Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551

User:77.252.190.250

Over the past several days, 77.252.190.250 (talk · contribs) has made several contentious edits to a large number of BLP articles, not citing a single source. Due to the fact that some of their edits are obviously vandalism (claiming that Dakota Fanning is the sister of Evanna Lynch, and that Michelle Monaghan is the sister of Dominic Monaghan), I have reverted every one of their edits (those that have not previously been reverted). I request that others keep an eye on this editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

All true, but at this point its 6 hours stale; we should certainly keep an eye on this IP to see if it starts up again, but I am not sure what good blocking would do right this minute, since we have no proof that this person will use the same IP again, and they do not appear currently active. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandal has started up again from same IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And the vandalism continues. Why would there be anything wrong with blocking an IP that has been used by the same person for four or five days in a row, even if they are not currently vandalizing? Which, of course, they are, right now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just issued a level 4 warning. It doesn't appear as if English is this editor's first language, though. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, the IP is editing from Poland. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 23#File:Neda.jpg

Resolved

 – Closed by Black Kite

Could someone please close this discussion? It's been open for two weeks. Shouldn't be a difficult close, but most of the regular closers have taken part in the discussion. J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do need to point out that the image that was being voted on is no longer the image that they were voting on. Rgoodermote  18:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Scratch that, forgot to purge. Rgoodermote  18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

Per previous instructions (here and here), I'm requesting that User:ABQStyle be blocked for being a sock puppet of community-banned puppeteer User:PoliticianTexas.

Evidence: in this edit, ABQStyle changed the infobox on Albuquerque, New Mexico to use a copyright-violating image. That same image was previously added to Albuquerque, New Mexico by User:Burns37 on 11 September 2008, and by User:LamyQ on 18 September 2008 and again on 24 September 2008. Burns37 and LamyQ have already been blocked as PoliticianTexas sockpuppets. Given that the image in question has been deleted each time as a copyright violation (off en.wikipedia twice and commons once), it's clear that its return can't just be coincidental.

Thanks in advance... — Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a CheckUser here. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why? The reason for the "(here and here)" that starts off my request above is that's when we were previously told to bring the report here to skip that process. Not second-guessing; just trying to find out if something's changed. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I did not look at those two links. That said, the reasons I have filed an SPI case are that 1) it helps to keep a nice paper trail of things, as well as document prior socks for comparison (especially for technical purposes) and 2) to check for sleeper accounts or the use of open proxies or tor nodes. Hope that answers your question. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 04:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that ABQStyle (talk · contribs · logs · block log) is PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs) (PolTx for short)

• PolTx has replaced the infobox image at Albuquerque, New Mexico a dozen times or so, each with a copyvio image that is quickly deleted. ABQStyle has reuploaded one of the copyvio PolTx images at Commons (Commons:Image:Albuquerque Infobox Montage Design.png) and placed it in the infobox. ABQStyle diff, LamyQ diff (LamyQ (talk · contribs) is a known PolTx sock)
• ABQStyle added a list of city nicknames and mottoes in the Albuquerque, New Mexico infobox (despite a warning comment in the text not to do so). This was also previously done by Brandynman (talk · contribs), known PolTx sock. ABQStyle diff, Brandynman diff

--Uncia (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that some IP editors are PolTx, and are also ABQStyle

Interleaved with ABQStyle's edits of Albuquerque, New Mexico are some IP edits that match earlier PolTx edits. This provides evidence that PolTx is active again, and may provide evidence that he is ABQStyle.

• 98.23.210.53 (talk), 98.23.192.108 (talk) Providing party affiliations of city councillors: 98.23.192.108 diff adding affiliations, 98.23.210.53 diff re-adding after revert, TrentZee diff (TrentZee (talk · contribs) is known PolTx sock)
• 98.23.204.5 (talk) adding exact same nicknames and references as ABQStyle did above; see discussion above. 98.23.204.5 diff, ABQStyle diff

--Uncia (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

"Outlines"

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.

Wrong venue. For requesting deletion, use WP:XfD; for assessing community consensus about this matter, use WP:RfC or fora such as WP:VP. This board is for requesting urgent administrator intervention, which does not seem to be sought here.  Sandstein  21:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

---

you thought that infoboxes were a problem, when getting out of hand and evolving into a counter-article-within-the-article? That was yesterday. Enter The_Transhumanist (talk · contribs) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. A "project" aiming at creating an "outline" article to every bona fide article on Wikipedia. An "outline" is apparently a sort of glorified infobox or category listing given the status of standalone encyclopedia article. Thus, for Kosovo, we get outline of Kosovo, which doesn't have any scope other than simply Kosovo but it repeats the pertaining links in a "hierarchical list". The mind boggles at the implications. The damage this is capable of doing especially in difficult-to-maintain topics like Kosovo is immense. The natural course would be to treat this as an indexing effort, like the "outlines" main page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge. Yet for some reason best known to themselves, the editors working on these "outlines" adamantly resist such a solution, apparently heading for all-out confrontation. I am very close to nominating the entire thing at WP:AfD, since "articles" they insist these are, and as "articles" they would need to satisfy WP:NOTE criteria as enyclopedic topics in their own right. --dab (𒁳) 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you request with respect to this?  Sandstein  19:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably a mass deletion of the "article"s. I'm not necessarily in favor of that, but it's a plausible administrative action. (Cavaet. I've interacted with him before. I don't know if these outlines are as bad as the ones he generated previously, but I'm an involved admin.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with dbachmann on this. Despite asking several times, the people wasting their time with these outlines have failed to explain how they're actually useful to any reader, especially given the highly non-intuitive titles. E.g., if I want to read about Canada, I'll type Canada into the search box. Not Outline of Canada. And should I find other links I want to follow... why, those just happen to be in the actual article! As well as nice and conveniently organised in navboxes at the bottom of the article! The people doing this are wasting their time and ours on what is essentially a fork that replicates a cross-section of articles, navboxes, and portals. And yes, I say they are wasting our time. The sheer volume of (useless) work that is going into these could have been spent on something that would actually improve the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 19:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I object to the unilateral "closure" of this thread. I am posting this here for a reason, I am requesting the attention and contribution of my fellow admins in tackling this. Last time I checked, this was what this noticeboard was for. This is a serious issue that is rapidly growing out of proportion, not some random content dispute. What this user is doing is well within the fraudulent. They are reverting my bona fide move out of main namespace claiming that[1]

Dbachmann is ignoring the consensus established in many discussions over the years concerning this set of lists

with reference to WP:STAND, where, it turns out, they have recently snuck in reference to their own new-fangled type of "stand-alone list".[2]

This adds serious issues of user conduct to the already grievous namespace mess. Now would people please refrain from hushing this up telling me to "yawn, go open an rfc" but instead try to help doing something about it. --dab (𒁳) 20:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, you're trying to get rid of these articles? ANI is entirely the wrong venue for this. File an RFC or the "mass AFD" to which you alluded. –xeno^talk 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Right venue or wrong venue someone needs to do something about this. The last thing we need is more box clutter on a page. What we have is a box on almost every talk page telling readers that the 'outline' for the 'topic' associated with that page is incomplete. Do we really need a shadow wiki that is crummier than the original? Grumbling, I return to my hole. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Bingo. This is nothing more than a content fork, as all of the links contained in these 'outlines' are already in the main article. Further, the sheer amount of time required to keep these up to date (as opposed to e.g. writing articles) is mindboggling, not to mention that the whole thing is a lovely little walled garden in which criticism is... unheard, to use a polite word. → ROUX ₪ 20:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether you love, like, dislike, hate, or are indifferent to these outlines, do you really think you're going to come up with a coherent and actionable conclusion at ANI? –xeno^talk 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that an RfC needs to be started before a mass AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Shall we close this here as misplaced once the RfC or MfD on the portal is opened? It could still be done within the normal parameters, and doesn't require immediate admin action. However, a move out of the main namespace seems appropriate to me.

On second thought, outlines of countries in the Balkans are probably in violation of the RfAr there, and outlines of other articles subject to special restrictions are, by their nature, subject to those special restrictions, but are not monitored. The outline creation in mainspace must stop immediately, and those where the article is subject to special restrictions must be moved out of mainspace. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to close this but the initiator re-opened it. This most definitely requires a rational and focused community discussion (ANI is anything but). I would suggest RFC rather than AFD. –xeno^talk 20:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Outlines have been around under various names since 2001. See also Wikipedia talk:Outlines#move this out of main namespace please. The Transhumanist 21:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone replacing flag images: possible vandalism

Special:Contributions/88.64.76.179 is replacing images of countries' flags: check their contribution log. It looks fishy but I'm not sure. Please undo his changes if necessary. Chutznik (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, when you tell them about this thread, you could ask them to explain the motivation behind these changes. –xeno^talk 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User:ElPilotoDi

An immediate block please, the user is uploading a vast number of inappropriate images of copyright violations to all the Madonna (entertainer) related articles and is undertaking user page vandalisms. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you try WP:AIV? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Stuart D. James

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked with talk page editing disabled, and talk page fully protected to prevent further abuse. MuZemike 20:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This user is running around to IP talk pages trolling and claiming to be an admin. No constructive edits whatsoever. contribs --LP ^talk 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, this is sufficient to get an indef block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. I wonder if he noticed that all his edits are public? - Jredmond (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Someone should have a chat with Brad Polard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Art Sampson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thatcher 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Art Sampson looks like a SPA with some kinda' grudge against whoever Edie Money is, and I've blocked the account indef to prevent abuse. lifebaka++ 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's a Checkuser, I think she was being subtle while telling us the accounts are linked. Seems odd to bring them up if that wasn't the intent. --M^ask? 20:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suspect very strongly that this is not Stuart D. James, but someone making racist and vandal edits to besmirch the reputation of someone with that name. I've deleted the talkpage, and would appreciate if someone else would delete whatever else may be appropriate to delete. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

IP 81.97.19.159

This user has written some very very abusive and obscene remarks on my user page. Thankfully another editor reverted them but I was very offended and disgusted by the remarks. Could you please block the user in question. Here is a link if you wish to investigate http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Christian1985&diff=prev&oldid=299688509 Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That was 5 days ago. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To explain the point a bit, it looks like that IP editor was only using that address for one day, so a block would probably have no effect. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Breaking news

Patrick Tracy Burris bears watching, Patrick tracy burris has already been deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've RD'd both for now to Gaffney,_South_Carolina#Serial_Killings_of_2009. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding persistent deletions and false accusation of Top on ice

Recently I started making contribution on the page of Kim Yu-Na, mostly making grammatical corrections. I also added contents a few external links to her fan forums and her Twitter page.

There is a user called Top On Ice, and he or she has been keeping removing those links without any reasonable explanations. The person has removed multiple contributions for no persuasive reason including the removal of an undisputed fact such as that Michelle Kwan was the nine-time U.S. champion. I have been reverting this person's removals. This person just had a warning mail sent to me for vandalism. This person is in fact censoring contributions on Kim Yu-Na's page, and I believe this person's conduct constitutes vandalism, and thus he or she should be considered to be blocked. This person mentioned me at the end of this link, but I do not know its purpose. It seems that this person is making a false accusation against me, claiming that I am the person of the blocked user. Please check out my talk. - Chunwook —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

This is best addressed by following the instructions found at the dispute resolution page. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

trouble brewing at July 2009 Ürümqi riots

There are an increasing number of inexperienced users, single purpose accounts, IP trolls etc getting close to edit warring and being otherwise disruptive in July 2009 Ürümqi riots and its associated talk page. Particularly troublesome is User:60.190.146.38. Admin eyeballs are requested. Ohconfucius (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm starting to worry that there may be a need for some sort of protection (although, for what it's worth, there's as much POV-pushing on both sides coming from autoconfirmed accounts). When this article started it was put together by the work of intelligent people who were willing to discuss things and work out issues, but now it's quickly reaching a point where it's getting flooded by netizens who are interested in nothing but trying to push the one thing they believe; the talk page is suffering from trolling and the article itself is suffering from rampant selective quoting of sources to make it look as if all the wrongdoing was committed by one side or the other. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Sebas1955 copyrighted image problem

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading images which they claim they have permission to use, citing OTRS tickets. But there are a number of other images they have uploaded which they claim to be the copyright holder of. Can an OTRS person verify the claims they're making concerning the copyrights they're claiming to be providing to OTRS, and could an admin give them a lesson in copyright? In addition, they seem to be working in tandem with an anon to insert the images into articles. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi is on it, at least the OTRS bit. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing war

These IP addresses 156.56.162.187 and 156.56.131.213 keeps making disruptive edits after being warned many times. This person has even had the nerve to call my edits vandalism. Is there anyway we can get a lock on the Kelley School of Business article so that this person will stop with their repeated edit warring? Dumaka (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the editor appropriately. It appears that those two editors are actually one editor, just using a dynamic IP address. If he continues, WP:RFPP is thataway. (X! · talk)  · @269  ·  05:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dumaka (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Novi Plamen

Vandalism by several IP address, in what appears to be several PoV pushers in Croatian academic institutions. In this particular article, they're insisting on the "Croatian language" and "Croatian magazine" designations for a left-wing magazine whose contributors are all proud anti-nationalist Yugoslavs, and also from ex-SFRJ states other than Croatia (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and diaspora). All of those contributors write unedited in their own literary idiom of Serbo-Croatian. Almost all of them would probably call their language srpskohrvatski, as it was officially called before 1991.

Now, in English language, the term Serbo-Croatian is still abundantly used - in fact all the prominent Slavist still use it very much, for the identical dialectal base of all the SC varieties (all of them have 99% identical grammar are completely mutually intelligible). The only convenient term to use to describe the language of the magazine NP would be hence Serbo-Croatian, and not these ridiculous nationalist fabrications such as "Croatian language", "Serbian language" or "Bosnian language" (and soon-coming in the fall 2009 "Montenegrin language").

I ask that this article be semi-protected until the issue is resolved on the talkpage. (also I'm not sure that this is the appropriate place to report, so feel free to relocate this report elsewhere) --ⰉⰂⰀⰐ ⰞⰕⰀⰏⰁⰖⰍ 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There's already discussion happening at the talk page, and so far only a single set of reverts today. So, yes, it's an edit war, but no, I don't believe that multiple days of semi-protection are necessary. I'll check back to see if the war heats up, but right now I don't believe protection is needed. lifebaka++ 14:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User has made a threat, and is displaying ownership of articles

I am making this report because of the actions of User:Jerzeykydd, and his personal feelings of ownership and inappropriate behavior arising because of ("I made every presidential election article that way I am planning on keeping it that way" part of message left on my talk page) related to a number of election articles. The user has also engaged in threatening behavior on my talk page User talk:Highground79 ("don't push it or I'll get pissed off") (comment came as part of message left on my talk page on 00:14, 1 July 2009). Since I have been on wikipedia only briefly the last few days I hadn't paid attention to it till now. While I am in now way frightened by the user there threat is not appropriate for wikipedia and I believe someone other then myself needs to make the user aware of this.

(Rough history of underlining problem: included for background) The underling issue which started all of this is the user in question and I have a disagreement over how to label parts of a section. The user has had it suggested to them by the User:Timmeh to start a discussion on the matter but has chosen instead to continue to edit war. the user insists via claims of ownership on labeling the results of presidential election article by state in a manner in which it appears as though equal weight is given to the "by county" results and "by congressional district" results as is given to the "statewide" while in some cases the user seem to accept Result (instead of "statewide", but will not accept election result)

My edits to the labels are attempting to distinguish the fact that only the statewide total is the election result (that which electoral votes are awarded for) The county and the congressional district results are a subset of the electorate and are less important (labels I attempted to include (results by congressional districts and results by county) because it doesn't matter who wins the most counties or congressional districts in most states (I'm trying to clarify this) the electoral votes are a all or nothing deal. While this may seem obvious to you wikipedia is used by people all over the world, and the our electoral college system is completely foreign to these users (it is important for the understanding of these users to distinguish the difference between the numbers that matter and the ones that do not). I would be happy to discuss this on the talk pages but the User:Jerzeykydd insists on edit waring and inadvertently is making it harder for users in other countries to understand what is the important (determining #'s) and what is essentially just an interesting fact. I know this is long winded but I wanted to explain what is going on and how it started. Highground79 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs showing the issues you mention. Several would be good. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

He's right. Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jerzeykydd, pick those diffs (which are "differences between one edit and another"), and post the URLs of those "diffs" here. There we might be able to get a better understanding of what is going on. Thank you, MuZemike 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I gave an edit-warring warning on the user, going into detail of what can happen if the user's reversions do not stop. MuZemike 08:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An offending diff is here. Manning (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing like what you've said. He's clearly said he does not want to edit war, and says that he works hard on the articles you two have a dispute on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Seek true consensus: Open a topic on the related talk-pages and seek other opinions of the election labels, to see if there is other support for your label-style. The U.S. has enormous voter-fraud problems (2000 Presidential Election), such as votes in precinct exceed the total residents, and in 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ("Supreme crooks") denied the state of Florida a statewide recount, due to lack of time to "debate counting methods": however, all disputed ballots were database-encoded (not hand-recounted every time), so recounts were by computer which could recount all votes by all conceivable counting methods (within 2 days), and George Bush would have been "mathematically eliminated" as the loser of the election, regardless of any future debate. However, the Court justices were mainly Republican appointees, and hence 5-4 held the pro-Bush bias to stop the recount while Bush led. The fraud was so off-balance, Al Gore (who actually won Florida by thousands) referred to himself as the man who "was the next president of the U.S." (quote). I mention this real-world case because district-totals & county-totals help to detect the extent of voter fraud, so people in Iran, perhaps, might be interested to see real evidence of how judicial/voter-fraud won the U.S. 2000 election. Consider how other people might prioritize the election-numbers. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident really should not have been brought up here. As noted above, it looks like Jerzeykydd is attempting to help gain consensus rather than edit war. The "threat" is a very vague one, and arguably not much of a threat at all. I've advised Highground on the correct steps to take to resolve the dispute. Timmeh 16:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Corrected the spelling", "fixed the bad grammar", and "corrected or fixed the bad English"

Is anyone else having problems with these types of edits on the site? I keep running into these types of edits where they summaraize the edits with things like "corrected the spelling", "fixed the bad grammar", and "corrected the bad English" and stuff like that. If you go back and check the edits though the pages had proper English and grammar and the edits simply took out a whole bunch of things from the pages. Then you will sometimes see further edits to the same page by the same users going back to what is left on the page and putting spelling and grammar errors in it after the fact. This seems to be a fairly big problem right now. I first tried reporting users individually here that were doing this to which I got nowhere and it was decided that these were perfectly legit edits. Well then I think we need to have a discussion and look at this new style of "editing". It is obviously either some sort of new bot or some sort of new trolling and/or vandalism/abuse tactic that is being employed on Wikipedia. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are always edit summaries like that here and there (I've long found that words like bad, better and grammar in an edit summary are often a hint that more's afoot). Undo the edits, leave a note for the editor. Without diffs, there's not much for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to do but the edits get immediately reverted and endless times as well. Also the user talk pages never respond to you and just delete the messages you leave. I am pretty sure now that these are some sort of new bots that are vandalizing. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? Without diffs there's nothing to do. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The diffs would still be there in the article history. I know the kind of thing you're referring to, but without a diff or even a specific article, there's nothing that can be done here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That kind of edit is indeed pretty common, often as a (very poor) cloaking device for blatant vandalism (for instance an edit summary reading "corrected spelling" when the actual edit was to replace the whole page with "Pooppooppooppoop" or similar). I suppose the rationale (if one may call it such) is that changes patrollers are all complete dimbulbs who will take the edit summary as legitimate without investigating why, for example, a spelling correction has changed the page size from 26,000 bytes to 17.

However I'm confused. Editors above are asking for diffs or at least some specific pages. I've looked through your edits in the hope that I could at least see an article where you've reverted this style of vandalism and I can't see one. So I'll join the clamour - please could you supply specific diffs to illustrate what you're saying? Tonywalton ^Talk 12:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't exactly new is it? "Sneaky vandalism" is something that happens quite a lot, and the best we can do is hope the vandal fighters or the anti-vandal bots get them before it stays too long. The normal steps against vandalism should be followed, unless it's a bot or the same user(s) as Wiki Greek Basketball suggests. Chamal ^talk 13:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

But isn't it almost always "bad grammer"? Even when it's genuine? It's funny how often I see that. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I always check those out, always. Half will be vandalism and the other half, mostly "fixes" that are worse than what was already there. Put another way, an edit summary saying bad grammar will wontedly be spot on :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We've heard of blocks for vandalism and trolling. Is there a block type that's directed at writers who appear to have only learned English within the last week or two? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It does seem more than a little ironic that Wiki Greek Basketball has come here complaining about others' edit summaries, when Wiki Greek Basketball never leaves edit summaries, instead spamming the histories of pages with swathes of unexplained microedits. Isn't leaving the same (i.e none) edit summary for large changes and small, for uncontroversial ones or contentious ones, just as misleading as leaving wilfully misleading ones? 87.113.26.43 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I raised this just a few days ago: correcting the spelling - new troll approach. 'bot or just paranoia Andy Dingley (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ring of related accounts

In handling some unblock requests today, I came across a bunch of accounts that are obviously linked. In order of account creation: Magnarot (talk · contribs), Floptchy (talk · contribs), Randomer789 (talk · contribs), Camponhoyle (talk · contribs), Idiot997 (talk · contribs), Chatter333 (talk · contribs). Camponhoyle was indef-blocked for vandalism, and Chatter333 and Randomer789 got caught in the autoblock. Randomer, Camponhoyle, Magnarot, and Floptchy were all involved in pushing for inclusion of Easiteach; Randomer and Magnarot both claimed to have no connection to Floptchy. Magnarot, Chatter333, and Idiot997 all started a "chat session" on User talk:Camponhoyle, and in Chatter333's unblock-auto request, Chatter333 claimed to not be Camponhoyle. Randomer789 and Camponholye also both got involved over Kim Sears and both made comments at User talk:Skitzouk, who nominated that page for deletion. I'm posting this for review because some of the edits seem to be valuable; plus, Jpgordon (who's very experienced) declined Chatter333's unblock-auto request but took no further action. Do people think there might be one account we can leave unblocked or block temporarily? I welcome any input. Mangojuice^talk 17:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I ran across this when Idiot997 was auto-reported to UAA (and blocked). I would suggest leaving a note about what Wikipedia is not (specifically, not Myspace/Facebook) for the unblocked users and see where it goes from there. I would bet that they've had their laughs and won't edit any longer. TNXMan 17:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

All the accounts are blocked now. Mangojuice^talk 18:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Should an admin take a controversial decision right before going AWOL?

Resolved

The answer should be no, of course, but on the other hand there is no clear rule on this. I had requested the semi-protection of an article on a controversial subject of which i am the main author and whose content had never been disputed by established editors until an IP came along and tried to impose his POV ([3]). The admin Nja247 (talk · contribs) overstepped the mark and made a full protection instead, asking for a debate and subsequent agreement on the talk page ([4]). I made my point there ([5]) while telling the admin that he had gone OTT ([6]). The - previsible - result is that nobody ever bothered to answer on the talk page, the matter being clear as cristal water, but what was definitely not previsible is that Nja247 has gone lost IRL or wherever right after taking a decision he should have discussed with the author of the request. This is how the worst kind of status quo is imposed upon others! --RCS (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection is not supposed to be used to lock good faith IPs out of content disputes, so I would endorse this in general. Of course, I leave open the possibility that the IP is not acting in good faith; I haven't looked into it beyond your report.

As for the issue of the admin going AWOL (keeping in mind that we're volunteers, we don't need to request leave ;>) you can petition another admin (eg. at WP:RFUP) to review the talk page discussion to determine if consensus has emerged and the protection can be lowered. –xeno^talk 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Since the IPs did not come to the table to respond to your section, I've lowered the protection. If IPs refuse to discuss content disputes at the talk page, I would endorse semi. –xeno^talk 18:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. I think your action is spot on and I would say this is resolved. I do wish to note to RCS however that it's odd that he found it OTT for me to protect the page (even though he requested it at WP:RFP, and as Xeno said, at the time it appeared to be a dispute and it would have been wrong to lock out the IP), but oddly RCS didn't think taking this minor issue to ANI to be OTT. There's a section at WP:RFP to request unprotection. Anyhow water under the bridge. Cheers, Nja²⁴⁷ 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Scammer?

Resolved

 – article reverted.

Not sure quite what to make of this, but probably merits admin intervention.  Skomorokh  19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh, it's reverted. Unless it happens again from the same IP, the guy's probably moved on and there's nothing we can do. lifebaka++ 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it a scam, it's a lazy one, too. "Set it all up and send me the money! It's that easy!" Nothing less than 250k accepted, either. TNXMan 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

i believe the we should notify an administrator who can decide to send this off to local authorites such as the Fbi or the internset sesrivce proivder (ISP) so that the scammer can be jailed Smith Jones (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-logged-in user editing suspicious pages.

Sebas1955 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing disruptively without logging in as 200.116.62.130 (talk · contribs). The IP has been removing deletion templates from files uploaded by the User, as well as related vandalism and other strange practices. The IP has been blocked after a final warning, but should this go to WP:SPI? -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The account should be blocked for repeated copyvio uploads and all his uploads should be deleted. The IP is obviously the same person trying to circumvent the system. At least one of the copyvio uploads was already deleted from commons after which he uploaded it here with bogus OTRS Permission tags even. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima

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

Resolved

 – Both of you go to bed without dinner...

...accused me here quite blatantly of lying. He was given the chance to retract the statement, and has unsurprisingly refused to. This, especially given his history of attacks and harassment, requires attention and probably a block.

And yes, I'm sure someone is going to complain that I haven't been Miss Perfect throughout that discussion, but it's worth noting that the people who have done so have complained about me by making multiple personal attacks against me--while complaining, wrongly, that I had done so. → ROUX ₪ 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Response - It is clear that the statement was: "The above proves that you are 100% ignorant about what you are talking about. The statement placed about my discussing your claims about what Godwin said with a WMF member places your other claims into question. So far, you have provided nothing correct but you have laid on the insults to people in a very unbecoming manner. Thus, you have proven to talk about what you don't know, possibly make stuff up, and just insult people without cause." The phrase "possibly make stuff up" is far different than "lying". As proven by the quote from Godwin, his summary of what Godwin said was quite different than what Godwin said, so, regardless, he was incorrect. Now, he has attacked several people in that area, misquoted multiple policies, shown an inability to understand what policies state, and has constantly been rude and incivil (especially with his constant cussing). It seems that all he has contributed to that page was disruption. It is clear that Roux will not stop attacking people or causing disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Oh, come now, let's try for some statements that accurately reflect reality, okay? Insults.. where exactly? There are none. Attacks? Nope. Misquoting multiple policies? Again, no. The only thing that would come close would be me saying that RFC has a specific menaing on Wikipedia, which it does. Cussing? Twice. Sue me for using colourful language to get my meaning across. So... well it's all the usual from you, Ottava. A simple apology for claiming I was lying would be a good start, but I won't get my hopes up. Nor do I honestly have much hope that anyone will do anything about your accusation, as you seem to get away with whatever you like. But I do know if I accused another editor, baselessly, of lying.. well, I wouldn't be able to type this right now. → ROUX ₪ 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• What a distasteful little thread that is. Why would anyone continue to participate in it? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • ANI is not the complaints department. Start a user conduct WP:RFC or a WP:WQA alert...take this somewhere else. General complaining about what people did or did not say or imply or whatever is going on here is not appropriate. I am closing this before it gets even nastier than it has. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Guto2003

Resolved

 – User is engaging in what appears to be "stealth vandalism". User warned and to be immediately blocked if persists. Manning (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Guto2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Am I missing something, or is this user going around randomly deleting dates/years and sometimes refs? I've been reverting since he started on June 4 since I can't see a reason for the removals. Could someone else take a look? --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems odd. Left a note asking the user for a response of some sort -- seems the best thing to do in the meantime. Hopefully this can be resolved amicably for all involved. If the behavior continues with no reply, some escalation may become necessary. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just as confused as you - that does look like random removal of dates, sources, little factoids and not a single explanation to be found. Unless this editor decides to start communicating now (they don't appear to have done so in the past) I'd say that an indef block is in order. Shell ^babelfish 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted aktsu. Indeed, user seems to be a "stealth vandal" - I can't see any other rational explanation. We'll watch and impose an immediate block in the event of further edits of this nature. I'll add a note to the user talk page to that effect. Manning (talk) 03:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user page

Resolved

 – BLP-problematic information replaced with Blocked Notice (user indef blocked Nov 2008) Manning (talk) 03:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This user page: Srkhan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in its current version claims to be that of a famous person, which is BLP-problematic. Previous versions apparently show this to be somebody else altogether. Contributions not always constructive; blocked indef in November 2008, but userpage still remains. Not sure if this calls for oversight, but certainly deletion (at least of the few last BLP-violating revisions). 89.52.180.18 (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Strange vandalism

Resolved

 – IP warned. Manning (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably nothing, but still a bit disturbing: [7] IP Geolocates to California. Plastikspork (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It's been a day for weird stuff like this. I note you've reverted the user page already which is good. I'll add an IP warning but there's little else we can do. The IP is probably someone known to the user. Manning (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Brad Polard (talk · contribs) and Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – All related accounts indef blocked by Nishkid64. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Thatcher made this comment yesterday after Stuart D. James (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for vandalism, personal attacks and impersonating an administrator. In Thatcher's comment, it was suggested that Brad Polard (talk · contribs), Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs) and Art Sampson (talk · contribs) are the same person as Stuart D. James.

I think there may have initially been some confusion over Thatcher's initial comment where some people, myself included, thought the comment was meant merely as an observation of suspicious behaviour rather than confirmation that these accounts are related but Thatcher confirmed that they are indeed the same person. For that reason, even after Stuart D. James (talk · contribs) was indef-blocked, Brad Polard (talk · contribs) and Bacon Man 832 (talk · contribs) were allowed to keep editing and are still editing simultaneously and receiving multiple warnings for personal attacks against other users. Bacon Man 832 did receive an indef block which was overturned after he placed an unblock request but I believe the unblock request would have been denied had the unblocking admin been aware of the sockpuppetry. Art Sampson (talk · contribs) was indeffed for other reasons. I think an indef block on one of the two remaining accounts is in order (clear violation of WP:SOCK) and the other account, if we allow it to keep editing any further, should also be indeffed on sight should he create another sockpuppet. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked all accounts. No sign this user is going to reform his/her ways. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Awnnil Kiwi

Resolved

 – User blocked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A chap with an anagrammatic username who appears to be wikistalking and harassing one particular admin (who's probly asleep right now). Please review and consider whether to block.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked by Gogo Dodo. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User intentionally introducing unreferenced material into Generation Z

Resolved

 – user warned and recommend immediate block if re-offends, given prior history. Manning (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see this diff, as well as their "work" at Generation Y, which I haven't reviewed yet. The material trying to be introduced is unreferenced, and -- from the looks of the user's talkpage -- this isn't the first time they've done this type of thing. I went there to discuss with him, but when I saw all the warnings and such, I thought it best to bring this issue here for immediate admin attention. Unitanode 14:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... my suspicion is that it's the user's birthdate or something similar. Anyway, warning will be issued and block to follow if needed. Manning (talk) 14:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I should have just done that, but with all the warnings littered on the page, it appeared to me that this user might not be dissuaded by warnings. Thanks for your attention to the matter, though. Unitanode 14:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Late Show with David Letterman

The comic made poor jokes about Sarah Palin's daughter - no not the 14-year-old but Palin's 18-year-old who was an unwed mother; the talk-radio folks apparently can't milk this enough. Palin herself made appearances to make much of it, Letterman apolgized and she accepted. Really, I'm overselling this. Some very determined folks just need to inject this first on David Letterman which we've been able to halt but keep on plopping it in Late Show with David Letterman. Palin since has announced her stepping down as US Alaskan governor. The Letterman joke is seemingly on her public image article and that seems, IMHO, an acceptable place for now. Could others have a look at this? There seems no concensus to include this as yet and now I'm avoiding edit-warring with possible socks. I'm stepping back for the moment could others uninvolved have a look? Thank you! -- Banjeboi 05:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What administrative action do you seek with regards to this issue? Hobartimus (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a semi-protect might be appropriate as my gut tells me we may be dealing with a sock issue. Anons and new accounts wishing to re-insert this would then need to discuss on the talkpage. I'm not terribly interested in sorting out which of the accounts actually may be socking and frankly those that are good at it know how to evade being detected. So absent some outside opinions I think semi-protect would help on this situation. -- Banjeboi 06:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• The same thing is happening now at David Letterman, as User:Arzel is trying to reinsert it. Unitanode 07:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Semi-protection of the appropriate articles would seem to be in order. This is basically POV-pushing and trying to make a big deal out of a little blip. Plenty of folks have commented on Palin. Letterman is just one guy. If you had every comment made by or about those folks, you'd have a large book. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • David Letterman is getting some good edits by IPs, which would be collateral of a semi. If we're dealing with serious socks, problem would reoccur as soon as unprotected, so we permanently lose beneficial edits. The Late Show page issue involves established editors as well as anon and newbies (semi wouldn't block them). Are we expecting useful material to be contributed by *any* editors who aren't serious enough to bother filing an editprotected on the talk page? I'd support protection but only as a stop-gap while burning down the sock-store. DMacks (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Does it make sense to let it play out more, keep reverting and see if we have sock evidence? -- Banjeboi 09:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

and it continues

[8] really, I'm not interested in edit-warring with some anon. -- Banjeboi 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked into the content, and this appears to be a BLP issue for Letterman's page, so I'd support temp "whatever prot necessary" on him if it happens again there. I see there is discussion on several talk pages with pretty clear consensus against it on his page also, so that would also user-blockable edit-war against consensus (and viable evidence of socking). There is good ongoing discussion (where I see you've participated) on the talk-page of the show regarding inclusion there. Of the editors involved in that discussion, I don't see obivous socking right now...the recent/active participants are not WP:SPA and have varying edit histories, seem to drown out possible socking by a few IP/newbie accts. I'd support "whatever prot necessary" to stamp out this war while the discussion is ongoing (bad-faith to discuss while edit-warring). DMacks (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the uncommented reversions by two different SPA IPs with matching article in their contributions 76.26.71.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.12.96.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are suspicious. Mfield (Oi!) 16:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't stopped and the suspicious IPs have not made any comment on talk. I have protected it fully and posted a message on article talk[9], Mfield (Oi!) 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats on talk page of Taleb

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544 § Legal threats on talk page of Taleb, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545 § Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Please see the following edit: [10] with edit comment "unlawful webstalking on the part of Ulner".

I would also like the following (old) edit deleted from Wikipedia: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457658749086809.html?mod=rss_topics_davos#articleTabs%3Darticle</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)", see [[11]]. I have sent a message to IbnAmioun asking him to delete that sentence, but he has not given any reply, see [[12]]. Ulner (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat is not explicit. Triplestop x3 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an explicit threat - you can also interpret this as incivil communication. I do not know how to end this dispute with IbnAmioun in a good way. Instead of discussing the part of the article in question (now whether to write "polyglot", "who is multilingual" or nothing) he accuses me of webstalking, harassment etc. Ulner (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given the user a final warning. If he keeps it up, he'll be blocked. lifebaka++ 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

This point has been taken to office. Surely wikipedia does not ENCOURAGE someone to engage in defamatory action against a living person; every person has the right to protection from character assassination from an editor with an overt axe . IbnAmioun (talk) 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the office will handle it. Now would you mind stopping using the legal terms? It makes it seem like you're gonna' pursue legal action, which I assume is not the case (please do let me know if I'm mistaken). lifebaka++ 19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, so far the issue is still too minor for Jimbo Wales and Nassim to get involved --they may or may not discuss it as they are in contact on something else. But it is a matter of principle: Wikipedia is not about personal vendettas. Incidentally these alleged "legal threats" quoted above are from the last episode. My main point is that someone got to keep a vigilant eye on User:Ulner because you cannot invoke "neutrality" while going after the character of the person.IbnAmioun (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're involved in a content dispute, nothing more, as I see it. Additionally, the first diff Ulner provided is from today. So, please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other users. lifebaka++ 19:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifebaka, please read the Talk page. And to answer your earlier point we believe that Wikipedia is good enough to correct things, when pointed out to the persons in charge. IbnAmioun (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, there isn't really anyone in charge. Everyone's got equal say, and consensus is what rules the day (rhyme semi-intentional). I suggest starting an request for comment regarding your dispute, since the two of you can't work it out on your own, and the talk page hasn't come up with anything. A third opinion (or more) would probably help. Or just drop it, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me. lifebaka++ 20:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ulner is systematically nitpicking for every single word he finds positive and nobody can start arguing for words.

Neutrality does not mean that someone can systematically take control on a page by taking out evey positive word, and waiting for people to prove its references with lengthy discussions.

This time it was too obvious. Ulner admits for not knowing the disputed word in English use. A reference was brought to show its simple meaning to be relevant. Now Ulner came up that there is another alternative word he deems to be less positive.

The issue is hardly this single word. It is about a strategy to nitpick for every positive word meticulously. 86.157.83.15 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the ONLY solution would be to ban User:Ullner from wikipedia or to ban him from editing the Taleb page. The idea of "dispute" makes no sense as he seems to dispute EVERY single word on the page. The entire concept of wikipedia is not to be hijacked by the most obsessive user or the user with a vendetta. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• IbnAmioun - You have continued to violate our policy to assume good faith of others on Wikipedia. This does not appear to uninvolved administrators to be Ulner trying to abuse the Taleb article - Ulner is involved in editing many articles and not being found to be a problem on the other ones. This appears to be you and Taleb's family getting upset at Ulner, i.e. a content dispute between you and he.

  Please stop this. If there are specific edits you can point to where Ulner is doing something against policy please provide diffs for them here. If you can't do that - consider that you yourself may have created this conflict and be the source of the problem, and that administrators stepping in may have a very different result than you have asked for.

  Introspective caution is recommended at this point. Please assume good faith and attempt to work cooperatively.

  Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Hello; I disagree. I see no violation in policy as you are dealing with BLP and the situation is much more delicate. I can see the difference between good faith edits and systematically negative edits as those by User:Ulner. There have been many editors on the page who disagreed with each other; in this case it is extremely different. So the problem here is activism and editor's bias: 90% of his edits are about the page. BLP is very, very delicate and risks of defamation are high under such harassment. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking at Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb#polyglot I see two editors, YechezkelZilber and Ulner, having a rational disagreement and civil discussion over this edit, and IbnAmioun stepping into the middle of that discussion with this, which doesn't even address the matter under dispute. It does appears that IbnAmioun is not party to the actual content dispute at all. Uncle G (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IbnAmioun - your statement that "90% of his edits are about the page" is completely inaccurate. A scan of his user contributions indicated roughly 30 edits in a total of over 1000. This is actually closer to 3% and not 90%. Providing misleading claims is frowned upon in these parts. You are also claiming defamation and harassment, whereas all I could see was a complaint over the term "polyglot" (which, although legitimate in context, is a rarely used term), and an attempt to make the article slightly more NPOV. Unless you can provide clear evidence of bad faith conduct, you will not win support here. Manning (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not correct. If you look at his user contributions [13] you would see that almost all his recent edits (since he started his thing against Taleb in the beginning of June ) are about Taleb, and related Empirica Capital, Black Swan Theory,etc.

You can assume good faith but up to a point. IbnAmioun (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to ~100% of your edits? Ravensfire2002 (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not an editor but a representative, so 100% of my edits are for the page as per BLP rules I can only correct, not add info.IbnAmioun (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IbnAmioun - it is unwise to tell an administrator that he/she is incorrect unless you can support it. Your statement that "90% of his edits are about the page" remains a wildly inaccurate distortion. I will agree that in the past month the majority of his edits have been on this article, but that is nothing unusual. I regularly have periods of time where most of my effort is focused on a single article. It also remains that there is no evidence of bad faith editing and until you provide it, you will only increase the irritation level of uninvolved admins. Your statement "You can assume good faith but up to a point." is quite appropriate here, but not perhaps in the manner which you intended.Manning (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IbnAmioun - If Ulner were editing BLP issue comments in to the article there would be a point in invoking it. Or if he were in every instance attempting to make the article clearly more negative about Taleb.

I have been following this incident for some weeks now, and I have yet to see any edit by Ulner which is in fact in violation of BLP policy or is clearly not reasonably an attempt at a better written, neutral point of view article.

I do not exclude the possibility that I am simply missing some of what he's done - which is why I asked for specific diffs.

I am not sure that you fundamentally understand what BLP is about. BLP does not mean that we have to have only positive, cheerful articles about living persons. It means that we write reasonable encyclopedia articles, and exercise some editing discretion to avoid causing them real life harm. BLP does not give article subjects or their relatives veto power. It does not exclude articles from covering critical or negative issues, though coverage of them must be balanced, neutral point of view, and properly sourced to reliable sources.

The policies against any one person claiming ownership over an article and against editing with a conflict of interest apply in this situation. We allow BLP article subjects and their representatives some leeway, in order to encourage more accurate biographical articles and avoid the types of negative comment we've specifically prohibited. But that is not a blanket waiver from other Wikipedia policy. You, IbnAmioun, have been at the least pushing up against those policies in your behavior for some weeks now.

If we were to formally and forcefully begin enforcing all our policies right now, you'd be seriously warned and possibly blocked for those violations, and at worst Ulner would receive a slight warning.

I do not think that that's appropriate or necessary. We have discretion and have been using it in the hope that you'd work it out with Ulner. As that is not happening, however, we need to make you aware of that policy. If this continues to escalate those policies will of necessity be enforced.

Again - assume good faith will get you through more problems than just about anything else. If you reapply yourself to working constructively with Ulner this is likely to be resolved positively. Hopefully you can review your own conduct, and attempt to move past the previous problems.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I need to go on a trip but I will rapidly provide the instances of bad faith editing he saw here, with the onesided discussions on the talk page, starting with the one-sided Myron Scholes quote and the complaint about the additions of context by other editors, then the discussions then the systematic changes in every word like "essayist", the track records of Taleb as a trader (just putting the negative of his career), to the latest bickering (not really of any substance) about the polyglot, to the latest assertions of "NPOV" as anything non-negative. Any single comment on his part is meant to downgrade the character of the BLP.

All I do is watch edits. Usually the positive and negative cancel each other. But with the User:Ulner a systematically negative bias is introduced that downgrades the character of the subject of the bio. IbnAmioun (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Care to give some specifics? Such as diffs? lifebaka++ 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

IbnAmioun writes that "all I do is watch edits" - but he has made some edits in the Taleb article. Regarding my own edits my most substantial edit was adding criticism from Scholes [[14]]. These sentences has been re-written and now includes a reply from Taleb in that matter. I recently suggested that these sentences describing personal attacks between Taleb and Scholes should be removed because they are not so interesting because Scholes' comments does not discuss the merits of Taleb's ideas. Ulner (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I support GWH's thinking on this, and am very uncomfortable with the postings of IbnAmioun about this article. He seems to be making scary appeals to BLP issues when nothing of the sort is at stake. In a previous ANI posting the question was whether Taleb could be validly described as a "literary essayist." I don't believe that Taleb's personal safety is at stake when such issues are discussed. In a posting made at ANI by IbnAmioun on June 8, one of his headings was "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner." Such language, when it is unsupported by any evidence, is close to disruption. Though I haven't closely studied all of Ulner's work on this, he looks like a normal editor trying to improve articles. I'm unaware of any substantive objection to his work by anyone besides IbnAmioun. I support giving block warnings to IbnAmioun if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article recreation issue

Resolved

The editor Varun21 (talk · contribs) has had a lingering problem over the past month or so surrounding the article ColorfulTabs, an application for Firefox. The article was deleted twice as a speedy A7, then went through this deletion discussion and was deleted yet again. Subsequently, it's been deleted as a G4 twice. I finally protected the page, because it's become quite obvious that the editor doesn't intend to give up. Today, I received a notice of a deletion review, which has yet to materialize. What *has* materialized is ColorfulTabs for Firefox, which is a precise recreation of the article that was deleted through the AFD and twice as G4. This despite a warning I left regarding recreating the article at another name and suggesting a DRV. Can I please ask that another admin look at this, make sure that I've read it right, and handle further discussions, please? Tony Fox (arf!) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted per WP:CSD#G4. In future you could use a {{db-g4}} tag to request deletions for this reason. I'm not sure it's quite reached the point of warranting a block, but it's close. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I wanted to get a fully independent opinion, as I had done one of the deletions and salted the original page. Thanks for looking in; I see he's been blocked, so problem solved. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
• Did no-one suggest that the editor work on improving User:Varun21/ColorfulTabs instead of simply copying and pasting it repeatedly into article space? Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Had I noticed it, I might have. As it was, the repeated warnings about recreating seemed to blow straight over the editor's head. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it a copyright violation even when it doesn't fit the definition?

Resolved

 – Dubious passage removed from article. Manning (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Three Hours of fascinated clicking on Wikipedia somehow drew me to Perfect Strangers (TV series), and I noticed this little blurb in Syndication

All 150 episodes of the series are also viewable via YouTube, with a few of the episodes being the original ABC broadcasts (these particular episodes feature announcements for ABC shows airing at the time over the end credits, as well as the "Closed Captioning" and "In Stereo" IDs during the title sequence).

Is this technically a violation of Wikipedia:Copyrights, even thought it is not explicitly linking to said episodes on Youtube?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a copyright violation on our part because we aren't presenting the copyrighted material. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did remove the passage, though, because we really shouldn't be encouraging readers to go view the copyvio on youtube. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the XKCD reference, by the way. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

YouTube does apparently have rights to show a large number of movies and old TV shows. See http://www.youtube.com/shows and http://www.youtube.com/movies, but Perfect Strangers does not appear to be one of those shows. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Logged in vandal

The page June 2009 was turned into an add for some restaurant with this edit by the user 'Annyd' who did this as his/her first edit. I already undid that edit and hope some more action can be taken by the admins here. - Robotje (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A warning and welcome would've been helpful to the user. I left both. There haven't been any more edits from that account, but I'll try to keep an eye on it. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Use of File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png violating WP:NFCC

Resolved

Over the past 24 hours, I've thrice removed File:NLW-LAD-Logo.png from Arizona League Dodgers. In each case, User:Spanneraol has reverted me, once calling me a knucklehead [15], once saying I'm not using my head [16], and once claiming that WP:NFCC #10c non-compliance is not a valid reason to remove [17]. I've attempted to explain to him the policy and what is required [18]. He responded that I didn't mention the specific part of policy it wasn't compliant with (I did, 10c), again asserted I'm not using my head, and insisting that I fix the image rather than remove it. Admin assistance requested please. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with his insistence that image violates 10c. I asked him to explain how it violates it but he refused and just again cited the policy. Spanneraol (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Spanneraol, you need to have a fair use template on there for each use. I notice it doesn't even have a single fair use template. Just slap a {{Non-free use rationale}} on it and you'll be fine. Cheers, guys. lifebaka++ 15:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought the logo rationale on there was sufficient.. I've added that template you suggested. Does this work better? Spanneraol (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, 10c is satisfied now. Just watch the language in the future, m'kay? lifebaka++ 16:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As with all facts in wikipedia, knuckleheadedness of a given editor requires independent, reliable verification. Otherwise it's just original research. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

During a long debate about moving the alpine town of Merano to Meran, the final decision was to move it. Already during the debate, the user relied heavily on non-factual arguments, often making assumptions about other users nationalities instead [19]. As a French-Swede who has never lived in Germany, I find it strage to be called a "German nationalist". Such irrelevant comments border on insults, andother users than myself objected to it [20]. The decision to move was based on the fact that both Merano and Meran are used in English, and the principle is to use local majority names; this was already the case in 115 of 116 municipalities in the province before, and the move brought Meran into line. Rather than accepting the decission, or at least continuing to challenge it on the talk page, the use took to edit warring to support "his" name of the aticle. [21], [22], [23], [24]. While technically avoding a violation of 3RR, the user is clearly edit warring over the name issue. Once again insulting [25] the motives of those of us who wanted the move to bring the 116th article on Alto Adige in line with the 115 others. He even tried to report the user who restored the page for edit warring [26], showing that he is well aware of the policy. The user's disruptive and insulting behaviour does nothing to improve the situation.JdeJ (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The English version of the official homepage of this town [27] uses Merano. (There's only a link to the german page in the article.) So do the Baedeker guide, the Blue Guide to Italy, the AA Guide to Italy [28], the English Michelin Guide [29], etc. Aren't these guide books the place to look for English-speaking usage? Perhaps it needs a few more people to comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As was shown during long discussions lasting two weeks, both Merano and Meran are used in English rather often. For communities in Alto Adige, we follow the local majority language and that is the case for all of the 116 communes in the province. However, my report here is directed at PManderson's behaviour, not his views. He may argue against Meran as much as he wants, I even welcome him to do that but I object to his manner of repeatedly insulting editors who do not agree with him and I find his latest trick of resorting to disruptive edit warring when decisions don't go his way to be immature and unconstructive.JdeJ (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have had a number of disagreements with PMAnderson. His arguing style is always assertive, sometimes aggressive; but I have never found him to employ deception or "non-factual arguments", nor to edit in bad faith. On the contrary, PMAnderson's arguments are usually far more rigorous than those of his opponents. The diffs presented are, arguably, evidence that PMAnderson has uncharacteristically fallen foul of the ad hominem fallacy; but that's about all I see here. Hesperian 12:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, I take your word for it that that has been the case in your disagreements with PManderson but I do not agree in this case. Other users, including myself, repeatedly tried to get him to present factual arguments but with little success. I even asked three sraight questions to sort it out [30], but they remained unanswered. The other user supporting the same view as PManderson, Ian Spackman, has remained civil and factual througout the discussion. And yes, I do object to being called a "German nationalist" time and time again. Given the history of German nationalism, I consider it a serious insult. I have pointed out to PManderson that it is both insulting, irrelevant and wrong (I'm French, not German) but he continues to use it. I fail to see how repeatedly using a label that he knows is both incorrect and considered insulting isn't "non-factual".JdeJ (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just tried Google (English). When I typed in meran without clicking "Search", Google's AJAX lookup of popular terms gave "merano" and "merano italy". AFAIK "Merano" is normal in English and I only know "Meran" as the name of a chess opening variation.

I've checked the relevant discussions at the [31]. Support for "Meran" was entirely based on a WP guideline which says that normal English usage takes precedence in English WP, and ignored all evidence about what English usage actually is - both there and in this discussion. IMO PMAnderson's use of "disputed" tags was quite justified.

By pushing for hard for anything other than "Merano" on English WP, the supporters of "Meran" are guilty of peristent POV-pushing and edit-warring. for any of them to complain of edit-warring by PMAnderson is outrageous. --Philcha (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Philcha you are off topic - the issue is not whether he is right in his views but the manner in which he pursued those views. If the consensus was to move to Merano then Pmanderson should have accepted that or followed the proper venue for rediscussing the topic not by singlehandedly impose his view on the article. This is editwarring. It is not editwarring that a group of editors propose a discussion, establish a consensus and act accordingly. furthermore it is of course incivil and a red herring to accuse opposing discussants of being "german nationalists" - german nationalism has nothing to do with it and it is incivil and against the assumption good faith to asume that an editor has his opinion because of his policitcal views and not for the reasons he himself gives. Reviewing the evidence I think Jdej is correct in his assesment of incivil and disruptive behaviour frm Pmanderson. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Maunus above, Philca is completely off topic. Philcha, I have no problem with you or PManderson thinking the page should be named Merano. I do not agree with your argument for it and you do not have to agree with mine, but that is beside the point. The point here is conduct, not views. What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunct. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, it has nothing to do with the report on PManderson. He is reported for repeated insults, not for being right or wrong.JdeJ (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ, your "What you are saying is that you think people who agree with your views may behave as they want, because they are right. People who do not share your views are by default guilty of "outrageous" condunt. Not because of they way we behave but because you have decided our views are wrong. While this tells us volumes about Philcha's views on freedom of expression, ..." is very close to a breach of WP:NPA, since it appears to imply that I think people with different views from my own are to be shouted down and that I employ a double standard in matters of conduct. If you make any similar comments in future, you will find yourself on a charge of violating WP:NPA.

My comments are not at all off-topic. The current version of Talk:Merano shows that the name of the town's article has been contentious at least since Sept 2005. I do not have any emotional connection to either form of the name - I'm a Brit and have never visited the place. I have simply tried to summarise over 30 screenfuls and 4 years' worth of debate and evidence. You are quite free to point out any errors in my summary - but not to state that I am attempting to suppress freedom of speech nor that "People who do not share [my] views are by default guilty of "outrageous" conduct".

As Pmanderson pointed out, the "local linguistic majority" guideline at WP:NCGNis explicitly a stop-gap to cover cases where there is no established English usage. Pmanderson then presented evidence that the predominant English usage is "Merano", including a link to a thorough survey by another editor. No attempt was made to present evidence to the contrary, which could only have taken the form of another survey. Applying WP:NCGN to these facts results in giving "Merano" top billing, by a small but clear margin.

WP:CONSENSUS says, "In determining consensus, consider the strength and quality of the arguments, including the evolution of final positions, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace if available. Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority. New users who are not yet familiar with consensus should realize that polls (if held) are often more likely to be the start of a discussion rather than the end of one. Editors decide outcomes during discussion." No effective argument or evidence has been brought against the proposition that majority English usage is "Merano". Hence "Merano" is the consensus, per WP:CONSENSUS, irrespective of how many editors support "Meran". That could be changed, if someone showed that majority English usage is now "Meran" - but that has not been done. Hence repeated insistence on "Meran" without producing evidence about English usage looks like edit warring and POV-pushing.

Back to the subject of this ANI, Pmanderson. In June 2007 he tried to produce a compromise by which the article title would be "Merano" and both "Merano" and "Meran" would be bolded in the first sentence - this discussion petered out. In July 2009 yet another poll was held on the name and at 22:32, 5 July 2009 (yes, the time matters) the closing admin renamed the article "Meran" based on the number of "votes". Since that time Pmanderson has not edited the article. Hardly the actions of a determined edit-warrior. The supporters of "Meran" have been less magnanimous, and have tried to erase "Merano" from the article.

Hesperian (below) has already demolished the accusations that Pmanderson described individuals as "German nationalists".

IMO Pmanderson has behaved significantly better than his accusers. -Philcha (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

--Philcha (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this complaint seems to have been whittled down to "how dare he call me a German nationalist!". And judging by sentences like "Yes, I do object to being called a 'German nationalist' time and time again", there also seem to be an implication that he has done so numerous times. Time, I think, to inject some reality into this discussion:

PMAnderson never actually used the phrase "German nationalist". Initially he said "Very strongly oppose. This is the German national faction on the loose; there is also an Italian national faction (have they been notified of this?)."

Then follows a whole lot of "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is twice misquoted as having used the term "German nationalist". This is a gross distortion of what he actually said. Characterising a group as a "German national faction" is miles away from calling an individual a "German nationalist", especially when he refers evenhandedly to an "Italian national faction".

Further down, PMAnderson says "This disruptive nationalism has gained no voices; this should be closed."

Then follows a whole lot more "how dare you!" rhetoric in which he is again twice misquoted as having called someone a "disruptive nationalist". Another gross distortion of what he said: it is the difference between calling a political/national position disruptive, and calling an editor disruptive.

Then, right down the bottom, PMAnderson finally uses the word "nationalist", but again in reference not to an editor but to /both/ factions: "There is no consensus to change here; there never has been. There is an uneasy stasis between two factions of nationalists, both of whom will say and do almost anything for their National Truths."

These repeated accusations that PMAnderson called you a "German nationalist" are not sustainable. Go away, figure out what he actually said, and come back when you can post a complaint that isn't full of falsified quotes. Then, and only then, it might be conceivable that we would see PMAnderson as the problem here, rather than you. Hesperian 14:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The comment about "disruptive nationalism" was a direct answer to a comment I made, so I don't think my complaint misrepresent the situation. A bit surprised to see that Hesperian seems to want to pick a fight, or why should he choose to always go for small insults if he can ("go away" "come back when you can post a complain" etc.) rather than saying the same thing in a polite and civil way?JdeJ (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

JdeJ had the courtesy to mention this filing to me; I thank Hesperian for his answer, which I should probably have put worse.

JdeJ has repeatedly stated his nationality to be French-Swedish, and I believe him; his problem is that he believes Wikipedia guidance is (or should be) that we should always name settlements in accordance with the linguistic plurality, even when this is contrary to English usage (like Cologne) and when the majority is 51.5% (as the last Italian census showed for Merano). His actual concern would appear to be the Swedish-majority settlements in Finland, for which English usage would appear normally to be the Swedish form; and he has invented a novel and superfluous "rule" to defend this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I thank PManderson for his response, it seems our views are not as far from each other as the last weeks debate could make one believe. While I don't believe the local language majority should always dictate our naming policy, it is probably true that I place higher emphasis on it than PManderson. Needless to say, I have neither the authority nor the intention of inventing any "rules" about it. I will be more than happy to discuss this issue further with PManderson in the future, and I hope such discussions can focus on facts and that edit warring is avoided.JdeJ (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not place less weight on the principle he has invented; I place no weight on it at all; neither does anybody else. It is, per the discussion linked to, a temporary expedient, for places for which we have no other evidence whatever what they should be called. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well, so much for the recent imposition by ArbCom of restrictions on Mr Anderson for unacceptable behaviour; the remedy was supposed to have the opposite effect. I note there have also been a number of flurries here concerning his habit of edit-warring to get his way, often on matters that might seem trivial to the broader community, but which upset other editors on the article talk page. Tony (talk) 04:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Should I follow the deeply serious example of this honourable and gallant editor - also restricted, who's still quarrelling over the formatting of dates? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Er, to Septentrionalis: (1) I think you wanted to link here (note the nonstandard form of the section header); & (2) I just reviewed the ArbCom ruling & I was surprised to find that his restrictions omit any mention of participating in the talk pages relating to WP:MOS. Since a number of people sanctioned by the ArbCom in that case are also explicitly banned from "any related discussions", I can only surmise that this silence means he is allowed to participate in these discussions. If that is an oversight, maybe the Arbitrators can correct themselves -- or the ruling be amended. -- llywrch (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he is; were he not, I know where Arbitration Enforcement is. That does not make the discussion less trivial, which was my point; this is the pot calling the kettle black.

So are the comments on abusiveness, as the evidence for the Arbitration will show, for those with a strong stomach. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check requested

I just deleted The Commune which I had salted previously (which was very cleverly evaded by a move request) as the article in no way asserts notability. There seems to be a series of related articles including other questionably notable socialist/anti imperalist groups. Anyway, I could use a sanity check on my action here, but it will have to be other admins since everything is all deleted.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A second opinion:

• The Commune - A group formed in November 2008 with a total membership of 12. No reliable references. Founded by two people whose claim to fame is also founding another non-notable activist groups. An appropriate A7 deletion, as notability wasn't even asserted.
• Alliance for Workers' Liberty - asserts notability and might have some valid references, though it needs a copyedit.
• Hands Off the People of Iran - asserts notability but should certainly be stubbed to reduce the screenloads of polemic and personal opinion. Let's see how the AfD goes. Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

AWL and HOPI are pretty well known on the British left. Not sure why you'd want to delete them. Fences&Windows 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Not being immersed in British politics, I can tell you as a neutral reader that the HOPI article looks like non notable amateurish teenage pseduocommunism. Its incoherent, and there is no way to let me know if it is, or is not significant? I mean for that matter, how significant is the Brittish left, and is it so significant that an entity within that larger group that is well known to said larger group, is encyclopedic?

I have no freaking clue - but the article as written suggests that its vanity and bias.--Tznkai (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The article as you nominated it was appallingly written, but Craftyminion tidied it up to rid it of that writing style and then I added some references, so it's not the same anymore. I'm not sure why you posted at AN/I about AWL and HOPI, what incident has occurred that needs admin attention? Fences&Windows 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't bring up AWL or HOPI here, Euryalus did. But what relation do they have to The Commune, the deleted article? All I see are unrelated UK far-left groups. Fences&Windows 00:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I found what is probably the same The Commune, who have a Wordpress blog and publish a pamphlet. They seem to have nothing formally to do with any other left-wing groups. Looks like some of them like Dave Spencer have been bouncing around between various groups for years. In what sense is there a "series of related articles"? Fences&Windows 00:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. Spencer split from the AWL. He split from the Socialist Labour Party a decade ago too.[32] Someone creating a non-notable splinter group doesn't make the parent group non-notable. Fences&Windows 00:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

My concern was shared possible authorship and similar writing problems, and at least the surface of notability problems. Thus the request for help/afd. Cause you know, totally outside of my expertise, but it looked suspicious, so I threw it to consensus generating processes and it seems things have been dealt with well. --Tznkai (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I brought up the other two groups because Tznkai referred to a "series of related articles", and these were the related groups named in the original The Commune page. So I assumed they were the related articles referred to. As I said above, AWI and HOPI assert notability but both need (or needed) a major copyedit. No one seems to be advocating AWI's deletion, and HOPI is at AfD with an alternative suggestion of stubbing. The only article unambiguously meeting deletion crtieria was "The Commune" itself, and it's the only one that has been deleted. The merits of the AfD and any recent improvements to the HOPI page should really be debated there rather than here. Euryalus (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin overrides MoS protection without discussion

It's a small matter in one way, but needs to be addressed. Will someone make it clear to User:Hyacinth, only recently promoted to adminship, that launching in and overriding the protect on the Manual of Style to insert a comma—particularly since it degrades the text—is not the way to do things, to put it mildly? Tony (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page mention.

As an aside, I'm unsure why the MoS is still protected, although it doesn't affect the need for the admin to understand his role WRT to protected pages and talk-page consensus. Tony (talk) 09:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As you say, small matter, but unacceptable. Consensus on the talkpage at the moment seems to be that the change was unwanted. Ironholds (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oh noes, a comma! No really, couldn't this be worked out with a friendly note on the talk page of the admin who made the mistake? As you said, they're rather new and might appreciate the pointer. Unless there's some serial comma-ism or spree of editing protected pages? Shell ^babelfish 09:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Looks like it was protected during the great quotation mark wars - if that dispute's been settled I think it could be unprotected (someone else jump in here if there's something I'm missing please). Shell ^babelfish 09:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell, thanks for your response. It's the kind of detail that MoS sometimes deals in, and would affect the ease of reading when repeated thousands of times in our text. How about I post now at MoS talk to ask whether everyone is OK about the lifting of the protection; i.e., that all are going to respect the need for stability? Let's see what comes up in the next day. Tony (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I don't doubt the importance of keeping Wikipedia legible, its the edit warring instead of hashing it out that always confuses me. Sounds like you have a good plan there - you're welcome to drop me a note if everyone seems to agree that further edit wars aren't immediately foreseeable - not certain I'll be any faster than WP:RFPP though :) Shell ^babelfish 10:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is no small matter. With respect, the edit was a patent absurdity. The readiness of editors to barge in with this sort of thing is one reason for guideline specialists like myself to stay away from MOS. Some of us prefer not to wallow in futility. Meanwhile, the page has been locked for weeks, over a quibble that could easily be overcome, with goodwill and a little creativity.

I hope that admins will be sensitive to the special status of WP:MOS, and thoughtful in their interventions there. MOS is hugely important for WP, especially in the development of our flagship featured articles.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 10:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Shell, I've posted at MoS talk on the stability issue WRT unprotection; let's hope editors there agree to toe the line, especially as ArbCom is due to conduct an audit of MoS stability in just over two months' time. I'll let you know on your talk page. Thanks. Tony (talk) 10:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

In real life, I write articles. Someone else (the editor) fixes them, and those fixes stay ... unless the Publisher says otherwise. I guess the lesson is that nobody here is the publisher, so don't over-ride unless you're 1,000,000% sure. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ya' know, I'll bet Hyacinth thought he was just making a minor grammatical correction (as "he said, 'blah'" would be correct), which is an acceptable type of edit to a protected page. So why don't we just fix it (which I'll go do presently), and leave it be? Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 16:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy question: When a page is full protected, are admins permitted to make what they consider to be normal edits, as though the page were not protected? Or are admins restricted to making edits that are requested on the protected page's talk page and for which there is consensus (or at least no opposition)? I am asking only about the policy. I have no doubt that Hyacinth thought in good faith that he was correcting an error, even thought he was mistaken. Finell (Talk) 19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:PROT has always (to my knowledge) allowed for uncontroversial changes to be made without discussion, and small grammatical fixes should fall under that category. To quote, the relevant passage is: "After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page." (emphasis mine) Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the policy. Looking at it, the language you quote applies only after a change is proposed on the talk page. Please not the first sentence in the complete paragraph, which states:

Any modification to a fully protected page should be proposed on its talk page (or in another appropriate forum). After consensus has been established for the change, or if the change is uncontroversial, any administrator may make the necessary edits to the protected page. To draw administrators' attention to a request for an edit to a protected page, place the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page.

Again, Hyacinth is a new admin and made an innocent change, and this is really a tiny thing. However, admins should know the policy. (On the other hand, you made a nice consolidation of templates on the same page, which is technically contrary to the policy but a perfect application of WP:IAR. I do not object.) Thanks again for answering my question. Finell (Talk) 02:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Bicycle Bill

Resolved

 – User indef blocked Manning (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bicycle Bill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been substituting the term "enhanced interrogation" for the word "torture" in a number of articles, and defends his actions as being NPOV. His username makes me wonder if we may be dealing with another incarnation of a certain Wheeled William. WuhWuzDat 09:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, should I be concerned? "Administrators' noticeboard"? I'm not sure I see what the fuss is about.

"Torture" is a tendentious, extremely controversial word to use--as we all know--for enhanced interrogation techniques like walling, sleep deprivation, mock executions, and stress positions. Beatings which result in permanent severe injury or death might be incontrovertibly described as "torture," but to describe the application of these specific aforementioned enhanced interrogation techniques as such is dubious. In fact, many articles extant on Wikipedia are careful to use the more NPOV term "enhanced interrogation techniques" (e.g., Abu Zubaydah). Articles like George Thomas Coker should be brought up to that standard. Bicycle Bill (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• What a coinkydink, I see juust over ten edits before he went on that little "npov" rampage. Obvious troll, smack with tbe banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree, and I've indef'd Bill. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Support action taken by Ice Cold Beer. Clearly not a new user given the familiarity with WP processes. This insistence on removing the word "torture" is certainly a curious obsession. I can (sort of) understand taking the dispute to contemporary political articles about Gitmo and the like, but replacing the term in articles about works of fiction? Quite, quite odd. Manning (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Per this troublesome comment [33], the user is planning to evade the block by changing IPs and creating sock puppets to get his way. There should be more eyes on those articles, and be on the lookout for socks. MuZemike 23:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Fermented dairy comestibles

Resolved

 – Delisted the new RM - not only is the argument WP:LAME, but we clearly don't keep trying to push a point immediately after a previous RM had closed no consensus. Black Kite 19:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I can't believe I'm doing this. Can someone please go to the bottom of Talk:Yoghurt and weigh in on whether it's appropriate for an editor to post a move request immediately after one was closed where that editor was unhappy with the result.

I removed the move request banner (which is bot-linked to the list at WP:RM and told the editor that the appropriate venue for appeal is an RFC, but he decided to edit war, and to tell me that if I want to remove the banner, I need to start an RFC. Seeing as I'm happy with the way the request was closed (and would be equally happy the other way - I truly don't care), I'm not inclined to open an RFC just to stop someone from using the RM process inappropriately.

I appreciate input there from anyone with an opinion on the best way to handle this situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

*blink* Arguing over how to spell yoghurt? How ... erm ... enlightening. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been going on for years. Thatcher 18:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But this time no one seems to be considering the Turkish 'ğ'. Spelling/content disputery aside, this does seem to require some policy input - immediate posting of one move request after another does strike me as disruptive, but I am but an 'umble editor (and my only interest is whether it's pronounced "yogg-urt" or "yow-ghurt"). Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yogg-uht! Yoe-grrt! Yog-sothoth! Ia! Cthulhu! Honestly, is it so terrible that this article might be at the wrong spelling? Dispute resolution guidelines imply that an RfC would be the way to go, if the outcome of a simple discussion isn't accepted. Repeatedly filing a move request sounds like "asking the other parent" and implies that this issue is never going to go away. Luckily (I hope) WP:ENGVAR has a solution to questions like this: in the absence of a compelling argument for one spelling or the other, leave it alone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The "compelling reason" in this case seems to be that some editors really don't like the result of this last request, and there is some burning need to keep out-of-process listings made by IP editors around unless we can generate a fresh consensus to do what we always do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I too cannot see that it makes any difference what title is on the article. Whatever the result is, let it stand and work on improving this and other articles, and adding any related new ones we might need. some things are not worth arguing about, let alone starting an RfC--especially considering all the real problems with Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) .

Yes, that's my position, but there are editors who insist on running the question through RM again, and I've been reverted when I delisted it by removing the template. We've got more important move requests to deal with, but I'm not going to edit war in order to make someone drop it already. Hence, my asking here.

If I thought I could make this issue go away by renaming the page right now, I'd do it, but I know that would lead to even more wasted time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone pointed out on the article's talk page that if it were moved back to the original spelling, which is more widely used around the world, there would be no need to try and move it again. Edison (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, it would probably consume less resources long term for Brion himself to drop whatever he is doing, and code in a User Preference where people can specify how they would like the title and first sentence displayed if they visit that one particular page. Either that, or move the article to Fermented dairy comestible and have ALL alternate spelling be a redirect to that page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Screw it, I'm moving it to Yoplait. It may be a brand name, but dang it, it must be better that fighting over an "h". (Note: I may be biased because I spell it yoghurt). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Jodhpurs should be moved to Jodpurs to alleviate the H shortage which likely exists somewhere. Edison (talk) 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what makes Yoplait preferable to Dannon? You're just itching for an edit war, aren't you?  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the Danone POV-pushing! It's editors like you that really stir things up!  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is so pointless - we should solely focus on content. For example - the article does not properly explore the colour of yoghurt. Can yoghurt be bought in aluminium containers? What is the sulphur content? :) Manning (talk) 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you're not going to pronounce the "R's" then save more letters by leaving them out. That makes it "sulphu" and "colou" as well as "yoghut." Edison (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Request a block for user Kellyclarkson22, due to WP:USERNAME violation and WP:COI editing. This is requested under the blocking policy Disruption-only Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see exactly what amounts to the disruption you mention, but if you really take issue with the username you're best off asking the user to change it first. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I may do that, but what I spoke of was the policy, which states:

Disruption-only

Furthermore, some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:

• accounts with inappropriate usernames;
• accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.

The user has clearly has COI edits which have been reverted by other editors. See: [34] The account likely exists mainly for editing Kelly Clarkson articles. Sephiroth storm (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, not that there are not other problems which need addressing, but do you really believe this account is being run by Kelly Clarkson? If it is not, then there are no COI problems. Also, disruption only accounts are blocked as disruption only accounts without warning when the name indicates they will be used only for disruption (i.e. something really offensive or trollish). There's nothing in the name of the account which indicates this is likely to be a disruption only account. What this is is a fan of Kelly Clarkson who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia articles, and who needs some education. Lets try some personally written messages directing them to our username policy, and our content editing policies, and see if we can't turn this one around, mkay? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Return of indef-blocked user

User:Rickywatcher is clearly just another incarnation of blocked user Ricky28618, itself a sock/SPA created to harass administrator Ricky81682. Some edits from prior identity repeated, plus some new vandalism. Even the user name merits a block and announces the intention to Wikihound. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef--and also opened an SPI case to find the main account. Suffice to say that a user who creates SPAs with the sole intent to harass probably shouldn't be allowed to edit period. Blueboy96 22:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They've closed it already. A user called Biaswarrior. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Biaswarrior/Archive Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on Calgary Flames

Is there any chance someone with the technical ability can enact a range block on someone repeatedly vandalizing Calgary Flames tonight? So far, three of us have blocked six accounts for the same edits, yet they keep coming back. Juliancolton has just semi'd the article, but one can only guess where they will go next. So far:

• 61.73.63.250 (talk · contribs · block log)
• ComradeSnickey (talk · contribs · block log)
• Running Barren (talk · contribs · block log)
• Gliding Poet (talk · contribs · block log)
• Up Ahead (talk · contribs · block log)
• CalgaryFlamers = DX (talk · contribs · block log) (an account that doesn't wish to link into the template properly)

Appreciated, Resolute 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the last account listed above for you. I'll keep an eye on the article, too. lifebaka++ 01:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. And, another: Labelled Desk (talk · contribs · block log), who has attacked {{Calgary Flames}}. Resolute 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the accounts weren't created by themselves, they were created beforehand by another account. I've blocked URaised me up (talk · contribs · block log) and Rising StoCk (talk · contribs · block log) indefinitely to prevent further abuse of the same kind. Hope that's all for now. lifebaka++ 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Resolute 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the problem persist, you may try requesting a CheckUser by filing an sockpuppet investigation. Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked for 1 month (since adjusted to 1 week)

Sorry to all if this has been posted elsewhere, but I am jet-lagged, sweaty and horrible, and have 15 emails in my inbox concerning this, and I can't see (at a quick glance) that this mentioned elsewhwere. So placing this here for others to decide (you can all copy-edit if you want - I need a shower: I am in complete agrrement with Chillum that [35] was completely unacceptable. As Chillum says when so angry at Wikipedia one needs to step backwards. The only daft "chunt" in that post was VK himself. I told both him and Chillum, by email, that yesterday. However, prolonging this block for a month is totally ridiculous, VK lost his temper (while blocked) as have many editors. Unless Canterbury Tail (I make no comment on the name) is one of the dancers at Stringfellow's (in which case there is COI) this was VK's last post [36]. I see no reason whatsoever for a one month block. Giano (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto the sentiment. Nothing he's done today really merits extending the block. I'd say reset it to and let it expire tomorrow. For convenience: Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And protect the talk page in the meanwhile, maybe. Nothing good seems to be happening there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think 1 month is arbitrary and too long, and it should be reduced to 24 hours starting from when VK acknowledges his failure to adhere to policies such as WP:NPA and undertakes to try not to lose his temper so swiftly (or at least edit while not gruntled). If that takes 30 days to happen then there is nobody to blame but VK, so it then goes back to him. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I will advise the blocking admin of this discussion, if nobody else has.

I have a strong distaste for block extensions based on post-block ranting on the user's own talk page. My feeling is to reset the block to the original 24 hours. However, VK's inability to remain calm does not bode well, and the next block for slagging off other users should escalate. Thatcher 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I also extended the block due an email VK subsequently sent to myself, available on request, that removes any faith I have left of them being a co-operative member of the Wikipedia community. This is, at the end of the day, a user who has a longer block history than most with a history of personal attacks and incivility to other users. As I've also said on his talk page, if he apologises to the community and myself then by all means it can be lifted sooner. I have been thinking that the month was arbitrary and too long and was actually coming back in to reduce it when I was notified of this discussion, and I'm still reducing it to a week. I'll also open the talk page and email while I'm at it. Yes it was a long block, which is why I came back to reduce it, but I really do have a zero tolerance for abusive and incivil editors. Canterbury Tail talk 20:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Email sent before the extension or after?

I think that this incident is illustrating exactly why we advise everyone involved to disengage from the blockee's talk page if they are upset about the block. It is extremely bad form if them venting or yelling about it purely on their talk page escalates into further blocks. If someone posts threats after a block, that's different, but our standard for tolerance for upset users venting has to be high. We can hope and expect that people be adult about being blocked, but we know factually that good people sometimes react very badly to it, and engaging in an escalating discussion with the blockee is a form of taunting (even if meant well).

I understand that VK is not calm at the moment, but this was at the very least an incident that bent our proscription against block extensions for non-threatening incivility on blocked user talk pages. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Where can this proscription be found?  Sandstein  21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was an arbcom ruling but I can't find anything so far. Perhaps this was an unwritten community standard, and should be discussed and written down (either way). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It is a quasi standard. That is to say, there is a vocal contingent that follows it - and a vocal contingent that does not, and a lot of people in the middle. For myself, I say it falls within standard administrator discretion: use some compassion, don't be a dick, but don't be an enabler either. Judgment calls are important.--Tznkai (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not aware of such a standard and do not intend to follow it; Wikipedia:Civility/Poll shows that most editors agree that user talk pages should be treated no differently from other pages with respect to civility. If I see a blocked user being incivil on his talk page, I'll usually react with talk page protection or a longer block.  Sandstein  05:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The poll is asking about user pages in general, not user pages of blocked users venting, though I intend to add that.

I think that there's widespread support for not escalating situations of blocked users if we can help it. That's piling on. If someone is being threatening, no question, if you have to lock the page to prevent more severe disruption that's one thing, but if we allow short blocks to become long or indef ones due to arguing over the block on the talk page, we're shifting from prevention into punishment and it's a form of baiting of blocked users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As VK is currently under sanctions, and because emails should not be put onwiki, the email should probably be forwarded to a member of Arbcom, I think? Am I wrong?→ ROUX ₪ 20:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We usually lift blocks as soon as they are no longer needed, but not sooner. Judging by Vintagekits's contributions, he does not seem to recognize that his conduct is problematic (see e.g. [37]) and therefore the (extended) block seems to remain needed. I oppose lifting it under these circumstances.  Sandstein  21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason the extension was not posed here? As VK was prevented from posting on his own talk or pleading his own cause, not to post here - seems unusual. Furthermore, what the hell is going on here [38]? Has Chillum and his new sidekick suddenly become a two man new Arbcom able to dispense instant justice at whim? Giano (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sidekick? Another conspiracy theory? I barely know CT, please come to some sort of basis before making such implications. Chillum 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just CT discussing Chillum's decision on the block extension. It's nothing like a "two-man Arbcom" because it's not the final word on the matter, just a discussion. Mangojuice^talk 22:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

• Actually No, as a result of that discussion Canterbury Tail raised VK's block from 24 hours to one month. That is like elevating a parking fine to grand larceny. That is a pretyy serious judicial review. Giano (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the block was increased due to an abusive e-mail sent. I have read a copy of the e-mail in question which was sent prior to the extension of the block. It was basically along the lines of "You are my enemy, expect zero-cooperation", general hostilities. My opinion is that the block should not be further reduced without some sort of promise from VK not the be abusive to Wikipedians. Currently he is denying that his comments were even inappropriate(even the really nasty ones), considering this I would say this block is preventative until he acknowledges this sort of thing is out of line and promises not to continue in such a manner. Chillum 22:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Giano, listening to you, you'd think that admins talking to each other is a bad thing. You've been quite clear that you think the extension is inappropriate and excessive, there is no need to attack the admins' conduct beyond that, and this is just distracting from the discussion. Mangojuice^talk 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Had you read this thread properly Chillum, you would know that I had already referred to that link and agrreed you were right to silence VK for 24 hours before he made any more abusive edits in that vein - what is not correct is that any passing Admin can then pop into your page and say - mind if I up the block? On no dear chap go right ahead - how long do you fancy? - oh 10 years sounds a good figure - Quite right why not round it up to 20? That is not how organised justice works - that is how lynching works. Giano (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually not quite what happened here. My actions are completely open to scrutiny. Chillum blocked him, I pointed out to Chillum that Vintagekits is a heavily blocked user with a great history of abusiveness and incivility on Wikipedia and suggesting that the 24 hour block may not be enough. As a result of me posting that talk notice on Chillum's talk page, Vintagekits sent me the email claiming that I'd made an enemy for as long as he remains standing on Wikipedia, would give me zero co-operation going forward and to "Enjoy my crusade", whatever that means. I discussed this with Chillum off Wikipedia via email, and Chillum subsequently reblocked for a further 24 hours as a result. I then unblocked VKs talk and edit priviledges, asked him to explain why he shouldn't indeed be blocked longer for sending such communications. He continued to show why people have difficulty assuming good faith with himself, continued to be incivil and abusive on the talk page, I blocked him for longer (longer than I should have, but I've already discussed that.) Canterbury Tail talk 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I read the above with complete ecredulity - it appearsf from that, that all you did was wind an editor up into a temper and then kept poking and poking and poking. If that is all the email said, I am surprised it was not stronger. After such behaviour, why should he not consider you an enemy? The crusade (the part you cannot undertsand) clearly indicates that VK beleives you to be on a civility crusade - perhaps you are - I don't know and I don't care. If you had treated me like that, i would not want to co-operate with you - who would? yet, for that you seem to think that his block should be increased. How dare you? Are you so important that anyone who does not bow and scrape to your personage must be blocked. VK should be unblocked at once. Giano (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction, I did not block VK. I first declined his unblock request. Then after that I adjusted his block to exclude talk page editing after this nasty comment. Then I added 1 day and disabled e-mail after VK sent a nasty e-mail. Chillum 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest for a moment, ignoring whether or not Vintagekits should have acted better, that you, having been on the receiving end of a nasty e-mail going over to VK and tch tching him for being naughty and asking him, however calmly to explain why he shouldn't be punished lead to an entirely predictable and negative response? That is, wouldn't it have been better for someone else to get involved there, or perhaps for you to ignore it for the time being, and come back to it later and say "for the record, that thing you did last time? not acceptable in the future" instead of pushing while VK was obviously having temper issues?--Tznkai (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Giano I read the thread. I was not denying your recognition of the fact that he was abusive, I was simply pointing out that he is completely unrepentant at this point. Admins are supposed to ask the blocking admin before adjusting a block. You act like the increase in block was not directly following an abuse of the e-mail tool. This block is getting plenty of scrutiny so I don't get your whole lynching analogy. I don't see anything inappropriate here except for the actions of VK. Chillum 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that users should not be held accountable for post-block incivility. While I do agree that 1 month is likely far too long; a reset of the original block length starting at the moment of the last incivil comment does not seem unreasonable. Unlike spoken words which, once uttered, cannot be unspoken, comments left on Wikipedia pages can be left unsent. You always have the chance to review what yoy type before hitting the "save page" button. If a user feels the need to rant, open up MicroSoft Word and rant there; if a user has posted comments like this to Wikipedia it is because they intend for those comments to be seen, and there is no excuse for such matters. In summation: no exemptions for post-block ranting, but one month is too long. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can we please get back on topic?

1. Vintagekits needs to learn hold his temper, or at least walk away from the computer.
2. When extending blocks, please get a previous uninvolved administrator to sanity check you.
3. When extending blocks based on non visible reasons, please give as much detail as appropriate, and delineate a clear time line.
4. Always be prepared to have another person sanity check you.

As far as this situation, I suggest we grant Vintagekits some clemency - but not a pardon, for his behavior, with the block lifted whenever consensus for the same is achieved, and left to the discretion of administrators if he quickly relapses. In the meantime, would a volunteer from the audience speak up about trying to talk to VK about more efficient ways of dealing with his irritation?--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I would support unblocking VK the very moment he acknowledges that his comments([39] among others) were not acceptable and gives a promise to not act so abusively in the future. I think this is a very reasonable standard. I also think such a promise needs to be enforced. Unblocking a user who is currently denying that he even did anything wrong is not going to achieve anything but more of the same behavior leading to further blocks. We need to settle this users long standing issue with civility by setting a clear standard then firmly enforcing it. Chillum 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think don't think this is a mandatory groveling/acknowledging situation. This user has proven in the past he has the ability to act sensibly - which is more important to me, than proving the ability to put one's pride away.--Tznkai (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the party, I don't support extending Vk's block in this instance. However, considering the many, many times Vk has been told that sort of language is unacceptable, I would suggest, instead of extending the block, he simply be warned the next time that happens the block will be one month, then two, then six, then indefinitely. Lets not forget Vk was indef blocked already and was only permitted back on the basis he clean up his act. We were told he was a model editor in sports articles, and it was only Troubles related issues that cause friction. Now we see the same sort of attacks on sports articles. While he is no longer under active sanction, it would be foolish of us to ignore this pattern of behaviour. No more second (or in his case, third, fourth or tenth) chances: just start escalating block lengths. Rockpocket 02:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced a block extension was necessary in this instance and I like your idea Rockpocket. While getting VK out of the Troubles was a good thing, clearly some of the problems weren't limited to that subject area. Since there's already been an indef, escalating blocks ending up in a de facto community ban is the way to go. Shell ^babelfish 02:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure who posted that, you did not sign. However I don't want groveling, I want "I won't abuse other Wikipedians". This is not an unreasonable request. The point of a block is to prevent disruption, so some sort of indication that the user is not going to do it again makes sense. Chillum 02:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That was me - and its not an unreasonable request to you or I, but I think to some people it is taken as "ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!" which people are reluctant to do. While this is silly, Wikipedia isn't the right place to curb such pride, and I feel asking VK to say the right words has the effect, if not the intent, of asking him to grovel a bit.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

All I'd like to see is for him to assure us that he's calmed down. I also feel that while we're discussing this, I'd like to mention my opinion of what led up to VK's comments. User:Number57 left a WP:NPA warning over these two comments of Vintagekits: this and this. While the latter was definitely an appropriate comment to warn over, the former was borderline incivil but definitely not a personal attack as Number57 made it out to be. Number57 was involved in discussion of the issue, and on the opposite side of Vintagekits, though not one who had been directly interacting with VK much. The warning included a threat to block and also came with a note that VK should stop using a BBC source in the discussion. VK removed the warning and called the comments moronic. I think he was being a little flippant at a warning from an admin who was involved in a dispute with him. Number57 responded to the removal with a block for incivility. This is the kind of thing I think admins should really refrain from: first of all, users are reasonably afforded some latitude on their own talk page to remove comments; second, the warning was overstated and mixed with comments about the dispute, and third, it's never a great sign when an admin issues a civility block over rude but not egregious comments directed at themselves. The block was reviewed by Chillum in good faith but I think he erred in saying that VK had made personal attacks in the unblock request: he discussed his own comments and called the block, not the user, "childish"... not a big mistake but probably very irritating to VK since his whole point was that the comment he was blocked over was directed at a contribution (Number57's comments) and not an editor. Mangojuice^talk 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Upon review it does appear I misread the unblock request and it was not a personal attack. I will apologize to him. Chillum 03:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Uhm wow - I'll admit that I hadn't looked at all the diffs and made some good faith assumptions about what happened here, so you're going to have to excuse little jaw dropping for a moment. Regardless of whether or not the initial warning was really necessary (I'm not convinced it was), blocking someone for removing your warning with a snarky comment is really hard for me to swallow. The fact that during the unblock discussion Number 57 wikilawyers the difference between involved and "directly" involved shows some additional bad judgment on their part. VK's first unblock request wasn't so bad though I understand Chillum declining to unblock since VK does have a history of issues with personal attacks (so don't beat yourself up too much there Chillum). After that point though, VK did himself in - if he disagreed with the decision he could have posted another unblock, wrote the mailing list or even asked the block to be reviewed here.

So rounding it up, Mangojuice has a good point - might be best to ask VK if he's got himself back under control before unblocking just so he doesn't do further damage to himself. And Number 57 may want to give some serious thought to the concerns raised here before using the tools in such a manner again. Shell ^babelfish 03:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to suggest two premises. First, that Vintage kits is a valuable editor and Second, the incivility and related problems need to go away. Now, one way to go about doing this is by blocking Vintagekits until he either "learns" or is eliminated from the picture, either way the problem goes away. Let me suggest that this, like all behaviorist models, is not only lacking in elegance, but is ineffective. I'd much rather see some sort of attempt at working with Vintagekits, rather than simply trying to condition his behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Heck, if you can accomplish that then there will be no reason to block him. Chillum 03:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to volunteer to give him some guidance on what kinds of comments are and are not appropriate. Mangojuice^talk 02:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

VK needs to be unblocked at once, per my edit here [40]. This is begining to look like a case of wounded pride and confusion on the parts of 2 Admins - Canterbury Tail and Chillum, encouraged here by such admins as Sandstein. The three seem to have their own civility policy - which they seem to want to impose in Draconian way on the rest of us. VK lost his temper was poked into greater fury by this sanctimonious and holier than thou attitude of a group of Admins and then snap they spring their trap and increase his block. This is not good enough. VK needs to be unblocked at once. Giano (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand your conviction, but you brought this to the community so let the community discuss it without demands please. VK can email arbcom about the block should he feel it neccessary to do so, but in the meantime allow us to make comment to seek consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Concencus is that he need to be unblocked! Or do we need Canterbury Tail and Chillum's permission? It was up to the blocking Admin to have brought it here, not me - althoughI can understand they were ashamed of their actions. Giano (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You know we all love you Giano, but take a breath :) Since VK's last post on his talk didn't come out all expletives, that seems to be a good indication that the wiki will not implode if I go ahead and remove the block per discussion above. Shell ^babelfish 11:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't feel very loved at all! However, I will take several deep breaths now in response to your very wise action. It quite restores one's faith in human nature. I'm sure VK will thank you himself in due course - in the meantime you have my thanks. Giano (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I am of course completely open to whatever the uninvolved community here decides. I will take no actions until a discussion plays out, and if another admin wishes to unblock then I take no slight on it. If it is decided he should be unblocked and for me to issue an apology if people think I overstepped my mark, then I shall gladly do so, and with all seriousness. I still regard his remarks as out of order, however VK is a valuable editor when his temper doesn't get the better of him. This started after his incivility and my suggestion to Chillum that maybe the block should be longer given his history of such edits (which make up a very very small percentage of his contributions to Wikipedia.) Misplaced accusations of megalomania aside from an editor who has come to me on several occasions to get see about getting other editors blocked for incivility, abuse and disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 11:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• So why the Spanish Inquisition when a user get's surely (and there is little doubt that Vintagekits behaviour has been unacceptable) ... but at the same time, I'm seeing WP:NPA and WP:CIV violations from Admins left, right, and centre, and everyone tries to ignore it, and doesn't want to touch the issue. Has there been any forum for that? (and no 57, I'm not talking about you - while we disagree often, your civility has been very civil!) Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs)

I am proposing a topic ban for Interestedinfairness (talk · contribs) on Kosovo-related articles. Kosovo is an article and area of interest under probation by the Arbitration Committee. Not only has this user blatantly engaged in edit warring on the Kosovo page, for which he was blocked twice (block log), but he has ignored every single argument that does not support his own POV. Many users have accused him of POV pushing and he has shown complete unwillingness to respect other people's opinions.

The most recent incident, however, is just too much. After a marathon discussion in the Talk:Kosovo page, Interestedinfairness realized that there was no consensus to call Kosovo a country in the lead sentence, but changed it anyways (link), just because he "knows" this to be a fact and nothing else matters. While the dispute here is that Albanians (and those who support them) see Kosovo as a country or state and Serbs (and those who support them) see Kosovo as a province, a long standing consensus was reached to call Kosovo a disputed region or territory, since this is as true as the Alps are a mountain range and it offends no one. However, Interestedinfairness (who speaks Albanian and has the Albanian coat of arms on his userpage) was so bent on pushing his own POV that other users got sick of it as well, and this is evident on the talk page.

This user is currently blocked for the 3rd time for edit warring on the Illyrians article - same story: It's either his way, or the highway. What's worse, some 12 hours after this user was blocked, another user, Mr.Neutral (talk · contribs) (whose username, in a way, has the same message as "interested in fairness") was created and continued "defending Interestedinfairness' views" on the Kosovo talk page. He even went on to give Interestedinfairness a little barn star :P This is probably a case of sockpuppetry, as one administrator said on that talk page, so it would be a good idea to check.

If this was a one time thing, I wouldn't be reporting this. Some users just don't understand how Wikipedia works at first, but then adjust to the five pillars and contribute in a constructive way. This user had his chance and he did not change at all. He did promise to change, but he didn't, which just doesn't make his promises credible anymore. This report was suggested by User:BalkanFever ([41]) for Interestedinfairness' problematic behaviour (edit warring, incivility, refusal to get the point) and is supported by Athenean ([42]), dab ([43]) and probably many more... So, I think a Kosovo-related topic ban is necessary because he (or his puppets) simply will not stop pushing his POV. --Cinéma C 18:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've launched a sockpuppet investigation against User:Mr.Neutral here [44], as I am fairly certain it is a sock of User:Interestedinfairness. Experienced user, long-term disruption on both Kosovo and Illyrians, treat with severity. --Athenean (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Supported by me too! Because of this pointless marathon discussion about one known criminal of Albanian origin, and his constant reverts to "his" NPOV, and because of numerous disruptive editing on Kosovo: Can You Imagine? ([45]), Serbia ([46]), Yugoslav wars ([47]), and much more... Tadija (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: any administrator acting under the discretionary sanctions remedy of WP:ARBMAC can impose a topic ban or other sanction here. For future reference, such sanctions can also be requested at the dedicated noticeboard, WP:AE.  Sandstein  21:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Should I copy/paste everything to that page? Or can an administrator here take a look at this case and make a decision on further action? --Cinéma C 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the discussion here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. --Cinéma C 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This is very much a two sided POV argument however. Not all of the users above are innocent of the same things they rush to accuse (to an extent rightfully) of Interestedinfairness of. Prodego ^talk 04:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Taraborn

Due to the diverse uses it has, the Catalan Countries article has been subject to several edit wars and controversies in the past. After months of heated discussion the users agreed upon a consensual version of the article.[48], [49], and the article has been somewhat stable since. Recently, Taraborn (talk · contribs) edited the article by adding a very specific POV. Regardless of whether his edits were right or wrong (I am not asking you to judge on content), he engaged in an unproductive edit war ([50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], note his comments in each of the reversions), an edit war against several users who have reintroduced the consensual version and asked him to discuss. (His editions were reverted by User:Cnoguera, User:Mountolive and myself).

User Cnoguera created a new section on the discussion page telling him that consensus can change but that since this is a highly controversial topic and since several users did not agree with his proposed changes (and he wrote the reasons why), he should first discuss those changes instead of engaging in an edit war and reverting all users endlessly.

User Mountolive said, twice, that he would agree with some of his propositions, but that he had to first discuss them with the team so that a new consensus could be reached with all parties with different points of view, without engaging in an edit war.

I offered a middle-ground solution, incorporating some of his proposals [63], in an expanded introductory paragraph citing, almost verbatim a source that had been used in the consensual version. He reverted the middle-ground solution back to his version based on his own opinion that the source had a "strongly nationalistic POV" [64] (by what he arguably means, strongly "regional" [i.e. it is a Catalan encyclopedia] vs. a "Spanish" [i.e. national] encyclopedia).

He has ignored all of us and has continued in his edit war, in a breach of etiquette with offensive comments in his edit summaries ([65]).

Administrative action is needed. --the Dúnadan 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree.

Pity for me, because, as Dúnadan points out, I am actually agreeable to the bottom line of his edits, but these just can not be descended in the article without at least having tried discussion with those users not agreeing (let alone the insults).

In a controversial article with a fragile peace, like this one, the last thing we need is yet another user with this kind of attitude.

Good luck with this one. MOUNTOLIVE _{fedeli alla linea} 03:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin requested

Resolved

 – Uninvolved admin responded.SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Frei_Hans has unfortunately attracted a number of opposes after an "Outside View". These are plainly out of keeping with accepted RfC practice, and I would remove these myself, but I do not want to be seen to be acting improperly (I do have an interest in that particular comment). I would appreciate it if an uninvolved and tactful admin could remove those comments, preferrably with an explanation at the corresponding Talk page thread. Thanks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved the comments to a their own section in the talk page.BirgitteSB 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:R7604

User:R7604 has been ignoring the requests of several editors at Jon & Kate Plus 8 for some time now. He (assumed "he") constantly reverts to his version without gaining any consensus and he continues to ignore requests to take it to the talk page and gain consensus. I really don't think he understands what consensus means and, all but a couple of messages on the article talk page which made no progress toward consensus at all, his "discussion" is limited to short quips in his edit summaries. He tends to continue to revert until people just give up and stop trying. While this has been ongoing, here's some of it:

Someone changed his version which he then reverted. Another change and another revert. Another change and another revert. Another change and another revert. Anotherround. And another round. Things were quiet for a while because people had just given up. Then today, BovineBoy braved changing his version again. And was reverted. Changed and reverted. Another change and another revert. Another change and another revert. And finally the most recent change (which will probably just get reverted).

Also, a few of his edit summaries are rather uncivil and he also added an irritating, invisible message to me within the article here a while ago. He disagreed with me about having a short summary in that section so this was a jab at that. I wouldn't have normally bought this up here, but it is getting very disruptive and feels very own-y. Any help or suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks! --13² 00:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First, when did I get a sex change? Love how you assume I'm a man. Nice.

Second, does anyone besides me check facts? I was the one who added ALL the release dates for the DVDs and until now, one one was interested. Why now? Maybe I should delete them all together and be done with it. Then I won't have people thinking I'm a guy and that I'm unreliable. Sound good? R7604 (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're overreacting and exaggerating here. Like I said on my talk page, I did not know your sex and hate using "they" so back off. Also, this HAS been a recurring issue. It is not something that just started happening today (and I have diffs above to show it). Further, you do not own the section. Just because you wrote something doesn't mean it automatically gets to stay. By editing here, you agree to allow your work to be edited mercilessly. There's no need to remove the whole section just because there is disagreement about this one thing, so don't try to make it so dramatic. Thanks. --13² 01:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - User has since reverted it again and violated WP:3RR (and has been reported at the related noticeboard). User also left this message at my talk page for no apparent reason than to bait me and further avoid discussing this on the article's talk page. --13² 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User has just reverted the edits....again....with these for edit summaries: "What Consesus are you talking about then? Last one I did was three years ago and I vowed never again. I dislike surveys. Besides why do you insist on changing it now? Answer me that." and "It would be nice for others to stop interferring after all this time. Why is it after I put the dates and table, you come along and decide to change it?" User clearly does not understand what the fourth pillar means. --13² 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. I really appreciate it. --13² 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Update - The user has waited for their editing restrictions to be lifted and has once again changed the section to their liking, against consensus. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, so I've asked her to bring the issue to the talk page, which she has (very sarcastically). Her comments seem to point to ownership of that section, especially the sentence "And what's with putting back all the old references I've removed over the past year?" This user doesn't seem to want to accept the consensus made -- that happens to be right above the section her recent comments fall under. Cactusjump (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Lil Lez

Resolved

 – Warning and guidance notice issued. User to be blocked if offends again. Manning (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Can someone take a look at User:Lil Lez? She continues to move pages to fit her criteria, not to comply with WP:D. For example, she moved Santana to Santana (disambiguation), with discussion, so that Santana could redirect to Juelz Santana; also moved Busta to Busta (disambiguation), again, without discussion, so that Busta can redirect to Busta Rhymes. I moved a few articles back to where they belong and left a note on her talk page, but she has ignored it and continues her actions. — Σxplicit 22:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the Santana move and undid the cut'n'paste replacement of Ike and the cut'n'paste swap of Rockin' That Shit/ Rockin' That Thang. User's apparently making undiscussed changes to what should be primary topic and juggling around dab pages to suit this opinion. Some of those previous (and now reverted-to) forms appear to be consensus or at least rationalized via links to guidelines. IMO immedately block if she does it again, this is disruptive, breaks GFDL history, and goes against consensus/WP:BRD. DMacks (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete agree with DMacks. User also creating needless redirects, I despatched a couple under CSD-R3. Warn again and block if user offends again. Manning (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

She has done it again, deciding that Whatever U Like should have the word "You" spelled out rather than the way it's printed on the disc's label. Still no response to previous warnings or discussion of this latest change, so 48-hr block. Other admins are free to lengthen this if they see fit. DMacks (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I undid the Busta moves. DMacks (talk) 14:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

After block expired, returned to old ways, and added misuse of non-free images to her repertoire. Warned about all of it, was ignored, blocked her for two weeks after discussion with Σ. I deleted and/or reverted a whole bunch, most of which were clearly wrong, some while not blatant were undiscussed and part of her same bizarre pattern. She does have some viable edits. Any other admin is free to undo my reversions and/or adjust this block without talking to me first. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

DMacks - I reviewed the latest offending edits by User:Lil Lez and I fully endorse your recent 2 week block. Manning (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to make it an indefinite block until they respond on their talk page that they understand the issue and agree to stop?

They have yet to respond to any talk page (theirs, or article) comments as far as I can tell. Complete lack of communications and an ongoing behavior situation are normally perfectly justifyable indef-until-communications-established conditions... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm always inclined to give a user one last chance but then I'm a big softie. But if you indef'd I wouldn't dispute it. Manning (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Woah there--an indef block isn't a ban, so the user still has a chance to reform. The difference with an indef block is that the block lasts until the user acknowledges the behavioral expectation and agrees to abide by it, at which time it can be lifted. Blocking people for iteratively longer amounts when they're not responding isn't at all helpful. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens - The block/ban distinction was already well understood, but thanks for the clarification anyway :) I merely have a philosophical issue with going straight to an "indef", even though I concede that a cascading series of blocks might be of little to no benefit. However my personal philosophy aside, I'd also be extremely unlikely to ever dispute the "indef" approach if another admin elected it.Manning (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, didn't notice that had happened. I've changed it to an indef block (didn't see your last comment Manning, but I think I still would have done this). I've left a note explaining that this means that the editor doesn't have to wait two weeks, all the editor needs to do is start responding and show that they understand why they've been warned and blocked, as per Jclemens. I made the change having read that DMacks would be happy with a change. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:PrBeacon (Fhue part deux)

You probably know this editor better by his old nym, Fhue. Fresh out of a suspension for edit warring, he’s decided to get right back to attacking me.[66][67] I tried reasoning with him[68] and I tried warning him,[69] but he just treated my warning with contempt[70] and kept it up[71]. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 06:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the Talk page, NRen2k5 just can't stand to have anyone disagree with him, so he personalizes the dispute as an attack. He's already tried this line of wiki-bullying in 3 other admin threads: my initial E.A.R, which he then took to WQ.A, and finally escalated to A.N.I when he didn't get the responses he wanted. So he resorts to profanity [72], [73] and childish insults [74] (as well as removing my words from my own talk page). He continues to understate his role in the dispute, including his own edit warring. PrBeacon (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Let me see if I can help with some things here - NRen2k5 you seem to be misunderstanding the response you've gotten to the many reports you've made about this subject already. Yes, there have been uncivil statements made but by both you and PrBeacon. Both of you need to pull back a bit - PrBeacon, obviously your tone/words/something about your posts is a concern to NRen2k5 so please try to find a way to communicate that's a bit more civil and NRen2k5, you need to settle down a bit in general and find a way to resolve the dispute instead of making these constant time-wasting reports on every board you can find. If you'd like to give a try at resolving the content dispute that's causing the two of you to conflict, I'd be happy to help. Shell ^babelfish 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You might try but I really dont see any common ground firming up until he decides to stop playing the victim whenever I disagree with him. As I recently stated on the same talk page, I can admit to a modicum of incivility but not nearly as much as he has displayed. And I know this next point may sound like a schoolyard defense, but he started it (and I give what I get) -- he has been dismissive and patronizing since we first exchanged words at the Whale Wars discussion [75] and then he carried it over to the Sea Shepherd page [76]. Most recently, he attempted to remove my own reply above [77]. PrBeacon (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Those comments are a month old. I didn't start anything. You started this one. Are you going to keep accusing me of “goading” you into getting yourself blocked too? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:86.44.18.40

Could the behaviour of this IP please be reviewed. No need for diffs, just look at all his posts. His continuous anti-British rhetoric is getting beyond a joke. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Generally, talking to the user is a good first step. I'm leaving him a note both about this thread and as a warning to stop the anti-British commentary. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been falsely accused of sock-puppetry. What can I do?

I have been accused of using hospitalityexpert as a sock-puppet which is completely false. What is the dispute resolution of this process?

Mfetzer3 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Best place to start is to talk to the editor who placed the suspected sock tag on your page. You can do so at User talk:Cobaltbluetony. Ask him politely why he thinks you're a sock puppet (because you'll always get a better reaction that way), and explain why you think he's wrong. Also, read Wikipedia:SOCK#Incorrect_sock_puppet_accusation. HTH--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And after reviewing both your and hospitalityexpert's contributions, it seems you, and quite likely hospitalityexpert, have a conflict of interest with this article. I can certainly understand why Cobaltbluetony might wonder if hospitalityexpert is your sock or meatpuppet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I left a note for Cobaltbluetony asking him to reply here or to contact you at your talk page. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Background: hospitalityexpert (talk · contribs) and Mfetzer3 (talk · contribs) have both focused narrowly on the now-deleted article Meetinguniverse, which was deleted as promotional at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meetinguniverse. --John Nagle (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So are you filing an SPI, or not? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the complaining party. (Cobaltbluetony (talk · contribs) is.) I just took a look at AN/I, saw this, checked it out, and provided some links so others could look into it. It seems to be a moot issue, since "Meetinguniverse" was deleted via an AfD. --John Nagle (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It may also depend on how you're being accused. If it's being done in-passing, it's nothing to worry about. If they stress it in order to stop debate or your contributions, then they should file their official WP:SPI report, or stop violating WP:CIVIL. If they have filed their SPI already, provide proof against it, and wait for the results to clear you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Note: Same IP. There might be a reasonable explanation, but try honesty rather than assuming we are complete noobs. Thatcher 17:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For non-admins, the deleted contributions of these accounts may shed some light on this. Mfetzer3 created Meetinguniverse on the 22nd and 25th of June and on the 6th of July, and made dozens of other edits to the article and a couple to its talk page. Hospitalityexpert made two edits to the article and one to the talk page, all on the 6th of July. Neither editor has any other deleted contribs, and the non-deleted contributions are visible to everyone, and probably don't need further comment. Both editors are single purpose accounts - neither has edited another article with the exception of tagging a competitor article with {{db-spam}} - and both may have a conflict of interest, but I am more inclined to consider them meatpuppets than socks (see WP:SOCK for terminology), not least because of this remark. Having said all that, I see no reason yet to stop assuming that these editors are contributing in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Admins vs contributors

Users should go to WP:AE if they wish to appeal blocks on an Arbcom-restricted article. -LadyofShalott 13:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
[Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] Wikipedia has a funny culture. Since this is your first edit since August 2008 and only have 15 edits from August 2008, some may accuse you of something. I do not think your grievance will get very far. New users are not given the same weight as some others. Whether this is right is a different question. There are a number of essays on the topic, such as protecting the wrong version, cabal, etc. A lot of alphabet soup like WP:JARGON, WP:SOUP, WP:SHUTUPNEWBIE, WP:SHUTUPADMIN, etc. Good luck! Keep on writing (or maybe stop writing if trying to write provokes anger). User F203 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) And how do other users, who haven't followed this discussion before, now understand what the eff this is about??? Even sockpuppets may raise some valid questions. And the removal seriously interferes with the discussion. Looks like a very questionable decision to me. Pls revert! Gray62 (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I now stumbled upon the case resulting in Ryulong being desysopped some weeks ago. Now, excuse me pls, I really try to assume good faith, but that he here interferes in a discussion about "admins vs contributors", by deleting the comments of that sockpuppet, is an, hmm, interesting coincidence. If there are any rules saying that contribs by sockpuppets HAVE TO be deleted I am interested in hearing about this. Otherwise, this somewhat looks like a manipulation of the discussion because of pesonal reasons to me. Again, I call for more knowledgeable editors or admins to revert the deletions. Without the deleted comments, its very hard to follow the arguments. Gray62 (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I wonder who you're a sock of. → ROUX ₪ 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) It is true that anonymous users do much good and provide valuable content, but they also provide the largest amount of cruft, spam, POV-pushing, disruption and general annoyance. Someone have to work keeping that at bay and mostly only registered users do that job. ·Maunus·ƛ· 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Pls add evidence (statistics?) to prove this point. I see lots of POV pushing, disruption, and general annoyance by registered users, too. Only difference my be outright vandalism. And on the other hand, the regulars are much better at exploiting Wikirules as a lever to push their points. Gray62 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) RFCU or ArbCom would be a better choice Jay, complaining about administrators to the administrators board is usually a waste of time, for various reasons. Either draft and post an RfC about the admins that you're having problems with, or else take it directly to ArbCom via a RfAR. If you draft an RfC, remember that you need to have tried to resolve the matter first via posts on the userpages of the admins in question. It would also be better if another editor has done the same, so that your RfC can be certified by two users. Good luck. Cla68 (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Jay Waxman indeed seems too knowledgeable of Wikipedia in contrast to his sporadic appearances. However he raises a valid point. I see William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) again is brought up to ANI for his another questionable conducts. After WMC removed several editors' opinions[78], he was not only engaged in edit-warring with AncientObserver (talk · contribs) and Wikieditor06 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy to remove AncientObserver's comments "3 times"[79][80][81] but also quarreled with the former and then blocked him "as an involved admin".[82] What a nice....block (?) again in a row after the fiasco caused by his other two controversial blocks. The matter is definitely beyond ANI and RFC/U, so this must be dealt by the ArbCom.--Caspian blue 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I know WMC has been involved in arbcom rulings before... would one of the remedies not apply to these cases? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know about the past RFC/U and ArbCom cases on him in detail, but just found them.--Caspian blue 02:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley Wikipedia:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley 2 (due to certification matters, it was userfied) Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley Solely in relation to this: "Let users generate content, and let the admins maintain wikipedia." - This isn't a valid distinction. Everyone can (and should) generate content. Everyone can (and should) do maintenance. Admin tools permit certain additional actions, but so does rollback, the ability to code bots, Twinkle, AWB and a host of other things. Euryalus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [Content added by sockpuppet of a banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)] I notified all of the mentioned editors/admins with {{ANI-notice|Ancient Egyptian race controversy}}, but you should've done that after you initiated the thread here. That is a common courtesy--Caspian blue 03:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the notice Caspian Blue. I do not yet know the ins and outs of Wikipedia but I do feel that WMC has been irresponsible with his Admin decisions. Perhaps I was being a bit defensive with my responses but I think it's ironic that I end up getting blocked for a conflict that he instigated. I hadn't run into any problems with Admins on Wikipedia until Dab got an Admin to revert and protect this page. This situation is out of hand and needs immediate attention. AncientObserver (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) The complaints about Dougweller, Akhilleus and Dbachmann seem completely without foundation. Ancient Egyptian race controversy is a highly problematic article,which has been heavily edited by the constantly multiplying socks of Muntuwandi and has been discussed multiple times here. It has been very hard to police. Caspian blue seems to be using this case as a way of getting at WMC for the block of his wikifriend ChildofMidnight: his intervention has very little to do with the afrocentrist issues involved. Mathsci (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Agreed with Mathsci. The admins are doing what they're supposed to be doing: not mollycoddling POV-pushers. This is a bunch of hot air. → ROUX ₪ 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed unproductive section - take it somewhere else, please. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mathsci (talk · contribs), as you see, I'm separating the issue. Your intention and disparagement are typically to defend your friend, William M. Connolley. I see that whenever WMC's admin tool abuse is reported, you're busy mollycoddlying WMC and attacking people as always just like Cold fusion topic ban (in that case, you were warned for your "typical incivility). Since the admin tool is questioned in a row, you, who was condoned to be rude is no position in speaking of it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) --12:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Caspian blue, your contributions here are extremely unhelpful, off-topic and disruptive on this noticeboard. Please stop. I was first to point out that Jay Waxman was probably Muntuwandi and I was right. The other four users have been page-banned from Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Please could you refactor these personal attacks? Continually writing things like this - baseless slurs and conspiracy theories - can lead to blocks. Mathsci (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Mathsci (talk · contribs), enough of your unwarranted threats and your gross incivility for which you've warned by admins and editors not only "these days". Of course, your such behaviors are just making yourself a case to the end. The issue on WMC is hardly off-topic, but rather consistently occurring with questions on the admin's ability as many others including "admins" have voiced out. Bear this advice in mind that you can not evade blocks forever that you should've deserved for such behaviors (even one editor left the project because of your OUTing and harassment) and what Abd pointed out.[83]--Caspian blue 14:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Thanks. And, for the record, although the subject is one I try to stay away from as it is so frustrating and the pov pushers have more stamina than I do, it is definitely not one about which I know nothing. I moderate a serious Egyptology mailing list and am even more heavily involved with a website dealing with such subjects among many others. In this case I was acting only as an editor with some knowledge of the subject. Dougweller (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Jay, that is indeed how it's supposed to go. Admins don't wield tools to win content disputes, period, and any admin who is found to have done so should be compelled (by personal recognizance ideally, failing that by ArbCom) to divest themselves of the tools. On the other hand, sometimes it's a social network problem, in that people cultivate friendships/alliances with folks who will help them out on the basis of the relationship, rather than the merits of the case. This is a more pernicious and insidious problem, IMHO. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, Jay Waxman could be another sleeper sock account of Muntuwandi, looking at the editing history. Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Well, socking and admin tool abuses are clearly different stories. I have no problem with other admins in good standing. However, if WMC is again reported to ArbCom (pretty likely much so), that is no doubt that his miseuses of the tool (in the case to AncientObserver) would be mentioned. --Caspian blue 12:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm sure many admins get complaints logged against them, but WMC's name certainly seems to turn up frequently, doesn't it? Ironically, he's among those who wants Docu defrocked over his refusal to use a normal signature. It will be interesting to see which of those two, if either, gets defrocked first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is definite abuse going on here. I am not going to go as far as to accuse Admins of being racist. But are these actions biased and an abuse of power? Absolutely. I have repeatedly ask for specific examples of "POV-pushing fringe theories" and so far been ignored. Can Ice Cold Beer even point to a Wikipedia rule that justifies his action? If not this action needs to be reversed. I am tired of being pushed around and mislead like a rabbit chasing a carrot attached to a string. How can you justify banning editors for 6 months who have contributed months of work to an article and then participated in the discussion page to reach a consensus on the content? Enough is enough. Will someone with some integrity please step in and fix this? AncientObserver (talk) 17:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC) caspian blue are you trying to give wmc a warning or a hidden sort of threat???...dimitri before today you have not edtied since july 2008 thats a long time between edits...man i know i have not been no wiki saint but it's clear there are socks abound and they are here trying to bolster a case aginst some sort of reversial of a "TEMPORARY" bann on a couple of fringe theory editors--Wikiscribe (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Namecalling isn't nice, Wikiscribe. If you are going to support our ban then why don't you point out evidence of us pushing fringe theories? We have reached a consensus on the recent version of the article it is there for everyone to see and we have been banned on bogus charges. I agree with you, you aren't a saint because a saint does not support people abusing their authority. That's what crooks do. We're going to have to take this up with Arbcom. Surely there is someone there with common sense who has the authority to lift this bogus ban. AncientObserver (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC) This already went to arbcom I've been watching this dispute for a while since stumbling across Muntuwandi and his socking activities (something interesting has come up concerning Jay Waxman, but I can't say anything for sure yet). However, what I think is best for this article right now is to apply this little arbitration remedy to both sides of this dispute to get this article looked at by people with fresh eyes and no emotional attachment to afrocentrism or Egyptology topics. This would effectively incorporate the following users (not everyone who would be affected, I don't know this debate too much): AncientObserver (talk · contribs) Wdford (talk · contribs) Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) Taharqa (talk · contribs) I'm sure there are others and I might be picking out only users on one side of the debate because these are only the names (other than the myriad Muntuwandi socks, as Muntuwandi is already banned from the project), but this may (or may not) solve article problems currently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have banned the following four users from Ancient Egyptian race controversy and its talk page: AncientObserver (talk · contribs) for six months Wdford (talk · contribs) for six months Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk · contribs) for six months Big-dynamo (talk · contribs) for eighteen months After a review of the article and its talk page, I have discovered a pattern of POV-pushing fringe theories from those four users. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 09:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) This was very long overdue. I've read (or at least looked at) several non-partisan books on the topic, but my attempts to keep the article degenerating again into an ostensible scientific, but actually ideological debate about 'race' were repelled by the editors that now have been banned from the article. I am not saying that Moreschi and Dbachmann have an accurate grip on the topic, but at least one can discuss with these people. If I wasn't currently engaged in a controversy in another article, I would get to work on the topic right away. Zara1709 (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC) So after everything we have done to try to settle this dispute rationally we are all blocked for POV-pushing of fringe theories? I would like to see the actual evidence of this because all I have ever done is tried to get along with people and provide credible references to Wikipedia articles. This is absolutely ridiculous. AncientObserver (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ah, the editing pattern look like Muntuwandi. Yes,  Confirmed Jay Waxman (talk · contribs) as Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) (Reposted from elsewhere)Then why wasn't this said via a warning a month ago before AncientObserver and the other banned persons get banned today? It appears to me that this is more of people lurking in the shadows and refusing to participate in a talk page, but wanting to maintain and defend a specific point of view. While I do not agree with the way the article has been (re)written over the last 3 or 4 months (it is too long), I think this action is merely an example of abuse as opposed to any true intent to make the article better. First of all, the administrators involved while claiming to want to protect the article are allowing edits by banned sock puppets(wikiscribe). Why was all the recent activity allowed, along with attempts to generate consensus if the end result was to not change anything and then ban those doing the work of making it better? If that is going to be considered acceptable administrative behavior, it may be necessary to escalate this further. This is even more asinine considering that the last change was something I personally wrote in the talk page, but never actually edited on the article. Seems to me there is a lot here to be called into question. Bottom line, attempts to hide from the fact that the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians started with racism in American society. It goes to the core of the foundations of modern Egyptology which is based largely on European and American scholarship(not Egyptians). Therefore, trying to cover up the fact of racism at the core of the development of Egyptology and Anthropology only reinforces the controversy. My opinion on the article is that we don't need two pages of talk about genetics. There is a controversy. It has been in Egyptology since the beginning and continues in many various ways. Keep it simple and to the point and stop trying to turn the article into a way of slandering African scholars and African points of view in general. That is borderline racist and POV. The fact is that the greatest recent controversy on this topic has come about due to the works of a white author Martin Bernal, not any African scientist. This disproves the idea that only Africans view the ancient Egyptians a certain way. There is no consensus on the biology and genetics of the ancient Egyptians, as various scientists have written recent studies both for and against the African affinities of the ancient populations. Wikipedia is not Egyptology, it does not represent Egyptology it represents the views of the people editing the article. Abusing administrative privileges to push a POV that tries to pretend to represent scholarly consensus is not only invalid but a violation of wiki policy. Wikipedia consensus does not equate to scholarly consensus. Anyone can edit an article and anyone can have a point of view on a topic, whether or not they have articles and books referenced that support it. In order to avoid this petty back and forth between the two sides OF the debate, I suggest that the article be deleted or simply reflect the facts of the controversy in all its forms over the last 200 years and that includes the racist expositions of Egyptian mummies across america by the likes of George Gliddon. http://books.google.com/books?id=g4WalMw26IkC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=gliddon+egypt&source=bl&ots=cnYLNfPVVU&sig=1RZE0aZzL0aJcSc1yl0Bqj9f6Rg&hl=en&ei=zmNTSrbyFIioNtWPzeAI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=13. Race and racism is controversial and has always been, including the race and racism of early Egyptologists and anthropologists instrumental in laying the foundations for modern Egyptology and Anthropology. Samuel George Morton is considered by some the father of modern anthropology. He was a devout racist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptomania Trying to keep these facts out of the article are only evidence of a POV on the part of some editors and administrators in trying to push their own views and nothing else. In fact such actions can even be construed as racist in themselves as trying to lump all people of certain backgrounds together as representing the same views or having the same mind. This deserves to be escalated especially if some people think they can use administrative privileges in a borderline racist and abusive manner. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC) As someone from a mixed-race family, I abhor the attempts to describe Wikipedia and/or admins as a whole as being racist. Playing the "race card" improperly is as disgusting as racism itself. Stop making those within the mixed-race community look bad. (Note: it was quite a challenge to stop me from actually saying "fuck off", because that's how disgusting this suggestion is) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC) So that's how racists do things. You block an article purely because you don't agree with the content, you revert the content to a crippled version for no good reason, you demand that involved editors must thrash it out on the talk page after just one racist disrupts the article, and when the involved editors reach a consensus on the talk page which you don't agree with then you just block them from the talk page as well. Nice - typical redneck behaviour. Anybody who regards as POV any relevant content that is heavily referenced to credible sources is themselves pushing their own counter POV, and an admin who bans editors purely because they disagree with content is blatantly abusive. But as that great racist G Dubya Bush himself publicly declared, power is there to be abused. Wdford (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ice Cold Beer, I would like to find out what your criteria is for determining a "pattern of POV-pushing fringe theories". How do you know that they are POV fringe theories, are you versed in anthropology or Egyptology to know what the mainstream theories are and what fringe theories are. It would be great if you could elaborate, and also give some examples of the pattern of fringe theories that you have identified. I think it has already been established above, that administrators are not "experts" on content and that some of the best editors are in fact anonymous. Secondly we should note that mainstream popular culture is sometimes at odds with mainstream science. So care should be taken when labeling anything as fringe, as some of these "fringe" theories may actually be accepted in mainstream science. The best example, is human evolution which may be fringe in religious societies, but is factual in scientific circles. The basic point Ice Cold Beer, is that you may be surprised at what you are calling fringe, may not be so.Chris Mellencamp (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Just because most of the good contribs are anonymous, that doesn't mean that most of the anonymous contribs are good. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK And additionally even if most anonymous contributions were good it wouldn't mean that these particular ones were.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is definite abuse going on here. I am not going to go as far as to accuse Admins of being racist. But are these actions biased and an abuse of power? Absolutely. I have repeatedly asked for specific examples of "POV-pushing fringe theories" and so far been ignored. Can Ice Cold Beer even point to a Wikipedia rule that justifies his action? If not this action needs to be reversed. I am tired of being pushed around and mislead like a rabbit chasing a carrot attached to a string. How can you justify banning editors for 6 months who have contributed months of work to an article and then participated in the discussion page to reach a consensus on the content? This Gestapo nonsense needs to stop! Enough is enough. AncientObserver (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC) User:AncientObserver While patrolling pages with recent changes, I come across the aforementioned user removing a sock template tagged on his/her user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:AncientObserver&diff=prev&oldid=300836685) and have since reverted the very apparent whitewash. Same time, I have tagged him/her with a level 3 warning with regards to this matter on his talk page. Is it me or is it the time now to think about the actions of this editor? Admins, could this is be another case of a Quack is a Quack is a Quack? I stand to be corrected. --Dave1185 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Please follow the appropriate procedure if you suspect someone is a sock puppet. Putting sock puppet accusations on user pages is abusive and amounts to a personal attack. If you do it again without proof you will be blocked. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC) FYI, take a look closely at the user's page edit history and you will noticed that it was placed there by User:Stifle, who is an admin. Don't offload something you don't have a clear idea of onto another editor if you never bothered to check it through in the first place, makes it look really, really bad on 'ya. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC) My understanding is that a user can edit their own userspace. Launching accusations and attacks on adversaries in editing disputes is highly inappropriate. If there is socking going on, take it to the appropriate board for investigation. There's no need to launch this kind of smear campaign, just follow procedure. Your uncivil and antagonistic comments on that user's page are wholly unhelpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Follow procedure? It's now at AIV, there. --Dave1185 (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I am getting tired of Dave's blatant stalking, intimidation and harassment. He is constantly coming to my page everytime I get in a conflict with another editor and leaves condescending remarks under the guise that he is enforcing Wikipedia policy. This editor has a personal vendetta against me for what I do not know. I came to Wikipedia to contribute to the articles. I had no idea I would have to become an expert on Wikipedia policy in order to keep from getting permanently blocked from the site but it looks like that is what I'm going to have to do because it has become clear that my presence is unwanted by certain POV-pushing editors and Admins. AncientObserver (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Hello, Dave1185. Long time no see. You know pretty well of "sockpuppetry accusations" without evidences is just smearing one's reputation from your own experience. Please be reminded of the experience and refrain from doing that. Thank you.--Caspian blue 14:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Radical POV pushing and rewriting of history I have reviewed the article talk page and uncovered a pattern of abuse and radical POV pushing. WMC and others are pushing fringe theories and attempting to rewrite history. They are repurposing the aritcle to advance the theory that research into the ethnic and racial background of the ancient Egyptian civilization originated with Afrocentrism in the 1950s and 1960s. This abuse has gone so far as to censor all content and sources that predate the afrocentrism movement. The abusive editors have tried to rewrite history and I don't see any possible outcome other than their being banned from disrupting work on the article. Editors working collaboratively in good faith can develop an article that covers the complete history and debate over the subject based on the best sources. We shouldn't allow fringe arguments and the rewriting of history to distort Wikipedia's coverage. Obviously the idea that investigations of Egyptian ethnicity and race started in the 1960s is completely fantastic and absurd, and we shouldn't allow this type of anti-intellectual censorship and distortion to damage Wikipedia's integrity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm in full agreement with this. The question is who if anyone is going to do something about it? Anyone who looks objectively at the situation can see that there is no justification for reverting this article, protecting it and then blocking users who contributed constructively to reaching a consensus on the talk page. The fact that so many experienced Wikipedia editors and Admins have been involved in this blatant censorship is disturbing. AncientObserver (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Uninvolved Party But Something Needs To Be Said The point of having administrators is to maintain the content on Wikipedia and to help improve the encyclopaedia. This means blocking users that threaten the good nature of Wikipedia and protecting pages when necessary. But no admin should be abusing their powers and using intimidation tatics to win the respect of other editors. By consensus this would be unacceptable. The admin who reverted AO's blanking of his userpage acted against policy that allows contributors to do whatever with their userspace (except in rare extreme cases), even if it means removing a template added by an admin. He reverted the blanking to recover the sockpuppet template and then left a malicious warning on AO's talk page. Whether AO is a sock or not is one thing, but using intimidation and overpower tactics is unacceptable and edits by admins such as this one should not be left untreated. AO may be a sock. AO may not be a sock and indeed a well-meaning contributor. But the truth about AO's identity is unlikely to affect the actions of admins who appear to POV push and then block and warn good contributors because they want control over a particular subject and will do anything to ensure that their POV is maintained. POV pushing is not only against one of Wikipedia's main policies but it is also morally wrong and does nothing to help the neutral nature of Wikipedia. Also, admins should cease ganging up on hard working contributors simply because they are closely affiliated with the admin involved. Wikipedia is all editors working together to help build an encyclopedia. It is not a game of "our team of friends" versus "that team of friends". If an admin abuses their powers, act accordingly. Supporting a wrong-doing admin simply because you enjoy working with them is not a good reason to team up on hard working contributors who are trying to help build this encylopedia. If an editor is in the wrong and the involved admin needs a neutral third opinion, fine. But a third opinion is not simply "I'll second so-and-so because he is an admin and because this guy isn't". As proven in the past, being an admin or not being an admin has nothing to do with how respectful someone is over Wikipedia policies. And warning, blocking and protecting pages to prevent your POV from being overshadowed by Wikipedia's more notable and meaningful NPOV is not exactly the best way to use the admin tool's that you are privileged of using.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Thank you for saying what needed to be said, Sky Attacker. But at this point I think several Admins need to be held accountable for their actions. Wikipedia has a serious problem with Admins abusing their power if the activity of William M. Connolley and others is any indication of the way Admins normally operate. It must be against Wikipedia policy to gang up on editors in order to censor content on articles. I will read up on Wikipedia policy to learn how to handle situations like this in the future. AncientObserver (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Ancient Egyptian race controversy Several editors have been banned from this article and one User:Big-dynamo has have brokened the ban by editing the talk page--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) For background, see also #This already went to arbcom (and related sections) above. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I'm still waiting on a justification for our banning. We didn't do anything wrong. AncientObserver (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Unilateral banning of everyone one side of an editing dispute Can this ban be reviewed [84]? Ice Cold Beer stepped in and declared a ban on all parties on one side of an editing dispute. I've never seen anything like it, but it strikes me as being pretty outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC) There is already a discussion at wp:ani#Admins vs contributors and now here wp:ani#Ancient Egyptian race controversy related to the editing conflict. But I would like clarification on this particular issue of an admin issuing a ban like this. Or do I need to consult Arbcom about it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation, "any uninvolved admin" can do this on this article. I'm guessing now, but I suppose the place to appeal the ban, or its length, would be WP:AE. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC) I have repeatedly asked Ice Cold Beer for his justification for banning us and he has failed to answer. It looks like we will need to take the next step. AncientObserver (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) hmmmm this seems to be a patern at this article,problem editors get banned finally and than parties involved cry and cry until they find a sypathetic admin to take up their mantra and whip and badger the banning admin in submission .. a similar thing happened a while back to a constant problem editor user:deeceevoice and by some miracle got her ban lifted with the same tatics going on here...by the way childofmidnight the out of the blue interest you have in this issue you seem to have a similar behavior patern as deeceevoice reverting admins revisions twice in this case and trying to undermine admins authority not to mention your prose in your edit summaries matching deeceevoice to a t...i think somebody should check this user for being a sock of deeceevoice particlary because there has been a horde of sock puppets at this article--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Certainly banning is an extreme measure, and doing so against multiple editors on one side of an editing dispute with no diffs or substantial evidence showing disruptive editing of any sort is wholly inappropriate. I checked on the article and the article talk page, and the disruption is clearly coming from editors who haven't been banned. For example you continue to cast aspersions and false insinuations against me. These personal attacks contrast with the discussion of article content and sources by AncientObserver and others who have worked on the article. The editors who have been inappropriately banned without evidence or consensus seem also, by the way, to have the content policies on their side. The POV being pushed on the article by the other side of the content dispute is that the debate over the ethnic background of the ancient egyptians originated with Afrocentric scholarship in the 1960s. This is absurd nonsense easily disproven by abundant sources discussing the issue that predate the Afrocentrism movement by more than 100 years (not to mention earlier non-Western scholarship). ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Wikiscribe, where is your evidence that we are the problem editors? Go ahead and show us the evidence which is consist with Ice Cold Beer's reason for banning us. I challenge you to do so as I do him. No, it is plainly obvious that you and your cohorts are the ones causing problems, POV-pushing, breaking Wikipedia guidelines and abusing administrative powers. And as far as sockpuppets are concerned I have heard several accusations that you have already been punished for that specific violation. Perhaps someone needs to check you. Disruptive editors is one thing but I am disturbed by the number of abusive Admins that have come out of the woodwork over this. They need to be punished for their transgressions. AncientObserver (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You can keep trying to flip this around to me all you want AO,i was not the one banned than after the ban took effect,all of a sudden, a slew of new editors or old editors (who were dormant for longs stretches but suddenly popped up)came to continue the banned edtors mantra with full bias,that smells of socks..and please do not suggest that i have no right to suspect anybody of sock puppetry particulary with the current circumstances around the article,you suggest that people have the right to engage in sock puppetry against me jsut because i did it once and not even at the article in question, you don't know the details around my case but i served my week block and thats that,also i could bring up the fact that CoM has a little bit of a history of being disruptive as well like a certain sombody else..like i said this is the same tatic that was imployed when deeceevoice finally got banned from this article people rallied there wiki friends some which included admins and banged the drum until they found admins who were able undermine the banning admins actions,so is to whip and and flail the banning admin into submission.As a matter of fact dmitri yankovich below has just been blocked as yet another sock puppet,say what you will about me being a sock,but what i did was not no where near the degree of going on here--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [Content added by sockpuppet of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] Dimitri - I'm curious. Did you edit under any other user name between July 19, 2008, when you created this account, and today? Cardamon (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think it is very unlikely CoM and DC are the same guy. If someone thinks otherwise, they should take it to an SPI, and present a lot more evidence than common interest in one particular article. Then, if they prove me wrong, maybe I really am Santa Claus. Otherwise, they should back off and focus on article content. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Where can we go to challenge our bannings? I am glad that other editors recognize Ice Cold Beer's error but we are still banned. AncientObserver (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC) WP:AE - since the topic ban was given in the name of the Arbitration decision, Arbitration Enforcement is where you would need to appeal it. LadyofShalott 01:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I do believe deeceevoice is female. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC) A quick note: I have responded to complaints by a couple of the banned users (and by extension, a couple of folks involved in the discussion here) on my talk page.[85] I would also point out that it doesn't make sense to have the banned users challenge their bans on AE when they're already being discussed here. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know where the appropriate place is to voice our complaints but what I do know is that what you did is WRONG. WMC and like minded Admins and editors are conspiring to protect a biased scope of that page rather than allowing a more accurate broader scope to be maintained and you are helping them by banning choice editors from contributing to the discussion. None of us are pushing for the page to promote fringe theories. All of our contributions have been in the interest of presenting a fair and balanced account of the controversy which does include Afrocentric scholarship and I challenge you to prove any differently. What I believe you are trying to do is get rid of us in a deceitful manner in order to allow the other editors to control the page in a way that you approve of. How else do you explain banning users for months without a shred of evidence that they are doing what you accuse them of? I don't believe for a second that an uninvolved Admin would do this and if we have to take this to ArbCom or wherever else to challenge our banning and get the matter resolved we will. Your action is more than poor judgment it is malicious and deceitful. AncientObserver (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed section not relevant for the discourse. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Dimitri Yankovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), editing here and on Ancient Egyptian race controversy seems to be another sleeping sockpuppet account of Muntuwandi (talk · contribs). Mathsci (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without judgment on any item or editor, I think there are far too many issues and participants within these threads to find any resolution here at AN/I. I would imagine many of these things will need to be resolved at a higher/different venue than this AN board is capable of. I'd suggest that these topics be transported to RFC/U or more likely RFAR. Just saying. — Ched :  ?  06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Collapsed section not relevant for the discourse. The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Mathsci, if you think someone is a puppet, take it to checkuser. Stop this garbage of publically accusing people of being sockpuppets, because it's not helping and is only serving to inflame the discussion. Jtrainor (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Not to put to fine a point on it, but User: Dimitri Yankovich has been blocked as a sock. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC) there is nothing to see here. This was never a bona fide "editing dispute" to begin with, and Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs) has only shown that they are willing to be the long overdue admin with balls to end this pathetic episode by taking the time-honoured approach of banning the trolls. --dab (𒁳) 17:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC) It's not an editing dispute any more. Dbachmann, despite previous rebukes for his behavior, has seen his admin friends and allies block everyone on one side of a content dispute (unilaterally and without ever providing a single diff of evidence that they did anything wrong). So we now have a fringe nutjob version of the article suggesting that no one considered who the ancient Egyptians were before the Afrocentrism movement of the early 60s. This ridiculous nonsense reflecting an absurd point of view is being enforced despite abundant sources completely disproving it as utter nonsense. Aren't there any editors and admins with some integrity who are willing to step in and put a stop to the abuse? How can an admin block one side of a dispute like this? It's outrageous. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I had never had any interaction with Dbachmann. Your attempt to deflect the debate into a David vs. Goliath episode doesn't work. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) You admitted that you were contacted by someone to look into this situation. I suspect that you were contacted by WMC who asked you to ban us as an uninvolved Admin. I'm working on filing a complaint against all of you. You are involved in a conspiracy to censor this page and I am going to do my best to make sure you are held accountable for it. AncientObserver (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, Ryulong asked for the community's input (scroll up if you don't believe me). No one has contacted me. I have very limited interaction with WMC over 18 months ago and never on this topic. You're trying to deflect the focus from your behavior to a made up conspiracy against you. It won't work. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Ice Cold Beer, please provide diffs of the disruption that led to your banning four editors on one side of a content dispute. This has been requested many times now. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I enacted the topic bans after two hours of reviewing the users' contributions to the article and its talk page over a long period of time and I found a pattern of disruption. I will not be providing hundreds of diffs; it's their whole body of work that is at issue here, not one or two edits. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Sure you did. As expected you can't provide even a single incident of disruption or POV-pushing by the editors that you've banned. Anyone with an objective mind who goes to the page can see that the users you banned engaged in civil discussion throughout every topic that was brought up. It is Dbachmann and his army of rogue Admins who have been disrupting the page. Arguing with you is a waste of time. You already made up your mind about how to handle the situation the moment you got involved. Hopefully someone in power will punish you for your misconduct. AncientObserver (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Without getting too much into the details of the dispute itself, I do find it most interesting that of the four editors "on one side of the dispute", three are very obviously single purpose accounts who's entire contribution histories are focused on this article, while the fourth (Wdford) has been almost singularly focused on this article over their last 700 edits or so. There is a rather curious level of fanaticism being displayed here. Resolute 00:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC) We're interested in the topic. What's wrong with that? AncientObserver (talk) 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Obsessed would be a more accurate term. You don't find it curious that four editors seem to have an absolute focus on one controversial article, and all seem to be on the same side of the debate? The odds of this occurring via random chance are extremely small. Resolute 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It took me all of five minutes reading the talk page to determine that the now banned editors have frequently disagreed with each other and have very different points of view on the issues covered in the article. The only thing they seem to have in common is the ability to work together to include various notable viewpoints in the article and the recognition that there has been a series of abusive and policy violating actions by Dbachman, WMC, and Ice Cold Beer. These include reverting to a preferred version and protecting. Banning those they disagree with while refusing to explain or support the ban with any evidence. And the use of admin tools to push a particular point of view in a content dispute. And again, the idea that the history of investigations into who the Egyptians were started and ended with Afrocentric approaches is the most ignorant nonsense I've seen on Wikipedia. Even if someone isn't properly educated to know this is false, the sources that have been provided clearly demonstrate that this viewpoint is fictional. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Wrong. Take a look at the "consensus" version[86] of the article that had been reached after all of the good faith contributors had been chased off by the POV-pushers. It creates the controversy by providing a bunch of irrelevant information, perhaps the worst offender being the silly art gallery placed in the middle of the article. The entire article was changed to lend legitimacy to the "debate", which really doesn't exist much outside of fringe Afrocentric viewpoints. The talk page and the last several archives are filled with the banned editors making bad, biased arguments in favor of this version, which hurts Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. As a neutral administrator who has no emotional attachment to the topic, I stepped in to hopefully stop this sort of behavior. Also, I'm a bit confused how when you created the subsection it was a strike against me that the bans fell upon one "side" of the content dispute, but now, according to you, it is another strike against me that I have banned editors from both sides of the content dispute. You can't have it both ways. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) There are many more people interested in the topic. I only know one editor from the section, not one of the ones who was banned. Wdford for one disagrees with alot of the views of the rest of us who were banned. Why do you have to be obsessed with a topic just because it is controversial? I can only speak for myself but I occasionally post on messages boards and Youtube videos related to the topic. I thought Wiki would be a good place to post some of the material I had been researching and the page in question seemed like a good place to do so. I had no idea that Wikipedia had such a hostile culture. I was getting along with the other editors on the page for weeks with only a few minor arguments and then shortly after Dbachmann arrived all hell breaks loose. The page is protected. We started challenging the lock on the page. Admins and editors show up in my talk page harassing and threatening me and I've been blocked 3 or 4 times as well as now banned from the page for months. FOR WHAT? Posting some credible sources related to the topic and then campaigning to have them kept on the page? This is ridiculous. AncientObserver (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Hi, I am also a contributor to this article, mainly, as well as a few others. I am dismayed at the logic being proposed here. All of a particular point of view are obsessed, therefore should be banned. Yet, that causes others like myself, to avoid editing for the simple fear of being banned. many times I have wanted to edit, and I have seen far too much scrutiny against the side, bluntly speaking, who view the Egyptians as a black race people. I do as well and I wonder, will I be banned or accused of being a sockpuppet or something else? As I review the history of the talk page I simply see that the "obsession" is more of a frustration in that even when the black side presents very well established references, the other side then wants to neutralize the relevance of their contributions, or redo the article, or focus on a method to administer the article for deletion, and so on... I have to actually wonder, who is obsessed? Although you guys do ban those on the other side who are blatently ignorant and vandalistic. --Panehesy (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Case in point. User:AnwarSadatFan put on my user page that I am a sock puppet of User Mutuwandi. I am not. But I came across AnwarSadatFan before in a previous edit when I felt he was manipulating the article with POV. The issue has become one of where even "sockpuppetry" is a technique to silence one point of view, even if it's substantiated. When will it end? When black people just submit and stop contributing in a way that disturbs what white people feel "should" be accepted? --Panehesy (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC) People becoming involved that aren't familiar with the details of the debate? For the record, this article has a long history going back a ways. It has had its name changed multiple times. There have been multiple attempts to resolve conflicts through consensus. I have indeed been banned from the article for 6 months. However, when I started again, the only changes I made were to the talk page. If you READ what I posted I said myself clearly that the article is too long winded and tries to cover too much territory. However, I was asked to try and draft a new introduction to the current article. What I wrote summarizes the facts of the issue of the article which is titled "Ancient Egyptian Race controversy". The point being that any discussion about race and the role of race in science starts with white Europeans and nobody else. Trying to claim that it starts with Afrocentrics is like saying that the controversy over race in America starts with Martin Luther King. Honestly, that is strictly racist and bigoted and deserves to be challenged. Wikipedia was founded by whites and mostly administrated by whites, but I dare any of them to challenge me on anything regarding the history of race and racism in America. Everything I wrote in my introduction was sourced. The fact is that American Egyptology and Egyptology is founded on racism and race science, just as American society is squarely founded there as well. The article needs to be shortened and kept simply to documenting the many arguments and debates over the race of the ancient Egyptians and stop trying to prove what "race" or skin color the ancient Egyptians actually were. This page has changed names so many times and been through so many edit wars simply because of this. Of course white society is historically racist and it is well documented. Of course racists want to pretend to be "observing truth" and "following civilized discourse" even as they promote ganging up on stifling dissent. The point being leave the article as a discussion about race controversy which in America starts with whites and only white and nobody else, period. We don't need two or three pages of pictures and genetics to show that this debate has been going on a long time and has absolutely nothing to do with Afrocentrism in the 1960s as a starting point. Sources: Quote from Crania Aegyptica the first book to use cranial studies to understand the population of ancient Egypt (and prove that they were whites and superior to blacks): Egypt is justly regarded as the parent of civilization, the cradle of the arts, the land of mystery. Her monuments excite our wonder, and her history confounds chronology; and the very people who thronged her cities would be unknown to us, were it not for those vast sepulchres whence the dead have arisen, as it were, to bear witness for themselves and their country. Yet even now, the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptians are regarded with singular diversity of opinion by the learned, who variously refer to them as Jews, Arabs, Hindoos, Nubians, and Negroes. Even the details of organic structure have been involved in the same uncertainty, the configuration of the head, the position of the ear, the form of the teeth, the colour of the skin, and the texture of the hair; while the great question is itself undetermined - whether civilization ascended or descended the Nile; -whether it had its origin in Egypt or in Ethiopia. Downloadable from here: http://books.google.com/books?id=XCIkAAAAMAAJ The book written by Samuel George Morton that was the forerunner of Modern Anthropological and cranial studies in Egyptology and Archaeology. He was a devout racist and from that introduction he goes on to present fundamentally racist views on the people of ancient Egypt based on "scientific" analysis of their skulls. Hence, unless you are a racist, such a discussion and such a book is controversial and offensive. This is just one of many books written by many authors of the period who were influential founders of the sciences of Ethnology, Anthropolgy and Egyptology and they were mostly racists and this is over 100 years before any Afrocentrists even existed. They used race science such as the study of skeletons and skulls of people and animals to "prove" the superiority of whites. They defined race as a biological fact of nature. Their "science" is the basis of the ideas of race But these people were not scientists they were pseudo scientists engaged in wholly controversial displays of mummies and mummy unwrappings in order to "prove" that the ancient Egyptians were a white race and that Africans (negroes) were monkeys and unfit to be treated like "real" human beings and engage in any sort of intellectual pursuit. None of this came from Afrocentrics (Africans), it came from whites. Some of the attempts to censor this article, especially trying to omit anything about American racism, remind me exactly of that point of view. Wikipedia, the internet, text messages and no other technology gives ownership of knowledge to any people. Egypt does not belong to Wikipedia, it belongs to the people of Egypt and Africa. Since the beginning of America wealthy whites have been going to Egypt and taking artifacts and pretending it was their own private treasure garden. They had no respect for the history or the people and they simply took what they wanted. This is all clearly documented and sourced. Many of the artifacts in Museums in Europe and America came from wealthy benefactors who financed expeditions to Europe who then donated portions of them to museums. And then to understand what they stole they financed archeaologists and Egyptologists to study it. Many of these people were too racists. That is the origin of Egyptology and the fundamental basis of the controversy. It is about who owns Egypt, who controls the information about it, who has the power to shape the image of it and the history of racism as part of all of those efforts. Another example of the debate on Egyptian origins from the 1800s and the racist views within it: I am a member of the social improvement society of Philadelphia. A question was brought before it for discussion, of which the following is a transcript:'Can the Colored races of men be made mentally, politically and socially equal with the white?" The discussion of this question was continued for eight successive Sunday evenings. The speakers were various and talented..... all shades of color were permitted to participate, each speaker was allowed ten minutes at a time, the greatest latitude, and I may say longitude, were allowed to the disputants, every shade of authority was quoted. .... A Mr. Johnson, a mulatto, lectured in Franklin Hall....the portions taken by Mr. Johnson were, that the ancient Egyptians were negroes, and that they were the originators of the arts and sciences. The discussion and lectures were carried on in the Franklin Hall, and were attended by about nine hundered or one thousand persons. THe only lectures which were not free to criticism were Mr. Johnson's. .... The idea that the negro race ever civilized Egypt, is now exploded among learned men, but we have among us persons who spurn at history, who laugh at nature, who sneer at reason, and who say that "the negro is one of God's creatures, and is therefore equal to the white." .... As it is always right to discriminate upon the nature of the evidence from the character of a witness in a court of justice, so it is equally fair to criticized the writings of a historian, to see if yhe relates what is both probable and plausible.....A case of this kind is now for consideration before us. It has been said, that "Herodatus is the Father of History." If by this he meant that his veracity can be depended upon in his relations of facts, he is certainly unworthy of the title; if it is meant that he is merely the first writer, then his title is correct. .... Herodatus travelled into Egypt, and says, that "The Egyptians were black in complexion and woolly-headed." How far he is to be credited, must be a question for the readers of this book to determine for themselves..... From: Negromania. Downloadable here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zhVHbIVFXnMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1 From this example alone, it is clear the pattern of people coming out of the woodwork in America when the word "negro" or "black" comes up relative to Egypt and why it has always been controversial.... to the racists. Other books documenting the history of anthropology in the "race science" of white Europeans: http://books.google.com/books?id=hwsUXs6ksXUC&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=negro+monkey+controversy+19th+morton&source=bl&ots=GutIaXCtKv&sig=KJgnxP6COfZKTxxERCq8k19NSjs&hl=en&ei=HS9VSu6yA5WKNPfg2MMC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=12 http://books.google.com/books?id=RtQKAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=gbs_similarbooks_s&cad=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=K4RUy9Hs6lMC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Crania+Aegyptiaca&source=bl&ots=HB0CEcNvm4&sig=fXiwSWqXvQf2pY4DYdfC2c5W6rY&hl=en&ei=y2JVSouxOom6NfKrrMQC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10 However, all whites writing in this time were not racist as can be seen in the work of Count Volney: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1397/1397-h/1397-h.htm Suffice to say, there is no denying that the controversy over the race of the ancient Egyptians goes back more than 100 years to the roots of Egyptology and American society itself. And this is what I wrote in the talk page: The controversy over the of the race of the Ancient Egyptians is subject that has come about as a result of the discovery and study of Ancient Egypt by European explorers and scholars in the 18th century. It refers to the way the physical characteristics of the ancient Egyptian population, including skin color, have been portrayed by the scientific and scholarly community and the role of "race" and "racism" in describing such characteristics. The controversy has taken place in many forms including scientific debates over "race" as a biological fact of the modern human species, debates over the labels and terms used to classify human populations, the meaning of labels such as "black" and "white" relative to ancient populations, differing contradictory studies describing the origins and phenotypes of the ancient Egyptians and accusations of racism against the mainstream institutions of anthropology, archaeology and Egyptology. Scholars, thinkers and scientists of many backgrounds have participated in this controversy over time, yet is is the outspoken writings of African authors, the rise of African studies and the development of Afrocentrism that have most often been identified as the source for the controversy in recent years. From: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy&oldid=299128943 Simply put, this is my sole contribution to the discussion, which I did not have time to clean up and actually add to the page. But the point is that it is sourced and verifiable fact that the controversy has been ongoing since 200 years ago and that racism on the part of whites played a major part, as racism was mainstream science. Therefore, since it is easy to document debates back and forth over the race of the ancient Egyptians for over 100 years in America and elsewhere, it is impossible to claim that such arguments started with Afrocentrics. It is also impossible to deny the racism of American whites in trying to pretend to be unbiased in studying ancient Egypt either as part of the development of Egyptology. Fundamentally the controversy is an attack on white European power and the ability to use/abuse it in the interests of promoting a white controlled vision of history. Europeans need to worry about their history in Europe and stop being so concerned about Africans. Egypt is not Europe's history, does not belong to them and they have no control over it. Wikipedia was created by whites and is run by whites and therefore prone to similar usage. This idea that banning authors because they contradict racist views and propaganda is simply racist and the idea that it is civil to gang up and try and perform an electronic lynching of those who would challenge whites as if whites are the only ones intellectually capable to discuss anything is blatantly offensive and deserves to be called out for what it is. But hence, just like the development of Egyptology, Anthropology, television, the internet and many other things, some Europeans just think they own knowledge, when they do not. The point being if you want to edit the page and present your views then do so. Otherwise, the interaction is hypocritical, since if you aren't familiar with the subject matter and cannot contradict or refute that which I have presented, then you have no basis to say anything. It is simply a passive attempt to push POV. I would love to see you separate racism and race from the discussions in Egyptology since Europeans discovered it in the 1700s. The point being that whites don't have any platform to stand on when it comes to race and racism to begin to even point the finger at anyone other than themselves. They invented the idea of race and they used racism and race-science to enforce their power to push their views down everyone else's throats, but want to claim that Africans are promoting race controversies, which is pure absolute racist nonsense. If wikipedia administrators are coming out of the woodwork to stop someone pointing out the racist history of white people and their "sciences" then they are racist pure and simple as there is no other reason for it. That is the controversy and it isn't simply about genetics and intellect. It is inherently violent and controversial. And if you don't like it then leave it alone. Big-dynamo (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Actually what I said is that wikipedia was created by whites and run by whites and this article is about race and racism in science which starts with whites. Again, any discussion about race in science or America starts with white people and nobody else. Trying to omit that from any discussion about race or race in science is racist. That is what I said. Race and racism has never been about civil discourse and wiki admins (who are mostly white) are in no position to lecture anyone on it. Like I said, this issue is about power and who owns what. Take it or leave it. Any discussion about race in any aspect of anything in the last 200 years that does not start with WHITE PEOPLE is racist. Period. I don't need to bite my tongue for anyone. This isn't a civil discussion in my opinion. As race in America and elsewhere has never been a "civil" issue. Wiki policy is no crutch to lean on when it comes to abuses by people who have power and frankly wikipedia is no "higher authority" on anything including race. And the people who edit/administer wikipedia are people and as susceptible to being bigoted, racist and biased as anyone else. Please don't try and pretend this issue about race is an issue about wiki policy. That is offensive to me personally. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC) How interesting. I wasn't aware there was a directory of every Wikipedia users' ethnicity. Would you be so kind as to provide that to us? Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 11:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I don't care about anyone's ethnicity. I care about admins and editors trying to hide the fact that race and racism in any body of study or social endeavor from the last 300 years starts with white people. To claim otherwise is racist. The article is called "ancient egyptian race controversy" and yes controversies over race and the race of the ancient Egyptians started with WHITE PEOPLE. Anyone on this board who wants to pretend otherwise and try hide that fact is racist. Trying to find ways to justify hiding such facts is racist and offensive. The fact that so many admins and people are coming out of the woodwork shows clearly that race and racism are fundamental issues not to be denied. Trying to claim that race in science or the study of history started with black people is racist and wikipedia is racist for supporting such articles. It is tantamount to saying the controversy over race in America started with "the civil rights movement". I am offended by any such suggestion. Race and racism are a painful open sore and trying to play games with it simply reflects that some people are childish and need to grow up. Big-dynamo (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Gigantic screeds accusing the admin cabal of racism are not good ways to have topic bans lifted. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah, Big-Dynamo it's just a waste of time replying to this project. Half the Admins posting are the very ones conspiring to censor the page. We need to take this to ArbCom. I'm going to need other editors to help me on this one because it's required that multiple users agree on a complaint. I think it's safe to say that several other editors are with me on this. Ice Cold Beer's ban is unjustified and he needs to be reported for his abuse of power. AncientObserver (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) AncientObserver and Big-dynamo, I have seen what happened to the regular editors of the article AERC. I am now absolutely convinced that William and Ice Cold acted wrongly banning us. They failed to see that it is Dbachmann who in the first place brought the disruptive behavior. Why and how can't they see that? Are they blind? Did they forget what is expected from adm? So they decided to take side, now they are unable of singling out any wrong doing from us. Humility is a mark of true humanity. And Wikipedia is a real test of humanity in a globalized world. If they can recognize that they acted too quickly and lift the ban, everything will come to normal. We are all human beings, and in need of forgiveness. Hotep!--Lusala lu ne Nkuka Luka (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Proposed topic ban of Dbachmann [Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] See WP:SOCK. Not an appropriate use of an alternate account, and certainly not a new user. I have blocked this account indefinitely. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Endorsed. I went to block this user myself and saw that you had already taken care of it. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Hm. Exactly ten edits in August of 2008, then nothing till now. Hidden sock puppet, obviously. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm endorsing this text by Wamuponda. While he may be a sock he definitely made a relevant point: Dbachmann is accusing people of being trolls yet Dbachmann is like a tornado, he leaves a trail of destruction in his path. This is what the arbcom stated about Dbachmann Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_(2) Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann_3 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann This case involves two sets of disputes. One of these originated in editorial conflicts over the content of the Afrocentrism article and subsequently spread to other venues, while the other arises from editing of articles relating to the Indian subcontinent. A common element is the involvement of administrator Dbachmann in both areas. The arbcom voted in favor this finding 9-0 Dbachmann has repeatedly reverted content edits without offering any explanation, by way of the rollback tool (evidence) and has ‘’’misused his administrative tools by protecting pages on which he was involved in content disputes’’’ (evidence). The arbcom voted in favor of this 12-0 Doesn’t all this sound familiar. Dbachmann is responsible for re-igniting this dispute. Why is it that innocent editors are being punished for Dbachmann’s abuse of his administrative privileges? AncientObserver (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Admin abuse [Content added by sock of banned user removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)] The constant parade of sockpuppets on this article irritates me. Wamuponda is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Muntuwandi, and is now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC) I'm endorsing this text by Wamuponda. While he may be a sock he made some relevant points: From 17 June to 7th July, the article was protected, when protection was lifted, all editors who wanted to contribute to the article were banned. For three weeks, contributors have not been able to make any edits despite countless discussions on the talk page. Isn't this just a sinister attempt to control content using administrative tools. WP:ADMIN states "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." In this case it is clear that administrators have used various tools in their arsenal to protect content created by their fellow administrator User:Moreschi. This is unfair and runs contrary to wikipedia's principle of user generated content. AncientObserver (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I can't say I'm too pleased with single-purpose accounts reposting material originally posted by sockpuppets of a banned user. Some editors apparently think this is allowed; I think this is meatpuppetry, plain and simple, and it should not be allowed. I think AncientObserver, who started editing Wikipedia on April 3 and who has only edited in relation to Ancient Egyptian race controversy, needs to consider finding some other topics to edit; s/he's already been topic-banned from the article and its talk page, and yet s/he continues to post solely about this topic on WP:ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC) WMC gave me permission to do this on the discussion page so I assumed that it was ok. As far as single-purpose accounts are concerned I readily admit that I made this account specifically to edit this article. I see no problem with that but perhaps you'd be delighted to know that I've made a few edits to articles outside of this one. And as far as being topic-banned is concerned, Akhilleus, it's already been established that there was no credible reason for our banning which is what the text above addresses. I'm going to report this to the appropriate channel. Don't worry about me. Perhaps you should concern yourself with being a constructive editor. AncientObserver (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (unindent) Why are so many editors acting as advocates for a banned and highly disruptive fringe POV-pusher? Muntuwandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jay Waxman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dimitri Yankovich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wamuponda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) It's not very hard to spot Muntuwandi's sleeping socks. He has created a whole secret army, which can be identified by WP:DUCK because they head for his favourite controversial articles, which otherwise attract few new editors. Muntuwandi has been doing this for some time now (a while back on Race and intelligence). When subsections are initiated or moved in the wrong direction by these socks, that is quite unhelpful. The fact that other editors do not recognize the disruption being caused and thus contribute to it themselves is quite disturbing. AncientObserver (talk · contribs) should distance himself/herself from this banned user. There's very little that's constructive in his/her recent edits: he/she seems to be a fringe POV-pushing WP:SPA. Too much drama, with no good articles in sight. Mathsci (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I'm well aware that these accounts are sleeper socks of Muntuwandi. However I do not know Muntuwandi's past. I know this user as Wapondaponda who other than activating socks I have observed to be a constructive editor on this article. I've suggested to Muntuwandi that he try to get his account unbanned the proper way rather than creating socks but I still recognize that he is only trying to fight the injustices that have been committed by abusive Admins on this article. No Mathsci, I'm afraid that you are the one who does not see things clearly. It is clearly against Wikipedia policy for Admins to suppress content on articles in order to push a POV and that is exactly what is going on here. 4 editors including myself have been banned for half a year for doing nothing more than discuss the content of the article on the talk page in a civil manner and the Admin in question refuses to provide diffs supporting his justification for his ban. This is clearly a case of WP:ADMINABUSE and after I review procedure on how to handle such matters I am going to report every single Admin involved in this conspiracy, starting with Ice Cold Beer (talk · contribs). AncientObserver (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I agree with Akhilleus that AncientObserver is looking more and more like a meatpuppet of Muntuwandi. Mathsci (talk) 07:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC) If I'm breaking any rules please point them out. Otherwise I do not appreciate the name calling. AncientObserver (talk) 07:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Try reading WP:NPA, and contemplate whether your repeated accusations of racism, censorship, and an admin cabal violate that policy. (Never mind that you have a defective understanding of what adminship is.) I don't appreciate name-calling either. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC) I haven't accused anyone of racism. If someone makes a racist comment I will but I have specifically stated that my problem is with the decisions of the Admins and yes I am accusing them of censorship and conspiracy because that is exactly what their behavior reflects. That's not a personal attack nor is it name-calling. AncientObserver (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC) The spelling police arrive Really, if contributors want to be taken seriously, it does help to run a spell check on the section header before posting. Durova273 02:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC) It doesn't really matter. The contributer who began this was a sockpuppet of a banned usor.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Yeah. Yet even as primarily a media contributor... blushes... retreats Durova273 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Even though a sockpuppet created this section the grievance is still valid. We're clearly going to have to take this complaint to the next level. AncientObserver (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Well, you're going to have to go to the ArbCom for that. The article is still under their restrictions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Could we close this up? I don't really see anything productive coming out of this. Apparently an Arbcom case is going to be filed, so the users involved should go do that. If they want to protest their bans, they have been pointed at AE already. Beyond that, what purpose--apart from Big Dynamo accusing everyone of racism--is this solving? → ROUX ₪ 12:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess everyone has to just assume that admins are acting accordingly, don't they?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible evasion of block by User:Cjas

This edit [87] may be by blocked User:Cjas using an IP address User:75.171.140.108, judging by the style, see [88]. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it passes the duck test with flying colors. A warning on the talk page, perhaps? Too lazy to do it tonight. a little insignificant 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message at the IP talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, IP already admitted to being the same user: [89]. -- œ^™ 18:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Abuse of multiple accounts

Since April, I've been having two steady editing conflicts with User:Globalr here and here. In the first case, I added some dates to an article, which he repeatedly removed, apparently because he doesn't like them. In the second, he drastically oversimplified a template, again apparently because he doesn't like the prior form. Oh, and here, he's been warring with about three editors, restoring deleted/redirected entries to a template, again on a whim. Until today, we could maybe have called this a content dispute. But now Globalr has resurrected himself as User:Pepeo, and is doing the exact same things (compare with Globalr). Maybe his edit summaries are a little more menacing, though: "Biruitorul!!! There is no way that the dates will be ever put on here or anywhere. There is no way. That is why these are removed from here."

So: have we reached a limit in this case? Dahn, Avala, LibStar and I have all fought tendentious editing by this individual, who doesn't offer much in terms of productive contributions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty massively obvious to me, so I've blocked the user for block evasion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 21:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Ledenierhomme

I have told this user countless times to stop editing this article:

Ottoman-Hungarian Wars

without discussing the changes first. Instead, he has ignored my discussion with this response: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOttoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=300970677&oldid=300910016

I have warned him three times: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ottoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=300910016, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOttoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_Wars&diff=300320475&oldid=300207618, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALedenierhomme&diff=300164421&oldid=271778054

Basically, I am exhausted of options in stopping an edit that I wish to discuss and disagree with, of which he is the only one pursuing this edit without a discussion. Gabr-el 02:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've given a final warning to the user. If he continues, he could be blocked. (X! · talk)  · @177  ·  03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I think if he just explains his edits to me, we can all get along and he not get blocked. Gabr-el 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism, inappropriate humor and wikistalking

Headlikeawhole (talk · contribs) seems to have an issue with making edits he believes to be amusing at articles like this [90], [91]. I left a warning at the editors talk page about this and they proceeded to vandalize and mock the warning as "judgmental messages" [92], and then leave a message on my own talk page promising to wikistalk my edits [93]. I've come across a number of people like this lately, who seem to think Wikipedia is for their own amusement and that it's ok to insert snide, unencyclopedic humor into articles. Are we an encyclopedia or a game? And why is it ok for someone to basically vandalize an article with their own personal jokes and then promise to wikistalk someone who warns them? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like normal vandalism to me. If they don't stop after enough warnings have been given, report at WP:AIV. Chamal ^talk 01:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebroad coming off a ban

Rebroad has come off a ban and seems to be continuing down the same disruptive road. He has inserted his disputed and yet cited addition to the Peter Mandelson article [here], this is not too bad, I reworded it a bit to more reflect the cite and removed the comments about Kenneth Clarke that had nothing to do with Mandelson. He also inserted the same stuff to a page where it doesn't belong at all the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [here], I removed this addition but he has reinserted it and he has now left me a warning on my talk page and has reinserted the comment to the page. It really does not belong there. (Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)) He is still busy with this campaign and has just inserted this dodgy looking (www. prisonplanet.com) link to the mandelson article, [ here] (Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)) It now looks like my talk page has been vandalised again, the same thing was done by rebroad just before he was blocked for 24 hours (Off2riorob (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

Please take into account the outstanding related BLPN notice wp:BLPN#Peter_Mandelson which was raised by another party in relation to the material of User:Rebroad's original edits before making final conclusions as I don't believe this alternate process has yet been exhausted.—Teahot (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has responded to that BLPN notice. This really needs to be addressed, as the question of whether it should be noted that he has attended Bilderberg Group meetings is undue weight. The people involved in placing that into his article repeatedly, repeatedly claim that they have no ulterior motives, but it seems, to me, to be an attempt to make snide attempts at painting him as a member of the evil world-dominating cult, the Bilderberg Group. BTW, it was a block, not a ban, but Rebroad's repeat of the behavior which got him blocked needs to be addressed. A topic ban might be in order. Oh, and by the way, Rebroad thinks I'm a sockpuppet of Off2riorob. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record, there is one +ve response to the wp:BLPN#Peter_Mandelson which Rebroad latched onto. He had however made the first Mandelson/BG edits immediately following the lifting of the ban before that response was applied. I had earlier asked him to refrain from the BG stuff until it was resolved in BLP. As for the edits to the Sec of State article, he was advised 2 days ago to leave that alone. He either does not read or is tendentious. leaky_caldron (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He is still messing around with my talkpage..this is the recent last edit.. 22:31, 9 July 2009 Rebroad (talk | contribs) (427 bytes) (user is complaining on AN/I that I blanked their page, when it was in fact cluebot. Suspect user is unaware of how to configure cluebot so in good faith am disabling it.)

(Off2riorob (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC))

He was probably just helping you out, since he appears to think you assumed it was he who blanked your userpage (and appears to be correct in that you might not know how to properly configure cluebot, but that's neither here nor there, really). Let's try not to assume he means you harm, eh? After all, we all know what they say about assumptions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This was not ClueBot vandalizing Off2riorob's Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it was not bad configuration that caused cluebot to blank Off2riorob's Talk page, it was this edit by Rebroad which caused cluebot to blank the page. Perhaps Rebroad should not edit Talk pages until he learns to put comments at the bottom of the page instead of the top. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. That critical thought process never came to me. Stricken above. If you'd like to correct his placement of comments at the talk page (or ask him to include a signature and timestamp with all comments), I'd suggest you take it up at his talk page or file a WP:RFC/U if necessary. Still, it's best not to cast aspirations on his motives and instead merely look at his actions. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is spilling into other articles - I've got some concerns when someone adds "both of who, coincidently or not, have attended Bilderberg meetings" to a lead (Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills). Shell ^babelfish 23:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet he has no ulterior motives. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As explained at the top of this noticeboard, this is not the right place for speculation on ulterior motives or on-going discussion about the pros and cons of User:Rebroad's edits. Please take these discussions to the talk pages of the article involved or to the user's talk page where this is the opportunity for resolution without Admin intervention. As the edits in question only started on 7th July and Rebroad was blocked for 24 hours in this time, I do not believe anything like enough time has been given for other contributors to these pages to express an opinion in order to reach a consensus on the inclusion of information regarding Peter Mandelson attending Bilderberg Group meetings.—Teahot (talk) 08:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass Redirects

Resolved

 – No admin attention necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Eco84 is creating mass redirects for television stations. For example: CBS Hampton Roads redirects to WTKR or ABC Pittsburgh redirects to WTAE-TV....and there are plenty more where those came from. These are search terms that would probably never be used. These redirects are being made, without discussing them with the TV Station Wikiproject to see if they are needed. I am wondering if they should be nominated for deletion or left be. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to drop the user a note asking for their rationale? That might go a long way towards helping and could avoid numerous deletion discussions. TNXMan 02:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My only rationale behind creating these redirects is that someone may be searching for network affiliates in various cities for whatever reason without actually knowing the callsigns beforehand. For example, is someone in Philadelphia conducting such a search really going to know the callsigns ahead of time for affiliates in say, San Francisco or Seattle? FYI, some of these redirects already existed (for various stations in New York, Washington, and Los Angeles) before I started creating more.Eco84 | Talk 03:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a search almost identical to these redirects last fall when I was visiting Orlando, and I found myself in a hotel room that was missing one of those handy cards that tells you what's on what channel. A simple search will get you to the right answer, but the redirect speeds up the process. I wouldn't be going out of my way to create them — although I've certainly performed equally gnomish edits, and then some — but I don't think they're hurting anyone either. Mlaffs (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While it is a good idea and I commend you for your boldness, I worry that there are many redirects out there that won't be used and if they are necessary. With the New York or Washington stations, I can see the need. In Washington, DC, WRC-TV, IDs itself as "NBC Washington" on some occasions. This is the same with all NBC owned and operated stations. But in the case of say, WTKR, most people from Hampton Roads don't say they are from Hampton Roads. I know, I am one of them (I am originally from Norfolk, VA). One would not search for WTKR as CBS Hampton Roads. Also, most people, even the most casual of viewers, know the callsign of the station they are watching. Mostly, because it is part of the branding. In Norfolk, WTKR's branding is "WTKR NewsChannel 3" and crosstown NBC affiliate WAVY-TV is "WAVY News 10". So, it isn't as if people don't know the callsign. Which brings me back to my previous statement....are they necessary? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they doing any harm? Redirects are cheap. Unless they're causing some problem I'm not aware of, if that is how Eco84 chooses to volunteer his time, I'd say "thank you" and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This does not seem like a problem in any way, and I commend the editor for their boldness. Adding non-controverial stuff to Wikipedia which may make someone elses life easier seems fine. These are all plausible search terms, so I see no reason for us to care... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, if the majority likes them, I will mark this as resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan fiction in Days of our Lives-related articles

85.226.66.142 (talk) was blocked in June for inserting large amounts of unsourced information into articles related to Days of our Lives. [94] [95] [96] These edits were deemed fan fiction and reverted.

Now, 85.226.70.239 (talk) has begun a crusade to continue adding the same fan fiction. [97] [98] [99] The duck test says they're the same user. What should be done? a little insignificant 23:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing related in the past couple of days, so there's no guarantee that blocking would do anything at this point. Chances are good the guy has already reset his router (or something similar) and has a new IP. Cheers. lifebaka++ 23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A rangeblock might do a little more good, but I'd wait until a 3rd similar IP pops up to get a better idea what range the person this operating from. MuZemike 01:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first time this has happened. See the paste below, taken from User:TAnthony's talk page back in Feb.

Days of Our Lives fan fic vandal Check out my contributions to see how much fan fiction I have been reverting from the IP 85.226.... What can we do about this? We can't ask admins to IP block EVERY Days of Our Lives article. And he/she is on the prowl...it's becoming quite tiresome. How can we handle it? Rm994 (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this is such a constant problem, we can actually request an IP rangeblock, which is a block of a series of IPs likely to be used by the same user. You have been monitoring this problem more than I have, so please add any more IPs to the list below which seem to be the same individual. As you can see, so far they appear to be from the same "batch." — TAnthonyTalk 21:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.64.75 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.65.95 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.66.85 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.70.42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.23 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.153 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.71.186 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.72.251 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.79.244 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.226.174.41

Rm994 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to leave the last one (85.226.174.41) out of that request. It's not from the same city, and could conceivably knock out a large portion of Sweden (or almost nothing, I've no idea). I don't have any expertise in rangeblocks, though, so I can't say whether or not it's feasible in this situation. lifebaka++ 03:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Excluding that last IP, all the IPs fall within the 85.226.64.0/20 range. Without it, you'll obviously be back down to 85.226.0.0/16, which is too large to even consider. MuZemike 07:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So do we block the last one, and rangeblock the rest? Or individually block all of them? I'm sorry, I'm not good with IP ranges. a little insignificant 14:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wheel war issue

Resolved

 – admins involved sorted it all out with smiles all around. Group hug! Manning (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? What was the resolution, please? Be specific, be clear, and be precise, thanks. "Group hug" doesn't reassure me at all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm self-reporting a wheel war-type dispute between me (an administrator) and User:Altenmann (also an administrator).

Here's a rough outline of the sequence of events:

1. June 24: I deleted Category:Lithuanian surnames pursuant to a CfD closing (which has been a controversial close in and of itself, but the dispute doesn't touch on the close exactly).
2. July 6: I re-deleted the category a couple of times. The category was redirected to Category:Lithuanian-language surnames. I commented in the edit summary that in my opinion, its creation as a redirect category was probably not a good idea at this stage, since conceivably a "by culture" scheme for surnames could be proposed and implemented, and the redirect gives the impression that the "by language" scheme is the only acceptable scheme for surnames, which is not true and is inconsistent with the CfD close.
3. July 6, User:Altenmann used admin powers to "restore" the category without any explanation.
4. July 7, I re-deleted the page again, repeating my rationale in the edit summary.
5. July 7, User:Altenmann re-created the category for the second time the category was re-created by another user and User:Altenmann left a note on my talk page that my past deletions were misguided.
6. July 7, I deleted the page again, and responded on my talk page, explaining my position.
7. July 8: User:Altenmann re-created the category for the third second time and stated on my talk page that my reasons for deletion are invalid and that I would be reported for abuse of admin privileges if I deleted it again; I responded (in a way that probably wasn't helpful) and now have come here.

Summary of concerns: I admit that it probably wasn't a good practice of me to simply provide my rationale in the edit summaries when I deleted the category. There's limited space in an edit summary and it's impersonal and not amenable to discussion. I should have initially approached User:Altenmann to explain the deletion and the underlying administrative reason I was giving for it. But at the same time I'm not terribly happy that User:Altenmann has seen fit to use administrative powers to contradict the actions of an admin performing an admin-related function (CfD) by restoring and re-creating the category numerous times once discussion was underway between us. I recognise that I'm guilty of repeating an administrative action with the knowledge that another admin opposed it; I also think that admins do need to respect the decisions made by admins who are closing discussions and not take actions to reverse actions performed by the closer in that capacity without the closer's agreement. In this case, I never have agreed with the other admin's re-creation/restoration of the category redirect.

I'd appreciate it if I could get some feedback from admins who hitherto have not been involved in the situation with the underlying controversial CfD. I don't want this to blow up into a debate over the correctness of the original CfD close, as that has been and is being discussed in ample amounts elsewhere. I'm also not as concerned about hearing opinions on whether or not the category redirect exists (as of right now, it does) than I am about my behavior and Altenmann's behavior. Even if no one comments, I feel better for having self-reported. Thanks. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I can only see one action, admin-power or otherwise, by Altenmann on the category. Special:Undelete/Category:Lithuanian surnames shows multiple recreations, yes, but by Badagnani (talk · contribs). As such, I doubt we can consider Altenmann to have wheel warred. As to the three most recent deletion of Category:Lithuanian surnames, they don't fit the bill of G4. Additionally, the existence of a category redirect (which is in place now) will not preclude a later change of the category to a different organizational structure. lifebaka++ 03:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He has restored it once (shown there) and re-created it manually once (the latest re-creation, not shown there but viewable here). You are right about the other time though—I mistakenly attributed one re-creation to him that was not done by him. It does make me feel better that it was twice rather than three times, but still ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm* It's always where you don't look. So yes, one could consider this wheel waring, and both of you should have discussed this rather than just jumping in. I'd say you both get trouts to the face for that one, but as long as you both can admit you didn't act in the most ideal manner (which would have been discussing before doing any more deleting, restoring, recreating, et cetera), I'd rather not get into any drahmahz. Cheers. lifebaka++ 03:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I appreciate that. And I do admit to that. In a way I did this more for myself than to get the other editor to admit fault, so I'm not too concerned whether or not he shows up to comment. I'm also not interested in continuing the ongoing drama with those who've been otherwise involved and tracking my every move and cursing my name for a variety of related reasons (see comment below). I really just wanted a look by an uninvolved admin. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - The deletion (and "salting") of these necessary category redirects was very wrong and I concur that they represented a serious abuse of admin powers. This very editor had insisted on the deletion of hundreds of surname subcategories such as the Chinese surnames category, stating that such categories are impermissible, then deletes multiple times and "salts" many essential category redirects Category:Chinese surnames, such as that to the new category Category:Chinese-language surnames. Such category redirects are necessary to let editors who don't know about the new surname subcategorization system know that they need to use a language-based subcategory rather than a culture-based or nation-based one. Impairing our encyclopedia's functionality for our users in such a heavy-handed and thoughtless manner, deleting and "salting" without thoughtful, considered discussion cannot be tolerated any further at our project. Badagnani (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Its called deletion review. Use it. Viridae^Talk 04:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You're damn right, Viridae. What were you thinking, Badagnani? And what are you thinking, using such sweeping and draconian language as "cannot be tolerate"???? He deleted in good faith, the other editor re-created without going to deletion review, and you didn't inform the other editor of DRV as you should have, you actually supported and encouraged him by undeleting without even discussing with teh deleting admin? How the hell did you pass Rfa, I'm wondering about now, although I certainly hope this is an abberation on your part and you usually have better sense. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Our project is not meant to be a war between combative editors but a collaborative process where we discuss with thoughtfulness and consideration prior to deleting and "salting" a necessary category redirect (once let alone again and again and again). DR would not be necessary if admins, in whom we place our trust as fair and impartial, behaved in a mature manner befitting their positions (and acknowledged, and corrected mistakes in a graceful manner when such mistakes are pointed out). Badagnani (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Badagnani, I don't think there is a dispute about most of what you say. The fact is that often users (including admins) disagree about some issues, so DR and DRV is essential and it's not terribly helpful to talk about things in terms of substantive "mistakes". My point here was partly to allow me to admit I made a mistake with another user and it doesn't help for other involved users to drop by to do drive-by pokes in my eye. My concerns are largely resolved here, and I'd like to keep this thread on topic, and was specifically looking for comments from uninvolved admins. If you have other issues to discuss, you can do so on my talk page if they relate to me or in a new section on this page if appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Your comments at Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames and the situation that categories such as Category:Korean-language surnames contain only one or two surnames, due to a failure of you to clean up after the destruction of our former surname subcategorization system you had insisted on just over a week ago shows a fundamental lack of maturity on your part. Please clean up this damage by using your bot powers (used so effectively to delete dozens of category redirects again and again) to repopulate these new "by language" surname subcategories. Leaving Category:Korean-language surnames with only two surnames for weeks at a time while you move on to tasks you presumably find more interesting and less tedious than fixing our now-terribly-broken surname subcategorization system seriously undermines the credibility of our encyclopedia for our millions of users around the world, who must be our highest priority when making decisions such as you made in the recent, massive deletion of surname subcategories. Once that is taken care of by you, there won't be any further discussion needed. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • As I said, please bring up your other concerns elsewhere. Or start a new section here. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - This is not "another concern," it is part of the failure, on the part of an admin, in whom our project entrusts a very high degree of responsibility, to follow through in fixing the damage caused by the deletion of hundreds of surname categories, namely in failing to do the follow-through work necessary to repopulate categories such as Category:Korean-language surnames, which now contains only two surnames. This situation should never have been allowed to happen for a single day let alone over one full week, and makes our encyclopedia look very bad! Please fix this situation promptly and do not continue to respond to this reasonable request in a flippant or dismissive manner, as you did at Category talk:Icelandic-language surnames. Badagnani (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I did try very hard there to explain that (1) the result of the CfD was "delete", not "rename"; (2) there was no consensus in the DRV to change this; (3) reasonable people can disagree about matters such as this, and this is a case of disagreement. I got worn out b/c of your failure to acknowledge any of these points, and so eventually dismissed your repetitive comments. If you think I've thereby abused administrative powers, then please start a new section on this page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Excuses aside, the damage to our encyclopedia's surname subcategorization system you insisted on needs to be undone, so please do so prior to moving on to other tasks you find more interesting or less tedious--thanks very much on behalf of our community and users around the world. You can start by repopulating Category:Korean-language surnames, which, shamefully, currently contains two surnames. Badagnani (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Badagnani, a velvet rope is classically the barrier outside a nightclub. There was no threat of any sort, much less a death threat, and I suggest you apologise immediately to Good Ol'Factory for implying that there was. → ROUX ₪ 05:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Please do not attempt to change the subject. I took the heading--the selection of my username alone to preface my comment, of which I do not approve, accompanied by an edit summary referring to a rope--as a threat at worst, and extremely rude at best. If I had wished to give my comment a subheading, I would have done so. Again, please address the subject at hand and do not attempt to refocus attention elsewhere. Badagnani (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Color me very confused: [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]. No threat of any kind was intended by my edit, and I apologize for the use of the term if it was misinterpreted as such. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think he needs a strong warning from an admin followed by a block if he continues to persist in labeling other users' comments as threats, particularly after it has been explained to him that they are not. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Again, kindly do not attempt to change the subject, which must be addressed, and the damage the above editor insisted on in regard to our surname subcategorization system, corrected. Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Badagnani - You have wrongfully implied that another editor issued a death-threat against you. Like it or not, that implication IS now among the issues at hand. You are on one hand demanding that the admin body review an alleged misconduct you perceive exists, and yet you are acting as if that same admin body has no right to address a misconduct issue of your own. You simply can't have it both ways. I concur with Roux above, an apology is immediately warranted. Manning (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Again, kindly do not attempt to change the subject. I explained the way I took the edit summary in some detail just above. Badagnani (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Which does not explain why you reverted comments on your talkpage--one of them from me, explaining to you very clearly what a velvet rope is--as also threatening. You need to modify your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 05:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Let's not impose a shrubbery - If Badagnani honestly misinterpreted, that's that. However, the edit warring has to stop right now, Badagnani. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
      • It is not possible for Badagnani to have continued misinterpreting the original statement when it was explained to him twice that he was wrong, was warned twice for claiming threats, and removed both warnings--again, claiming they were threats. AGF is great and all, but it's not a suicide pact. → ROUX ₪ 05:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree with Roux here. Honestly, I could accept that the initial use of "velvet rope" was misinterpreted as a threat, but it's very difficult for me to see how Roux's first comment on Badagnani's talk page could have been. Administrative warnings are not threats. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
          • I find stubborn consistency at this time of night to be the rule rather than the exception. There is nothing to be gained by pursuing this issue. They made a mistake, they reacted defensively, they stopped doing that, it's over. Pursuing it now just aggrevates the situation. Stop pushing buttons, deal with underlying issue, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Uhh.. so now it's okay to repeatedly accuse other editors of making (death) threats? Good to know, thanks. → ROUX ₪ 05:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Roux - I appreciate and respect that you are annoyed. But... just let this one slide for now if you could? For no good reason other than to preserve the peace. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                • I fail to see the point of allowing users to get away with that sort of thing. But whatever. A foolish expectation in at least the vague appearance of consistency is indeed the hobgoblin of little minds. → ROUX ₪ 06:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                  • Get away with what, misinterpreting something as a threat? If they honestly believed those were threats (and I AGF on that, the response was otherwise inexplicable) then that was a reasonable response under the circumstances. It would be nice if they apologized, sure, but that's not necessary for ending the disruptive issue. Which they ended. You keeping it going now is not helping. 8-P I understand that you're sensitive to the false accusation, and hopefully the social niceties end up addressed, but it's more important to stop the problem behavior than for everyone to shake hands and go out for a beer afterwards. Getting along doesn't mean all being pals all the time. The minimum acceptable getting along here was that they stop - and they stopped. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                    • One misinterpretation? Sure. Five? Including 'misinterpreting' crystal-clear explanations as threats? No. But clearly that doesn't much matter. I do know that I and many others would have been summarily blocked had we accused another editor of making death threats and continued to do so after being informed otherwise. That you don't see the behaviour as a problem is incredibly disturbing. → ROUX ₪ 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                      • In my interactions with this user over the past few days, I've never been 100% sure if there is a "language barrier" issue or not. I have usually thought not, but then the most bizarre things happen as a result of comments that you'd never expect would be interpreted in the way they are. (Needless to say, this is not the first confusing encounter I've had with the user.) I've asked, but never had a response comment to the question. So I'm still not sure. But it's the only thing I can think of that could explain certain responses Badagnani has made, barring something that would require a move away from AGF. When does one see enough to be convinced that there is another explanation? The user is good enough with English to have accused me of some weird anti-Semitic "fringe" beliefs several times at another DRV and to have suggested elsewhere that I have gone "rogue". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                        • There is no way with English usage like that--complex sentences, difficult and (relatively) uncommon words e.g. 'exaggeratedly so'--there is a language barrier. None. It would appear that Badagnani called your edit summary a death threat, and then referred to subsequent explanations and warnings as threats, as a way to stifle debate--note that he kep harping on 'don't change the subject' after doing these things, and then disappeared as it continued to be talked about. I still fail to see how any user is ever allowed to get away with saying another editor made death threats against them, especially when it was explained otherwise to them. → ROUX ₪ 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
                          • It seems pretty off the map to me too (but I was the target of the accusation, so it's perhaps expected). I'm glad to hear that someone else finds it as "out there" as I do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Now I've been attempting to follow this. Please clarify for me in case my understanding is wrong: a) there was a CfD where the consensus was "delete" and b) there was insufficient consensus at a DRV to overturn this. Before continuing - am I correct in this understanding? Manning (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. CfD, DRV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
    • OK I've just read an enormous amount of stuff - I concur (for the moment) with Good Ol’factory's interpretation of the results of the CfD and the DRV. Badagnani - could you please guide me to evidence that your viewpoint represents a consensus position that is not being enforced? Manning (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • But does CFD apply to subsequent category redirects? I don't think it's this way with any other namespaces. --NE2 13:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Good Olfactory for my actions which smell like wheel war. Whatever reasons I had, I should have known better to jump into the middle of a heated antagonism, even if I had thought the local matter was trivial and clear. I hope to resolve my disagreements with colleague admin in his talk page, possibly with the help of advise from some other colleague trusted by Good Olfactory. - Altenmann >t 15:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think both of our intentions were in the right place. We just should have both paused and discussed a bit more. I'm willing to have this marked as "resolved", unless Badagnani has further comments here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Great to see administrators behaving like administrators should (not that I expected otherwise). Badagnani has not responded to my earlier question, but I think we should close this off given that the original issue has been cleared up. We can open a new discussion at a later date if needs be. Manning (talk) 02:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read this twice now, and damned if I can see the resolution you seem to find. What exactly was the resolution, please? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:DanTD#More Notes to Come

I saw an edit by User:DanTD today (a normal constructive one) to his userpage, since that interested me, I turned on the page, and I do find we have a couple WP:NPA violations in the section I linked above. There is also others located at User:DanTD/Old Notes of Mine, and a certain few worry me. The first of the major 2 that worries me is on the older page dating April 18–20, 2009. This is what he said:

April 19-21, 2008: I got blocked yesterday, because another editor decided to tag more of my images for deletion, and I tried to protect them from him. He may do some good stuff here from time to time, but that S.O.B. is among many reasons I prefer not to go to any WikiConventions. I will add more images in the future, but even if I break 20,000 edits, I won't find any reason to celebrate.

The incident he is referring to is this on his talk page and the section of him reported by NE2, who was working in good faith here, to ANI (see Archive 140). The issue caused DanTD to get blocked for 3RR, but it seems it didn't do much as the above comments seems to refer. The part that is a big NPA violation is the S.O.B., which is referring to NE2, who wanted his copyvio images deleted. There seriously is a problem with leaving this visible for everyone.

The second one I would like to refer to in terms of the little note-rants dates to September of 2008, as seen here:

September 16, 2008: Another day, another a**hole. Until today, my userpage contained two images denouncing the oppression of the Chinese Communist Party, and the terrorists causing all the bloodshed in Iraq, along with the myth that they're all "the Iraqi Resistance." Never mind the fact that neither of them have the same goals or that most of their victims are the Iraqi people themselves. Some user decided that I was somehow trashing Chinese and Iraqi people, and had the images deleted. After trying to search this user's edit count, I found he was himself a communist, and openly goes along with this "Resistance" myth. When I tried to put those images back, he decided to be a WP:DICK and started and edit war with me. Then he goes to the administrators, and accuses me of vandalizing MY OWN PAGE!!!

This is a bit out of hand, as DanTD went on the same spree he was causing in the April 2008 one, with uploading copyvios, and in this case he is calling people a communist and is over generalising the issue here. (See here for the issues). I am looking for the dang issue to be solved here as majorly both violate the NPA policy and should not be accepted here, and again, I am doing this in good faith for the two that have to hear it. I have not had the time to study all of them, but I am sure there is something else, but these two are the ones that worry me.Mitch/HC32 15:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) ... not sure what you think can be done on a urgent basis from activities last year ago ... one is April 2008 (not 2009) and the other is September 2008. If you're trying to show a pattern of behaviour, that's an odd pattern. If you feel long term action needs to be taken, then WP:RFC/U is the correct place. From what you've shown, there's no urgent blocks required. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the only person I was calling a communist, was a user who claimed to be one. I was under the impression that his tagging of two posters on my user page was politically motivated, especially since many of his edits were just that. I've had a discussion with an adminstrator over the user's edit history, which as been reversed by people of every political persuasion. As for NE2, while I realize he was working in good faith, they were the only sources of info available at the time that contained evidence of the information I added to each relevant article. Plus, I've always given credit to the publishers of each map I posted, While there may've been an adequate substitute for the 1950 Vet's Highway map specifically, I still can't find my copy of the books and maps that contained the other images, let alone remember the exact title. The page in general is strictly a user page, and nothing more than a series of random writings of my trials and tribulations as a Wikipedian, something which plenty of other users have written before. ----DanTD (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:UP#NOT ... on top of that, you're never allowed to violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, even in "ramblings". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The closest thing I can say this falls under on WP:UP#NOT is #10, and not even that, since it doesn't name names. ----DanTD (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Calling me an SOB is a LIE He hasn't uploaded anything recently, and most of the old copyvio uploads have been deleted, but there may be a few questionable ones left, for instance File:Old Bicycle Path Railroad Crossing in Medford New York.jpg (there's no evidence that it was published - confusing publication with creation is a very common mistake by many people). --NE2 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've actually seen quite a few publications that the photo you're showing us was in, and this particular copy I received from the Patchogue-Medford Library's history department, who not only gave me permission to post it on Wikipedia, but insisted that I do it. ----DanTD (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it published before 1923? --NE2 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Something that old had to be. I just wish I could tell you where. Did you try contacting the e-mail address attached to the image? ----DanTD (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean? It could have been taken long ago and only published recently. --NE2 09:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Think of the time it takes place in. An image during the bicycle craze of the 1890's and early-1900's. You honestly refuse to believe that some publishing company wouldn't have shown it? At least some local defunct newspaper? ----DanTD (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't assume stuff here. Either you will get a date of publication or it will be deleted. --NE2 13:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Talim

I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but there's an issue that has been bothering me for quite some time. The article on the video game character Talim is constantly being reverted back and forth by User:Kung Fu Man and User:Swiftink and an IP address (see page history). There are actually multiple IP addresses, but they all belong to the same person. Both Kung Fu Man and Swiftink have made no effort in reporting this issue, and instead they have chosen to revert; I believe they both have gone against WP:3RR. The issue involves the character's nationality: if she is Filipino or Southeast Asian. The IP address is believed to be Filipino, and therefore it's assumed that he keeps changing her nationality to Filipino since he/she is one himself/herself. There is no reliable source, however, stating that she's Filipino, and the country did not even exist at the time. The matter was discussed on the talk page, but it didn't seem to help resolve the issue. That's why I'm posting this here. Any help on clearing this up is highly appreciated. The Prince (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page indefinitely to prevent further reverts by the IP. It seems that this has been going on since at least early this year, and possibly longer (once I got to January, I stopped checking how far back it goes). Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark Lawson

This Google search reveals badly how this bit of BLP vandalism survived for 7 days. Please can someone, somewhere, watchlist this article? Also, can someone prompt Google into clearing their cache? 80.176.233.6 (talk) 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann: Underhanded tactics and false accusations

I'm having a problem with User:Dbachmann. He's coming on way too strong. Someone please tell him to back off. There are proper channels to put forth proposals, but instead he's waging a move war against outlines. The OOK WikiProject's discussion list has become clogged with incidents involving him. He even tried on his own talk page to intimidate and connive an 8th-grader into helping him with a mass move. He's buzzed both WP:AN and WP:ANI posting very deceptive and negatively rhetorical claims - the threads were deemed inappropriate for this venue and closed, leaving me unable to respond to his false claims. (Links are included on the discussion list).

The war has culminated in a battle over the changing of a single sentence of the Stand-alone lists guideline. In his post on the talk page, Dbachmann included a false accusation in the heading.

Dbachmann is being highly irrational, isn't playing fair, and he's starting to affect my ability to coordinate the WikiProjects I'm responsible to, and my ability to work on improving this encyclopedia's lists.

I've been working on damage control for 3 straight days (including today), and I'm about ready to snap. I need your help. Somebody please talk to him.

In an effort to clear things up and hopefully bring this war to an end, I have posted the following explanation and proposal:

Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Outlines and indexes have been included since the beginning; and a proposal

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

The Transhumanist 22:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, your use of language here is fantastically revealing. "Wikiprojects I'm responsible to," "damage control," "war against outlines," and so on. You and the other few involved in these 'outlines' keep typing reams and reams and reams of text that don't actually say much and are filled with circular reasoning. And anyone with the temerity to object to outlines is immediately a bad person--or, condescendingly, misguided and foolish. The wall around your garden is crumbling. → ROUX ₪ 22:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Objecting to outlines is one thing. Running a smear campaign is something else entirely. I coordinate some WikiProjects, and I can't do that if I'm spending all my time answering false claims and rhetorical tactics. And it's not just a war, but a move war - a specific type of editorial war. He should just leave us alone and post a proposal at the Village Pump. The Transhumanist 23:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So.. let me see if I have this correct: your project can impose this outline nonsense all over Wikipedia, but any objections must go to the VP, and can't be discussed with you? There's yet another bit of evidence that this is a walled garden, and yet another reason why this whole project should be nuked from orbit.→ ROUX ₪ 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't have it correct, on either count. I'm not here about objections. What brought me here is Dbachmann's highly uncivil and objectional behavior. And I have no interest in Walled gardens. This whole thing began because of adding what Dbachmann thought of as too many links - the opposite of a walled garden. He came across a hatnote from a test run of hatnotes, and has been going on a rampage ever since. As long as he remains civil, I don't have a problem with him. The Transhumanist 23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the above was very well explained (or handled). I also don't think it warrants an ANI post. I'd suggest closing it, as being at the wrong venue, just like the last ANI thread about this was (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#"Outlines").

If anyone reading this wants context for what is being discussed, the relevant discussion links have all been collated (see the May/July 2009 links); the thread at WT:SAL is possibly the most concise/informative.

Lastly, I have notified dbachmann of this thread. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a reason someone hasn't filed an RFC on the issue of outlines? I agree these backroom dealings and once-in-a-while ANI threads aren't helping anything. –xeno^talk 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• The reason I haven't filed one is that it's too complicated a situation. If Dbackmann, who has apparently been sniping monitoring the situation all along, would put one together, it would be helpful. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I"m actually considering filing one myself (might be worthwhile for a neutral party to file it), but I don't have time to review the whole situation. –xeno^talk 14:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Agree that an RfC might be the best way to go here. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Arthur, when you go back and edit a snarky comment to strike it out, it shows you thought better of it afterwards. When you do it in the original post, it shows that you really intended to say it. Just sayin' ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, He probably intended that, it is a standard internet method of expression. The other related method is explained at Backspace, and the example there: "My slave-dri^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hboss decided to stall the project.". HTH. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Arthur, but go even further, that this situation is too complicated to be adequately summarized or addressed by an RfC at all, because: it involves a number of overlapping issues, and a number of unrelated issues. Should I attempt to summarize some of them?

1. The outlines themselves have a long history (since 2001 when Larry Sanger made a list of them), but seem to irk some editors as much as infoboxes/linked-dates/"[blank] cruft"/etc do. Dbachmann himself expressed interest in the format back in Nov 2007, when he said "But type (2) "cheatsheet formats" like List of mathematics topics can actually be useful as long as they are intelligently arranged and not alphabetized." (here). Anybody who hasn't already, should really read the intro paragraphs at Propædia, too.
2. They have been discussed in many venues, including most of the Villagepumps on multiple occasions, but some people are still convinced that they are "new" or "secret" or "unvetted".
3. There is a lot of support for the outlines, from intelligent admins and editors. To name a few from recent threads who have supported the concept of outlines, or who actively work on them: DGG, Skomorokh, rootology, Kingturtle, Rich Farmbrough, John Broughton, Sj, Juliancolton, Phoebe, and many more whose names I don't recognize.
4. The 'aggressive'/'enthusiastic'/'motivational' writing style that The Transhumanist employs tends to get under some people's skin (mine included, though I've worked closely with him for 4 years now). That can't be helped, at either end. It's one of the main problems with Wikipedia, and online forums in general, that people who object to any part of one's ideas will latch on to the weakest aspect of them, and use it to undermine the whole. (Hence hours upon hours of re-writing everything in an attempt to eliminate the possibility of misinterpretation or sidetracking. Good practice but exhausting.)
5. There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what exactly is the 'current' state of things. Also a lot of confusion and disagreement as to the ideal 'end' state of things. For example: what namespace 'these pages' belong in keeps coming up (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and more. (Some of these arguments have been summarised here)). Well, that depends on 'which' pages are being discussed, and whether they should be considered along with related pages. Are outlines considered lists in need of references, or are they navigational pages? (As Dbachmann said: "there is no clear division, and there will always be room for debate. Common sense needs to be applied, case by case. The relevant question is: "is the page indexing Wikipedia, or is it an encyclopedic list?""). Do we want to move all the "navigational (index) pages" to a new namespace?(tried that a few times, no consensus). There are a LOT of navigational pages in mainspace, that for technical reasons should really remain there (Category:Disambiguation pages, Category:Lists of lists, Category:Indexes of articles, and many more), and there are a lot that are somewhere between a navigational(index) page and an article (Category:Glossaries and Category:Timelines and Category:Bibliographies by subject and Category:Outlines and more). As Transhumanist says above, we've been trying to bring some order to the mess (such as renaming pages in a consistent manner, and assigning them to wikiprojects, and giving them a consistent structure) which has naturally brought them up on watchlists, and shocked some people who were apparently unaware they all existed, or how many there were of each.
6. Each type has appeal/benefits/problems. Compare: Japan, Outline of Japan, Index of Japan-related articles,Portal:Japan, Category:Japan, Category:WikiProject Japan articles. (plus all the various sidebar and footer navboxes). Yes, there could be a perfect, autogenerated, utterly-intuitive, never too-much nor too-little indexing system, but noone has built it so far... Until then, we have these manually created lists/indices.

I'm positive there is more that needs to be explained/contextualized (and that I've done an imperfect job on what I have explained), but I've spent just over 90 minutes on this, and need to get on with my day. Hopefully some of the above is helpful (and hopefully none of it is inflammatory or grossly incorrect ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note that the projects have specifically avoided OWNing these lists, and have been open aout getting more involvement. It would be useful to see why people who oppose them do so. I'm tempted to suggest it's a personality clash between thread starter and thread subject. Personally - Wikipedia needs some better method of navigation. (I'm not sure this is it), especially since search box sucks so hard. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is difficult to navigate a maze like Wikipedia , where articles get added in an uncoordinated manner. There are many ways to organize, & as a librarian, I know all the extensive arguments for and against each of them. In practice, whatever scheme people are willing to work on is the best--anything can work if people maintain it; nothing can work if they do not. As we cannot compel anyone to work on anything, we have to accommodate what our volunteers actually want to do. At the moment, the greatest activity and the hardest work seems to be the outlines. That's therefore where efforts should go & where mine will be also. I was delightd to see The Tranhumanist's project, and so should anyone be who cares about the users and realises that they are unpredictable. And in general, to try to block other people's projects when they are not actually harmful is not usually all that helpful. I tend to watch out very carefully for OWNership, which I consider a serious threat to the encyclopedia--I do not see it in TH's approach. I see a perhaps over-extended attempt to work with everyone possible, but that's merely too much of a good thing done in the right spirit. DGG (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although there may be merit to the idea of outlines, the fact is that there are reasonable objections to them that should be addressed now, before the members of the Project commit a lot more of their time to making them, and before even more hurt feelings are generated on all sides. Abductive (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you have more questions at the thread you linked to? (Your last reply was 1 word!) We've been answering all the questions you've asked and discussing all the topics you've raised, so far... (We're not machines, and cannot produce aesthetic improvements project-wide overnight, if that's what your concerns are still ;) Some of the bigger issues that you've mentioned there need a bigger venue; go ahead and start a VPump thread, or similar. -- Quiddity (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

what I was trying to say is that there are major objections that can be raised against any form of organization. You name it, i ll find reasons why it is not a good way to do things. Yet we must have structure. This is no worse than the alternatives, and that's what you;d need to show. DGG (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I read those questions. They're good questions. They're not the kind of thing I think of when an editor says things like "train wreck" or "disaster". (and hopefully the outlines people have replied to most of your concerns.) Really, I see some people with very strong opinions against outlines. It'd be nice to see somewhere a neat concise list of reasons for why they think outlines are so harmful. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The one issue that I think does need scrutiny/comment, is the "scope" of the outline project: How to decide which topics need/deserve/warrant outlines. This hasn't been discussed seriously yet, as far as I recall. My view, is that we should generally follow some sort of restrictive and pre-established list, such as the various vital/core/essential article lists (eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles#List of vital articles). TT seems to follow [what I would call] a more m:incrementalism approach, using Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Projected outline as his plan of intended action. I would welcome an RfC on this specific topic, at whatever location is deemed most appropriate.

(But that should probably come after the confusions above are confirmed as being cleared up. Hopefully Dbachmann will respond to one of the various threads that would benefit from his responses/input, soon. (1, 2, and/or here)) -- Quiddity (talk) 07:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie edit warring again

23prootie (talk · contribs) has a long history of edit warfare, for which they have been previously blocked. On 6 February this year they were blocked for edit warring in the Pacific War and Allies of World War II articles (3RR noticeboard), following the block their behavior continued and they were again blocked for a longer period (3RR noticeboard). They then attempted to evade this block and continue their edit warring through a sockpuppet account which was confirmed and led to their block being extended (AN/I post). Despite this, they've recently resumed edit warring in both the Pacific War and Allies of World War II articles. The consistent pattern of behavior in both articles is to include claims that various colonies and dependent territories, and especially the Philippines, were independent states during the war and that the articles are racist for not including them in the various lists of combatants. This position has been discussed on both article's talk pages and has not won any support. Diffs for the Pacific War article in the last 24 hours or so are: [107], [108] and [109] as well as this series of edits on 23 June. Relevant diffs on the Allies of World War II article are: this series of edits, including the following ones which have edit summaries which show that the inclusion of countries is motivated by the editor's personal views rather than any sources: 'Again this is the reason why the Philippines should be listed separately. As quoted from a Filipino politician. "The Philippines is the world's punching bag."', 'I'm adding India, the list is "too white" for my tastes' and 'Is South Korea a developed country?'. Given that this editor's persistent edit warring over these articles has not been stopped by their previous blocks, I would suggest that a lengthy block is in order. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

From their block log, I note that 23prootie was also recently blocked for edit warring on 30 May. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the status of the Phillipines to pass judgment. However this edit: 'I'm adding India, the list is "too white" for my tastes' is grounds for a disruption block, as there was no basis for the addition of the information apart from personal viewpoint. (India certainly lacked any form of self-rule during WWII, this was achieved in 1948). Manning (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to contest the block since that editing "session" was clearly one against three or five, sorry I didn't count.--23prootie (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my insensitive possibly racist comments. Based on the history of my country, it's kinda typical for us to think that way. Kinda like a "white vs. other" thing. Sorry to be offensive. It's just frustrating when you know you're right.--23prootie (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You continue to edit against consensus and you continue edit warring. On top of all that you even dare to leave threatening messages like this one[[110]] acussing others. I don't believe that you are sorry at all. You just want to get out of this situation.--Jacurek (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I've at that dispute for quite some time and it kinda gets tough when you know everyone is against you. I know I should have looked for a source since the beginning and I'm sorry for having acted immature, I've learned. As for the message you got. I kinda got annoyed thinking the dispute has been resolved. Punishment is not a solution here.--23prootie (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope it will be not necessary but it is not up to me to decide. Good luck and see you at the TALK PAGES and not edit warrig anymore.:)--Jacurek (talk) 00:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Quick history note to User:Manning: the Tydings-McDuffie Act determined that the Philippines would be in a transitional state from 1934 to 1944 at the end of which they would be out from under the US thumb and be their own sovereign nation. The Japanese invaded before that could happen. The Philippines became fully independent on July 4, 1946. Here's hoping User:23prootie can see his way to accepting the facts as they stand. Binksternet (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite the repeated warnings, including a 3RR warning, 23prootie has continued their edit warring today in both the Pacific War article ( [111] (the summary of 'see talk page' ignores the total lack of support for this there and the fact that they've been asked, repeatedly, to stop edit warring over the status of the Phillipines), [112] (edit summary of 'Yehey! I was right'), [113]) and Allies of World War II article ([114] and ([115]). They are also adding the Philippines to lists of sovereign states of the 1930s (see [116]), which was also part of the behavior which led to their being blocked in February. Could an uninvolved admin please look into this an impose an appropriate sanction? Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I provided a reliable source. So there.--23prootie (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"Sole co-founder"

Oeekeepeedeeah (talk · contribs)

Quack quack.  Skomorokh  09:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef for this page move summary. Well, that and an obvious VOA. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 10:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

These accounts [117] [118] [119] [120] show no activity besides being the recipient of a welcome by Oeekeepeedeeah [121]. 14:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably he was trying to get his edit count up by welcoming new users. Thatcher 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Questwolf (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). IP blocked. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why wasn't the user indefinitely blocked after the page move?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Please take a look at the legal threat on Talk:Charlene Cafritz. The article is up for AfD, but that still doesn't make their legal threats acceptable. Thanks. Astronaut (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. Regardless I tweaked the article to make it less definitive (the source used "supposedly made films with Manson" whereas the article said "made films with Manson"). I think it will fail AFD anyway as subject is probably not notable. Manning (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've removed the content from the talk page and the IP address has been blocked by another admin for "abusing the edit filter". Nakon 03:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems like this could have been an opportunity for an explanation, rather than a block. Oh well. Funny how we give obvious vandals at least 4 chances to reform before their first block, but this editor, who appears to have been trying to do what they think is the right thing, but who doesn't know how Wikipedia operates, get blocked after one warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Here's the edit filter summary. The user attempted on about 30 occasions in a 14 minute period to replace the page with an identical comment to what Nakon eventually reverted on the talk page. It is possible to assume that the user simply didn't understand what was happening, hence the repeated actions. Manning (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • True, but thanks to the edit filter, they weren't actually hurting anything, so a block before talking wasn't critical. No human tried to explain what was going on. I've left a note on their page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
          • Correction. At the most four chances to reform before their first block. Of course, it's the users' discretion to give fewer, depending on the level of vandalism, the target, and severity before blocking. Just thought I'd clear that up. MuZemike 05:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
            • It's only for 24 hours anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I suggest that you all get yourselves over to Special:Contributions/67.40.131.21, or look carefully at the details of those edit filter entries. Those 30 filter entries are one single edit to that article. So you're supporting blocking someone for one edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• I guess the IP editor doesn't know that libel and slander are different......unless they simply don't know how to spell liable, in which case they have libel and slander backwards. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And in either case, under U.S. law (where Wikipedia's servers are located) the dead have no protection from libel. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Libel for slander"? That's a good one. The NLT page could pick up on that and warn that making a legal threat "is libel to get you blocked". Self-defining! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm libel to say that I didn't mean to say "I'll sue your ass for this!" I just don't know how to spell "I disagree with your opinion and wish to challenge you in the field of book-related battle." --Smashville^talk 16:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
• So many legal threats recently. Geez, what a bunch of merry sues... HalfShadow 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hello, Mary Sue; Goodbye, Hart. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikiscribe

Extended content

This user has recently been trolling the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy [122], [123]. The user has been confirmed to have engaged in sockpuppetry at least on three occasions , see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wikiscribe. The user also has a significant block log. Recently a number of editors including Wdford, block log, and Lusala lu ne nkuka luka, block log have been banned from editing the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Sometimes it is a good idea to not just look at the minutiae, but to step back and take a look at the bigger picture. Isn't it somewhat absurd that users who have no blocks have been banned from editing the article, whereas a confirmed sockpuppet has been given free reign to edit the article. For example Wdford has no blocks and so too does Luka as their block logs confirm. Because they have no blocks it means that Wdford and Luka have respect for wikipedia's adminisitrators and wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This means that if administrators have ever warned them about their behaviour, they have paid attention. The same cannot be said about Wikiscribe. When Sockpuppetry is done to try to win edit wars or content disputes, this indicates a clear intent to deceive the wikipedia community and also to try and outsmart wikipedia's administrators. Wikiscribe is clearly trying to be disruptive on the article with the attempt of gaining punitive sanctions against his opponents and also to have a particular version protected. My suggestion is that the administrators should keep an eye on him, and at the very least he needs a warning, so that the community can be seen as being fair towards all people in the dispute.Do as I say not as I do (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)|} Obvious sock of User:Muntuwandi, block needed, CU needed to define rangeblock. → ROUX ₪ 21:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

I think User:Aqirr (whos account was created today) is the same user as User:Globalr and User:Koov (same user) which are blocked as a sockpuppets. Aquirr's profile is very similar to Globalr's. They all list the UN nations, have something about Palestine and mention Kyoto Protocol. Can an Admin please check this up for me. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. In the future, could you notify me on my talk page for Koov socks? I've been keeping track of this fellow for over half a year now, and it would help if I could stay one step ahead of him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat

Resolved

 – This thread is simultaneously unresolved and resolved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I looked, so now it's become resolved. DMacks (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Schrödinger's cat (redirect page referencing to itself) needs to be deleted so that the incorrectly renamed Schrödinger's Cats can be given back its proper name of Schrödinger's cat—there is only one in the experiment! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Now references the new page, but it's still in the way of changing the name back to where it was. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Bubba hotep, for fixing this.--Old Moonraker (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. The normal place for these requests, by the way, is WP:RM but job done in any case! :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: I've never needed to do a page move back before. Thanks again. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ASIO File

Resolved

 – User has been indef blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

A community decision was made to redirect the article at AfD. A user has repeatedly[124][125] reverted to the pre-redirected content and has unilaterally rejected the community decision. I have restored and protected the article to prevent this happening again. The user and I have some history, with which I will not bore you. However, I'd appreciate a check on my use of page protection by an uninvolved admin. Thanks, Papa November (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be Frei Hans (talk · contribs · block log). The Junk Police (reports|works) 13:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with protection of redirect. I have also left a message on Frie Hans talkpage confirming your actions as correct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User Block Requested

The editor involved in the above page Frei Hans (talk · contribs) should be considered for a block based on the evidence and pattern of engagement submitted at this WQA filing. This kind of needling and disruption is intolerable. Eusebeus (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Papa November has already started an WP:RFC/U against the user (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans). I would see what that accomplishes first in hopes that a block can be avoided in the interim. MuZemike 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this RFC/U could encourage Frei Hans to reform his behaviour and that a block won't be necessary. I'd appreciate it if people could head across to the RFC and put in their 2p. Papa November (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He filed an SPI just now - evidently he thinks Verbal and A Man in Black are your sockpuppets.[126] If he continues to do this, especially if he doesn't respond to the RfC, a block may have to be made, hopefully only a short one to stop his disruption. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He's refusing to comment at the RFC and is just updating his SPI to include every user who warns him. Can an uninvolved SPI clerk please make an assessment ASAP on this, please? Papa November (talk) 17:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised I haven't wound up on that list yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm giving him twenty minutes more. If he doesn't come up with anything, I'm just gonna' close it as disruptive. If anyone would rather skip the wait, I won't complain. Watch that you don't jinx it, Sarek. lifebaka++ 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

*cough* This is kinda' ridiculous now. It appears my generosity has been rewarded. Could someone just close the fiasco quickly? lifebaka++ 18:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

← OK, there are now ten very well established, totally unconnected users on that list. This is pure disruption. Could someone please make an assessment ASAP before he manages to unveil our evil conspiracy? Papa November (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What the heck? I gave him advice (based on the WQA filing) this morning, and yet I don't make his list of obvious Socks? Where's the justice??! FFS, this sucks! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Such is life. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked for 24 hours. Sorry to those who didn't want to see a block here, but this seriously didn't look like stopping otherwise. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, hopefully the 24 hours will give him time to reflect and give me time to finish writing my thesis! Papa November (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents!(Sign here) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. The SPI filing out of retaliation is total nonsense. --Caspian blue 18:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He did a tit-for-tat WQA filing this morning too ... don't forget that (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to add Caspian Blue and Bwilkins to the check user request???---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I bet if we CU'd Balloonman, we'd find out he really is Spartacus! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

...or that User:Joey the Mango is User:Abductive (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive/Archive). MuZemike 18:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• At a guess, it would seem we are dealing with someone who has some sort of mental illness. Hans Adler made some persuasive comments to that effect at the RFC/U. Perhaps out of respect and us all generally not being douchebags who mock mentally unstable people we should wind this down and stop with the jokey? → ROUX ₪ 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• UM... could we NOT diagnose other users please? It's terrifically rude and inappropriate. Comment on behaviours, not on people. You know better, I'm sure. (asking others to be calm is goodness... asking others to be calm because the victim is mentally ill (in your opinion)... not good. Thanks) ++Lar: t/c 11:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it's only a temporary block, we should facilitate a way for Frei Hans to allow him to respond to the RFC/U on his talk page until the block expires. If nobody opposes by the time I finish lunch and get back home, I'll boldly facilitate that. MuZemike 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point I should make a note: he already feels that a whack of people are ganging up on him. The RFC/U is not going to help that belief. I'm one of the most patient folks, and really am having trouble with the behaviours here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What is our other option then after the block expires? I think it's safe to say that the SPI accusations et al are likely to continue tomorrow, so what process do we follow to avoid further disruption or, at the very least, what do we do if and when this happens again? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The only option is to indef block if the disruption continues. Blocking is not a punishment but rather a protection of the encyclopedia. It doesn't matter whether the user has a mental illness or not if they are being absolutely disruptive and are unwilling or unable to modify their behavior. An indef block is the only way to prevent this type of thing from going on if they come off of their block and are not at all willing or able to stop the disruptive actions. Mental illness or not, disruption of this sort can not be allowed to continue without action; we can try to accomodate someone who has a problem, and be more patient with behavior than with a simple troll/vandal, but if a user's actions are consistantly disruptive, they need to be indef blocked, whether they are trying to be disruptive or honestly cannot help it. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the irony

User:Free Hans has been blocked as a sockpuppet of user:Frei Hans. Let's be vigilant! Papa November (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That's block evasion (see Free Hans' edit, which has clearly occurred during the block) and hence warrants a reset and/or extension of Frei Hans' current block. MuZemike 00:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

...and now re-blocked 31h. MuZemike 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Reset, 31 hours. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not indef block him? Or checkuser back FH? The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that'll come soon enough. Meanwhile he's put up an unblock request. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser request

Per User talk:Frei Hans, I have boldly went ahead and requested a CheckUser on the two accounts, just in case someone else is doing a number here. MuZemike 07:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a reasonable belief that Free and Frei are not the same person, merely someone trying to get Frei into additional trouble. A wise CU would compare the findings for Free Hands to a few of their recent mortal enemies, if possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a very wise CU but I am working on it. Can you enhance the SPI with who those "mortal enemies" are? ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to admit I'm not happy about that terminology. Bwilkins, I'd like to know who you think they are also. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Frei Hans has suspicions about all the people he listed at the SPI above. If you see any merit in checking my account, be my guest. However, I don't think we should pander to his conspiracy theory unless you see it as being necessary. Papa November (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"Mortal enemies"? "Conspiracy theories"? I don't think this kind of wording helps, please try to put things more neutrally, y'all. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Anyway I wrapped up the check. Free != Frei. No grounds for further checks presented, and I adjudge it unlikely anyway. ++Lar: t/c 12:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if the wording was considered bad (too much Transformers 2...at least it wasn't a Meagan Fox comment) ... Frei Hand filed SPI's against a number of users. I will put $10 down that one of them, or someone with whom he is having the content dispute, is Free Hand, done as an attempt to discredit Frei. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Would anyone like to own up to that now before we find out who you are? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible that this may very well be a sock of Macromonkey (talk · contribs), as a similarly-named account was just created (User:Bullrangifer) to discredit User:BullRangifer). MuZemike 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that this type of situation does justify a fishing expedition of among all those who have been involved in this case, even myself. Creating such a sockpuppet in this type of situation is a very serious matter, and justice must be done. They must be found and suffer the consequences. Start fishing, and do it fast. Note that none of this excuses Frei Hans for his actions and extreme bad faith, but whoever did this knows better. I'm not sure that Frei Hans has the ability to know better, and that he has already shown that he is unsuitable for this environment. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Macromonkey. MuZemike 00:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a start, but I don't see any evidence of enmity between Macromonkey and Frei Hans. Of course he could still have done it as a mischievous prank, just for the heck of it. That's the essence of much vandalism.

No, the most likely way to find the prankster is to do what the police would do - look at who has been in conflict with Frei Hans, or who has criticized him, especially recently, myself included. This is the only logical method, and it's what is usually done in such situations in the real world. Let's do it here. When a sock has been proven to be a Joe Job in such a touchy situation, then the perpetrator must be found. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked my previous comment as it was apparently ambiguous. I've chosen the word "among". -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. It came back negative. I saw the one-letter differences and the disruptive-only nature of both accounts and thought I saw a connection. MuZemike 05:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Longer block possibly required

After the user has been unblocked, it appears he went right back to the behavior he was blocked for, assuming bad faith of several admins and calling me a sock. Please discuss his new bad-faith and baseless accusations.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? → ROUX ₪ 06:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Frei Hans is upset; he was screwed by the 'Free Hans' account and is venting on his talk page. I've advised him to drop the sock allegations and focus on the RFC/U. Daedalus sure isn't helping things over there and should go away. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A indef block may be good. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll see. Ideally, it shouldn't be necessary. lifebaka++ 03:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This may be a little redundant, but it may not. Since the above post, the user has continued to call others socks and make even more bad faith and baseless accusations against, as far as I can tell, any and all who disagree with him or offer him advice. I'm really getting tired with this behavior. Edits so far have been solely to his talk page, he seems to be treating WP as a battle ground, with everyone who disagrees/offers advice having 'wronged' him somehow. I really don't get it. With the exception of two edits, all of his energy is on his talk page. Check it out if you already haven't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Frei Hans is in defensive mode at the moment. He's having a really hard time coming to terms with the fact that he's doing something wrong and he also doesn't seem to be able to understand that the Free Hans incident is no longer an issue. He keeps trying to explain that he is not Free Hans and that he should not be punished for Free Hans' actions even though several users have attempted to explain to him that this is explicitly understood by the community and he no longer needs to keep explaining himself with regards to this. Regardless, I think that at this point any further posts on his talk page about this issue will inevitably be taken by him as badgering and harrassment and he will continue to feel the need to defend himself; this should be avoided because it will only escalate the situation. He may need some time to collect his thoughts and I think all of us should refrain from commenting on his talk page further. He's been encouraged to participate in his own RfC and address those issues there. Undoubtedly, further disruptive behaviour by Frei Hans will likely be met by extended blocks but there's no sense in us being adamant trying to convince him that his previous block was justified if we know that he refuses to acknowledge his wrongdoings. Failure to acknowledge previous wrongdoings, by itself, is not a blockable offense so we don't need to drill it into him as though he'll be indef-blocked if he doesn't fess up. But further disruption is most definitely blockable and he has been made well aware of that so let's leave him alone until he either specifically asks for further involvement by the community or until he does something that merits community action. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm done on his talk page. He has not commented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frei Hans#Response and I don't expect him to. Frankly, he is trolling his own talk page and anyone in sight. Jack Merridew 09:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked him 1 month for filing a second abusive SPI request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Verbal. Since I'm also named in it, can someone else close?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, sorta'. Someone else closed, but I went ahead and slapped a conclusion of "OMG NOT SOCKS" (paraphrased here) on it before it got archived. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've extended the block to indefinite, something which I feel is largely a formality. Unless Frei Hans can trust other editors - and he's basically accused everyone else of being a sock - working here will be impossible. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I still didn't make the list of possible socks?? Let's take a quick note though that he possibly does not understand the difference between MEAT and SOCK (if that is the case, I'm afraid of what's in his shoes). As everyone on his lists does discuss policy and delivers consensus-based results, you're right, in some way bizarre form of the word, we are all meatpuppets. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

All of them used those templates and the (edit conflict) notice. And did you see? Several had multiple barnstars! These obviously cannot be different people. Everyone's a sock! Auntie E (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget, every last one of the people on his list had registered accounts on Wikipedia. Pretty conclusive, I think. Perhaps we should point him to this list of probable sockpuppets. Papa November (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins, unless FH is putting everyone on (which could be what's happening here, for whatever reason), yes, I can grok an outcast-weary outlook wherein all who disagree with FH are a bunch of meatpuppets, the word being somewhat muddled with sockpuppets. What's-his-name's notion of the hive mind is alikened to this. Some folks somehow can't abide how Wikipedia is edited, as there are some who can't abide the New York Times or monkey brains for dinner. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the perfect analogy, I think: "American Express won't give me a credit card. Mastercard won't give me a credit card. VISA won't give me a credit card. Sears won't give me a credit card. Target won't give me a credit card. JC Penney won't give me a credit card. Dammit, they must all be the same company!! (which of course means that it has nothing to do with a crappy credit history)." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

That is so the perfect analogy. Nice one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, if this user does show up again, they're style is so... (can't think of the word), we could easily spot them if they showed up as a sock.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Koalorka & a sock account

User:Koalorka has been editing under this IP this morning despite his block. See this diff and this archived ANI thread for details.

Separately, there is also a sock account, User:Koalorka1 which he states on the talk page that he won't use it for editing but he has been (but not to evade this block, he's only using the IP for that).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, and extended koalorkal's block for evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC) and extended again for continuing personal attacks on his/her talk page, this time with talk page edits disabled. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that in this series of incidents, Koalorka and Nukes4Tots were baited into their abuses by actions of User:Some guy, and that the series of blocks has exceeded a fair assessment of blame for the situation.

I don't disagree that Koalorka block evading does not help. However, the underlying incident is more questionable than Some guy made it out to be, and the end result has been that two extremely good contributors have been blocked for extended periods of time.

I would like to request review of this and consider reducing the block extension if Koalorka agrees to behave himself for the remaining 3 or 4 days until the original incivility block ends. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm...you mean the guy that just wrote this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yay. Happy feelings breaking out all around.

I am going to AGF that Koalorka feels differently in a couple days. I am, as I noted, working to review and moderate the baiting behavior I believe led to this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It was never my intention to bait anyone and I asked him numerous times to stop personally attacking me. Almost every thing he ever said to me was at least mildy offensive, repeatedly calling me a troll, an arrogant newbie, a vandal, etc. That's not baiting? But responding to that in less than handshake-friendly terms is baiting? Continuing this discussion here is inappropriate unless another administrator shares the concerns that I was baiting him, but as for you I am willing to continue discussing things on my user talk. Some guy (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There are a bunch of members of the firearms project and WPMILHIST who have shared the concerns that you're baiting people. I have eight who have said so either privately or publically, although that includes the two who were blocked for being nasty to you. That said - I see no reason to intervene at this time regarding your actions, in your case, retroactively. I would like to remain focused on admin review of the Koalorka situation (and possibly Nukes4Tots, but not at the moment). You may not feel that this is an appropriate discussion, but you do not have any standing to insist on its removal. ANI does not work that way. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm here because of this message on my talk page. I support the blocks of Koalaorka and his socks. It has long been my opinion that there is never an excuse for incivility, as in this instance [127], and that the word "baiting" seems to be only ever used as an attempt to provide such an excuse (see also Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#No (baiting)). Georgewilliamherbert, I think you should consider that your comments in support of uncivil and disruptive editors may serve to validate and encourage their disruption – and I say this without endorsing or excusing actual (i.e., non-"baiting") disruption, if any, that Some guy may have caused.

A disclaimer - I have been the one to most recently block Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the other user mentioned by Georgewilliamherbert, and for unrelated reasons I have also commented in two of the RfCs initiated by Some guy (1, 2) which seem to underly some of this conflict, but in view of the conflicts pervading that discussion I am not inclined to involve myself any more in what is ultimately an unimportant matter.  Sandstein  05:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to tread a thin line here between not letting Some guy get away scot-free for what he's been causing, and not letting Koalorka and to a lesser degree Nukes4Tots get away scot-free with having gone over the line in response. There were two 1-week blocks for incivility on user talk and article talk pages issued. I haven't disputed their validity or asked for immediate unblocks - I am at this point, with those two, primarily focused on not letting things spiral worse out of control due to blocked editors venting. As has been commented in several places, the "allow blocked users to vent" informal policy is not universally supported (you oppose it for example, Sandstein) but is widely supported. It would be less ambiguous if Koalorka had not IP edited after the block; that certainly did not help.

I'm putting this up for discussion rather than simply pushing an unblock directly myself, because I would rather get some community consensus on these points with adequate context. There was clearly good reason to block initially and with Koalorka the issues continued after that.

Regarding Some guy's current reactions - Editors in WPMILIST and the Firearms project, in good standing with long experience records, who I do not believe have ever gotten into insult matches with anyone on wiki, are stating that they believe that Some guy has been baiting people. Some guy's responses seem to indicate a communications deficit in some way - in discussions on his talk page, he is proving extremely resistant to understanding what people are criticizing him about, and extremely resistant to looking at what other people are saying about him unless he is spoon fed diffs. The conversation there shows that he has a real problem. I don't know precisely what to do about it - I am probably going to spoon feed him the diffs, but he's showing no sign of understanding what he needs to look for going forwards about people criticizing him and trying to get him to change his behavior.

I don't know if this is going to end up with him understanding the problem and reforming, him topic banned, or him indeffed, but the issue is very real. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

George has approached me "to help" in an obtuse and aggravating manner (he's trying to make me play games) and despite my repeated comments that his approach of unsubstantiated complaints is irritating and not helpful, he continues to harass me while suggesting he will block me indefinitely if I do not cooperate with him. Furthermore, the substance of his complaints seems to be "other people have complained about you" - most editors who have had issue with my behavior have addressed me directly and I have responded to at least most of them. He has not taken this bizarre and unhelpful approach with the other editors who were blocked but maintain that they did nothing wrong. George is trying to discredit me by "trying to help" in a thoroughly unhelpful manner and then going around accusing me of having a communication disorder and threatening to ban me indefinitely. I am not resistant to understanding what other people are talking about or addressing complaints against my behavior - I am resistant to George's aggravating and now insulting approach and I do not wish to discuss anything with him directly at this time. Some guy (talk) 01:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for illustrating my point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm not sure whether this is relevant, but I recently mentioned to User:Xeno by email the other day that for the first few months of his editing career, Koalorka had consistently tried to remove all mention of Turkey on WP as even a partially European country. Following attempted edits to Ethnic groups of Europe, he was given an ArbCom related topic ban on articles connected with Turkey by User:Elonka [128]. At the time he called me "a butt-hurt Marxist foaming at the mouth"; ELonka did not block him for this. Mathsci (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy

New subsection for issues relating to Some guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I am going to stay off his talk page for the moment as he appears to be increasingly unable to communicate in a constructive manner with me there, though I will post a brief pointer to this there so he is aware.

As I said above, I have seen a number of users who have stated that they felt Some guy is engaging in some form of abusive, in many cases explicitly called baiting or taunting behavior.

Specific examples:

1. Users whom Some guy has been involved in personal dispute with
   1. User:Koalorka - User talk:Koalorka#July 2009, Talk:SIG SG 550#Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity (too numerous individual edits to bother listing)
   2. User:Nukes4Tots - Talk:SIG SG 550#Request for Comment: Article Accessiblity, numerous others
2. Users whom Some guy has interacted with at the firearms or MILHIST pages
   1. User:Yaf - [129]
   2. BillCJ - [130]
   3. User:Commander Zulu - User talk:Some guy#Concerns
3. Users responding from ANI
   1. Administrator Tanthalas39 - [131], [132], [133] (also involved in WPMILHIST)
4. Other criticism from ANI, including multiparty cooldowns to both sides
   1. User:Thumperward - [134]
   2. Kirill - [135]
   3. User:Berean Hunter - [136] and User_talk:Some_guy#friendly_cease_.26_desist in general.
5. MILHIST user expressing incident-related concern of Some guy
   1. User:LWF - [137] (I believe that was referring to this series of incidents, have not confirmed with LWF)

To which, at some level, I must obviously be added at this point, as this has bothered me enough to start an admin investigation over it.

These criticisms have not all ended badly - Berean Hunter is working constructively with Some guy now, as are Sandstein and ToddST1. However, there is a very strong pattern here. It is not limited to MILHIST participants with troublesome behavior histories - quite a number of editors and administrators have concluded that there are behavioral problems.

Also very troubling are Some guy's responses to attempts by Commander Zulu (at User talk:Some guy#Concerns) and myself (at User talk:Some guy#Georgewilliamherbert Concerns) to discuss these issues with him in a civil and constructive manner. Some guy has been exceptionally defensive, repeatedly been unable to grasp the specific point of criticism, had problems communicating, and ultimately has reacted in an emotional and hostile manner including asking multiple other administrators to intervene and make me leave him alone. I spent considerable effort to not insult Some guy in the discussion we had on his talk page, and avoid any discussion about the merits of his specific content suggestions and stick to behavioral issues. Some guy insisted on conflating his behavior and the content / style discussions (logic like that if someone supported an article organization idea, they must support his behavior, when in fact several people who have supported his content suggestions have also criticized his behavioral problems, and the two issues are in fact completely orthogonal and unrelated). He responded in a similarly negative and escalating manner to Commander Zulu's friendly attempt to work with him and provide constructive criticism.

Some guy has consistently been at the center of a number of incidents of rude or disruptive behavior on firearms and military pages over the last month-plus, across a wide variety of pages, culminating in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by User Koalorka, and filing the report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots though he was not the victim of that abuse. While its true that the people he's seriously tussled with both have histories of incivility and they clearly went too far responding to him in the end, they have not reacted in this concerted manner to others who come in to contribute to MILHIST or firearms articles. Nor have the rest of the firearms and MILHIST editors commented about trolling and baiting behavior this much with any other editor.

There is clearly disruption - The military history project is one of the best run projects most of the time, and the firearms editors while somewhat contentious usually get along well. The disruption started when Some guy showed up. He is clearly the focal point of it. This has been widespread across the topic.

I don't want to propose any intervention at this time. My goal now is to collect and present the situation for review in context, and discussion. Other administrators need to see this. Others in WPMILHIST and the firearms articles may well want to comment. Some guy deserves a chance to explain his role, learn from constructive criticism, attempt to avoid problem behaviors.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

George has been harassing me and threatening me on my user talk. He has been making numerous unsubstantiated claims on my talk page ("everyone is against you", "you are baiting", etc) and refused to back up these claims with any specific evidence, telling me to "go find it". He has been trying to get me to play games and attacking me because I refuse, threatening to ban me indefinitely, and accusing me of having a communication disorder. I have repeatedly told him I don't like his approach and consider it harassment. I have suggested he forward his complaints to another administrator but he has refused. My opinion is that his pursuing a vendetta for other Wikiproject Firearms members. I AM WILLING TO DISCUSS ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT MY BEHAVIOR WITH ANYONE WHO IS NOT GEORGE. I am not currently engaged in any disruptive or inappropriate behavior. I have nothing more to say.

EDIT: Nukes was not blocked for attacking me. How the hell did I bait him into attacking someone else? Of course Tan was brought up out of context. He substantially withdrew his comment. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tanthalas39&diff=300041640&oldid=300024567

Some guy (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I specifically stated that you filed the ANI report that got him blocked, though you weren't the victim - "....and filing the report Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive550#Article ownership and personal attacks by Nukes4Tots though he was not the victim of that abuse.". I believe that was clear. If not, I apologize for creating any confusion. I did not mean to imply that Nukes4Tots was blocked for attacking you. You two were engaged in vigorous and often rude discussion on multiple pages, and you filed the ANI report for his incivility to another editor, but as you say he was not blocked for uncivil comments to you.

In any case - the specific diffs I asked you to go look for last night are now provided for you (and everyone else) to review. As I noted then, the first five of those diffs took me five minutes to find, and one was literally the second paragraph above one of your comments, in the same subsection, on my user talk page. I would appreciate it if you would respond to the specific issue and diffs.

I have also notified everyone who I quoted (I think), in case they have input they'd like to provide, or if I have misinterpreted their comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How do you suggest I was unaware of a comment I responded to? That seems to me that I am more aware of what happened than you are, but that's just speculation. 05:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested you were unaware of it because, in the thread User talk:Some guy#Concerns you denied to Commander Zulu, and then in User talk:Some guy#Georgewilliamherbert concerns, that you were being described as baiting by anyone other than the three editors you were engaged in interpersonal conflict with. That you had just recently responded to such a discussion comment seems to indicate that you should have known otherwise, and I was hoping that prompting you a bit would cause you to recall it and go looking for the other examples. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made a mistake. You know what would have saved a lot of time, not pissed me off, and been generally more appropriate? Telling me. Some guy (talk) 05:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Although not a member of the WikiProject Firearms project, Some guy started editing the structure section of the WikiProject Firearms guidelines "out of the blue". His approach seemed a bit abrasive, with no thoughts towards seeking a consensus with other project members, but I sensed an intense editor who is probably very bright, but very young. The end result was a short dialogue on his talk page here, which ultimately led to the creation of a more robust set of guidelines. Being a Dad, with over 2 decades of "Dad" experience, though, as well as interacting regularly with young adults professionally, I do get a sense of a rather juvenile appearing editor. It is unfortunate that two very productive editors have been blocked in response to the goings-on of this youthful appearing editor. Unless Some guy can learn to tone down his enthusiasm a bit, and learn to work better with others, a cooling off period might ultimately be in order. It would give time for some maturity to develop. Meanwhile, the Wikipedia Project is being penalized in that two normally productive editors have been sidelined. Georgewilliamherbert has tried very hard to put the genie back in the bottle on this whole incident, but Some guy has just not seen the light yet. The assistance of a few other Admins could possibly help calm the waters. I would hate to see the youthful enthusiasm not accomplish good on our Wikipedia project, and be wasted, as well as hate to see the continued sidelining of some of the more mature and productive editors, too. A reset might be in order for all concerned, with careful Admin oversight of all involved editors for a few weeks. If problems resurfaced, then appropriate sanctions could be applied. The only other approach seems largely at odds with overall Wikipedia project goals, wasteful of volunteer labor. Yaf (talk) 05:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

His first sentence highlights the heart of the issue - biggest complaint against me is that I am not a member of Wikiproject Firearms but I am so "arrogant" as to propose structure changes after several members demanded that I do so when I tried to add subsections to several articles with sections over 1200 words. I do not appreciate being taunted as juvenile - I do not speculate on the ages of other editors. I would also like to point out that the BillCJ comment above was taking out of context; I did not perform any of the "reversions" on Nukes' talk page that were mentioned. Some guy (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another inordinate emotional response, for I never said anything remotely resembling "arrogant". And the end result of Some guy's edits to the WikiProject Firearms article writing structure guidelines was to kickstart the improvement of the WikiProject Firearm guidelines for all, as can be seen here. However, this very comment by Some guy, so full of piss and vinegar, speaks volumes about inappropriate emotional behaviour issues that are contrary to developing consensus among active editors. (I also never invited nor even mentioned the WikiProject Firearms project to Some guy, project membership being a non-issue as far as I was concerned.) Yaf (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nukes, Koalorka, and Zulu have all called me arrogant, I was generalizing. You referred to me as "yet-to-be-proven" which I took to be in keeping with everything the previously mentioned editors have said. You called me juvenile, which I found offensive. I am trying to be civil but my patience has been worn thin by their behavior, and then I am treated as an instigator and every comment I make is claimed as evidence I am inappropriately emotional or whatever you want to call it. Taking my use of the word "arrogance" and claiming it as evidence of inappropriate behavior is extreme. I did not intend anything as a personal attack on you, but to illustrate how I have been treated by multiple editors. Some guy (talk) 01:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the type of behavior I have to deal with: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history&diff=prev&oldid=300770465 (he previously asked me "out of curiosity" if I wanted to join the project and I declined ). I am treated, by a few users, with extreme hostility for being an outsider and this persists. Some guy (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy - Notwithstanding the fact that Georgewilliamherbert is a Wikipedia admin with four years of creditable service, I am prepared to examine your claims that "George has been harassing me and threatening me on my user talk". Please provide relevant diffs to substantiate your allegation. If GWH is guilty of such transgressions then he will certainly be dealt with accordingly and fairly, as would any other editor or admin. However please appreciate that such claims are never taken at face value without supporting evidence, be they leveled at a new user or (as in this case) at an experienced administrator. Manning (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please note I have not provided a diff for every single post in the conversation, the entire discussion is available at my talk page. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Unsubstatiated claim of many users against me, claims I have been baiting, etc etc etc: [138]
• I ask him to back up his claims, lots of questions for him to clarify his accusations: [139]
• Doesn't answer most of my questions, more unsubstantiated claims of a "wide variety" of editors against me: [140]
• Tell him I don't appreciate his unsubstantiated claims, they strike me as attacks, and I expect him to back them up: [141]
• "I'm not going to tell you" [142]
• Asked him to stop at once, told him I was angry, told him further unsubstantiated claims would be considered harassment [143]
• Told him any more unsubstantiated claims or attempts to force me to "research" things will be considered harassment: [144]
• Told him in quite clear terms I did not want to discuss anything with him any further: [145]
• Request on his talk page that he stop and forward his complaints to an uninvolved admin who is not a member of Wikiproject Firearms if they have merit: [146]
• Request for help from another administrator (he hasn't been online since then I think): [147]
• George follows me there and continues his unsubstantiated claims and trying to get me to play his game, including giving me "hints": [148]

Some guy (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

review of above - Hmmm, I have read all of the above and I found nothing that constitutes "harassment". I note that you asked for specific examples of editors who disapproved of your conduct. Georgewilliamherbert gave his reasons for not laying out examples and instead he invited you to "spend five minutes" looking for yourself. That was his right. You elected to not do so - which is naturally also your right. However none of this exchange remotely constitutes "harassment". The remainder (and majority) of the comments made are quite practical and well-intentioned from what I can see. Other admins are free to review and make their own assessment. Manning (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He's trying to get me to play games with him. I told him I didn't like it. Do I not have the right to request that someone stop posting on my talk page? The substance of his concerns are past complaints that other administrators have made. His concerns do not reflect an immediate disruptive behavior on my part. I asked him to forward his complaints to a different administrator. I will repeat I am willing to discuss things with anyone else. I don't want to play games, especially not with yet another member of the Wikiproject Firearms. I didn't want to get into arguments or get anyone blocked, I gave Koalorka tremendous patience and tolerated numerous attacks and gave him multiple warnings before filing an ANI regarding his behavior.

All I've been doing recently is participating in a discussion at MILHIST about changing firearms structure. I have been getting into arguments with one member because he repeatedly stated that I my opinions were invalid and I should not be listened to because I dared proprose a change without being a member of the project. Many members of the project have treated me as an "outsider" with an invalid opinion. I dont want to fight anyone about anything. If I was able to add subsections to the firearms articles without being reverted for changing the article structure, I would be happily editing and not fighting with anyone. All I want to do is finish the discussion about changing the policy ever so slightly to avoid silly opinion disagreements. Some guy (talk) 06:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy - Before commenting let me note that I don't really know Georgewilliamherbert very well, and have never had much reason to interact with him, despite us both being on Wikipedia for a long time. Nor have I ever edited any of the articles in question. So I do not have any "allegiance" or "bias" towards anyone in this dispute. However having read his comments, particularly this one, I am of the firm opinion that he has gone to great lengths to be helpful and provide what I regard as highly worthwhile guidance. He has repeatedly praised your enthusiasm and commended your work, and has merely tried to guide you on matters of community participation. I appreciate you do not presently see it this way, but as a completely uninvolved Wikipedian, this is certainly how it appears. Have you ever considered the possibility that Georgewilliamherbert is actually - and sincerely - trying to help you? Manning (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I did until he continually refused to back up his claims of the multitude of editors against me. His suggestions of blocking me indefinitely make things worse. When he did not respond to and obviously ignored my request to speak with a different administrator instead, I stopped thinking he is trying to help me. As George mentioned towards the beginning of the ANI, I have worked constructively with other editors. Then what is the point of this ANI? I'd MUCH rather discuss his concerns with someone else. Is this ANI just because I won't talk to him and play "go-find-the-clues" with him? I am very willing to discuss concerns about my behavior with anyone else (as long as they don't expect me to play the same game). Don't I have the right to ask George to stop posting on my user talk? This next part I honestly don't know the answer to, do I have the right to speak to a different administrator instead? EDIT: Additionally, why was this so urgent? Why couldn't he have waited until Toddst1 answered my request for advice? I'm not vandalizing any pages, I'm not being disruptive at this point in time.Some guy (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re the complaint that Some guy is being taunted as juvenile - We are not doing that. I, and Yaf, have speculated that Some guy may be unusually young for a Wikipedian in trying to understand and explain behavioral issues (communications difficulties, unusual or inappropriate emotional responses and escalations to constructive criticism). This is "Some guy being young might explain this" not "You're juvenile". Being young is a reasonable and innocent explanation for the issues, if that is true, not some sort of attack. We have many younger editors. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a juvenile editor. I don't think there is any point in persuing that avenue of discussion further. Some guy (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I was pinged on this thread, so I thought I'd step in for a little defense of Some Guy here. While Some Guy has certainly not helped by taking comments personally and making personal comments in turn, the root of most of these problems is the degree of insularity within WikiProject Firearms (and a couple of related projects), and the attacks directed at any "outsiders" who attempt to influence it: witness Manning Yaf's seemingly innocuous comment about Some Guy's age, which is typical of you "you are not experienced enough to edit here" mindset new users often encounter. I've seen nothing to suggest that Some Guy is an "unusually young" editor. Unsurprisingly, both of the editors listed as being currently in dispute with him are currently serving extended blocks for exactly the same behaviour as has resulted in multiple blocks for both of them in the past. As far as I'm concerned, this will continue until such point as it is impressed upon the WikiProjects in question (and their participants) that they are not free to set their own rules on such things as how to conduct oneself on talk pages and in particular WP:OWN (which seems to be worn like a badge of honour by some people right now). I've previously tried to impress upon Some Guy that there is no pressing need for the encyclopedia to be finished tomorrow and that a little patience has worked for me in this domain in the past; some coaching may be a good idea, but I don't see any need for administrative sanctions on him at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris - A clarification re your comment... "witness Manning's seemingly innocuous comment about Some Guy's age...". I agree it was innocuous, but alas it was not me who made it. 'Twas Georgewilliamherbert. Cheers Manning (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. Actually, I was referring initially to Yaf's "Dad" comment. Please accept my apologies; I corrected the statement. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Chris hit the nail dead on the head. Several members of the Wikiproject Firearms have taken an extremely unwelcoming and generally outright hostile behavior towards "outsiders" and people they perceive as "newbies".

Let me show you my first ever interaction with Nukes4Tots and Koalorka - they both acted rather rudely towards an editor with a completely valid suggestion for a page change; after I defended the suggestion they stopped responding and I assumed that was a silent concession and added the word "bullpup" to the lead without being reverted.

Let me fill you in on how the discussion at SG 550 began (this overlapped early discussion at MP5 but I really don't want to try to address edits to two different articles and talk pages chronologically at the same time). I made some structure changes to the article [149] . Koalorka reverted my changes with summary "absolute no sense" [150] . I started a talk page discussion asking why the edits made no sense. I made a somewhat hostile comment but I thought about it and corrected it a bit later [151] . I even created a sandbox version of the page because I was trying to help [152] . Look at how he responded [153] , calling me a "novice editor", "arrogant and trollish". That was his first response at this page. Do you see how extremely hostile that is? How the conversation could only go downhill from there?

At the discussion at MILHIST, Commander Zulu has demonstrated increasingly hostile behavior towards "outsiders". "No one likes strangers" [154] . He attacked another editor for "appearing out of thin air" "with no connection to the project" [155] ("so what if we are being Elitist?"). He began manipulating and misrepresenting my words [156] . And this culminated twisting "editing on my own merits" into "I'm too good to join your project" [157] . He told me to apologize for wasting their time and leave because I was not interested in being a project member. He tried to get an administrator to throw me out of the discussion for not wanting to join the project [158] . Do you see how inappropriately unwelcoming to newcomers that is? Were I not actually an experienced editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia and the patience to persist through such attacks, I probably would have given up and left altogether as I am afraid they may have convinced so many other editors to do.

Please understand the environment I have been placed into. Please understand the enormous patience I have demonstrated in dealing with these editors. I gave Koalorka many warnings before filing an ANI; he maintained his opinion that no personal attacks had occured up to and after that point. I asked several administrators for advice regarding Nukes' behavior before stumbling across his "Fuck you, you little shit" "Go fuck yourself, dumbshit" ( [159] ) to another editor while I was looking through his talk page history for a discussion he deleted. I have not filed any formal complaints against Commander Zulu because he has been participating in the structure proposal, however unwelcoming his behavior may be. Please try to understand how nearly impossible it is to behave perfectly in these circumstances and appreciate how much I have tried. Please imagine a few editors telling you that you have no right to make changes to an article, but you have good faith and go start a project-wide proposal to change the structure guidelines as they demanded. Please imagine that after you do that, a single editor engages in increasingly hostile remarks telling you that you have no right to create a proposal to make project-wide changes. This is just a hint into what I've faced. I don't want to fight anyone but these circumstances are overwhelming. Some guy (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Berean Hunter

I watched this break out across the articles and followed it in real time as it escalated. Here are my observations:

Some guy was reverted often without explanation. The basic tactics used by Koalorka & Nukes4tots was to revert and place the onus on Some guy to make his case on the individual article talk pages. When a few other folks actually express support for Some guy's ideas, they shift to the tactic of (paraphrased) "well, this isn't the place to discuss this...we belong to this group and YOU will have to go over there and make your case and get them to accept it." The truth is that they simply wanted him to go away and thought that by herding him into the small containment of WP:GUNS, he would be shot down.

When discussion did take place on individual talk pages he was told by Koalorka (on 25 Jun) that "You will MOST CERTAINLY NOT remove detailed information without permission or approval from the wider community."

Both Some guy as well as myself asked to be pointed to the consensus being used. When I asked on 1 July, I was told by Nukes that "There is no pate entitled, "Consensus on Section Headers for WP:GUNS project" however feel free to look back at talk and edit histories of various firearms articles. You might want to bring this up on the project page." Asked again to point to this elusive consensus, Nukes4tots replied to Some guy (2 July) "Reading my mind isn't what I had in mind. Over a long period of editing and numerous changes and discussions on various pages, a consensus was built. Basically, the keepers of the consensus are those who edit firearms articles daily. If you want to change the structure, ONCE AGAIN, feel free to go to WP:GUNS and discuss the changes there. Your 'opinion' that WP:GUNS does not have 'enough' traffic (whatever level you've arbitrarilly set as 'enough') does not mean that firearms articles are now subject to your editing whims on what sections should be called what. Further, once you get a consensus there, hop on over to WP:MILHIST and try to overturn the consensus they've built there."

Clearly, they were trying to set an uphill battle for him by labeling that he would need not just one but two different consensus built to try to do anything.

Koalorka told him (2 Jun): "Devise a universal guide on how to use the new subsections, work out the nomenclature, bring it up on the project page and we'll discuss the merits of the idea. You like to hide behind Wiki-policies and refer to them selectively, when they work in your favour. We're going to make you abide by these same procedures. Consensus-building, it can take some time. Hopefully, you'll lose interest and move on to troll 50 Cent by that time." Koa also added (8 Jul): "Not that he'll be able to change anything" and "The futility of his butthurt crusade is entertaining and somewhat sad." Perhaps that is why Koa chose to not make any endeavor to join the discussion at WT:MILHIST#Proposed modification of Firearm article structure the project.

Commander Zulu replied to Some guy (5 Jun), "If I can be honest here, I think a lot of the resistance to your suggestions is coming from the fact you're not "known" to WP:MILHIST or WP:GUNS. No-one likes "strangers" coming in and telling them what to do, and from what I've seen, most of your edits have been largely focused on the Sig 550 and H&K MP5 articles, with one or two forays into things like M1 Garand. It's not a criticism, just an observation. The point is, you can jump up and down about how Wikipedia should work (ie, anyone can edit anything), but without the support of the projects maintaining the articles, you're going to be in constant revert wars. Also- and this isn't a comment or criticism on you personally, but a general observation- the edits made to firearm articles by people not "known" to the Project are, IMHO, generally useless, vandalistic, or otherwise flawed in some way. So, rather than trying to force your ideas on the Projects and getting annoyed when people say things you don't want to hear, why not spend a bit of time helping to improve articles by finding cites for articles lacking them, expanding "stub" articles, or generally improving them without getting too hung up on the presence/absence (or number) of subsections?"

When I responded here, CZ made this reply, "Sorry, who are you? Oh, right, someone else with no connection to the project appearing out of thin air to back up the guy (also with no real connection to the project) getting upset that no-one agrees with him."...and finished his reply with "I think we're perfectly entitled to say 'Go away and stop being a nuisance.' And so what if we are being Elitist? I think, in this project's case, it's more than a little justified." (CZ's full response).

Nukes attitude about this (10 Jun): "He says he wants to contribute and his first act SHOULD have been to join the project(s) and do some of the grunt-work. There's a huge list of things to do that, uh, need to be done. Earn some respect for your editing skills and us "OWNERS" will take Some guy seriously."

In a nutshell, it is thugism. The facts are that the WP:MILGUN MoS always allowed for what Some guy was trying to do and those who were were trying to use it as their defense were wrong about it. But gang tactics seem to prevail here as everyone rushes to state how Nukes or Koa have been slighted with Some guy's "demands". He never demanded, rather he actually followed their advice and went to a project to garner consensus. It seems to have backfired on them. They have been trying to demonize him. On the one hand, people have alluded to him being juvenile while on the other hand he is supposed to be some master wikilawyer.

While GeorgeHW has made considerable efforts to "assist", it is being done in a manner (with bad timing) to play on a previous dispute history of Some guy to undermine his credibility. Right now, is the wrong time to attempt this. Moreover, since group tactics have been used to bully Some guy, he is perfectly right to ask for someone else other than a member of your project to serve in the neutral role for coaching. Since you (GeorgeHW) have stated that you think he was baiting and that the blocks were wrong that makes you non-neutral...you should back away in my opinion. That "indef block" threat seems to be a mistake on your part and undermines your sincerity in these matters and certainly undermined your cause. Lots of other admins in town that can help Some guy when the time comes...

Chris Cunningham hit this nail-on-the-head with his response above. The issue here isn't Some guy. There is an authority issue at hand. The projects are deeming that they have "authority" that supersedes the rights of the general Wikipedia populace with the expectations that you must earn your right to edit "their articles". Never once have I seen any member of WP:GUNS or WP:MILHIST offer what I'd call a sincere welcome or true help to Some guy. I wish that I were wrong about that because it is a shame (diffs anyone?). Most actions seem veiled to protect the members of the gang project or the reputation thereof.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no "right time" or "wrong time" for abuse incidents - this evolved now and needs addressing now.

There seems to be a perception here that I'm part of an in crowd on the MILHIST or GUNS projects and somehow conflicted. I am a listed member, but I participate basically next to not at all on the two project pages, though I contribute to a lot of the articles on and off. Berean Hunter has certainly been way more involved than I have been, for example.

I did not say that the blocks of Koalorka or Nukes4Tots were wrong - See (far above), I am trying to walk a fine line here. I believe that they were effectively taunted into the excessive abuse, but I don't defend the abuse they did in response. I also believe that the handling of the situation after initial blocks was inappropriate, but again I'm not trying to defend them from being held responsible for what they did initially.

If there's a "gang" here, I'm not in it, and I have no intention of covering up any of the project regulars negative actions.

If WP:MILHIST and/or WP:GUNS are too insular and are snapping at newbies then that's fine, deal with it. I have no objection to following that up to whatever conclusion it leads to. Projects need external review from uninvolved people. That's part of why I'm not highly involved with those projects as a project - I try to keep a relatively uninvolved viewpoint. But those further out from them may well have valuable insight and spot problems that need rectifying.

That doesn't mean that we can or should overlook Some guy's active participation in the disruption that's happened. He is doing disruptive stuff. He is responding inappropriately to criticism, in some cases grossly inappropriately. He probably needs a real mentor, and he needs to be aware that causing problems has consequences. Berean and others - someone needs to work with him about how he's responding, here and elsewhere. I spent several hours and several thousand words trying to work with him over the last couple of days and seem only to have turned him extremely defensive. I can't step away as an administrator from the abuse case, but I do think he needs someone he will trust to work with mentoring on communications issues and appropriate responses. There are several admins / senior editors here who he does seem to get along with - if one of you could formally try to pick him up as a mentee, it could avoid this being any more of an abuse issue than it already has been.

Will someone please step up formally and take him under wing on this?

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way did I "taunt" Koalorka into making this post [160] ? I may not always respond to inappropriate criticism with ass-kissing. I'm aware that I'm not perfect. I'm aware that I got mad at a few editors due to their outrageous behavior but I think my defensive responses to being called a troll, a newbie, a vandal with a cognitive disorder, and similar attacks are perfectly valid. Look at how are you approaching this situation overall - you are going to enormous lengths to try to "teach" me, while Koalorka and Nukes still maintain they have done nothing wrong. I don't need a mentor - I'm willing to discuss problems with other editors but I still feel that you are blowing many things out of proportion which is why I ask for evidence (You mentioned comments by BillCJ and LWF but those comments seem directed at ongoing behavior from many editors over a period of months, not directed at me specifically.) . Please indicate where I have responded "grossly inappropriately" to valid criticism from anyone? I will again express my opinion that complaints without diffs such as saying I have responded grossly inappropriately are not very valid criticisms. I haven't been trying to cause problems, I don't want to cause problems, I just want to edit the articles. Some guy (talk) 23:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you want to edit articles and improve them. As I said earlier, the reason we're here talking about it is that I believe you on that point.

BillCJ and LWF have confirmed to me that I was correct in attributing those comments as about you. Several others who I mentioned have come in to the thread and joined the discussion, in one way or another.

Koalorka and Nukes4Tots were and remain blocked. Both have admitted they're responding rudely, though both maintain that you provoked it. I do not support their having behaved rudely, and I have told them both that.

This thread is not about them. Their actions are being reviewed by numerous other admins and will continue to be.

This thread is about your actions and responsibility.

Several of your responses to the subsection on your behavior demonstrate your problematic responses. Your responses on your talk page to my and Commander Zulu's comments demonstrated your problematic responses.

This discussion is showing that there are a wide variety of editors who have a wide variety of opinions on the problem. Some believe that it's not you. But a wide number of editors, most of whom you have not been in personal or content conflicts with, are concerned about it. They're bothering to say so in the discussion here. You should look back and consider what they've said. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Where exactly did they say that? If they did indeed say that, then I respectfully suggest that BillCJ and LWF may have mistaken me with different editors, because I had certainly not been reverting anything on Nukes' talk page nor even been there for "weeks" when he stated that. LWF talks about events over the last few months - I have not been interacting with any members of Wikiproject Firearms for anywhere near that duration.

You continue to make unsubstantiated claims. You didn't respond to my question as to how I provoked Koalorka into creating that post. You didn't respond to my request to see my "grossly inappropriate" responses. Other editors use diffs. I use diffs. Please use diffs. I have gone over this so many times. You are making it literally impossible to address any specific complaints you might have - I can't read your mind, I honestly do not feel that your complaints have much merit, and I continue to expect you to prove otherwise. I don't like the position you put me in where if I say I can't find my grossly inappropriate baiting behavior that I'm looking for, you can suggest I have some serious disability. EDIT: I think you should reread Chris's and Berean's comments and notice their agreement about the hostility towards "outsides" exhibited by multiple members of the Firearms project. Have you noticed that most of the people you cite against me are members of the Firearms project and at many of them have been exhibiting behavior that is hostile/unwelcoming to any editor who is not a member of the project? Their complaints about me stem entirely from the fact that I am an outsider who 'dares try to make change and suggestions without being a member. I therefore would argue their complaints are fundementally flawed and largely meritless. Some guy (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If Yaf or LWF or BillCJ or Commander Zulu or Tanthalas39 or Thumperward had complained "He's an outsider not a member" I would have ignored them. None of them would say something like that, however.

You're trying to simplify this by "Nukes4Tots and Koalorka are hostile to outsiders, so any criticism by anyone is because you're all hostile to outsiders". That's not what's going on.

Ignoring everything that has been said about you by editors you are in conflict with - the remaining criticisms, many by editors with long histories, administrators, or strongly established good ability to work with others and be civil, establish grounds for concern.

Regarding the timeline, you've been involved with firearms articles actively for a month plus or minus (June 10th-ish without going back again). LWF has some longerstanding issues than that - but yours over the last month are part of it, as he said on his talk page.

Regarding which of your responses have been problematic: To a greater or lesser degree, on this subtopic on ANI, all of them. I can diff them all, but I just suggest that you re-read the whole section. Look especially for anywhere that you went back and re-edited, or used all caps / strong text.

A number of editors / admins are commenting here that they feel that part or most of the issue is WPMILHIST / WPGUNS attitude towards outsiders, arguing that I'm wrong on that point. Nobody other than you has said "And his comments are perfectly normal and reasonable, so you're wrong on that, too." I have little doubt that those commenting would be calling me out on it if they thought I was making up the communications style / approach issue. (If I'm wrong on this, please feel free to correct me, gentle readers). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

In what way is this not complaining I am an outsider and not a member? [161] [162] Tan withdrew his complaints and bringing them up again is inappropriate. Yaf said I was a "yet-to-be-proven editor" on your talk page, which I took to be in keeping with Nukes and Koalorka - he didn't approach me directly or respond to my response to his comment.

Thumperward did just say I have been treated as an outsider, but you did not respond to that post.

June 10th is absolute garbage. Please prove that. You can't, because it's not true. Try June 22 [163] .

Anything I go back and edit is because I realized I made a mistake, as people do. I put things in bold and italics because people ignore them. You continue to ignore most of the things I say to you or ask of you, this is why I don't like talking with you. You accuse me of being too emotional and confrontational and then behave in a way that you know aggitates me.

Nobody else has said that my comments/behavior have been so absolutely outrageous as to warrant an indefinite block, except you. What two users have said is that my behavior, while less than perfect, is at least understandable given the circumstances, if perhaps less than stellar. I think you are blowing this whole situation far out of proportion. The fact is that you continue to make things worse by behaving in a manner that you know agitates me - so that you can then use my responses as 'evidence' against me? You filed this ANI to force me to respond to you when I didn't want to talk to you on my talk page because your behavior irritates me - then you use my responses at this page as further 'evidence' that I am hostile and disruptive. This whole thing is silly. Some guy (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly continue to work with Some guy if he wishes although I must mention that I have never mentored before. What I lack in experience, I would still give the "college try"...I would try to do my best. Alongside this, a more experienced mentor of higher caliber than I may do a better job (I might learn from them as well)...if Some guy is willing. (re to Some guy), if offered a chance to be mentored...GO FOR IT!...It is a value-added offer that should pay huge returns for the experience and has nothing to do with nullifying anything you've done, discrediting you or implying deficiency of any kind. Great chance to improve a variety of wiki skills. I have someone in mind if you are willing...completely detached from all of this. I would need to check with them to see how busy they are and if they could accept it...if you are willing to let me try. It seems that this may also be a satisfactory compromise with GeorgeHW and all involved parties. (The admin review should continue for prudence sake but that is an issue that wouldn't likely involve us any longer). Don't answer right away...sleep on this and let me know what you think in a day or two.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior is stellar, far beyond reasonable expectations that could be applied to anyone. If it is really necessary for someone to continue discussing and addressing concerns with me, I would like it to be you. I don't think I need a mentor to guide me over an extended period of time, but I don't want to get into a big debate about that here. Some guy (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Final statement by Some guy

I understand I at times have acted with less than complete civility - I have sometimes been hostile or emotional. It is my feeling that my responses are understandable given the circumstances I have been presented with. I am willing to discuss my behavior with other editors or administrators (provided I am not attacked or criticized for not being a member of any particular Wikiproject). I do not want to talk to George. George is aware that his behavior agitates me, but he persists in this aggravating behavior and then uses my responses as 'evidence' that I am hostile/uncivil/inappropriate/whatever you want to call it. George has tried to make me play games and refuses to provide edit diffs to substantiate his accusations.

I am willing to talk wtih any administrator or editor who is not George. I do not want to discuss anything more at this ANI because I feel that George filed it to force me to talk to him personally, when I am willing to talk to anyone who is not George.

It is my belief that my current behavior does not warrant a block. With that in mind and my other opinions already made clear, I do not wish to continue discussing anything at this ANI. If it does turn out I am in emminent danger of being blocked, I would like to be notified of this at my talk page, but otherwise I would like to discuss any complaints or concerns with anyone who is not George at my talk page. Thanks. Some guy (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat - Subman758

User:Subman758 has threatened to sue me. [164] Under WP:LEGAL, he should be blocked until he retracts any threats of legal action. — Moe ε 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Craftyminion beat me to a warning ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Something else strikes me as something that should be avoided: Userbox on userpage: "This User lives in California, and believes it to be the First Communist State of America." accompanied by self-made image of the California flag transparent over the Soviet Russian flag (File:Flag of Communist California.jpeg. I'm pretty sure this would fall under Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content examples as something inflammatory or divisive. Not sure, though.. would like some thoughts on that.. — Moe ε 10:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I CSD-tagged the image of the flag. Not sure it's "divisive" userbox but surely a political statement. He's apparently never lived in Vermont :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I wasn't aware that Ahnold was a Commie. And unlike with a true Communist state, he's free to leave. He was in the Navy, right? So some government jobs are acceptable. Also, he's a Yankees fan, so he's associated with the Evil Empire. Regardless of all that cute stuff, legal threats are forbidden. I've reported him to WP:AIV since no one has blocked him yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked him. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested; I've asked him to explicitly retract all legal threats. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. His unblock request called it libelous, so we need him to explicitly withdraw any threats. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

...an unblock will at least give him the opportunity to respond to the CSD on his commie-California image. He has had a few hours to retract his legal threat after being explicitly requested to do so, but did not take it seriously until the block occurred - indeed, I'm not sure he's yet taking it seriously, considering his unblock request. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

He said the legal threat was a joke, so when he says it's libelous nonetheless, is that also a joke? Or is calling it a joke, actually a joke? Time for some Tylenol. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"...either way I withdraw. I do however feel I am entitled to an apology for his slanderous statement..." Can you say, MISSING THE POINT??????--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, either he got it, or is pretending he got it. I have no issue with the unblock as long as he goes and strikes his places where the threats exist. Keep an eye on him for future (if I had survived my RfA, I'd do it myself :-P ) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I was about to unblock, but this diff from Bobak concerns me. Thoughts?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked, as Subman has withdrawn his threat. I suspect this was sarcastic joke, and hopefully he will realize this type of humor is not appreciated. However, we need to keep an eye on him. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, he needs to be watched. I also noted other problems, eg this [165]. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest, why does NOTCENSORED matter so much when people want cunt on the front page but gets ignored about silly little user boxes? As the front page people are keen on saying "it's only offensive because you want to be offended by it and if you are offended by it you're a book-burning hater of freedom or an idiot or someone who has never contributed to an encyclopedia". If it's good enough for the front page why isn't it good enough for a userbox? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Because user pages and talk pages are not articles, and they are not supposed to be used for in-your-face political stuff and so on. However, it is helpful to know if a user is an extremist, as it can lead to enhanced scrutiny of his editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTCENSORED is primarily about citable facts in articles. It's loosely applied to user pages, so people have the freedom to express themselves. However, the community has consensus that creating userpage content that harms the collaborative nature of Wikipedia is not allowed. Things that disparage an ethnic group or nationality are especially frowned on. Politics is a bit of a grey area: you can show support for your political preference, but it's discouraged to put down another person's political choice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me...

... why Josephjames21 (talk · contribs) is not blocked indefinitely yet? The talk page is virtually nothing but notices of copyvio uploads, uncivil arguments between himself and other editors, and multiple warnings for vandalism. In addition, this person made THIS blatant BLP violation [166]. I can't assume good faith with someone like this, they know full well what they are doing. This person is not here to contribute and needs to be blocked for good. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that edit is clearly unacceptable, but I don't think it is safe to assume that any editor who focuses exclusively on WWE, TV reality shows, Hollywood celebs, and comic books knows what he is doing I am not fully convinced that he knows what he is doing. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

-- <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Looie496, care to strikethrough that generalization? If they're making bad edits, they're making bad edits--but what KIND of articles they edit has no bearing on their intelligence or their competence, as an editor or anything else.GJC 16:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have struck it through. I don't actually agree with you, but on reflection I agree that it's best not to say things like that. Looie496 (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I thank you. We all have our irrational biases; there's much less friction if we recognize when they don't need to be aired.GJC 23:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin impersonation by User:Saforcer

Saforcer (talk · contribs · block log) announces lofty aspirations on his/her userpage...and has found Twinkle but doesn't know how to use it properly. Their contribs may be damage done. Additionally from the post on my talk page, it is a compromised admin account. Wonder who this sock belongs to...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: the account in question does not actually have an admin rights, despite its claim. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment about being an admin removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well it's not an administrator account by any means; whether the rights were stripped by a crat or something remiains to be seen but that point is moot. The userpage has been changed to reflect the truth and I'll have a closer look at the TW abuse. Ta'. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see I'm pretty sure that this is a collection of new guy mistakes. The twinkle stuff is fixable and doesn't appear to be too malicious. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like a well-intentioned noob. He probably doesn't realize that becoming an admin is more complicated than adding yourself to a list - many other groups exist and all you have to do is add your name. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at persistent edits by his IP here going back with the persistent injection of being an admin...(blocked recently).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This one is rich. Bribery?? ;)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So what's the going rate these days? This may be more lucrative than paid editing... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, given his latest bad edit, I'd be willing to block him until he explains what the deal is. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: In a message posted on my talk page, Saforcer explained that "sometimes (once in a very rare while), my sense of humour gets the best of me, and I impersonate and admin [sic] by adding my name to the List of Administrators." So this was not an honest misunderstanding on Saforcer's part. —David Levy 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nods, I tend to AGF until utterly forced to do otherwise, which sadly we have reached in this case. I suppose we need to explain to him/her how disruptive his/her "humor" can be, and that it is, in fact, vandalism. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

User repeatedly uploading copyvio photos

Resolved

 – User blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

History asia (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading File:Uyghur figures.jpg (now uploaded as File:Uyghur.jpg after I salted the former), a gallery of non-free images he has cut and pasted together; he originally believed he had the right to release it as PD because the copying and pasting was "his own work", and now he has re-uploaded it and is using it in the article Uyghur people with no full non-free use rationale. I have already notified him of the copyright problems, and directed him to other articles (such as Filipino people) that handle image galleries like this without using non-free media, but the user has ignored me and continued to upload this image.

I'm requesting that the image be deleted (again) and the user be either warned or temporarily blocked. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added a comment on the uploader's talk page. If he still persists, I don't see why you couldn't also block him yourself - but I'd say give him another warning first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait a day or so and see what happens. I did notice that, judging by his upload log, this user has a long history (nearly 4 years) of ignoring copyrights, and almost every photo he has ever uploaded has been deleted; here are just some examples [167][168][169]. To be honest, I'm surprised he hasn't been blocked before over this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've also made it clear that he has to respect our guidelines and polices, esp. with regard to copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 07:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• On the user's discussion page, he shows no sign of remorse and still denies any wrong doing despite all the advice/warnings we've given him, even going to the length of accusing us of denying the race issue at hand, as he claimed. Very clear case of SPA, in my opinion. --Dave1185 (talk) 22:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Note to all: User:History asia has admitted that most of the images that he had uploaded was scanned from the book "Uyghurlar" (translated as: The Uyghurs) written by Turghun Almas, it was printed in Almaty by the publisher "Kazakstan" in 1992 (Volume 1, in Uyghur, cyrillic script). And according to WP:COPY, these can at best be deemed as derivative works of the original since the uploader did not obtain and has not been able to furnish any written permission or approval from the publisher/author for re-use here on Wikipedia and are to be considered as non-free images. If further alteration of image(s) was done, it would still be in direct violation of international copyright agreements. That is all. --Dave1185 (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Further notes from Wikipedia:COPY#Copyright violations:

“ Contributors who repeatedly post copyrighted material despite appropriate warnings may be blocked from editing by any administrator to prevent further problems. ”

--Dave1185 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I BOLDly blocked him. Messages like this one today demonstrate that he shows no interest in learning or follows policy, and his insistence on accusing editors of racism and suppression (even when no fewer than 4 editors have told him he's violating copyrights) show that he's incapable of dealing with real people either. I might not be WP:UNINVOLVED, but this was such an obvious case and I'm sure the encyclopedia won't suffer for the lack of this editor. (He'll probably go write in his blog now about how Wikipedia is evil, but oh well; I bet nobody reads it anyway.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Violating WP:BATTLE, clearly SPA, doesn't care about copyright... ok, bye. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Bluemagic7

Resolved

• Bluemagic7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TRAPPED IN PAIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User is repeatedly recreating TRAPPED IN PAIN and/or removing deletion templates. Warnings are of no use (see his talk page). //Blaxthos ( t / c )

• I reported this user at WP:AIV so hopefully a block is forthcoming... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked by Dougweller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) -t'shaél^chat 04:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

After two of us deleted the article at the same time, according to the time stamps! Dougweller (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We probably should salt the "article" too. MER-C 05:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OverlordQ has taken care of salting. t'shaél^chat 05:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

New troll

[170]

Does anyone know who this is? This user makes a new sock every day or so, vandalizes some random page and makes an attack on his talk page once blocked. Triplestop x3 01:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend denying him any more attention. He'll leave in a few days like they all do. Nakon 01:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweeping it under the rug is a solution only when you are concerned that your rug is too flat. Get a CU to determine an appropriate rangeblock. That is how to deny this person their thrills. → ROUX ₪ 03:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, now, the t-word is frowned upon. Wouldn't want to hurt the little dear's feelings, after all. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we are supposed to write from a New Troll Point of View. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That was horroafic. → ROUX ₪ 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

BB FTW! - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems with User:Badapro

Badapro (talk · contribs) has a Talk page full of copyright warnings, but they seem to continue to blithely edit without responding to dealing with the problems. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Hopefully it'll make him/her start communicating. If it starts again, let me know (or bring here, obviously). Tan | 39 06:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An Ip user obviously only here to constantly vandalize

Resolved

 – all the IP's edits are stale, no need to block at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Theres an IP User 98.196.203.155 which judging by all four edits is only here to vandalize. He has'nt been blocked but all four of his edits has been reverted. He advertises explicit acts on Wikipedia articles and puts his opinions and thoughts on articles so thats why i think a ban might work --MeteorMan7228 03:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have left warnings on his talk page already, you should probably report him to WP:AIV. If you have not warned him yet, please do so. If he continues to vandalize after warning, report him to WP:AIV. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Even then, a block wouldn't be justified at the moment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development

The community's views are needed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Advisory Council on Project Development. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Wadler

Hi, can a kindly admin please move Joyce Wadler from User:Rms125a@hotmail.com/Joyce Wadler (my namespace) to the mainspace. I think it passes muster now, but any advice would also be appreciated. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Just curious, was there a reason you didn't want to move it yourself? TNXMan 13:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this was a problem to ask for help; when an article is userfied, it is generally a good idea to make sure it meets notability standards before sending it to the articlespace, else it is likely to just get deleted again. Having someone move it for you ensures that an outside set of eyes gets to see it. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 20:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

SNIyer12

Hello, the editor-in-question continues to ignore other editors, who are concerned with his editing habits. He refuses to discuss his edits at the article talkpages & refuses to respond to posts at his own User-talkpage. This un-collaborative style has been unchanged for the 4 years this editor has been active. Would an administrator consider a 24-hours block? as that would seem to be the only way to get this editors attention. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• not necessarily true. I'd agree it is a problem, but it isn't a complete lack of communication. Ironholds (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumpers, that's the concrete evidence that he's snubbing the community. Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

He's been around for 4-yrs. One finds it difficult to believe he hasn't noticed that others are trying to 'talk' with him. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Is he edit warring (undoing edits a lot without comment)? I also see that the editor's last edit was 2 months ago so either way, there is aught for an admin to do here. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2-months ago, at his User-talkpage, indeed. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll allow the other upset editors to respond. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure GoodDay's call for a block is the right way to go about this, I do see a problem with this editor. Gwen, I think you were looking at the talk page history... this editor is currently very active. Perhaps an admin note on their talk page to address concerns? Tan | 39 17:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, a block request was overboard. But, it was the only thing (I could think of), that would've gotten a response from SNIyer. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mistook Ih's link to the talk page history as the contrib history. I'll leave a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

If I could chime in here, this user does have history going back years of an editing style that's frequently the pursuit of a personal agenda and a general unwillingness to be dissuaded, consisting mostly of ignoring other users requests for discussion or stoppage. Why would this person pay attention to an administrator's note? I think a period of being unable to continue in this particular editing style by not being able to add ANYTHING, would be far more effective than warning or discussion, at least in terms of ceasing disruptive editing and bad faith. –ConkblockCity (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

And even if this user now leaves edit summaries, I'm not convinced that the persistent additions of tangential and trivial material will stop, or that this user is willing to cooperate in good faith. –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for SNIyer to respond on his own User-talkpage, my Userpage, article talk-pages. His responding here, would be helpful, too. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's apparent now, that's he's deliberately snubbing this report & other requests. I'm with ConkblockCity, the guy should be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. This block is an attempt to get the editor to communicate either here on on his talk page. I see he has some edits to article talk pages in the past hour, but I think more explanation is needed. Tan | 39 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly wish this hadn't of been necessary. But, it's the only way to 'hopfully' get his full attention. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you? Well, this should be interesting. –ConkblockCity (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute!

Resolved

 – Well, made it stop for the next 55 hours. If it restarts again, WP:RFPP is your best bet. Black Kite 19:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a farce that goes on for too long. 98.210.196.85 (talk · contribs) has been told several times on Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Dieudonné M'bala M'bala|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that his edits are running against the most basic rules on WP:NPOV, especially his tendency to use scare quotes as in [quote] “anti-racist” associations ([171], [172], [173]) and other rethorical tricks. He's infringing 3RR already, but so do i. Can somebody make this stop? --RCS (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! --RCS (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Unsavory accusation

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked by Chillum (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 22:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This edit looks like one user harassing another user by making a completely unfounded accusation, I have warned but on reflection Sparaca12 (talk · contribs) should, IMO be indef blocked as we cannot tolerate one user accusing another in this way. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Poor taste? Yes. Indef block for this? No. I'll issue an only warning. Tan | 39 20:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, blocked indef by Chillum. A bit of an overreaction, IMO, but I'm not going to argue it. Tan | 39 20:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SOCK#SCRUTINY HalfShadow 21:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Review for possible misuse of rollback privileges (User:Jccort)

Resolved

 – Has been taken care of by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 22:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This incident started when I was editing an article, List of Florida State University people, which stated that Trenesha Biggers was a "current WWE diva". Since Trenesha Biggers hasn't been employed with WWE since 2006, I thought I would update it and state her current employment with a different professional wrestling company. The article also said Ron Simmons was a "Wrestler named Farooq, former WCW Champion and WWE superstar". Since Farooq doesn't link to the appropriate article and the term ‘superstar’ is WWE jargon, I decided to rewrite that to "Professional wrestler who wrestled in the WCW and WWE”, and also included a sentence about his professional football career.

Four hours later, my changes were reverted by Jccort with no explanation. [174] I asked for an explanation of why these changes were reverted on Jccort's talk page to no reply yet, and told him the use of rollback was inappropriate there.

After leaving him a message, curiously, I scanned through his recent contributions of his other times he used the rollback tool and also found revisions like this: him rollbacking a new user who changed Template:Infobox College swim team on Florida Gators track & field to Template:Infobox college track and field. Jccort's rollback changed the Florida Gators track & field article back to using a college swim team template. I'm not sure why he has done that..

A few of his other contrubutions show that he has used the rollback feature in a couple cases that were not obvious vandalism or against any policy or guideline (as defined by the guideline for using the rollback feature: [Rollback] should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users). I think a review of his rollback usage needs to be done to see whether it needs to be removed or not (still pending a reply from him on the revert of my edit, though). I don't believe there is a noticeboard for these kinds of reviews, so I posted it here. — ℳℴℯ ε 22:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just remove it like you usually do, admins rarely give a second thought about it.--Otterathome (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you have mistaken me as an administrator. :p That is why I brought it here, so that an administrator can review it. — ℳℴℯ ε 22:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Tan | 39 22:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears I received an answer at the best possible timing, after 9 hours of waiting and exactly 5 minutes after posting here. [175]

I just wanted to keep it congruent with the rest of the article. Feel free to change it back. Also: thank you for the less on rollback (it will not happen again). Jccort (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll leave a message stating to reapply for rollback later if he still thinks he needs it. — ℳℴℯ ε 22:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

2006 Lahore temple demolition

Resolved

 – Articles in question semi-protected HalfShadow 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin or two take a look at 2006 Lahore temple demolition and Muslim League Attack on Sikhs and Hindus in the Punjab 1947? There seems to be some edit warring between a pair of IPs on that page, which has spilled over to edit warring at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, disrupting that page now. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The 86 IP is blocked for 72 hours for 3RR (a technicality, but within policy). Tan | 39 22:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The 70 IP had tried to request page protection, and the 86 IP kept deleting it, which is not appropriate regardless of who's right, so I turn him in for that (possibly after you had already blocked him). They are both technically well over 3 reverts on the articles themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

70 is banned user Hkelkar, 86 is banned user Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Would it be considered bad taste to suggest they log off, get blunt instruments and work it out the old fashioned way? HalfShadow 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably. So, where do we go to get tickets? :) One question, though - the block length for the IP's, when I last checked, is considerably disparate. Shouldn't they be the same? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

But the pages they were pissing around on are semi-protected for a pretty significant amount of time. They won't be able to cause trouble there for quite some time. If they start up again somewhere else, they'll be blocked again. Besides, they're swapping IPs so fast, a block would have little to no effect.HalfShadow 23:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rogereeny. So is this going to be on pay-per-view? Kind of a Bruce Lee / David Carradine style fight-to-the-death? (As long as closets aren't involved). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Mind you, I've spent the last 6 months trying to prevent these guys from pushing their POV on Wikipedia, but these guys simply won't listen. Recently, it's gotten worse, to the point that I'm protecting nearly a dozen pages a day. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The "anyone can edit" philosophy doesn't really take this kind of thing into account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

We could change it to 'The encyclopedia anyone but idiots can edit', but (and let's be blunt here) that would probably bring the site to a near complete halt. HalfShadow 01:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Double Resignation?

Resolved

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.

No administrative intervention required. — Aitias // discussion 22:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Kirill resigned "for the errors in judgment made in convening the ACPD" and now this? Two resignations from ArbCom within 24 hours is very, very, bad, to put it simply. ceranthor 22:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger dispute

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.

This is turning into a back and forth and no good can come from that. Let's let the RfC run its course. No admin action needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

I proposed the merger of two articles, placing tags and seeking additional opinions. This is detailed at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia, and I won't waste space repeating the details here. I posted that link today to ask if consensus now exists for merger. I was told yes. I accordingly merged the two articles, but the only person to speak against the merger has now reverted the merger, twice, see [176] What should I do?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

• Simon, I have noticed that you have posted here for whatever reason each day for the past couple days. ANI isn't your own personal dispute resolution board, though we do have a place for that. I think it would be best if you steered clear of these articles that are causing problems and work on something a little less problematic. Also, please know that ANI is for immediate admin assistance, none of your posts so far have required admin assistance and that might constitute overuse of ANI. Just throwing it out there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue was coming here whether I raised it or not - Jez announced his intention to raise the issue here (see his edit summary here). That I happened to post first doesn't change that both he and I both think an admin's involvement is called for. There is an issue here, and if your apparent dislike for me prevents you from assessing it in a neutral fashion, the appropriate response for an admin is to recuse yourself, isn't it?.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me run these down. I don't have an "apparent dislike" for you, I just think you are misusing ANI. This is your, I like, 4th or 5th post here in as many days and all have required no admin action. As for "recusing myself", I don't have to do that...seeing as I am not an admin. I am just giving out advice, answering questions, etc., much like what Roux or Baseball Bugs do here. It is not required that you be an admin to post on the AN or ANI boards in response.

But what I said holds true. Steer clear of these problematic pages and edits, and if you are having a problem with an editor that does not require immediate admin assistance (like a back and forth dispute), please consider taking it to the dispute resolution board. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The claim that I've posted here four or five times in as many days is not true. The last time I posted something to ANI before tonight was July 4th - seven days ago. I've posted something at AN more recently, but there is not here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Actions of User:Simon Dodd

The above editor proposed WP:AfD for Bristol Indymedia at WP:Articles for deletion/Bristol Indymedia (2nd nomination). The result was no consensus. Immediately User:Simon Dodd placed a merger template suggesting merger to Indymedia - I think they meant Independent Media Center - on 24 June. Only myself and Simon Dodd commented, he for and I against. An RfC was opened by Simon Dodd on on 6 July. Today Simon Dodd decided to merge the artcles even though no censensus had been achieved. They claim that the AfD had a consensus for merger, but no-one else from that discussion has appeared at Talk:Bristol Indymedia to suppiort this. I have twice reverted his merger and request that the page be protected from this editor if possible. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify an important detail: several editors commenting on the AFD proposed the merge I have just carried out (and that Jeremy has now reverted, twice) as an alternative to deletion. You can find the AFD here. What Jeremy is implying to be a unilateral act was anything but: several editors at the AFD suggested the merge, so I proposed it after the no consensus close. No one spoke in objection, even after seeking third opinions and comments, as I explained at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. Nearly three weeks went by from the nomination. Rather than unilaterally asserting that there was a consensus, I sought yet more outside input at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia. Only when I was told there that consensus existed did I go ahead with the merge.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Who's Jeremy? Is this some sort of attempt at outing? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Jez" is usually short for "Jeremy" and using first names is generally thought to enhance collegiality and civility. If you prefer "Jez," that's fine too. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bristol_Indymedia_(2nd_nomination) there were four keeps, two merges and one delete. How this equates to a consensus for merger, when no others commented at the merger discussion is not clear to me. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that after bringing the dispute here, which was already forum-shopping, Simon Dodd tried to rope in another admin. Looie496 (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• There is no need to merge an article (Bristol Indymedia) with 30+ sources to what appears to be a parent company (Independent Media Center). That would be like merging USA Network with parent company NBC. It's just silly. If the spinoff article has survived two AfDs and has proper sourcing, there is no need to merge. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The key difference is that NBC and USAN are both notable, whereas BI is not notable - see discussion below.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Simon asked me to comment here) I'm not too familiar with the topic of this dispute, but here's my two cents... the AfD doesn't look to me like there was a strong consensus either way (for merge or for keep), although most of comments at WP:CNB#Consensus and the merger of Bristol Indymedia into Indymedia did appear to be encouraging Simon to merge. The fact that Jezhotwells appears to be the only person strongly objecting to the merge is a bit troublesome, but now that it's gotten close to edit war territory it would be better to reach a clearer consensus about this (ie, wait out the RfC rather than quibble over how to interpret the outcome of the pretty small AfD) than to arbitrarily select one "consensus" or another, which would probably only be enforceable with blocks. So I think the best thing to do is drop all of this and wait for more discussion to come through RfC; after that is done, hopefully consensus will be much clearer than it is now.

As for each user's actions... I think it's good that Simon is not edit warring over this, and even if ANI was not the best forum to bring it to (it probably wasn't, but oh well, at least it's a way to get a fast response) then it's better he did that than edit war. Arguing over the character of each user involved here is not likely to bring any good, so why don't we just forget about this thread and wait for the RfC to happen? The encyclopedia isn't going to explode in the meantime. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait how much longer? The merge was proposed nearly three weeks ago, plenty of time has already gone by in which anyone who was remotely interested could have weighed in. The only person who made any kind of comment from the request for WP:3O said only that an RFC should be filed, without making any comment on the dispute. I've done everything I can in good faith and by the book to move us forward, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that we be more concrete about when the hammer falls. Consensus is for merge - that's the undeniable upshot of the AFD and silence for three weeks at the talk page. So why are we waiting, and how much longer, specifically, do we have to wait? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, why aren't user:Jezhotwells' two reversions on this article today edit warring worthy of a warning, when my two reversions on Clarence Thomas a couple of weeks ago were?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not condoning Jez's reverting; I'm just saying that whether there is consensus here is not clear at all, and having a fuller discussion would make that clearer and render this whole discussion unnecessary. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the rules be applied consisently, however? And I'd still like to know your view on the appropriate timeframe, asked above.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so gung-ho to merge a fairly long article with 30+ references into an even longer article making the new one completely unreadable? What is wrong with having Bristol Indymedia by itself? Also, where is this consensus for merger you keep talking about? From the AfDs, I see consensus for keep, never merger. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The subject is non-notable. No one, in either of the two AFDs on it, has advanced a single policy-based counterargument, or added any material to the article, that demonstrates its notability. Read those AFDs again, and really look at the kind of counterarguments being made against the noms - they range from gossamer to farcical. It is clearly, plainly, inarguably, non-notable, its existence sheer vanity. Yet user:Jezhotwells has managed to thwart all attempts, including this one, to expurge it from the encyclopædia. It -- the article, and through its proxy, Jez's stonewalling or any attempts to apply wikipedia policy to it -- represents everything that is wrong with Wikipedia - the inconsistent application of rules, the ability of a single user to shipwreck consensus, etc.

As to consensus, there was certainly no consensus to keep, and I don't understand what escapes you and Jez about this: the consensus to merge isn't at AFD, the consensus to merge is based on what was said at AFD, plus what was and wasn't said in the three weeks following the merger proposal. Several users spoke in favor of merger at AFD. Only one user spoke against on the talk page, after multiple attempts to seek input. Unless you are suggesting that the entire community has to weigh in before any decision can be taken, you have to concede that if something is proposed and no one speaks against it for a given period of time, the community has in fact spoken, expressing tacit support or at least indifference. I think three weeks is a reasonable period to wait - more than reasonable, in fact, given that even AFD only waits a week or two. And if you don't agree, it is absolutely incument on you to name how many weeks you DO think is reasonable.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Archaic d00d

Can someone please review my block of User:Archaic d00d here? The editor has requested unblocking. I would like to have my say if necessary, but it is late in my part of the world and I want to go to bed! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The unblock has been declined and I can see why, if the editor still doesn't understand why s/he was blocked in the first place. TNXMan 13:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent block and excellent decline, unfortunately. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Block, length and unblock decline all look ok to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I have an objection, actually. I agree block is fine, decline is fine. what about length? I see no reason to have anything shorter than indef. Clearly someone here to troll and flame. Why prolong the nonsense? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's true, I'd likely have indeffed pending an acknowledgement, had I been the one dealing with it. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Need an admin to check bot deletions- are they ongoing?

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.

Bot owner replied, issues are being addressed, and it isn't ongoing. Thanks all. tedder (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Orphaned talkpage deletion bot is apparently deleting pages, even when the article exists. I happened to see it for Talk:Ed Dickson, but a review of User:Orphaned talkpage deletion bot/Trial shows quite a few others- four of the first five.

I posted to the botowner's talk page, but the human doesn't appear to be terribly active. I'm wondering if the bot is actively deleting other valid talkpages. Can an admin check? (I assume it's pretty easy to check the deleted contribs). tedder (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can view the bot's deletion log. The first three I checked were incorrect. One of them was because of mistakes made by ClueBot III when archiving talk pages. Graham87 05:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I feel silly, I didn't know it was possible to see those logs. In any case, the bot isn't terribly active, so my post to the human talkpage is probably sufficient. Still, 15 were incorrect, and 4 were correctly deleted. In other words, that's a 79% failure rate. tedder (talk) 05:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be related to (documented) corruption in the Toolserver's copy of the English Wikipedia's database. (You'll notice all the articles were created on July 2.) The bot just needs to do its own check with the API to see if the page exists at the time of deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, MZMcBride. It certainly seemed like a dirty cache/dirty data type issue. I'll monitor the bot and come back here to request a block if there is further damage. tedder (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It should probably also check whether there is a backslash in the page title rather than a slash, like what happened at Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan\Reactions, which I've just moved to Talk:Death of Neda Agha-Soltan/Reactions. Graham87 06:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone all the incorrect talk page deletions from today. ChrisG seems to have taken care of the deletions before today. Graham87 06:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've shut off the bot until I can add the extra error checking (if we get a ETA on if and when the Toolserver's database will be fixed/re-imported I'll probably wait until it fixed as well before restarting the bot). As for the deletions before today, that was an unrelated problem that had todo with misconfigured Cluebot archiving templates. --Chris 06:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History wars

This page has been deadlocked for well over a month. The page is not much visited by more than a few regular editors. One editor is sure (s)he is right and wishes to make large changes to a section of the page because in the view of the editor the page is so biased and inaccurate that only a large change will do. Other editors wish to make incremental changes to the page, but the large change editor thinks this is a wast of time. When the editor who considers the page to be biased, gets frustrated at the request for sources to support their position, they refuse to discuss the issue further which results in deadlock until such time as the editor makes their large change, which then gets reverted out, and the whole cycle starts again.

The situation has deteriorated so far that there has been a minor revert war over the archiving of a talk page that had grown to over 400k.

The current state of play can be ascertained from reading the section Talk:History wars#Genocide debate. I think what is needed is a non involved admin to have a look and make some constructive comments on how normal discussion and editing can be resumed. -- PBS (talk) 16:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Request review of administrative action

The action for which I am requesting review is my own. Normally I would bring the issue here first, but as this involves what I perceive as the potential defamation of a living person who happens to be a wikipedia editor, I am taking the action first (ala WP:BLP) and bringing it here second. There is a current years-long struggle over Circumcision and its related articles. Recently, there has been what I perceive to be a dangerous trend trying to alienate editors, one in particular, with what I perceive to be improper conflation of WP:POV and WP:COI, claiming that a particular editor has a COI. I see no other purpose for this other than to try and marginalize this editor, who, in my opinion, while having a distinct POV has edited the article in complete accord with wikipedia polices and guidelines. The discussion stretched over various talk pages, including User talk:Garycompugeek, User talk:Jakew, User talk:Tremello22, to name a few. COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion.

Today, someone added a {{COI}} tag to Circumcision with the following edit summary Jake Waskett is a circumcision fetishist and rabid advocate. He joined Wikipedia with the sole intent to remove NPOV from this article. If the {{COI}} tag was ever justified, it is here., a blatant personal attack and unsourced allegation against a living person if there ever was one. I reverted the tag, only to see it reinstated twice in quick succession. Because this relates to a living person, I have locked the article without the tag, and now I am coming here to get a larger perspective on the appropriateness of the action. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact WP:OVERSIGHT if you want the edit summary removed. lifebaka++ 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is up to Jake, he has openly admitted his identity, so there is not a privacy issue per se; but if he wants it removed, I'm happy to take of that. My request for review is am I correct in locking the article even though I am a significant contributor to the article and discussions, due to the BLP nature and implied attack against Jake's integrity by continuing to attempt and paint him as a COI violator despite no evidence of any sort. -- Avi (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good protect. I'd suggest backing it down to indef-semi at some point in the not-to-distant future, though. There do seem to be long-term problems with ip vandalism/extreme POV editing there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine, given the BLP concerns. If it were anything else, there might be a problem, but BLP/NPA concerns can be enough to IAR. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm grateful to Avi for his actions in this matter. I see no particular reason to hide the revision including the edit summary quoted above — my name is stated on my user page, and is no secret. The content of the edit summary is certainly offensive, and would probably constitue "potentially libellous information" per meta:Hiding revisions, but it would probably cause more disruption and in any case I've endured worse personal attacks. Jakew (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree the edit summary of the user who originally placed the tag was tactless but one could claim BLP on any COI of any living person. I have brought this matter up at the COI notice board also. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"COI <> POV, and claiming that any given editor with an opinion is automatically conflicted is inappropriate, in my opinion." No one has claimed this to my knowledge. Vague accusations at shadows does not help this matter Avi. My COI claims of User talk:Jakew are extensive and documented on our talk pages. All I ask is a for an uninvolved admin to look at the whole picture. Avi is involved and typically backs Jake because of their similar POV. When multiple editors tried to place the COI tag on the page he reverted multiple times citing BLP and then protected. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment on this. Gary, I don't agree that there's a COI issue here. Someone's having a strong POV doesn't amount to a COI, though I agree that it can lead to POV editing, but that's a separate issue (and I don't know whether it has; I'm saying only that it can). Having said that, I don't think Avi should have protected, as he's the second most prolific editor to the page after Jake, and the edit that triggered the protection didn't involve a BLP violation. [177] I hope Avi will undo the protection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the re-application of the {{COI}} tag is a continuation of the calculated effort to cast aspersions on the credibility of a living person, who happens to be a wikipedia editor, and is covered by BLP. If we can be assured that the tag will not be re-applied as an effort to undermine Jake's credibility I will gladly remove/drop the protection down to semi. The article has been tagged as a POV issue for months, if not years; that is accurate. The COI tag is to attack Jake, and that is wrong. -- Avi (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the COI tag is inappropriate, though I don't see it as a BLP issue—all allegations of COI are criticisms of a Wikipedian in some sense— but as you're involved, it would be better to let someone else handle it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to BLP, that is the area where even involved admins can, nay must, act. However, my involvement is the reason why I posted here immediately after taking the protective actions. -- Avi (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Avi, since you're asking: I believe that the protection was technically improper. While even involved admins may normally take action against clear disruption (including BLP violations), the COI tag as such does not constitute a BLP violation or other disruption. Even assuming that the edit summary does, well, readers don't see it, and reverting does not make it go away. Accordingly, I believe you should not have reverted the page to your preferred version (without the tag) prior to protecting it.  Sandstein  21:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I am asking. I know that I tend to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting privacy and BLP issues without completely reliable sources. I am not going to revert if anyone unprotects the article, but based on the history of the COI discussions, I fear that the COI tag is being applied solely to undermine the credibility of one of the editors. -- Avi (talk) 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Well gee whiz Avi, if someone did have a COI that would undermine their credibility. I have already stated this is nothing personal but became concerned about Jake's activities based on other editors post about him. I will abide by whatever the community decides :) Garycompugeek (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm confused - are you saying that the coi tag is a violation of blp? if not, i see no reason for protection of the article. at most, the edit summary could be oversighted, but the editor said he didn't think that was necessary. untwirl(talk) 03:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Avi you have either misunderstood BLP or used it as an excuse to protect the page. Could another admin unprotect the page since Avi seems unwilling? I will not edit war over the tag. I made one revert to show my support for the tag and that is all I had planned on making. I would like to add that I am disappointed in Avi's behavior in this matter and feel it is unbecoming of an Admin/Crat. Garycompugeek (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Technically, BLP applies everywhere, even if in practice NPA tends to be used instead for Wikipedians. Here, though, the tag appears publicly on the article itself and makes a controversial, and not objectively verifiable, assertion about a person who is a published author on the subject outside Wikipedia. Also, anyone checking to see why the tag had originally been added would see the edit summary with the personal attack. So yes, Untwirl, I agree with Avi that the COI tag can be considered a BLP violation.

Although my personal POV on circumcision is not the same as Jake's, I find that he edits neutrally, adhering closely to what the sources say, and (regardless of whether it's considered a "BLP" issue) I don't see a COI problem, unless we want to put a COI tag on almost every article with significant contributions from a published expert on the subject.

Gary, to get the page unprotected, I think it would help if you would say something to acknowledge the stated opinions of uninvolved editors here and at WP:COIN that the COI tag is not required, and indicate that you won't edit-war over the tag.^{(01:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC))} (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Gary, BLP applies to the entire project, and to all people, not just articles and article subjects. Furthermore, have you seen the response at WP:COIN#Circumcision? I am sorry that you think my actions are unbecoming, but the response here and at WP:COIN indicates, at least to me, that I was correct. Please reflect on the fact that it may be your POV that is driving your response here, and not pure logic. Regardless, I will lift the protection now, but reserve the right to re-implement it in cases of further inappropriate taggings and BLP issues. -- Avi (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Many here thought that you were incorrect, myself included. I don't see this as a big deal just that you jumped the gun and were to close to the situation to appear neutral. Thank you for unprotecting the page and thanks for the sock investigation on Rorschach test that was briefly plaguing us. I will not press the COI issue as long as neutrality is adhered to. Garycompugeek (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect about what? There is unanimous agreement so far that there is no COI issue by the uninvolved editors who have commented about COI here and at COIN. Lack of consensus about whether BLP applies or not and about whether Avi should have protected the page or not doesn't change that. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "as long as neutrality is adhered to": Garycompugeek, it's totally normal for there to be disagreement from time to time among involved editors as to whether a given edit conforms to NPOV or not. Normally the way to handle this should be to post cogent arguments about content on the article talk page, referring to reliable sources and Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and if necessary appealing for broader community input from article-content RfCs, the WP:NPOVN etc., not by trying to discredit one of the editors by repeatedly bringing up an alleged COI issue. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect about claiming the use of a COI tag is a BLP violation. Incorrect for reverting to his preferred page then protecting himself considering his involvement. Further I did not bring up the COI issue that started this thread but merely supported two other editors that tried to placed the COI tag. Next time get your facts straight before lecturing. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I didn't mean to imply that you had raised the subject of COI. I was just responding to what you had said above about your intentions for the future, which I quoted, and which I may have misunderstood. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The IP account which originally posted the COI tag (with the offensive edit summary) was blocked for a week by Chillum for it for "abuse". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rebroad continues behavior which got him blocked just last week

Resolved

 – Blocked by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs). — Aitias // discussion 22:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Rebroad (talk · contribs) continues to edit war over the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills article, and continues to harass a user (in this case, me) by repeatedly adding his nonsensical warnings, even when they've been removed, this time on my Talk page instead of on Off2riorob's. There is zero consensus to add his edits to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills page, and he has no explanation as to why it's necessary, but he refuses to listen. I know, "content disagreement", but edit warring is not about content, it's about contentious editing. See User_talk:Rebroad#re_block. He has also accused me of sockpuppetting because I disagree with him. As I have noted in the past, I'm American, I never heard of these people, I just find Rebroad's edits contentious. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Wow, that is some serious tendentious editing. Tan | 39 20:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Rebroad's Talk page now indicates that he plans on taking action against the blocking Admin once his block has expired. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a bluff. Any editor is free to purse action against an admin, but in his case he would be laughed out of wiki-court. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that Tan39 has responded appropriately, and if there needs to be further review of their action and for further sanctions I am certain they are capable of requesting the necessary opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Users blocked for an extended period will often respond initially with various slings and arrows. The best thing at this point is to ignore him for the next 30 days or so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk page protected for one week due to continued abuse of the unblock template. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WebHamster, Anti-americanism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• No admin action required here. I would point out, however, that User:Noloop does have something of a track record of removing large sourced chunks of articles for various reasons - [178] [179] [180] etc. Black Kite 20:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

---

A lot of the refs in the anti-americanism article don't say what the article attributes to them. In some cases, this is probably a legal issue--false representation or something. I'm trying to take out some of them. Nobody has objected excepted WebHamster. He has done very little to work toward consensus. He's not repsonding to my points or questions, and mostly just rudely contradicting me. On his Talk page he has said: "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WebHamster#Anti-Americanism

So, I think I do have consensus, since the only objector can't be considered to care about consensus. Also, I really wonder why the Wikipedia community can decide, by consensus, to misrepresent sources. Consensus shouldn't be required to remove definite fraud. Also, a huge amount of the article is just propaganda, because it reports propaganda about anti-Americanism as fact, citing propaganda as a source. If I try to remove any of it, WebHamster will declare it referenced (true!) and relevant (also true!)....I think the policies around here need fixing.

Anyway, swearing at me and dismnissing me with "I can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you" is abusive.

Oh, here's the discussion I tried to start on the article's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Middle_East Noloop (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Historically, one-versus-one content disputes are often intractable. You won't get anywhere without input from other editors, and you won't get that here. The NPOV noticeboard is a reasonable place to ask for input on issues like this. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Describing me as "fucking about" and not worth "wasting time on" is a content dispute??? Noloop (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Describing you as the above is a personal attack. Someone should warn that editor.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left an attack warning on his talk page.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment displays a fundamental misunderstanding. A "personal attack" is a comment addressed to the editor, not to the editor's behaviour, or another's opinion of that behaviour. If I say that I believe your comment to be thoughtless and stupid that does not necessarily mean that I believe you to be thoughtless and stupid. Simple really. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it was more like "I can't be arsed wasting my time with someone like you" a direct adress to that editor. I'll check the talk page for exact wording--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You ought to have checked before jumping to conclusions, don't you think? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You ought to check before accusing someone of jumping to conclusions, don't you think?--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Read I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. A direct hit on the user not the content.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 00:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WH's response was uncivil, but Noloop's claim to be supported by consensus when no other editor has actually expressed an opinion is rather provocative, and that should be taken into account. Looie496 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the way the content of the references is described by Noloop is a little bit misleading to say the least. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 01:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Noloop has requested a third opinion on the content dispute. Perhaps not a good idea to discuss this in multiple forums. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 02:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• In response to the original concern, I think you need the content dispute noticeboard, an RfC content, or a third opinion tag. ANI is not really the place to deal with the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was in the process of requesting the Third Opinion that I noticed his last response to me, which was over the top regarding civility. I didn't think Third Opinions were for an editor telling another editor, basically, to fuck off.

It seems to me that if nobody is objecting there is consensus, or at least no reason not to edit. If the only person objecting isn't participating in a consensus process, as shown by telling editors to fuck off, what are we supposed to do?

There is a section for discussing the content of the refs. If you disagree with me, please discuss! Noloop (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to your statement here: "So, I think I do have consensus,". If you think you have consensus, then open it up and get verification for it. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia's civility policies aren't enforced. The incivility was my main motive in coming here. I mentioned the content dispute because I thought misrepresenting outside sources might be considered a legal issue, that's all. I looked at RFC but didn't really understand it; I don't know what the "content dispute noticeboard" is. Noloop (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it truly a blockable form of incivility? If not, then WP:WQA is where we deal with violations of WP:CIVIL. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

-Malleus Fatuorum deleted Sky Attacker's warning on WebHamster's page, 10 minutes after it was left, and called it "nonsense". Shouldn't administrators be role models? What a weird board. Noloop (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That's because Sky Attacker didn't have a clue what he was doing, much like yourself. Whilst you are here, could you please explain why your user talk page is redirected to User talk:Noloop2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talk • contribs)

If you read User talk:Noloop2 and look at the history, it should be obvious s/he was trying to archive the talk page and ended up moving it instead. Not much mystery. Off to help him/her straighten it out.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Administrators probably should be role models, yes. But what's that got to do with me? --Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

In case it's not entirely obvious from Malleus's comment above, you don't have to be an administrator to respond to posts on this page, and Malleus is not. Nor, for that matter, is Sky Attacker, but it is perfectly fine for both of them to jump into the conversation. LadyofShalott 19:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To Bwilkins: I don't know what's blockable. Is there a difference between incivility that breaks the rules, and incivility that is blockable? It seems to me if you aren't willing to work with the other editor on an article, you shouldn't be allowed to edit that article. Wikis are collaboration. Noloop (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the first step when encountering incivility is to try and fix it between the 2 of you. If that doesn't help, then you involve a neutral, third party - the role of WP:WQA is to facilitate conversation in this manner. From a WP:WQA perspective, let's look at the phrase you're angered about: "I just can't be arsed wasting the time on someone like you. The point still remains that you have no consensus. Either go get some or stop fucking about". First, swearing is not forbidden - in fact, we have an essay WP:FUCK, and I even have a standard userbox that says "This user does not give a fuck" - a similar version is "This user can't be arsed". What exactly does the phrase "someone like you" have in it that violates WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL? Maybe it means "someone who wears Nike shoes", or "someone who watches Torchwood", or even "someone who just doesn't listen to advice" ... are any of those a personal attack? So, there is no personal attack, as you can see. Now, about consensus: you both think you have it? Time for a third opinion or even an RFC on the content itself. WP:ANI is not the place that is mentioned in any of the above, is it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Is anybody responding on this "Administrators' noticeboard" an actual administrator? Or (it's like winning the lottery) an actual grown-up? I feel like I've stumbled into a middle school for the behaviorally disordered and all the teachers are dead. Noloop (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(Not an admin, though I am a grown-up) I'd imagine administrators aren't responding because, as Bwilkins pointed out immediately above, WP:ANI is the wrong venue, this isn't an incident that requires administrative attention, and you'd be better served taking the issue to WP:3O. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No. WebHamster was uncivil. Everybody over the age of 15 (or under the age of 13) would recognize the comments as such. I did, in fact, double-check the civility policy before posting here. Examples of incivility:

1. Rudeness
2. Insults and name-calling
3. Judgmental tone
4. Belittling contributors
5. Taunting or baiting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves

It's a strict definition, not a loose one. Apparently, it is also one that is ignored by those who are supposed to enforce it. Noloop (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threat

Resolved

 – blocked by Chillum for the legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

User warned for vandalism [181], replied with legal threat [182]. JNW (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone holding forth about legalities, not making a threat. "That's against the law" is quite different from "I will take you to court". KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, "your support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions." sounds like a (vague?) threat to me. — ^{\`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`/} (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and looking at this other contribs, he's definitely on a mission. "sheetheads" is completely beyond the pale. He'll get blocked in short order one way or another if he doesn't mend his ways. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It is not a direct "I am taking action", but it is at the least intended to be disruptive, as were the edits preceding it. JNW (talk) 13:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, i think CIS is correct, "will ... in a criminal court of law" could be held to technically violate the NLT policy. OTOH, this person is clearly full of all kinds of hostility, and I agree with JNW that its not an actual threat. We could indef on a technicality, or we could see how he responds to the warnings he is getting. I have no argument with either approach. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua left a welcome and I left a warning. We'll see where it goes from here. TNXMan 13:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, my welcome was one of the vandal welcomes! Not exactly a hug. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the alliteration worked so well! TNXMan 13:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. I myself have bent to the call of the cadence upon occasion. You are forgiven. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtfulness. :P TNXMan 13:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Alliterative administrators ascendant!!! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 13:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a legal threat, but so hollow as to worth, there's almost nothing to block over. If it happens again though, a block will fit. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur that "will" was the key word that made it a hopefully minor violation of NLT, and that just a warning was a valid action for now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above input and response. Although I saw little credibility in the suggested legal action, I thought it merited administrative consideration as a disruptive account moving, with the invocation of "a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" in a more provocative direction. Much appreciated, JNW (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I have the talkpage watchlisted and will monitor, but the behavior resumes, let me know. TNXMan 15:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but when a new users makes a comment like "support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law, under federal regulatory restrictions" then that is pure and simple intimidation with legal threats. The very last thing we want to do is wait for it to happen again. Allowing users to continue to edit after making a legal threat puts Wikipedians in the middle of a legal battle, the whole point of NLT is to insulate on-wiki from such legal action. It is incredibly damaging to neutrality to allow any sort of intimidation. I have enforced our no legal threat policy and blocked this user until he/she retracts the legal threat or the issue has been dealt with outside of Wikipedia. Chillum 15:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Even more appreciated. JNW (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really agree with the interpretation, but what's done is done. The threat really didn't seem that coherent to me. TNXMan 15:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

IMH(non-admin)O, the NLT rule is of two parts: the obvious part is the "I will sue you!" direct legal threat which triggers our own Godwin's law, conversation is over, blocked until threat withdrawn. The other part is the vague "you are doing illegal things" which isn't technically a violation of NLT, but is most definitely disruptive as it is a wrong-headed intention to chill debate and frighten the editor. I believe that deserves to be treated under the NPA rule, warnings before blocking. Thoughts? Auntie E (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"support to the contrary will and can be held against you in a criminal court of law"(emphasis added). This is not a "you are doing illegal things" comment, it is a "this will be used against you in court". If the user retracts this threat then unblocking would be prudent. That being said, if consensus emerges to do otherwise I will certainly abide by that. Chillum 19:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

my point of view is that most legal threats o this calibre should be treated like threats of violence or other example of implausible but still inacceptable threats. warn, if that doesnt work, then block, and if then that doesn't not work, then bann Smith Jones (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And my point of view is that there was an ongoing discussion, and everyone who had spoken agreed that the warning left by Tnxman was sufficient, and before any response or further problems, and without even discussing your intentions with those already reviewing the situation, you indef'd. I'm not interested in undoing it; I don't think the contributor was likely to become at all valuable, however I am not happy that there was consensus and you merrily rode over it, on a technicality. If you feel NLT is to be always enforced with no room for common sense or judgment; that's your prerogative, however it would have gone down better to me had there been any indication this was even remotely meant as an actual legal threat. It seems a bit inflexible to me, and a bit rude to those who had already given this matter their attention and thought. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a bare-faced legal threat, and legal threats must not be tolerated, because if they are then it opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. No leniency, unless they fully recant such threat. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could it be called 'bald legal' threat? Should I run for the door now? HalfShadow 22:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Or fly. P.S. I indented your comments and mine, for better nesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked the account myself, I was ok with only a warning, I'm ok with the block, legal threats are blockable on sight. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There are only 3 existing contribs from the editor, and they suggest the editor's only purpose here is BLP-violations and soapboxing, so it's a good block all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Shrug. I'm not arguing the editor was useless; I quite agree. Not arguing the block was legal; totally. Am saying that when there is a consensus on how to handle something, then running roughshod over the others without even the courtesy of discussing it first is a bit rude, that's all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that there's nothing to discuss. Legal threat. Indef block. End of story. No compromise. If he comes back and retracts, that's a different story. He only made 3 edits, at least under that user ID, so unless he speaks up, it's done. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

Yes, this is indeed done, and the editor was indeed useless, and technically he made a legal threat. None of that is under discussion. I am saying that Chillum could have been polite enough to mention his difference of opinion rather than simply doing something several other admins had decided was overkill. Taht's clear enough. Your repetition that "there's nothing to discuss" does not mean my minor but valid quibble about this is somehow rendered moot; it is not. It has not, in fact, even been addressed. I would very much appreciate it if you wouldn't keep posting as though the editor were of any value to anyone, or the block were not technically completely called for. That's not, and has never been, at issue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I've long been willing to put up with an admin breezing by with a block over a legal threat, whatever the consensus may have been, because LTs are so harmful. If I was unhappy about this, I'd try asking about it on Chillum's talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for sure that the editor is "worthless". He's probably acting in what he considers to be "good faith". If he wants to appeal the indef-block and if he recants the legal threat, then it could be considered. I'm simply saying that when someone issues a legal threat, you start with the indef-block and work back from there as appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Oh please, this is "good faith"? New definition I guess. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 02:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In the editor's mind, he's doing the right thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course the editors's mind in this case probably resembles a game of Missile Command, but still... HalfShadow 03:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith. I don't assume sanity. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarey Savy and related pages

Can an admin take a look at these? The constant re-creation of this and now additional related content seems disruptive to me.

Three SPA accounts (75.92.208.32 (talk · contribs), Googleisawesome (talk · contribs), and BoredBoredom (talk · contribs) - from which I hear loud quacking) have been creating the musician's article under various names - sometimes more than one at the same time. And have attempted spamming links to the article onto multiple other pages.

The musician articles was first created under Sarey Savy, which has now been deleted four times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey Savy for the AfD on that one).

More recently, the content was re-created at Sarey, Sarey (Singer), and on the userpage of User:Googleisawesome (Googleisawesome has claimed to be Sarey in this post). Speedy tags were added to "Sarey" and "Sarey (Singer)"; but the author repeatedly removed the speedy tag from "Sarey (Singer)" despite warnings and having the text pointed out to them that says to "not remove [the] notice from pages that you have created yourself", so an AfD was created for that one at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarey (Singer) so that visibility would remain even if the tag was again removed. Technically, it's a second AfD for the same content that's now under the new article name.

Now, today, BoredBoredom has created Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song). Normally, I would add a speedy tag to that one as well; but, from my reading of {{db-a9}}, it appears that the speedy tag only applies if the musician's article does not exist (which, it likely wouldn't if not for the repeated removal of the speedy tag that resulted in it going to AfD again). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Note, after digging a little deeper, I've also found that Sarey Savy has been salted, which is likely why alternate article names were used this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've gone and salted both the other titles used, but I want a second opinion before blocking the other accounts and the IP. Best, Mifter (talk) 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - as the artist's page is now deleted, I've gone ahead and tagged Don't Stop Believin' (Sarey Savy Song) with {{db-a9}}. Also, I see that someone else has created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Googleisawesome. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

 Completed -- Luk ^talk 05:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack on RfA - please remove

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

Resolved

 – There is no personal attack, merely a conflict between two well meaning editors. Please take this up on Law's talk page as suggested. No admin action required as yet. Any further discussion here will only generate problems.--Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 11:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone give some thought about removing or censuring this comment. This same editor also recently emailed me with some eccentric and strange remarks and I really don't like it. The remarks he is referring to were on another site and were so obviously intended as a joke that he should not be taking them out of context. Peter Damian (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It cannot be construed as a personal attack if you are indeed the one that posted and owned up to such a remark. If that was not you, than you have my sincerest apologies. However, if that was you, a clear and concise plan is not hyperbole, and I am free to use your own words as an attestation. My email to you was one, as was my helping you on an article, done in good faith. It is not unconventional for users to be chastised for off-wiki commentary. As I reiterate, if that was not your posting, you have my apologies. Law _{type! snype?} 10:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There's absolutely no WP:NPA violation here. If you don't want to be quoted, Peter, then I suggest you refrain from making statements. With that, I'm off to do some vandal fighting...gosh, I feel demoralized. :) Bullzeye ^contribs 10:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack. Don't say things like that if you don't want to have it quoted. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 10:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

It was a joke. A bit like the time Kenny Everett said 'Let's bomb Russia'. And Law goes well beyond simply quoting me, if you actually read what he says. I have removed Gwen's tag.Peter Damian (talk) 11:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me simplify it. I did not like how my block was undone. Hyperbole is not hyperbole when it is backed up with specific actions. If they were in jest, why qualify them? Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
Blowing off steam is one thing, but a plan, laid out, in which you are not even comfortable with your own device shows that you had shitty intentions. You should remain blocked. My only regret is that I adhere to COI. Law _{type! snype?} 11:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And let me add, for those who accused me as a 'sleeper,' which part of this is an exageration or part of you blowing off steam?

“ 1. Demoralise the vandal fighters. Constantly vote against every RfA. Reduce the number of administrators to such a pitiful level that they will all give up.

2. Demoralise the content contributors so they leave. To an extent this is already happening. The problem here however is that most of the 'community' would welcome them leaving. Then they could concentrate on their job of fighting vandalism and keeping the encyclopedia eternally in the state it was in 2005.
3. Attack the source of funds. This would be very effective but difficult. Requirement: a few articles in respectable journals that showed properly how Wikipedia was distorting human knowledge. (To make up for that ridiculous and skewed 'Nature' article). Properly write up the stuff about pedophiles, zoophiles, pornographers, Objectivists. Publicise this widely. Talk with journalists.
4. Subtle vandalism. This makes me uncomfortable, however.
5. Form an alliance with the natural enemies of Wikipedia such as Britannica.
6. Get sponsorship from wealthy person or corporation who would pay editors to contribute.

”

I've indeffed people for username violations because they are simply usernames which are not acceptable. Why anyone allows you to edit here is beyond my comprehension. Law _{type! snype?} 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Go on keep up with the bullying. Peter Damian (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Law's email

And here then, as I must, is the strange email that 'Law' sent to me - I find it very disturbing the way he writes these strange disconnected, ungrammatical and mispelled statements. He comes across (to me at least) as someone who would be prepared to use violence. Peter Damian (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

“ redacted ”

Peter Damian (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

'Cheers? That's not even in my colloquial vernacular. Take it to my talk page man. You really are reaching. I also am pretty adept at using caps when necessary. Cheers, Law. Law _{type! snype?} 11:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't post that email unless the sender says it's ok to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Um Am I OG?

[183] This is a procedural action. I really would hope that I have not given the impression that I would unleash my gat when involved with a debate on wikipedia. Would I? I hate ANI, but seriously, I think the accusation does merit a discussion. Am I violent? This has to stop. Law _{type! snype?} 12:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed it does merit a discussion. Any comment or action I would take with regard to that user risks being perceived as non-neutral, so I will refrain from further comment. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, that's an AGF failure. I'm up for a community ban of Peter once enough other people are. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm with Jclemens on this one. Enough is enough. → ROUX ₪ 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• I have been uninvolved with the offender. My take after reading the link: Over the top, uncivil, basically outrageous. My vote is a concurring one with Roux and JClemens.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy close Seems trifling to me. Many (most?) people on Wikipedia come across to me as borderline psycopathic and potentially dangerous. I think it's best to let the comment go and move on. If stating a plan to destroy wikipedia and then moving to implement it isn't enough for a ban, then I don't see how this comment amounts to much. Stating one's perceptions of an editor based on an over-the-top reading between the lines of an e-mail communication, is probably within the limits of tolerability. The comment seems fairly trivial to me and may well have been a lashing out at a blocking admin. Maybe it was just another joke? Even if the comment was an effort to stir up trouble, it's an admin's job to minimize drama wherever possible and in my opinion this case called for ignoring the comment and exercising restrain. If something substantially disruptive is done that's a different story. And Law, you have been a bit bitey on your talk page recently. So if you don't want to come across as mean as scary, try doing more flattering, more cookie and barnstar distribution, and more loving engagement with your fellow psycopaths editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I may bite but never violent. Never. Law _{type! snype?} 09:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Greatmathias09

Can someone block this editor please. Look at their lovely comments to Cirt at an IP's talk page and really all of this user's contributions. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, they were just blocked. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

However, given the obvious socking, a CU is probably needed to root out any others laying around. → ROUX ₪ 07:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Casimir9999 and other socks

In late June I filed a report on an editor who was abusing multiple accounts (including Gil987 (talk · contribs), Casimir9999 (talk · contribs), Uruk2008 (talk · contribs), and others) to make useless edits, and not responding to warnings. The editor showed up at ANI and promised to improve, but the behavior has continued, for example [184] and [185]. Given the amount of time this has wasted for numerous editors (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uruk2008 and the corresponding talk page), and the lack of any useful contributions, I suggest that it is time to take serious action. It is likely, but not 100% certain, that the parent of all these accounts is MessiahBenDavid (talk · contribs). I will notify the editor of this thread (one of his incarnations, anyway). Looie496 (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please notify all the incarnations.

I had to block Uruk2008 in February for more specifically abusive behavior on several pages; they seem to have limited themselves to references rather than edit warring since, though if you have diffs for exceptions to that they would be useful.

The RFC seems to show a community consensus that they're not a useful editor, but didn't have much specific diffs and the problems with the specific references they're adding. Can you possibly get some more specific evidence in the thread here?

If the references being added are really bad, and they won't stop after a final warning, we can probably do something about it. I seems like they might well be bad but we need to get it on the record in more detail.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's too much work for a "maybe". I just got involved in this because he impinged on a couple of neuroscience articles, and I saw that the physicists, who are his main victims, weren't getting anywhere with him. I thought I could help move things along more efficiently, but that doesn't appear to be the case, so I'm going to back out now and simply revert him when he does it again to the articles I watch. Fortunately he's very easy to recognize. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

What's frustrating about this is that the rest of us end up having to put far more effort into this than Uruk2008 does. He (let's say) appears to be plugging keywords into Google and adding search results to the article without reading them. The rest of us either have to delete them indiscriminately, which amounts to the same thing as banning the editor, or else review each one for quality. I started out doing the latter but eventually gave up because so few edits are worth keeping and even those are marginal. They're sources you can imagine being in the article, but it would be easier to find similar or better sources than to sift through Uruk2008's mess (and why should he define the playing field anyway?). I know there's an argument that bad edits can spur improvements to an article, but I refuse to clean up after Uruk2008 in the long term and I doubt anyone else will volunteer. Without people specifically dedicated to cleaning up after this user it will not happen, because few editors bother to check references if they look okay on the surface. It would need to be a team of people with expertise in various areas because Uruk2008 adds to a wide range of articles. That's easy for him, of course, but hard for us. My point is, I don't want to have to compile a long list of edits with explanations of what's wrong with each one; it would take a long time and this user doesn't deserve that effort. If it would get him quickly banned and out of my hair then maybe it would be worth it, but I'd like to avoid it. If you just need a list of objectionable edits without individual justifications, then just look at Special:Contributions/Uruk2008, Special:Contributions/Gil987, and so on. Pretty much all of those. -- BenRG (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand this is frustrating, but we need to have enough on the record to justify action if we do something. The problem is that the edits he's doing are good enough to not be obviously vandalism - if they're not useful, but not really bad, then the threshold for disruptive editing is much higher.

I see where you're coming from and I'm willing to act if someone can put together enough detail to justify it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Page creation header

Resolved

 – Text is now corrected.

_{The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)}

Sorry if wrong place (maybe), but I noticed that the header for creating article is changed to following text:

You have followed a link to a page that does not exist yet. To create the page, start typing in the box below (see the help page for more info). If you are here by mistake, click your browser's back button.

Why can be like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junkcops (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the problem with it can be like this? ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 09:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem here... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He's right, it looks like MediaWiki:Newarticletext is no longer used and MW is falling back to the default message. I have no idea why. -- Luk ^talk 09:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A null edit seems to have done the trick for now... -- Luk ^talk 09:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Luk. The Junk Police (reports|works) 11:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Prestonmcconkie harassing

User:Prestonmcconkie has been harassing me on my talk page. I took it to WP:WQA and User:GTBacchus did a good job handling the issue. After GTBacchus left the user a warning about civility, he snapped at me on my talk page again.

I asked him to please stop leaving me messages about the issue, hoping to drop it. User:Prestonmcconkie replied with "Yay! I win!" as if it was some kind of contest.

Hoping to stop this once and for all, I wiped the string of messages from my talk page. It didn't sway them. They reverted my removal of messages on my talk page with this edit summary: "Yeah, I'd be embarrassed, too. Don't be a wimp." (diff)

Someone else stepped in, warned him, and reverted his edit, but I doubt he'll comply as he has been shown not to before this. Can I please get some help? This is getting beyond ridiculous. Thanks. --13² 19:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He has also deemed it appropriate to post the message string on his talk page, which I don't feel comfortable with, since they were originally on my page, they are my comments, and he's just trying to put it up to "showcase" his "win" against me. --13² 19:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

He actually has this as the message directly above the string: "Still, for the sake of posterity and because I simply find it funny, I'm preserving the exchange in the next section." Him adding the string is just another attempt to harass me. He has also ignored the request by another user by doing this and, in an ironic twist, when I left the auto-message for this report, he told me to stay off his page. --13² 20:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, gee. I go offline for an hour to get a cavity filled, and this is still happening when I come back? User:Thirteen squared, you've got to disengage with this guy, and he with you. There's no rule against keeping a copy of the conversation on his talk page. Do consider that anyone seeing a conversation here that ends "Yah, I win", is not likely to think much of the person saying that. I'm going over to his talk page now; I request that whatever conversation he and I have there, you not contribute to. I'm not commanding you not to, but I think it would inflame the situation. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, no, no. That's absolutely, perfectly fine. I wanted this to end, which was why I asked him to stop, when he didn't I removed the conversation hoping it would stop, and, when it didn't, came here instead of talking to him (outside of leaving him the required message to inform him of this report). I do appreciate the help you've given. I just want this to end and for him to stop harassing me. Thanks. --13² 20:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope it ends now, too. We'll see. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

While he seems to have finally stopped trying to insult me directly, he won't let it drop here. --13² 20:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Gee from the picture on his User page, I wouldn't think Prestomcconkie was twelve years old. Are we really arguing over graham cracker crust? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WTWAG, that was helpful. By the way, did you answer the question I posted to you the other day? If another admin or two could keep an eye on the situation, I'd appreciate it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I must have missed the question. Where did you post it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was on one of these noticeboards. It must have drifted into the archives. I guess it wasn't really important, anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No, we aren't arguing over graham cracker crust. We were arguing over someone wiping out my article repeatedly with no discussion, and not in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Yes, the discussion got acrimonious, and my language was the most uncivil. But I don't see how calling me a 12-year-old qualifies as civil or, ahem, gentlemanly. --Preston McConkie ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It really doesn't. That's what I was alluding to with the question I'd asked him last week, in a thread about civility on this very page. That's one problem with these angry words we type - they tend to gather more and more about them, until six people are being uncivil instead of just one. That kind of situation can waste a lot of time, which is why we have a civility policy. It kind of makes sense, if you think about it that way. Seems to me, at least. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WTWAG never called you a twelve-year-old. They said specifically, "From the picture on his User page, I wouldn't think Prestomcconkie was twelve years old." They were replying to GTBacchus' warning on your talk page, regarding "This is not middle school". Your claim has no merit. a little insignificant 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it has a little bit of merit, and it made me think immediately, and hard, about my "middle school" remark. I think it weakened my message, and was therefore unwise. We do best when we all treat each other with dignity and respect. It's not that much to ask, but in practice... we're all human. I hope Prestonmcconkie looks past my hasty rhetoric and hears what I wanted to communicate. If he doesn't, then I just screwed up, by not treating someone with dignity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

My User Talk Page being compromised

I have a user/editor that continues to attempt to make edits on my own personal talkpage. This user reported to the admins that I was writing personal attacks on his page. I have since left that users talk page alone. Here is when I was warned...The user and I got into a personal attack debate and the user contacted a admin who issued the following to me.

Extended content

Civility Note that civility here is not optional. This edit is not called for, and recurrences could lead to you being blocked. Kevin (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC) I have not made any contact with the user and I wish not to do so, however the user will not leave my personal talk page alone and now I recieve daily interactions such as these below... [edit] Welcome Back Wow, were you on vacation? I see you've also developed other interests and learned some HTML, great! You'll be a much more productive contributor now. McCoy has gained a lot of weight, I know why, that is a positive as well.--Victor9876 (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Advise It might be helpful to blank your talk page and begin aknew.--Victor9876 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC) [edit] Last Request to blank Carrt. I have asked you politely to blank your talk page. You have a right to blank your own page or not. I am amending my request to ask you to blank only my exchanges with you on your talk page. If not, I will ask an admin to do it. Thanks in advance for your co-operation.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Carrt81"

The user Victor9876 took it upon themselves to make edits on my personal page as shown here

01:28, 12 July 2009 Victor9876 (talk | contribs) (21,954 bytes) (I have blanked the issues requested below. If you revert this back, a request from an administrator will be made. I urge you, consider blanking the rest.) (undo)

This is my personal talk page..and the user Victor9876 put those responses on my page and then requested to have them taken off. I refuse since its my talk page. I can do what I please with it. Besides if I was asked not to make contact with the user, why I ask is the user contacting me. I just want this user to leave my page alone. What is the ruling on personal talk pages? If Victor9876 didn't like what they put on my talkpage maybe they shouldn't have done it in the first place. I was going to revert Victor9876's changes to my personal talk page but Victor9876 threatened if I did that, that a Admin would be contacting me. I just want my personal talk page to be left alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrt81 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I am someone who is relatively adamant on the rights of users to keep their talkpages as they wish. That being said, reading between the lines I'm guessing the two of you didn't hit it off very well? It would be an excellent gesture of peace for you to blank the section he is complaining about, and move on from the issue. → ROUX ₪ 05:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This user keeps contacting me so if this will make peace and ensure that this user won't continue to make contact with me or my page than its a small price. comment added by Carrt81

You shouldn't be made to feel bullied about your own talk page, IMO. His threats carried no weight at all. /shrug Tarc (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• On deeper investigation, it's looking like some truly bizarre harassment from Victor9876 a few months ago. My advice above still stands, if you feel like forgiving him. The edits remain in the page history more or less forever, so if he starts it up again you can easily find them. → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Roux...Yes Victor9876 has been at it for a while. The user has been banned before and has had multiple usernames. I was going to keep my talkpage the way Victor changed it but an Admin came in and reverted what Victor had done. Carrt81
  • Daedalus is not an admin (nor am I). Victor has used multiple usernames? Do you mean abusively, or has simply used different accounts? → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

For clarity's sake, Daedalus isn't an admin. I agree with what he did, though. Whatever you'd like to do with your talk page is completely your decision, whether you'd prefer to delete it and get rid of any drama or maintain it as a record of your harassment. There's absolutely no policy the other editor can use to remove it, so don't worry about any of their threats. The choice is yours. Dayewalker (talk) 05:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Understood. Thank you very much. Yes I just wanted to document everything. Carrt81 (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• • You said that Victor was banned under a previous username, and has used multiple accounts to avoid his ban. What was that banned account(s) so we can put the pieces of this puzzle together? If possible, you may want to file a WP:SPI report, or if that is too complicated, just leave the info here, and it can be dealt with. Creating new accounts to dodge a block or a ban is not allowed, and that in itself can be dealt with. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 06:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Carr has left a list on my userpage. At least one of the named users I recognised as being a long-term and very constructive editor, so I'm not sure what exactly is going on here. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Here, [[186]], Carrt81 is being disengenuous. My prior edit name was DetroitNews9, but I could not log in and the password was forgotten, so I created Victor9876 and wrote down the password to prevent future mistakes. Carrt81 has compiled a list that is not exact and purposely uses the same argument that I misused Houston McCoy's name. That is not true and that issue was over with long ago, but he keeps bringing it up. My suggestions recently on his talkpage were genuine, even if he wants to portray them as threats, which there clearly aren't, and stalking, please re-read the link I provided. He recently returned from an a lengthy time of not "harassing" me, and provided a link on the Houston McCoy page with an error in spelling, which I corrected and in an attempt to prevent mistakes from the past, asked him to blank his talk page of my replies to his old harassments. He did not acknowledge me, even though he has edited after the requests, so I know he got the messages. Now he wants to play the victim and obviously get me in trouble. To defer that, I mentioned in the blanking comment that if he reverted the page, I would contact an admin about blanking the page. So, what is his point here? I suggest reading the whole history and look at Carrt81's comments from the past as well. I just didn't want history repeating itself as Carrt81 is apparently doing by acting like a victim. Also, there is no value in the old posts and reflect bad faith between Carrt81 and myself. Look from the beginning of his talk page when I tried to help him as DetroitNews9. Carrt81 has taken and portrayed these issues way out of context.--Victor9876 (talk) 08:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't really 'order' another user to blank their user talk page or get an admin to do it for you. You can ask and that editor may do it as a courtesy, but he's not obliged to do it. I think the best thing now would be for both of you to forget what happened in the past and try to get along, as suggested above by Roux and Dayewalker. ≈ Chamal ^talk 10:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure that every aspect of things is being presented here. Looking back at user contributions, way back on October 20, 2008, Carrt81 was the first of these two usernames to contact the other [187], to which Victor9876 replied here. It went back forth a few times, but nothing overtly antagonistic was noted, but it seemed to go sour between them. There is no evidence in the contribution history of Victor9876 that he contacted Kevin at all, but Kevin did leave a warning at Cartt81's talk page about this edit which was quite contentious and include the comment "you can just do the world a favor and walk in front of a bus". At that edit, Carrt81 also accused Victor9876 of having various usernames and suggested a number of extremely offensive ones to use. Victor9876 didn't attempt to hide the existence of a former user account, (Detroitnews9). Just in passing regarding the list of IPs and usernames that Carrt81 accused Victor9876 of having used, the IP numbers that I checked are located in the western United States, the eastern United States and in Burlington, Ontario Canada, and almost none of the IPs have been used here since 2006 or early 2007. It appears that some old issues that vastly predate the registration of the user account Carrt81, have spilled over from some past dispute onto others and thus makes me wonder if Carrt81 had a previous account. Some of the present argument extended to some unexpected posts to my own talk page [188], including one where he/she gave a list of "banished usernames" - the Victor9876 and Detroitnews9 mentioned above, an administrator in good standing, Johntex, of being the same person [189], and another editor in good standing on Roux's talk page. All of this is over issues relating to the same articles, all of which Carrt81 has also edited, as have I. Just a comment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Now Carrt81 has pushed the envelope on Roux's talk page - [[190]], he is now claiming that I impersonated Houston McCoy, the officer who shot and killed Charles Whitman. This meme he has created has crossed the boundary of sound judgment and prudence. Unless he retracts this statement, or proves it, I will seek an administrative banning of Carrt81. History - I was power of attorney for Houston McCoy for several years and recognized early on that he was suffering from PTSD, a mental illness that strikes some people who have been involved in a traumatic event that effects their ability to function as before the incident[191]. Such is the case of McCoy. I had him diagnosed, and helped him get SSI, at a great cost to myself and my own health. Before the 40th Anniversary of the tower event, I was in Menard, Texas, helping prepare for the media onslaught that was coming. I have most of Whitman's records. McCoy didn't like the way WP was portraying his character (with good reason from past history with the made for TV movie "The Deadly Tower" with Kurt Russell, where a character that resembled McCoy was used in a cowardly manner to promote an Hispanic officer who kills Whitman with several gunshots to the back), so he had me create the Houston McCoy user page and he picked the name and password. This was all done at the Menard Public Library. The librarians will recall our few visits there. As I have stated previously, with Carrt81's knowledge, McCoy was computer illiterate at the time, and wanted things changed that could be verified. I did the best with what I could with verifiable information on the net, and to my knowledge, never crossed any WP rules. However, McCoy's daughter became aware of the account and blamed me for all the didtortions regarding her father. She butted in after nine years of silence on her part, and totally undid everything I had accomplished for and with McCoy. The relationship became strained, and eventually, my POA was mutually withdrawn, after the media in Austin honored Martinez exclusively and gave shoddy accounts of McCoy and the whole history of the tower tragedy. The daughter took over completely, (if you think a father is going to choose you over his daughter for any reason, you are fooling yourself), and I helped her with speeches, information about Whitman and the tragedy to advance the honors and awards given recently to all the officers and civilians. I have over 300 emails to verify this, mostly from her employer's email address in Texas. I was receiving no compensation for my time or efforts. Eventually, the daughter got all the credit for the awards and bringing the officers together, she was instrumental, just not the only source. The daughter also gave me information that was concerning to me, but refused to reveal the source so I could try and set any record straight that may have been in error. All of this is mentioned because Carrt81, echoes the daughters behavior, remarks, quick temperament and has tried to post information, that was privy to only a few individuals, her and myself being two of them. I am not saying Carrt81 is the daughter. I am saying there is a glaring similarity to their language and communication skills (or lack thereof).--Victor9876 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the passage above should be oversighted for BLP violations, Victor9876 should be indef-blocked for involving Wikipedia in legal issues, and the matter should be referred to Mike Godwin. I'm not an admin or I would immediately take action myself here. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have raised a serious concern Looie496. How is the above a Biography of Living Persons violation?--Victor9876 (talk) 03:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'd say that blatantly is covered under BLP as "negative unsourced information about a living person." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have hidden the above per Looie's comment. An admin is needed ASAP to sort this mess out. → ROUX ₪ 03:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

First, there is an AN/I now brought by User:Carrt81 involving my blanking a portion of his/her talk page. I did it after asking Carrt81 to please blank a certain section containing previous material from a war we had in the past. This was done after noticing an error in spelling to a contribution on the Houston McCoy page. There had been a few months absense by Carrt81 and I hoped the animosities we had with each other was over, thus the requests to blank certain material. After a few requests were made, Carrt81 refused to answer my requests in any form. At that point, I broke policy and blanked the requested sections myself, only dealing with my user name. Was I justified in doing so? Not according to policy, which led to a flurry of other editors who only saw the violation and not the reasons behind it. Which is my segway into explaining why the policy, though well intended, may need a tweek to help others not respond in a manner that is disruptive to all, and help eliminate some AN/I issues. The suggestion is this: the user talk pages are set-up now to reflect only one thread of a two party conversation or response. This leaves each editor with the choice of blanking or not blanking their own page or any portion thereof. I had blanked all of Carrt81's negative and abusive material from my page and expected an in kind response. He refused and I did blank the portions requested. It would appear that a more adequate policy would be to have the conversation threads follow each other to both user pages. That way, if there is any desire for one to blank their own page, the other will still have the threads intact and any conflicts that arise, like with my actions, an admin and contributors can see and follow the conversation in its entirety, rather than the individual diffs and contribution histories that appear and require a tedious process of verification, which most contributors don't do, they just react. This would eliminate edit wars and policy wars that have arisen from my actions. Mind you, I expected this reaction to a certain degree, but there is one user who has used the policy to start his own war, and that can be eliminated by the threads following each other. Also, it would allow any complaints to be looked at in an instant, and remove assumptions and accusations of inappropriate behavior, or verify them. I have used this as a watershed issue and not as a mean spirited action. In other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made. It is my hope that you will review the AN/I and all the activity it has brought. Hopefully this will lead to a revamp of the talk page issues and allow the policy to be more effective. In return, administrators jobs will be easier and everyone will be able to follow the history of the thread and not just one users actions. Hope this helps. Either way, this issue needs to be addressed. Also, the above BLP issues are not in the articles, and yes they are negative in nature, but true. My history in the articles have always been to provide accurate information, where verifiable sources are available. For that reason, I am limited by WP policies to post other information I have, which is out of the public domain.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)|} I have posted the above for the admin who reviews this AN/I.--Victor9876 (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC) One of my acused sockpuppets has confronted Carrt81 on his talk page [[192]], proving I am not a sock of that user, or JohnTex, another accused sockpuppet.--Victor9876 (talk) 19:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC) That's really not "evidence" of anything at all. Further, from your collapsed section above: "n other words, I purposely broke policy to show why the change needs to be made." is a direct admission you violated WP:POINT. Really, you're digging the hole deeper this way. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC) As I mention below the section, it is for an admin to review. It doesn't say comment please HandThatFeeds. In fact, if you read the comment again, this is exactly the type of exchange it suggests putting an end to. I'm using WP:Ignore all rules to help improve the system.--Victor9876 (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Carrt81 admits mistakes to Sbharris [[193]], how many more mistakes has he/she made? Look from the beginning of his/her contribs. I tried to help and got insulted. I got called names and even was told I was going to be a project of his/hers. Yes, there was a civil war, but I tried to make amends and now I am here as a witch hunt by a user who claims to have researched McCoy and knows more than I do. Carrt81 even posted a list of alleged users as my sockpuppets, and now he has been bitten. Fine, just prove knowledge as I have with some substantial contributions and move on. Let's end this charade and get back to useful energy spent onarticles and not false allegations. It wouldn't hurt for Carrt81 and myself to avoid each other. We can't be all things to all people.--Victor9876 (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Your continued insistence that only an "admin" comment is contrary to reality, and indeed, if you continue following what seems to be related to this essay, I would suggest that admin action will be forthcoming ... in your direction. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC) If you check above Bwilkens, an "admin" had already been called for and "coming in my direction" - so in anticipation of that, I composed the collapsed article with an attention note below it for the "admin" who is due to arrive. I had hoped that would be honored, of course, anyone can read it, but just like the one responder who selected one passage to bring into the forum (out of context), I had hoped to not make it a public debate. It was just an explanation of a problem I see with the WP policy. I was being bold in my attempt to bring the problem to the foreground for an "admins" review. I don't recall "insisting" on anything, I don't own the page. Just to make sure that I am grounded in "reality", were you calling me a WP:Dick which was buried in your essay link? The suggestion is there, however, the explanation says that doing that is being a Dick and that there may be a high level of testosterone in the accuser which leads to another term that I would prefer to not suggest that you are over a potential misunderstanding. Can you clarify your position please? Thanks!--Victor9876 (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Final point Obviously, I did not call you a dick - if you feel that your actions fit the bill, then you're merely doing that yourself. I merely suggested you read an essay to ensure you weren't getting there. You have been told to never edit someone else's talkpage the way that you did, I expect you have learned this lesson (WP:IAR does not matter in this specific instance). You have also been suggested to stay away from this editor completely, and vice versa. You have no authority ever to dictate what someone keeps as an archive, unless of course it violates WP:BLP, WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL. Based on this, are we done here? This pointless drama has gone on far too long. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I understand completely. Now is this AN/I over so everyone can return to some normalcy or abnormalcy, whichever they prefer?--Victor9876 (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)