources are from 2002. True there was paranoia around the time of 9/11, but the 60 pg. dea document and ncix bulletin were created months before 9/11. The focus of the article is the spying allegations. I strongly stand by the accusations I've made above about the group of users, and they are very valid.

Anyway, if independent uninvolved users stay with the article, I have no problem taking a break from defending it against deletion and editing it for a while. I felt there was no way for me alone to save a reliably sourced article from a group of users who wp:idontlikeit than to take my concern to your talk page. I didn't want to see a reliably sourced article I've spent a lot of time working on deleted. This isn't the first time that a group of wp:idontlikeit users have stopped by to overwhelm the article with there numbers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_student_scam and likely won't be the last.

The result of the firs articlesfordeletion discussion shifted an article about spying allegations into an article about an almost unnotable Chinese tourist trap.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Art_student_scam&diff=370397930&oldid=370397250

Once again, my concerns about the above users are very valid. However, I will respect your wishes and will soon voluntarily take a break for at least several weeks from editing. The process of constantly defending this article and having to correct the constant misrepresentation of sources by a group of users has been somewhat draining. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, I do however think it would be a great injustice to topic ban me from the article. I have acted in good faith in pointing out the obvious fact that a malevolent group of users has been attacking this article because of their wp:idontlikeit views. If anyone should be sanctioned, they should be sanctioned a thousand times over before me.

You would be setting a very bad precedent topic banning me. Basically, you would be setting the precedent that groups of users acting in political coordination to delete reliable sources would have free reign over wikipedia to bully articles. These users when confronted with what they are doing by an individual user could then ban that individual user to in effect silence that user. Mbz1 and others may say assume good faith;however, in his case it would be utter foolishness to assume good faith with him and his friends. It is absolutely clear that their intent is push propaganda and delete reliably sourced inconclusive spying allegations that they find offensive.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, if independent editors take over editing the article, I would feel releived to take a break from wikipedia for at least a few weeks. Not because of any accusations of wrongdoing against me, but because I've already spent so much time on wikipedia in recent weaks that I feel that I should take a healthy break soon.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Some time away regardless would serve you well, Preciseaccuracy. And when you return, editing quietly, respectfully and collegiately will serve you better. 86.159.91.201 (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm shining light on the issue of a group of users colluding to delete reliable sources from wikipedia. If I take a break before independent editors become involved, in a few weeks the article with either be deleted by this group of users, or the focus may once again shift from inconclusive spying allegations in the United States to an almost unnotable chinese tourist trap. Or perhaps, they'll shift the focus to discussing paint brushes in England or some other topic that is not reasonably connected to the spying allegations.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a break and worry about it when you come back. That's the point of taking a break. It's Wikipedia. Things that are done can be undone, or brought up for debate, etc. Take a step back for a while and relax. This is nothing worth getting so worked up over. Hazardous Matt (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per --Jiujitsuguy. The SPA (is that sockpuppet account or single purpose account?) one man crusade on this article is not real. I would not be surprised if this editor does 'take a break' from editing. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• WP:SPA - Single-purpose account. -- Atama頭 01:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per above and per Mbz1. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the fact of the user only taking a 4 hour break out of 24 as mentioned at the top of this discussion and Fences' "final warning", this is definitely for the person's best interest to get perspective on life. As someone who knows alot about heated discussions I must say from experience that a forced break does do a good thing for your mental health. Regardless of what other editors may be doing and how they are "ganging up" on PA (or not) this is about PA's actions and their actions ONLY. This most definitely is not a place to rehash the discussion that led us to this point, AN/I is not dispute resolution; and more importantly this is not a thread on the other users. If you think they need "punishment" as well then bring a complaint about them separately, dont try to muddy the waters. Also as a sidenote supporting PA- going to Jimbo for his opinion is not forum shopping at all, it may sort of be canvassing however depending on whether the editor truly believed Jimbo would be on "their side" and it was the intent that he would come to the discussion to vote! in their support, if it had been worded more carefully simply asking Jimbo for his ideas, input, suggestions, personal beliefs, then it would not have been canvassing either.Camelbinky (talk) 02:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The editor has come across as somewhat aggressive no question about that, but he is mellowing and has always been more than ready to provide sources and participate on Talk. As noted here and at the AfD there has been a tendency for some to work seemingly in concert to dismiss this editor's contributions, and this may have fueled his frustration and sent him off looking for input from uninvolved editors. I don't see this as disruptive behavior per se, and I hope some of the uninvolved editors on this page and the AfD will look into Art student scam and offer their opinions. (I support splitting the article into 1) an article on the allegations of an espionage ring and 2) an article on the student paintings scam, and remain willing to work on this if other editors will help out). RomaC ^TALK 04:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• This is the user post to Jimbo' talk page from yesterday: "Band of users coordinating to delete reliably sourced article on inconclusive espionage allegations, external input requested" . It is what you call "mellowing"? Really? --Mbz1 (talk) 05:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support per --Jimbo. His assessment is pretty close to how I feel about it. [94] The response from the user after I unknowingly stepped into this minefield was very surprising to me and with that and all the identical long postings at so many locations is disruptive. This in addition to an apparent unwillingness to listen to a uninvolved opinion makes me doubtful that the user will have positive contributions to this topic. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is AliveFreeHappy's opinion

"This would NOT qualify it for it's own article"

"Most of the links that can be found that purport to substantiate this topic are obvious conspiracy sites"

He ignores that the majority of both earlier and later sources that treat the spying allegations as at the very least inconclusive. He ignores the later sources, The forward, haaretz, Insight, the sunday herald, salon.com, democracy now, Janes intelligence digest.

He stated that there was an "overwhelming body of evidence" dismissing the allegations. The only source to claim to dismiss the allegations was the 12 sentence washington post article that didn’t even bother to obtain the 60 pg. Dea document. He ignored the ncix warning.

I ask him to provide this “overwhelming body of evidence” that he claims refutes the notability of the spying allegations. He refuses and then he again refers to conspiracy theorists.

I highly recommend reading through the discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Request_third_party_input_on_.22Art_Student_Scam.22_article_Split Preciseaccuracy (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And above is a prime example of how the user behaves - this is exactly why I support the topic ban. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose-Whatever happened to WP:AGF and WP:NOTCENSORED?Smallman12q (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

One leaves to wonder, if Smallman12q understands why the ban was proposed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the content the discussed user has added to the article. It is her entire disruptive behavior that started, when she came, and has never stopped, that prompted the request. I'd suggest the closing admin would ignore such votes as the one above. The user's vote clearly demonstrate they did not read the thread, and do not know what they are talking about. --Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm befuddled by the fact that my oppose vote has warranted such an uncivil response. First off, I'd like to point out that your red herring response is not only an appeal to ridicule, but it is also ad hominem. I would like to point out that you too have made several hostile attacks toward the user.

When the user had less than 30 edits, he made this post to your page:

Why did you delete my post. The article in your version has a strong bias and the quotes I inserted added extremely relevant information. The link to the DEA document was necessary. The salon quotes added a lot of depth. Salon is a very credible source. In 2002, the year the article was writtent Salon won numerous awards including 2002 "Best Print and Zine" | Webby Awards "Best 50 Web Sites" | Time Magazine "Best of the Web | Book Clubs" Forbes "Outstanding Digital Journalism Overall Coverage" | GLAAD

In response you made this hostile response in which you said:

I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again

I do not want to see you at my talk page ever again not under any circumstances. Is that clear? In a meantime I'd like to share with you my favorite quote by Oscar Wilde "There is no sin except stupidity". I hope you like it too.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the user's talk page at User_talk:Preciseaccuracy#Please_stop, you left a message "You are edit warring on the article, and you vandalized my talk page. I will revert you know, and if you reinstall your changes, I will report you. BTW I would not like to see you at my talk page."

Then at User_talk:Preciseaccuracy#Have_you_had_a_prior_account, when you question if the user had a previous account, the user responds in a civil manner stating:

Why are you attacking me? I don't know all of these rules. I thought that I was supposed to comment on your talk page. Is there a better way of communicating on wikipedia? I feel like your vandalizing my work. This is the first account I've ever created. I created it this morning. I was reading about the russian spy scandal and then looked up other ones. This article appeared to be missing a lot of facts so I'm trying to improve it. Your excuse for deleting my hard work was three letter pov. Hue deleted my work because he claimed that my source wasn't credible without even looking at it but it clearly is as it has won numerous awards including best website from time and awards for independent journalism.

The poor user who appears to be interested in balancing the article has been subjected to hostile harassment...despite the user's citation of reliable sources. The user has attempted to make use of multiple avenues in order to have their argument heard...I don't see how this can be considered an "unhealthy obsession"...(you're equally determined to shut the user down). You haven't explained what wrong with the fact the user is working on only one article...are SPA's prohibited? I'd also like to offer some praise to User:Preciseaccuracy for sticking around despite all the hostility they've had to endure.Smallman12q (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ha-ha-ha.Thanks for the good laugh--Mbz1 (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since PreciseAccuracy has decided to take a break, can this be closed? Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Could a user take a break and avoid the ban? I do not think so.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose A topic ban is a last resort. Preciseaccuracy has been blocked only once, a month ago. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been following this since the last ANI discussion on this article. A topic ban should be for an absolute last resort. PA believes they have a valid opinion on the article and, yes, is being quite stubborn on the matter, but they're not the only one. The AFD is particularly heated. Let PA take a break, cool their head, the AFD can move forward, if the article survives consensus can take shape, and if PA's attitude doesn't change once they choose to return then restrictions should be discussed. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Preciseaccuracy appears to be upset and determined that people listen to his argument, however this is not surprising to me. It does appear as though he has a legitimate grievance regarding this article, and it does appear to me at least as though people are claiming synthesis when there is none. There has also been some evidence of "sabotage" of this article, so to speak, described further at the AfD. I do not think that Preciseaccuracy is the only player in this particular battleground, not by a long shot. He appears to have made a number of logical arguments that are being disputed, in some cases, with misdirections and smokescreens (whether this is deliberate or just a matter of narrow POV I do not know). I would be upset too. It is good that he has decided to take a break so that he won't become further upset and start becoming truly disruptive. I do not think he has been disruptive yet and does not warrant a topic ban. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has been disruptive. A topic ban may be too rash but it dos need to be made clear that some changes are needed.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive" is not the right word. If I did .25% of what she did, I would have been banned for good, but of course that user and that article finds lots of sympathy around Wikipedia that is very unfair, but not surpising at all. --Mbz1 (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

94.219.198.90 & 188.107.8.82

The IPs (which are used by the same person) are vandalizing topics by deleting sourced material (from reliable sources like government agencies and the UN), insulting other editors, using multiple IPs so the edits can't be tracked, using original research and POV.

• Talk:Logar Province - insulting in Persian language, "Kere Tajik da kusse nanet, KharKusszai.".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - insulting in Persian language, "Kiram da kusse nane faishet".
• Talk:Badghis_Province#Reverted_edits_by_94.219.198.90 - Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation of Afghanistan (which has taken their data and stats from Central Statistics of Afghanistan and the United Nations) is used as a source, but the IP is using his/her own original research and ethnic POV. The user is not accepting the sources because he/she thinks the government is anti non-Pashtun, which is again POV.
• Logar - Four different sources have been used to support that Pashtuns are the predominant group in the province. 2 of the sources (USAID and Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia By Frank Clements) points out that Pashtuns make up the predominant/majority of the population and 1 of the source (MRRD/CSO/UN) clearly states that Pashto language, which is spoken by the Pashtuns, is spoken by 60% of the population. Understanding the War is another NGO, and it clearly states that Pashtuns make 60% of the population. All the arguments and sources have been presented in the talk page.
• Maidan Shar - The user removes the local name in Pashto language from the article, even though, the language is spoken by 85% of the population and the official name of the province is written in Pashto language. All explained at the discussion page, but the IP still ignores all the information and keeps up with his own ethnic POV. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

I have written more than enough for now. All some one has to do is go through the IP's contribution list and see it for himself (herself). The user is nothing but an IP vandal - using multiple IPs so he/she won't be tracked (84.19.173.195 , 94.219.198.90 , 188.107.8.82 are some of the IPs). (Ketabtoon (talk))

For any admin that wants to take a looks at this, Ketabtoon and these IPs have been apparently going at it for quite a while, reporting each other to AIV, etc. One of the IPs posted on my talk page that Ketabtoon is a "sock-puppet of banned User:Alishah, Khampalak, Afghan4Real and others", but I haven't made an effort to find out if this is the case. I would prefer not to be involved in this and have suggested dispute resolution to these two, but I am not surprised that it has ended up here. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been a member in here for over 2 years. Any admin who wants to go over a check user on my account, they are very welcome to do so. Along with Ed, I asked few admins to look at the IP's contributions and than decide. So far, it looks like no one has done so. Still waiting for some admins and wiki members to go over the IP's contribution.

So, I request an admin to do a user check on my account to clear my issue first. Once that is done, I hope they go over the IP's edits as well. Thank you. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC))

Ketabtoon, you are known by many loyal and good Wikipedians as a troll. You use sources that are not sources. You falsify articles by using every non-reliable source you can get and call it as reliable. You were vandalizing articles and gave contents of sources not as it was quoted. You just changed them to your own interpretation. Wikipedians like User:Tajik and many others, who are known for their good works are Wikipedia, have warned you many times. You remember when you vandalized in the article Ghurid Dynasty? You provided under different accounts poor sources that were not even half reliable you claimed and you estated that everyone, except you and your own-made sources, are wrong. When it came to the ethnical origine of Ghurids you were not able or you were able but you just changed the meaning and misleaded the original meaning of the sources. When Ghurids were used by 20th century scholars as Afghans than because they lived in the region that is known as Afghanistan since 1883, before that date known as Greater Khorasan. You did not want to accept scholaric and real reliable sources just they called the Ghurids as ethnical Tajiks/Persians. Your own nationlistic and ethnocentric POVs were demanded soon by three admins that warned you and you still do the same. You interprete or mislead the contents knowingly of sources for your ethno-POVs. Just let´s take a look on Badghis province as one of thousand proofs. In one source it is only spoken about the language that is mostly spoken by the people of Badghis, no matter to which nations and ethnicity they belong but when it came to the ethnical composition in the next source where Pashtuns make lesser than 30% but their language, as in the first source mentioned, is used by more than 50%, you mislead the meaning of the source and made it to 50% Pashtuns, due your ethno-POVs, while knowing that there are thousand of non-Pashtuns who speak Pashtu because of the large immigrations of Psahtun nomads who a small part of them settled there and are mostly surrounding non-Pashtuns and the Pashtunization movements of the past. http://www.nps.edu/Programs/CCS/Badghis/Badghis_Executive_Summary.pdf, http://www.mrrd.gov.af/nabdp/Provincial%20Profiles/Badghis%20PDP%20Provincial%20profile.pdf. The same goes for Laghman and Logar where Pashais, Tajik Barakis, Hazaras, Dardayals, Dewaris etc. are also forced to speak Pashtu, tough they could easily speak in their own native languages, but because of the surrounding by Psahtuns and large immigrations of them in their lands and cities. The rulers of the past were looking for nothing mre, except try to make out of all Pushtuns. These people, non-Pashtuns, but just they speak also Pashtu as their regional language, they are counted as Pashtu-speaker, while decreasing their ethnical number at the same time. For Wikipedia would be better and wikipedia would have a much better face when it would ban you from writing. You are a racist with strong Pashtun ultra-nationalistic views, you do not respect scholaric sources and withit the original meaning of Wikipedia and spit in the face of all Wikipedians and Wikipedia´s natural and original policy by falsifying articles, documents, using own POVs and sources and so on. Now, I see that you even write lies I´ve had insulted someone. You can not even speak Persian, how could you understand what I´ve written?? The admins should take a look on your´s and that of User toofan´s discussion page where you called all non-Pashtuns as bastards and gays in Pashtu. You think you can fool Wikipedians, but you can´t fool people who are related with Wikipedia and it´s policy. Dear admins, please forgive me that I am wasting space because this User above. Because all this writings are a bit childish. This Ketabtoon is 58 years old but behave like a child. Please forgive me I am engaged in it. Thank you --188.107.8.82 (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

92.24.3.41 continuing to add inappropriate information to Scott Oake

This user has been blocked 3 times for adding absurd information of various kinds to the article, yet they just won't give up. They'll add unnecessary and occasionally libellious information on the subject, then edit war until they're temporarily blocked to keep it in the article.

If you look at the history of the page you'll see it's littered with reversions/undid edits of unsuitable content that the IP added.

A few specific diffs of questionable content:

• [95]
• [96]

There were also a few additions by this author to the article which have since been REVDELed for containing libellious content and I can't list them here for that reason.

This user needs a longer-term block and possibly a topic ban, as few of their additions to the article thus far have been encyclopedic. elektrikSHOOS 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked for a fortnight. bibliomaniac15 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

On the bright side, they've gone from outright libel to just being a nuisance. I guess you could call that progress. Unblock request in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... Resolute 00:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I'm also proposing a topic ban for the editor on Scott Oake and related articles, broadly construed. This would allow editors to bypass 3RR if they edit again on the page. (They have contributed positively elsewhere. But they've been blocked four six (nevermind, just four) times now for unhelpful edits to that article in particular.) elektrikSHOOS 00:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support A simple solution to bypass 3RR. Enforcing a ban is just simpler than having to deal with disruption on individual events. Swarm^Talk 03:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support It would be easier to enforce. (only been blocked 4 times. two of those log entries are me blocking talk page access for adding the libelous information back in through their unblock requests) -DJSasso (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Clear message and comparatively easy enforcement. Favonian (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:NCDane

I became aware of this editor’s contributions having seen this edit while watching recent changes. Noticing a spate of edits deleting cyrillic renderings of proper names with less than collegial edit summaries and that the user had received advice on the conventions surrounding inclusion of non-Roman characters in article mainspace, I warned them that continued disruption would result in a block. After NCDane resumed their removal I briefly blocked them with an explanation. Today in looking over the user’s contribs I find that they insist on applying their perspective of Wikipedia convention unilaterally. I am not arguing that we should should be thralls to the naming convention, but that NCDane should be discussing their differences of opinion in the proper venue and not in the article mainspace. My impetus for posting here is to discover if there are remedies available other than extended blocks or a ban. I'm not seeing any. Tiderolls 00:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There's always the possibility of an editing restriction (that will be enforced through blocks, however), such as the requirement to discuss every edit on the article's talk page before making it or, finally, sort of a topic ban from removing those bits of info. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 00:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to remove this information after being informed about the naming conventions and being briefly blocked for continuing to do so constitutes blatant vandalism. Block 'em, Dano. (I know someone else used this earlier. Still good.) elektrikSHOOS 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yepp. block warranted... indef. This is the 2nd ANI thread, will be the 2nd block, and user insists on his "English only"-crusade. Hopeless case. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have to agree. He has few user talk page edits and they all say the same thing "I'm gonna keep doing what I want to do and screw you all". He also says that he will not stop until told to do so by official authority. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this here ought to be that authority. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we try an editing restriction? "User:NCDane is indefinitely topic banned from removing or replacing any non-English names (of people or otherwise) in any article. Any such edit will result in blocks of increasing length." Fences&Windows 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what remedies might be available, but I would like to point out a couple of things:

On one hand, I think NCDane's contributions have made some improvement over time: Starting with some quite nasty stuff, via [97], then removing dozens of non-English names, then (after warnings) a much smaller number of removals of non-English text.

On the other hand, NCDane's attitude is still a bit angry and confrontational.

In amongst this, I think NCDane has made some positive contributions too.

bobrayner (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fences and Windows; I think this situation would be better dealt with through an editing restriction, at the moment. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed for outing

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

Resolved

 – Revision suppressed. Nothing left to do here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Safwat Ghayur, one of the contributors, using technology that's probably too advanced for me, gave the name and address of someone they disagreed with. Can any of you powerful cats with buttons have a look and see if that info ought to be deleted? (Obviously, I think it should.) Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please do not post requests to remove information such as this publicly. This page is visible to everyone. Go to WP:RfO instead. elektrikSHOOS 05:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the revision text to be on the safe side, I've not taken a really close look at this, but will report to oversight. I've also notified Marwatt of this thread - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Suppressed now. Let's archive this now & shut down teh dramahz - Alison ^❤ 05:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't need any help from an admin to out anyone :) –MuZemike 05:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I am here in response to a notice on my Talk Page. Honestly, I somehow managed to find out the whereabouts of the person who had been vandalizing my articles on wikipedia and have been nominating them for deletion in past. You may well see that even this user is a purpose built user and has specifically targeted my new article on Safwat Ghayur. Out of sheer desperation I mentioned his real name on the discussion page to let him know that I know who he is. I didn’t know if that’s against any policy at Wikipedia, however, he and his multiple socks have been blocked upon my request earlier on as well and I expect the same justice this time too. -- MARWAT  06:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Following this, I have blocked TurnWorst (talk · contribs) for legal threats. See here and my message here.--Scott Mac 15:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Socks of blocked User:BarzanPDK18

Resolved

 – Account blocked, mass deletion of redirects created, IPs blocked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• RedWhite100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 64.110.203.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 207.47.163.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I reported these at WP:AIV, but there was a suggestion that I open an SPI case. I should think that WP:DUCK would apply. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I was the one who suggested the case at WP:SPI. If WP:DUCK applies here, then by all means, block away. No need for unnecessary bureaucracy. elektrikSHOOS 07:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Is anybody out there? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin tools required to revert mass move

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

User:Schwyz has moved a very large number of Swiss and Austrian article names from titles such as "X (district)" to "X District". In most cases, the new titles ar incorrect per WP:AT, as these are not the most common name for the districts: in most cases the placename X alone is used in English writing, and the form X District is a Wikipedia-only invention.

Could some admin please return these articles to their original titles for now, pending a properly advertised and attended discussion in the spirit of WP:BRD? The moves in question are to be found here. Many thanks, Knepflerle (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

More specific than WP:AT is WP:NCGN. See Talk:District#Article_naming - "X (district)" is only used by German speaking countries. I strongly object that they get there own way of article naming. They can do so in de:WP, but not here. Schwyz (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've received your information about this on my talk page - has there been any attempt to discuss this specific concern with Schwyz (talk · contribs)? And which articles exactly were moved? I can't immediately see them in the contribs.  Sandstein  10:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That said, in view of the user's talk page as well as [98] and [99], it is clear that many users have voiced concerns about Schwyz's rapid mass page moves. I advise Schwyz to be receptive rather than dismissive to these concerns (even though i have no opinion about their merits) and to discuss mass page moves with relevant wikiprojects before making them. If Schwyz does not take that advice, I recommend opening a WP:RFC/U.  Sandstein  10:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you want to push your content dispute, and your German naming scheme by WP:RFC/U? Take care you are not blocked for these actions. This is near to harassment. You have good company with Dpmuk then. As for discussing with the relevant projects first: If no one discusses, e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Austria#Districts - then what to do? Schwyz (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And here it gets really funny: You were involved in Talk:Districts of Switzerland and didn't object to move away from "Something (district)" - And now you want to file RFC/U because they were moved away from that rare naming, mostly seen for Germany-related articles only? Schwyz (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Austrian districts you waited 17 minutes between posting your suggestion and starting to move the articles. That does not constitute a reasonable amount of time for discussion. Knepflerle (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention significant amounts of discussion on their talk page. I make it at least ten editors that have commented there now in one form or another. As mentioned at requested moves I'm minded to start an RfC/U if I can get someone else to certify it with me. I'll start working on a draft later today unless anyone beats me to it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop harrasing me, you never contribute anything to article name discussion. The only thing you do, is when other people do not agree with some of my page moves, you pop up and request WP:SPI, WP:RFC/U etc. Schwyz (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No your right, I've not commented on any of your move discussions (at least in part because you've started so few) but I do regularly comment on move requests. The reason I haven't commented on any of your requests / moves is that for most of them I do not have a strong personal feeling. However being a reasonably regular contributor to requested move discussions I know a controversial move when I see one and in my opinion most of your moves are controversial and so should be discussed first. I've tried discussing my concerns with you but you've told me to stop posting to your talk page. As to my mind you still haven't addressed my concerns I've gone to the next step in the dispute resolution process. I fail to see how following that process is harassment, and indeed you've already been told in a previous ANI thread that it isn't, so please stop accusing me of it. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the last moves of mine you have a problem with? And in the way, you do not engage in discussion, because you do not have a strong personal feeling others don't. With respect to the large clean up work I did only few people raised concerns with the changes. And often when I went to Project pages no one answered, e.g. e.g. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Austria#Districts. Schwyz (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

As I point out above, 17 minutes on a single Wikiproject page is not sufficient for discussion. These proposals must go through WP:RM. Knepflerle (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• As long as these are straightforward moves, with no additional edits on the redirect pages, you don't need to be an admin to move them back. Also, admins don't have any additional speedy-move tools. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

"'Also, admins don't have any additional speedy-move tools." - ah, I believed otherwise and that was precisely why I asked here. I seemed to remember a tool for multiple moves akin to the normal rollback being mentioned once, but my memory must be deceiving me - apologies.

However, the lack of such a tool means there's all the more reason for mass moves like this to be taken through WP:RM first, so that they can be discussed properly. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

There is User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js, but I think that's more designed for pagemove vandalism. –xeno^talk 15:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that while I've linked to a tool that can revert mass moves, I don't necessarily endorse mass reversion (at least without further discussion). The moves linked in the OP are from March 2010. At this point, it think it would be best to hold an WP:RM discussion to determine if there is consensus to go the other way. That being said, WP:RM is not an arduous process, and it should be engaged before undertaking a great number of moves in succession or moves that may be deemed controversial. –xeno^talk 23:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, that may be true in general, but in this particular case the user is making a huge amount of moves, a very large proportion of which are being challenged. We shouldn't need a team to watch one user's edits and challenge each individually through WP:RM if they aren't caught "quick enough". Knepflerle (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but we're almost five months later. And no one commented at the WikiProject talk page section created by the mover to say "hey! why did this happen?" (so it doesn't appear there is great objection?) I'm not saying that I think moves like this should happen without the proper discussion, but at this late stage, similarly should they not be reversed without the formal WP:RM procedures being followed. –xeno^talk 12:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U started. Dpmuk (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest to this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 10:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed community ban of User:Mario96

I wish I knew why kids with fantasies of non-existent Disney Channel programming and other juvenile entertainment media always seem to have dynamic IPs. This particular individual has been popping up quite a bit as of late with hoax articles on imaginary TV series mixing plots and characters of current Disney Channel programming complete with taxoboxes and lists. He's fairly easy to spot, but he's been getting more active and disruptive as of late. In all the years I've edited this site, I've never proposed a ban before now; I hope this is the place to do it. If not, any admin may feel free to alert me or to move the proposal to its proper place. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is the place to do it. I'd support a community ban.

I should also point out that vandalizing Disney-related articles feels like the work of BambiFan. Does anyone else get this vibe? elektrikSHOOS^{(editing from a public terminal)} 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw a couple of titles that Bambifan101 tends to vandalise, from a couple of accounts, but I suspect that if two individuals targeted the same subject (Disney Channel) then this would happen. I didn't see any non Disney subjects that Bambifan101 is inclined to "edit", so I don't think it passes WP:DUCK. As for Mario96 et al, I would support a ban - if only as a deterrence for the next Disney fixated potential vandal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think he is de-facto banned, and wouldn't argue with anyone that wanted to make it formal. He's not Bambifan though: he has a distinctive style.—Kww(talk) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Sopher99

User:Sopher99 is removing {{New unreviewed article}} templates from new articles without actually doing the reviews properly, and is also repeatedly making the same CSD tagging errors. Judging by their Talk page, this appears to be a long-standing problem, but it looks like they're taking no notice of all the messages. Could an admin try to gain their attention somehow? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They also removed a copyvio template from an article with text that was clearly copied from the source. See User_talk:Sopher99#Huh.3F. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's a serious problem with this user; disclosure: I've contested some of their speedy nomination. My hope would be that they accept some kind of mentorship... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I just changed another ineligible speedy to a prod. Needs a cluebat or a ban from dealing with new pages for a while. —fetch·comms 20:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have finally got some sort of response on the Talk page, even if it is only deleting a warning (for yet another incorrect CSD:A2 tagging). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RonZ attacking and harassing?

Hi, user RonZ is posting aggressive items on my talk page. I don't understand his statements (they don't make sense) and being new, I don't know what to do, so I'm asking for help. I feel like he's harassing me within the guise of "discussion." What do I do? I've read the wikipedia guidelines very carefully and am trying to obey them. I've asked him for the specifics of where I've violated those guidelines, but instead he violates the guidelines, calling my work "nonsense" and calling me irrational and uncivil. Help? And how do I notify him that I'm asking for outside help? ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You must notify any user you discuss. I have done this for you. Hasteur (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Non-admin view: Looks like the problem is you're trying to raise concerns about the page, and they (User:Ronz) Are shutting you down with "nonsense" or bluster techniques. My suggestion would be to appeal to the appropriate Wikiprojects and get them to weigh in on what appears to be a content dispute. Hasteur (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Non admin too. In my opinion, Ronz is neither attacking you nor harassing you. He certainly could be kinder, but, the way I see it, there's nothing actionable there... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, I could have been kinder and been quicker to ignore what appears to be baiting. These long-running disputes by WP:SPAs get old. At least the long-term partial-protection is keeping the ip's out of it. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. New editor, small number of edits, seems to have good knowledge of policies, cites WP:HAR, WP:BATTLE, WP:KEEPCOOL and talk page guidelines. Perhaps it might be possible that their knowledge of these policies came from having them cited to them in a previous existence? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 3

Resolved

 – TFCs just take a little longer waiting

I expected closures by now. Only 3/12 are closed. Anything wrong? Reposts I missed? -DePiep (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

These are not the administrators you are looking for. –xeno^talk 20:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't get this. I was expecting 42. Those admins. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And, for serious, can someone give me a hint? -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, they're waiting for an administrator to stop by and close them. =) Technically, something like this belongs at WP:AN, because there's no incident, per se. There is some discussion as to whether there is a shortage of admins, if that helps. But a lag time of a couple days at TfD isn't too problematic. –xeno^talk 22:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanx, HAL. I'll look at it this way. I expected the keyboard-happy AfD-watchers. I put a close/fixed here now. -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick and painless resolution

Resolved

 – AFD closed.--Chaser (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Calculator Tricks (AfD discussion)

There seems to be an obvious solution here, that one editor has boldly, albeit not strictly according to process, already enacted using ordinary editing tools. There's been some back-and-forth about early non-administrator closures. The outcome here is very probably uncontroversial, doesn't involve administrator tools to enact, and more time seems to be spent worrying over minutiae of non-admin-closure procedure than anything else. I've notified the holders of the remaining outstanding opinions, from before I pointed out the article that people now seem to be agreeing this should be a redirect to. (Perhaps this should be easier to find when starting from calculator.) Uncle G (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Should have been speedy redirect or even CSD - a no brainer as far as I see. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Though I did leave a sensible edit summary on the main article. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this, just because it seems obvious what the result would have been and because it's already been done. —fetch·comms 20:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Chaser beat me by a few seconds :P —fetch·comms 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

obstruction of ref clean-up

• User talk:Gimmetoo#Asinine actions
  (I section I did not start;)

Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), who claims to be Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been disruptively reverting edits related to the reflinks tool, and citation templates. See Halle Berry, Sean Combs, and Jennifer Lopez, and likely moar. Contrary to some of their edits summaries, most of what I did was done manually, not directly with tools. The referencing edits I and others have been reverted on are all good and progressive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User Jack Merridew is 1) edit warring, 2) with automated tools (reflinks), 3) to impose a change of style to an article, 4) to impose cite templates and 5) to impose some "list-defined" referencing scheme. User Jack Merridew is acting in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If User Jack Merridew wishes to "clean up" refs on a fairly well-developed article (a GA even), then User Jack Merridew should do that while respecting the existing style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is appropriate clean-up and you've gotten push-back from others about this from others. What's your point? You want poor referencing and untagged dead links? Bare URLs? I don't respect that, sorry. Hope you enjoyed teh fish ;) Jack Merridew 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you wanted to fill in some "bare URLs", you could have done that without changing the article to a different style. But you decided to change the entire article in multiple ways, which is inherently disruptive and also obstructive to other editors of the article. You not only added list-defined refs (which some editors find confusing), but actually renamed a number of named references. You also accused an editor of "vandalism" for undoing your undiscussed changes. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They're improvements. This is all-good. Folks will look at our versions and agree. You cut good stuff, not just the cite templates, removed {{dead link}}s, restored bare URLs. If that's not vandalism, it sure is pointy. And others have been objecting to your stance re cite templates and reflinks. Consensus is against you on this, and you know it. Better referencing is a core goal of this project. Jack Merridew 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then restore the established style of the article and incorporate that part of your edits which were "improvements", and not arbitrary style changes, and do not obstruct other editors from making those improvements in the established style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is *all* improvement. Jack Merridew 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear two things from Gimmetoo:

1. Can you explain why you would revert these changes? It's not like they were incomplete and made the article inconsistent or anything: the reference cleanup was done consistently throughout, and brought the articles up to current practices.
2. Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At Halle Berry I count exactly 3 reverts from both of you. I'm guessing that the both of you can count and stopped right before the bright line and I'm glad you're talking about this but consider this a reminder and a warning. Otherwise I'm waiting for answers to Kww's questions. -- Atama頭 21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, now, that this kicked-up more than three months ago: [100] vs [101]; w/Pablo, a few days later: [102]/[103] vs [104]. I didn't notice I'd been reverted, at the time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious. NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'll leave the articles be, 'til tomorrow. If Gimmetrow claims this account, we'll continue this; if not, I think a CU is in order. FWIW, I don't know Gimmetrow at all and have no idea why they've not edited in months. Someone familiar with them might drop an email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I dug lightly into the dual identity before, and came to the conclusion that the accounts are the same editor. Note that the resistance by Gimmetoo was begun by Gimmetrow, for example. The articles of interest overlap, as well. Another user got tangled in an autoblock when Gimmetoo was blocked on July 30, though, and that means a CU wouldn't hurt if Gimmetrow doesn't reclaim the account.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I saw that the rvs began with 'trow. Also saw that 'too responded to NW's block within a minute. Yet, 'trow has not edited. This could easily be moar mimicry. We'll see... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have come to this process as an interested observer, I am not fully informed on these actions as this is my first such interaction. Let me preface by saying it was I, who created the thread here. I was taken aback at the undoing of a [WP:REFLINKS]] fix. User Gimmetoo has the distinction of receiving my first and only trout slap to date, as I felt compelled to at least comment. I have been watching Gimmetoos' talkpage and this is where I learned of these developments. I commend Jack Merridew for his resolve to accommodate such an unusual notion as to require and editor to perform a reference fix manually. And then to defend against an unjustifable edit war simply to improve an article. I concur with the administrative actions I have observed in conjunction with these discussions. I would like to articulate that I believe the block against gimmetoo is proper, it is, however, for reasons not explicitly related to this ANI. I hope to see clarification as to consensus that Gimmetoos' actions were inappropriate in reverting the contributions shown. Further more, expressed, as such where this incident can serve as a reference itself that [WP:REFLINKS] or other citation styles are acceptable, if not preferred, opposed to raw urls'. Thanks for considering these as well. My76Strat 02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User talk:GORIZARD and image copyright problems

GORIZARD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:GORIZARD has a talk page full of notices informing him that his image uploads do not adhere to our copyright and image policies. These are as recent as yesterday and go back to over a year. As he evidently cannot or will not understand, someone needs to have a word with him and block him if he continues. He also creates articles of questionable notability. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Zero usertalk contributions shows no interest in acknowledging the issue. I propose a short block if nothing else seems to work. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Since GORIZARD only edits sporadically, any block would have to be long enough to get his attention no matter when he returns. I would suggest a one-month block in hopes of getting him to respond. The block could be lifted if the editor would join a discussion and agree to follow our policies. He has a Commons account and he was blocked for a week there. Apparently he did not discuss anything on Commons either. EdJohnston (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month; any admin can unblock if they convince you that they understand and will abide by image and copyright policy going forwards... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lemma wars resulting in copyvios

Dollareuro (talk · contribs) is moving article content by cut and paste

• from Assyrian people to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people

and

• from Assyrian Genocide to Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Genocide

Losing the article history and so violating the license. In addition the lemma change may be in violation of a prior Requested Move consensus.

--Pjacobi (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The author Dollareuro (talk · contribs) already mentioned the reason for redirection :" in order to inlude all Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people" btw these three groups consider themselves to be one ethnic group, therefore it will be a good thing to be under the one common name Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac.

Yadamavu (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirects. If there is consensus, then it needs to be moved properly. If there is not, it needs to be discussed or reverted as good faith mistakes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also undone the one at Assyrian diaspora - the moves seem nonsensical and pointy at the moment, though made in good faith as far as I can see. The new titles aren't particularly practical. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy this mess up. Two of the copy-and-paste moves are now back as speedy requests (it is my believe as clear copy violations this is one of the times re-adding a speedy is OK) and the third is now back as a redirect (although an admin may still wish to delete and recreate the redirect). An inappropriate AfD that was started speedy closed by me (NAC). Requested move started here. I'm now going off to try to collect all appropriate comments there. I'd appreciate if an admin could review my actions and make sure everything is in order. Dpmuk (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Need help with non-native-English-speaking editor

I'm engaged in dialog with User:Curvesall on article Racism in Israel, and I'm having a very difficult time. The editor doesn't seem to really understand how to properly edit, and they have introduced numerous style/grammar/formatting errors into the article in the past few days. Every time I try to fix them and explain, the editor reverts my changes. They do engage in talk on the Talk page, but it gets nowhere: I think we have agreement, then wham, they rever the change again.

Here is one example: A source in the article is an essay by person A, in a book by edited by person B. Person B is perhaps biased. User Curvesall keeps changing the text in the article to state that B wrote the essay (B did not: B was merely the editor). Here are three times I tried to indicate to Curvesall that B was not the author: [105], [106], [107] Yet, in spite of all that guidance, Curvesall insists on inserting text into the article that says B is the author (the line is "Nahla Abdo-Zubi, Ronit Lenṭin, critics of Zionists have described Israeli media as..." (Abdo and Lentin are editors, not authors). That is just one example of about 40 problems Curvseall has introduced into the article.

For what it's worth: this user is a single-article account ([108]) although I've seen no evidence of anything nefarious.

Any help would be appreciated. It is excruciatingly difficult trying to repair the damage Curvesall has done. If some editor could review the situation and give some input on the article Talk page, or Curvesall User page, maybe that will help. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag: if the inquiry does not belong here, please tell the editor where to bring it, don't just shut the door in his or her face with an unsigned "resolved" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What Ken said: if it doesn't belong here, where does it belong? Or is this a "content issue" where someone should either be happy to beat their head against a wall or just give up and let someone else, well-meaning or not, ruin an article? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Try following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Some conversation is happening on the talk page. I warned Curvesall for 3RR, and he's been invited to join the ANI discussion. He seems like someone with prior Wikipedia experience. If Noleander thinks that Curvesall is not following our policies, he can make an update to this report, or file an edit-warring complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I asked also noleander to come to consensus before editing, I just followed the advice of improving style, and his above comments were met and changed already.Curvesall (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

Account using Wiki as a testing site?

I happened to come across Paperwheel (talk · contribs) today while reviewing the edits of an Anon IP [109]. The Paperwheel account does not seem to have ever edited a live article or used a talk page, and has exclusively created and worked on a big list of subpages in his own userspace [110], [111]. The subpages are here [112]. They appear to be just copy-pasted bits and pieces of userboxes and help pages, plus some pages that are just utter nonsense. I'm probably going to submit the lot to MfD, but before I do I was wondering if this was familiar to anyone here, possibly familiar behavior of a blocked user? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified Paperwheel of this thread. Basket of Puppies 01:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thank you BoP. He hasn't edited in over a year so I guess I subconsciously didn't think to do it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They have indeed edited articles: twice.. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Man, your eyes are better than mine are! Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, twice. What infraction is this? Just curious. Bus stop (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not an infraction. However, it's not an especially productive use of Wikipedia, either. Accounts should be here to edit and contribute to the encyclopedia, not create catalogs of subpages full of userboxes and nonsense. That's venturing into WP:NOTMYSPACE territory, which is why I've sent the lot to MfD. I'm not here to "report" anyone, the behavior just seemed odd to me and I was asking if it was familiar to anyone. Sockmasters are known to do things like that. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nonproductive it would seem to be. It's a strange assortment of incomprehensible stuff. I wonder if it's computer-generated — by some kind of program? Bus stop (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad image

How do we get an image listed as a bad image and restricted? File:SOA-Herpes-genitalis-female.jpg is being used to vandalize an unrelated article and a user page. It's exactly what it says it is, so there's no need to click if you're squeamish. I don't have time to sort this out myself (other than block the offender), so I'd appreciate a bit of help from another admin. Rklawton (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link, chummer. :) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 02:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And the appropriate place is MediaWiki:Bad image list. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Eek. Maybe we need to group them under First Aid, in the category, "Images to look for if you need to induce vomiting." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, that one's not so horrible; just think of the gynecologists who have to deal with that sort of stuff every day. As someone who's seen a Latino man completely cyanotic (drowning victim), and seen a car crash victim bleeding to death on the road in front of me (those two within three weeks of each other, mind you) without flinching, I can say that one isn't too awful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

Well, yeah. As someone who has not ever seen either of those two things, let alone within three weeks of each other, I can see why it might be considered a shock image. The vandal in question apparently was using it as such, likely because tubgirl images would get deleted on sight. Şłџğģő 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Tubgirl". Thanks for that mental image I had suppressed until now. Scarred for life... Doc9871 (talk) 10:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Johnj stevenson uploading copyrighted images after multiple warnings (relisting)

(relisting)

Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded about 6 copyrighted images for use at Susana Martinez, all of which he claimed as his own work even though they really came from professional sources such as the Associated Press. All images were speedily deleted. He has been warned (warning, warning, warning) but has again uploaded after these warnings. He also removes the deletion tags from his images without explanation, and has also been warned about this but persists in this behavior. How about a block on this user? Thanks. --75.211.134.137 (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I'll try something different on this one. If he uploads another copyvio after this, then I would recommend a block. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• After Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs)'s more detailed warning against copyvio, Johnj stevenson (talk · contribs) has uploaded another copyvio image. Further he deleted the speedy deletion tag from this image at least three times, after being warned about this also. How about a block on this user? --75.211.245.115 (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

1 week block imposed. Any administrator may unblock if Johnj stevenson indicates convincingly that they understand the policy and will abide by it in the future. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Good block but lenient as they've never responded on their talk page or elsewhere. If they continue, I'd suggest an indefinite block, which, like the week block, can be unblocked just as quickly as they can convince an Admin about their good intentions in the future. Any block like this can generally be as short as the editor wants it to be, all they have to do is comply and communicate. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Pedia2007z

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48 hours Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pedia2007z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - persistent addition of controversial materials to the page of Andrew Li. Andrew Li is currently the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, and is accused by the user of lying and covering up the wrongdoing of fellow judges. No reliable sources are provided. His edits have been reverted a number of times, and despite multiple warnings, the user has persisted in adding the defamatory material. The user has done the same thing to the Chinese version of the page: [113]. Edit-warring.

Clean edit: [114]

User's edit: [115]

Can administrator intervention stop the user's disruptive editing on the Chinese page as well?Craddocktm (talk) 06:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Request admin assistance to undo controversial page move

On 12 August, Schwyz (talk · contribs) moved Province of Pomerania to Province of Pomerania (1815-1945). Per WP:BRD, I want to undo that move. I contest its merits because per WP:PRIMARY, "Province of Pomerania" should be used and other articles should be linked from the dab page mentioned in the hatnote. If Schwyz or anyone else disagrees, they may use the WP:RM process.

I can not undo the move myself, since Schwyz salted the former title by turning it into a redirect page. Thus, I need admin assistance to

• delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania
• move the article Province of Pomerania (1815-1945) to Province of Pomerania

Thank you, Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: There has been a similar request of mine just a few days ago [116], and since I have seen similar requests by other users [117] [118] [119], I wonder if any admin may instruct Schwyz to make less use of WP:BOLD and more use of WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

non-admin responses

What you're requesting is identical to CSD G6, which is usually done by placing {{db-move}} on the page that you want deleted. Being a speedy deletion request, this is done when the move is uncontroversial. Since potentially controversial, this request belongs at WP:RM. A question, have you initiated a discussion on this yet? I couldn't find one. The important part of BRD is discuss, so maybe you should focus more on discussing the move and gaining consensus to solve the problem, and less on complaints to ANI. Swarm^Talk 07:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The initial move user Schwyz performed is controversial, so per WP:BRD it should be undone and discussed at WP:RM. Since when is one expected to start a WP:RM discussion to revert a controversial move? It's the other way around. The request is placed here because Schwyz salted the original title, which was stable for years, so I technically can not make use of my right to revert a controversial edit w/o admin assistance. Please can an admin clear the original title by deleting it, so the article can be moved back. If Schwyz insits on the title they moved it to this time (they had moved it to another title previously), they may file an RM and see if a consensus forms there supporting such a change, as it is standard procedure. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll just note that User:Schwyz has around 1600 page moves (counting TP's) out of 4400 edits. Mauler90 _talk 07:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That should have no effect on this specific incident at all, unless their moves are consistently problematic. Swarm^Talk 08:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They are, and they have yet to show any signs of heeding others good faith concerns about it. Quantpole (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

See the msg by Mauler, by that number I would have at more than 800 real moves, since some pages don't have a talk page. Out of 800 moves, some are controversial. For that specific one: I disambiguating between two entities called Pomerania Province or "Province of Pomerania" - for the former revert Skäpperöd did not mention he would thinnk the topic is WP:PT - so I didn't assume it would be controversial to introduce proper dab page again. Schwyz (talk) 09:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - the revert of the former did introduce false incoming links. There are other entities called Province of Pomerania, that's why "(1815-1945)" needs to be added. Also: the former revert that Skäpperöd asked for he motivated by "Pomerania Province" va "Province of Pomerania" he didn't mention WP:PT at all. Also it fails WP:PT, no numbers brought up to support WP:PT for specifically that province, the Prussian one. Schwyz (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to argue about the merits or dis-merits of your move. You should do it at Talk:Province of Pomerania. (I am sure many users would like to join you there.) This thread is about cleanup after your controversial action. I have stricken out your comment above as being unrelated to this discussion. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an RM discussion, this is a technical request as the salting of the redirect prevents non-admins to properly follow WP:BRD. Once the article is moved back to its former title, you may file an RM and outline your rationale there. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This is more than a tech request, you brought it to ANI, and in your original request you include things not related to the tech question. I really couldn't see that you prefer wrong incoming links to be introduced again and that you think disambiguation between entities named the same you wouldn't like. Your former request you did only motivate by naming of the base name, which I respected. Schwyz (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course PT was not mentioned when your last controversial move was undone, since it did not affect the title you moved it to that time. I referred to PT simply because I wanted to let the housekeeping admin taking care of this request know that there are arguments that I base my opposition on. There are more, eg the title you moved it to is utterly unstable because it does not contain the MOSsy mdash, and someone will "fix" that with another move soon, creating ample double+ redirects, if this problem is not taken care of. But really, let's discuss that in a WP:RM, not here. Skäpperöd (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course PT affected the former title. The year numbers were included. You didn't say anything about the year numbers in your former undo request. For the mdash - thing - no problem, redirects and bots can handle this. It is one more redirect, to call that "ample" is only putting ATTACK into the talk. Schwyz (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The page should be put back to its original position, and an WP:RM filed with notices placed at relevant WikiProjects. Then we can collect suggestions about the best way to proceed. There's no rush, so let's sort this out properly with proper community input. Knepflerle (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

To let users end up on the wrong topic is far worse than on a disambiguation page. Schwyz (talk) 09:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and we can discuss the best ways to avoid this during the WP:RM discussion, and pick a solution so that this will not happen. Knepflerle (talk) 09:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to admins: why is this taking so long and so much talk? Skäpperöd asked a revert because he declared the speedy deletion was controversial. This very statement should be enough to revert (although he added good motivation). He also suggested someone talked to Schwyz explaining that any possible controversion in a move/delete prevents speedy housekeeping. -DePiep (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Small correction: Not an SD was controversial, but a move. I wonder why it does take so long, too. <sarcasm>Maybe I should go and call someone "little shit" to catch their attention.</sarcasm> Skäpperöd (talk) 10:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would help. Apparently, there is no admin around here to even be insulted ;-). Move or SD: it's about the non-controversial, of course. Anyway, even the previous discussion about Schwyz behaviour here, (which does not have your name), did not solve it. -DePiep (talk) 10:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please block Schwyz asap

Retracting my block request since Schwyz declared their retirement [120] [121] [122] [123], so there is no immediate action required preventing mass introduction of controversial links. I still want the page moved back though. Skäpperöd (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And I award the Wikipedia administratior corps a huge pile of horse manure for not taking prompt action on a simple technical request and allowing this discussion to turn over into something that looks like a trollfest. Loosing Schwyz (talk · contribs) is a great loss to Wikipedia. Early and prompt action would have avoided this. (Award to the right. I not know what right KoshVorlon has to call me a Schwanz, but the award is available here ) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

For this egregious derelict of duty, I hereby dock all Wikipedia admins one day's pay. –xeno^talk 13:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Despite my plea on their talk page to stop, Schwyz is atm changing a multitude of wikilinks to link the controversial new title I requested to be reverted above. They treated my request as "harassment", which I take as an insult. I request that Schwyz is blocked asap, the page moved back, and Schwyz instructed to follow WP:RM. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop your WP:HAR!!! To ask for block, if a user does disambiguation work is nothing but WP:HAR.

See some of my link fixes, the links went to the wrong topic! The title Province of Pomerania is not unambiguous:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C5%9Awinouj%C5%9Bcie&diff=prev&oldid=378689141
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Farther_Pomerania&diff=prev&oldid=378690419
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher&diff=prev&oldid=378688385

This has nothing to do with were your personal favorite as PT is loacted. There can be a redirect later. Schwyz (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly linking your controversial title while this request, that your move be undone, is active, examples: [124] [125] [126] [127] [128]. This is by no means uncontroversial dab work, and to call my request harrassment is insulting. Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF, that is gone now. Skäpperöd (talk) 10:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I link the other name, to do the dab work. You don't get it: there can be a redirect to your personal favorite topic later. Your ultimatum style block request etc, shows clearly that you don't WP:AGF Schwyz (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U started. Dpmuk (talk) 10:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be of interest to this thread. Dpmuk (talk) 10:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Salting redirects after page moves is an indication of bad faith and in my view cause for administrative action, i.e. temporary block. It prevents the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle needed to handle this large number of page moves. Not all of Schwyz's moves are controversial – the ones that are have usually been immediately reverted and later discussed. See for example Talk:Governorate of Estonia and Talk:Governorate of Livonia. On the other hand I want to commend Schwyz for doing important work on historic provinces, he just needs firmer guidance. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  P.S. - The fact that the salting was done after a move war makes the bad faith even more obvious. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is getting worse, admin attention?

Please can an admin delete the current redirect page Province of Pomerania so the artilce can be moved back (initial request in this thread). It's getting worse. A respected user, no fault on his part!!!!, has now moved Schwyz's title, which was inconsistent with MOS, to yet another title [129]. Schwyz had already started changing wikilinks as outlined above, and now we have multiple redirects pointing different ways... If no action is taken soon, more and more work will be needed to clean up the mess. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification of this discussion (it was I who replaced the hyphen with the dash). Now I've seen it, I strongly support Skapperod's plea for admins to act. We've had too much of this move warring tactics recently, where someone unilaterally renames a page and then insists that others get consensus at RM before it can be moved back. This is clearly not how it's supposed to work - I don't mind people being bold (and frequently am so myself), but as soon as someone makes a reasonable objection to such a bold move, the move should be undone and an RM request submitted to see if there is consensus for the move. Anyone who disrupts that process (by redoing the move, or continuing with other similar moves, or deliberately salting redirects to prevent non-admins moving the page back, etc.) is being disruptive and needs action taken to ensure that they stop and that the damage is repaired.--Kotniski (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is the RM Schwyz opened before they left, what should be done about this? Skäpperöd (talk)

Skapperod would you stop creating wikidrama? The water is not on fire.  Dr. Loosmark  12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Skäpperöd

(Moved by Moonriddengirl to subsection related thread)

I am doing disambiguation work an Skäpperöd is requesting a block for that, [130]. He clearly fails WP:AGF. . Before 10:00 UTC, you had the bonus of AGF - the redirects are valid redirect titles. So nothing to call for a block. Schwyz (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• This all seems very familiar. I don't think it was necessary - or appropriate - to start a new thread. Particularly since a complaint in the previous thread was "a lack of admin attention". TFOWR 10:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As you have sysop rights, could you please take care of the initial request, and mark this one resolved? Skäpperöd (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin action

I've reverted the controversial move to permit discussion. If consensus supports the move, it's a simple matter to move it again. Meanwhile, I hope that there is some resolution forthcoming about these moves (presuming the retirement to be temporary) so it can stop showing up at ANI. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thank you! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the edits of User:EDDDDDDDI

EDDDDDDDI (talk · contribs) is posting the names of a student who will be killing students at a school in a future date, and the names of the students who will be killed. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles deleted, see also this explanation. I don't think any further action should be needed. Prodego ^talk 07:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because he says it's a joke now, doesn't mean it actually is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have a policy on this. Someone needs to contact the police in the area and give them the info, I believe an admin with full access to the deleted pages will need to do it. I believe this is local station [131]. A checkuser might be needed to get his IP to pass on to the police in case the one posting it isn't one of the named parties.--Crossmr (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Threats of mass murder are not a matter for the police, Prodego? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a plausible explanation, but the main thing to remember is that if the police are contacted absolutely not to do that without the IP of EDDDDDDDI. Otherwise anyone writing X will kill Y on Wikipedia can try to get the police to show up at 'X's' house. Which would be very bad. Prodego ^talk 07:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply dismissing it isn't the responsible thing to do either. Requesting a checkuser and forwarding it to the police and letting them make the call is.--Crossmr (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dismissing it is my first preference. It is out of pattern with the other edits, the explanation is very plausible and comes with an apology, it looks pretty clear to me. People make stupid joke edits all the time. But if a checkuser agrees to release the IP, so be it. Prodego ^talk 07:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Out of pattern? They've only made a couple of other edits. There is hardly enough edits there to establish a pattern.--Crossmr (talk) 11:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please, get the IP, get the deleted revision and call the police right away. I would do both if I only had the access. Basket of Puppies 11:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

section removals

Hi, I just saw a section where an editor was just asking about the policies at WP:SOCK andwhether admins haveto follow them too and it just got removed without a resolution. I thought people were nicer than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.131.255 (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It was resolved: with the exception of yourself every editor who commented agreed that the IP tagging an established editor as a sock puppet, without having the balls to do anything other than tagging, had acted inappropriately. I removed the section per WP:DENY. TFOWR 09:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess some other input is needed here

Resolved

Gwen Gale severely tutted! Mjroots (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wm5200 says I need to be disciplined. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you could have directed Wm5200 to the WP:RSN as they appear to believe that Hugh Trevor-Roper isn't a reliable source regarding the death of Hitler. That suggestion is so ludicrous, however, that I appreciate you might have felt it a waste of RSN's time. There's no {{anchovy}}, and {{minnow}} seems a little too harsh. Perhaps Wm5200 would be happy a severe tutting? In which case: tut, tut, Gwen Gale. And, frankly, that's more than enough discipline for this non-incident. TFOWR 10:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RolandR, Israel Shamir, and threats of violence

OTRS ticket 2010081310003608 is an email that has come in from a member of the public about one of our articles and the conduct of RolandR (talk · contribs). I am an uninvolved administrator with centrist leanings who has in the past had one major dealing with RolandR, where I blocked another user for outing him. I, therefore, am aware of RolandR's identity, and will not post it here.

The email makes allegations of massive COI related to the article Israel Shamir and threats of violence made by people connected to RolandR. The email also makes reference to several libellous articles in extreme-left papers which he believes (with very good evidence) are are written by RolandR. The email states that RolandR is an accomplice of the publishers of these papers, and that while publishers of certain left-wing magazines do not go out to kill Mr Shamir, they publish details which would allow every not-too-experienced assassin to deal with him. A real Mossad assassin can kill Mr Shamir anytime, but RolandR (and Wikipedia) provide for him an alibi by making his whereabouts easily searchable. Our article used to include links to his passport (posted without his permission) as references, and almost all other references are from unreliable sources which are heavily biased against the subject.

I cannot post the full text of the email here, for obvious reasons, but in short, the email states: the article is currently libellous, and RolandR is part of a concerted campaign to disparage and harass Israel Shamir through both Wikipedia and through articles in Trotskyist/leftist magazines.

The respondent is of the firm belief - as, at a first glance, am I - that practically all contributions of RolandR on the article Israel Shamir are at the very least unfair. However, seeing as this extends to off-wiki threats, and what looks like a concerted attempt to turn the article into a biased work, I am notifying the community of the problem through this message, and asking for input - is this something that needs ArbCom involvement, given the link to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

I have notified RolandR of this discussion and temporarily stubbed and protected the article to prevent potential libel. Any administrator not involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict issue can revert me without a wheel war taking place, as I give permission for them to do so if they think it prudent. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I categorically reject the allegations in this complaint, which on the face of it appears itself to be libellous. I have never made, endorsed or contemplated any threat of violence against Mr Shamir, or any other person. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any other person "connected to" me. I am not part of any "concerted campaign" against Mr Shamir. The suggestion that I am linked to any hitmen or to the Mossad is absurd and defamatory; I would not even know how to go about establishing such a connection.

I have published just one article, under my own name, about Mr Shamir. This appeared in an American Trotskyist newspaper in 2004. I have never published any anonymous articles about him. Although I have cited articles from the anti-fascist magazines Monitor, Expo and Searchlight, I have never written for them and have no connection with them.

The information I have added to the article is certainly not libellous, and is well-established. It has all been published previously in reliable sources. In fact, there is nothing in the article which is not already easily available in the public domain.

This article has a long history of POV editing by Mr Shamir and his sockpuppets and meatpuppets. They have attempted to remove any information about his alternative identities, and about his alleged links with extreme right-wing groups and activists. This complaint is just the latest attempt by Mr Shamir to control the article; I do not think that there is any need for special action in response to what appears to be a frivolous and libellous OTRS complaint. RolandR (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Has any of this been covered in mainstream media? The closest thing I saw in the old article was this reference [132] which says he is "an extreme leftist", not right-wing.

As to the complaint above, I don't think much can be done to resolve it onwiki. But perhaps you could explain why you restored the link to Shamir's passport ? The link is broken, but it seems somewhat unusual, and maybe there is some explanation that might clear the air. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I've found the article in question, which although I will not link to for fear of outing RolandR, I will happily quote the first sentence, "Here is the background to my hostility towards Israel Shamir". The article published under your name also releases his home address and fax number and personal details about his son. If you did indeed write that piece, then I firmly believe you should be recusing yourself from editing anything related to Mr Shamir. It's such a large conflict of interest, it's almost comical. Almost. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You may as well just link to the article if you're going to quote the entire first sentence. That sentence returns exactly four google hits... Dpmuk (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty hard to get my point across without quoting it, and it returns more than four when I searched, sorry! Nevertheless, if you've managed to find the article, do you think it's neutral? On another note, it's bloody difficult to not draw links between RolandR and his real life identity. RolandR, if you want me to redact anything please let me know. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a very fair comment, I just wanted to make you were aware in case you wasn't. I may be a bit more knowledgeable than some of how to get the result you want out of google but I suspect plenty of other people would know how to as well. I think the article tries to be evidence based and remain relatively neutral, however there are some sections of it that make me think that the author has not been entirely successful (especially the paragraph before reference 3). This is not an attack on the author as we all struggle to remain neutral about stuff we feel strongly about but I do think that, if they are the user in question here, it shows enough evidence of not being able to stay neutral that they should probably not edit anything to do with Shamir and instead asking for changes to be made on the relevant talk page. In an issue such as this I think it's important that wikipedia isn't seen to be biased and even if this user successfully remains neutral the appearance of bias will still be there. Caveat: I'm a reasonably experienced editor but I'm not an admin and don't have too much experience in areas such as this. Dpmuk (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved with the entire area. I looked through the references from the previous version, and I agree they seem very problematic. There was a (broken) link claiming to be his passport. None of the references was to a mainstream English media source, and none of them was to any form of print media (e.g. biographies, journal articles, scholarly books, etc.) except possibly [133]. Starting from scratch using mainstream sources seems like a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved with the entire area. I looked through the references from the previous version, and I agree they seem very problematic. There was a (broken) link claiming to be his passport. None of the references was to a mainstream English media source, and none of them was to any form of print media (e.g. biographies, journal articles, scholarly books, etc.) except possibly [134]. Starting from scratch using mainstream sources seems like a good idea. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments regarding the article may be correct here, but I'm surprised that it is considered okay to receive an email making potentially libellous comments about an editor (including, it could be interpreted, the allegation that the editor may be knowingly assisting in a potential murder (!)) and just go ahead and post the contents here. --FormerIP (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm posting about 5% of the email, heavily edited. I know my obligations under OTRS rules, don't worry :-). Regardless of the content of the mail, however, the problem is what's implied. It'd still be problematic even if I posted it completely reworded, and I apologise to RolandR if this has upset him - but it's either an offensive article, or an offensive email. Either way, I'd like to know which it is, and which we can close/delete. nevertheless, i've removed the direct quoted sections. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

RolandR has been the target of extremely egregious stalking and harassment here over the years from a particularly nasty sockmaster, and I would not be a bit surprised if this was not yet another chapter of that. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If it is, a checkuser would help here. I suspect it isn't though, because of the content of the OTRS mail. I think it's honestly a person who honestly believes that the article about him is non-neutral. The Russian article at this address certainly looks a bit iffy. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User 100110100 sockpuppets

100110100 was banned per this discussion. Here is a previous ANI discussion on the user.

Since then, the user has been using sockpuppets for a while, the most recent of which is User talk:199.126.224.156. Here are other ANI threads about this user's sockpuppets: [135] [136]

After other admins recognized the latest sockpuppet, it was blocked by User:NuclearWarfare on July 27. Since then the IP has been editing every 3 days, and I have been extending the block each time and rolling back the edits per WP:BAN.

I could use some other admin eyes here, particularly because I haven't been able to get through the to the editor that they are actually banned. Since this IP address seems pretty stable, would a longer block be in order? — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a month long or three-month long block. It's quite obviously a static IP. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis-push culminating in possible legal threats

This is a long and protracted dispute. But I support brevity whenever possible and I will try to avoid anyone quoting WP:TLDR to me. The dispute involves Nazar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who, starting last June, insisted on adding their personal analysis of a video into the Prahlad Jani article which was identified as synthesis and original research by myself and two other editors. In the span of about two months and after two RFCs and two reports at WP:ORN, the second report at ORN, at Wikipedia:ORN#Prahlad_Jani_redux, finally rendered opinions that the attempted edit was WP:OR. But although, initially, Nazar seemed to accept the opinion rendered at ORN, after a few days s/he came back at the Prahlad Jani article and added the Defamation of various entities through biased rendering section, where among other things s/he also accuses me and user McGeddon that By refusing to provide the neutral dating of the evidence material, the mentioned above editors are protecting the con. Since I want to keep this report brief I will not add more details but I would like to ask if anyone thinks that the "Defamation of various entities through biased rendering" section added by Nazar on the talk page of the Prahlad Jani article constitutes a legal threat and if anything needs to be done about it. I am also asking for an opinion about whether the editor should be advised about disruptive editing given their persistent refusal to accept the fact that the edits s/he attempted to insert into the article are synthesis. See also the Nazar revisited section on user Prodego's talkpage, the Prahlad Jani section on my talkpage,the RFCs section on my talkpage. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He's already said "No legal threats...implied." which surely rules it out as a legal threat, no ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a legal threat. Civility issues mayube, but nothing too serious.Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

User:YumeChaser and Twinkle

I think the user needs a break from using Twinkle. He's showing a serious lack of maturity and is misusing it, even after being warned not to. This first came up when I saw a bit of a pile-on on a new user making good faith edits. Yumechaser, was displaying some bad faith by labeling their content dispute edits as vandalism [137] and making a comment that seemed like bad faith that fans of a particular singer couldn't be objective, when it was more his misunderstanding of the subject that lead him to think they were non-notable.[138]. I warned him on his talk page. His response was to question my eye-sight and make some other slightly uncivil and bad faith comments [139]. When I clearly spelled it out for him [140], he shut up, didn't take any responsibility for his bad faith comments and uncivil remarks, and didn't retract them either. I went on vacation almost immediately after that and when I returned, I thought I'd check if he took it to heart. he didn't [141]. He was repeating the same kind of bad faith labeling in content disputes yet again. I repeated the warning and told him to cut it out. After being caught with his hand in the cookie jar twice, his response was this [142]. It tells me that he doesn't have the maturity nor responsibility to be using this tool, and it tells me that he is going to continue misusing it. As such I think he should be blacklisted from using it, and since an admin is required to do that, here we are.--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have notified this user of this thread on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

They were already notified, I think its a further illustration of the problem by blanking the notice and not responding here. They'd rather continue the behaviour and pretend there is no problem rather than address it.[143].--Crossmr (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit shows me that they appear not to understand what rollback is and what it is for (even though that's a Twinkle rollback and not an "original" rollback). I think a stern warning should be enough; if they keep misusing the tool after that, then their permission can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my initial warning was pretty stern. After that warning, he did it again. Since he doesn't seem to understand, and wants to instead pretend nothing is wrong, I can't see how another stern warning is going to change the situation. if you think he doesn't understand rollbacks at all, perhaps all his tools should be taken away.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about a warning from an admin (which I'm not), because sometimes editors respond more to them than to those issued by non-admins... And because, in general, I prefer to avoid restrictions (such as revoking Twinkle access) unless strictly necessary... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Now who's assuming bad faith? 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your previous responses and the fact that you took the time to blank that notice (2 of them) rather than respond here) we don't assume good faith blindly. You've been quite uncivil and refused to respond with anything except bad faith accusations to this point. You had an opportunity to explain this previously but instead stopped communicating--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll admit that I did not know that "Rvv" meant revert vandalism. I use it all the time on plenty of edits and no one has ever told me that I was wrong for using that abbreviation as opposed to "rv" or just writing out "revert". So when Crossmr left that message on my talk, I responded in a harsh manner. And when he did point it out, I left the subject alone, because in my eyes it was over and done with. Now, the last edit did not even involve the use of Twinkle and it is a habit for me to type "rvv", I need to work on that now that I know. I told you to go away because I didn't want to deal with you. It's as simple as that. You are reading to much into it and you are overlooking the good that I have done with Twinkle with the bad, all of which is minor. 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

YumeChaser, please read WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is a tool that makes it easier to undo someone's edits, but only when there's no need to type an edit summary; that's why, usually, rollback is used only for vandalism (or to remove a lot of similar edits in rare cases). It implicitly assumes bad faith. If you're in doubt, you should always use the undo button or the good faith feature of Twinkle's rollback. And, at the same time, you should avoid using "rvv", unless you're reverting vandalism, because that too assumes bad faith. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 13:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all that, but one minor point: The user has never had rollback rights. YumeChaser, I am assuming that this all boils down to misunderstandings on your part, but please consider this thread your warning about misusing Twinkle and mislabeling non-vandalism as vandalism. —DoRD (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I just miss the part where I misused Twinkle. I just pressed the rollback button and added a edit summary. I don't see how that was misusing the script. 夢追人^YumeChaser 13:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's brought to light a greater issue which is your civility towards other users both in tone and bad faith accusations. Misusing RVV and rollback s but one issue. Your response to any opposition to what you were doing was extremely uncivil, especially after it was spelled out for you. Your bad faith assumption that fans couldn't be objective about a subject you thought wasn't notable when they clearly were is another indication of that.--Crossmr (talk) 13:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Electronic body music#futurepop

Dynamic IP socks of the same user (I wonder if a sockpuppetry case can be opened about him because seemingly, there has already been a case of him opened, in [144]) is CONSTANTLY, for years, continuing to disrupt and change the article as he finds it appealing to his eyes. Now what he is doing is removing the "Futurepop" section. I have requested this article to be protected and it has been protected for only one week. This isn't useful in my eyes, because immediately after the protection he has been writing in the talkpage of the protecting admin, see User_talk:Tcncv#Electronic_body_music, and "promised" to vandalize again in the future, as he has alredy been continuously doing a lot in the past, mostly in the talk page of EBM (see [145] for example where he makes this statement). You can see how disruptive he is also in the history [146]. I don't know what is appropriate here? A much longer protection, or maybe a sockpuppet investigation? I have many reasons to think it is a sock of User:Breathtaker. Maybe I'm wrong and it's someone else but the editing patterns are similar. Thanks. 89.139.161.224 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)