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

Sockpuppet

{{resolved|He'd better stop shooting himself in the leg, or he'll have no leg left. –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving, please see below,— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sock blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Leg...meet bullet.

After User:Silverlife was blocked indefinitely, he used his account before that one (per his user page) which is User:RegularBreaker. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike he is on to us. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not an admin, but a better place for this thread would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Although taking a quick look at the edits of both usernames, I don't see any evidence that the accounts were used wrongly. I didn't see any over lapping edits on any articles. Other than what Silverlife had typed on his page, which isn't evidence enough for my taste, I don't see how they are linked at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier edit on his user page: "Silverlife is RegularBreaker: Reloaded." He even admitted that RegularBreaker was his previous account in an ANI topic. He attacked me on my talk page, two zodiac groups on his user page, a bunch of editors on the ANI thread, he attacked Hell in a Bucket, and he used an IP to re-add the personal attacks about zodiac groups. It doesn't matter if he's going by the rules now because he is going against his indefinite block which is against the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like you did with Lulu when you called him a dick? Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sockpuppet. There is actually WP:DICK and Lulu did keep on attacking me in AfD when all that I did was have different opinions than him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe Chill. Anyways I filed an SPI case like Jojhutton suggested for you. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the best way to deal with it. Most likely it is the same account, but I urge you all to remember, that its real easy for someone to say that they are someone else. All they have to do is type it and click save. Its real easy. I saw a thread here a few weeks ago, where that happened. the two accounts were completly unrelated, but a long time and respected user was accused of sockpuppetry, simply becausethe new account claimed to be the other. It was a real mess for that user, but it was all worked out in the end. All I am saying is that we must not assume that two accounts are related, until it is proven.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!! –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do anything matter to you or your life. So please stop (mess with me). You're not welcomed to type about me in every corner.

Reason: I don't want to mess with you, because... (If I say anything related-to-you, you'll say that I "personally attack". And I'm truly really tired, I won't say)

Thank you so much, Joe Chill, if you can do. Take a time and enjoy your life. R•B²_talk 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Joe Chill (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? I'd not worry about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Matter at hand

I was aware that Silverlife was blocked indef for continued personal attacks and evasion to continue those attacks. He is obviously evading his block. Sure, PBML did interfere, but he was not the main subject of this report. SL was, and as he is obviously evading his block, he needs to be blocked. If he wishes to edit again, he may request an unblock request at his other account's talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him. It's about as clear a case of WP:DUCK as I've ever seen. Let's go over the quacks here:

• RegularBreaker stops editing in early July 2009.
• A couple of weeks after the editing stops, Silverlife is created. His first action is to declare himself to be RegularBreaker.
• Silverlife is also idle, until January of this year, where he starts editing the same kinds of articles as RegularBreaker, and communicating in the same way.
• Silverlife gets blocked for continual disruption.
• RegularBreaker comes back a few days later, after being idle for 6 months. His first action is to blank out his user page, in an attempt to undo his self-outing. He denies being Silverlife so that he can evade his block. (Correction: I don't actually see where he "denied" his identity, his only responses to accusations of block evasion are requests to leave him alone.)

Really, does anyone actually need a checkuser to confirm this? I don't, and neither did the SPI clerk (MuZemike) who questioned why the investigation was necessary. Just RBI and get on with things. -- Atama頭 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the block. I would have blocked also, but I wasn't sure as to why the user wasn't blocked earlier. (He disclosed this username back in July of last year.) I thought there was something else going on here in which I wasn't aware of. Perhaps I was a bit hesitant because I already got sandbagged earlier when I blocked a user with absolutely nobody telling me that there was already a discussion to unblock said user in which I knew nothing about. –MuZemike 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I'm here again with this hounding case which doesn't seem to stop. Toddst1 was in charge I believe but he's on a wikibreak.

On the past September I noticed MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus were making offensive comments on the Diablada talk page such as this: [1], [2], [3].

I asked them to stop but MarshalN20 reacted against me in a disproportionate aggressive manner. That led to a Mediation Cabal which now is on formal mediation and also to a RfC on MarshalN20's conduct, nothing helped to solve the situation.

On the formal mediation the mediator is supposed to be Ryan Postlethwaite but I think he perhaps forgot to watchlist the page or he was too busy so he didn't mention anything else after our opening statements. So I wrote him to check where he was [4] and yes I was offended by the attitude MarshalN20 had in his opening statement so I pointed that out. I dedicated to edit other articles meanwhile and having a workshop prepared for the mediation, which I consider is a legitimate civil way to deal with the situation. MarshalN20, was spying on me and got upset about that (regardless he also had not only one but 1, 2 , 3 sandboxes for purposes like this) and went to complain on Ryan's talk page [5] which I consider was disrespectful so I asked him to stop [6], then I tried to reason with this person on his talk page where I repeatedly asked him to avoid conflict till Ryan gets some time, but he then started gaming to collect material against me, so even though the only comment I ever made after months of dealing with this user was saying that he was acting like a dog marking his territory on articles and biting others, for which I said twice [7] [8] that if that offended him I apologize, now he's inflating all this and using diffs that doesn't show or prove anything at all with this RfC against me, RfCs are not meant to be used as personal attacks or harassment besides the case against him is already on formal mediation. I had to stand this person humiliating me, insulting me for my nationality for months and he threatened me to continue doing such things [9]:

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing.

I really consider this is a very serious case of harassment which needs to be solved immediately, for MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus, and of course I'd be willing to be subject of evaluation if I ever acted wrong, but I consider that in Marshaln20's case it has been a long path of misconduct, observe his attitude from 2008 [10], he also he threatened to physically hurt other users [11], he recurred to outing, he canvassed to fight against me and I seriously think this needs to be addressed by the administrators soon. Erebedhel - Talk 01:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to place the ANI notice before, now I did it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, it seems that posting this on Saturday night wasn't such a good idea, nobody seems on. But anyway, I suppose that Marshal will read the notice and post a reply here, I'd advise to check carefully the diffs provided by both of us. Perhaps today I'll have a hectic day so I'm not sure if I can follow the debate here (but I'll try to check whenever I can). But I think this has a simple solution as I asked Marshal which is just try to avoid any more confrontation till we get any response from the mediation, I already asked there and I hope Ryan can have some more time. We don't have the same interests so I don't think there is any need to seek unnecessary confrontation. Can anybody just help me to make Marshal understand that at this point making more problem won't get anywhere, and keep an eye so we keep our word? I honestly don't want to have any more interaction with him till mediation starts but I don't consider I've ever done anything wrong to be virtually banned from Wikipedia just because Marshal's attitude towards me. Erebedhel - Talk 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• 1. So, I make an RfC in order to discuss your conduct in such a way that we can work out our problems (Because that's what an RfC is for: so that we can establish that there exists a problem with your attitude and that you should work in improving that problem); and in retaliation you poast an ANI?
• 2. I have not set anything in motion to "virtually ban" you from Wikipedia. An RfC is just to discuss your conduct, not to ban you.
• 3. Thus far, you're still proving that you have conduct problems. You take the slightest issue and turn it into an atomic bomb. I attempt to find a solution with you by creating an RfC in order to discuss your attitude, and yet you continue to mud-sling and keep accusing me of things that were done several months ago.
• 4. You simply do not know what happened between "EP" and "Selecciones de la Vida." You were not there. The final outcome of that case was that everyone had done something wrong. In other words, the situation didn't "punish" me because, as it was shown, everybody had been insulting and bothering each other.
• 5. I have never threatened to hurt another Wikipedian. All I said in that statement was that I don't like the lad and that I wouldn't like to see him in person. You're once again demonstrating that:
  • You make up things in your mind that are not there.
  • You like to create flashy arguments when people are trying to help work out a solution with you.
  • Instead of understanding why other Wikipedians are having problems with you, you solely focus on blaming us for the situation.
• 6. You called me a dog, you tell me I bite, and you tell me that I "mark my territory." All because I moved a bibliography section above the references. I don't need to "inflate" this because it already is bad.
• 7. I have sandboxes of my other works in progress. How is that bad? I'm working on the Diablada, translating the Pachacutec article into English, and attempting to summarize the Land Campaign of the War of the Pacific. Seriously, how is that bad? You're again demonstrating those 3 points I just made.
• 8. Everything you post in Wikipedia is available to the viewing of all users. I'm not "spying" on you. This is not a James Bond movie, and I don't have an agent number. However, that would be rather cool. Obviously, I'm interested in what you are doing in regards to the Diablada article. Nothing more.
• 9. I asked Ryan, our mediator, to evaluate what you were proposing to add into the article. Obviously, you don't have that material in your workshop in order to keep Wikipedia warm and cozy.
• 10. Finally: With everything Erebedhel keeps showing, particularly his demonstration of my "past bad actions," it demonstrates that this user is hounding me. I feel deeply harrassed by such actions which have no other intention but to disrupt my enjoyment of editing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer some points which I consider important to clarify:

1. RfCs are meant to be used as an early step to solve a problem, the RfC on MarshalN20 already lead to Mediation now starting again one in retaliation to "make me look bad" is a highly uncivil act and worst if it's after a long conversation where I asked repeatedly to calm things down. Besides no matter how much "dirt" MarshalN20 tried dig on me, most of the diffs he provided are WP:PLAX, he apparently believes that any diff will suffice as long as he make an elaborated description to make it look "evil" e.g. here he labels it as: Presenting evidence for Original Research in the Diablada article but when we open the diff is a section that MarshalN20 opens in the talk page mocking about my name and offending me, my response to that is listed as "evidence of failing" labeled as Editor becomes aggressive after my presentation of Original Research in the article, again when we open the diff I say clearly that I'll ignore his personal remarks and provided the links that prove that what I did wasn't original research and it was backed with the very same source he was using before. Also all the "evidence to try to resolve the dispute" were my initiatives, it's evident that this isn't a RfC to solve any kind of dispute as I already tried it before, is actually being used as a personal attack and is mocking the system.

2. I do feel virtually banned because MarshalN20 is following me to seek problems and humiliate me for my nationality, I think that's enough. I couldn't work peacefully on Wikipedia since I asked him to please stop insulting my country, he attacked me since them no stop and I exhausted all the means to solve the situation yet MarshalN20 don't seem to stop. I just want to avoid more confrontation till mediation starts.

3. For me insulting other countries for over 5 months is not a light thing people who use Wikipedia to spread hatred propaganda against another country does not belong here. And I'll not tolerate any more of MarshalN20's comments about Bolivia.

4. MarshalN20 said clearly: "I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol." on [12].

5. It was a WQA, WQAs don't end in banning, but MarshalN20's attitude through the whole debate was completly uncivil. And nobody other than him and his buddy ever had problems with me and it's clear that is more a matter of racism and hatred than anything I ever done which is highly unacceptable here, everywhere else my works has been greatly appreciated and respected.

6. I explained perfectly well why I made that observation, because he isn't interested in an article yet if he has a problem with someone he fights to the end then marks his territory to show he won every now and then, MarshalN20 is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

7. I never said it was a bad thing to have sandboxes I clearly said it was a perfectly civil way to deal with the situation, what I did say was that it offended me that MarshalN20 made such a big deal for me having one while he had 3.

8. Well that's the concept of "spying". i didn't say it was wrong, that's why there is a link in my user page and a big warning sign saying it's a temporary job.

9. "warm and cozy"? So calling the entire population of a country "ignorant" and "brainwashed" keeps the environment "warm and cozy"? I highly doubt that anyone visiting my workshop would consider it "offensive" while anyone reading MarshalN20's comments on many talk pages would be easily offended.

10. I find it completely ironical that this person after months of harassing me and humiliating me now pretends to play the victim. So I ask please, this situation has to stop and has to stop now. Erebedhel - Talk 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this discussing with numbered points. It really helps out. Thanks for following along.

1. I wasn't mocking you. I simply confused your name with Ethelred the Unready, which sounds like "Erebedhel" (Notice that it took me a series of months to get your username correctly remembered). Some people used to refer to me as "Marshall." I didn't feel insulted. Why would I feel insulted? You just keep demonstrating that you take the most minor of things way too personally. And you were using original research.

2. I made an RfC not to put "dirt" on you. I made the RfC in order to focus on your attitude. Why don't you want to accept that you have attitude problems?

3. By using some simple psychology, it shows that the RfC you made about me was meant to put "dirt" on me. I am truly disgusted by such actions and intentions. However, my RfC is sincere and wishes to seek a true solution to this situation.

4. I'm not following you. I was simply going to talk to Ryan, our mediator, and then saw that you had made a comment about me in his talk page. I went on to your talk page in order to see if he had replied to you, and then found your "workshop." Hence I began to read it because it was in regards to the Diablada. Afterwards I decided to ask Ryan to read your workshop and evaluate what you were going to be proposing. That is when you began to personally attack me.

4a. I didn't say that I was going to physically hurt him. My point was that I can't stand him and wouldn't want to see him in person because I don't like him. You are accusing me of things and I feel deeply insulted by these claims of yours.

5. You are the one who is following me. Not only that, but you are also looking at my history. Here you suggest Ryan to hound me. You are the one who keeps hounding me!

6. I'm no longer insulting Bolivia at all. I admit that in the past I did, and administrator BozMo gave me a warning. I promised administrator BozMo that I was going to stop, and so I have. You are the one that keeps seeking me out.

7. No. It's not correct to personally insult other Wikipedians. Instead of accepting you did something wrong, you keep trying to justify yourself.

8. You weren't in the WQA discussion, you weren't involved in that at all. I don't know how you can so openly speak about this as if you had been involved.

9. I didn't make a "big deal" about it. I simply asked Ryan to evaluate it. Ryan could have simply said: No. However, it was you the one who began to attack me.

10. What are you talking about? I'm not saying that calling people ignorant is "warm and cozy." Why are you making up things in your mind?

11. I'm not harrassing you and much less am I humiliating you. I don't understand what your problem is. Perhaps you need a break?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This has to end

I'll finish this because in the top it says "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" I find it disappointing that nobody cared to look at this, In my history on Wikipedia I never addressed in a disrespectful manner or infringed any policy, this person is gaming the system in order to keep me out of the project, I tried all the procedures to solve this situation and after months I still can't find a solution. It's evident just by looking at MarshalN20's talk page and the Diablada talk page that I was the one being humiliated by these two individuals. I'm deeply offended and disappointed, I did nothing wrong I worked in an entire academical way and I'm proud of the way I contributed to this project. It's sad that a person with no education or manners can destroy all that and even feel proud of it, it's a shame. Erebedhel - Talk 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you out of the project. All I'm asking you is to please be neutral in your information. Yet now you insult my education, again, state that I have no manners (despite you just personally attacked me), and claim that I am some sort of destructor (once again attacking me). Thus far, you are the one who is showing no respect, you keep humiliating me in ANI, and yet you try to tell people that I am the one who is being "evil." You're confusing me quite a bit sir.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Get away from me, I asked you to please let's don't have any more interaction till mediation start. why is it so difficult to understand I don't wnat you following me and calling me "ignorant and brainwashed" just because of my nationality, you said it at least 5 times during the weekend yet you want to play the victim. Saying that Peru overlaps Bolivian culture is by no means "neutral", banning a 10 years and 107 pages study by the UNESCO isn't "neutral", presenting rants of a person who didn't even finished school as the basis of an article isn't "neutral", you're not the holder of the truth that's why we are on mediation because of your attitude against a country that have never done any harm to you, I'm tired of your attitude, I'm tired of your pettifogging, I'm tired of your gaming and I'm above all I'm tired of your irrational hatred, you won't come here to play the victim here after what you have done to me. Can anyone please close this thread? I'm exhausted. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Peru does overlap Bolivian culture, much in the same way that Bolivian culture overlaps Peruvian, Chilean, and even Argentinean culture; because all cultures in the region overlap each other: hence why the term "Andean culture." You're being nationalist towards Bolivia and highly xenophobic of Peru. You keep personally attacking me without any actual proof, and such things are not going to be tolerated in Wikipedia. If you're exahusted, please take a WP:BREAK.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said, besides this isn't going anywhere. Erebedhel - Talk 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

End this

Fellows, I just need to know the following:

1. What do you want administrators to do?
2. If this has a mediation going, then can you not resolve this in mediation?

Please provide some short answers to we can either get some resolution to this issue, or at least point you to the right place. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The mediator only opened the case and we wrote our opening statements here on December since then he hasn't been active, I wrote Ryan (the mediator) to check if he forgot about it. After I had problems with Unknown Lupus, MarshalN20 came to "defend his friend" and has been harassing me I asked him to please let's ignore each others till the mediator starts the case but MarshalN20 doesn't want to stop. So I'm asking an administrator to avoid us having more conflicts till mediaton starts. I promised not to edit the mediated article but MarshalN20 has been following me around to other articles where I work to fish for diffs for his RfC on me which is highly upsetting. Erebedhel - Talk 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. So what do you want administrators to do? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for me as I told before is a case of hounding I feel they are trying to drive me crazy till I lose my patience and then collect diffs, I won't take the bait but I don't find it nice either. I don't know what administrators do in these cases, but I suppose a warning for the 3 of us to keep us away from each others till mediation starts would suffice, and if anyone goes to seek troubles and gets uncivil then banning. Erebedhel - Talk 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Besides I'm reporting MarshalN20 for incivility, he has been referring to Bolivians as "ignorant" and "brainwashed" several times, according to him since he's insulting Bolivians in general is not a "personal attack". Once BozMo asked him to lower the tone but he continues with it and after that he threatened Xavexgoem [13] and me [14] to continue doing it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been insults flying about on both sides. You have also used incivil language, to the point of comparing MarshalN20 to a dog marking his territory. That's pretty insulting.

Here's what I propose: both of you cease the insulting language, with no more suggestions about the character of the other. Both of you cease with the RFCs and wait for mediation. Both of you need to stop sending messages to one another.

I think that this is a pretty intractable situation, mediation is definitely needed. However, as neither of you seem to be able to get along and things are rapidly escalating, you both need to stay apart. Marshal and Erebedhel, will you both agree to this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, I apologized for it before [15] but I do it again. I have no intention to continue interacting with MarshalN20 till mediation starts but I'd greatly appreciate if we could agree to not comment on each others anymore. Besides I'll abstain to participate on the RfC as I believe it'll only create more stress. I really hope that the mediation can start anytime soon. Thank you for your time Tbsdy. Erebedhel - Talk 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, that's fine. As Marshal is not here to comment, I'm going to say that we put restrictions on Marshal and Erebedhel from interacting with each other on their respective user talk pages until mediation officially starts. What do other admins say? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I wasn't here to comment; I can't be in WP 24/7. I agree with you Tbsdy, I should not discuss anything with the other editor. However, this other editor keeps lying about my actions and I dislike the idea that you could be believing such claims. Firstly, I already explained why I sent a message to Ryan (also my mediator); I wasn't trying to "defend" Unknown Lupus. Next, I have not been hounding this editor at all; the RfC I made is solely made up of his behavior in regards to the material we have been discussing (Nonetheless, I also found out he had previously made an ANI in which he was talking bad about me and once again found that in Ryan's talk page he was refering to me as a "Patroll" that did bad edits). Finally, I have not called Bolivians "brainwashed" and "ignorant" since I talked to admin Bozmo; what you show in terms of Xav is my response in regards to him telling me not to mention "POV edits" or "Biased edits" (Which was an irrational claim from his part since that was the whole purpose of the discussion), and what you show about yourself is simply me stating that I will not restrict my language to solely words you like. To make matters even more ironic, on the next paragraph I explain that using "brainwashed" was inappropiate and that "ignorant" is not so much as an insult in comparisson to other words of similar use. However, I think the most important thing to understand is that it wasn't me the one who contacted Erebedhel, he was the one who began the argument again. Having said that, I don't want to discuss anything else with him either (despite I made an RfC with the intention to discuss his conduct and help him improve it).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that badly - I really meant that I had a proposal to the wider group of admins. Sorry to imply anything negative about you being away, that was not my intent. I'll be honest here and say that I've not really looked into matters very closely, and to be frank the large wall of claim and counter-claim made my eyes glaze over so I've no idea what either of you are truly fighting about :-) I thought that I'd leave that for the mediator to sought out...

Given that I won't be the only one here to have done this (and I do suspect that's why I'm the only admin to really comment in this whole thread), would it be worthwhile for both of you to forget past wrongs, apologise to each other for any misunderstandings that have occured and then discuss the issues you have in the article in an adult fashion? If you could do that, I don't think you would need mediation, and which would certainly free up Ryan's time.

What do you both say? Can you metaphorically shake hands and forget the whole business? It's not easy, certainly I always find it hard, but in this case it might be the best way. The only thing here is that you must both be willing to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

J.D. Salinger

There is a big mess over at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg. It's getting out of hand.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request as copyright holder has requested deletion, so it's gone. Nothing else to see here, folks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how OTRS or Fair use works. IFD should proceed as it was and the image should be restored while it does. Prodego ^talk 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, image was restored. IFD seems to have calmed down though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Mike Godwin because WP:CONSENSUS does not override US Copyright Law. Pcap ping 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Fair use is far far broader than our interpretation of when we use Fair use, so I can't imagine it being much of an issue legally. I could of course be wrong. Prodego ^talk 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to agree with you. :-) Pcap ping 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Craziness at probation noticeboard

Resolved

 – The edit war ended when the editor self-reverted. Administrator attention on this area is still urgently required.

For the love of $DEITYOFCHOICE, would an admin please step in and semi-protect, or liberally issue blocks, or whatever it takes to stop this? Over at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement an admin closed an unproductive discussion (his judgment, not necessarily mine) with instructions to bring further concerns to his talk page. User:Unitanode summarily reopened the discussion, then someone else re-closed it, and now there's edit warring over reopening the discussion. This is nuts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• An admin inappropriately closed an on-going discussion of blatant probation violations by WMC, SBHB's WikiFriend. Just clarifying. UnitAnode 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• WMC was warned not to use derogatory terms in this highly contentious debate. In response to his warning, he called the editors who reported him "idiots and yahoos". Another case was opened to report his latest abuses, 2/0 failed to act, and now SBHB and the rest of WMC's bodyguards are misrepresent this as "unproductive discussion". The problem here is WMC's brazen violation of a sanction, and 2/0's refusal to act. At least 5 editors (2 previously uninvolved) have expressed concern about this. Can a truly uninvolved admin deal with this straightforward enforcement of sanctions for a problem editor? ATren (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  From what I've seen of the discussion, it looked very much like a pile-on by WMC's political opponents. Don't forget that he is being targeted by an off-wiki campaign at the moment - the recent flurry of mostly spurious enforcement cases has clearly been driven by the desire of one side of the argument to get rid of a prominent advocate of the other side. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Boris that a number of editors seemed determined to be disruptive on the enforcement page by gaming the system. There have been repeated attempts to get WMC topic banned for spurious reasons. Semiprotection or blocks of editors like the two "pile-ons" above might help to impose some discipline. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  Note that WMC's "idiots and yahoos" smears were completely unprovoked. He was actually responding to 2/0's warning not to use such terms. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was baited into those smears. WMC is the aggressor in these conflicts, and to accuse those reporting him of "piling on" is shooting the messenger. ATren (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  When a small group of users keep writing the same thing, hoping at some point it will stick, that is "piling on". GoRight and Abd were no different. Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not Abd, nor GoRight, nor Scibaby, nor any of the other so-called "bad guys" you would like to associate me with. In fact, I am sympathetic to WMC's views. I only object to his tactics, which are disruptive. In this case, I simply supplied diffs of WMC calling other editors idiots and yahoos, after being warned not to. Do you support such attacks? At least half a dozen other non-Scibabies agree with me, by the way, so the "WMC is being harassed" meme holds no water here. ATren (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem helpful to write in such an inflammatory way. Abd and GoRight persistently repeated assertions about other users, which could not be substantiated by diffs. There doesn't seem to be much difference here. MastCell's warning was unambiguous and hopefully users will take note of it. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, all I'm presenting is diffs - how can a diff of WMC calling other editors "idiots" not substantiate that claim? Really.

And as for MastCell's warning, you'll note that I also opposed the revert of the close, and suggested he revert and take it up with Prodego directly. Which he did, because he is reasonable. Contrast this to WMC, who not only fails to respect 2/0's warning to respect others, he directly defies it with more derogatory language, language which he has never withdrawn. ATren (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I'm doing is presenting diffs It's clear that you are wikilawyering and spending considerable effort trying to analyse WMC's edits. However as 2/0 has pointed out, you are failing to see that WMC has heeded his warning and is editing helpfully and carefully. I am sure that if you analysed my edits, which in my interactions with you might show some signs of fatigue, you would be able to point out minor lapses in the wikipedia civility code. I would ask you to reread what both MastCell and 2/0 have written without trying to interpret it through wikilawyering: if you think there is any ambiguity, why not ask these administrators directly, instead of wasting time here? At the moment your persistent comments and wikilawyering just seem to be disruptive no matter how many self-justifying statements you write. Your final goal seems clear, even though it might be disguised by the tactics of a civil POV-pusher. Please stop. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made my points above, and your response is baseless and inflammatory. Bottom line: there is no ambiguity in the word "idiot". There is no need for me to respond to this further. ATren (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wat you have written seems to be nonsense. At the moment you don't seem to be contributing anything constructive to this encyclopedia. You have trolled on my talk page (why?). I hope in the near future you'll learn to edit more helpfully Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted the close. It was ill-considered on Prodego's part, and I'm extremely tired of the one-sided naturse of that "enforcement" page. It has to end. UnitAnode 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• And, for the record, WMC's defenders have now so muddied the waters at that page, that it's almost impossible to even dig up the diffs where Connolley called his opponents "yahoos and idiots" in the immediate aftermath of being "required" not to make such statements. It truly is a mess, but not for the reasons some would have you believe. UnitAnode 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unwise for a non-admin to revert an administrative action. Unitanode should know better, frankly, and it only adds to the unnecessary drama.

On a separate issue, I do think it would be useful if more admins could participate in managing the climate change article probation. There are only a handful active at the moment (2/0, Lar, BozMo). This puts an undue burden on a few individuals and makes it slower and more difficult to resolve issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this is supposed to be going. Many fairly spurious, and one or two substantial, cases have been filed against William M. Connolley in the Climate change probation. Two administrators have already looked at this latest case and both decided there was nothing actionable. The second admin closes it.

Then somebody starts edit warring on the enforcement page. Do you really want a previously unengaged admin to come along and conduct multiple blocks or bans? Because the way things are going, that's where this incident is leading. --TS 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A block or ban to discourage this sort of nonsense would probably be a good idea. Edit warring on a probation enforcement page is practically at a Darwin Awards level of stupidity. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's already self-reverted. It was ill-advised, especially given the uneven-level of enforcement on that page, but it's now moot. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, what are you talking about, "multiple blocks or bans"? For what? Presenting diffs of a problem editor calling other editors "idiots" after he was warned not to? How is that blockable? Seriously. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Nowhere did I say that presenting diffs is blockable or bannable. Escalating a dispute should be done by dispute resolution, not by edit warring and then complaining about the actions of non-participants in the edit war, and not by repeatedly bringing up pointless and doomed cases on one forum after another. --TS 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, SBHB brought it here, so your forumshop claim is bogus. And, for the record, the probation page is dispute resoultion, except that legitimate disputes are being swept under the rug. Please stop misrepresenting this situation. ATren (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to your edit on this page at 15:25, with the edit sumary "The real story" in which you tried to turn this edit warring report into a complaint about the conduct of admins. --TS 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, there you go again. In fact, that was in response to Boris's call to "liberally issue blocks". Stop muddying the issue with unfounded accusations against me. ATren (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the changed landscape post-Copenhagen and leave the articles locked in the GW glory days of 2007. Given the aggressive warnings for "advocacy" being handed out (advocating improvements to the article really not welcome), the other absurd accusations (huh?) and the constant personal attacks, the stone-walling of every NPOV attempt at editing looks relatively good-natured. But I wish more people had contributed to my Improvement Chart here for when we eventually have to come back, learn something and actually write an informative artcle. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Final warning issued ([16]), as this is the second time a complainant has reverted an admin's close of an enforcement thread. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

John254 strikes again?

I encourage everyone to speak in my defence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock needs looking into?

Would someone mind peeping at the above and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Purposal_to_tag_for_sock_puppetry_in_AfD? I know that the user in question has been listed on WP:SPI, but I'm not sure of the evidence connecting them to that particular sockmaster, so I've listed here for a more general look-over. I'll notify the editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will cooperate fully and carefully during this SPI case. However if your uneasy about the problem, you can always block me until the case proves my innocence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

..or as a vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to put a spanner in the works but... but is Andrew the Assasins really a vandal only account? This edit[17] looks pretty competent if you ask me, I know there has been a investigation already but if a potential editior is at stake perhaps it's worth looking at. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

His other edits were vandalism, and that one proves that he's a sockpuppet. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok TreasuryTag, maybe I got it wrong. But, don't accuse me of being a sock, I'm only finding my feet as a wikipeidan by editing in and around the community portal. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also TreasuryTag, John254 had a 20 day hatus before he allegedly edited in the form of andrew the assasins, I however have not edited until the 18th. Perhaps you should consider logic before you acuse fellow wikipedians as sockpuppets/vandals etc. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you going on about? TreasuryTag never called you a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that you were a sockpuppet. I suggest that you "consider [sic] logic before you acuse [sic] fellow wikipedians [sic] as [sic]" of false labelling! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a piece of fried chicken hey! Spread the wikilove. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is ANI without some drama? Find a link to John254's latest member of the family to Pickbothmanlol's family. I will assure you that you will find a connection weather you like it or not. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From this being your first edit, you appear to be a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I should nominate you for adminship. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey I'm not a sockpuppet. Oh was the 'competent' link proof that Andrew the Assasin is a sock puppet? Sorry I'm not good with wiki jargon, I don't speak the wikipeida lingo. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good one P-B-M-L-254! Oh drat. Please do nominate me for adminship! I am competent... Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion I fear is becoming out of control. Should Andrew the Assasin be unblocked? Yes or no? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you recommend, bearing in mind his last few edit summariess, and particularly the last one before he was blocked? Rodhullandemu 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would recomend giving him some tasks to prove he is competent and blocking him for a set amount of time(e.g 24 hours) however the general consensus is a no and if he did want to be a part of wikipeida he would have requested to be unblocked or something along those lines. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

I've been dealing with a incredibly rude user called MickMacNee over the past day and his behavior has escalated to the point where it necessitates greater community attention at this point.

My interaction with this user began when I removed an expansion tag that had been there for over two years[18], figuring that no one wanted to expand it given that time frame and someone could expand it if they wanted to in any case without the tag.

The user reverted me[19], stating it was a valid section for the article. I reverted him[20], since I thought my first edit summary may not have been as indepth as it should have been and it may have been a misunderstanding. However, apparently it was not a misunderstanding and the user was interested in an edit war[21].

So, to avoid escalating things into a true edit war, I decided to try and work out a way to make the article better in tandem with the user, which ended with the user telling me to "get fucked".

Regardless of disagreements, this user's behavior is unacceptable, considering that this seems to be a recurring behavioral pattern, and i'm not sure other methods that the user could be made to follow proper standards of Wikipedian etiquette. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"I see no need to prove it to you." - if anybody thinks you aren't anything other than a wind up merchant (and I note this user only registered in September 2009), I would be truly be amazed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See what i'm talking about? I am at a loss towards this user's poor behavior, so I leave it to you, and hope the user can stop this confrontational behavior. I'll check back at the article in a few days and i'll check back here in awhile in case i'm needed for any more input. I hope the user can rehabilitate their behavior and become a more constructive editor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked MickMacNee for a week for that edit. Way over the line and wholly unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Only a week? I've come across this editor before. Very confrontational, especially when a discussion is occurring where editors do not express a point of view that MMN agrees with (example). Had I come across this I would have indeffed. MMN needs to learn to calm down a lot, and remember that other editors are allowed to have a different point of view to his. This is just the latest in a long line of blocks. Suggest that any future recurrence of this is dealt with by a long block. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

usually I escalate blocks in circumstances like this but I took into account the fact that their last block was 4 months ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Spartaz. I'm not about to go over you and extend the block on MMN. However, we could impose a civility restriction under WP:RESTRICT if there is consensus to do so.

Never saw a civility probation that worked but I suppose there could be a first time for everything.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if I ever see anything like that again the block will be indefinite, so civility probation will not be required. Prodego ^talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget it, I'm making it indefinite now. Prodego ^talk 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps a Civility Restriction would be a better alternative. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, civility restrictions just end up being abusive to the user (who is then baited at every turn) and to the community (who is now told to accept the user's faults since he is under restriction). In six months I'd be willing to listen to him if he wanted to come back. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with MickMacNee in many different situations since I joined WP over 2 years ago and have found his behavior to consistently exceed that which is permitted of editors. I endorse Spartaz's initial block and Prodego's extension. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse any solution that brings a specific result: an end to the user's uncivil behavior. An indef block may just encourage them to create sockpuppets that engage in the same behavior, but if the user doesn't change their behavior, that may be necessary. I am biased since I am involved in this dispute, so please take my comment with a grain of salt, but I hope this user can be rehabilitated if that is at all possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that this sort of thing has happened with the user countless times, and the user had made it clear that blocks are not going to change his behavior then I endorse the indefinite block. I believe it should be reviewed after 6 months or so has passed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addition to the comment above which Chillum responded to regarding a pattern of behaviour. As is often the case (to my dismay), there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong.

There's plenty of evidence if you only care to look. December 2008 (my first encounter with MMN), December 2009 (still no change), plus the AfD I linked to earlier. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this block is that it seems to me that we're being led along to come up with our own reasons. It seems that the evidence has *not* been presented - we're just being told to look around ourselves. That's funny. Tragic too. Is that really how things are supposed to be done around here? It's *that* easy to hand out an indef block? Just wave your hands around and hope there's enough evidence if you only care to look? --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, "yes". If only you care to look, which you choose not to do and instead act like everyone's making an insane mistake simply because you're too damn lazy to go look. The rest of us here are either a) familiar enough with this user to not have to go looking for past warnings, or b) industrious enough to familiarize ourselves with the situation before making comments about how things are tragic and funny. Either look around for it, or quit commenting about the lack of it. No one here wants to hold your hand. Tan | 39 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is a policy and says Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. MickMacNee made a personal attack on "his own talk page" which is actually "anywhere in Wikipedia". Rapido (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good indef block, should probably have happened sooner in view of that block log. Unhelpful unblock request declined.  Sandstein  23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef block is very harsh and heavy handed considering the guy does make valuable contributions to the project despite his often confrontational attitude. It seems to me that he has not been in as much trouble of late so slapping an unexplained indeterminate sentence on him will probably give him the impression that it's some kind of vendetta against him. I thought the original block of a week seemed fair punishment for intemperate language. It is out of order that there was no justification for the block escelation on his talkpage, just a 4 word notification. People should not be indef blocked on a whim. I think he should be unblocked after a reasonable amount of time (a week) on condition that he gives a formal agreement to avoid profane language on Wikipedia. King of the North East 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block. Presumably opposing The Cabal and posting after this issue has been so swiftly "resolved" will earn me a block too... However I feel that I must speak up on User:MickMacNee's behalf here. This indef block is disproportionate and unjustified. It is a harmful action to the encyclopedia as a whole if editors who make positive contributions like this are excluded. We have a seemingly infinite patience with vandals, but see a failure to suffer fools gladly as far worse than being the fools in question. This is wrong.

I don't understand why Mick's attitude is so regularly combative, and why he can't see that taking part here requires a certain attitude that he might not accept, but is required to comply with - because the overall project just works better that way. For that reason I've not opposed blocks before, nor would oppose this one week block now. As Mick has himself said before, such a block is an opportunity to work on research or authoring off-line, something that he has frequently used before to produce good and valued content (and sometimes it must be said, good content that was anything but valued by other editors who felt somehow diminished by another's contributions).

An "indef block" is indeed not a definite block, but it is a definite and endless change of status. It makes the blocked editor a non-person, someone who forever more will first be assumed guilty, no matter what the facts of the matter. Look at our past track-record here as a community: it's far from impressive. I cannot support such a measure to an editor who has frequently been far from civil, but to whom we are all still required to assume their underlying good faith, something of which I've yet seen nothing to dissuade me. Yet supposedly we don't support punitive blocking, only protective blocking...

I oppose this block, and I oppose the haste with which it was applied. I don't expect my word to count for anything, I'm not after all An Admin, but I'd like Mick to know that his efforts were appreciated and that at least some editors didn't go along with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite can be very short. If Mick gave a convincing promise to not be abusive towards other editors in content disputes then I imagine he would be given that chance without delay. The problem with a fixed duration is that it is blind, instead of checking if the user is ready it simply flips the switch. Indefinite only means that there is no automatic unblock and that a human has to decide to unblock. So far Mick has responded to this by blaming others, lets wait and see if he can acknowledge the problem and take an effort to address it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The casual manner in which the block was upgraded to indef. was guaranteed to create drama – it was ill-judged and unnecessary. Maybe if these decisions were taken with a little less haste and without getting cocks out on the table (Mo Mowlem just said it to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness) more effective decisions would result. Leaky Caldron 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is this this is not an "upgrade". A convincing endeavor from Mick to not repeat this sort of thing like he has so many times in the past and the block can be over today. Indef is not a greater or lesser block than 1 week, it means that a human decides when it ends and not a timer. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled. Here we have a block, if we're to believe Spartaz's comment here, for writing "Get fucked" rather than a presumably acceptable equivalent such as "Get lost" or "Go away". Déjà vu all over again. Didn't we have this same problem with something Malleus wrote recently? Profanity doesn't make a comment abusive. Anyone who parses the imprecation "Get fucked" as anything other than an inelegant variation upon the theme "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" is trying rather too hard to be offended. An apology for the edit-warring and combativeness, fair enough, but anyone who things MMN should apologise for writing "Get fucked" needs to work on their perspective. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Get lost", "Go away", or even "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" would also not be appropriate responses, "Get fucked" is far more blatantly unacceptable than either however. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is ample evidence which shows that many editors, administrators too, use exactly the same theme in their dealings with others. Comments such as this are not uncommon. And that includes a bonus feature which you won't find in a simple two-word response, a comment on a contributor which some policy somewhere says to avoid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think with this comment that WP:AGF is an inexhaustible well of goodwill that overrides everything else; even given WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, there comes a time when goodwill is exhausted, and ArbCom have recognised this in the past. We are all volunteers, and we are all human. None of this, to my mind, implies that we should not, when circumstances demand, call a spade a spade. That's plainly unrealistic, whatever model of courtesy Jimbo proclaims in interviews; he isn't at the coalface, and we are. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of touched on this on Mick's talk page already, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard here. I don't want to appear to be making excuses since I generally agree with HighKing about Civil not being applied often enough, but I want to point out that Mick's recent content conflict behavior (in reverting changes to a certain Wikipedia space page) was simply echoing the behavior that several admins made acceptable recently. The language used/temperament clearly displays that Mick needs a break anyway, but it at least appears that what is OK behavior for admins may not be OK for non-admins, which doesn't seem like the way we should be headed. (To be clear, I'm not referring to the deletions, but the petition which was a precursor to all of that. Mick has been involved in both areas for weeks though, just for your information)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good Blocks, especially the {{indef}} one. Mick's been a major contributor to teh toxic environment — we're better off without his contributions. Someone please mark this {{resolved}}. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor has admitted fault and apologised

See MickMacNee's second unblock request. The editor seems sincere and recognises his faults. Given that this indefinite block was of the straw-that-broke-the-camels-back variety, and in light of the willingness to reform, I propose that the block be returned to Spartaz' original weeklong period so that Mick has the chance to get a handle of whatever external circumstances he cites as contributory to his poor behaviour and reflect on his future participation in the project. In the meantime, I suggest the rest of us take up on his suggestion and initiate a user conduct RfC to flesh out the concerns raised above. In a week's time, we can regroup, see where things stand, and re-assess the issue from a calmer perspective.  Skomorokh  02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur and said as much on MickMackNee's talk page. Tan | 39 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With the apology in mind, I have made it so. 1-week block. Anyone refactoring (down or up) may go ahead without saying so much as "boo" to me. GJC 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i have asked this editor to calm down a little, to no avail, but an indefinite ban seems particularly harsh. Ikip 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested a ban. This is an example of an "indef" block doing exactly what it should, the user is making an effort to improve and now "indefinite" duration has become a "definite" duration. People all to often confuse an indef block with a ban or forever block. After reading his latest unblock request I agree with 1 week as reasonable. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say in Mick's defence that he wished me well on the birth of my child. I think that Mick can sometimes get pretty close to things and, like many of us, feels passionate about the project. I understand MB's stance, but I do not think that an indefinite block is warranted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - indef block is way excessive. This is a user who for as long as he is on Wikipedia (I hope a long time) will likely express his views forcefully and not to everyone's liking, but is a net positive for the project who simply believes a lot in what he says and does. Whether I'm arguing with him or agreeing with him, he has a forthrightness and honesty that means you always know where he stands on an issue. I hope he can change the way he expresses to more match community expectations without losing that forthrightness. Orderinchaos 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Evading block

User: 190fordhouse was blocked for 2 weeks concerning sockpuppeting and making controversial edits, but I believe that the user is using this IP address to make edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.85.175.159. I thought that editing while blocked isn't legal.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this investgatied before the IP adress is blocked. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At a glance I don't see it. If you're really convinced, go to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would pray that Beeblebrox is correct. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at first glance I see nothing either. They haven't even edited any of the same articles, and the IP seems to be enditing English music articles, whereas fordhouse seemed to be editing Spanish ones at the time of their block. In addition, the IP was editing at the same time as fordhouse, while the latter was unblocked. Carmaker, is there any specific edits you feel are particularly ducky? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Drama over then? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The drama might not be over. I left this comment on the blocking admin's talk page, User talk:MuZemike with no response and just noticed this thread:

"I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and 67.85.172.6 also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family."

And since that message Runaway (Janet Jackson song), (You Drive Me) Crazy, Ghetto Love (Da Brat song) and Sittin' on Top of the World (Da Brat song) could be added to that list. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Launch a investigation. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film)

I have filed a report at WP:AN/EW#User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) about an edit war involving User:70.29.59.12 who appears to have now created an account as User:Rightous. This editor(s) keeps inserting potentially defamatory material about Marvel Comics into teh articles Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film), despite warnings by several editors. As no admins sem to have edited at WP:AN/EW for fifteen hours or so, i am requesting that an admin takes a look. Sorry if thsi is the wrong place to report this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User is still at it. Tripped abuse filter 249: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits. Jarkeld (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both users are blocked now. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

New IP making the same additions to the page: 70.26.52.194 (talk · contribs). Jarkeld (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New IP was blocked for 48 hours, FYI. -- Atama頭 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding meaningless comments to Talk: page threads to stop the bot from archiving

I've run into an odd situation on an article talk page. I've noticed that some articles have extremely (really nonsensically) long archive intervals for threads; up to 365 days in some cases. In my view, when a thread hasn't been commented on in a reasonable period of time (say 3 months), then the discussion is effectively over: the likelihood of the original person coming back to respond is by then low, and in any event, the issue, whatever it might have been, has effectively been resolved by the passage of time.

On one article, after I adjusted the bot settings from 200 days to 100, I was reverted, with the claim that there was a "consensus" that 200 days was better.[22] In addition, User:Canadian Paul added a bunch of comments to threads, mostly meaningless, in a deliberate attempt to stop threads from being archived.[23] I removed the purely meaningless comments[24] - i.e. the ones that said "Commenting to prevent archiving", which I felt were simply disruptive, and commented to that effect on the article talk page. In turn, Canadian Paul reverted me, insisting that he had only added his comments to "on-going discussions"[25] - this, despite the fact that the he had to deliberately make comments in those threads to avoid bot archiving precisely because there was no "on-going discussion" in them. In fact, in one thread he's been adding "Commenting to prevent archiving" comments since May 2009! He also stated that it was my actions that were, in fact, disruptive.

While this is a specific issue regarding one article Talk: page, it also has broader implications regarding archive bot settings, and whether one can add meaningless statements to a thread simply for the purpose of thwarting a bot archive. I've seen this done on other article talk pages; where editors make comments at lengthy intervals, just to ensure a particular thread they are interested in doesn't get archived by a bot, and in the hopes that they can wear down those who disagree with them through attrition. Thus, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul notified. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul told not to do that. Prodego ^talk 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. After looking at that talk page, his behavior seems pretty nonsensical. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:43, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

After looking again, I can see the need in this kind of article to maintain a list of people who are imminently going to need to be added to the article. Perhaps the list of potential candidates should be consolidated into one section, or a subpage. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:55, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Subpage seems a good idea. Could transclude it, keeping the main page cleaner, and the lists easier to manage. Prodego ^talk 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I like some of the changes that User:Equazcion has done and I think if these had been discussed beforehand, with a chance for the very few regular visitors to the talk page to comment, this whole silly mess could have been avoided. If some time has been taken beforehand to look at the page and understand why I made those comments, this didn't have to go all the way to WP:ANI. Furthermore, I find it entirely inappropriate for anyone's comments to be removed from a talk page (unless of course they're obviously violating a policy such as WP:BLP), and there's no excuse for someone who has been an admin for over five years not to know that. I added those comments in good faith... as Equazcion has shown, there was a better way to achieve my goal, but why couldn't User:Jayjg have simply commented on the talk page and discussed the issue rather than just flat out reverting? As for the issue itself, I don't really mind the changes, I think they work, and I think the comment recently left on the talk page is worth looking at. It says anything else I have to say on the issue right now. Cheers, CP 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I too jumped to a conclusion pretty quickly, at first, without really looking into why you made those comments. Sorry for that. For the record, I do now think CP's actions were warranted. As he alludes to above, I've condensed the discussions that are necessary to remain on the page into a single section that's now transcluded from a subpage. Without any actual dated signatures on the main talk page, the section shouldn't get auto-archived, so no further "bump" comments should be necessary. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:23, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if modifying a signature to say 21:23, 31 Jan 2050 (UTC) would fool the bot into thinking the section has "recently" had a comment. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Pcap ping 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pcap, the bots work for us. We are allowed to disobey, circumvent, or even poke them with a stick. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it would anyway. It would be easier to program a bot to look at the edit history than to dig through the comments themselves. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually MiszaBot does work by checking signatures. Parsing a bunch of text that's all in one place is easier than checking through the history, and since comments can be moved between sections/deleted altogether/etc, that would make the history method pretty hard. Putting in a future date probably would fool it, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:07, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the signature works. I placed a 30 day RfC, but the talkpage had an archival period of only 7 days, so I had to add a month to my signature to fool the bot. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about just letting MiszaBot recognize a <noarchive/> tag, or some such? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs) doesn't really have the cycles to update the MiszaBot code these days. Fake timestamp works fine. See User:DoNotArchiveUntil for a more elegant way to do this. –xeno^talk 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have offered to fix it myself then, but the solution you provide looks elegant enough. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You might still want to offer your services to Misza, I know there has been several requests for fixes or enhancements over the last little while they he was unable to act on. –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

About a 10 days ago, I've been involved with a number of changing IPs (of presumably the same person) vandalizing a specific pages (see: Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, Jean Chretien, Dan McTeague, Terri McGuinty, and the usertalk pages of users who have reverted him), and making various unacceptable, offensive personal attacks. Although this thread is a bit late, I'm still curious as to knowing where this is coming from (or if it's a sock of a banned user). Below is a list of a couple IPs:

1. 172.162.230.29
2. 172.165.22.153
3. 172.162.99.87
4. 172.129.120.152
5. 172.162.178.215
6. 172.129.59.23
7. 172.163.124.213
8. 172.162.104.24
9. 172.130.54.30
10. 172.163.87.138
11. 172.129.47.169
12. 172.129.111.44
13. 172.162.78.47
14. 172.162.178.113
15. 172.162.112.90
16. 172.131.44.221
17. 172.130.68.183
18. 172.165.157.118
19. 172.130.36.131

The contribs of the IPs above are comepletely unacceptable, and I think we should take action before a now IP appears. (last appeared 03:28, 29 January 2010) Thanks. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This vandal has been going for more than three years, sometimes called the 172 vandal. Blocks should be for six hours with talk page disabled; pages semi-protected when he or she has latched onto them. Good luck with the AOL abuse report. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any possible action we can take, other than what we've already done, to prevent further damage? Does anyone know if it's multiple people, or a single person? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a single person with an obsession with certain Canadian political activists. If you look carefully at the early edits you can see there's probably something personal going on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Since he seems to be targeting specific pages, the only real option would probably be SP; there's no way to block a range like that except one by one. HalfShadow 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this single person a banned/indef blocked user, by any chance? Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

They are who they are. I think I've personally blocked them over 100 times. Banned? Yes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, if those are proxy IPs, they can be banned permanently, which would make life a bit more difficult for other sockpuppets... HalfShadow 22:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

More IPs used by this guy can be seen at the history page of Justin Trudeau, and July 2008 sections of Pierre Trudeau's page history.Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's one of the earlier edits. He or she comes and goes. Semi-protection is the best solution IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think semi protection is the way to go, though. After a series of semi protections, then it usually gets elevated to indefinite semi-protection . I dislike indef semi-protection, some IPs may have something useful to contribute to the articles that this person has vandalized. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I meant semi-protection is probably the only option, unless someone can make an abuse report stick. We could try an abuse filter, but the edits are probably too varied and sporadic, and the vandal just moves onto other topics like Canadian Tire or Microscope. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear some more comments from other admins about this situation. The problematic editing of this user is just inexcusable. Connormah (talk | contribs) 22:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you also solicit opinions from User:CJCurrie, User:JForget, User:CambridgeBayWeather, and some of the other admins who deal with user regularly. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I reviewed the diffs provided in hopes of being able to create a filter. I see nothing to latch on to to enable the creation of an abuse filter, unfortunately. The edits are far too varied and any attempt to lock something down would likely cause him to try something else. I see no potential implementation for a good filter, unfortunately. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

While I am not an admin, I have had quite a few run ins with this IP and was asked to comment here. It seems the only way to deal with this issue is semi protection, as far as I can tell. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Go check out WP:ABUSE. It should work if they use the proper contribution log format and not expect AOL to click links to pages on Wikipedia in order to view logs. I'd be happy to help, but I'd be hung if I got involved at WP:ABUSE or filed abuse reports at this time. Good luck. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Revert, block and if necessary semi-protect, but for no more than two or three days. There's too much good work by IPs to semi-protect for long. something lame from CBW 04:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but once the pages are unprotected, the said vandal returns, then the protection usually gets raised to indef. (see Justin Trudeau). Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for 172

Given that 172 has been vandalising for such a long time, can we start a user RFC on them? At the end of the day, if AOL abuse doesn't want to get involved, then we might need to do a range block on all AOL IPs, but allow editors logging in from this range to create and edit from their accounts. What do people think? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RFCs are entirely useless anyway, and completely redundant in a case like this. Long-term abuse of this nature is self-evidently bad for the project, is self-evidently known as such to the abuser, and should simply be dealt with minus the usual Wikipedian hand-wringing and endless useless discussion. Rangeblock as possible, keep an eye out for more abuse, see if someone smart can write an abuse filter. AOL is singularly unresponsive to abuse of their TOS, so you're on a hiding to nothing there. → ROUX ₪ 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Problematic User Keeps Being Problematic After RFC, Breaks Restrictions

Request already posted at User_talk:Tiptoety#User:Collect_-_Note_his_past and more aggressively at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Collect_-_Time_to_back_up_your_words. That's enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Can you guys take a look at this and decide if it merits further action?

We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour: [26] [27] [28]. Also note that he had already broken his RFC restrictions. [29] Phoenix of9 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see -- multiple posts to Gwen Gale, multiple earlier posts (including an interesting oppose at Ironhold's RfA) and a post to Tiptoety as well. Forum shopping to see what you can do to me, and I simply have had nothing to do with you at all. Seems pretty clear. By the way, try reading WP:False consensus as well. Gwen's restrictions on me expired in November, 2009, so this is getting to be a real pain, Phoenix. Thank you most kindly -- and note that Ikip apologized for that RFC <g>. Collect (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you note that he broke them in July and want to report that now? You've asked an admin here, you're done. Frankly, I don't see why you shouldn't be stopped for harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what happened yesterday.

From RFC: "Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks. Editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken here: [30]

From RFC: "If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken yesterday: [31] Phoenix of9 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)At least he was not the one who kept sending me harassing emails <g>. I commend the following to you for further reading <g> [32] shows how far he carries the animus. (after ec) Oops -- looks like he really wants to show how much he can harass now (sigh). Collect (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not harassment, this is follow up. Even now, you are continuing with your typical behaviour. One of the problems we talked about in RFC was about you giving insufficient information that distorts what actually happened (in Wiki, when dealing with problems) and that distorts what the sources say (in content discussions). And now you are doing it again by including a diff to RFA while you are failing to mention this: [33] Phoenix of9 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm "involved"

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

---

Take this to my talk page, where it most likely belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Phoenix says I am involved in this whole situation because I edited Mass killings under Communist regimes some time ago (I think my comments are in archive 6 of the talk page). Is there an uninvolved admin who has another view? I'm dropping this before I block him indefinitely or something out of anger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, we intersect at 17 articles as notorious as Edward_Moskal, Georgism, Jerry_Seinfeld, Jon_Peters, Los_Angeles_Times, Martin_Gardner, Sark, Tampa,_Florida, Thomas_Edison and Vincent_Price. Your few minor edits (all in a row) at Mkucr occurred on 9 Dec 2009, and seem scarcely enough to accuse you of any "conflict of interest" here at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3 admins all involved refuse to punish Collect and one threatens the complainer? Suggest RFC on all the admins, they need to be held accountable. If phoenix starts, I'll support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.73.195 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I thought I was clear but I'll try to make it clearer this time.

• We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were his disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour. He got blocked for disruptive editing in Mass killings under Communist regimes yesterday. [34] And used same wikilawyering techniques to get out of it [35] [36].
• I wrote about it in Gwen Gales page [37] and then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin), assuming he wasnt aware of Collects past: [38]. When Gwen Gale refused to move this to ANI [39] (contrary to what she said she would in RFC), I moved it here, and then we had this interaction with Ricky81682 here: User_talk:Phoenix_of9#Forum_shopping. It should also be noted that Gwen Gale is another involved admin here: [40]
• So does Collect's continued disruptive behaviour merit further action? Phoenix of9 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So far every admin who has responded has been not neutral or involved in your opinion, am I correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'll add that Tiptoety unblocked noting that. Which you informed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. To my knowledge, Collect is not under any sort of "no-tolerance" regime or suspended sentence. I think I am right that User:Gwen Gale is willing to impose a block if he slips into generally disruptive behaviour, but this does not necessarily mean that he gets stronger sanctions than he otherwise would any time he steps out of line. Phoenix, if you think Collect is showing a pattern of disruptive editing, you should bring this to Gwen Gale's attention, but I don't think you can expect her to act on anything other than very clear evidence. If on the other hand, you think that any time Collect gets a ban it should automatically be multiplied in length then, although I'm sure you are sincere, I think you are just wrong.

I'm sure Ricky and Gwen could make these points for themselves but, since the suggestion admin bias has been brought up, I thought a comment from a non-admin who is not predisposed to defend Collect (which I am not) might be helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I already said Tiptoety unblocked ("then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin)"). I've never said he was not neutral or involved or whatever, he hasnt even responded to anything (prolly hasnt seen any of this yet). He unblocked before I messaged him. And as I said, the reason I messaged him was because I thought he wasnt aware of Collect's past. Phoenix of9 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, the reason that I didnt continue this with Gwen Gale is that she is not neutral. [41]. So I really dont wanna carry on via Gwen Gale.

And the problem isnt Collect not getting heavier punishments but it is the fact that he still continues with his problematic behaviour, even when he's answering to this ANI complaint, accusing me of forum shopping, harassment and stuff I explained here: [42], besides his disruptive editing. Phoenix of9 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are obliged to go through Gwen Gale, but whatever admin or forum you favour, you really ought to provide a point-by-point account of the behaviour you are talking about. --FormerIP (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Lost my List

Resolved

 – WP:DNFT --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but my PC crashed and most of the info is not recoverable. One of the spreadsheets I lost was my list of Log On accounts for Wikipedia. They all had the same password, so thats no problem, but I can't even begin to remember all of the accounts. Can I somehow get a list if I provide my IP address? Thanks in advance. 173.124.74.164 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Why did you have more than one account anyway? NW (Talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC) You've already given us your IP address. MBisanz talk 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I recommend a checkuser on this IP and a temporary block on the accounts on it if they look like socks or vandalism only accounts. Having multiple accounts (unless approved like some users are) throws up too many red flags for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If they're WP:SOCK violations, I recommend blocking the IP as well since they won't get caught up in an autoblock unless they log into one of the accounts. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) This section needs to be retitled, "Lost my socks!!!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Isn't this like coming to a police station and saying you've lost the combination to your cocaine safe, and can you break in for me? Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. Or like if "Plaxico" shot himself in the leg there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Or like this sliver of an old Cheech and Chong bit, where they're having problems starting their car (presumably with controlled substances stashed in the trunk) and Chong yells to some nearby police, "Hey, could a couple of you pigs come over and help us?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Hey! Let's assume a little good faith here. Having multiple accounts isn't strictly forbidden, and 173 may have a good reason for them. I haven't seen a checkuser on this IP yet, so maybe we should hold off with the accusations until we know more. Buddy431 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) It seems a bit suspicious that someone needs an Excel file to store the account names and can't remember any of them... that sounds like they have a lot of accounts. Rapido (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is an actual legal case in English law in 1725, known as the "Highwayman's Case", where a group of highwaymen disagreed over how to properly split their loot & sought help from a court of law to settle the matter. (I know nothing more about it except for this cite: R.E. Megarry, Miscellany-at-law [1955], pp. 76f. Maybe someone with access to the proper resources could write a Wikipedia article about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Ex dolo malo. Rapido (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) How do we know this person isn't just fishing for passwords? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Well, seeing that editors are supposed to email ArbCom to let them know about legitimate alternate accounts, why don't you email them and ask them what your accounts are? I assume they keep such things in some kind of record. -- Atama頭 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

incivility, personal attacks

Resolved

 – Neptunerover (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the reference desks and associated talk page per discussion below. Also noting that, while there is some support for an indefinite block, that doesn't seem to have consensus at present. But Neptunerover should realize that the community is on the verge of exhausting it's good faith an patience, and if the user doesn't demonstrate a willingness and ability to build the encyclopedia, or at least not impede others in the effort, they are likely to be banned soon. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I wish to notify of some difficulties I am having with User SteveBaker who left here on my talk page some threatening sounding personal attack statements. He indicates an intent to stalk me through my edits. The user has an extremely negative tone and is always trying draw me into arguing with him. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Without trying to excuse his tone, he has made some comments which seem to deserve a little bit of attention. Could you provide comments and more history on how this incident came to happen? It wounds like there are two issues here, Steve's obviously inappropriate threats of wikistalking, but also the question of whether you have been contributing positively to the reference desk. Could you provide some more history about this dispute? (Also, could you sign your ANI notification on his talk page?) Frmatt (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I imagine he would be better at pointing out exactly what has caused him to react toward me in such an extreme fashion. I often notice him 'fly off the handle' and lose control of his civility toward me, but usually I don't let it get to me. These threats and his language however, I don't feel they are appropriate for Wikipedia. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Having done a little more looking into this, I've discovered a little more. YOU initiated the conversation with him here, he asked you not to talk to him any more in the exact same conversation, yet you persisted in talking to him (see the rest of Steve's talkpage). I am not involved in the Ref Desk, yet it seems to me that your best course of action right now would be to disengage from this user for the forseeable future, and understand that he may possibly know more than you about WP, and that his comments (with the exception of the incivility in the one you posted here) were meant to give you helpful advice and not that he's out to get you. Familiarize yourself with the requirements for posting to the Ref Desk and do your best to follow them. Frmatt (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't talk to Steve on his talk page any more. You point out the past. He hounds me elsewhere. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"the past" being just 19 hours ago. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RESPONSE: User:Neptunerover has repeatedly posted responses on the Science Reference desk that are clearly WP:OR. He told one of our questioners that somehow the solar system is set up around the number 10 and that's why we count in base 10...utter nonsense - and very much in line with NeptuneRover's personal view of how the universe 'ticks'. He has repeatedly used Wikipedia to promote his own ideas of how the universe works - and that is not acceptable here. At least one page from his user area was recently deleted under MfD due to his misuse of Wikipedia for this kinds of OR promotion. I have warned him on several occasions and yet he continues to violate the core WP:NOR principle and to post misleading and flat out untrue answers to people who come to the ref desk to get serious answers to serious question. This is extremely bad for our users and for our reputation - so something has to be done to curb this activity. I have conducted an extended and friendly conversation with NeptuneRover on my talk page - explaining as patiently as I can that he simply isn't allowed to do this kind of thing here. That clearly hasn't worked - he continues to post OR answers on the Ref Desk. So I have informed him that I will be paying careful attention to his posts in the future and that I will be registering complaints whenever he breaches the OR pillar in the future and doing my best to explain to our questioners why his answers are not the truth as we know them. Sadly, this will make NeptuneRover look foolish - but there isn't much I can do about that. There is admittedly a thin line between patrolling a problematic user's edits and "stalking" - but I believe this is clearly on the acceptable side of that line. I felt that he needed a strong warning in order that we may be able to avoid a long train of upheavals and upsets. As you will see, I was careful to comment on the content and not on the user in compliance with WP:NPA. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment - SteveBaker is one of the most reputable and respected contributors on the Science Reference Desk. He does have a history of brusque-ness; he probably should have slowed down and worded his message to NeptuneRover a bit more politely. However, NeptuneRover's contributions to the reference desk and the talk page have been overwhelmingly disruptive. His posts range from incomprehensible gibberish, bad jokes, and general nonsense. He hasn't been particularly responsive to earlier, more polite warnings - and so I can understand SteveBaker's frustration. It's unfortunate that NeptuneRover feels persecuted, but we have high standards on the Reference Desk, outlined by our very specific guidelines. If NeptuneRover can't contribute encyclopedic, referenced content, then he should not be contributing on the Reference Desk. SteveBaker's note on NeptuneRover's talk-page may have been brusque, but it is accurate and justified. Nimur (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The 'nonsense' you point out was a request for clarification equaling in substance the question initially posed, which itself would be considered nonsense by your summary. The 'incomprehensible gibberish', I was drawn into. The other, well, I erased it. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand your concern, there were better ways to go about monitoring this user's edits. Bringing it here would have been a good start instead of making comments that obviously express your frustration, but definitely cross the line in terms of civility. You have been very patient, but the better way to deal with this would have been to share the frustration around instead of keeping it with the (relatively) small number of people who watch the Ref Desk. Frmatt (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

NR: Could you post your responses at the bottom of the section so that it is easier for people to find them? Frmatt (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do people know what I'm responding to then? I'm a slow writer. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

According to the definition of wikistalking: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles.” In the same article, the subsection on threats clearly says: “Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly . . . are not threats.” I suggest Steve’s professed intentions are all quite reasonable and for the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole. His tone is understandable, given the their history. Bielle (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Note correction in italics for greater clarity. Bielle (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC))

Are you saying it's understandable that he's mad because he's been mad all along? That makes sense, but it doesn't excuse anything. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bielle: you're right that it isn't technically Wikihounding, but given the tone, it is reasonable that this might be construed as following someone's edits to create distress. Yes, technically there's nothing wrong with Steve's use of Neptune's history (and future history), but the tone of incivility was what led me to call it wikihounding. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and understanding from Neptune about what the problem here actually is. I'm quite happy with Steve's explanation of his actions posted above, and certainly have no problem with him making the productive changes and fixing problems as they arise. Frmatt (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(out) Is User:Neptunerover really here to help build an encyclopedia? [43] Less than 10% of their edits are to articles, while over 40% are to user talk pages, 13% are to their own user pages, and over 25% are to Wikipedia space -- that seems like someone who sees this site as an opportunity for various kinds of social-interaction, not like someone who's interested in improving the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what those colors mean, what is Wikipedia space? --Neptunerover (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You're soaking in it. [44] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to AGF here, but you're making it really difficult, Neptune. If you can't read a simple pie chart, then why on earth do you think you would be qualified to post at the Science Reference Desk. Anybody with an elementary school education knows how to read a pie chart. I'm beginning to think that you are either here solely to create problems and disrupt Wikipedia, or else something else is up here. I think that an explanation of why you are here would be helpful to everyone. Frmatt (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What are the qualifications BTW? Is there an exam I missed? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, If I'm allowed to make insinuations too, then let's compare the blue from my pretty pie to this one and see who is soaking in just what [45]. I wonder if perhaps someone is jealously guarding their turf? This[[46]] question from earlier evidences Steve's overwhelming need for control. He feels he must understand everything. If he can't understand the OP's query, he's not going to understand my answer, yet he still passes judgment on it. Steve requires that no matter how many different cultures and languages and differences are represented here within the encyclopedia community, any question posed, or answer provided, must conform to his strict standards of making sense to him.

You know, I don't think I've ever said anything mean to Steve. It's not in my nature to say unkind things. He has been on me though since over a month ago. Ad Hominem all the way. I've tried to explain the nature of our differences to him, but all he wants to do is preach at me about how wrong I am at my every move. So I let him be, but he comes after me. Every chance he gets it seems, he takes the opportunity to dismiss and discredit my views, which are not mainstream enough for him. Plainly WP:NPA. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Making insinuations about my contributions here isn't helping. The administrators were asked by you to make an investigation of an extremely serious accusation. Now they are asking you questions in order to help make their decisions. I strongly recommend that you answer them straightforwardly and honestly - this is not a game.

But since you are evidently going to make insinuations, you should examine the all-important red slice on that chart. That wedge represents 3,435 separate edits that I have made to main-space articles. Out of the nearly 20,000 edits I've made, fewer than 300 have ever been reverted - and most of those were eventually reinstated by other editors. The pie chart doesn't show it - but that red slice includes two WP:FA's and several WP:GA's that I wrote almost single handed. I've been writing and improving articles over a period of more than five years. During that time I've been nominated for adminship twice (I turned it down on both occasions because I really don't need the hassle of dealing with miscreants). I've never had a single block or sanction of any kind placed against me in all those years. I think it's quite clear that I have only the best intentions in my support of Wikipedia and that I do my very best to uphold the core principles upon which it was founded. It appears to surprise you that I care enough to defend the reference desk from 'original research' - it really shouldn't.

Anyway, it's safe to say that the admins weren't asking about my contributions. Please have some respect for this forum and answer their questions. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Your red is mostly in the past Steve. Look at your bars under the pie. You're all blue these days. Anyway, BMK started it by bringing up my pie chart and making insinuations, as if trying to justify your WP:NPA actions. Is the pie chart the cookie cutter that decides if users are allowed to stay? If so, you better watch your pie chart Steve, you've got a lot of blue lately. Certain colors are more desirable than others, I guess. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

SteveBaker alternates between editing heavily in article space, and editing heavily on the Reference Desk, making undeniably valuable contributions in both places. APL (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neptuneuser: Neither the quality or quantity of SteveBaker's contributions are at issue at this point. There's no hard and fast rule about how much people should edit to specific areas: everyone contributes as they can and where they're interested, but your editing history is such that it appears possible that your participation here doesn't have improvement of the encyclopedia as its focus. Instead, it appears possible that your intention is to create controversy, screw around with people's heads, and cause disruption: in other words, trolling. I would ask you to address the question -- what is your intention in editing here, and what have you done to improve the encyclopedia? (Please recall that you have no inherent right to edit here, and if you're not here to help the project, perhaps you had better not be here at all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll not be forced into responding to an irrelevant question. I say you have no right to demand a summary of my intentions here. Whatever was pertained to in Steve's message on my talk page is irrelevant to these proceedings. What is relevant is his tone, form, and manner of expressing himself in violation of WP:NPA. Certainly there is another place where we can discuss pie charts and their implications. My complaint here concerns incivility. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, here are two questions from the Entertainment ref desk which I am particularly proud of answering. [[47]], [[48]] I consider myself here to help and not be mean. I don't know about everybody else, but that's me. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This section starts with a complaint alleging a personal attack and an intent to stalk. I have reviewed WP:Reference desk/Science and User talk:Neptunerover and conclude that there is no personal attack and no intent to stalk. SteveBaker spoke plainly in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, and to alert Neptunerover that due to violations of WP:NOR their contributions would be monitored to ensure that future claims include references. SteveBaker should be commended for taking the time to work towards correcting an obviously unsatisfactory situation, and Neptunerover should read the advice given on their talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I point out for you this line from WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." --Neptunerover (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We are adults here, and when appropriate it is ok to say "This is complete bullshit" when referring to another speculative piece of WP:OR written as an answer at WP:Reference desk/Science#Perpetrual-reality. The complaint written by SteveBaker (note that the peculiar image was later added by Neptunerover) does not attack a user. The complaint specifically calls a particular piece of text "complete bullshit", and then cites the WP:NOR policy with a patient explanation that breaching NOR after clear warnings will lead to trouble. Neptunerover is not correct: the complaint was forceful but it was not a personal attack because the complaint was (correctly) focused on breaches of the WP:NOR policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I don't want to respond to Steve's angry rant on my talk page because I don't like looking at it, there were a couple of polite approaches to me, and so I feel obligated to answer them with a summary here since it addresses the issue that launched Steve into his tirade.

• Background I don't keep a full reference library in my head (that I know of) with exact records for everything, but I know a lot of shit (Steve calls it bullshit on my talk page). Just because I don't remember the specific TV show or article or whatever the heck it was that gave me my understanding of whatever, that doesn't mean my answer is wrong, and it should not preclude me from providing the best answer I can, even though specifics might not be immediately forthcoming. There are rules [[49]] about how to deal with Steve's concerns, and these indicate a requirement for politeness.
• Reference I don't remember what the show was; trying hard to remember now, I think it was a 4 hr series on Discovery called Einstein's Universe or something like that (which I do have on VCR tape around here somewhere, having a somewhat extensive multimedia library as I do). There was one scene, and I can remember the image of a mobius-shaped universe with the narration saying something to the effect of, "Some scientists have speculated..." Since the OP's question seemed rather speculative, I pointed him to a direction where actual scientific speculation has taken place, without regard to how worthwhile such speculation might be. Mine is not to judge. I also felt that leaving a paragraph summary of my reasoning there with the answer I provided to the OP was uncalled for, especially considering the OP's apparent difficulty with English. Why introduce unnecessary crap? --Neptunerover (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment SteveBaker is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to get Steve into trouble. He is obviously extremely smart. He has limited ability to control his responses though, which I recognise, but I'm not going to walk on eggshells just because someone has a tender hair trigger anger response (I'm not that meek). I do nothing directly at Steve unless he asks it of me. Sadly all he asks of me is for argument and conformation to his specific world perception, which from this [[50]] can be seen as perhaps narrower than the perspective of others (though certainly no less valid from its own perspective). It is his way of dealing with this through anger that is my concern. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• At best, Steve should get a warning. His comments were a touch incivil. That said, he's right. If you had said, "I seem to recall a show about a mobius universe," instead of presenting it as your own idea, it would have helped. At this point, I think it best the two of you avoid one another, and Neptunerover be more careful to provide sources for your claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

These rules are about answering questions on the desks. "In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question.", "...if you think you understand the question, feel free to state your assumptions and attempt an answer." I don't think I was being too bold by not providing extensive details from the start. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My comments on Neptunerover's talk page have been described as 'brusque' and 'a touch incivil' - and I'm prepared to accept that. But I plead in my own defense that it is only possible to push WP:AGF so far - and Neptunerover went beyond my personal breaking point by continuing to flaunt WP rules in posting original research in response to serious questions from the general public.

I would be more than happy to disengage from Neptunerover, either formally or informally - but that will be difficult for me if he continues to post to the science reference desk - and doubly so if he continues to post his typical brand of original research there. The only way to avoid contact under those circumstances would be to require either Neptunerover or myself to desist from posting to the WP:RD altogether. I do not wish for the actions of a disruptive user to divert my considerable efforts to support the WP:RD - but if I were required to do by a decision here - I'd obviously comply. However, I'm 100% sure that if you !voted amongst the regular contributors to WP:RD, they would confirm that this would be an injustice and damaging to the service we provide there.

The other way to make this "disengagement" effective would be to require Neptunerover to desist from posting to the reference desk. That would probably work - but perhaps it's a bigger sanction than is justified since all we really need to do is to curtail his posting of original research there.

I would be the first to agree that if disengagement is the solution then it would be unwise for me to be the one to judge and take action on what is OR as comes from Neptunerover. However, I believe there is at least one Admin who is a WP:RD/S regular - perhaps giving that person a formal role in monitoring Neptunerover - with the power to take prompt action in the event of further WP:NOR infractions would be the best course of action.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For such a new user, Neptunerover seems to be having a lot of issues. Perhaps he should consider the possibility that the problem is him and not everyone else on Wikipedia. APL (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just remembered, back when his user stuff was being deleted, on my talk page he described those debates as "It's like a game of chess to me, and I love chess. "(He goes on like that for a paragraph or so.) I propose that Neptunerover is causing trouble here because he enjoys the attention.

That may also explain his reasons for posting absurd physics theories. APL (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't cause trouble. I'm simply not afraid of it. If somebody wants to start something with me, I don't run and hide. You misrepresent so much in your statement about me. There was nothing being deleted at the point of which you speak. There was a MFD at that time, but no one voted in its favor. (there may have been an old MFD sitting there waiting for the axe, but all that was over). Why would I enjoy attention? Is there an attention thing here going on? Could it be that I am perceived as stealing the attention of people here who are more deserving of it? That might make sense. Just because I'm not after attention, that doesn't mean that other people here aren't. Do attention seeking people get jealous of the attention given to others? Maybe somebody is jealous of me. He who screams the loudest at me might be the most jealous. I wouldn't know though, as jealousy is not in my repertoire. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that says it all. APL (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just reading through Neptunerover's contributions on the current Science RefDesk page and talk page, I can't find even one that looks genuinely helpful, unless you find semantic hair-splitting, half-remembered I-think-I-saw-this-somewheres, wild speculation, and a vast lack of sources to be helpful. Also see [51]. Contrast Nr's 157 edits at RD/S to SteveBaker's 6,297 edits there. Everyone who works RD/S knows that if Steve takes an interest in a thread, his response will be comprehensive, well laid out, logically developed, sourced where necessary, and helpful in the extreme. We also know that Steve does not tolerate bullshit well on science topics.

I'd say there's a simple solution. Neptunerover stays off RD/S until they can develop the ability to supply precise, sourced, non-speculative and on-topic answers. Steve shouldn't be using a threatening tone when discussing it (i.e. mentioning blocks), but he's perfectly within his rights to scrutinize Neptune's edits. That's standard procedure when an editor is suspected of editing disruptively. Injecting unsourced non-scientific material into science-related articles and pages qualifies as disruptive. Franamax (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Neptune, just to put your mind at ease about the size of Steve's pie-pieces, have a read here. And thanks Beyond for that "you're soaking in it". Hasn't that ad been off the air for decades? :) Franamax (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic-banning Neptunerover from the reference-desks. However, there is also a more general behavioural issue here, typified by Nr's continued insistence that calling another user a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" is acceptable and not, in fact, insulting or inappropriate in any way. This is an editor who clearly has a fundamental problem with the entire basis of a collaborative project. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you're on the wrong page here. This is a referendum on SteveBaker. You might be able to start your little campaign somewhere else though. You should look around and let me know. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would also Support a topic ban prohibiting Neptune Rover from the refdesks, at the very least the science desks. Neptunerover confuses question-askers with absurd theories[52], he contributes little or nothing that is accurate and useful, and he delights in wiki-lawyering[53], and painting himself as a victim in issues that he has clearly instigated. No good will come from his continued 'contributions' to the reference desk, but a good deal of hassle will as somebody has to explain to question-askers why each of Neptunerover's stupid answers is wrong. (Since patent nonsense cannot be reverted on sight like we would do in article-space.) APL (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support topic ban Searching Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for "Neptunerover" shows many messages confirming that Neptunerover's contributions are largely WP:OR or are just fun comments that conflict with WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In that, Neptunerover, you would be only half right. Any concern about the behaviour of an editor raised here by another editor always results in the contributions of both being examined, in the specific instances and on Wikipedia in general. Behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. Bielle (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Neptunerover's on a 12-hour enforced wikibreak at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not an official mentor, but left an offer of an extra set of eyes and a double-check for this user on their talk page. Frmatt (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor doesn't seem interested in being helped, per the discussions on his or her talk page. My (very non-admin) opinion is that a topic ban is just fine, but only as a necessary first step. I see very little possibility of a topic ban reigning in this person; in fact, it would probably just encourage them to spread out into other territory. At least that's the personality I perceive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban against Neptunerover editing at the Ref Desks. I am also a ref desk regular, and I agree with Steve and Franamax's assessments that Neptunerover's contributions there are unhelpful and disruptive, and he has shown he is unwilling to work within the confines of expected standards there, even when those standards have been explained over and over. If SteveBaker showed a touch of anger, it was only because AGF is not a suicide pact, and Neptunerover has long since left the limits any reasonable person could stretch AGF to fit. His other comments about getting entertainment out of generating drama only reinforce that a ban is the only way to go. --Jayron32 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban against Neptunerover editing at Ref Desks. His contributions there have been disruptive for the most part and looking at his talk page today (esp this) he still doesn't get it. Also, this is no longer an AGF issue, Neptunerover has been reasoned with, provided multiple explanations and chances (just look at the MfDs for examples of this behavior) and he either genuinely doesn't get it or is just trolling. Either way a topic ban will be help us avoid this disruption and get on with building an encyclopaedia. –SpacemanSpiff 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Indef block of Neptunerover. Per his talk-page, I just declined his unblock request as he continues the same hair-splitting and circular discussion pattern that led to his block. Even while blocked. Even about the block itself. Disruption is disruption, whether this user recognizes it or not. It's clear he doesn't, which is precisely why I declined to unblock and would feel comfortable extending it--blocks prevent disruption and wasting of everyone's time that would be better spent building an encyclopedia and answering readers' questions. His behavior creates drama but little if anything else and no inclination to learn to improve. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  He's going to be unblocked very shortly, if not already; let's see what he does, though I'd liberally support an indef-block the minute he puts the first Wikitoe out of line. His unblock request was very much in the same vein as, "trash is recyclable so it's not an insulting name," and this is just unpleasant. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Concur, as I'm convinced we've run with this long enough. — Lomn 14:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, and if NR continues to play games, move to Indef. Reading a bit more in-depth, I have to question a lot more of his answers on the Desk, and his responses here and on his talk page have become quite bizarre. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, here User:Neptunerover seems to insinuate that Lomn may have violated WP:DFTT by talking to Neptunerover. Given Neptunerover's past editing patterns, I wouldn't call it impossible that he deliberately outed himself as a troll. Huon (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, what I insinuate is that the moment I bring a complaint against one of the elite here, many a troll pops up unrequested at my talk page offering me much free advice on just how I should step into line. What is that? This is supposed to be where we are dealing with it. Why do they go there unless to antagonize me? --Neptunerover (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break (Neptunerover)

notice of antagonizations After this[[54]], Steve left his comment on my talk page (the reason I started this ANI). I pasted the "reference requests and factual disputes" paragraph from the rules on answering ref desk questions under his statement, with these sentences in bold: "If you believe a response should provide a reference, but does not, feel free to politely ask for one. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, add a comment explaining why you think so, and provide evidence, if possible." Following that paragraph, Lomn added this [suggestion], which I consider antagonization leading up to the block. The wolf comes hidden in sheep's clothing, acting like he's there to help me by calling me names "hey pal, you better not be a stupid jerk anymore, and I'm just being your friend here telling you that.." HA
Steve called me a name one time [here]. As an example of Steve egging me on, when I asked a question on the Science ref desk one time, rather than inform me right away that I had come to the wrong place with my question, the first person to answer does so using a big long statement pointing fingers and giving advice[wrong, wrong, wrong], and then later, after the argument had gone on for some time, the whole argument got blamed on me for posting an inappropriate question. Why didn't they say that right off the go? I could easily have been told to take my question elsewhere. I call that egging me on. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef block of Neptunerover (talk · contribs) per past offences, WP:HORSE WP:DEADHORSE, [55] and particularly [56] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought TreasuryTag already voted at least once. I see no declaration by him of just what these latest edits he brings up are in violation of. I feel this latest vote is not adequately supported. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
(I was responding to individuals there, on their own talk pages, and if those individuals have difficulties over my edits, then that might be another case, but TreasuryTag indicates no significance for them other than what might be taken from a biased point of view.) --Neptunerover (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no !vote duplication here. Before TreasuringTag was advocating a topic-ban to keep Neptunerover off the reference desks, now, after this latest volley of posts from Neptunerover, TreasuryTag has increased his recommendation to a long-term overall block. APL (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• support investigation into TreasuryTag's pattern of activity surrounding user Neptunerover. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  I welcome scrutiny, as always. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Point of fact: Through my providing [this answer] to a science desk question [[57]], research was conducted and an article was improved. (although there was some misunderstanding at first regarding my statement.) --Neptunerover (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• comment Just because somebody does something different, that should not be grounds for attack. Instead, why not be helpful and say, "hey, that's different; that doesn't sound right to me; why do you say that?" or any other variation that fails to point a finger at anyone. Assertiveness is very important in human communication and ought to be a pillar here. People who don't understand it are destined for mix-ups. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• proposal How about if I could write an essay about trolling and its relation to trolls, Wikipedia style, as far as I understand it. I know there already is such an essay, but mine would be different and undoubtedly shorter. I submit that there are trolls here among us. I understand that intentions may not be evil, yet actions suffice. The only ones afraid of such an essay would be anyone fearing exposure, yet if their intentions were never evil, then such an essay offers them no harm. Who could possibly be against an intense psychological study of human interactions on Wikipedia? Anyone? (fully referenced, of course groan) An assertiveness training guide for the unwary boy, those hooks sure do look like tasty treats!. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• The 12h block has not improved Neptunerover. He continues to link to the perfectly normal actions of the people around him as proof of some grand conspiracy against him. It's clear that if he's allowed to continue posting he will continue to muck up the reference desk with nonsense, and he will continue to post frivolous complains wherever he think he can find an audience. I don't know how much weight non-admin !votes carry in these sorts of things, but I also support a long term block of this user.APL (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One fish. I just offered to do something that could be beneficial, and not just by occupying my time and keeping me away from the ref desks, which I don't think I've threatened lately. Not since this has become serious. You realise this is serious, don't you APL? --Neptunerover (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

I don't get it...

Resolved

 – now blocked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why a vandalism report is rejected after this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not resolved, even though the originator of the thread is the one who closed it. Blocking this user because the subject of the article has the same name as the person who keeps creating the article? So it's okay to create the article over and over again so long as he uses a different username? Woogee (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he can't recreate the article because it has been salted, nobody but an administrator can create it now. But I understand your point, the editor received repeated vandalism warnings and then was only softblocked for their username(?!). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. -- Atama頭 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the AIV because I don't consider a new user's removal of speedies to necessarily constitute vandalism, and the other edits could be seen as good-faith attempts to be productive, even if the article were eventually to be deleted, as it was. Sometimes the best way to get people to miss something is to put it right in front of their face, and you'd be surprised if you didn't involve yourself regularly how many newbies, who are entitled to the same consideration we all got at that stage, miss the text about {{hangon}} and just keep taking the tag down (and they may not necessarily click on the new messages banner and read the talkpage messages, either). For that reason I declined it as an AIV as beyond that page's rather explicitly stated scope. Had it been reported to COI, things would have been different. Had it been reported to UAA instead, the nature of the contribs would have been irrelevant and I would have done what I've done many times with UAA reports under similar circumstances: softblocked, yes, even where people have removed speedy tags. And pretty much all the time that's all the message they need, whether we've salted the article or not. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can then go ahead and apply that rationale to any vandal: "Oh, maybe they didn't read the messages. Let's not block then...." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious account

Can anyone make any sense out of Санта Клаус's main user page? Seems to be implying he's setup specialized accounts. But is a contributor to ar.wikipedia... is it possible they allow this sort of thing and there is a misunderstanding? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do you think he's saying he has 5 or 6 accts, one specifically for defending another accts edits, and one specifically for promoting/defending the sunni point of view? If so, boy needs some serious talkin' to. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Basically admits that he has a stalking account and an harassment account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At least 2 of the accts named are actual user accts, User:Tarawneh and User:Petra, but no User:Osama or User:Azddy. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of mild curiosity, his username is "Santa Klaus" in Russian/Serbian Cyrillic. Orderinchaos 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention to meta and whatever wikis he's actually editing (in particular Arabic). I don't know but I'd assume most wikis have similar rules against that sort of thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to read the history on that page? That content wasn't even placed there by him.. not only that it looks like an IP tried to have teh content removed as not created by the account holder..--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

not to mention Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azdpetratarawsanata have a look at his writing there. Far more coherent than what is on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The history shows that he's never edited that page. However, he's been granted rollback rights? Why would someone who never edits their own user page to remove pernicious vandalism be granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your first day? [58] He asked for it to be deleted. The account isn't active anymore[59]. This is someone trolling him. Reverting the IP was the wrong move and it may be the actual account holder.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That attitude is completely uncalled for, Crossmr. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it's not. I've been here for several years. The reason you are able to use this noticeboard is because I started the original. Now back to the issue at hand - if they were granted rollback rights in 2008, and they have only just now decided to have their page deleted, and the account is also dormant, does this indicate that they should have been granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

pwned.  GARDEN  12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the EC with that utterly useless comment. This took me all of 30 seconds with a couple of ganders at a couple of page histories and a contrib history to note that this is an inactive account previously targeted by socks, with a note not created by the account (which he seemed to miss) and to note that the user previously had his page deleted (which he seemed to miss).--Crossmr (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the content of your discourse that was the problem, it was the manner in which you delivered it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*.. go look at the logs again. He was granted rollback in April 2008. He had his user page initially deleted in December 2008. His last group of real edits was in August 2008, after he was given rollback. he made one edit in February 2009 and nothing since then. If you look at his talk page history [60] you'll see he was targeted by socks a few times. He was granted rollback, used it for a few months then left the project. Months after leaving the project he had his user page deleted. In May, a few months after his last edit a brand new sock showed up and added that to his user page. Obviously since he wasn't editing anymore he didn't see it. Perhaps for some reason he happened to check his old account and noticed some sock had put something there and marked it for speedy. Maybe he doesn't have his password anymore. Either way, the claim of sockpuppetry was put there by an account with no other edits on an inactive users page almost 1 year ago who was previous target of socks..--Crossmr (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. I have indefinitely blocked NOPV (probably bolting the door after the horse is bolted... but why keep an attack account open?) and deleted the user page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

PeterXaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be one of these. Anyone familiar with this particular sock family wish to take a look? I don't want to start a SSP report or engage the editor (e.g. by notifying them) per WP:BEANS and WP:DFTT... sooner or later they're going to stop giving themselves away and would hope they grow bored of socking before they become more serious at it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BKLisenbee using User: 64.128.245.110 evading topic ban and editing pages under mediation?

Possible topic ban user making mass edits to pages in mediation.

Re edits by User:64.128.245.110 See range of edits [61]which fall under User:BKLisenbee topic ban [62]and recent edits conform to the users past editing POV and style.

User:BKLisenbee who is topic banned from a wide range of pages is likely the editor using a Florida Ip to make edits on a series of pages .User talk:FayssalF has been emailed regarding this but seems less active. Perhaps an admin could protect the pages until he has a chance to review. Edits on [63] violate WP:BLP, all the edits made seem to violate WP:NPOV.

Mediation was ongoing on User:FayssalF/JK however User: BKLisenbee ceased participation. All these recent edits bear the same character and tags in edit summery as User BK:Lisenbee [64] see Users edits prior to 27 July 2008 and note similer language.

The anon User is also removing links to secondary sources hereand elsewhere, reference links to secondary sources see Tangier and useful external links to travel articles.

This user was banned permanently from Wikipedia see [65]but was allowed back to in order to participate in mediation. However obviously noting User FayssalIF being less active appears to now have returned as an anon Ip to continue POV editing , mass external link deletions and major page editing of pages under mediation. Perhaps the IP might need blocking also for the moment.Catapla (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left on both users talk pages with link to this discussion. Catapla (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left for User talk:FayssalF Catapla (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ip blocked 48 hours for ban evasion per WP:DUCK, giving FayssalF time to review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: FayssalF has long dealt with this issue (involving edit warring and serious conflicts of interest) and would seem to be a bottomless well of patience. In July 2008, FayssalF proposed a topic ban for the two users involved in the dispute (link). By that time, FayssalF was the only admin willing or able to regularly deal with the situation (I and some others have occasionally intervened). As of August 2008, the topic ban had already been violated, and I indefinitely blocked BKLisenbee and another account (link). In my opinion, neither of the editors should have had any further involvement with Wikipedia. FayssalF, however, reasoned that as the two editors made over 90% of the edits to the articles in question, that topic bans blocks, etc., were ultimately not going to prevent the involve parties from editing the articles, and it was clear that the users would find a way around any sanctions placed upon them. Thus he unblocked BKLisenbee (link). I have never thought it was fair for FayssalF to shoulder the burden of dealing with the two parties. He has previously appealed to the community for assistance although admittedly I, for one, have had little time or motivation to deal with the issue. But I think the community is going to have to find some other means of handling this, instead of depending on FayssalF. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the other party to this dispute has agreed to engage in the mediation process following the topic ban. My concerns remain, however, about WP:COI on both sides of the dispute. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A completely justifiable concern and topic bans can never be lifted. The issues re WP:BLP are of concern . re recent edits. User talk:FayssalF or other editors he approves are the only people who should be editing any of these pages while he sought a/ mediation re content and b/ as there have been literally 100,000 words splashed on talk pages over the years, indeed that might be a low estimate.He did good work re secondary sources of which there is a vast amount. However having made decisions re points several points the mediation continued with one party absenting themselves from it.Recent edits have hidden weasel words, NPOV and contra BLP edits behind previous footnotes to secondary sources etc. and eliminated sources from external links. The volume of correspodence is also ridiculas and Wikipedia is merely one of many sites that one side in this issue have bombarded with complai nt and unsourced assertions. There are ample secondary sources that can be used reference to this controvsey from news media and specialist magazines that is voluminous so that is something that is 100% verifiable.I.e. there is a controversy discussed in reputable media that must referenced in any article. That is an inescapable fact.Catapla (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rashaibrahim

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I'm sure someone here will know where to point me or how to help me all the same. While I was checking out some things this morning, I ran across User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69, an archived version of an article posted in the User namespace. It doesn't have its categories commented out like most draft pages in User namespace. When I went to post a comment on this user's talk page, I noticed that someone commented about this same issue with other "drafts" back on December 13, 2009 and again on January 11, 2010. Checking the user's contribution list, he has several articles this way, many of which show no signs of activity beyond being re-created in the User namespace. If he were actively editing articles in his user space for inclusion in mainspace, they'd show editing of some sort, so this looks like a violation of user page policy to me. In fact the only edits to the histories of these articles is to remove interwiki linking or comment out the categories, all by other editors. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Hitchcock
• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Nobel
• User:Rashaibrahim/argentina
• User:Rashaibrahim/Ciara
• User:Rashaibrahim/Black Eyed Peas†‡
• User:Rashaibrahim/Flax†
• User:Rashaibrahim/SWAT
• User:Rashaibrahim/BMW M5†
• User:Rashaibrahim/porphyria†
• User:Rashaibrahim/divya bharti†
• User:Rashaibrahim/Nissan GT-R†
• User:Rashaibrahim/list of social networking websites
• User:Rashaibrahim/List of cities in Canada
• User:Rashaibrahim/Charice Pempengco
• User:Rashaibrahim/Little Women
• User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69
• User:Rashaibrahim/Cradle of Filth
• User:Rashaibrahim/Pseudomonas
• User:Rashaibrahim/zucchini
• User:Rashaibrahim/hyphen†
• User:Rashaibrahim/torrie wilson†
• User:Rashaibrahim/LL Cool J
• User:Rashaibrahim/competition*
• User:Rashaibrahim/Joe Satriani
• User:Rashaibrahim/Derivative (finance)
• User:Rashaibrahim/Battlestar Galactica
• User:Rashaibrahim/Quality of service‎
• User:Rashaibrahim/Thermostat†
• User:Rashaibrahim/delta force
• User:Rashaibrahim/David Blaine
• User:Rashaibrahim/Trance music
• User:Rashaibrahim/Model United Nations‎

† Page blanked ‡ Page recreated again * Twice blanked the mainspace article, both times immediately reverted

This fellow's only article-space edits were to blank a page twice, and he has no WP-space or talk page edits. Why is he here? Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be no reason for those pages to be hear. Even at best they're making his user pages appear in mainspace categories so at least should have the categories deleted from them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These should all be sent to MFD. GlassCobra 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I wasn't exactly sure where to go with what I found, but I was pretty sure it needed deletion, which has been done now. Thanks again, Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, can someone also take a look at

• User:Rashaibrahim/alfred and
• User:Rashaibrahim/algorithm

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront

68.118.202.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Could someone have a look at what this editor is doing at this article. I really haven't got time for intricate policy arguments right now. I'll just briefly say that I don't think he's doing the article any good and probably never will. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at his block log and edit history (posting autofellatio images on user talk pages) should be instructive. I know IPs can change, but this one doesn't seem to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That (the autofellatio) could be from another person. But yeah, it's starting to look like that this person is intent on edit-warring. –MuZemike 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The IP is behaving badly, but I think he actually has a somewhat valid point about the neutrality of the SPLC. I commented in more detail on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note this IP has been reported to ANI before, here on January 9. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's theoretically possible that the IP has shifted to another person since the last round of trouble, the edits coming from it are of a piece with the previous disruption and have followed hard upon the expiration of the most recent block. Since he seems quiet for now, I won't make any further fuss, but I think we all know we're going to be discussing him again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First I do not think that it is appropriate for Steven Anderson to post a complaint here about my in-good faith editing of "Stormfront" to remove POV bias from that article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to state the facts, not advance a political / social agenda. Including quotes from ADL and SPLC or referencing these organizations as more trustworthy than the subject of the article itself is clearly POV editing. It would be like using quotes or assertions from Rush Limbaugh in the article on the Democratic Party. We should stick to ostensibly neutral sources like the news media or government agencies when writing articles. We should not jump to follow the conclusions of non-neutral sources when characterizing the nature of an organization. Stormfront does not describe itself as a "hate site," so why should Wikipedia characterize it as such and cite anti-Stormfront organizations to back up this opinion. I encourage editors to browse Stormfront themselves to see what it is about. Surely then they will not be so hastily prejudicial against it. LastI know nothing about the autofellatio images listed above. This is a dynamic IP address and changes frequently.

--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please, if you're going to discuss this, be honest. You've removed sourced items that were properly presented and injected your own POV characterization over and over. You've tried inserting non-reliable sources. Now I grant you that the SPLC and ADL may have neutrality issues, but as was discussed on the talk page, if the material is clearly shown as their opinion and not stated as fact, that is reasonably neutral. A review of your edit history shows a strong case for agenda pushing and "white washing" of Wikipedia. And I'm going to plant a BS flag on your claim of "my IP changes frequently so it wasn't me". Looking at the edits made before the autofellation edits and the ones after all look like you. So you expect me to believe that your IP changed for a few minutes during those edits, then back to you? Not buying it.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's still doing it. [66][67][68][69][70] His talk page history is riddled with warnings about this crap. He has a huge one at the top telling him that more of this will result in a longer block. And he's now way past WP:3RR. Will an administrator please step in? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The material he was attributing to the SPLC and the ADL was actually supported by 18 reliable sources, already on the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the contentious section of the article. Where have I attempted to inject my POV? I can not prove a negative with regards to the IP address. Cheers.--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a friendly reminder, with editors like this one, we need to start putting warnings on his talk page about the 3RR before he gets to revert #10. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what we need to do with editors like this one is issue a lengthy block as soon as they re-show their faces instead of letting them disrupt the project for 6 and a half hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• True, but there's not always an alery admin around. AIV wouldn't be a help without some warnings. I'm just saying. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but he was so obviously a returning racist vandal, clearly violating a number of different policies, for which he'd been repeatedly warned and blocked, I didn't see what possible use there could be in another warning. Still, it was six and a half hours from the time this was posted until admin action happened. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this IP for three months, and requested oversight of their last, egregious edit. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  This was User:Trollskar, by the way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, criteria 2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material against a person, group or organisation. Just do it yourself, there is no actual content in the edit that needs to be removed, just the edit summary. nableezy - 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could. The feature doesn't seem to be enabled yet on this Wiki. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, just a quibble about the original report. There are two possible articles that could be referred to as "Stormfront": one is a redirect, the other is an infamous website. The link above points to the redirect, & if this individual was edit warring over a redirect.... -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I meant the article about the website. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt indef'ed.

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted. Tan | 39 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this user indef (replacing SarekofVulcan's existing, iteratively escalated two-week block) because he simply cannot seem to leave another user alone. See the past archives of this page and his talk page for prior complaints, and User talk:SuaveArt/mentoring for my attempts to coach him out of his antagonistic and destructive behavior.

This post is a call for a community ban. Alternatively, if another administrator wants to pick up this user for mentoring in two weeks (once the original block for repeated personal attacks and harassment will have expired), I'll wash my hands of him and remand him to someone else's watchful eye and short leash.

• Endorse community ban, as mentor and proposer. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Non-admin endorsement. I've seen the previous ANI threads on this editor and a skim of his talk page shows that he's had plenty of warnings but has continued behaviour which, at best, could be perceived as aggravating an already inflamed situations and, at worst, are just plain wiki-stalking, harassment and trolling which cannot be tolerated. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Involved party endorsement I have encountered SA several times here. His bad faith nominations of Christian related UBX's along with his POV input in Christian articles shows that he has a personal agenda and is not editing in good faith. We already have enough POV pushers here but a POV pusher and a wiki-hounder is way too much.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment perhaps we should just put SA on editing restrictions. How about:

• Indef topic ban from any Christianity related articles.
• Indef 1RR per page per week.
• Indef no talking to User:Seregain.
• SuaveArt can get these restrictions removed by either appealing to Arbcom, the ANI or Jimbo.

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given his past failures to adhere to similar, informal restrictions... do you really think this will be effective? Or will we just be back here again next month? Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin and involved endorsement. I agree with Jclemens. The user has been give so many chances to change, but as soon as his block expired, he made more personal attacks against Seregain (and virtually all of his other edits have been rightfully reverted). Three blocks and dozens of warnings. I (non-admin) endorse an indefinite ban. American Eagle (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a formal ban would show SA that we mean business here. Can we at least give it a thought?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban unless another admin is willing to mentor. Pcap ping 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uninvolved party endorsement His actions are unwarranted, and he obviously doesn't show that he cares. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban When the mentor who has tried in good faith to help can't see any other way it makes a pretty compelling case. User's current unblock request is more "I didn't do it." Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we shouldn't hand-hold this user any more. Show them the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban I am one who normally opposes such, but his positions about other editors are beyond reason here. Where the mentor is the proposer, I am not one to demur. Collect (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update: They've just blanked their userpage and replaced it with a retired template. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion be carried out. The user took a wikibreak a week ago, but came back right. It wouldn't be suprising it the user is retiring to avoid a ban, and plans to return editing in the future. (His wikibreak came right before a block as well.) I realize I'm somewhat WP:ABFing, but I'm bring up the worst-case. There is enough consensus to warrent a ban, regardless of a quick retirement. American Eagle (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban Clear-cut case of Wikihounding. There's no room for that kind of behavior here. Blueboy96 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Could someone review the message SA left on his talk page? It strongly smacks of a parting shot and a call from him to another editor to continue targeting me. Seregain (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - And recommend blanking the talk page with a template to remove attacks outlined by Seregain above. -- Atama頭 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm not a sysop but this seems like a prudent decision. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorsement from uninvolved editor - It's a problem when editors simply cannot disengage. I'm not impressed with the user's overall history, especially his block log. Indef block that no one is willing to undo = defacto ban = might as well make it a community ban. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as someone who has run into SuaveArt before and found him to be less than workwithable. His single-minded hounding of Seregain in the face of mentorship and a prior block seems like he isn't interested in playing nice. --Jayron32 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No point in dragging this one out - virtually unanimous with the exception of CE's counterproposal, which got no support. Ban enacted, marking resolved. Tan | 39 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected banned user reappeared

Banned user User:The cows want their milk back is suspected to have reappeared as User:The Phat Cow on Talk:Cornwall. Making the same kind of edits. "How can I be a sockpuppet of someone who's blocked?" (I never said who he was a sockpuppet of) --Joowwww (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking him; I interacted with the previous account enough that I'm confident it's the same person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you look at the recent edits of User:The Quill too? Similar edits to The Cows, and failure to respond to requests to discuss changes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that account; I think it might well be a different person who just has similar 'interests.' I gather that there's some sort of conflict between Cornwall and the rest of England. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why not report at WP:SPI? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible image upload issues with SchoolcraftT

I blocked SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) yesterday for 48 hours for WP:OWN issues with Mountain Parkway Byway, as well as egregious copyright violations on Shooting Range (video game). However, I'm concerned there might be more serious issues at play here.

Unless I'm very wrong, all of the images that he has uploaded and claimed as self-created have NO metadata on them. Given the sheer volume of images he's uploaded to both Wikipedia and Commons since October, as well as the fact he seems to have a misunderstanding of copyright (he claimed that screenshots of video game images can't be copyrighted), I think this merits further investigation. I thought about placing this in the previous discussion about this user, but felt a separate discussion was needed to get as many eyes on it as possible. Blueboy96 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 20 files on that list. Two of them are .ogg files that were previously discussed. As I remember he claimed to have recorded them in his own voice and later admitted this wasn't true. This one he claims to have created by himself, although it's clearly too old for that. It's probably old enough to be PD, but there's no way to trust that unless it's uploaded by someone who will be honest about its source. This looks like an aerial photograph, so it's unlikely he took it himself. The rest look like they could have been taken by any jamoke off the street with a camera, so I'm willing to trust that he did, unless you think his credibility is so destroyed that they should all go. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on a number of images I surveyed, I would conclude several of these came from a video (they were 640x480 and all similarly grainy/blurry, as you'd expect in a compressed video file) and at least one appears to come from a printed publication. That said, several are high resolution images that could have easily been made by him. The lack of metadata could be the result of passing them through a photo-manipulation program that either manually or automatically scrubs such info. I checked several through TinEye and got no hits, so there's no way to prove he didn't take them. If I were more bold, I'd delete everything as a matter of caution and because the user doesn't seem capable of saying anything other than "This *is* mine!" — Huntster (t @ c) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Zscout370 nuked em. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That image Steven found was enough for me. Bmpowell and Elen of the Roads invested a lot of time back in January explaining copyright to him, and he had ample time to change the information on that page to reflect it. I decided that I couldn't in good conscience allow this user to edit until he understands how serious this is, so I've lengthened the block to indefinite. Harsh, I know--but I don't think we have much room for leeway, given what turned up yesterday. Blueboy96 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you get more credit for turning it up than I do. All I did was look at the list you posted. I agree that once someone makes it clear that they're going to keep violating copyright in spite of having it explained to him like he's an eight-year-old, decisive measures have to be taken. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible POINTy editing by DoktorSpin

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since an AfD closed against his opinion, Doktorspin (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly prodding articles in the same field[71][72][73] and removing references[74][75][76]. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make speculative accusations and assume good faith. I marked two problematic pages for deletion. One of these was removed without any rationale by SarekOfVulcan, so I undid the removal, requesting the rationale. As to the references removed from the Open Watcom Assembler article, I actually read them and they proved to be useless. I cited them in the summaries. -- spin^control 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog has now removed the PROD making the incorrect claim that no rationale need be supplied for removing the PROD. This is in strict contravention of the first indication in WP:CONTESTED: "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." -- spin^control 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONTESTED states, "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." It wasn't even in bad faith; he just didn't give a reason. Don't revert him, take it to AfD and move on. American Eagle (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- spin^control 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How can you be in "strict contravention" of something that you're only encouraged to do? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog has now reverted the unhelpful references to the sick Open Watcom Assembler article, supplying no rationale against my clear indications. This is unfortunate behavior from a Wiki editor. -- spin^control 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint, I do have to agree with Doktorspin, it's best to AGF on the proposed deletions, and as to the reference removal, see WP:BRD. Spin was bold in removing them, you reverted in protest, now is the time to discuss the merits of the references, not time to report people to noticeboards. Spin, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that discussions should take place in edit summaries; they don't. They should take place on the article's talk page. That is where you can place your rationale for removing the references, and where OrangeDog can explain why they should remain. -- Atama頭 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I put as much as I can in the summary as a rule. I've put a discussion on the talk page. -- spin^control 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a participant in the AFD Orangedog mentioned, I can say it's not shocking to me at all to see DoktorSpin acting in this way. As for AGF-ing, it's not necessary, when bad faith is clearly present. He's removing references from articles. That is most certainly demonstrating bad faith on his part. UnitAnode 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Be good UnitAnode. I find your response offensive. You were responsible for making accusations of bad faith in that AfG, as well as accusations of meat-puppetry. Try to respond to the discussion and not attack the person. -- spin^control 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No one made "accusations" of meatpuppetry, they demonstrated with links that there was meatpuppetry happening. UnitAnode 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason you confuse discussion of the progress on a Wiki article with meat-puppetry. There was no way to extract co-ordination from the links, so you were called on the false accusation. You still have not substantiated it. Please don't continue. -- spin^control 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• AGF isn't a suicide pact. WP:DUCK looks more applicable here. WP:User:Doktorspin might want to refresh his reading of WP:POINT sometime soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite exactly what you already have in mind, thanks. -- spin^control 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• What I already have in mind? What are you talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that I might want to refresh my reading of WP:POINT. You seemed to have something specific in mind. This sort of discussion sometimes makes it hard for people to follow what one is saying. -- spin^control 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Doktorspin is engaging in pure WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. He should be blocked ASAP. Pcap ping 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides my not noting the fact that I shouldn't replace a PROD, where is your beef? I have left that issue alone, since it was clarified by American Eagle. -- spin^control 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I answered that on your talk page. But since you want to ask it here, I'll answer it here. You don't replace the PROD because is violatates PROD policy to do so. That's why. The policy states: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." Is that a clear enough answer? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My comment 00:52, 2 February 2010 was clearly addressed to Pcap. -- spin^control 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I know who it was addressed to. But any editor can respond. You might want to get used to that. Obviously you missed the one I directed to you, which was "What I already have in mind? What are you talking about?". If you have something to say, just say it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides stripping all references from articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Macro_Assembler&diff=prev&oldid=341365081 this] is clearly a bad faith edit. Nobody can say in good faith that deleting Microsoft's Assembler is uncontroversial. Pcap ping 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I clearly cited the content of the references. Please read them and tell me how they provide serious third party sources for the article.

As to MASM, read the page and tell me what information there is about the assembler that is not either primary source or unreliable sources. -- spin^control 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly a troll, and I hope an admin shows some balls to indef you:

“ WASM

The WASM assembler is included with the Open Watcom C++ compiler. The syntax resembles MASM but is somewhat different. Not fully up to date.

JWASM

JWASM is a further development of WASM. It is fully compatible with MASM syntax, including advanced macro and high level directives. JWASM is a good choice if MASM syntax is desired.

”

From Fog, Agner (2009), Optimizing subroutines in assembly language (PDF) (2009-09-26 ed.), p. 13. Pcap ping 01:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I argued against Doktorspin in the drama-filled AfD being referred to repeatedly. I have a strong disagreement with them regarding article inclusion and notability. But they have a right to propose an article for deletion if they feel that it isn't warranted, and if they feel that references cited don't back up what they should be referencing, then that justifies removal in good faith. There is now a discussion on the talk page, albeit a brief one, but never the less this is how content disputes should be resolved.

I do have some concerns. There has been a bit of edit-warring on Doktorspin's behalf, including the reinsertion of the references after OrangeDog restored them. There were of course the mistakes about the proposed deletion policy. But those are minor problems. I'd consider any further violations of the PROD policy to be deliberate disruption, but mistakes are mistakes, don't nail a person to a wall over them. I think this deserves a trout at the most. A bigger trout to Pcap for the personal attacks, however. -- Atama頭 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He stripped the reference quoted above from Open Watcom Assembler, together with other two print references (you can search them on google books) multiple times "non-substatial" "no value", leaving the article completely unreferenced. Presumably his next step was to prod it as having only primary sources as he did [77] [78] with the Microsoft Assembler (obviously an uncontroversial deletion... not!) Pcap ping 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But that didn't happen, and it could have; the references could have been removed in the same edit as the proposed deletion if that was the intention, but no proposed deletion occurred. Doktorspin made a mistake at the MASM article, but despite what others have claimed, reverting Sarek's removal of the prod tag happened before the warning about not doing so at this ANI. (After all, the warning was in response to the revert.) It is certainly possible that all of this behavior is in retaliation for the results of the recent AfD, but it's also possible that DS has decided to take a stronger deletionist/exclusionist stance after having WP:N explained in great depth. I don't know the motives, and neither does anyone else. What I do know is that the only real disruption I see was putting the prod tag back, and that was an acknowledged mistake. -- Atama頭 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the full picture here. Doktorspin is one of the main editors to the MASM article; Pcap ping 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is patently false. I've added a few links and a navbox I'd created for assembly topics. I put none of the substance in the article. -- spin^control 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By edit count you are the 2nd editor there (see image). I admit to not having checked all your edits, but you've been preserving the sorry state of that article up to the point when you decided it needs to be completely deleted. Amazing change of attitude. Pcap ping 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

he was actively preventing (crufty?) material from being removed a few days ago. His latest change in attitude is simply WP:REVENGE for losing his favorite article, after making 90 posts in the 170Kb JWASM AfD, the most relevant one being:

“

Unfortunately, you still have missed the point. If you can't understand the issue of what notability can be in the assembly language community, then you shouldn't be posting uninformed opinions. The opinion based on the lack of knowledge of the issue displayed here should mean that most of the assembler articles would need to be deleted. This sadly is an expert area and people who know nothing about it should either leave it to those who do know or simply band together and remove nearly all the assembler material on Wiki. You seem to be incapable of understanding the notability issue and how to gauge it in this field, so you can resist understanding and be coherent or learn about what you are giving opinions on. -- spin^control 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

”

Emphasis his. I hope this clears things up. Pcap ping 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop leveling accusations at me. Citing me doesn't change the lack of reliable third-party sources for any substance on the MASM page. -- spin^control 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's plain clear to everyone what this is about: some obscure assembler got deleted (actually redirected), so Microsoft's got to be deleted too! For great justice! Pcap ping 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a specific complaint against the MASM material. All your handwaving and psych evaluations will not change that. -- spin^control 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an article on a topic with 1,000+ google boks hits obviously needs to be deleted per WP:N, WP:AGF, and block log. Pcap ping 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to use some reliable third party sources in the article, that would be fine, given the current lack of any in the article. -- spin^control 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to make some point. -- spin^control 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear from the above citation that the Abner Fog reference adds nothing extra to our knowledge of WASM, so it has no relevance. -- spin^control 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you; cut it out. This isn't the place to hash out your arguments, and definitely not the place to discuss content. Take it to a talk page of a page relevant to the issue. Marking resolved; no admin action necessary. Tan | 39 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Amerique

I would say vandalizing, dont know if thats the appropriate term but he deleted half of the information on the San Bernardino Valley article. I reverted him once and gave him a warning on the edit summary. He/she then reverted me again, I did not revert him a second time as I have an agreement with Wikiproject California, not to revert more than once. He knew about this and he "rubbed it on my face". The seound time he reverted me he wrote 1st revert on the edit summary. The article has a talk page and it does not say anything about removing the content. The article had a lot of information about the cities in the valley, the economy in the valley like does other valley articles of Southern California like the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, ect. I hope some admin can revert him and them block it for a while so amerique, me and an admin can discuss this. Thanks House1090 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been reverted, and I'll give him one more chance. If he insists, I'll take it to AIV- I'm far from an admin, but this is pretty blatant. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! House1090 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm notifying him of this thread. I too have reverted him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, they have both edited the article for over two years. The fact that Amerique was expanding it during that time, and suddenly reverts it makes me suspicious that he might be hijacked. It seems weird that he would just halve an article without discussion as well. House, please don't revert any more edits, or you will violate the WP:3RR rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wont. And no Amerique was against the expanding of the article because he wanted to keep it based on geography, while I wanted to have both geography and economy (tourism, cities, transportation, ect). House1090 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem that he needs a blocking, so this is pretty much resolved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you guys have been brought into a content conflict. The information I removed was pasted there by House over my objections months ago. There wasn't sufficient interest in the article for me to make an issue of it at the time, but after local editors TorriTorri and MissionInn.Jim voiced their concerns I decided to take action to reduce the boosterism and other cruft House had littered the article with. My concerns over House1090 have been most recently brought up here, the account's most recent examples of edit warring are located here:Los Angeles metropolitan area. Do what you want. Amerique^dialectics 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little that would qualify as either "boosterism" or "cruft" in the article -- certainly nothing like the amount of material you removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed material that was imported from Inland Empire (California) and San Bernardino, California. Whether or not it was boosterism, it was cruft, and nothing was lost to human knowledge. Amerique^dialectics 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amerique that does not give you the right to do what you want, your not the owner. I did it to benefit the article, not to hurt it. House1090 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This does go back a couple years, with Amerique and House1090 having had conflicts across numerous Southern California/Inland Empire pages, and involving various other editors and noticeboards at one point or another. The discussion at WikiProject California is here. Looking at the current talk discussion I'm seeing a general consensus from Amerique, MissionInn.Jim, and TorriTorri that San Bernardino Valley does not necessarily equal Greater San Bernardino, with House1090 being the lone dissenting opinion. As for the remainder of Amerique's edit, while there is no talk page discussion yet on the larger removal of material, the next logical step is to start one, which I think might have been more productive in the long run than bringing this here. In the past there has been a general concern expressed by multiple editors that while House1090 means well, his enthusiatic support of the area can lead to issues with neutrality, regional boosterism, advocacy, etc., so I don't feel like Amerique's edit are coming out of nowhere here. I agree that this is still a content dispute at this point, and the next logical step would be to discuss whether or not to remove the other material in Amerique's edit at the article talk page. I'm not seeing any reason for a block for anyone at this point, but protection might be useful here to force the talk page discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Everytime I do something I get reverted by Amerique, I provide what 4 references and he still wants to remove the also known as Greater San Bernardino Area? I worked hard to add details to the SB Valley article, and it really hurts to see some one just wants it off for no reason. Amerique says tht he wants it to be about geography but none of the other SoCal valley articles are about just geography. The reader might want to know the highways in the SB Valley, or the airports. Thats all basics. Why can San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley have this information but San Bernardino Valley can't. House1090 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

← I've been asked to give some input in this matter. I honestly don't have the time to gather tons of diffs and whatnot, so I hope that everyone can trust what I have to say (difficult, I know). To be quite blunt, I am not sure that House can edit content related to Southern California without getting himself into trouble. The long dispute history he has had was recently brought up to WT:CAL and it was sort of agreed that House should probably limit himself to a 1 revert rule with regards to SoCal topics. In his own eyes he may have followed that, but I'm not so sure. In any case, his boosterism of SoCal related topics was discussed there. I don't know if House understands what is wrong with that, or perhaps he doesn't think his actions are trying to boost SoCal's and the Inland Empire related articles' "status" on Wikipedia. He might mean well (I tend to believe he actually does mean well) but regardless of intentions at this point it is just disruptive and hard for other people to work around him. I've never been in a spat or worked with him on content, so this is coming from a third party to this situation. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay before I was attacked because I did not add a source, I now go on and I add four source and I am getting my contributions removed. I have not passed over my 1 revert limit, but I do know that Amerique has taken advantage of this. He took off the info from the SB Valley, then I revert him since he had no explanation, the he reverts me telling me to remember my 1 revert agreement. This has not just happened once. I have been working stuff out at the talk pages this whole time, if I dont agree with you, I will let you know. I dont understand why Amerique just now went and reverted me again, saying it had to be removed, what about his 1 revert agreement? I feel every one attacks me and they dont see what my attackers are doing. Why is it that if I dont follow my agreement its wrong and I could get block or banned. But if amerique does not keep his word he gets away with it? He removed stuff that was unnessessary, now he goes reverting me with my 4 sources? House1090 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only gone on as long as it has because until recently few other editors have shown any sustained interest in these articles. I have been the only one constantly reverting House1090 because, apart from User:Alanraywiki, I have been the only one steadily monitoring those pages for POV, vandalism, etc. To me, maintaining the quality of WP's content in this area would mean reverting most every edit House1090 makes. Obviously, I can't do that, so I've had to let the quality of the articles become degraded until enough people have shown up to more effectively counteract his POV. Amerique^dialectics 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did break my 1r restriction with House. I'll take a block over it;-) Amerique^dialectics 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

House, while you feel you are being attacked, the majority of what myself and others have said here and other places is that we understand you mean well, and a lot of what we are saying is meant as constructive criticism aimed at both at you and the material we're looking at. While there are some instances where some hostile words are exchanged I don't feel it's been entirely one sided. In the long run it is in everyone's best interest to have more skilled editors developing quality edits articles. Now looking at this most recent incident, I see Amerique and two other editors who work on a lot of California related content forming a consensus that runs contrary to your opinion. Amerique was the one who made the edit, but there was still a consensus behind it coming from the article talk page.

Amerique, I understand your frustration. A lot of what I've been hoping for and working toward was to diffuse this issue among several editors so this doesn't stay as the House & Amerique show, which is why I was hoping WP:CAL would be a useful resource on this.

Since it's past midnight in California I don't think blocking at this hour would be useful, but if edit warring on San Bernardino Valley, Los Angeles metropolitan area, or any other page flares up again tomorrow afternoon or later on this week it might help. Some other solutions we could look at is to start using {{editsemiprotected}} on pages where a talk page consensus has formed so that neither of you directly make the edit/revert. Another possible solution is to maybe find someone interested in mentoring House on content work. I can still keep an eye on all of this, but I'd prefer to stay out of the content end of this things to stay a neutral arbiter. We could also add the 1RR restrictions as laid out previously to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which would remove the whole voluntarily part of it and to begin enforcing them more strictly. Do any of these sound interesting to either of you? What do you hope to get out of this AN/I thread? Do you feel any of the current restrictions have worked up till this point and why? What hasn't? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't answer all your questions, but I'd be cool with adding the agreement to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, so long as it were noted that this is voluntary on my part. House is the only person in my wiki-career that I have gotten into sustained edit-conflicts with. Also, I would encourage him to seek out a mentor. Amerique^dialectics 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by me Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Game'o Whales has spent the last few days edit-warring to include a tendentious and discredited conspiracy theory in the Prescott Bush article, which is bad enough, but has now moved to harassing me on my talk page with fake vandalism warnings. Assistance is appreciated. THF (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd block on username alone - it's an obvious play on "Jimbo Wales". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and edit warring by User:86.44.33.121

Assistance in the form of warnings and explainations have been offered to the editor and he has responded with either a refusal to accept responsibility, to learn the applicable policy or just with personal attacks. Editor left this post on User talk:TheJazzDalek "maybe next time someone points out how ill-researched a nom of yours is, you'll realize it instead of frankly reacting like a douche. just putting it out there, u no". Warning about WP:NPA was placed on his talk page here: [79]. The editors response was: "i was perfectly cool thanks. please don't be a busybody" [80]. Unproductive exchange followed, including these replies [81]. Then the editor was given a 3RR warning here: [82]. His response was to again call me a busybody [83] and [84]. He claimed I warned him about a null edit. I went to his page and gave him the diffs for revert #1 and #2. [85]. His response: "You're seriously a moron." [86]. I think this has gone beyond WQA at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Tan | 39 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User Ryulong trying to sabotage GA process

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

WP:RFC is that way <--- Viridae^Talk 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Since February 2007, editors have been trying to elevate University of Miami to Good Article status. The last three times, User:Ryulong has conducted edit-wars which repeatedly disqualify the article as not being "stable." He has expressly opposed us submitting the article for GA. [87] and [88]

To meet the concerns in the GA review, I have split off a separate article for University of Miami School of Business Administration, but Ryulong has arbitrary twice removed this article redirect1 and redirect2

Could an administrator please help because we only have a seven day window to bring this article up to GA standards in response to the critique, and User Ryulong has explicitly stated that he wants to stop the GA process. Racepacket (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to contact you on your user talk page as well as the talk page of the original article and the article you split off. This is just you being a stubborn editor again. I am certainly not disrupting the GA process. This is you incessantly sending this page to GA despite two consecutive failures because of our inability to work on this article together.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an admin issue at all? Is there any evidence that either party to this dispute has attempted the normal progression of dispute resolution? There is:

• Third opinion
• Request for comment
• WP:MEDCOM and WP:MEDCAB
• Editor assistance requests
• content noticeboard
• WP:ARBCOM after all of the above have been tried.

Admins are not mediators and we aren't here to pick sides in a dispute. If there is a dispute, work it out or seek help in the form of mediation or another noticeboard... --Jayron32 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RFC on Racepacket in the past. Nothing came of it. If anything, this is just a study in assuming bad faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

THF Incorrectly applying categories based on personal opinion and uncivil editing

THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding the category American Liberal Organizations to a variety of articles incorrectly. Longstanding consensus and practice has been that organizations must self-identify to be included in this category, otherwise it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In fact a number of similar categories (such as Liberal Websites and American Liberal Politicians) were deleted because there weren't enough self-identifying examples to justify a category which is otherwise completely subjective and arbitrary. I've explained this to THF but they continue to add this category based solely on their own POV rather than any objective criteria. Any attempt to correct this is reverted, usually with a personal attack in the edit summary.

Further, attempts at discussion have met with extremely nasty comments, immediate assumptions of bad faith and numerous other personal attacks. For example this is how a discussion was started on my talk page. I encourage anyone interested to read through this discussion and make their own judgements.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here. This is fairly disruptive behavior and clarification/intervention is needed. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution. From a quick perusal of your talk page and the articles in question, there's no admin action warranted. Tan | 39 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't belong on ANI; indeed, Loonymonkey is violating WP:MULTI by raising a new thread here rather than letting it develop on WP:NPOV/N where I tried dispute resolution. For the record, Loonymonkey has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to delete categories, and, when he didn't get his way at CFD, just went ahead and indiscriminately deleted categories that were uncontroversial descriptions of the organizations in question. (For example, People for the American Way, which the New York Times and the article itself describes as liberal.) I viewed this as POV-pushing because in multiple articles, Loonymonkey would remove the adjective "liberal" (even when the organization self-describes), but apply a different standard for organizations in the center-right, and retain the adjective "conservative" (even when the organization doesn't self-describe). I tried to reason with him, perhaps clumsily, and he snapped at me and falsely accused me of personal attacks. I tried cleaning up after his disruptive edits, but he would just blindly revert me, often with an insult. Other editors have taken issue with Loony's edits, one calling it vandalism. I won't respond further here; this is just a further violation of WP:TEDIOUS by this editor. THF (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a lawyer and all, and I agree with your general gist, but you might consider toning down the rhetoric. Violating WP:MULTI and WP:TEDIOUS? Violating? One is a suggestion on a behavioral guideline page; the other is an essay. Your argument would be stronger without the hyperbole. Tan | 39 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record (and this will be my last post here) much of what THF says above is false. The issue is that THF has yet to provide a single cite for any of these organizations he claims self-identify as liberal yet reverts any removal of the categories (which are incorrect without self-identification). The fact is, they don't self identify, yet I've met with nothing but insults from this user when trying to discuss it. I'm baffled by the insistence that if I edit one of these article I must also edit a "conservative" article or I'm not neutral. And their case is not strengthened by linking to an example of someone else's false accusation of vandalism. I'll try dispute resolution, thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no queston whatsoever that PAW is a liberal organization. The question is what's the user's motive in that categorization? Is it for factual purposes, or is it just pejorative labeling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, all the labels were applied in good faith to organizations which clearly fall into the categories, which are not pejorative categories. Emily's List had its "progressive" category removed even though EL uses the word "progressive" and the first line of the article has "progressive" in it. As the categories involved have been proposed for discussion (deletion), I worry about "intent to depopulate" categories as being worrisome. Collect (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ducks?

Shortly after 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) is blocked, Srwm4 (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in like 3 years, turns up defending the IP. They also have a common interest in Massachusetts subjects, and the IP geolocates to Mass. I'll be posting this on Srwm4's page shortly in case he wants to defend himself. But it looks like "quacks" to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some 6,593,587 people living in Massachusetts. How many page views come from the Commonwealth each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those, you're the only one that turned up 4 minutes after the IP was blocked, to pick up where he left off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, it is safe, then, to assume that you are in fact User:Mike Searson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've got concerns with the way Searson addressed that IP (and you might have a point), then you could take it to WP:WQA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the "common interest in Massachusetts subjects" that you alluded to in your initial complain, please? I do not seem to see any such history.

If you care to look, I live in Ohio, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What user ID have you been editing under during most of the last 3 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited an article about Xavier University (Cincinnati) numerous times if you care to look, including substantial expansions of the article. Has Cincinnati been annexed to Massachusetts without my knowledge?

And as a point of fact, I do not frequent Wikipedia. I simply was on the Glock page because I had a question relation to .45GAP.Srwm4 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can see that I made edits as recently as last year. I don't bother to edit much, because when I do it is often deleted. See my user page, and compare what I had worked hard to contribute to the Sloshball and US Energy Independence articles, and how I have wasted my time with each major revision. It's amazing how experiences like that (AND THIS!!!) will drive a user away, don't you think?Srwm4 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 4 edits, a year ago; the previous being June of 2007 (to the Mass Mutual article). There's only one way I can tell if you're from Ohio, though: You could log out and make an entry here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I must be from Massachusetts because I corrected a typo on the page of a Fortune 100 financial company that happens to have that state in it's name! HA!Srwm4 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that you showed up 4 minutes after an IP was blocked and picked up where he left off. Maybe it's an unhappy coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you of anything. And the fact is that it's 3am in Ohio/Massachusetts and I have class tomorrow at 8:30 am at Xavier University (Cincinnati), so I'm going to bed. Do what you will. I could honestly care less about a community that feels the need to attack others, and then attack their defenders!Srwm4 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The stuff Searson said to the IP was uncivil. If you want to defend the IP, take Searson to WP:WQA. I'm beginning to think your taking up where he left off, 4 minutes later, might be just a coincidence. But it's also unusual to see someone get upset about someone else being abused if they don't "know" each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was uncivil, I'll admit it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been BANNED. That means (I think) that he can't make edits to pages like this to defend himself. And I'm not even defending him anymore! I'm defending myself!

That IP is only blocked, stop making stuff up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I AM DONE WITH WIKIPEDIA. IF SOMEONE COULD COME TO MY TALK PAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT I NEED TO DO TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO VANISH, I THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE ON HERE. I HOPE YOU ALL LEARN A LESSON FROM THIS AND STOP ATTACKING USERS WHO SIMPLY ARE TRYING TO DEFEND OTHERS. Srwm4 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a match. Unless there is a direct copy-paste involved, it's pretty obvious that Srwm4 and the IP 76.24.147.114 are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

His profile on a few other websites show he's from MASS, too.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have an example? And before anyone cries "Outing!", the user himself opened this door by saying that he uses the same ID on other sites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• So, um, does this mean that Cincinnati has moved to Massachussetts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • He had mentioned something about editing the Xavier article, but that was 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He has put me an Searson on an attack list on his page. Maybe an SPI is needed, to figure out who needs to apologize to who. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So I get put on a hit list:[89] and can now expect retribution[90], unless I withdraw the Sock complaint.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's as good a place as any I suppose

Duplicate discussion Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson was attacking the above IP user 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) for an extended period of time, after the IP user updated some figures on Glock. Mike repeatedly resorted to name calling (verified by the Glock article's own history page, as well as the history pages of both users) and insults. There were repeated attempts to revert a legitimate edit by Mike, who apparently took umbrage to the IP user making what appears to be a light-hearted joke after reversing an Undo by Mike.

Insults directed by User:Mike Searson at the IP user include name calling on at least 3 occasions ("Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank" - an openly homosexual member of the US Congress).

I believe User:Mike Searson should be disciplined for his actions. Srwm4 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by the IP over a week ago, [91] which appeared to be vandalism and found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page this morning[92]. I am a US Marine and have worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life. I took umbrage with this individual's insults as they were libelous, could impact my career and reverted her [93], realized the reversion was incorrect by 2 model numbers and gave back to it [94]. Was it the best course of action, maybe not. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day[95]. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material.[96] It refused, it was blocked for vandalism. Four minutes later, this other user shows up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edit, etc. He/she had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings":[97] I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate. The whole thing is ridiculous and now it appears this blocked IP Address is making a mockery of things by resuming his/her sockpuppet account. I probably should have ignored his/her personal attacks, but I wasn't raised to run from a bully. The only thing I did wrong was outright call this IP address a few four-letter words as opposed to making thinly-veiled childlike snarky attacks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is duplicated at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson WQA Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm confused...what was libelous and could impact your career? None of the diffs I looked at showed anything like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of this one[98], saying I get my info from movies and such nonsense. I've been involved in this since before he was an itch in his daddy's pants, like I said somewhere else, I initially overreacted. but I took it as a personal attack, whether he was being a child or berating my knowledge, I have no idea. I said I reacted badly and should have just ignored it. So now I get attacked and delete his crap from my talk page repeatedly and am now on a "hit list" on his page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, this notion is absurd. Someone reverting your edit on Wikipedia directly leading to damage to your career? Your comments to this IP are FAR beyond the line. He was belligerent- you sprinted right past him into WP:NPA. --King Öomie 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Tyler

This BLP on a male performer in gay pornographic films was prodded, which I removed explaining - 2002 Grabby Awards winner, "Best group scene", 2003 Grabby winner, "Best group scene"; Deep South: The Big and the Easy from Falcon Studios thus meeting WP:Pornbio. I was going to add more sourcing including this information to the article when I started the next day but someone added a Speedy delete tag and it was deleted within hours. I asked for that admin to restore but they have yet to respond. Another article under the same name was started and also deleted, I don't believe the two people have any connected besides the name. Can someone restore the older Jason Tyler article so I can work on that? -- Banjeboi 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That article history is a nightmare to anyone concerned with BLP policy. My strong recommendation is that this does not get restored. Benjiboi, I suggest that you go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation with your revision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly reasonable request. Could you userfy the pornographic actor version from a week or so ago and I'll simply let the sources lead the way? -- Banjeboi 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this (if im busy i see the new messages thing, look at the message and then sometimes forget it). The article version you request is completely unsourced, as are others before it, so nothing to work from. Because of GDFL you can't have the single revision only, and as Tbdsy says, the thing is a BLP nightmare so I strongly discourage restoring the lot. It will have to be done from scratch. Viridae^Talk 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your involvement in this matter is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Benji -- are you involved in the gay porn industry in any way, shape or form? I remember your two autobiographies (the ones under pseudonyms) sort of indicated that you were. But i could be remembering wrong. Also, is your political activism related to changing societal views of sex involving "normalizing" porn? Just trying to gauge if you have a conflict of interest here that might explain why you fight so hard to prevent blp vios from being deleted in the porn corner of wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And the assuming bad faith award complete with back-handed insults goes to ... . Your willingness to delete almost anything under the flag of BLP - no matter how illogical - is truly remarkable and a disservice to encyclopedic content. Correctly identifying someone as a pornographic actor when reliable sources clearly do so is not a BLP issue. Please find some other venue to promote this absurd logic, editor A adds sourcing to prevent content from being deleted ergo must be doing so to promote a novel agenda, etc etc. Please take your drama-mongering back offsite. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You've dodged the question: Does your political activism and/or your involvement with the pornography industry present a conflict of interest with neutral editing at the gay porn articles? I think it does, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let me be more clear, you're being quite WP:Dickish and for all your harassment and bullying I see no reason to entertain your tin-hat theories and veiled accusations. If you'd like to reveal all your offsite activities that have anything to do with Wikipedia and it's editors then perhaps myself and others could follow your lead to being more transparent. Until then I see no reason that any editor has to justify working on pornography subject areas which you simultaneously disparage me for working in while demanding that someone (else) fix. Perhaps you could lead by example and work to source an unsourced BLP rather than simply disparage the subject area altogether. -- Banjeboi 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're still dodging the question (and apparently misunderstanding it). Conflicts of interest, particularly when not acknowledged, are corrosive to the trust vital to a productive editing environment. While I could in theory have a few COIs on wikipedia, i studiously avoid those areas where i might so as to avoid even a suspicion of impropriety. If you think i do have a COI in one of my editing areas, i'm willing to listen. As for you, you wrote two BLPs about yourself that created the strong impression of a COI. That impression has yet to be dispelled.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On the surface that indeed sounds bad, there is more to it but I feel absolutely no need to out myself or the others involved in those four-year-old newbie mistakes. As you have such a compromised trust I'm not sure why you would accept my word but I'm already on record as neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area. I guess I should feel complimented that you presume I have anything to do with the gay porn industry but if you need something to obsess about it. So be it. I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be along shortly to try to throw muck on my name but that seems rather routine and increasingly, tired old news serving only to wikibully. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Which of your many names would you like me to throw muck on, Benjiboi? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a point of information: I believe you're "already on record as " asserting that you are "neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area". Assertions are different than substantiated claims. It's interesting how reluctant you are to devise any means of proving your assertion, given the potential ramifications if the COI charge is actually true. But our policies prevent pressing you on the point, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

RELATED: This seems like an opportunity to mention that there is an RfC currently underway about including redlinks in List of male performers in gay porn films. Without attempting to express my own view here, that would mean that Jason Tyler, lacking an article, would be included in the list. The relevant background can be seen on the talk page, any of the five previous AfDs for the article (including the most recent), and this thread at AN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not related but given your poor judgement in this area it's understandable you would confuse a request to undelete with an RfC to delete entries that likely are notable but don't yet have articles. As noted above Jason Tyler has won two major awards in this field thus his article - hypothetically at AfD - would indeed be kept. Like many articles in the area it was targeted and deleted because the right editor(s) didn't save it in time and the other editors concerned didn't bother to see if reliable sourcing did exist. But you can invent your own explanations and fill in hypothetical gay porn cabal tales and invent all sorts of ways to disparage me and out who you think I am, really, after several months one would hope you actually had something positive and collaborative to offer besides combatting other editors. I've only seen you attempt one dramatic episode after the next to delete information. It's quite disruptive and interfering with improving these articles. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One more time - I have suggested several times now that properly sourced articles be created for any notable performers that are currently red links. That is expanding gay porn content, not deleting it. I do not know how you can so consistently fail to understand that this is not about you nor about the inclusion of gay porn performers in Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your track record in this area contradict your assertions, every involvement of yours on that list has been to delete wikilinks and sourced content. It's quite disingenuous to pretend that you're trying to expand coverage when you insist that every entry without an article already built has to be removed. Luckliy other editors with less emotional investment seem to be weighing in. Luckily the article was also protected to help you avoid edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I got tired of dealing with your distortions of my actions long ago, which is why I started this thread at WP:AN to explain myself. I think it also answers Bali ultimate's question. Feel free to have the last word. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And ... end scene.

And yet you interject in an off-topic discussion just to push more invective, just to repost more tin-hatted theories and just to take a few more digs. Whatever's going on in your imagination is clearly more interesting than reality. Please don't pretend you had any other goal here than to re-muck what is clearly a subject which you have lost rationale judgement and axe to grind. Whatever you do on the other websites is your business, but you constant harassment of others is well-documented in these boards; usually a couple at a time. I think the relative concept here is WP:Drama. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the correct venue for this is Deletion Review. I suggest that only the article(s) not the editors , be discussed there. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GovDizzo

I have deleted User talk:GovDizzo for perpetuating a hoax. I believe this is the third deletion, so I have indefinitely blocked the editor from Wikipedia, and I've salted the page. As they cannot contest the block on their talk page, I am sending this here for review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the guano thing before, chummer, but I can't remember where. (I initially thought I read up on it on Snopes, but a search for guano there turns up nada.) I'm pretty certain it's a hoax. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with User:Thirteen squared issueing a warning for a comment posted on a talk page

i received a warning for my attempt to start any kind of a dialogue related to sasha cohen's anti semitism as being both hurtful and a major stumbling block to his status as observent Jew. this is not a new issue and has been considered by many people and groups among them the Anti Defamation League. what i did on a talk page is not out of order and i am fully within my rights according to the rules when making the statements that were removed. someone must hold either the editor or the encyclopedia accountable for refusing to acknowledge the hurtful anti semitism displayed by Cohen in his numerous acts. a talk page is where this kind of discussion supposedly happens. the decision to threaten me with a ban for something deemed a blatant attack (when the first reason given for removing my addition was that it was a source of discussion that shouldn't happen on a talk page (ludicrous)) is actually the moderator being derelict and abusive. there was no clarity in the reasons given for removing the addition i made the first time 13squared did so. as a result i altered the addition in a way that would seem less offensive in order to get an adequate response (this was a talk page not the article) 13squared ignored the 3RR rule and threated me with a ban after just one revert. i enjoy using wikipedia and hope people allow free speech to happen. i am requesting that the warning be removed and the discussion allowed to happen at any level.Grmike (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Isn't this at AN right now? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm not familiar with the normal produre that's taken when a novice editor attempts to challenge a warning or ban handed down by someone else (not sure if they also are editors or moderators). i removed it from the other page after reading the notice at the top. is this where this kind of discussion happens ?Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

is there any real chance the warning for vandalism will be lifted ? i don't appreciate being accused of vandalism for raising a valid point and objecting to something directly related to the article on its talk page.Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike +

- ::(cur) (prev) 18:42, 31 January 2010 Thirteen squared (talk | contribs) (36,317 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Grmike; This is NOT a forum to discuss any alleged antisemitism or his observance, previous sections were discussing the article, NOT him, this is just a rant. (TW)) (undo) + ==User:Buleboy96== - (cur) (prev) 07:29, 31 January 2010 Grmike (talk | contribs) (37,024 bytes) (this is just as relevent as the the previous heading and comments therein. more reason why he should never be considered an observant Jew.) (undo)Grmike (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

As it says at the top of this page, you are required to notify this contributor that you are discussing him here. Since you have not, I will do so after leaving my comment. The major issue here is our biographies of living persons policy (BLP), according to which the discussion cannot, as you request, "happen at any level." As BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, we must be conservative in discussing living people; in talk pages, "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". Under that policy, your comment is inappropriate, as speculating that Nazi Germany would have embraced Cohen's act is not related or useful to making article content choices. If there are reliable sources discussing issues of anti-semitism in Cohen's act or actions, then the matter can certainly be discussed in terms of how best to represent that in the article with due emphasis. While Wikipedia is all about the exchange of information and ideas, there are limits to the free speech Wikipedia allows. These particular limits were designed both in sensitivity to the real-life potential of harm to living people and to the real-life potential of legal harm to the project. (A few other examples of limitations are the ability to insert personal commentary into articles and to discuss the subjects of articles, as distinguished from the improvement of articles.) I believe that the removal of the comments was appropriate under policy; the specific warning template he left you was not the proper one, however. I don't believe that your edits constituted vandalism, although something in the Template:Uw-biog1 hierarchy might have been appropriate. But you are free to remove that warning yourself. 3RR is unrelated to this situation; he hasn't accused you of edit warring, and so far no edit warring seems to have happened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You've said it better than I could. Also, yes, I should have used a different template. I had clicked a different template, but upping it to a higher level flipped it back to vandalism, which I did not catch before I submitted it. Sorry about that. --13² 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboy96 STOP Him

It is alleged that Blueboy96 is deleting images out of process, using his tools to further an unique and unsupported interpretation of fair-use policy, he is also alleged for major vandalism on Shooting Range (video game) --4.248.56.122 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously User:SchoolcraftT from above, avoiding his block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken in removing the comment by 4.248.56.122 and referring to him as banned. I have blocked the IP for evading the original block. Evil saltine (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) And I just unraveled an obvious block-evading sock, SchoolcraftJT (talk · contribs). I should have expected he'd start socking it up--he is an IT professional. Now I know why I fired up my 'puter after work ... Blueboy96 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said the last time, this isn't some grizzled mountain man who doesn't understand the internet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification: Grundle2600

Just to clarify, does Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban apply to articles of the highly-politized and controversial climate change issue, and if not, should it? Grsz¹¹ 14:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Text of the relevant ban, from WP:RESTRICT: Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. Climate change as a political issue worldwide, but I am not familiar with the editor so I am not sure how the ban should be interpreted. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe it was more about politicians. There was certainly a lot of soapboxing when I was dealing with them and they couldn't seem to let things go even after several folks intervened. If the content being propped up largely ties to associating politicians with varying sides of an issue likely they should desist lest the topic ban be more widely construed. Frankly they would do well to get many months of uncontested and uncontroversial editing in before going into areas that are a part of the culture wars. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban is clearly about "US politics and politicians," not just the latter. In particular situations where debate around climate change is a political issue in the U.S., I would suggest that Grundle needs to avoid those articles. For example, the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (while originating in the UK) has been a significant topic of debate in the U.S., and indeed a couple of months ago the White House press secretary formally responded to a question about it. Other prominent politicians like John Kerry have weighed in as well. There are aspects of the incident which do not relate directly to U.S. politics and it might be possible for Grundle to stick only to those, but better safe than sorry when it comes to a topic ban. On the other hand, if Grundle wanted to edit the article on Global warming that probably would not be a problem since it's a much more broad topic, and very little of the article relates to the political debate in the U.S. So I'd say this should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general Grundle should avoid any article that touches on political discussion about climate change in the U.S. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BTP here. I also find edits like this one rather concerning. This user needs to realize that he is on a last chance; he is not in a position to stir things up in this way. --John (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly no good, also edits like this. Discussing American politicians on user talk pages, or suggesting that his woes are the result of political POV pushers (and encouraging other editors to take that same view), do not really violate the letter of his topic ban, but they certainly violate the spirit. Grundle is literally on his fourth or fifth chance here, so one would hope that our collective tolerance level will be low. An extraordinary amount of time has been wasted discussing him in the past. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't make edits like that on users' talk pages anymore. For the record, that particular user had no objection to my edit, and I thought that he, I, and Fox News all had something in common, in that liberals hate us for citing any negative information about our current President. That's why, just as Fox News was the only TV network to report that negative information about Obama, there are only a very small number of editors here who are willing to add negative info about Obama to his articles, but we have all been topic banned. Just as you can't rely on CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN to find out that Obama's promises of "transparency" are bogus, you can't rely on wikipedia to find out this information either. Topic banning me, and removing my contributions from the Obama articles, has made the encyclopedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I really wouldn't have to stretch far to see this last post as a violation of your topic ban. I suggest you talk about something else.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited Climategate in quite some time. My comments on those users' talk pages were not about suggesting changes to articles, and the users were OK with my comments. If any particular user tells me to avoid discussing any certain topic on their talk page, I will of course obey their wish. But to have a general conversation about politics, where I don't suggest any edits to articles, on the talk page of a user who is OK with it, doesn't go against my restrictions. I think each user should be allowed to decide what can or can't go on their talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think comments like this break the spirit as well as the letter of your restrictions and I am ready to enact a long block if I see more comments like this one. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the warning. I will do what you so. I don't want to get blocked. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another user named User:Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with that. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Grsz may be referring to some comments that I made (which you can read here) about some redirects which were about climate change. My concern there was with scientific openness and honesty, not politics. However, since I do not want to get blocked, I will add those to my ever growing list of things to keep away from. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Man on a mission on a dynamic IP

For the past week (since 24 Jan, possibly earlier) an editor has been consistently re-adding POV content and BLP violations (accusations of "corruption" that are not supported by his references) to the following BLP's:

• Henry Paulson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John J. Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lloyd Blankfein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the following articles on financial firms:

• Cheyne Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protected by me yesterday)
• Goldman Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morgan Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I can see, he's only tried using the talk pages once (Talk:Cheyne Capital Management), and that was to demand that his "neutral" version be reinstated after I protected the page (before "zOMG involved admin protecting pages they edit" comments pop up, note the timestamps; I started reverting the edits after I protected the page, when his other edits were brought to my attention). However, I've probably now become "involved" by reverting his edits, and don't want to court drama by protecting anything else myself.

The user has a new IP every few hours. In roughly reverse chronological order:

• 89.194.130.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.142.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.197.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.203.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.2.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.196.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.162.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears he is using Orange Mobile, so if I understand right, a rangeblock isn't feasible (although if there are rangeblock experts out there, please see if I'm wrong). So could an uninvolved admin please review, verify protection is better than rangeblocking, and semi-protect the articles? Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (editor notified at latest IP talk page: [99].)

Ah, one of these. IP, you still need sources, even if something is "true". Also, "least biased version" does not mean "version I agree with most". Considering yourself to be unfailingly neutral is a form of megalomania. --King Öomie 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's persistent. I'd say a short protection is probably better than a risky rangeblock and after that, if yu ignore him, maybe he'll go away? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A rangeblock is feasible here, but since the problems are limited to specific articles I think protection is much more appropriate. All articles (except the previously protected one) semi'd for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DavidHuo

The executive summary: The user DavidHuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a low edit count SPA who is here to add an unsourced POV opinion piece (which he calls "undisputed facts") to the Australian Labor Party article. He has threatened to edit war his proposed changes in and plays poorly with others. The article is fully protected for about another 20 hours, but it's clear I am no longer an uninvolved admin, so I'm asking that someone outside this situation come in and look and decide what to do.

Where this is likely coming from: there are two Labor ministers in Australia, one state (Michael Atkinson) and one federal (Stephen Conroy) who have been accused of proposing rather drastic censorship of the Internet of one form or another. They've both at one time or another for this and other reasons, also attracted the wrath of the gaming community and one of the rival parties, the Australian Greens. While you can go look at the edit histories of Atkinson and Conroy, I'll save you time and tell you they've been a right mess all year due to activists on one side and loyalists on the other, with the good faith editors (of whom there are sadly too few) trying to neutralise both.

This particular editor, though, seems to have been trying to bring the battle to the Australian Labor Party article with this edit which, apart from exhibiting WP:SYN problems and rather poor wording/spelling, is entirely unsourced (and somewhat of a joke towards the end). My own discussion with him, following from my granting a warning to him and protecting the article after he edit warred with another user, has hit a dead end - he refuses to acknowledge there is any problem with his edit, has a very poor understanding of Wiki policy (perhaps from a refusal to read it, as he's been linked enough times), and has become somewhat abusive (even using caps). His threats to edit war further, c.f. "If you do not put the information back in, I will be forced to make a the requested changes" and "The ALP will wear Atkinson on their brand, amongst others, and I will see that the information is not censored." .7 are of concern, but as I can't act further as an admin anyway as he has accused me of bias and I don't particularly want to be an involved editor, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could have a look and decide where to go from here.

I personally think he should be given one more chance and then a block if he muffs that up, but that is the last word I plan to have on the matter. Orderinchaos 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

preventative block on Polaron

I request that an admin block User:Polaron for a time, in order to prevent growth of problem documented by me at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I am not sure exactly but believe P's edits may be in violation of current 6 month edit restriction. I am sure they are in violation of P's agreement to abide by rulings of mutually-agreed mediator (and administrator) User:Acroterion. I've posted also at User talk:Acroterion and User talk:EdJohnston (another admin who has been involved in creating and enforcing the edit restriction on Polaron), but I don't know if they are around.

Currently P appears to be going on a deliberate spree to create many problematic redirects, in response to my pointing out problem with 2 that he had made and the possibility that they were not constructive and/or were in violation of edit restriction or agreements. Each new one created is going to create more mess, more administration in wp:RFD processes and otherwise.

So I ask for a temporary block, say 24 hours, to allow discussion at P's talk page by P and those involved in policing his editing. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Polaron's redirects: they don't violate his editing restriction in my opinion ("converting articles into redirects or vice versa"), but I think that he should be adding the relevant information to articles (with sources) first, then creating redirects to point to the sourced content, rather than creating a series of unsourced assertions via redirect that no reader will ever see or understand. I see this as a separate issue from his editing restriction, but as informal mediator in the dispute between Doncram and Polaron I've renounced administrative action, and in any case consider myself involved. This appears to be an issue of WP:RS/WP:V. Polaron is essentially making an assertion via redirect, which is fine as long as there's something in the target to back it up, but I find few examples in the latest redirects to substantiate them. Acroterion _(talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, could an uninvolved administrator please impose the block? Administrator and mediator Acroterion has now replied at User talk:Acroterion#request a block that he feels too involved to take the administrative steps and has to recuse self (and now above). This is just a preventative block to force some discussion. Edit spree has in fact continued, and the user has not once replied. I myself don't have time for this now, would appreciate a block being imposed. I may or may not be able to reply here promptly, if there are further questions. This is a case of editing to disrupt the wikipedia, which will causing considerable work to cleanup, while alternatives are clear. Help! --doncram (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme "revenge" deletion and general belligerence

There has, sadly, been a rather bad editing pattern for a while by JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs). He frequently places {prod} and AfD tags on articles without any edit comment, in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it--and also generally to make it difficult for admins to follow the edit history of articles. Within AfD discuissions, JBsupreme is consistently belligerent to other editors, insulting anyone who believes a given article should be Kept, I suppose in an effort to bully through the deletion result. A large number of editors have complained of theses behaviors on his talk page, since long before I ever became aware of JBsupreme's existence, and several of them have brought the matter to ANI previously.

In response to these many complaints, the editor has not altered his behavior, since for whatever reason, s/he simply seems to want as many articles (but especially software-related articles) deleted as possible. In general, a large majority of this editors edits have been deletion nominations; I am not sure if the editor has ever actually contributed to improvement of any article.

I recently placed another polite notice on the talk page of JBsupreme urging use of edit comments, and he promptly removed it with a personal attack in the edit summary (a rare use of the summaries by him, perhaps ironically):

• [100] (Undid revision 341447627 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) troll elsewhere please)

Following that, JBsupreme decided to extend the "revenge" effort to trying to delete first the biography about me (under my outside name, of course) at:

• [101] no edit summary, naturally (article: David Mertz)

And then to look around for articles I have created to slap a nomination on:

• [102] no edit summary (article List of Python software)

I honestly don't know how to approach this particular brand of disruption, but it seems to be ongoing and getting worse. There are a number of hard-working editors who must simply spend all their attention on trying to fix the harms caused by JBsupreme, and that fact is highly destructive. LotLE×talk 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• An anon also noted on my talk page that JBsupreme was already prohibited from the belligerence in arbitration. LotLE×talk 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you have a case, a request for comment on user conduct is probably the best way to deal with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the claims check out (I haven't had a chance to verify them yet), an RfC is an unnecessary waste of time. The editor could be banned from deletion work for some period, and restricted from further harassing LOTLE, or else warned to stop under threat of restriction, either by community consensus or administrator discretion. LotLE, you say that he he has nominated articles "such as" the one you list. Are there others? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking around at edit history while posting this. I have revised my wording to indicate that it is just the one software article currently "revenge nominated" LotLE×talk 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE --User JBsupreme has beeen informed of this matter -->User talk:JBsupreme#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what "in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it" means. Is it more likely to be seen in an edit summary that just happens to be racing by on Recent Changes than by people looking at the articles if they really care about them, and seeing the tags? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who care about them will have the articles in their watchlist, and will see the edit summaries of the last N edits, rather than checking through every single article on a weekly basis. If there's nothing to catch their attention out of a large list of edits, that's what "sneaking by" would refer to. Also, you're supposed to notify the main contributors to an article on their talk page: I can't see him doing that for the last few days' batch of AfDs. Holly25 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:67.51.38.51: Unfortunately, JBsupreme has also done something to hide the TOC on his talk page, which makes linking to sections difficult. The following (quoted) gets at the gist of numerous complaints by editors:

27 Edit summaries for PROD nominations
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {prod} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or also:

37 Prods
Howdy. FYI, if an article is tagged with {prod} and it is then contested, you aren't supposed the tag the article with {prod} a 2nd time.--Rockfang (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, many AfD nominations are filed, but in a manner to try to hide notice of them from interested editors. Editors frequently complain about this to JBsupreme, such as:

30 AfD setups
Hi JB. I've mentioned this to you several times before, but I will remind you again. Please be sure to follow all the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion when you nominate an article. I fixed this one for you. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through User talk:JBsupreme shows a large number of other similar complaints, many discussing previous AfDs on the matter. LotLE×talk 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has been trolling AN/I and elsewhere for quite some time now. He can keep on doing that if it suits him. There are edit summaries for the deletion nominations of both articles posted. I do admittedly slip up on occasion and forget to add a summary for a prod at times, but neither of these two are valid examples of that. Furthermore, it is not up to me to decide if the David Mertz article is notable, that is a community decision based on how WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and any other relevant policies or guidelines are being interpreted at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be retaliatory spiteful actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs). This is a nom by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) of an article (admittedly by the subject on his userpage) which is a real-life bio page about the other editor in the dispute, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This is a nom of a page created by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. These actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) are highly inappropriate, disruptive, and indeed seem to be retaliatory in nature. Seems like a clear-cut case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As a matter of assuming good faith, JBSupreme offers a fair explanation on the lack of edit summaries. LotLE hasn't provided any proof for the speculation that the incomplete AfD procedure reflects an intent to deceive people, although there's some evidence that it's a recurring pattern. (addressing JBSupreme) If you try to remember in the future, problem solved there. The name-calling is a problem, though, as is the apparent vendetta. Are you telling us that you just happened upon that article on your own, and decided out of the blue to re-nominate it barely three months after it survived its last deletion nomination? It would appear that your dispute with this editor carried you there. Back to the original complaint, I think it rests on an assumption of bad faith that others may not be so willing to make. The easiest solution, I think, is for the two of you to try to see the good in each other and make up, or failing that, just disengage. Yes, there was some hounding, but the damage can be undone easily enough. The nominations ought to be withdrawn, but both of those articles will likely survive AfD even if carried to its full term. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wikidemon that the two AFD nominations should be withdrawn, and then the two editors should agree to disengage from each other in the future. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)