Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive568

Link to an illegal copy of Window Clippings in an image

Resolved

 – image of an illegal copy deleted, new image uploaded and linked to affected articles.

Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wordpad screenshot comes from a hacking site and the non-free media use rationale includes a link to a page where an illegal copy of Window Clippings can be downloaded (Window Clippings 2.1.28 inc. keygen.zip); the image should be changed and the Window Clippings link should point to its official site (http://www.windowclippings.com/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maangago (talk • contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial uploader/contributor informed. It may be best to replace that image with one sourced from a legal avenue. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No doubt we should not link to illegal material. I have replaced the link with one to the official website. I will try to check better the links/images/uploads. Thanks SF007 (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If nessercery i run windows 7 on my laptop i can screenie and upload in order to provide a legit picture Kira Chinmoku (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes please, could you do that. very much appreciated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 12:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, image can be found: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Win7_build7100_Wordpad.jpg KiraChinmoku _{(Talk, My Contribs)} 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

consultant needed

will someone please give an advice to Jeff_G. on how and when to issue warnings on other editor's talk pages. i think he is misusing these warnings, and applying them where they have no merit. thanks. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff G has been notified of this thread. Basket of Puppies 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide WP:DIFFs to show which warning(s) you feel are inappropriately placed.  Frank  |  talk  20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suspect the diffs that this IP thinks are inappropriate are [1] and [2]. Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

All I can see is that you have made no attempt to actually discuss this with Jeff and instead have told him to "Get a life". --Smashville^talk 21:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

actually there was an attempt[3] to discuss after the first warning he gave me, but he didn't find it necessary to respond to me. after the next absurd warning of disruptive editing i realized that he only sees me as an anonymous IP address that he can place all kind of labels on without any justification. therefore, i posted a note here. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The first warning I gave this editor was for this edit, in which this editor called another editor "allknowing" and accused that editor of "lying that i left no edit summary" when that editor did no such thing (in posting this warning). As for the reason I did not respond to this editor's "attempt to discuss", it was because this editor neglected to do all that I ask, and to comply with WP:DFTT and WP:DENY. I am responding here to defend myself.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a case of "jump through my hoops or I'll ignore you." See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Jeff G.'s use of Huggle. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, user did lie with his warning in which he claimed ...When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary.. because I did write an edit summary (you obviously didn't bother to check). Secondly, it seems I should "only" have studied half a page of your personalized customized request on how other editors should communicate with you, as if you are some special kind of editor here on wiki and cannot communicate as the rest of us does. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you just called me a troll with those two links -- thanks on a personal attack. I won't be communicating with you any longer as you are disrespectful. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

for other editors here, he also accused me of disruptive editing for adding ..unrelated link.. to see also section, and you can see here how disruptive my contribution was. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Aren't you beating a dead horse? You have accused Jeff G. of inappropriate reverting in a previous discussion (in which Jeff G. was advised to be more careful with his reverting). There is no need to keep talking about that edit on 22 September now, which was brought up at the previous discussion. For the more recent edit; from a brief look at the discussion you linked to, I don't see that others agreed to adding this link. In that case, your addition of the link - while done in good faith and not intentionally disruptive - may not be appropriate. If you thought the warning you received was inappropriate you should have tried to contact Jeff G. and ask why he did that. Telling him to get a life and stop bothering you is hardly an attempt to discuss. Also, nobody has called you a troll here; a bit of AGF is always nice, particularly in a situation where you're expecting it from others. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

horse seems to be well and alive as is giving unfounded warnings again.

isn't it obvious why he did it? i think there is a trend here on wikipedia, and jeff_g unfortunately isn't the only one, in which editors find a strange satisfaction in placing i will block you type of warnings on other's talkpages. there is a lot of passive aggression going on. people say things like you are being disruptive and vandal and troll and doing personal attacks etc. while in fact they are the ones being disruptive and calling you names. unfortunately, instead of innocent until proven guilty mentality, there is a guilty until proven innocent reigning here, and people like me have to waste time defending ourselves from people like jeff_g in order not to get blocked from editing -- because after all, there are all these warnings on these pages, and me being silent and not saying anything would mean that i actually did some wrong. (and yes, he did call me a troll. look at the reason above why he states he didn't respond to me -- he provides links to "don't feed trolls")

even You Chamal wrote above ...while ... not intentionally disruptive.. implying that in fact my edit was disruptive, which is i think really arrogant thing to say, because you actually looked at the discussion about the link i added, and even though users agreed it didn't belong into see also section, they also seem to agree that information is relevant for placing into the text of the article somewhere. how can you call my contribution unintentionally disruptive. what the hell does that mean? 93.86.164.168 (talk) 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you done now? --Smashville^talk 14:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

as long as others accuse me, i will be defending myself. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IP has a reasonable point if jeff_g has not been taking more care with use of automated tools and slapping templates down - rapid templating is bitey and harmful to the project. But jeff_g appears to have been more careful since last thread. So, hopefully IP can go back to gnoming away on whatever? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppeteer TreadingWater is back

He was indefinitely blocked after abusive sockpuppeting. He both edit-warred, and attempted to sway consensus using these sockpuppets. After an investigation concluded that he had done so, he was indefinitely blocked. Fred Bauder chose to reset the block to 3 months, after TW "groveled" on some kind of mailing list thing. Apparently he promised to never, ever, ever, do it again. He returned from his 3-month block yesterday, and is already edit-warring, across multiple articles relating to generations. He's made it clear that he will continue edit-warring against consensus (the articles have been very stable for the three months of his block), and it's my view that the indefinite block needs restored. The only alternative, in my view, is a complete topic ban from anything remotely generation-related. UnitAnode 00:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• He is also textwalling at ANI/3RR. UnitAnode 00:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If he's not using sockpuppets anymore, I think an indef block for edit warring is unwarranted. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 00:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He has picked up exactly where he left off. The indef should have never been modified to begin with. It wasn't just that he was sockpuppeting, it was that he was EDIT-WARRING using those sockpuppets. UnitAnode 01:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked TreadingWater indef since he resumed wide-scale POV-pushing of Generation Jones across 32 articles less than a day after his three-month block expired. This cannot possibly represent abiding by the promises of good behavior that he gave back on June 30 to get his indef block shortened. His desire to promote this topic is so strong that he actually voted with socks in the AfD to prevent the article on Generation Jones from being deleted. My action is open to review by other admins; I was not aware of this thread when I closed the AN3 complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gaunkars of Goa

User:Gaunkars of Goa has made absolutely no useful contributions so far. Rather he is using Wikipedia to promote his own weird ideas about territorial sovereignity[4], [5]. He is peeved at India's annexation of Goa in 1961[6] which he feels is illegal and wants Wikipedia to recognize Goa as a disputed territory[7]!

None of the other editors have found any substance in his arguments but that has not deterred him from using talk pages to champion his cause[8], [9], [10]. My efforts to get him to be a productive Wikipedian were fruitless and he has instead produced a coat rack version of an existing article to promote his ideas[11].

Repeated warnings and ignoring have had no effect. He laid low for a while having found no supporters; until he found an unwitting supporter. Now emboldened, he has taken up his cause again with great vigor. Today he has crossed the limits of sanity. Not only has he threatened to "screw my happiness"[12] but also decided to appeal to Jimbo himself[13]. About time someone put an end to his nonsense. --Deepak D'Souza 18:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been aware of Gaunkars of Goa (talk · contribs) since the account was created and can attest that it is used exclusively for soapboxing (as in this latest edit). The only "positive" aspect is that he now restricts his comments to userspace, article talk space and wikipedia project pages (he hasn't edited an article in about 4 months). Don't know if he should continue to be ignored, or if he has exhausted the community patience and should be blocked or banned. Would request an uninvolved admin to take a look. Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

PS The recent threat to Deepak D'Souza is troubling escalation. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Block for disturbing Jimbo. Sephiroth storm (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Other admins feel free to change it. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I support the block. Gaunkars of Goa only interest is in using wikipedia as a soapbox and does nothing for the encyclopedia.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 23:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock declined as not addressing the reason for his block. "LET THE TRUTH PREVAIL" is not an adequate request for unblock.  Sandstein  05:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator Abuse/ Hazing

Resolved

 – Nothing problematic in the way it was handled by the administrator. Further discussion should be at Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to call to the attention for Administrative review the willful Hazing and instigations of one BorgQueen (talk · contribs) administrator who has been unnecessarily pestering and provoking me and abusing his/her power to the most corrupt extent.

The incident occured at the page "Cuisine of Hawaii" where the Administrative BorgQueen (talk · contribs) deleted several in-depth and informative paragraphs chock full of a variety of highly useful and applicable information, and replaced the entire article with one tiny ignorant paragraph which states Hawaiian people eat only junk food, which is racist, slanderous, assinine, blatent bigotry, and racial predjudice.

After I restored the article to its original state, which was radically changed from informative to bigotted without any explanation posted on the discussion page whatsoever, I posted a message on the talk page of BorgQueen (talk · contribs) asking the abusive individual to stop Vandalising the "Cuisine of Hawaii" page, because such behavior is unnacceptable at wikipedia.

"BorgQueeen" responded by locking my user account, again, without so much as an explanation.

so I left a second message on his/her talk page, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my comments from his/her talk page so others couldn't read it. Fearful of reprimand, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) has, in the 24 hours since my blocking, changed his/her talk page completely and deleted the history of my comments forever, which were in no way abusive or rude, or unapplicable to his/her blatent provocative hazing. That is unmistakeably the actions of a corrupt and guilty individual

I then posted the comments on my own page, hoping for some kind of explanation to 1.) why the page was changed so blatently racist, and 2.) why my account was locked.

BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then deleted my posts from my own talk page, which were, again, not abusive but were simply asking for clarification and explanation.

BorgQueen (talk · contribs) then posted the following comment "You have been temporarily blocked for your long history of disruptive edits."

Please, I invite any to look back through my history, particularly Guangzhou, and you will find all of my edits were justified and clearly explained and made clear through peer review and discussion, though they might have been argued by my struggling peers, that does not make them "Disruptive".

On a more delinquent and willfully destructive note: I didnt edit the "Cuisine of Hawaii" for several weeks, then I went there 2 days ago to add some important information on Fusion Soups in Hawai'i's Cusine, at 18:26 1 October 2009, i updated the wikipedia. and at 18:26, 1 October 2009, less than 1 minute after my edit, BorgQueen (talk · contribs) edited in what can only be described as the most willfully distruptive, provocative, and hazing manner i have witnessed on the Wikipedia, but is rampant behavior amongst many other moderators on many websites throughout the World Wide Web

BorgQueen has a personal vendetta with me, and is running around the Wikipedia hazing and Provoking me by vandalizing all of the pages I contribute to.

If this is a common sentiment amonst administrators at Wikipedia, then i wish for you to remove my account and delete all of my information, and i will cease visiting this cesspool.

otherwise I demand for user BorgQueen (talk · contribs) to be severely reprimanded and removed from the Wikipedia's degenerating list of Administrator's--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 02:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by L31 G0NG L41 (talk • contribs)

It would help if you would sign your comments. Thanks, Abce2|This isnot a test 02:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:BorgQueen has been notified of this discussion. Evil saltine (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Those "messages" where attacks. Also, don't try to impersonate people.Abce2|This isnot a test 02:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Diff of impersonation. Tried to impersonate sig. [[14]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

um, I don't really understand what you are attempting to communicate, i forgot my signature, I am not "impersonating" a 'nobody', that's an unfounded accusation which we can all only assume was for furthering hazing. --L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Try disscussing things next time insted of attacking. [[15]]Abce2|This isnot a test 02:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There were no attacks, you can read it on my page. you cannot read it on BorgQueens page, not even in the history, as its all been deleted. only someone with the ability to restore deleted HISTORY items will be able to review that. Here's a quick question for you though, WHY WOULD ANYONE DELETE THE HISTORY???, it doesn't take Thomas Jefferson to figure that out.--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The content you added should be integrated into the article as it exists, not dropped into the lead of the article. Also, much of the added content violated the neutral point of view policy, for example: "Hawaii is home to the freshest ingredients from land and sea." BorgQueen did not write the content that you object to; she just reverted your edits. Evil saltine (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

no, I added to what was there, why don't you go ahead and look at the page prior to my first edit before you try and justify the unjustifiable. "The Freshest Ingredients from land and Sea" is the NPOV. you can go ahead an measure pollutiuon levels in Hawaii and surround waters with say, the Mediterranean, or wherever you think has better quality ingredients. It is 7 small islands, they get their food from the islands, its not shipped across the continental united states.. do u need a map of how food gets shipped around the globe? or what is it that might satisfy your accusations?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please note I reported this user to WQA just last week [16] for their over-the-top talk page comments. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

with half of you editors I would need a megaphone and a Superbowl-like event to get anything through your predjudices an Bias. let's discuss the "over the top" comments, And wy wasn't I notified of the report, u going deep undercover?--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You were. [17]. Don't see how it gets more obvious than that. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the evidence and IMO BorgQueen has simply enforced policy and community standards with both civility and fairness. There is no substance to this complaint. I move to close. Manning (talk) 03:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I move for a petition for further review by a more neutral party who has looked into 1.) why the history was delted on the talk page, and 2.) why was the informative artice NOT reverted but changed into some sort of racist propaganda?

I move for a Hawaiian Admin Review, from the Hawaiian Wikipedia--L31 G0NG L41 (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how Manning is not neutral. Secondly we the english wikipedia, we can only deal with situation that happen on this wiki. Not others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In this diff you refactored my earlier comment to appear as if I had included a link. I am willing to believe it was unintentional, however I would caution you against such carelessness in future.

This matter is now closed as all reviewing admins feel there is no case for BorgQueen to answer. I have never interacted with BorgQueen before, or ever edited the article in question, therefore my neutrality is beyond question. While I appreciate that you did not get the outcome you wanted, it is over and further protests will not benefit you. The content issues can be resolved at the talk page for the relevant article. Manning (talk) 03:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Csjoholm

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

CSjoholm (talk · contribs) have for some unbeliavable reason got the idea that Sweden is tolerant on drugs. This idea, he can't verify by giving sources, he persistantly tries to push into the article Legality of cannabis, see here, here, here, here, here and here. The issue have been discussed at Talk:Legality of cannabis#Sweden - Is there tolerance or not? where I have informed Csjoholm about WP:V and WP:NOR and urged him to produce sources to back up his claims. I have also warned him to stop with his disruptive editing. But to no evail, see here and here. He have also counter-threated me and accused me of pushing for "untruthfull substance", here. Previously he have said more or less straight out that he is going to war about this, to wait until my interest wain and try again to push his view (here). ... I am not totally familiar with the routine here, so what to do? Steinberger (talk) 03:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added userlinks, and corrected the {{user}} template to point to the correct user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also warned the user against adding original research to the article. If they persist, up the warning. Since I have given them a level one, up it to a level two. If they persist after that, a level three. If they reach a level four, and persist, report them to WP:AIV.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has now been blocked, however, please do not resolve this thread, I would like to see if the user continues to delete the material after the block is over.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:JL 09

Resolved

 – User:23prootie blocked for 1 month (see other section)

This user, User:JL 09, has been doing edit wars, disruptive editing, and article owning at Francisco Carreón, Could you please block her until October 6. Thanks.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 05:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tkguy violating editing restrictions

Resolved

 – blocked by Mastcell for edit warring

Tkguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) As noted at User_talk:Tkguy#You_seem_to_have_forgotten_your_editing_restriction he is under a 1RR on all asian fetish artilces. From today:

• [18], [19], [20].
• [21], [22].

He's editing against a clear consensus of several editors to redirect that article. he was previously blocked for edit warring over this topic which causes his restrictions. This individual incident needs to be dealt with, but I'd also recommend a topic ban as he cannot help but disrupt in regards to this topic. I'm out for the weekend, so hopefully an admin can read up on this and handle it appropriately--Crossmr (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tkguy has been notified of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Already was notified. My bad. Sorry. Basket of Puppies 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Asian fetish and Asiaphile

Here's the situation. We are dealing with long contentious problem with any and all topics related to articles attempting to label a racist behavior towards asians. The Asian fetish article is famous as it has been through 5 deletion attempts all done by different people. It has now gotten to a point where a deletion attempt are quickly closed out as with "snowball keep". {{multidel |list=

• Speedy keep, 31 July 2009, AFD.
• Keep, 13 November 2007, AFD.
• Keep, 16 April 2007, AFD.
• Keep, 28 April 2006, AFD.
• Keep, 25 December 2005, AFD.

}} I believe people have given up their attempt at deleting the page for now but instead are pursuing other ways to undermine this page and any related topics. They are trying to fill the article up with misrepresentation of the sources. Probably an attempt to fill the article with questionable entries so it will not survive another deletion attempt. In fact Crossmr has been reverting my contribution to the Asian fetish page as seen here [23]. As you can read Crossmr version implies that Phoebe Eng finds Asian fetish liberating. This is a gross misrepresentation of her work. Her book "Warrior Lessons : An Asian American Woman's Journey into Power" spend many pages putting down Asian fetish and in an attempt to provide a counterpoint, as most fair authors do, she wrote one sentence that acknowledges that some asians find that it's liberating. I don't believe Crossmr ever read this book yet he's trying force his interpretation of the quote on the page. This is the nature of not only Crossmr's many many many contributions to the article but for most of the contributions made to this article. If you understand what is happening here it's apparent that Crossmr is a part of a group of editors pushing their agenda. It's fine to make contributions that contradict other contributions but to misrepresent sources. This kind of thing has to stop.

Now for the topic of redirecting Asiaphile to Asian fetish. Asiaphile has a number of valid contributions. This page has been the way it was for a very long time. Yet now people want it to redirect to the Asian fetish page and claim it's due to redundancy of the article? Nobody made any attempt to explain where the redundancy is. I keep asking where the redundancy is but there's absolutely no response [24] [25]. Redirecting the page effectively wipes out the valid contributions on the page. This is WP:VAN as valid contributions are being deleted and goes against the purpose of wikipedia.

I must admit it's been a while since I've edited here and I've forgotten about the 3rr rule. I am not well versed with all the rules of wikipedia but I do not tag team with others to push my agenda. I believe that is what is happening with the redirection of Asiaphile to Asian fetish with absolutely no attempt at preserving any of the contributions on the page. If these people were promoting good faith editing then they would be pointing out exactly where the redundancy is and attempting to merge the two articles. Instead you have people just redirecting to the Asian fetish page. The asian fetish page once again I must reiterate survived 5 deletion attempts but is obviously being mitigated by those who are would like nothing more than to have this article deleted. But they can't delete the article! So they are doing the next best thing which is to redirect all pages they do not like to this article. I would have approached an admin regarding this issue but I find that regarding this topic, there are many who wants to delete these articles or they just don't want to fight the many many many people who wants these articles deleted or mitigated. Tkguy (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the situation. You're under a 1RR on the articles in question. You don't get to violate that because you think you're really really right. What you've written is a great bit of content for something in the dispute resolution chain, but unfortunately has zero bearing on your editing restrictions and you violating them by continuing to edit war over these topics. The notification is on your talk page about yoru editing restrictions. You're not even permitted 3RR on the topics in question, you're permitted one. Since you've begun editing you've had talk on your page which you've no doubt looked at. I know you have because you carried on a conversation with mangojuice which involved your talk page. I can't possibly imagine you read this part of the talk on your talk page [26] and couldn't see the section 2 above labeled You seem to have forgotten your editing restriction. You don't get to conveniently forget about your restrictions every time you want to try and edit war. You were given a good faith pass on your edit warring last time when you were reminded in may about this. In fact as further evidence of your edit warring you were specifically asked to bring up the issue on the article talk page [27] if you had something to add to the discussion and you didn't do so. You just continued to revert.--Crossmr (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Rarely does a single post inspire a new essay. See Wikipedia:Chunk o' text defense. Durova³²⁰ 22:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Love it. Articulates something we've all seen and been annoyed by countless times before. Equazcion (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

regardless of the actual merits, I do not find the post by Tkguy the least inappropriate or overlong or annoying. It's a reasoned defense of his edits, and his apology for breaking the rules about them. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish this had existed about a month ago... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 02:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He already got to apologize back in may for "forgetting" his editing restrictions. how many times are we going to let him do that before we realize his only purpose is to come here and edit war over those articles. That is the reason he is under an editing restriction. His reasoning is completely immaterial to his reversions. As I said, its a great start for dispute resolution if he wanted to do that, but even when he was invited to take the issue to the article talk page his response was to break his editing restrictions instead of doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Courthouse Square

Resolved

 – Blocked.

Our homeless obsessed long-term banned editor is back, would someone do the honours? (I can't remember his original name he's had so many accounts so can't check for an open sock-case). --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked by Zzuuzz. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a very strange obsession - maybe a homeless person shot his dog or something. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the case history: [28] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Now we've got a flurry of aged socks coming in to make the same edits. I've full-protected for a week, and will reboot the SPI to see if we can't root out the rest of the hosiery department. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And CU has delivered. All socks blocked, but range is too large, so have your mallets ready when the mole pops back up. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye-aye, sir. All mallets are locked and loaded. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bugs, don't you mean that you have finish polishing the cannonballs? --Dave1185 (talk) 09:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is that what the kids are calling "it" these days? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Omigosh... you don't read much, do you? If you must, go read up on "Tom Clancy's Submarine (book)", 1993, ISBN 0425138739; the answers are all in there. --Dave1185 (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Something was said about cannons and such. Let me go on record as saying I don't believe in committing violence against others. Unless they deserve it. OK, mixed metaphor, mallets locked and loaded. And also excessively violent. Instead, how about the next time it turns up, I'll hit it in the side of the head with one of Mrs. Smith's finest. That would be a pie-on-ear. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:23prootie edits

Resolved

 – User:23prootie blocked for 1 month by User:SarekOfVulcan

Hello. I think there is something happening bad here. 23prootie charges me of owning the article Francisco Carreon, even though his obsessive behavior pointed that he really wanted to own the article: like not accepting good faith edits done by other editors, and deleting every single notification tags and reliable edits done by others in Francisco Carreon. He even accused me of vandalism one time, but the term vandalism applies if a user did edit not to improve the article but to worsen it, I wanted to improve Carreon article to comply with Wikipedia policies as well as historical facts, but 23prootie still mind of violating rules. He inserted Vice President infobox on the article even if Carreon is not an official vice president of the Philippines (vice president of the Tagalog Republic may qualify, but Philippines? No). The precedence that the post was abolished also signified that he really was the Philippine's Vice president. I cleaned up the article so much that it is accurate with Wikipedia policies, re-linked the Balangay sorts (see below), he also insisted to add Carreon in the Vice President of the Philippines template even though User:TheCoffee removed recently unofficial vice presidents. He changed the article's assessment many times claiming that it is a B-class and High-importance because Carreon is an important icon in history (but changed his reason later).

I changed the internal link Katagalugan to Tagalog Republic to globalize the article. For example, not all people in Wikipedia is familiar in Tagalog language, so I just renamed the phrases Republika ng Katagalugan into more English Tagalog Republic then inserted parenthesis with the Tagalog equivalent inside it. I also changed Sacay to Sakay because that was the real name of Macario Sakay, not Macario Sacay. I also inserted English name of the guardia civil, the civil guard. All of those were removed.

I advised him to contact somebody if he wanted to re-assess his article, but he still pushed to change the assessment. As for the assessment issue, a member of WikiProject Biography said that its a Start article and a low, but not C.

As for the Philippine Commonwealth, a long debate occurred when he moved the article to Philippine Commonwealth from Commonwealth of the Philippines. Debators stand that the article should be named as Commonwealth of X, w/c was based on historical notes. But one time, when 23prootie found an archived news at the NY Times using the shorthand Philippine Commonwealth, he moved the article in that name. We explained to him that the official name of the Commonwealth was really Commonwealth of X, and it was written that way to save ink: i.e., many documents/news mentions the name Commonwealth of the Philippines before saying Philippine Commonwealth in successive paragraphs. Two other users, BilCat and RightCowLeftCoast as well as I decided that the article should reach a consensus before moving, then I applied for page-move protection for the Commonwealth, which was protected indef.

Earlier this day, 23prootie copied the whole article and pasted it on the redirect Philippine Commonwealth (and its talk page) just to "evade" (I can't remember what's the proper term) the page-move protection of Commonwealth of the Philippines. Then he created another section listing down his points which was based on WP:NAME. I think this issue is the same when I proposed a move of Benigno Aquino, Jr. to Ninoy Aquino, when users agreed that as long as a redirect, such as Philippine Commonwealth points to the main article, say Commonwealth of the Philippines, there is no reason to move such article.

On the Philippine Commonwealth talk, he listed down all rules in WP:NAME plus his own understanding how it applies to the article. I don't see why or he justifies that the name "X Commonwealth" is more unique than the common "Commonwealth of X", to quote is really unique per se. Finally, the admin who protected the page Commonwealth of the Philippines said that if and when a clear consensus for moving/renaming develops, just drop him by note that a consensus for renaming was developed and it's time for page-move. Consequently, even before the community decided what would be the best article name for the historical government, and even before this section was written, the article was moved, renamed by means of copy-pasting, 23prootie moved the article based on his justification. If my calculations are correct, this is the 6th time the article was moved by the same person with no consensus (just he saw it in the Internet) of the community. I believe this probably the same reason why User:Boxedor boiled his blood and undergone edit warring over the article Philippines.

23prootie has been blocked multiple times, and same reason goes: edit warring and disruptive editing.

I need an advice, I can't stand it any longer. Thanks, JL 09 _^q?c 08:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunatly must concur with the statements made by User:JL_09. The user in question, has continued to make changes to the article, that are not within the consensus of all active users. Furthermore he has bypassed the move block, by blanking the information, cutting it and pasting it to a new article with the name that the page was moved to in his/her attempt before. Now, I assume good faith that the user in question only means to do the best by the article. However, given that there is a consensus that the article name should remain at Commonwealth of the Philippines, which is also supported by references, he/she has continued to thwart said consensus. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of JL 09, her opinion has no bearing. She has clearly been following my edits for the past few days (See Did you know? for balangay, Tambayan Philippines, List of capitals of East Asia, and my own talk page) and has been trolling me. In the case of the Philippine Commonwealth, I have presented reliable sources of it's use (New York Times), and has presented my side on the talk page), it's not really my problem if they don't agree with me. Facts are facts.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As for Boxedor, she was a Sockpuppeteer and a Vandal so please don't associate me with her.--ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 10:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Katipunan referencing

According to history, the balangay in Katipunan doesn't mean the boat itself, (also called prehistorically as balangay, in the Philippines), and Silanganan and Dapitan are not Far East and the city itself, but codenames for places in Manila area where Katipunan is active. For example, they listed Binondo as one of Katipunan core activity areas. If they do not want to expose Binondo as a place where Katipuneros meet and nested, they will write in their documents the place codenamed as Tikbalang or even Madrid, for example. As for the balangay, it is not the boat, but another codename for municipal level branch of the Katipunan. If, the Katipunan is considered the Kataas-taasang Sanggunian or Supreme Council, provincial level is called Sangguniang Panlalawigan or provincial council and in municipal level, it is called Sangguniang Balangay or balangay council. Balangay is used here as another codename for municipality. As such, Katipunan is full of codenames sometimes very hard to distinguish from facts–so I do not see any reason why it must be linked to Far East and Dapitan City, and balangay for the boat article--JL 09 _^q?c 08:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

While those names are themselves codenames, they are meant to reference objects or locations related to Filipino culture. A link is necessary to clarify what they are. --ᜊᜓᜅ ᜅ᜔ ᜑᜎᜋᜅ᜔ ᜋᜑᜒᜏᜄ (ᜂᜐᜉ)^Baybayin 10:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Charles Dawson

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#User:Charles Dawson|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § User:Charles Dawson]]

Resolved

 – User blocked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite several warnings about his unacceptable inputs, this user has refused to comply with WP:MOS and has now, by his latest edits backed up by the comment on his talk page, shown that he is nothing more than a vandal who is deliberately adding inappropriate and useless material anywhere he feels like it. There is no point in trying to communicate with him and I strongly recommend that he is blocked indefinitely. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BlackJack, if the user Charles Dawson has a problem converting the copyrighted material into a piece of writing that is 'in his own words' and not a copy & paste of the original, then he should ask for assistance not re-post it ad nauseum. --Scoobycentric (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here are five recent edits – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – all of which completely ignore previous entreaties to him to abide by WP:MOS and to stop copying and pasting copyrighted material. Mr Dawson will not listen, he will not learn and he repeatedly ruins articles by what is in my view a deliberate campaign of vandalism that is disguised as a "helpless newbie" or whatever. Please block him indefinitely. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And it has happened again this morning since this notice was placed and the editor was advised of it. Would someone please block this person because he is doing this deliberately. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I feel a bit like I'm kicking a puppy in doing so, but I've blocked the editor. If he clearly commits to following the MOS and not repeating this behaviour then I fully endorse unblocking him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

I've been beaten to the block button by Lankiveil. This was only because I took the time to track down the source of the second piece of plagiarized content that this person was passing off as xyr own work whilst I was composing the talk page message. ☺ I don't feel like I'm kicking a puppy. Having read the original works, I cannot think of any way that this person could be under the false impression that xe wasn't copying and pasting wholesale from books written by other people, and doing this any way other than entirely knowingly and deliberately. Uncle G (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've augmented the block by blocking talk page editing. The blatantly disingenuous "appeals" were simply more of the same text copied and pasted again. Uncle G (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User 81.97.54.237

Resolved

 – User blocked. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On 19 September User:Opensource4ever and sockpuppet User:Themuffinmaniscool were blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and abusive edits, principally restoring copyright violations to Men of Harlech. This user also acted as a wikihound, following me around and reverting my otherwise unconnected edits. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Opensource4ever/Archive. At 01:33 on 2 October a user at 81.97.54.237 restored the copyvio edits of Opensource4Ever to Men of Harlech. At 02:35 on 2 October I received this email from Wikimedia:

Someone from the IP address 81.97.54.237 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia.

The new password for the user account "Cyclopaedic" is "XXXXXXX". You can now log in to Wikipedia using that password....

This was fraudulent request. I naturally suspect that 81.97.54.237 is a further appearance of the banned user and that the wikihounding is continuing, including a fraudulent attempt to hijack my user account. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ignore the email. The old password will still work; using it will nullify the new password. Vandals try this stunt a lot and usually end up hitting a dead end.

As for the IP, I suggest you file an SPI on the off-chance he's making more socks; I'll block 81. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 11:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried going to SPI before I came here, but the page and instructions were too hard to follow. Cyclopaedic (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Laocoont and The Road to El Dorado

User:Laocoont has been attempting to add to this movie article a rather largish section about themes of the movie being about drug trafficking and terrorism [29]. Now, I'll give anything a fair shake but if these were even considered possible themes of the movie I would expect to readily find sources to support this given this was a family/children's movie. Laocoont's version is completely unsourced, and has been removed several times (But too slow to be a 3RR). When the user is told about sources, he provides them - in the form of around 100 non-free image captures from what appears to be an illegal version of the movie up on YouTube (see Special:Contributions/Laocoont). He was told this wasn't appropriate at all, so he has then tried adding these points as "trivia" to the article though clearly trying to support the same facets of drug trafficking and terrorism without any outside sources [30]. He seems intent on adding this material despite being told they need sources. [31].

Again, he's behaving too slow to be a 3RR violation save in spirit, but I think this may be a case of a user that Just Doesn't Get It, and may think more drastic action is needed. --MASEM (t) 11:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User notified about this thread - why wasn't this done? Exxolon (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My bad, I should have done that. Point still remains about general editing patterns. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddy1 at world domination

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

Resolved

 – Involved users are discussing Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• World domination is a controversial article - it tends to attract believers in conspiracy theories.

1. One such theory is call at WP "Jewish world conspiracy" and is explicitly listed in List of conspiracy theories.
2. I've worked on this difficult article to trim it of its WP:Original research as much as possible.
3. I've discussed issues on the page's Talk before deleting any content, and only then edited out the inappropriate material.
4. The article also disregarded it's DAB page and I've made amendments in response to other editor's contributions.
5. I also attempted to prevent the article from introducing a WP:Neologism, as well as non-English transliterations (perhaps from Russian).
6. After all this hard, and slow work, User:Toddy1 appeared, made postings on the Talk page, and simply Reverted twice the work that has been done by consensus.
7. He also appears to be promoting his own WP:Original research.
8. But besides appropriate action against his Disruption of Wikipedia work by Consensus,

I think it would be useful to Flag particularly controversial topics better; and there should also be a better way of identifying "Original research." I believe this is one article that needs such Flaging. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Any administrator planning to take action on this should please read User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the matter at hand. If anything, this post on ANI makes it clear that Ludvikus is living up to his promises. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• ADM BHG has advised me to do this. I would not have made this posting without her recommendation. I hope to return here to post a Diff to her advice. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Here it is, her ----- "BrownHairedGirl (talk)" ----- explicit advice to me personally: [32]. --Ludvikus (talk) --Ludvikus (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • She didn't have the time for me - so I'm doing exactly what she told me to do. I intend to follow the directions of WP Administrators - to the letter - even if I don't like it. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's my personal WP policy now that every WP Administrator is a General, and every WP Editor is a Corporal. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• As an admin, I find that concept darkly appealing, but it is not the case. We aren't generals, we're just users the community has seen fit to trust with a few extra tools. Following any advice an admin gives you could make your head spin, as we don't exactly present a united front. Anyway, if there is an ongoing dispute on the page I would suggest you file a report at WP:RPP and discuss the matter on the talk page. I commend you for trying to solicit outside input, but I'm not sure an admin is needed just yet. Consider requests for comment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• So I'm following the advice of Adm. BHG. First look at what Toddy! just did here: [33]
• He posted the signature of an anonymous editor - and it makes my query look ridiculous.
• It appears to me like an attempt to mislead editors into misunderstanding my query - regarding the identity of an unsigned posting.
• You probably are unaware. I have a terrible past record - and it's extremely difficult for me to perform effectively without the input of administrators - at this stage. I therefore ask you to permit me to follow the advice of well-respected editor BHG.
• You are obviously giving insufficient weight to the authority of WP Administrators to Ban or Restrict editors.
• My conduct must be impeccable. And I think it is. I ask you to defer to the recommendation of ADM BHG - WP Policy requires.
• I wish to do exactly what she recommended - especially because she recently ruled on a restriction involving myself. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since you're contradicting her "orders" now, I'm compelled to follow her's until she advises me otherwise. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were ever "ordered" to follow her advice. Admins can ban users, but they have no more authority than you or I over the project (Though they generally have more experience in the way things work around here). WP:RFC could very well help you out, and if things continue or escalate, just come back here. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but admins can't actually WP:BAN a user. We can WP:BLOCK users and use blocks to enforce a ban, but either the broader community or WP:ARBCOM actually initiate bans. As to the diff Ludvikus provided, I think you should be a bit more selective in picking your battles, there's nothing to get worked up about there. Since you were able to use the page history to see that he added a signature to that remark, I'm wondering why you were not able to answer your own question about who left that remark through the same process, but in any event that is not something to make a big deal over. I've just checked in at Brown Haired Girl's talk page, and she is not going to be around on Wikipedia for most of the rest of this month, so don't hold your breath waiting for new marching orders from her. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus how does bringing a ANI square with your statement, "I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor.", made when you successfully requested that youraccount be unblocked?[34] There is little point in sticking to a 1RR if your reaction to someone reverting your revert is to bring an ANI, as that drags in more people to what is a content dispute and not a behavioural issue. If his actions are as you say, and the consensus is against him, then someone else who holds the same opinion as you (in the consensus) will revert his revert. Another strategy you could adopt is to salami slice the issues and added request for citations to the sections that do not have citations, and after a suitable period deleted one section at a time, as is is much easier to focus on specific parts of an article than the whole article. There was also recently an AfD in which the majority were for deletion or a redirect to another article, that could be discussed further on the article's talk page. All these other options are more appropriate than bringing an ANI. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• It "squares" like this: I don't know how to handle an editor who tells me (1) that The Protocols are true, but lack citations, and (2) where in Ukraine I can find prostitutes. I do not think this is a "confrontation." It's simply me seeking Help from administrators - precisely because I do not wish any confrontations. Look here: [35]. Ludvikus 13:07, 3 October 2009

This guy misrepresents. Regarding his two points:

• I did not say that the Protocols are true but lack citations. I said that the article contained statements that were probably true but lacked citations:

"I strongly suspect that in the case of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion article, the uncited facts are most likely true - they just lack citations. It would be a really great thing if someone who was actually interested in the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion went through the article and put in the missing citations."

• The guy expressed an interest in Ukraine on my talk page. I recommended he visited Eastern and Central Ukraine, should avoid Kiev. I gave examples of problems western tourists are likely to find in Kiev.

--Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't "misrepresent" you. It maybe possible that I "misunderstand" you. I have re-read your posting on my page - and I now realize that it's possible that I confused you with the other editor who posted the comment on my page stating the thesis of the International Jew and Mein Kompf. If that's so, my apology. But please be more clear about what you say to me. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK. In accordance with Wikiepdia policy I assume "Good Faith" on your part. Nevertheless, I don't know how to say this without offending you: you effectively profess ignorance of the subject. You say you never heard of the "book"; you apparently dismiss my cited source - also out of ignorance (I know that by your characterization of it). Yet you persist to revert the article "world domination" to your version, and you attack the quality of The Protocols article. What I want from you is that you follow the consensus (as I have). And if you wish to discuss the subject - do so on the Article's Talk page, not mine. If you oppose the Merge, Talk about it - don't just Revert to your preferred version while others are discussing the matter. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Look. Why don't you just come to an agreement with me that you will follow the consensus. Discuss your points on the Talk page. - The article now is just a list of empires. That makes no sense. So: (1) either agree to the previous trim version, or (2) discuss the current version you produce. If you and I can agree on that - I can ask that this Section be closed - because we've resolved our disagreement. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Close section. I'm pleased to state that User:Toddy1 is engage in discussions on the Talk page of world domination. Therefore I ask that this section be closed, and editors be afforded time to deal on other unresolved issues. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:37, 3 October 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.

Please review indefblock

Further information: [[:#Administrator Abuse/ Hazing|§ Administrator Abuse/ Hazing]]

After seeing that L31 G0NG L41 (talk · contribs) tried to continue what I saw as an ugly personal attack on BorgQueen, I decided to block him indef. Granted, it was a big step up from his previous 31-hour block. But one look at his edits and his talk page and just, wow. I didn't see this ending any other way. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 04:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - User didn't show any signs that he got why his behavior was wrong.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest locking the editor's talk page, they are continuing to abuse it, attacking Borg and calling people Grommet(which I personally don't get).— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Done. And looking at that page he linked up ... good grief, it's a wonder he lasted three months. Blueboy96 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Change - 72 hours with a warning that if he continues to use all caps, shout at people, and attack others for requiring editing standards to be upheld then greater blocks will follow. If he continues to attack people on his talk page after then move to indef until the attacks stop then repropose. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support No evidence of prognosis for improvement. --John (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Even after the indef block, he continued the attacks on his own talk page. [36] --BorgQueen (talk) 04:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. He indicated in his most recent edit to his talk page that he was leaving the project. Unless and until he learns to collaborate, rather than confront and assume the absolute worst of any action, comment, or edit, that's probably for the best. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, of course; some editors need to be shown the door sooner rather than later.  Sandstein  04:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support I was considering doing that myself after I checked his contributions after this. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note In case y'all didn't catch it, it's a registered user for 119.131.7.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which was created on July 4th. So it's possible he might resume editing from that unblocked IP address. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support, some nonconstructive users can be coached and brought around to being constructive. I strongly suspect that User:L31 G0NG L41 is not one of those users. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
• For what it's worth, xe might have had a point about the introduction of cuisine of Hawaii not necessarily providing a rounded view. But I'm-a-chef-and-you're-a-dumb-Trekkie is most definitely not the way to go about making that argument, especially when the correct approach is you're-a-pseudonym-and-I'm-a-pseudonym-too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • For reference, I've started Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii#Introduction too short, which is, I suggest, a far better way of making that point. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Per Uncle G's reasons, shorten block with conditions Per above comment by Uncle G, suggest shortening block to 1-6 months and suggest that he pair up with another senior editor afterwards. This would be an incentive to edit well. Otherwise, he will just become an angry vandal. Oppose immediate unblock.President of Chicago (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef block, until and unless some remorse and apologies are forthcoming. There's no reason to put an upper time limit on such blocks, really: if he can't play nice with others, he shouldn't be allowed to play. Jclemens (talk) 21:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

IP edit warring at the Iga Wyrwał page

Could some admin please check the page of the model Iga Wyrwał? Some anonymous IP is constantly trying to add sentece that she is of "partly Kalmyk ascentry" with a grotesque claim that all Kalisz have Kalmyk "ascentry" (sic). Loosmark (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – user blocked indefinitely. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Xxspirit4musicxx put a legal threat here. Joe Chill (talk) 16:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also reported him to WP:AIV for the same thing. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When you encounter a situation like this, you should leave a talk page message for the editor, not just rely on edit summaries. And when you start an ANI thread, you should notify the subject about it. I've just done these things. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I usually do, but I forgot this time. Joe Chill (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I told him that I reported him. And I also reported him to WP:AIV as well. Should I not have done that? --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, user already blocked, but an administrator might want to change the block settings so he can't edit his page per [this]. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice sword. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, can you read/understand the various policies before you say that please :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked the account as regards the legal threat. Should they withdraw the threat then they might be unblocked by any admin who thinks that their subsequent personal attack was "heat of the moment" DICKedness. I would comment that indef is standard for legal threats, since it can be lifted as soon as the threat is withdrawn, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The editor posted another personal attack at 17:20. Joe Chill (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Hoop!, something not ripe!, per this link Blocked user, that editor (User:Xxspirit4musicxx ) is blocked. any new link to show that he made another edit? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • A personal attack was posted after the user was notified and after the editor was blocked on their talk page. In situations like this, the talk page should be protected from the user editing. Joe Chill talk) 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

could you provide the link please? Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 18:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I got it messed up. They were both after the block. The editor was blocked at 16:27. The first personal attack was at 16:30 and the second one was at 17:20. Freshymail, you could have easily found it out yourself. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the most recent "contributions" and that should suffice: [37] If I were a bettin' man, I wouldn't put money on him retracting his threat anytime soon. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • No restriction imposed on him editing his talk page, for appealing purpose. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 02:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Optimizer Putter

 Blocked by Ioeth

This user has attempted to include blatant advertising/promotional materials in the article Putter (diff: [38]). I have reverted several instances of attempts to add identical material to the article Golf stroke mechanics (diff: [39]) by an IP user, and I note XLinkBot also reverted substantially similar material. I suspect the IP user decided to register in order to avoid having that IP banned and to give him/herself additional opportunity to advertise. I also note that this same user is now asking for assistance in adding the material to the referenced articles at Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page. Alan (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for username violation and spamming. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a legal threat or not: "Retaining entries for Dobrian's opponents while deleting his probably violates campaign finance law and risks Wikipedia's 501c status". The comment was made by an SPA at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Dobrian. Can someone take a look and act accordingly? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• How I read it, it's more like "you may be breaking the law" than "I am going to take legal action". I'm on the fence here, pending more context and the motives behind this account. MuZemike 22:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Looking at that and the edit histories of that article and some related articles (There's a little nest of partisan political POV-pushers here, on several sides it seems.), it seems that a sockpuppet check is in order at the very least. And yes, that is a threat of legal retribution, made in order to sway an editorial decision process.

  On behavioural evidence alone, I have indefinitely blocked Hopenope (talk · contribs) straightaway as an obvious sockpuppet of one or both of Superiorsuperstar (talk · contribs) and 98.194.213.19 (talk · contribs), as well as for the clearly politically-motivated BLP violation in this edit. I am now off to file the SPI case. Uncle G (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, well, in the meantime I have posted an explanation on the accounts talkpage that WP is an encyclopedia rather than a news outlet and have different criteria for the inclusion or exclusion of content, and there is no requirement of equal treatment of candidates to public office, and invited them to clarify their meaning in their oppose accordingly. I also did not think of the comment as a legal threat, but rather ignorance in how WP operates. It may, of course, be moot if the SPI comes back with bad news. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• SPI cases:
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Superiorsuperstar — case for the person(s) inserting the BLP violations across several politician articles, believed to be Nleobold (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jdobrian — case for the person(s) edit warring in the article with a conflict of interest, possibly the same person(s) issuing the legal threats at AFD
• Uncle G (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at WQA

Resolved

 – Blocked 2 weeks for making legal threats. MuZemike 23:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Over at Wikiquette Alerts, an IP claiming to either be, or be acting on behalf of Cody Judy has posted a clear legal threat. (Now to be found at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Cody Judy. Link adjusted. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)) I have advised the IP of the appropriate course of action if there is an issue of libel in the relevant article. Do admins wish to take any further action? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you. Uncle G, there did not appear (at a first read) to be any unsourced material on Cody Judy, but it's one helluva story and I can see how the guy might be pissed to see it written down! --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the edit history, in particular the edits by 208.81.184.4 and 74.41.224.142. That's undoubtedly part of the cause of the complaint, here. Uncle G (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the anon's email address that he posted should be removed, along with revisions containing it. Since he's blocked he won't be able to edit it out himself, if that were producing some unwanted results. Equazcion (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

DreamGuy is a strange case: He's incredibly against plot summaries in any form, and is quite happy to edit war and scream about even the most uncontroversial-seeming edits, painting them as an attempt to undermine policy.

A few I've noticed in recent days:

• [40] Reverts "A concise plot summary is usually appropriate as part of this larger coverage." to "sometimes appropriate". Edit summary claims that saying plot summaries are usually appropriate in articles on fiction "encourages bad edited against policy." Polls show that noone, at present, is willing to support him but himself.

• Template talk:Plot Huge amount of disruption by him, when it came to a poll, only he supported the version he had been causing so much disruption over.

etc, etc.

Polls have been done on these things. WP:NOTPLOT was nearly deleted earlier this year (a majority voted that it shouldn't be in WP:NOT, but it was closed as no consensus), but he's been acting... well! He's incredibly disruptive, screams and shouts over even the slightest clarification, claiming that everyone who dares to hint that plot summaries are an important part of articles on fiction is trying to destroy policy.

Not sure what can be done, but I'd appreciate a review, because he's making all plot-related policy pages very hostile environments. It's come to a situation where you can't even edit an essay page without him screaming in all caps at you, claiming you're out to destroy policy.[41]

I have four FAs (I think the count's really 6 or 7 if you count my old account) on works of fiction where I was one of the primary contributors, and have helped on many others. As far as I can tell, DreamGuy has never even worked on one article related to fiction, except to try and get plot summaries removed or gutted. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 23:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So exactly what admin action are you asking for? Maybe a Wikiquette alert or an editor RfC would help? (ps. I've notified DreamGuy of this thread) Tim Vickers (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is well known for trying to slip changes into policies and guideline pages without getting any consensus to do so, and, in fact, knowing full well consensus has already been demonstrated to be against him. I was not the only person to revert his most recent string of edits, but his problems with plot-related issues go back well into early 2009 if not longer, and he has always been reverted whenever he pulls one of these stunts. At one point there was serious discussion to try to get him topic banned from plot-related policy pages and guidelines. His attempt to paint this as me being rogue against other editors is yet another attempt to game the system. And the idea that I've never worked on an article related to fiction is both false and irrelevant. Thanks to Tim for having the decency to alert me that SM posted this. I should not have posted in all caps, but it's extremely frustrating to see SM make such changes when he knows full well that he tried and failed to make these changes in the past. It's bizarre for him to pull stunts like that and claim that the people supporting WP:STATUSQUO are somehow "disruptive." DreamGuy (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, DreamGuy has now stepped over a line.

I pointed out that most featured articles have more than the 300-500 words of plot he wants.

His response was to tag all these FAs, some of them quite recent, with {{Plot}}.

DreamGuy needs to be topicbanned from all fiction related articles. He cannot tell what quality is, thinks his opinions can stand instead of policy, and is actively harming the subject.

This topic ban will do nothing to harm useful contributions, as he has none in fiction. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide precise diffs of the disruption? The first diff is a good start, but not enough yet. Dreamguy you clearly have several editors agreeing on the wording. I can see 6 people agreeing with it and no one dissenting. You haven't even engaged in the conversation on that talk page.--Crossmr (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Which talk page are you talking about? The only person I've seen on any talk page promoting SM's wording is SM, but maybe I missed one. SM made a lot of changes in the last 24 hours, so perhaps one part of it is supported somewhere, but we've had extensive conversations on all of this in the past six months, and "6 people agreeing" would be nothing compared to the 100+ people who weighed in earlier. DreamGuy (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seriously, there was a massive thread/poll not too long ago, which ended with the status quo being kept. (And I mean the status quo on the WP:NOT page and in the rest of Wikipedia.) I didn't notice this new poll on my watchlist, but to revisit this issue so soon would be inappropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The one linked at the beginning of this conversation. You made this edit [42], and there is this conversation on the talk page [43]. There isn't a single dissenting opinion in that discussion so to go in and revert the changes claiming no consensus is disruption in my books. If you can provide a link to the discussion where 100+ people agreed on the previous wording please do so.--Crossmr (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And here he goes again. I didn't tag all the FAs you mentioned, just the most blatant violations of WP:NOTPLOT, which was only two of them. And it's very hypocritical of you to complain that I (oh no!) added a single tag to indicate that the section on those couple of articles disagreed with what Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and WP:NOTPLOT say when you, by contrast, went into Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary‎ and added a whole slew of tags claiming it's all dubious and wrong all over the thing so it looks like a tornado hit it. You have a bizarre idea of disruption if my minor edits qualify but your graffiti spree doesn't. And the idea that I should be topic banned from "all fiction related articles" is just absurd. I can't believe you'd think that proposing that would do anything but demonstrate to other people how incredibly unreasonable you are being. DreamGuy (talk)

He tagged an essay, you've tagged featured articles. Has the policy or content changed significantly since they were promoted? if not, then the tagging seems rather pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: That essay used to be a guideline until DreamGuy tag-warred with me over it. Hiding T 09:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be something of a running sore for DreamGuy, and while I sympathise—even agree with—his stance on many inclusion-related subjects, the way in which he communicates this can come across as unnecessarily pointy: changing guidelines or essays without consensus, or tagging a newly-featured article with a template that says the plot section is "Too long compared to the rest of the article ... Discuss the work not the plot." I'm positive that would be justified in some cases, but this was an article in which 631 words out of 9,744 discussed the plot—just over 6% of the entire article. Hardly unduly weighted in the direction of plot summary (and for context, that edit came in the middle of a good-faith discussion about the issue in the abstract, where I'd simply used that article as an example). DreamGuy would be more justified in his actions if he targeted articles that genuinely merited such a tag—ones that contain plot and very little else. His current approach is counter-productive and alienates potential allies if nothing else. However, all that said, no administrator intervention is required here; for now, a reminder to those involved that the edit warring should stop is all that's required. Please, work it out on the relevant talk pages, and respect the consensus when it's over, even if it doesn't go your way. Steve ^T • C 08:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is something we can do: As far as I can tell, he has no positive contributions to fiction-related articles, but has caused extreme disruption. Why not just topic-ban him? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite justified yet. DreamGuy's tactics give me pause, and I agree something needs to be done to get him to back off a bit, but I won't go so far as a topic ban yet. I suspect that you and I would disagree pretty strongly as to what constitutes a "positive contribution", too. I've got no problem with a tagging ban, though. He should either fix things or leave them alone, not scrawl graffiti on them. If his version of fixing things results in disruption, we can look at a topic ban then.—Kww(talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A revert limit may also be an idea. Hiding T 12:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Violations from what I can see, DreamGuy has violated Edit Warring by reverting and removing sections from multiple pages, violated consensus by making a claim about a policy that is not true and removing sections from FAs which had consensus as meeting all MoS and policy standards on content issues without seeking to get new consensus, has made many accusations of bad faith, impropriety, etc, without evidence, and is removing content from multiple pages in violation of point simply because he wants to make a point that plot summaries shouldn't exist on Wikipedia as a whole. The user has made it clear that they wont stop, so a block would be preventative in this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like you've covered the issues in both fiction and the Smiley face murders article quite nicely. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm w/ KWW on this. I find DG to be especially resilient to criticism, even well meaning and good faith criticism. But I'm not sure that edit summaries with caps in them and a pointy tagging spree necessitate an immediate topic ban and/or a block. I will note that DG seems to be unaware of the iron law of wikipedia-politics: you can engage in whatever wikiphilosophy dispute you want, distaste for politics in outside observers will avail you. But if you fuck with featured articles you are bound to get in trouble. Protonk (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I too do not advocate a block at this point. It will be time enough to act if it resumes; perhaps the realization of how close xe has come will have an effect. Another such outbreak either at a policy page or at FA, or unconstructive tagging, will settle the matter, I think for all of us. Perhaps we can urge xim to start improving some of the nonencyclopedic plot sections, both the inadequate ones that are just teasers and the over-detailed childish ones--I would regard doing both as a very favorable sign. And perhaps to start with the worst ones first, something that seems obvious to the rest of us but which xe has not quite realized. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Banninated. — Jake Wartenberg 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm on more or less of a not-really-contributing wikibreak kind of a thing do to work. Nevertheless, I checked my watchlist when I got home from work and saw this. Obvious sock is obvious (contribs), no idea who it's a sock of, but if someone would wield the banhammer and CU that would be just dandy. → ROUX ₪ 04:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:HistoricWarrior007 and User:Xeeron

I am looking for an uninvolved experienced editor/admin who is willing to spend a (potentially longer) amount of time to review the behavior of User:HistoricWarrior007 and myself at Talk:2008 South Ossetia war and related talk pages. Summarized quickly, I want to know whether his behavior is appropriate, whether my behavior is appropriate, and in case either is not, an outside source to point out what has to be changed. Especially, I want to know whether I can do anything about his wrong accusations (e.g. [44], this is the latest, but by far not the only example).

Please note that this stretches back a good while in the talk page archives, involves an article with heavy POV disputes and frequent use of reverts and also note that this has been partially brought up (though we are both not part of the case) at [45]. --Xeeron (talk) 05:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What Xeeron has done in that edit, is deleted a whole section, of analysts, after he wrote his version in the summary. I want the reader to have access to the actual version, not Xeeron's summary. As per the Arbitration group, I did not want to bring Xeeron into it, but he came and accused me, leaving me no choice but to defend. I have extended an olive branch multiple times, and each time it has been rebuffed. I believe Xeeron's hatred of me stands as a result of my actions during the "Title Change" debate, where I used the talkpage to make my arguments, prior to doing any edits. The 2008 South Ossetia War, like the Iraq War and the Gaza War is a controversial article. As such, I require editors to discuss their edits, prior to making them. In his edits, Xeeron deleted a bunch of analysts, that he no long deemed necessary; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2008_South_Ossetia_war&diff=317582338&oldid=317582123 this was done irrespective of the wishes of any other editors and irrespective of any discussion. I have been in arguments with FeelSunny and Offliner, over the same thing, as well as with Kober, Reneem, and numerous other editors. This isn't a policy that I only apply towards Xeeron, although, since he doesn't usually discuss his edits, it affects him the most. I have roughly twice as many posts on the talkpage, as I have edits. I expect my fellow editors to be able to explain the edits, prior to placing them in a controversial article and having these edits result in an edit war. I don't believe that asking an editor to explain his edits is too much.

In addition, I believe that Xeeron hates me. This has been clear in at least one edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#Results "The only title suggestions that gathered a net positive amount of support were 2008 South Ossetia war with 23 support/14 oppose and 2008 Russia–Georgia war with 21 support/16 oppose. That means 2008 South Ossetia war wins. As a personal note, this ends the title discussion for me and I hope not to spend any further time on this. I will also not forget HistoricWarrior007's actions during the vote. --Xeeron (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)" I have attached the link so that one can get the whole context of the discussion. All I did was notified five editors, all of whom previously edited the article, as recently as a few weeks ago, and posted the voting link thingy on Russia's Talkpage, instead of WikiProject:Russia Talkpage, which was a newbie mistake that I have admitted.

One must keep in mind that the article is a heated one, and sometimes emotions come to the forefront. I try my best to suppress mine, and I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone, is too much of a sin. However, since Xeeron feels this is necessary, I do not object, I only ask that the editor takes into account the heated nature of the article, the threats I faced, and what I have to put up with, mainly Xeeron's editing tactics, where I cannot question the edit, because it is an "expert quote", and therefore in no need of being justified to be included in the article. For instance, one of the discussions was about New York Times, where the NYT claimed that ethnic cleansing was a form of Genocide. For the act of pointing out that such an article, (written in an NYT Blog) cannot possibly be valid, I was pointed to WP:Source.

Despite all that had happened, I am willing to give ADR a shot. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought this is what RfC or mediation is for. In my understanding admins are not the right people to ask for such comments, as they are just editors with tools to punish people and may lack the ability to actually mediate in a specific case. Several times I met reasonable mediators who were not admins. (Igny (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC))

@Igny: Possibly I am not as well versed in wiki politics as you are. If this belongs somewhere else, I'll be happy to go there.

However, I have had to put up with Historicwarrior lying about me for a long time now. He just did it again in the post above: "I don't believe that asking a user why he suddenly deleted a whole section without consulting anyone", is very untrue, because I did exactly that: [46]. Making matters worse, he repeated that lie here, after I already pointed out it is wrong on the article's talk page: [47]. To top it off, this very topic (shortening of the responsibility section after the EU report) has been discussed not only in the section pointed out by me above, but several times before on the talk page, as far back as April and several times since then: [48], [49], [50] (very end of section), [51], [52]. It is common knowledge to all active editors of the article, which includes HistoricWarrior. I can only conclude that he maliciously repeats his lie as part of his smear campaign against me.

The same goes for his "Xeeron hates me" story. I suspect that it is rather his hatred of me that drives his attacks, but who knows. He all bases it on one edit where I stated that I would not forget that he breaks wiki policy to push his POV (btw, his "newbie mistake" was to canvass enough people to change a vote on the article title that followed after months of talk page discussions spanning hundreds of post on this very topic) and on the fact that I defend myself against his frequent wrong accusations against me.

He claimed to "extend an olive branch" just a little bit ago [53], only to follow it up with a longish direct attack on me [54] which included the wrong accusations repeated above.

Unfortunately, this is not a singular incident, but only one in a very long list (remember his taking to calling me "Agent Xeeron" for a while? There are many more such cases). This has to stop. I want someone with the authority to stop it to look into it and to decide whether this kind of behavior is ok or not. Of course, I am willing to prevent a very long list of edit summaries, with various infractions, but I feel it is more fair to ask someone to read the entire talk page history before doing that (and it is likely to save time for the person looking into this as well, since most is concentrated on one article's talk page in any case). --Xeeron (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeeron, you are very good at provoking me, and then playing the victim. I have not been lying about you one bit. You blanked a whole analytical section, despite being specifically warned against it. I have offered ADR to you several times, and received no response.

Section 513: I have already responded to this on the talkpage. You ignored my response, and posting the accusations here anyways. Section 514: In that one, I am responding to shortening the Battle of Tskhinvali, not the analytical section. Section 515: this section merely placed the edit on hold. I didn't feel I needed to comment, as both you and FeelSunny decided to do it later. Setion 516: I am glad you cited it. This is where Igny states: "Apparently Wikipedia lacks patience. (Igny (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC))" I concur. This is RfC material, not instant gratification, nor should it be approving of you blanking an entire page by force. Section 517: Another edit from the 24th of March. So I am being punished, because I skipped a day of Wikipedia, with removal of a section that I worked my ass off to create, because I was unable to defend that removal. Section 519: It appears to me that you have mentioned it indirectly.

I do not have a policy of going after Xeeron. I do have a policy of going after silly sources. Xeeron has been promoting certain sources in our article, beyond their credibility. Whereas I have tried to stay away from corporate media sources, as well pro-Russian POV sources, focusing instead of neutral sources, such as the Moscow Defense Brief, which has been declared independent by CAST. Xeeron initially introduced Svante Cornell into the article, an "Oil Politics" major. Then he introduced Pavel Felgenhauer, who just happens to publish a book under Svante Cornell. When Felgenhauer was discredited by his own words, Xeeron placed Roy Allison into the article, who again, "miraculously" happened to publish a book with Svante Cornell.

Xeeron boldly critiques me for canvassing, whereas in reality I made a newbie mistake. Besides, the mistake shouldn't matter, as articles are to be renamed, or have their names kept via arguments, not votes. However Xeeron also made this statement, about the Eastern European Mailing List: While following this case, I initially did not want to participate here, since, in my opinion, 2008 South Ossetia war was only a minor "battlefield" between the parties currently investigated in this arbitration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list Only a minor battlefield? In the same votes, 7/16 votes was "minor", whereas the motion was defeated 24 votes to 16. Without the lists "minor" intervention, it would have been a blowout. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_24#2008_South_Ossetia_war In a second voting attempt, 5 votes from the mailing list showed up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war/Archive_26#Requested_move This is "minor" to Xeeron. My newbie mistake in posting this on Russia's talkpage, instead of WikiProject Russia's talkpage, is "canvassing". And I'm the victimizer according to Xeeron.

And Xeeron, you provoke me, I respond. The irony here is that this is similar to the 2008 South Ossetia War, where Georgia attacked Russia, and Russia over-reacted. However the initial attack led to the overreaction. You claim of not being responsible for the edits you make, just because they are mere quotes is silly. You using the word "fucking" on my talkpage is inappropriate. This wasn't just one incident where you made the thread. However, I see my mistake; I should have taken this to RfC right after your threat.

I extended the Olive Branch, and then I saw the edits you made and responded according. You seem to be ok with posting stuff like this: Even replying here, you can't stop framing all your replies as personal attacks on me. "why all the pretense, why can't you just say that you want to change the article's title to make Russia look guilty" Why can't you stop pretending to know what I think? I am defending the name that I feel is more descriptive and fits the article better, yet you consistently allege that I do it for POV reasons only. And you did not point anything out about math. You did however for the umphtens time is LIE ABOUT WHAT I DID AND I AM GETTING FUCKING SICK OF IT!!!! The "claim" of Russians outnumbering Georgians 2:1 was not made by me, not based on any math, BUT COPIED FROM A SOURCE WHOSE EDITOR I AM NOT. No math involved at all, just copying a statement from a source into the article. You know that very well and you attempts to protray me as being unable to distinguish 1 and 2 are nothing but an underhand attack to discredit me. And, FYI, I strife to make my edits NPOV (by only including facts that are backed up by sources and giving room to both sides) and not pro-Russian or pro-Georgian. --Xeeron (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC) on my talkpage. Here you are in essence claiming that since your edit was copied from Svante Cornell, the article must put up with the redicilous lie that Georgians were outnumbered 2 to 1 by Russians. (In reality it was 1 to 1.) I did basic math to prove that. I do not think no, or ever, that saying 2+2 = 4 is Original Research. Almost every source you placed into the article, carried Svante Cornell, and the oil lobby's argument, one way or another. You even tried to make this war about oil. And pointing this out, is somehow an attack on you? Granted, I should have been nicer, but in my defense, it is a heated article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:HistoricWarrior007#Personalized_edits

And now, instead of taking this to mediation, something that you never tried to do, you want instant punishment, instant gratification. I am telling you that Wikipedia doesn't work that way. We must first attempt RfC, as suggested by the more experienced Igny. The section you cited, was discussed for under 24 hours, and then you took action, when I didn't have enough time to respond. Considering that you knew I have worked painstakingly on the analytical section that you blanked, without even giving me a mere 48 hours to respond, was provocative. When I pointed out and inquired, granted, I should have been more polite, that blanking the whole section, that we spent pages and pages of discussion on, where there was at the very least half a page of discussion on each source, that blanking it, just because you and another editor agreed to do so?! I felt it was inappropriate. And I'm not the only user that you blindly revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2008_South_Ossetia_war#Removing_Reuters_facts.

So let's follow Igny the Wise, and take this to RfC. And no, you aren't going to be able to blank a whole section, that was validly inserted into the article, just because you were able to make arguments about it that I didn't notice, or had the proper time to respond to. I'm up for RfC, are you? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A very quick TDLR: Xeeron provoked me, I shouldn't have typed certain words, and for that I apologize. However, despite my countless suggestions, neither RfC nor ADR was tried with us. I ask that you try that first, before punishing out accounts. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of New York

I dont know if I'm at the right place or not, but if any admins can help I would greatly appreciate it. I have a problem at the above named article with user:hippo43 regarding that user removing sourced information and factual information that has had no problem in being there, and the information is part of an ongoing discussion about what should and should not be a part of this article. Hippo has not attempted to join the discussion going on in the talk page about the direction of this article and this is not the first time that the said user has edit warred and attempted to start an edit war on articles I have been involved in, including Siena College, Loudonville, New York, and Newtonville, New York. I am at my wits-end in dealing with this individual who has on multiple occasions suddenly showed up at articles and noticeboards I work on and edited disruptively. I need help!Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is implying this is personal - it really isn't, at least on my part. Camelbinky has contributed to a large number of articles - I have edited only a handful of those. In this case, I tidied up a section which was badly sourced. I removed two statements which had been tagged ("citation needed") for six months and tidied up another couple of sentences to reflect what the sources actually said. As far as I can tell, the discussion ongoing is on a slightly different issue. I don't really want to get into a discussion with Camelbinky as my experience suggests it won't go anywhere constructive. Our long-winded and extremely lame discussion at Talk:Siena College took a similar form - I tried to stick to what the sources actually said, while Camelbinky wanted to add his own opinions. --hippo43 (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, Camelbinky hadn't edited this article for six months, before I made these changes today, so the implication that I'm wiki-hounding him is strange. --hippo43 (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to address every single one of the spurious charges and get into a discussion with Hippo here, but I have indeed been working at the talk page of the page in question for the last week, so while nothing has been done on the page itself those of us who believe in consensus and agreement before editing have been busy behind the scenes. It is not helpful when someone not interested in the topic itself or knowledgeable of the topic decides to remove information without discussing first. As far as me working on a "large number of articles" I work only on a small narrow focus of articles relating to one topic only, New York's Capital District, and that is it except to help out at various noticeboards. This isnt the place for Hippo and I to just have another argument so I will not comment here again until an admin has a question to specifically ask me.Camelbinky (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no idea what the point of this "Incident" is - am I being accused of something? Not asking for Camelbinky's approval before editing one of his articles, perhaps? --hippo43 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am little puzzled.argument seems to ultimately be over which of these two communities the college is located in. It seems to be a not uncommon situation where a institution in one physical place uses the PO address of the neighboring one. As they are adjacent unincorporated hamlets, this is another typical example of how a really trivial issue gets magnified into a personal quarrel. All this was back in May. The current dispute seems to be over a probably correct but uncited paragraph [55] that seems to have been used to support or explain one of the versions of the college's location. The appropriate solution for that is to look for a source--though it does seem the sort of obvious clarification we often have in articles, and whose actual validity nobody disputes. There's nothing for an admin to do here. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, what exactly was the source information here you were keeping? It had a cite needed tag from April 2009 and the burden is to find a source. I think that's perfectly reason of him. If your issue was just the change in wording from the source, I'd say you are inappropriately using the undo function. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG said it much better than I could. Nothing for an admin to do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally unprovoked personal attack

Resolved

 – Apology issued and accepted. No admin or other intervention required. Abecedare (talk) 01:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Marx01 recently wrote the following on my talk page (in nowiki, so the links can be seen):

You have '''''no''''' authority on this website. You '''''will not''''' tell '''my adoptee''' that if they wish to continue editing on the [[English Wikipedia]], they will correct their use of its and it's. I am [[sarcasm|deeply sorry]] that [[Homo sapiens|people]] are not as [[Ignorance|intelligent as you]] and make [[perfect|anything and everything]] [[correct]] every [[time]]. Please [[stop|discontinue]] to be an ''[[Donkey|ass]]'' and '''''[[get a life]]'''''. <span style="font-family: Arial Black; font-size: 12" ><span style="color:#008080">[[User:Marx01|<b>Marx01</b>]]</span></span> ^{[[User_talk:Marx01|Tell me about it]]} 01:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC) [[P.S.]] [[Hope]] [[I]] [[clarity|clarified]] [[that]] [[enough]] [[for]] [[you]].

Is this sort of behavior really acceptible? 71.182.220.102 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already talked to the IP about this. I apologize for my actions. Marx01 ^{Tell me about it} 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) IP, your message first edit here was not really productive, and the start of your comment to User:Cpiral was unnecessarily disparaging. That said, User:Marx01's responses to you were far from ideal, and he has appropriately apologized for his action. Beyond that, I don't see any sense in escalating this dispute further, and recommend that all involved disengage and move on. Abecedare (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

After the apology, I am willing to drop the matter. Thanks, 71.182.220.102 (talk) 01:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the attention everyone. But, there is nothing better than one's truly favorite subjects. But for now, a round of Wikihol for all. It's on me.CpiralCpiral 06:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacquiao

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Pacquiao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another case that's just a little too detailed for AIV. He is pretty much a vandalism-only account. He started out reasonably, with poorly formatted but good faith edits. He quickly slipped into childish vandalism. Since Oct 2008, it's been nothing but vandalism, corrupting film casts, racial slurs, masturbation fantasies, and today image corruption.

He edits rarely enough that people keep stepping his warning level back down to level 2, and he never makes to final warning stage. Despite that, I see no reason for this editor's account to be left unblocked.—Kww(talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Clearly now a vandalism-only account, and not here to make any constructive contributions. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Where to ask for an undeletion of talk page

Resolved

 – page undeleted

I'm not sure where to mention this, but I'll ask here and maybe be directed to the right place. I was just reading Talk:William Pinar and it was deleted (as G1 Patent Nonsense / Incomprehensible). This completely doesn't make sense and seems like an inappropriate move. The main namespace article William Pinar itself was just made earlier today, and after creating it, the author of it went to the talk page and explained his intentions and thought process he used through writing the article. It was in no way G1. The contributor just noted (albeit long-windedly) that he was new and this was his first article and any help would be appreciated, he wasn't sure if he had done things in a totally correct manner. He also asked (from as much as I read before I refreshed), as he's teaching a grad-class, if it would be okay for him to have students in his class do a project of articles similar to the one he had added. This may be misinterpreted as "biting" (deleting his comments as "patent nonsense") a contributor who looks like he'll be extremely valuable (look at the first article he just created). Page desperately needs an un-delete(not sure if this is even possible). This may be an extremely valuable offer; admins please look at this.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Next time, you can just ask the admin who deleted the page. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage said "offline," so I wasn't sure. Sorry about that! I wasn't sure how you caught my comment on the board here and fixed it so quick. Bit of lucky timing. When I looked at my recent changes, I wondered if you'd done it without even noticing my comment here. Thanks for your quick response!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Law Lord: Harassment and wrongly templating editors

Resolved

 – No administrator action required; probably advisable for both parties to avoid commenting on one another going forward. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Last year, Law Lord wrongly templated me more than once (in what was harassment) about not using an edit summary...as partly evidenced in this link: [56] One of the main reasons his template warnings were wrong is that I was justified in not using an edit summary those times (it was clearly where edit summaries were not needed; edits marked as minor). Yet Law Lord felt the need to make a big deal out of it, by further templating me, accusing me of attacks on him and even proceeding to harass me further by bringing me here for an unrelated matter.[57] He was thoroughly warned about this harassment, which included no templating the regulars, and that edit summaries are not needed for every edit, especially not when the editor marks the edit as minor. He recently started back up harassment of me again, just earlier today, in basically the same manner but with a different article (Ephebophilia), as seen from the recent reverts on my talk page. And, of course, accused me of a personal attack on him again, when, really, I addressed him in an understandably angry manner about this on his talk page but nothing so offensive to be called a serious personal attack. Oddly enough, where he feels his warnings should stay on my talk page, he removed my message from his talk page.

Can I have some assistance on this matter, that this harassment and misinterpretation of a simple Wikipedia guideline should not be tolerated here? Flyer22 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I had honestly forgotten about this, since it is almost a year ago, and I really do not go around remembering unpleasant experiences like that. I ask editors to please post en edit summary, if:

1. They have not done so, and
2. Their edit is to an article on my watchlist.

Today I have posted 8 notices for lack of edit summary, and one of those were on Flyer22's talk page – and the day is not even over yet. As for personal attacks, Flyer22 is the only one making those, like this little one on my talk page today:

"...You should not be watching the Ephebophilia article anyway; I doubt you are anywhere close to being an expert on the topic, just someone else who probably does not understand the differecce between it and pedophilia."[58]

Those kinds of personal attacks are completely uncalled for. However, I thought it better just to warn Flyer22 about the personal attack and then stop further communications, since she obviosuly is intent on those kinds of insults, whether she is warned or not. Had she not "reported" the incident here, then that would have been the end of it, and I could have gone on happily improving the Wikipedia instead of having to respond here. I wish Flyer22 would stop being personal (making personal attacks) but that seems unlikely to happen – I realise that now, having reviewed the actions of last year that I had merrily forgotten. --Law Lord (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be harrasment as you are just one of several editors addressed, and the notices are not warnings (since there is no requirement for summaries - just a strong preference). I do not see that any admin response is required. Should Law Lord wish to officially report the personal attacks then that may be viewed differently, but possibly the best result would be for both to withdraw from this section. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You can argue that it may not have at first been harassment today (though I disagree due to our past history and my talk page being on his watchlist, which would serve as a constant reminder of who I am if it has been on there since last year), but it surely turned into such. Law Lord can proceed to report the supposed personal attack above all he wants; he never passes up a chance to try and get me in trouble. Either way, I believe that once Law Lord saw my user name, he remembered our previous unpleasant encounter. As soon as I saw him on the Ephebophilia article, I surely recognized his name and searched in my archives (in the correct spot) to see if I was correct; I, of course, was. I thought, "Okay, maybe he has moved on and will not bother me any longer." Clearly, I was wrong, as evidenced by today. He talks about moving on, but he is the one who continued to add a template to my talk page after I made it quite clear that it was not needed and that I remembered his earlier harassment of me. The first personal attack template he added to my talk page today is beyond laughable; it was added after I merely removed his edit summary notice with the explanation that I felt it was continued harassment of me from last year. It is also highly suspicious that my talk page is on his watchlist, either from a year ago or recently added again to see how I would respond today. He could have let it go today once I removed his template from my talk page. But, no...Law Lord being Law Lord decided to harass. From the links above, especially the one of the thorough discussion about his harassment and gaming of the Wikipedia system, Law Lord plays the victim card even when he is the one who has victimized. He perceives almost every counter as a personal attack. I have no time to play these silly games, and ask that an administrator again warn him about this type of templating editors about edit summaries. I always use an edit summary when needed. Edit summaries, however, are clearly not needed when an edit is minor, and especially when the previous edit (in the form of an edit summary right before it) specifies the editor's intent. Flyer22 (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Assessment: this is trolling by an expert. Hitting Flyer22 with three templates in a row, and using phrases like "merrily forgotten", is typical of Law Lord's provocative style of interaction. Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Templating regulars is certainly condescending. However, is there a rule that says edit summaries are not needed on "minor" edits? Or do Law Lord and Less Heard have a legitimate beef about Flyer's approach to edit summaries? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I use edit summaries on some minor edits. My edit history shows that. But, generally, it is well-understood that the whole point of marking an edit as minor is that it most likely does not need to be followed by an edit summary (Wikipedia's guideline-ish page on edit summaries certainly makes clear that minor edits are not supposed to be considered a big deal). Specifically, if the edit I made before that specifies what I am doing, then why exactly is an edit summary needed right after that for a tiny edit of the same nature? If a regular editor is using the "minor" feature, that editor most likely also uses edit summaries. Law Lord's "use the edit summary" template taggings are plain silly in matters such as these. Almost any article I visit, whether the Michael Jackson article or The Dark Knight (film) article, experienced editors are using the "minor" feature without edit summaries; we understand what we are doing. If any of those editors were templated with a "use the edit summary" template, I have no doubt that they would find it just as silly and be angry about it as well, or at least annoyed (if not all three). Flyer22 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am neither for or against edit summaries by other editors (although I am very much for using them myself), I was commenting that the notices Law Lord was posting were not "warnings" as described and neither had Law Lord been targeting Flyer22 exclusively. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I and another editor explained why Law Lord's templating did evolve into targeting me (if not targeting me to begin with; I mean, watching my talk page, really? Jeez). And, yes, I am also for edit summaries, as mentioned above, but not in instances where they are clearly not needed. And I am especially not for an editor going around issuing these templates to experienced editors over tiny edits; those actions are ludicrous. Law Lord would even call my labeling the actions as ludicrous a personal attack. But, hey, I came here for all the reasons I stated above. If he proceeds to template me again in a silly manner and then subsequently template me more than once after I remove the silly template, I will be right back here to report what is clearly harassment. As I stated before, I warned him to move on the first time he reverted me today. Did he? Of course not. One could conclude that he wanted me to bring this matter here, since I made it quite clear that I would be reporting him if he did not back off my talk page. Maybe I am the fool for playing right into his aggravating actions. But oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is quite unreasonable to accuse me of aggravating anything. The only aggravating comments are these 4, which are all posted by Flyer22:

1. "I will be reporting you very soon."[59]
2. "Removed crap from from editor still holding a grudge against me from last year. I will report you if I have to."[60]
3. "I am so angry with you right now that I could just..."[61]
4. "You want to continue this from last year, then bring it on."[62]

I would certainly have preferred that you had not brought this on here, so I could have put my attention to better things. Perhaps if you stopped your personal attacks against me, this could be prevented in the future. --Law Lord (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Always play the victim, you do, when you are the instigator/culprit. Nothing is unreasonable of me regarding this matter. You call almost every counter against you a personal attack. "Removed crap from from editor still holding a grudge against me from last year" and saying that I will report you if I have to is wrong how? Because I called it crap, even though it is, and then reported you when you did not stop there? In addition, "I will be reporting you very soon" is a very much allowed message, especially for what you did following my first clear warning. Saying I am angry with you? So? Saying bring it on? So? I brought it on, as I stated I would, here. You started all this; and if you did not want it "brought on," you would have stopped templating me after the first template of yours I removed from my talk page (which clearly warned you to stop). Your actions were not aggravating? It is unfair to state that they are? Silliness. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As a result of the original WQA, Flyer22 was advised to always use edit summaries, especially in situations where conflict arises. There had been a slight history of marking things as minor that were not actually meeting the definition of "minor". I also will advise that although there is an assay about "don't template the regulars", there is a very nice one about "do template the regulars" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ephebophilia article is not an article where conflict often arises; it is not a very active article. And he just started watching it on September 28, 2009. Furthermore, there are plenty of articles where conflict is often present but have edit histories full of recent minor edits not assisted by edit summaries; this is because no edit summary is needed and there is trust between most editors of the article. The Michael Jackson article, which I gave as an example above, is one case. Should most editors, who are just like me in not using edit summaries in these cases, be templated for that as though we are newbies and need reminders about something we clearly already know about? If not, that is the message Law Lord is getting from this discussion. And where, in the original dispute I had with Law Lord almost a year ago, did I mark things that were not exactly minor? From what I remember, most editors agreed with me and cited Law Lord as acting grossly inappropriately. Either way, the whole point is that this time Law Lord tagged me with an unnecessary "use the edit summary" template...and when he and I have a past unpleasant history. He claims not to remember me or rather our previous unpleasant encounter (or both), and yet I am on his watchlist. The questions beg: Was I on his watchlist all this time? If so, then there is no way he could have "forgotten" me or our past unpleasant encounter. My talk page has not exactly been inactive or even close to inactive all this time. Did he recently put me on his watchlist after templating me today? If so, why would he do that if not to see how I would respond? And why would he care or think I would respond if he did not remember me or our past unpleasant encounter? Most editors tag a person and move on; they do not watch the article for a response about the template. Either scenario is highly suspect. Not only that, but he templated me two more times after I removed his initial template while making it clear that I was annoyed. This was clearly harassment from where I sit/stand. But if some others cannot see that this time, there is nothing I can do about it. If it continues, I believe there will be something I can do about it, however. To Law Lord, no action agianst him (no matter how little it would have been) being done in this case signifies to him that he can continue to template me over silly things, such as not leaving an edit summary when commenting on his talk page...like he did last year. I will not stand for any further harassment by him. This is why I sought out help on this matter here. Flyer22 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Lummee, are you two still at it? What part of my suggestion to withdraw was so ignorable?

Flyer22, I would draw your attention to the third sentence from the end of the last - it would appear that Law Lord templated you previously for not providing a summary for a post to his talkpage. Do I understand correctly? So why, in amongst your indignant disbelief that Law Lord had forgotten this episode, did you not provide an edit summary when you recently posted at his page? Had you forgotten? Or did you feel that your interpretation of the edit summary guidelines outweighed his personal preferences per WP:User? Which option do you choose, and why do you think you can be permitted to ignore that which you feel Law Lord needs to comply with?

Law Lord, why the need to template people over something that is not demanded? Edit summaries are not supposed to be misleading, but using them at all is only strongly preferred. Also, and again referring to WP:USER, if someone removes a notice or comment from their talkpage it is understood that the content has been noted, there is no reason to replace the comment. You are not a bot, and if you come across several instances where someone else has not followed a practice that you think they should (even though no guideline or policy says they have to) then there is no point in bringing up each instance individually, they are either going to respond positively to the first notification or not - repeating the notification lessens the potential for a positive response. In any instance, I strongly suggest that you do not template editors over this matter again - templates are for policy or guideline violations, not for not conforming to your personal preferences. If you must notify someone that a lack of an edit summary is unhelpful in assessing editors contributions do it by personal message, and do it only the once.

Now, can we please close this section. No one account is going to be sanctioned or even warned over this. The two of you need to disengage from each other, and the both of you need to look to your own issues in editing and interacting before hollering about the other guy. If you keep this up, I will be inclined to perform an action that will result in the two of you agreeing about something; admin abuse of the block button! Please, let this end here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to argue that Flyer22 is actually harassing me. She has put forward a lot of conspiracy theories but little evidence to support them. For the record, I put anybody I template on my watchlist – though I really should not have to account for how I use my watchlist. I guess I could ask an administrator to officially act on the personal attacks I cited earlier in this thread. On the other hand, if I did that, I would just be "confirming" some of the theories Flyer22 has proposed about my grand schemes to harass her. This is too much now. I am asking Flyer22 to stop writing that I am harassing her. That is an unsubstantiated attack, and one which must now stop. Enough is enough. --Law Lord (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I only asked Flyer22 to use an edit summary once.[63] Then she attacked me, and I asked her to stop.[64] Then she attacked me again, and I asked her to stop again.[65] Have you looked at my edit history in this regard? Since I did not bring this matter forward, obviously I am fine with it being closed. --Law Lord (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not post an edit summary when replying on Law Lord's talk page, then or in my first edit to his talk page today, because edit summaries on talk pages are clearly not needed, as stated in the thorough warnings he received for templating me for it last year. In what weird universe would they be needed on a talk page? Though I admit I do sometimes use them. Plus, I was starting a new section on his talk page with my first post there today. With the second post, I did provide an edit summary...though it was meant to say "Report." As for Law Lord trying to spin his harassment of me around as my having harassed him, it is extremely laughable. The information I have provided above speak volumes about his conduct, then and now.

LessHeard vanU, I thank you for your recent assistance on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked Flyer22 to stop claiming harassment but she continues. As a result, this matter cannot be closed. With that kind of behaviour, any future conflicts with that person would result in is matter this being put forward as yet another "instance" of harassment against her. She is the only one who has committed a personal attack (more than one, depending on which ones you count), and the conclusion should be noted accordingly. --Law Lord (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I will continue to "claim" it as harassment because that is what I believe it to be. In addition, you claim everything I state against you as a personal attack. Perhaps you need to read up on what that it is (yikes! you likely consider that suggestion a personal attack as well). You did this same little game last time when everyone, except you, backed up my "claims" that you were harassing me. And any future conflicts? There should not be any future conflicts of this kind again, as was advised last time and now this time to you. Any regular conflicts you and I may have in the future would not involve my "accusing" you of harassment as long as what you did this time is not carried out again. I, looie496 and LessHeard vanU have clearly stated above what you did wrong in this case, and yet you continue to act as though I was completely unjustified in my anger against you or for reporting you here. Clearly, I disagree. 01:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, expecting me to remember that you felt harassed by me a year ago, is just unreasonable. Second of all, it makes no difference. As pointed out by BWilkins there is an essay saying it is fine to template the regulars. So using a template on your talk page is something I and anybody else can do, if your contributions warrant it. Last time, almost a year ago, as pointed out by BWilkins, you were told to make sure to write edit summaries even for minor edits. You chose not to do so. That choice also means running the risk that I or anybody else may politely ask you to do so (with a template or not). Before, now, and in the future, as long as you make edits without a summary. As for the two warnings I placed, you can avoid those by not writing personal attacks. For future reference, I will be referring to this case as "Flyer22 harassing Law Lord in October 2009." Thanks. --Law Lord (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

All of what I stated does matter and make a difference. Bwilkins stresses where "conflict arises." The matter is more about articles where conflict is likely to arise. But even in those cases, my not using edit summaries for minor edits all the time, just like most editors do here, is well-justified (for the reasons I have given above). What you have done is not. There should not be a "risk" of my getting templated for not using an edit summarry for minor edits, just because you prefer edit summaries to be used 100% of the time. That is ridiculous! No other editor does that, except you (I guarantee it)! Minor edits exist for a reason -- no edit summary needed. Furthermore, I had used edit summaries for most of my edits that day, as I always do, even for a few minor ones. Clearly, I know what I am doing. I do not need a damn reminder about using edit summaries and neither does any experienced editor here. You are not bettering Wikipedia with that nonsense. At all. I should not have to avoid you templating my talk page again after removing a previous template by you all because you feel attacked by my calling your template message crap and harassment. You can go ahead and pretend that this case will be taken seriously as "my harassing you," but it will not be. You want to go ahead and keep templating editors in silly ways, despite the sound advice given to you about that before and now not to do so, then go right ahead. Just make sure that it is not my page you are templating. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to take a step back? If User:Flyer22 needs to be reminded about edit summaries, perhaps we can all agree it's best for someone other than User:Law Lord to provide that reminder going forward? user:J aka justen (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter who asks her since she is obviously intent on not writing edit summaries. When she was asked to do so by the WQA consensus last year – and still refused – one notice more or less from me or anybody else obviously will not make the slightest but of difference. I think that is the real tragedy. Edit summaries help editors not wasting time reviewing edits. Not writing an edit summary means that other editors will be wasting time that could have been used writing the Wikipedia. In other words, anybody (including me), who knows the behaviour of Flyer22 will know better than to waste their time asking her to respect the need for edit summaries. --Law Lord (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I write edit summaries all the time, as I have explained above. Stop twisting things, to make it out as if I never use edit summaries and as though your templating me made any sense; it did not. The real tragedy is your actions in these matters. And you most certainly did not take the advice from last year. You were pointed out as being in the wrong, not I. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So, moving forward, you agree that it would be best for someone else to provide User:Flyer22 whatever reminders may or may not be necessary in the future? user:J aka justen (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I need no one to remind me about edit summaries. As I and LessHeard vanU pointed out above, they most certainly are not a requirement or even expected when making minor edits. But thank you for trying to be reasonable. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't get where "no edit summaries for minor edits" comes from. If you fixed spelling, put "sp" as the edit summary - it's easy...if it's minor, use short forms, and long forms for regular edits. The good old edit-summary counting tool checks BOTH minor and regular edits. If you get used to using them for ALL edits like I do, you'll never have this issue again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, though I feel no obligation to keep a special log of people who have special rules for their talk page. Though, sadly, it is going to take a while for me to forget Flyer22 this time. Perhaps we should ask, whether Flyer22 agrees not to write personal attacks against me? That is a much more important question, since I have only made one mistake in this whole matter: not asking for immediate administrator action, when she wrote this on my talk page:

"...You should not be watching the Ephebophilia article anyway; I doubt you are anywhere close to being an expert on the topic, just someone else who probably does not understand the differecce between it and pedophilia."

Oh well. Having read this entire thread, do you get the feeling that she regrets that personal attack, and will not write something similar in the future? I certainly do not. --Law Lord (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You cannot even admit to your true mistakes, ever, and yet you expect me to admit a perceived mistake by you? Goodness, close this debate/discussion, admins. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that based on the edit summary tool, Flyer22 is at 79% for major edits, and 0% for minor edits. Surely a little warning might not have been such a bad idea. It appears that who gave it was the real issue. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent targetting from anon

Hi,

For some reason, an anonymous user with a dynamic IP address is persistently trying to vandalise my personal page and any page I edit, such as this ever so amusing and intelligent contribution. So far, my user page has been protected and ever account that has been created has been blocked, but we seem to have a very persistent individual. Can you suggest how to deal with this? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• <redacted silliness> Billy ggGruff (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I will watch your pages, and play whack a troll on any disruptive idiot (as I did with the above). If some non UK admins do the same then it is likely they will find somewhere else to display their stupidity before too long. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out when you folk are asleep. Keep up with the good humour, though; getting frustrated is exactly what these cuties want. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion would be that you could open an SPI request, and see if a CU can determine if there is a limited ip range being used and blockable or an ISP that may be contacted for an abuse report - or you could request the same from any CU you may be friendly with. Otherwise it will be as I and Master of Puppets suggest, we will keep our eyes on it and don't let yourself start reacting to their puerile trolling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's not really anything I can do. I softblocked a very, very busy /16, but he simply jumped to another range, which is also about as busy. If it were up to me, I'd just rangeblock the entire damn ISP in hopes that the publicity would get them to get their rears in gear, but that's just my ideal world... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RBI. He'll be bored once he realizes nobody cares. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone please salt the article (redacted)

Resolved

 – page salted

Can somebody protect this against recreation? You might also want to consider a block of the IP behind it, as this is a repeat vandal using a series of new accounts. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting this comment. At a glance it looked like vandalism. Equazcion (talk) 04:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Article is already salted by User:Cirt. He has also blocked A b c q x (talk · contribs) and I just blocked Aacid (talk · contribs), both vandalism-only accounts. May I also ask the vandal fighters to be more careful with their reverts, because this was reverted twice. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Checkusers want to look into this? MuZemike 06:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: The obscene title a few minutes ago

Short version: I reverted it, then on consideration re-reverted it to allow consideration by admins. When I went to explain, my edits crossed. Jusdafax 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Related to above. I'm placing this as a subsection of that. Anyway, problem solved :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project

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.

USer:2over0 seems to have the correct idea. If consensus can't be reached at Talk:Global Consciousness Project then take it to Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Unresolved

 – Was archived by bot, needs admin intervention. Logos5557 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – Needs admin intervention. Could involved/uninvolved users please not interfere with ANI process, this is an admin issue and needs to be resolved by an admin. Logos5557 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I'm no admin but I am uninvolved, and a request was made to close this thread. And it doesn't look like any admin action will occur. -- Atama頭 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is severe POV pushing, edit warring, OR and synthesis from user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn by recursively adding irrelevant/unsourced/OR/synthesis statements into the article. user:Simonm223 was so emotional and in win-lose behaviour while editing that he needed to go out, to have some bike and steam off, as he mentioned here and here while searching for recruits on fringe theories noticeboard, which of course is a violation of WP:Noticeboards.

Timeline:

1- I challenged pseudoscience categorization several times, by first engaging in discussion and then by asking a reliable source from the editors claiming that the project is certainly pseudoscience: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72],

2- While the "debate" continues, user:Simonm223 decides he became too much emotional and takes a break here, but in fact, as I mentioned above, he asks "help" from "like-minded" users by posting that emotional message to fringe theories noticeboard.

3- While the "debate" on pseudoscience issue continues, user:Simonm223 thinks that he/she presented sufficient valid arguments and before publishing his/her arguments/findings/conclusions through a reliable publisher (and referring to afterwards in wikipedia), he adds "pseudoscientific experiment" phrase to the article and justifies his edit by stating in edit summary that "as per discussion on talk page" here. I am sure, we can't find any other superior example over such disruptive contribution. I undo the damage done. user:Simonm223 insists on that his damage should stay. I undo the damage once again.

4- user:Simonm223 adds a material based on an article by physicist Stanley Jeffreys, which is in fact about the first group of experiments carried out by PEAR in 1982 here and here. There is no connection between PEAR and GCP, even if there were a connection, Jeffers' article can not still qualify to exist in GCP article because it is not about GCP. I object the addition of the material and present my argument here. Then I undo here and here

5- Without bothering to present any source, user:Simonm223 distorts the industrial "identification/naming" of the type of random number generators used in the project here. If any reliable source questions such thing, it should be mentioned either in hardware random number generator article or as a separate statement in GCP article. Removing "truly" is disruptive. I undo here.

6- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article once again here. Adds a bit more POV pushing here. I undo here and here.

7- user:Shoemaker's Holiday comes into the scene and removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article one more time here. I revert here. user:Simonm223 intervenes once again here. I undo once again. user:Simonm223 reverts once again here and claims that the irrelevant material provide neutrality to the article. How can an irrelevant, clearly POV push be presented as warranting the neutrality? Removes "truly" one more time here.

8- I remove irrelevant material once again and bring "truly" back here and here.

9- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly", adds the material about Jeffreys' article and adds "pseudoscience categorization" one more time here. I undo by presenting "evidence" on talk page here.

10- user:Simonm223 gives me 3RR warning here and warns some other collaborators here about edit warring as if he was not one of the edit warriors. He/she also "restores page to consensus version" here; what consensus he/she's talking about is another mystery.

11- I give "original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material" warning to user:Simonm223 here.

12- Some other strange ideas from other users arrive with some accompanying accusations and wikilawyering here, here and here.

I believe above collection of misconducts, edit warring, inappropriate behaviours such as adding OR and synthesis by especially user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn should properly be balanced with correct measures like topic ban, block or any other sanction that I'm not aware of right now. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos5557 believes that aliens created the Egyptian pyramids, along with the "face" and a pyramid on Mars. He also believes NASA is covering up evidence of UFOs. Clearly, that is the kind of editor we need to carefully retain in order to make a quality reference work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors' beliefs aren't particularly relevant -- what they can show through citations to reliable third-party sources is. More problematic could be if an editor, regardless of belief, doesn't abide by WP:3RR, WP:BRD, etc. Rational skeptics who work in research can be just as "wrong" as believers in the paranormal when it comes to editing practices. Rather than whacking at Logos5557's beliefs, time'd be better spent ensuring the disputed article's content stands up to WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I concur with that point. However the only user who has violated WP:3RR is Logos5557 (talk · contribs) he launched this ANI when he was warned about edit warring against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual Timeline of Events

Full page history here

25 September, final edit prior to edit war. [73]

27 September: Logos5557 (talk · contribs) breaks WP: 3RR: [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]

27 September, 1912: I warn Logos5557 about edit warring [80]

27 September, 1914: I make my most recent edit to page [81]

27 September, 20:03: Logos5557 warns me about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (disregarding the fact that what I inserted (and left in after first reversion) was all derived from cited WP:RS. [82]

28 September, 00:29 (I have made no intervening edits to Global Consciousness Project) Logos 5557 notifies me that he has opened the WP:ANI here. [83] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me concur with EEMIV's points, too, if that will get some sort of support. I do not agree, unsurprisingly, with your assertion about edit warring. Is there anything wrong with launching an ANI after some sort of magical warning? I take Hipocrite's comment as a "declaration of concurrence", as an "endorsement of the case" since he/she concentrates on my "beliefs" instead of addressing the facts of the case. Logos5557 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess being the second (and third ... which is a minor edit to my previous comment) link in point 12 makes me involved despite not being notified. On to the OP's points:

1. Please read WP:Edit warring. There is no WP:TRUTH exception.
2. A neutral notice to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard is perfectly acceptable as a means of attracting outside eyes to an article.
3. One editor alone cannot edit war, but please see WP:Vandalism and avoid describing other editors' good faith contributions as "damage".

4-11.  Stop edit warring and call a request for comment. Notifying another user of the three-revert rule (and that it is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring) is considered evidence that that user is aware of the issue. Please avoid templating the regulars, as it is more likely to escalate the dispute and rigidify positions than just talking it out on the page dedicated to that purpose. A friendly (or at least neutral) request to usertalk that points at an issue on articletalk you wish to be addressed is fine.

12.  Logos5557, please consider that if a significant number of other editors think that you are wrong, then you should at least evaluate your points. Edit warring will not achieve consensus. Incivility will not achieve consensus. Throwing around wiki-acronyms will not achieve consensus. Talking it out should lead to consensus, though it may not match your opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you and other editor (voiceofreason) personally, about this ANI. I thought it would be sufficient to place a notification on article talk page for those who would like to get involved, here.

1- I guess you should read WP:Edit warring, too. It states here that "If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption."

2- I don't think that Simonm223's notice to fringe noticeboard was neutral at all. Fringe noticeboard is not a "military trench" for "recruits" to get some rest and to look for some relief.

3- "Damage" happens when a user base his/her edits (which he/she makes in article) on discussions (actually Simonm223 based on his personal opinions) made in article's talk page, without presenting the sources verifying the information added, because that contradicts with very fundamental principles of wikipedia. I'm just calling a spade a spade here.

4-11- I believe my "trials" in article talk page are sufficient evidences of "trying to resolve the issues by communication".

12- "A significant number of other editors"; can you define "significant number" and guidelines on which numbers should be accepted as significant in which cases? Is 3 enough? 4? Or is this some sort of confirmation of your non-neutrality in this case. Logos5557 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS does not apply directly to talk page discussions. So long as it stays within the bounds of WP:CIVIL I am free to express my opinion on a talk page. If I can not find a RS for my opinions and put them onto the actual article page then, at that point, these statements enter into the WP:RS policy realm. Am I honestly being attacked for holding an opinion in talk space? Can any indications be made that I edited the article in any way counter to Wikipedia policy? Simonm223 (talk) 19:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I object against the qualification POV pushing concerning this edit. That is simply a corrected and improved summary of the source. Logos5557 has a clever way of turning things around. He makes us believe that PEAR is something completely different then Global Consciousness Project, and that because of that, the criticism of Jeffers does not apply, therefore reverting it, reverting it, reverting it. But PEAR is an acronym of Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab from which the Global Consciousness Project originated. This is simply his way of taking out a major point of critism, namely the critisism of Jeffers. I can imagine that Logos5557 does not like what Jeffers is saying, because it pulls away the very foundation underneath the Global Consciousness Project. It were Jahn and Dunne from PEAR who made the false assumption that in a cumulative random number generator the baseline hovers around the zero line. But it doesn't, just like in coin flipping the chance does not increase for heads, after a large sequence of tails. It is this fallacy that crawled into the project as a means to distinguish between normal random and abnormal random behaviour. And the random number generators are the bricks in the building of GCP. Pull them out, and nothing is left. So Jeffers has to go, and Logo5557 does anything to achieve that.

As for the term random number generator: there are in real life random number generators and pseudorandom number generators. One generates random numbers, and the other doesn't. But what are truly random number generators? In what way do they differ from random number generators? In nothing, therefore this is a pleonasm, only suggesting some devine extra quality that is not there. In literature, truly random number generators only point at flaws in practical designs of previous random number generators, or are part of advertisement language. So call it edit-warring, but I just like to get the text right.

Is the Global Consciousness Project pseudoscience. Yes, because the solid criticism of Jeffers, as far as I can see, was never taken up. Yes, because independent scientist, May and Spottiswoode, looked at the GCP's flagship, the 0911-attack, and concluded that despite the hailed results of GCP, no anomaly was there. Yes, because there is no independent confirmation of GCP's results. May and Spottiswoode advised to, at least, split up GCP's world wide network into two halves, so if an anomaly would occur in one network, it could be tested in the other network. GCP, as far as I know, never took that up either. And even if they will, they will not have nulled design flaws (Jeffers), and they will not have nulled the possible bias of human interpretors, because it would still be the same team with the same prepossession that would do the analysis. Only when an entirely different and independent team, with different equipment comes up with the same result, we may be talking about science. Untill then it's not. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jan Arkesteijn for confirming my assertions of OR and synthesis. GCP has certainly no connection with PEAR, and with Jahn and Dunne. Do you see their names in GCP team list? Even if they give any support/contribution to GCP, criticisms should be about GCP studies/experiments/papers, to be included in GCP article. Why didn't GCP never take Jeffers' "solid ciriticism" up; because it is not related to GCP. Why Jahn and Dunne didn't answer Jeffers? I really don't know. but my guess is; they publish a paper in 80's, somebody wakes up after 20 years and criticise their paper to "rebutt" whole PEAR. I wish they "answer the call" some day if they haven't retired yet. You present May and Spottiswoode as if they had crumbled "GCP's flagship". This is not true, either. I didn't search extensively (may be some people from GCP have published a detailed paper on their criticism as well) but GCP replied their criticism here [84]. What Simonm223 and Jan Arkesteijn do not understand here that we can't synthesize things out from sources (things which those sources do not say), and put in wikipedia articles. There are two main types of random number generators; hardware (or truly random) and software (or pseudorandom). When "truly" is removed, it becomes unclear which type is referred to. It seems I should better have launched this incident on administrators noticeboard. Logos5557 (talk) 07:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I added the above response to defend myself against your false accusation of POV-pushing. If you look at that edit you will see it is not.
Now you accuse me of Original Research. I went through the article and there is no contribution of me in the recent or not so recent past, that could be named Original Research.
Could you please stop this harassment!
In the talkpage I asked to stop the pointless discussion that was going on, only to let myself drag into it for just a while. I am not going to continu that discussion here. There is only one person that is creating a lot of fuss, and that is you! Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Simonm223 launches a proposal for merge here, I guess in order to justify his/her addition of Jeffers' article about a PEAR experiment into GCP article. Logos5557 (talk) 13:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming worse day by day. I don't think I have to get "permission" (he/she "succeeds" to present that as "consensus") from Simonm223 to make any unproblematic contribution/edit here. This is also an example of WP:OWN. Logos5557 (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does any other user need to "appeal" to Simonm223 to get him/her to "change" his mind, to revert his inappropriate contributions, like Fencesandwindows did here? Well, unless this case is not resolved with proper outcomes, I'm afraid Simonm223 will be inclined to think so. Logos5557 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a mischaracterization. He inserted some dense jargon. I removed it as it would not provide any elucidation on the subject to a layman. I told him that if consensus approved the inclusion of this jargon I would not block it's reinsertion and suggested he take the issue to talk. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As all can see, the "dense jargon" he/she refers to is two words "bayesian" and "p-value" which were wikilinked properly. Logos5557 (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[85] [86] [87] [88]

Just look. I didn't break WP:3RR nor did I violate any other policy. I reverted an edit I thought did not improve the article and suggested that the editor who made it go to talk and get consensus since we clearly disagreed. I'm sorry, I didn't intend to post here until admin had a chance to look through everything, honestly, and I don't intend to post again on this issue. The difference links tell the story. But I'm tired of defending myself for editing appropriately. Can a non-involved admin please weigh in on this matter? Simonm223 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Civility Issues

Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of WP:CIVIL some related to this issue and some not. The tendentious debating, peppered with personal insults and slights is making it very difficult to dispassionately edit any article he is involved with. This is an ongoing issue with him. Can we please wrap this up? Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to state where are the proofs that I breached WP:CIVIL? Logos5557 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

user Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has had repeated reminders of wp:civility here, here, here and here, many of his responses to these concerns have been flippant and/or rude. His conduct on the Talk:Global Consciousness Project page show much of the same behavior. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

And where are the diffs for my flippant and/or rude responses? By the way; you should click "prev" link in related history page and present the resultant link as diff here. Logos5557 (talk) 06:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a complete list but it should be sufficient to demonstrate a continued trend:

• Borderline civility, suggests other editor needs to "educate himself"
• Again suggests other editor needs to educate himself on WP policy, requests Arbcom intervention over AfD
• Calls another childish, implies they are a sock puppet.
• Accuses another editor of either sock puppetry or trolling. Tells DBachmann that he assumes bad faith.
• Calls another editor a mimicking monkey, is warned for civility over this one.
• responds flippantly to a warning from another editor
• responds to a warning about civility by saying he has to in order to discourage behaviour he feels to be inappropriate.
• clear WP:CIVIL violation
• Replies flippantly to warnings over above violation

Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And then there is the other issue - Logos5557 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR before:

• [89]

So the pattern: Incivil comments, edit warring and when it's clear consensus is against him he goes and asks for Admin intervention, characterizing the other involved parties as violating Wikipedia policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, if it qualifies, I had had one more 3RR block here: [90] Logos5557 (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Simonm223's efforts to preserve civility in wikipedia despite the majority of the diffs he/she presented are some months old (there are even a year old appendices here), however could we please confine ourselves with global consciousness project. Although I wonder why he/she (as being one of the participants of those discussions) didn't use his/her warning/reporting abilities at the times these occurred, I suggest Simonm223 to raise these in the proper venue. I promise, I will not name his/her reporting as "complaining" as he did here and I will be happy to participate and defend myself for each and every case. Logos5557 (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ref WP:SPADE. I called you WP:ANI complaint a complaint. You throw around insults. Simonm223 (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My concerns regarding civility are that you participate in a repeating pattern of behaviour. Thus past issues are relevant. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to caution users to evaluate the incidents they think are the violations of WP:CIVIL very carefully, by quoting "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." Logos5557 (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict}Well that's the whole point, this is not an isolated offense but rather a continued pattern of behaviour on your part. Part and parcel with this is taking up content disputes where consensus is against you and where you have been warned off edit warring to Admin in hopes of getting intervention - which you have a past history of doing, along with insulting other editors and breaking WP:3RR. Simonm223 (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You can proceed however you like, I'm not worrying for anything, but my concern is irrelevant issues may extend this ANI case unnecessarily longer. Logos5557 (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If this case were just a content dispute, I would have taken it to RfC or other dispute resolution processes. This case is more than content dispute; there are some users on skeptic side who distort the facts and put wikipedia in a humiliating position, not to mention other minor side effects. If I couldn't convince those users by myself to stop, then some admin tools should intervene for the sake of wikipedia. There is nothing wrong in taking this case here, I'm just pursuing the utmost reputation of wikipedia. Consensus, if there was any in this case, does not mean that the facts can be distorted however the group of users like, otherwise cabals become legal. Logos5557 (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? In a discussion about concerns regarding your civility you say that the editors you disagree with are humiliating wikipedia? Then you accuse of us being a cabal? Simonm223 (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This is a noticeboard, not a battleground. Everyone stop arguing, and let some admins wade through this lot and see if there's any need for admin action, that being the point of this noticeboard. Fences&Windows 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure?

Could someone uninvolved please review and close the above thread? It is degenerating away from productive discussion, and it is my experience that bickering from the usual suspects rarely leads to any conclusion, satisfactory or otherwise. The likely to be productive options, as I see them, are: archive this discussion with a recommendation to seek and adhere to consensus at the talkpage, with recourse to page protection as needed; move this discussion to a request for comment (user or article) or remand it to mediation; or open community ban proceedings based on Simonm223's difference links above. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 18:32, 1 October 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.

Second opinion on rollback removal

There is a dispute about flags in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Before, not after, I was aware of the discussion there I removed a bunch of flags. User:Urbanrenewal wasn't happy about that, see discussion on the MOS and his and mine talk page, and today reverted a lot of my edits with rollback. Therefore I removed the rollback from his account. Was I too involved or was it just blatant abuse of rollback which warrants removal of the rollback group. Garion96 (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you listing this incident here and hope we can resolve this constructively. I did use rollback in this case given the automatic mass reversion of a series of edits that were in the process of being discussed. The use of rollback allowed for a more efficient process given the sheer number of edits Garion96 had made. I misinterpreted Garion96's edits as an abusive attempt to overwhelm the discussion by making so many edits in such a short period of time. At the time i was reverting I did consider this to be a series of unproductive edits. I should have been quicker to Assume Good Faith and use undo instead with a full edit summary. I discussed my rollback immediately on Garion96's talk page and I admitted that perhaps I should have undone rather than rolled back Garion96's edits. With the possible exception of this situation I have consistently used best pracices in employing Rollback. With respect to the immediate removal of my rollback rights, I did feel that Garion96 was biased in this situation given a back and forth about the removal of flag icons from articles. I would hope that as a result of this Garion96 and I can work together productively and that my rollback rights will be restored. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 11:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that User:Urbanrenewal is an editor in good standing, and that there is an open discussion (whether you are aware of it or not), I think Garion acted at least hastily. This was unlikely to de-escalate the situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

He reverted my edits 24 hours after. So during/after the discussion in which he failed, so far, to change consensus, he rollbacked my edits. I can't say I am inclined to give him rollback back. I won't object however if someone else decides to restore the rights. Garion96 (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Garion96 is giving some context but has not characterized the situation entirely correctly. To give some additional context the discussion came about as a result of an aggressive push to remove all flag icons from infoboxes across hundreds of articles. With the exception of Gario96 the users involved in this effort stopped making further edits to have a discussion and build consensus. We are in the process of discussing how to arrive at consensus for such broad changes since there are only a small group of editors involved in the discussion. I woke up this morning, looked at my watchlist and saw a mass removal by Garion96 while the discussion was ongoing. And this is when I made the reversions. I think my conduct in the discussion has been civil and the conversation has been productive and is still in process. While I am sure Garion96 is a great admin, I think a close reading of Garion96's comments shows that he was perhaps not best positioned to take this action. I know that I have learned never to rollback an admin's edits.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a quick glance at your contributions shows that you weren't using the rollback facility in the best possible manner given the ongoing discussions - the shouting upper case in your edit summary suggests frustration which you yourself admit. I think Garion has done the right thing by using this page to flag his revoking of your rollback privileges and suggesting that it be reviewed. So maybe cut him a bit more slack, as you would no doubt want others to do for you. just my opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merabu as you know from your participation in the flag discussion I was frustrated that so many edits were made while we were in the middle of a discussion of how to achieve consensus. My tone in that discussion has been very constructive. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 12:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a 'content dispute' where one side Garion96 has used administrative tools against his/her opponent User:Urbanrenewal in a punitive manner. If anything, this issue should have been brought here and an uninvolved administrator should have made a decision.--Termer (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Garion has brought it here and requested uninvolved administrator input. --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is for "blatantly unproductive edits" only, and nowhere does it say that it can be used just to make the reverting easier. Under these circumstances, I believe the removal of rollback was appropriate. However, considering that Urbanrenewal understands his mistake and that there have been no problems with his use of rollback in the past, I'd support restoring it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is removed from users by admins all the time for slip ups like this, the only problem here is that admin User:Garion96 violated WP:UNINVOLVED part of the admin policy (as Termer touched on above). Apart from that I see nothing else to discuss. I would suggest User:Urbanrenewal re-apply for rollback next month, and admin Garion96 be careful not to violate the admin policy again.--Otterathome (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am fine waiting if that is necessary - is it really given my track record has been very good on this front? |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As said before, I won't object to someone giving back rollback. Consensus here seems that I was too involved. I don't really agree with it since it was blatant abuse of rollback but I can accept it. After some blatant canvassing and abuse of rollback it was hard to assume good faith with this user. Garion96 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with rollback removal, as this was an inappropriate use of the tool. --John (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To summarize (hopefully fairly)

• Opinion on the removal itself are mixed, maybe with a small edge towards removal.
• It's unfortunate that Garion has performed it himself, because of his involvement.
• Urbanrenewal has recognized his problematic use.

I'm going to restore rollback for now (if I can figure out how ;-), based in UR's overall track record and per our "not punitive" policy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Request Admin review User talk:Stockstandard

Resolved

This person is spinning out tons of articles. The problem is most if not all have been csd or prod. Can an admin take a look into this? They have been reported to AIV. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the articles relate to a J Wright in Toronto. Looks like a deliberate attempt to create misinformation. noq (talk) 10:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef by LessHeard vanU, which appears sensible for now.  Sandstein  11:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If they can come back and edit in a sensible way they would definitly have the making of a good article producer. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oversight?

Can someone with oversight powers please oversight the first, deleted, revision of User talk:Spasticmustard? -- The Anome (talk) 13:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• people know I'm very much against username blocks. I'd have preferred to see you asking the user to chaange their name before blocking, but otherwise I agree with this block. You should have been clearer. "spastic" isn't just a playground insult, it's deeply offensive to some people. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Um, were you aware that Ian Dury - who contracted polio as a child and was left with a withered leg and arm - was asked by charities in relation to the International Year of Disabled Persons to make a record to both highlight their work and to raise funds. Dury released the record Spasticus Autisticus, which was promptly banned by the BBC owing to the perceived insults to Persons With Mobility Challenges... Has anyone asked Spasticmustard the reason behind their choice of name? Sensitive Balding Person (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Spasticus Autisticus" is an excellent record, and I wholeheartedly approve of it. As can be seen from the song's lyrics, Dury was using the word ironically in an attempt to mock the prejudices against disabled people. I don't think that level of nuance can be relied upon to be detectable in Wikipedia usernames; as said above the word is indeed very offensive to some people. -- The Anome (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Or indeed if I used the word nigger in casual language, but not if a person of Recent African Origin did - and don't even go into the Autism article if you think Autie is only ever an insult - because sometimes people endeavour to "own" the term of insult to negate it. While I agree that the username can be considered inflammatory (hence these posts) blocking the account is I feel over-reaction. Find out if they are here for the lulz and then block, or explain how nuances are easily missed here and would they mind being known as something else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
        • Talking first is obviously the right thing to do. There's a real problem with username blocks - there's little checking of those blocks, the users blocked by them don't have a contrib history to point to yet, and they don't have friends in the right places to stir the shit on ANI. Thus many editors with long histories of poor behaviour get short blocks (followed by kilobytes of drama) where people with foolish usernames get instant permanent blocks. And sometimes those blocks are incorrectly applied so the user cannot create a new account. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Or, alternatively, one could realize that this particular case is a very poor one to chose to use as a platform for soapboxing about username blocks. Without revealing the very personal details in the deleted edit that require oversighting, I can say that this was almost certainly two … Ahem! … young people sharing a single account who were, by what was said in the edit, very likely going to be playing around at Wikipedia whilst signing themselves "spasticmustard" everywhere. To be honest, we can do without that; and they can do without the almost inevitable backlash that they would suffer, to their almost certain surprise (given what the edit implies about cultural backgrounds). Uncle G (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
            • did you miss the bit where I said I agreed with the block and some other editor tried to say that spastic was fine for usernames? Or do you think it's good to block obvious vandals with a template that tells them to try again with a different username? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
              • On the contrary, I saw the bit — two bits in fact, since you did it twice — where you tried to turn this into a general soapbox for arguing your opinions on username blocks. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

JzG: unfounded accusations of SELFREF and SELFPUB

Resolved

 – Misunderstanding, all is good now. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Main page: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard § User:Ottens

See also: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 4 § Space Captain Smith

Back in July 2008, I created an entry for the online magazine I edit, the Gatehouse Gazette. This article was deleted per an AfD discussion for failing to demonstrate notability. I recreated the page in November 2008, because I believed there were now sufficient, third-party sources to demonstrate notability. The article was promptly deleted once again, however, because it was considered a "Recreation of a page which was deleted per a deletion discussion." I requested a Deletion review for it in September 2009, claiming that I believed that "the notability of the subject has significantly improved [...] and that now, it is actually eligible for an entry." I was recommended to recreate the article and I did. Several days later, JzG (or Guy) deleted the article, for a third time, considering it "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". This was an issue that had never been brought up before in relation to the article and something which, considering that the Gatehouse Gazette is a free publication with which no money is being made, strikes me as a bit odd. But, because JzG may have a point there, I did not contest the deletion. (Although an AfD in which I could have stated my case would have been nice.)

JzG, however, did not stop there and subsequently deleted several references to my different websites throughout wikipedia, citing SELFREF and SELFPUB although none of these references were added by me. He deleted a reference from TWA Flight Center that had been added and was restored by another user. He deleted a reference from Clothed male, naked female that had been added by another user. He deleted two references from List of steampunk works that had been added (here and here) by other users. He deleted a reference from Steampunk that had been added by another user. And he deleted an external link from Robert Fletcher that had been put there by another user when he or she created the page.

After this, JzG put me on the noticeboard where he added that I "may need some help understanding what Wikipedia is for." He obviously did not investigate when he deleted the references listed above and seeing that they referred to two of my websites, must have simply assumed that I put them there. This was not the case. Other users included these references and, I believe, they did so for good reasons. Ottens (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SELFREF was a typing error, WP:SELFPUB is absolutely accurate. The cites were to Ottens, referenced form Ottens' "internet magazine" (i.e. website). Ottens has three times created an article on his website. I have explained WP:COI but he seems determined to argue the toss. WP:SELFPUB makes it pretty clear that self-pulished sources are deprecated, and website owners arguing for links and cites to their own work - especially when they have a history of creating articles on their websites - would seem to me to be asking for trouble. I've explained this as well, several times, and so have others, his talk page has a number of comments about self-promotional editing, but Ottens would apparently rather escalate than accept my explanation. I think he is a knowledgable contributor ins ome areas so I hope people won't reach straight for the block button at this point, but it's certainly the kind of behaviour that has led people to serious trouble before. Nobody likes having links to their site removed from Wikipedia, it does wonders for site traffic, but I'm afraid that's not our problem. It is normal when you find an editor who has created articles on his own website to check for links. In this case the links cited Ottens and his website by name, but there is no evidence of authority and the site is clearly self-published. So I removed them, as I would for any self-published website. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Very well. My objection wasn't so much that the references were deleted (although, the one at TWA Flight Center serves as reference to a quote while the external link from Robert Fletcher is notable, because there's virtually no information about the man's contributions to Star Trek available elsewhere on the web); my objection was that you seemed to have gone on a witch hunt against me and seemed to blame me for links that I never put there. If you say that you persued this objectively and that your allegation of WP:SELFREF was a typo, I'd like to believe you. Ottens (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Yes, it was an accidental error typing SELFREF instead of SELFPUB. Common problems we find here with self-published sources include copies of material from other sites, used as references where the rights owner does not put full text on the net (a copyright problem), material cited to individuals on their websites with no evidence that the individuals are authorities or that the commentary has been peer-reviewed (which is why we deprecate WP:SELFPUB sources in favour of material that has been published independently of the author by a source with good fact-checking and editorial policies), and things whihc included "because nobody else covers it" (whihc is usually an indication of undue weight). If Memory Alpha does not cover the man's contributions to Star trek then I am sceptical about its relevance. If they do, then their fact checking will usually come up with sources. There are many things which enthusiastic Wikipedians do, whether they are the site owner or not, which are unintended violations of our sourcing guidelines. You're not the first to fall foul of this and I'm sure you won't be the last. Guy (Help!) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In this case you might be interested to learn that Memory Alpha links to my website Forgotten Trek quite extensively, and that their entry on Robert Fletcher has an external link to it too. However, this has little to do with wikipedia, of course, so altogether, as far as I'm concerned, this matter may be considered resolved. Ottens (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721 has returned using more IP socks.

This time, using 70.141.193.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same IP range, geolocation, and articles as the other Mathemagician57721 socks. —Farix (t | c) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And now just violated 3RRs on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu using a different IP, 75.28.54.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm from Springfield, MO and I edited Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (without even making the edit that Mathemagician57721 was blocked for repeatedly making!), therefore I'm a sockpuppet of Mathemagician57721? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:DUCK, same IP range, same geolocation, same editing pattern, same set of article. Expecally after you started editing Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu soon after the semi-protection expired do to previous vandalism from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the same edit that Mathemagician57721 made to the article, despite the fact that I clearly would have if I were a sockpuppet. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in the same disruptive behavior that Mathemagician57721 and his socks have been on the same set of articles using the same set if IP addresses originating from the same ISP and from the same location. There are far far too many similarities. —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week as an obvious sock of User:Mathemagician57721. MuZemike 04:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is back with another named sock, User:CombinationPermutation. Also doing a new SPI to get all these and the others catalogged and properly tagged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski Article Inappropriate Desires

My mistake to start my editing career on Wiki at Polanski, (there is probably a little ditty you could make with that), and I have learned that I really don't enjoy this sort of writing. So, thanks! (Checking off Wiki Editor from bucket list.) That said, I am not going to get into a Talk editing war, but I think that this sort of thing belongs in a chat room and not on a talk page:

::I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.

The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).

However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the experience to know how this is handled. Thank you to all the Admins who have put in time on the article.Oberonfitch (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The material on this topic is only going to expand. "Recentism" will inevitably lead to substantial coverage of it, perhaps out of proportion. I agree with the view that the 1977 arrest and 2009 re-arrest should be covered in a separate article, where the weight issues won't be a concern. An appropriately long summary should be kept in this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• That said, this is a discussion for Talk:Roman Polanski, not this page.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Roman Polanski. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• We should proceed as with Barack Obama and other pages similarly contentious: inappropriate sections, such as sections attempting to push a point of view that is not supported by reliable sources and violate BLP, should be summarily removed or collapsed (using {{hat}}). Editors should be advised, warned and blocked if necessary. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#99.144.255.247. Cenarium (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

I have recently had a few interactions with User:gu1dry we were involved in an content dispute [91] and a 3RR report that he made [92].

Because of the negative interactions we have had, I put a message on his talk page explaining my actions and stating

I think we are not interacting well together, maybe we can both enjoy working on the same articles a little more in the future, from the articles you have edited it seems we share common interests - consider this comment to be an olive branch.

I got this message from User:gu1dry A. The editing warring, I posted had nothing to do with you & I would love to point out all the "incidents" you've had, with the extremely few "contributions" you have made. B. EdJohnston posted on my talk, therefore I would naturally go to their talk page if I have something to voice, which I did obviously. C. Your so called "olive branch" is not a peaceful gesture but an insult. And I'm really starting to get sick of your arrogance, especially since you hide behind your pitiful IP. There was no consensus on the STI issue, discussions take time on Wikipedia & you have jump the jumped the boat too early. So please stay out of my way & DiaF[[93]]. I really don't care if I'm blatantly not being civil, because I'm really sick of you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC) [94]

I take offence to my offer of an olive branch being responded to with numerous personal attacks all within one message, I also think the "I really don't care" comment shows a lack of respect for the rules we are supposed to be following.

Note: DiaF means Die in a Fire [[95]]

119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. Can you try explaining it again, but more briefly and starting at the beginning not the end? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah, sure - the above is a bit of an essay - give me 5mins and I will change it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I frankly do not give a fuck if I blocked at this point so let's play this way. Let's review 119.173.81.176's past interact with others.

• Wonderful edit comment: [96]
• Personal attack #1: [97]
• Personal attack #2: [98]
• Edit warring with SchnitzelMannGreek: [99], [100]
• Provoking/personal attacking SchnitzelMannGreek: [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106]
• Provoking/personal attacking Until It Sleeps: [107], [108]
• Being blocked & their response: [109]
• Baiting Greglocock: [110]
• Edit warring on BMW: [111]
• Edit warring on Subaru Impreza WRX STI: [112], [113](there was no consensus on the issue & anon attempting to rush the process)

 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attack number two was me restoring a user talk page comment that was deleted by an editor other than the user whose talk page it was. not my personal attack.

the above are not relevant to this issue - they either relate to issues that I have been blocked for or are not personal attacks - would you like me to be blocked for edits that I have already been blocked for?

it does not matter if I have been blocked a million times for posting goatse - I still don't deserve personal attacks. I interacted with you in a civil manner and deserve the same in return. The fact that you do not give a fuck if I blocked says it all really.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I will no longer respond to you & really if DiaF bothers you (which is really the only thing that be taken as a personal attack), you need to leave the internet, like now. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This was in response to the anon pointing out that he was edit warring ([114]). This is uncalled for and can in no way be justified whatever his past interactions with the anon are. The above comments and diffs also indicate that Gu1dry is aware that he has breached WP:CIVIL, but is continuing to do so. What makes you think your comments are justified? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

you need to leave the internet is entirely inappropriate, and should be retracted soonest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

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.

---

Split 132 kb section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment. Feel free to mark as resolved when discussion is finished. slakr^\ talk /

Stuck

 – No administrator action for 6 days. Consider requests for comment for user conduct. --slakr^\ talk / 09:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Transcluded section from: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment --Tothwolf (talk)

Summarize and redirect back to original issues

This discussion got way off-track with the mass-AfD nominations. In order to redirect it back on track, let's set aside all those AfD nominations for now.

My main concerns with User:Miami33139's behaviour can be summarised as:

1. Issues with wikihounding multiple editors (now including myself), at least one of which has since left the project.
2. Bulk removals of the edits of one editor who was previously wikihounded (the one who left). (see: #Bulk removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald' edits)
3. Use of unapproved/unknown/custom Javascript tools disguised as Twinkle while preforming (semi-)automated removals of the above mentioned edits. (see: #(semi-)automated editing tools and prod/CSD tagging?
4. Increased wikihounding and retaliation in the form of mass-AfD nominations when I originally brought up the above issues. (see: #Breakdown of AFD intersections)

Where Miami33139 began wikihounding me is where I tagged a number WP:COMP related articles from Category:Proposed deletion with the {{WikiProject Computing}} banner so that the Article alerts system would pick them up. [115] Miami33139 has been mass-prodding media player software articles (almost exclusively). [116] The first interaction I am aware of related to this issue is the revert [117] of my removal of an invalid CSD tag [118] and then RFD [119] of a page that Miami33139 has admitted to finding from my contributions. [120] [121] After that they saw where I had reverted vandalism on NexIRC [122] and sent it to AfD. [123] From there this pattern continues and includes !voting in AfDs I participated in just to !vote the opposite as well as getting involved in AfDs that I tagged for the WP:COMP deletion workflow, all of these also clearly being taken directly from my contributions. (See the Breakdown of AFD intersections table linked above for examples) Prior to all of this, Miami33139 did not work on articles in these areas or participate in related AfDs. Miami33139 focused almost exclusively on mass-prodding and AfDing of media player software articles and their removal of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. See also: [124] [125] Prior to leaving, Ed Fitzgerald had been with the community for over 4 years and had over 42,000 edits under his belt. [126]

--Tothwolf (talk) 00:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that any administrator is willing to take further action without either party demonstrating further attempts at dispute resolution. This noticeboard is for immediately pressing issues to the encyclopedia, and requests for comment on user conduct is the proper place to have extended discussions about whether someone's behavior over time is right or wrong. --slakr^\ talk / 09:24, 5 October 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.

Milowent Incivility / bad faith

Milowent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I warned this user this user for attacking me and assuming bad faith and linked him to the offensive edits, and I get "You are a turd editor and you know it." at User_talk:Milowent#Civility_.2F_bad_faith as a response. This isn't the first time either this user has acted in this manor towards me either.--Otterathome (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a long history of bad faith and incivility by Otterathome (which I'm sure he'll deny), so it's really not surprising to me that Milowent might loose his temper a bit and respond back. Regardless, I have to wonder why this was taken immediately to ANI when there are many other venues that could be tried first. For instance, this very page says "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." Isn't that what this report is all about? Why hasn't it been taken there first? --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome has been basically harassing people who are attempting to make an argument for certain articles to not be deleted based solely on some vendetta against new media. I have stayed out of this for the most part, but I have to weigh in here. If we have to drudge up all the bad faith and incivility Otterathome has engaged in, I am willing to help. This is ridiculous. I would have called him worse much sooner if he had been attacking me as he has Milowent and others. --jenlight (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Otterathome is a very skilled editor who unfortunately chooses to use his time and skills in a destructive fashion to personally attack other editors, obstruct work on wikipedia, and push his own personal agenda and opinions on the Wikipedia community. The examples he referenced above are the result of a pattern of long term, sustained harassment and abuse of Milowent and other editors. I would be glad to assist in building a comprehensive list of all of Otterathome's incivility and bad faith behavior. Additionally, I agree that this report should have first been taken to Wikiquette. Billbowery (talk) 19:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Billbowery put this very well except I am not sure how one defines a "skilled editor". As has been discussed extensively elsewhere it is Otterathome who has been systematically attacking people time after time and it was probably the lack of corrective action that precipitated this response. Once again, we need to deal with the real root of this issue which is one editor who tries to force their agenda in a way which is anything but good faith. A so called "skilled editor" should be considered someone who works with the community to improve Wikipedia and not just someone who applies WP policies in an arbitrary manner to further their own personal goals. I challenge anyone to show that Otterathome achieves the standard of a true "skilled editor" and as has been pointed out many times elsewhere and above Otterathome's contribution to Wikipedia has an enormous destructive impact in terms of disruptive discussions etc etc.--Modelmotion (talk) 23:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to point out that the person making this accusation, Otterathome, is a person who accused me of stalking in a ANI based on the fact that I objected to and reverted him blanking an article and turning it into a redirect. (He ultimately took it to AFD where it was voted keep) Also, despite his obvious sensitivity to 'stalking' he nevertheless has continued to haunt places I frequent on the Internet, and has on Wikipedia posted links detailing my off 'pedia activity, information which could possibly lead to a violation of WP:Outing. (I of course will neither confirm nor deny if it does in fact do so.) In short, my few interactions with this person have been rather uncivil. The fact that Milowent has at times lost his cool when dealing with him is unfortunate, but ultimately human. Mathieas (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh it's the accusations/walls of text with no diffs/evidence game again. Disliking a user doesn't mean you can attack them I'm afraid.--Otterathome (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If no admins are going to deal with this, I will assume name-calling is an acceptable response to a warning.--Otterathome (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've taken a bit of time to cool off. Otterathome, regardless of anything else, I apologize for my uncivil comments. Thanks to all who posted above, I appreciate your kindness. --Milowent (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Name-calling is not really an acceptable response to anything. But an apology is an acceptable way to atone for name-calling (mild name-calling) so I hope Otter can accept the apology and get back to the war the discussion at various AfDs. -- Atama頭 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising on user page

Fiskeharrison (talk · contribs) has an link advertising a forthcoming book on his user page (as well as a promotional article about himself which shows up in Google as the 2nd link, the first being his Wikipedia article). I've been involved with him before and would like an uninvolved look at this. I wish user pages weren't indexed by Google, I've seen them used for self-publicity too often. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The following articles were started and substantially written by the user, and appear promotional and are about not obviously notable people:

• Alexander Fiske-Harrison
• Clive Fiske Harrison

In fairness, both articles seem well written, and give the appearance of abiding by the rules. Whether the subjects are notable is borderline; if someone else had created the articles I would give them the benefit of the the doubt. Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes says:

"One of the most common mistakes for newcomers is creating an encyclopedia article about themselves. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not expected to have a biographical article about every person who contributes. Your user page, however, is a perfect place to write about yourself; just click your user name at the top of the screen when you have logged in and edit to your heart's content."

It seems to me that this guy is using Wikipedia to promote both himself and his dad. I have less problems with him saying that he has written a book on his talk page. If this was a normal editor who made normal, non-self-promotional articles, then it would seem not unreasonable that he/she should say so on his/her talk page. I have put {{notability}}{{advert}} tags on both articles.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also reviewed his article,(Alexander Fiske-Harrison) and it was found to be a self published article and not meeting notability criteria based on the references i reviewed at the time (ref 1 to 10). I was left with no option, but to add a PROD. his article may also meet CSD. I will inform him of this thread when others ve participated. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Gave him a note about conflict of interest. Cirt (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Policy doesn't actually forbid writing an article about one's self - it just strongly recommends against it. In my opinion, but subjects are actually notable and they certainly aren't ads - ads try to sell you something. Additionally, for being COI written they are actually relatively reasonably neutral. The correct tag for these cases is {{COI}}, not {{advert}}. The userpage is not a problem at all. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was considered about the "(available to pre-order from Amazon here" bit. I was under the impression we didn't want such advertising. I am still opposed to using user pages for autobiographical articles since they show up on Google and most readers probably don't notice that they aren't actual articles. We've been through an AfD on his article before and the coi stuff, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Fiske-Harrison and it was never my intention to resurrect that. Also, after I finished this my alarm went off for my hourly hand exercises and I forgot to leave an ani notice. No one else has so I have done this now. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I edited that line of his user page to simply link to the book, rather than imply "go buy it". (Note, Clive has also survived AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clive_Fiske_Harrison)--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

first, I ve equally no problem of him putting any promotional material on his user page. wikipedia need to change, to make sure user content is not searchable in google. problem is him writing about himself in the article Alexander Fiske-Harrison. I have added {{autobiography}}. he also uses blog entries, some mere comments on some websites as his refernces. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 16:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Alexander Fiske-Harrison, I understand concerns and discussed them extensivley at AfD and this was the agreed result. As for references, as I have written on the talk page: 1 is a Conde Nast magazine feature with a link to a facsimile. 2 is indeed the editorial blog of The Spectator magazine. 3 is Debretts, a book. 4 is a link to a now updated website (feel free to remove). 5 is an unlinked reference. 6 is a very live link to the London Times. 7,8,9 do not require susbcription to see they are by me, which is all they are there to prove. 10 is again the editorial blog of The Spectator magazine. 11 is a recent article about me in the Daily Telegraph. 12-15 are mere references to my plays and films, but 16-19 are reviews of my work as writer and actor in the British National Press. Please note that I personally flagged Clive Fiske Harrison for COI which led to the AfD of which this was also the agreed outcome. Re: my userpage, I was under the impression that I could write, and remove, what I like as long as it isn't offensive. I apologise if this is not case. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have agreed with Dougweller that the Amazon link in-page was advertising contrary to the intent, if not letter, of wiki-law, and I will not revert ThaddeusB's edit to remove that. Given the nature of my editing - e.g. Bullfighting, Elephant intelligence, Cynthia Moss (which needs more work), Cayetano Rivera Ordonez, Adolfo Suárez Illana - the information on my userpage is important to understanding where my knowledge on topics comes from, which is my work on my book and how I got to where I am. Alexander Fiske-Harrison and Clive Fiske Harrison were finalised on consensus based edits, and the only two additions I have made since, I flagged on the talk pages some time before to allow objections and are both direct quotes about those involved from the two largest circulation, and oldest, broadsheet British national newspapers, with web-linked references appended. So please could all relevant tags be removed. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think you have handled yourself far better than most COI editors do and don't think you have done anything wrong recently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Please see here for a previous COI notice regarding this editor. As to the notability of the articles, this was brought up in previous AfDs and considering the sourcing done on them, it's difficult to say they aren't notable. On the other hand it's a good idea to check on the articles from time to time to be sure that no promotional info has gotten into them considering the author's clear and admitted COI. -- Atama頭 19:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed now perhaps this has been resolved and we can remove the COI tag (which has already been resolved before, as has its AfD proposal) from Clive Fiske Harrison, and the COI tag, which has also been resolved before, and notability tag (established in two AfD's, since when much material and sources have been added) from Alexander Fiske-Harrison.--Fiskeharrison (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ObserverNY vandalizing and puppeting

Several weeks ago, ObserverNY (talk · contribs) was indef blocked for incivility. After several days and some offline emails, she was unblocked. More recently, there's been a conversation on Talk:IB Diploma Programme about a section that mentions several countries. This morning, an anon IP added this vandalism, saying things like "In Afghanistan, IB students are housed in luxury at the newly excavated cave dorms." and "The Desertania universities actively seek to recruit IB students with ambitions of becoming explosive experts and chemical engineers."

Another user noticed that the same anon IP had made a comment several months before and had signed it as ObserverNY. At first Observer commented and said that a "little vandal" had done it, but later admitted that she had forgotten to log in and that her edit was a "silly game" to point out listcruft. I know this is just one incident of vandalism, but it seems that with Observer's history, this shouldn't go unmentioned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been trying for DAYS now to get this group of editors to come to consensus on the format of the University Recognition section at the IBDP. A few days ago, the list of countries took up two full screen's worth of copy. They reduced it to sections labeled Oceania, Asia, Europe and Americas. They conveniently left out Africa and the Mid East, what I perceive to be a deliberate POV ploy on the part of IB supporters. So I added Desertania. As a joke. I forgot to log in and then when I saw my edit came up as an IP I referred to myself as a "little vandal". I should have known better than to try and "shock" this group out of their IB stupor as they immediately resort to running to ANI instead of trying to come to consensus. If you review the talk page, you will see I very politely tried to present my position, in fact, at one point I thought the issue was resolved, but then they chose to go back on a List filling tangent. If you would like to topic ban me from IB, I would consider it good therapy. However, if you look at my interaction with editors at Glenn Beck and Taxpayer March on Washington, you will see that I can get along just fine on controversial issues with editors who are not predisposed to objecting to and reverting every suggestion I make. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

More sock puppetry committed by ObserverNY here-

[127]

"Do not reproduce or redistribute without permission" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A permanent ban from the IB series would be an appropriate punishment for an editor who has shown a long history of incivility, disruptive editing and edit warring. The latest act of vandalism demonstrates an apparent disregard for the seriousness of the editing process, not to mention outright disrespect and insensitivity towards others.

La mome (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY should understand that consensus does exist. The other editors agree the section needs some cleanup and perhaps tweaking, but only ObserverNY wants the section gone. The polite request for consensus includes interactions such as these: , , . Editing in such an environment isn't fun. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not the place for a content dispute. The fact is that Observer knowingly and willingly vandalized the article as an anon IP to prove a point. That is the issue that's up for discussion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban on all IB-related articles. I don't care so much about the inadvertent socking but the talk page discussion and nonsense like this to make fun shows a complete lack of respect for this project. Humor has a limit but that looks WP:POINTy. His edits elsewhere seems somewhat fine, so I'm not sure (even given the long block log), a complete ban is needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, pretending that it is someone else vandalizing is inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

And there was this prior to the vandalism. Seriously, how much more do we have to take? This is ridiculous. Please permanently ban/block ObserverNY from the IB series so we can get on with editing without being verbally abused and subjected to vulgar, offensive language.Thank you,La mome (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ricky knows all about that, LaMome. That's old news. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Support topic ban or indef block Having been told by ObserveryNY previously that she will not change her behavior regardless of other editor's feedback, I see no reason to expect good behavior from her if she is let off again. I have become thoroughly disgusted with ObserverNY and I would not wish to condemn any of the editors here to having to work with her again. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block

I've indefinitely blocked him again. At a minimum, I think he should be topic banned from IB-related articles if someone thinks he deserves a third chance. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been gone for a little while but I do have to say that the the double standard on here is so egregious that, as someone else said, I find it "disgusting". Other established editors even admin routinely call me abusive names and go out of their way to flamboyantly use such terms, and for my several years here have never had anything done to them. Let's just be clear that this is a sort ideological "good 'ole boys club" when it comes to enforcing many of these rules, especially in terms of offensive or abusive language. JohnHistory (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Do you really think vandalizing with an IP addressing, and then celebrating it on a talk page is conduct that we should be allowing? I don't know, I think this was pretty clear to him that he himself isn't on the popular side. If you want me to treat you like him, I can do that as well. Your commentary at User talk:ObserverNY last time wasn't helpful at all. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly believe indef block is the way to go. ObserverNY demonstrated total disrespect to other contributors and I think topic-ban won't do much here. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The IB article problems certainly stand out, but the last time he was indef blocked and returned, he was here less than two days before he was blocked again for edit warring on a different article. I don't think he understands how to take WIkipedia seriously in general. Dayewalker (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he understands WP:BATTLE completely. See how his talk page turned out the last time he was blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, ObserverNY does not have the self-control to stay away from IB-related topics or talk pages. S/he has also demonstrated the same inappropriate behavior with other editors on topics having nothing to do with IB. I agree with the indefinite block.La mome (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Sock puppetry is a strong message that a user has no intention of following our policies. I certainly won't be unblocking this user. Chillum 17:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't you have an undisclosed sockpuppet yourself Chillum?[128] --Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Chillum using it to vandalize, as ObserverNY did? And I agree, good block, coming back from an indef block to immediately cause trouble is just asking for another block. -- Atama頭 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mathemagician57721 has returned using more IP socks.

This time, using 70.141.193.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same IP range, geolocation, and articles as the other Mathemagician57721 socks. —Farix (t | c) 01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And now just violated 3RRs on Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu using a different IP, 75.28.54.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). —Farix (t | c) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm from Springfield, MO and I edited Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu (without even making the edit that Mathemagician57721 was blocked for repeatedly making!), therefore I'm a sockpuppet of Mathemagician57721? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a case of WP:DUCK, same IP range, same geolocation, same editing pattern, same set of article. Expecally after you started editing Pokémon: The Electric Tale of Pikachu soon after the semi-protection expired do to previous vandalism from the same IP range. —Farix (t | c) 01:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make the same edit that Mathemagician57721 made to the article, despite the fact that I clearly would have if I were a sockpuppet. --75.28.54.214 (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You are engaged in the same disruptive behavior that Mathemagician57721 and his socks have been on the same set of articles using the same set if IP addresses originating from the same ISP and from the same location. There are far far too many similarities. —Farix (t | c) 02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week as an obvious sock of User:Mathemagician57721. MuZemike 04:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is back with another named sock, User:CombinationPermutation. Also doing a new SPI to get all these and the others catalogged and properly tagged. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski Article Inappropriate Desires

My mistake to start my editing career on Wiki at Polanski, (there is probably a little ditty you could make with that), and I have learned that I really don't enjoy this sort of writing. So, thanks! (Checking off Wiki Editor from bucket list.) That said, I am not going to get into a Talk editing war, but I think that this sort of thing belongs in a chat room and not on a talk page:

::I would just like to say, up front, that I think Roman Polanski deserves to die in jail, preferably beaten up by the guys that usually deal with child rapists. That is my opinion, however, and while it definitely colours my views of wikipedia policy, it does not overshadow them.

The OJ Simpson murder case has its own page, the Michael Jackson 1993 and later allegations both have pages, and now the 2009 arrest has its own page. Why doesn't the 1977 arrest and conviction have its own page? Does it? did I miss it? I think that a summary of the events belongs here, and much like OJ's bio first sentence containing convicted felon, I think that convicted child molester should appear in the first SENTENCE (Does his fame and talent make him less a child molester than john wayne gacy's art and social work make him a serial killer, which is certainly also a biased term).

However, if we just summarize these events, not giving undue weight to them anymore than apologizing or excusing them, then perhaps we could all move on to edit warring over the resulting page, 1977 Roman Polanski rape case or some such. WookMuff (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the experience to know how this is handled. Thank you to all the Admins who have put in time on the article.Oberonfitch (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The material on this topic is only going to expand. "Recentism" will inevitably lead to substantial coverage of it, perhaps out of proportion. I agree with the view that the 1977 arrest and 2009 re-arrest should be covered in a separate article, where the weight issues won't be a concern. An appropriately long summary should be kept in this article.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• That said, this is a discussion for Talk:Roman Polanski, not this page.   Will Beback  talk  02:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Roman Polanski. Uncle G (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• We should proceed as with Barack Obama and other pages similarly contentious: inappropriate sections, such as sections attempting to push a point of view that is not supported by reliable sources and violate BLP, should be summarily removed or collapsed (using {{hat}}). Editors should be advised, warned and blocked if necessary. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#99.144.255.247. Cenarium (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism: User:North Shoreman & User:Philip Baird Shearer v. User:Ludvikus

Resolved

Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. --PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Good morning from Manhattan.

1. I'm in a Content dispute with the above two (2) editors.
2. Both - to the best of my recollection - were heavy contributors to historical revisionism and/or to historical revisionism (disambiguation) related articles.
3. A {{stub}} called "Revisionist historians (American)" was being developed jointly by myself and User:North Shoreman.
4. Suddenly User:Philip Baird Shearer appeared and Restricted me from editing an unspecified set of nine (9) articles related to the above topic.
5. User:Philip Baird Shearer maintains that I violated the "POV Forking" policy of Wikipedia.
6. I did no such thing. However, I see now how User:Philip Baird Shearer came to the conclusion that I did.
7. I understand very well a most important policy of Wikipedia - to edit by consensus.
8. I also fully understand the anti-point-of-view-forcking policy.
9. I certainly will look to be much more cautious in the future so that my creation of {{stubs}} cannot possibly be misconstrued as "Forking" instances.
10. I sincerely apologize to these two editors for any distress I have caused them. That was never my intent.
11. However, in my opinion, Wikipedia reputation requires that the nine (9) articles related to historical revisionism be substantially improved to conform to WP:Original research and WP:Neologism policies.
12. There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.
13. Since I understand all these things now very well, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to Restrict me from articles where, in fact, I may attain a consensus favoring my views.
14. At the moment, I understand that regarding Content, I have no Consensus it's one (me) against two (the two above named editors).
15. Therefore, I ask that nine ((9) Restrictions are lifted as totally un-necessary.

• PS: The DAB page now appears to have been deleted. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for attending to this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough, just over a week ago (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Ludvikus September 2009 I asked for a review of a decision I had made. Not one of the people who took part in that conversation agreed with your position that I had acted unreasonably. I strongly suggest that you drop this ANI request. -- PBS (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus was unblocked on Sept 21 with request stating "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...." Well, this is already, I believe, the third ANI thread in two weeks. Looie496 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I do not think that "Confrontation" = number of ANI threads. I'm not "Confronting" any editor in this regard. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question? WP "ANI" is a wonderful place to resolve disputes. This is NOT a confrontation. Asking Help at ANY is a "Confrontation"? If it is, I'll drop it immediately, and apologize. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, PBS. I'm not saying that you "acted unreasonably." Quite the contrary. I understand now fully why you believed I had created a "POV Fork." I know now that I must be extremely careful not to do that because "historical revisionism" is controversial. I'm am not at all "Confronting" you. Or judging your conduct. I'm only saying that the Restrictions you are holding against me are 100% un-necessary. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I certainly did not deliberately create a Fork. But I can see now how you would think that I have. So I sincerely apologize to you for all the distress I must cause you.
• I think we do have a Content disagreement. But I don't think that should cause any problems - because I understand now how to be extremely careful with "historical revisionism" related articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Again, PBS, I really understand now how badly my editing involving these articles must look to you. But I promise you that I will go very slowly. Check to make sure nothing in this area looks like a POV Fork. I also fully understand the need for Consensus. So there's no need to Restrict me from these nine (9) articles. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• There was very little activity in this area. And I though I was just WP:Bold. But now I know that I need to slow down - to give other editors, like yourself, a chance to respond. After all, one might be away from one's PC for a couple of days - and then be shocked at what happened to an article. I fully understand that now. I think I went to fast. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PBS This is all about me - that I know how to be an excellent editor in this area. I'm not Confronting you. I'm only asking you to give me a chance to prove myself to you. Please do that for me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Look. I'm really an excellent Content editor (my "stub" blossom into "flowers": [[129]] [130] --Ludvikus (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep restrictions until May 2010. WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. I know - I was on the receiving end of one on 1-3 October. During the process, I found myself being accused of racism. The person who made the accusation afterwards realised that he was mistaken and apologised.

When people who have been repeatedly banned are allowed back to Wikipedia, it seems sensible to have them under probation. If the ban was for two years, then that probationary period should be a lot longer than 2 weeks.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. But Toddy1, you and I resolved our difference just today: [131]. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • And we've worked so well together (100%) in the last two days on world domination, Talk:World domination, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, & [132]. So our record shows that I'm an excellent editor by you, in spite of your vote against me. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not on "probation," User:Toddy1. I'm only Restricted from Nine (9) articles. The community recognizes me as an excellent Content editor. I avoid the two (2) articles which caused me WP problems in the past: "Philosophy" and "On the Jewish Question." It's the last which resulted in my Ban. But I'm a far better editor now in understanding Wiki rules. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The purpose of the Restrictions is to avoid "disruption." It's not to "punish" an editor. And since I understand that I should be extremely careful with historical revisionism related articles - because they are controversial, there's no need to Restrict me from them. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You apparently do not understand that I have not made ANY criticisms of the above two named editors. I'm only naming them because it is with them that I have a Content disagreement. You also do not understand, apparently, that it is I who am being subjected to an evaluation, not the two people above. I'm not saying a single critical word about them as Wikipedians in relation to their performance by WP rules. Having a Content disagreement is 100% OK. One just should not let that degenerate into violating WP rules. So I suggest you reconsider what you say here about me. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<--Where have I written what you created was a POV fork? This seems like the mistake you made in not reading carefully the restrictions that I placed on you and which I had to repeatedly point out to you were not as you had read them.

I said you had created a content fork on a redirect page which the consensus before you were blocked was not not to do so Talk:Historical revisionism/Archive 3#Revisionist historians vs. Historical revisionism. Anyone who reads the reasons for your two year block, in the archives of your talk pages, and the talk archives of the historical revisionism, related articles, and other pages, will see just how disruptive your behaviour was. For example as soon as it was clear that you did not have agreement to create "Revisionist historians", -- the last posting the talk page on that subject (in the section liked above) was at "15:46, 13 May 2008" -- you then posted a "requested move" to move "Historical revisionism" → "Revisionist historians" at "18:03, 13 May 2008" only two hours latter! It was you inability to work constructively with other editors which earned you a two year ban.

You were unblocked at 08:06 on 21 September 2009. Less than a day later you posted a comment to the talk page of "Historical revisionism" at 03:19 22 September, waiting for less than ten minutes for a reply, at 03:27 on 22 September you altered "revisionist historians" from a redirect to a stub.[133]. Despite User:North Shoreman objecting to your edits you pressed on regardless (see Talk:Historical revisionism and history Revisionist historians] which drove a coach and horses through you promise before the unblock that "... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor...."

As a 16 month ban had apparently taught you nothing, I had hoped that 8 months restricting you from an area where you cause so much disruption (for example creating articles like Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) on 11:59, 5 May 2008) will allow you time to develop you collegiate skills, but this ANI makes me wonder if that is possible. --PBS (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

1. PBS. Please be fair to me. This is about the need to Restrict me now. I've edited hundreds of articles at Wikipedia. But I was Banned for Two years because of editing at On the Jewish Question. The Administrator who Banned me gave the Reason as "disruption." That's over. I learned my lesson. There's no point to go over what I did wrong in 2008.
2. A generous editor - not you - but I do not mean to say you're not - lifted my ban before the two years were up.
3. Thereafter, after quite a few edits by me, you Restricted me for a Fork violation. You did not claim that I'm disruptive.
4. The issue now is whether I have learned my lesson. If I have - then there's no need for a Restriction.
5. If we look again - we will find that "POV" is why I'm restricted. If you wish, I'll gather the Diff's for that.
6. But the issue is narrow - what reason is there for Restricting me from the historical revisionism set of 9 articles if I assure that I will do my best not to violate any rules which would give you cause to find fault with me? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS1: Here's the "POV" & "NPOV" reason you had given me for the nine (9) Restrictions regarding historical revisionism: [134],[135]. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS2: There's no need to go into my past. You're complaint involves my alleged WP "fork". What ever different kinds of Forks there are at Wikipedia, I understand the most important thing about them - do not write a SECOND article because you wish to get around the FIRST article which you do not like - and the MAJORITY is against you. And I know that if I do that with historical revisionism I'll be in big trouble with you. So there's no need to Restrict me. Again, I know I must be very, very careful with these pages. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• PS3: I was NOT explicitly Blocked because Historical revisionism. I was Blocked by User:El_C for On the Jewish Question. So I had no reason to be extremely careful regarding historical revisionism. And besides, look at what I did: (1) I abbreviated an expression by substituting "pejorative" and (2) flagged the section with a POV tag. And also made comments on the Talk pages. That's what you cite as my violation. But the point is - I know now that I must be extremely cautious because you could even Block me for a violation. So, again, there no need to Restrict me.

--Ludvikus (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• PS4: The fact is that there were, and still are, only three of us on these pages - and I'm the minority. So there's no consensus in my favor unless just ONE of you TWO agrees with me. I would have to be an idiot not to know that I must this simple fact. And I hope you don't doubt that I'm no idiot. So just give me a chance to be able to work with both of you, with my full understanding of what constitutes a consesus. Hey, if I cannot convince the both of you - you win. That's an easy rule to follow. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- You are still not listening to other editors Toddy1 writes here "... . WP "ANI" is not "a wonderful place to resolve disputes". It is bullying and it is frightening. ", but you carry on as if user:Toddy1 had not made such a comment to your comments, and I think Toddy1 is making a valid point. Have you read anything that I have written, because you write that "There's absolutely no reason to Restrict me from editing these articles. I understand now that controversial articles must be so Flagged and edited with extreme caution.", yet before you were unblocked you said ""... I have learned how to avoid being blocked in the future.(2) I understand now 100% how to avoid it - simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor....", and despite that assurance you ignored User:North Shoreman, so what makes your new assurance worth anything? I do not see from the tone of your postings, that since your unblocking that you have learnt anything. I hope over the next few months that you will. "you can talk the talk, but can you walk the walk?" (Full Metal Jacket). -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, let me repeat what I wrote last week: "Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block." It is a rare leopard that can change its spots. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of warning left on user talk:Ludvikus

I do not think we have any significant previous interaction, I believe I am completely uninvolved here. What I see is that you were blocked for a long time due to your excessively combative style, and you were unblocked following an undertaking not to be combative. You are now giving every impression of hounding those with whom you disagree, and seeking to escalate content disputes where you are clearly in a minority. Your protestations that this is not disruptive are not persuasive to me. I am therefore giving you a final warning: reduce your drama to content ratio, accept consensus even when you disagree with it, or the block will be reinstated.

I think it would help if everybody could do what they can to de-escalate this dispute, but it's clear to me that Ludvikus is the problem and not the others involved, most of whom do not seem to be habitual drama mongers. Folks seem to think that if Ludvikus can stay calm his edits are mainly OK, this I will take on trust, but he does not seem to be able to handle consensus going against him. That's his problem not that of consensus, IMO. Can we call this resolved for now? Guy (Help!) 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you an Administrator, Guy? --Ludvikus (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Your Talk page indicates you came to Wikipedia September 1, 2009. Does that mean you only have one month's experience at Wikipedia? [136] --Ludvikus (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• You have only a Talk page listed - so I cannot tell if you're an Administrator advising me now? [137] --Ludvikus (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is, in fact, an admin. And has been here since 2006. → ROUX ₪ 22:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Therefore I give his position great weight. I will abide by whatever determination is made regarding my request to have my nine (9) Restrictions lifted from the family of articles related to historical revisionism. I just request that I be informed of the determination here made. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you check his contribs, he was already on talk archive 7 in January 2006 (so he's obviously quite a bit older); do a bit of checking before asking a question that sounds so loaded....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Who's "he"? Me? "You talking to me?" Taxi Driver (film) --Ludvikus (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given this post by Ludvikus, this ANI is closed. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States

What is going on in Opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? Just walked in to fix a ref, and saw something fishy with the edits of Ragazz (talk · contribs). Debresser (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a specific reason you've brought this to ANI? I've reviewed the recent edits and I don't see anything unusual of late. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to claim something about the president of the US that is contradictory to itself. Debresser (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A POV-push about Obama. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That could have been clarified. And, as of yet, it should be handled on the appropriate talk pages, from what I can see. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous Bot from an Admin

Resolved

 – Suggest adding {{noindex}} and a short description. –xeno^talk 22:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Would you please be so kind and look into this bot from this admin? His bot erroneously included a BLP article of a nigerian award winning actress into a porn-list-log. As wikipedia is being used nowadays by the media as a source, such an inclusion into a porn-log list not only has the power to potentially damage the reputation of the subject of the BLP, but also violates against existing US and international laws. Lastly, the erroneous bot also included the article in question into other log-lists that have nothing whatsover to do with the subject of the BLP. Anybody, admin or no admin, who is unable to properly use a bot, should not play around with bots. Your admin assistance is needed here please. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that you strike what could be constituted as a legal threat in your remarks. You've notified Alex, but I'm not exactly sure what User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedNameLog does. A number of articles on list are clearly not related to pornography and from what I can tell, the feed is just something someone else came up with as a series of rules per these instructions. It may just be a very over-inclusive list so that the Wikiproject members can find articles to tag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

no legal threat intented. Amsaim (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that seems like exactly what it does. Following these general rules it just lists everything it finds so that people at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pornography#New_articles can see it. Now, you may consider asking Alex to add a small description at the top of each of his feeds so that people aren't confused. Otherwise, I don't really see any issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Amsaim, Do you have a Conflict of interest here? While it was very good that you reported the incident to the user, a ANI report was unnecessary, as was calling the bot's edits as "insultive" a bot cannot insult someone unless it is programmed to do so. Media companies will (should) research any information they find in a article, and I can assure you that they don't look at a category list or a log. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported this incident to ANI on recommendation of another admin found on my talk page. Amsaim (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A point of clarification: you are looking at the log of a run in which the bot rejected including that article in the new articles feed for the porn wikiproject. The log of articles reported as possible matches is here. Her article, when matched against the ruleset, was determined not to meet the criteria. Maralia (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add that, given the article is also at all these log pages, I don't think anyone should be surprised wherever it is found at. My personal favorite is that it make the Chess one for using the word "Queen." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's a reject list, it should be explained at the top and the bot task still needs approved. This task did not start til two years after the bot was created. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Amsaim, it's not a "porn log". It's a log of actions by a 'bot in response to a set of rules. Those rules weren't even written by Alex Bakharev. If you had paid attention to the edit history, you would have seen that the creator and maintainer of User:AlexNewArtBot/PornFeedName is Tabercil.

Rlevse, it's a 'bot that does nothing but parse rulesets and write only into sub-pages of the 'bot's own user space. Such 'bots don't need approval, per the 'bot policy. The 'bot approvals system is not (yet) that ridiculously bureaucratic. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The log file is basically a debugging tool, so that people who are trying to set up rules can see why a given article was or wasn't picked up. The actual output from the bot can be found here -- you can see that the Stephanie Okereke did not get picked up. Even if it had it wouldn't matter -- many rule sets give lots of false positives. By the way the AlexNewArtBot is incredibly useful -- there is no way I could possibly spot all the new neuroscience articles that show up without watching User:AlexNewArtBot/NeuroscienceSearchResult. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgent Page Move Vandalism

Resolved

 – Reverted. Blocked. Time to Ignore. And stop querying the accountless editor who was as on the ball and in fact came here doing the same thing at the same time as the editors with accounts did. Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Either a Bambifan101 or Grawp sock, who knows, but Eeheeheeheeheeheehee (talk · contribs) is moving dozens of articles and Wikipedia pages to vandalistic titles, primarily personal attacks at me. Needs quick blocking and reversion! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(merged in report below --MASEM (t) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Would somebody with appropriate tools undo the page moves by Eeheeheeheeheeheehee (talk · contribs)? Massive page move vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've indef'd the user, will start working on movebacks but help appreciated. --MASEM (t) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • All done, I think. I've move-protected the most visible pages. Isn't there supposed to be an abuse filter that picks up sleepers like this? Black Kite 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks to all of you who had quick reflexes. I was about to come here to report him but it seems like it was not necessary. It's ScienceGolfFanatic, by the way ... a relatively new, but very persistent vandal who seems determined to one day get his name listed alongside those other two. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Is skipping to a final warning appropriate in cases like this? I'm getting flak because I used {{uw-vand4}} instead of allowing him/her time to continue their rampage by going through the entire 1, 2, 3, 4 routine. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • If you see page-move vandalism at all, no matter what they are doing, report them to AIV immediately, no warnings. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Well, it's hard to tell what you were pasting the warning in reply to. If he was already doing the pagemoves by then, I'd say yes, don't worry about it. As J.delanoy says, that kind of vandalism doesnt deserve warnings. As this thread indicates, Collectonian and myself and probably some other people were all coming here to get him blocked as soon as possible. But if you find a lot of people on your talk page telling you that you're being too quick to jump up to high level warnings, it might be good to calm down a little. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • That wasn't the case here. Uncle G (talk) 23:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
              • It's actually been just one editor, apparently based on his misunderstanding of UTM. When he threatened to issue warnings to me because of it, however, I wanted to get feedback from others. Thank you all for your comments. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Turpan/Turfan

Earlier discussion moved from AN
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This user (who also has sysop access) has recently systematically changed Turfan to Turpan in all Wikipedia pages. This kind of systematic change is quite inappropriate. First of all, Turfan is more common in English texts (you can search on Google Books to check it). Secondly, when 2 spellings are common in English texts, a systematic change of one spelling to the other one (without any prior consensus) is quite wrong. Alefbe (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) This is not the appropriate venue for your content dispute. I already left you a message at my talkpage saying where you can look for mediation. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Systematic change of the common spelling of names (in all Wikipedia pages and without any consensus) is not just a content dispute. It's disruption. You have changed "Turfan" to "Turpan" in all Wikipedia pages and you have used scripts for doing that (without any prior discussion). This is not acceptable at all. Alefbe (talk) 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Update: Rjanag has also edit-warred in Turfan over its title. His action (in moving the page from its original title, e.g. "Turfan") wasn't backed by consensus and was contested by me. The policy is clear about this and Rjanag should file a move request, instead of edit warring over the title. He has insisted to move the page twice today, after I contested the move. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia policy. Rjanag's sysop access shouldn't be a blank cheque for ignoring the Wikipedia policies and proper procedures. Alefbe (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Are you reporting me for abusing my administrative tools? (Hint: moving a page doesn't require admin tools.) Are you reporting a concern that affects Wikipedia-wide administrator policy? If not, you need to take this report to another venue. I am more than willing to discuss this with you (I've already left a lengthy response at Talk:Turpan), but this is not the right place. And by the way...if it's so terrible for me to move the page after you contested, then why is it any better for you to do the same thing after I contested? Are your opinions more valuable than mine? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC) The original title of the page is "Turfan" and you have moved the page without getting consensus and now you have realised that your move is contested. The wikipedia policy is clear about this. In this situation, you shouldn't insist on moving the page (away from its original title). Instead, if you want to move it to your preferred title, you should file a move request and obtain consensus. Alefbe (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Great. Are you going to move this to an appropriate venue now? Or do I need to explain to you (for the third time) what this noticeboard is? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Oops, I'm sorry, I see what you're getting at.... you want the last word. Apologies for getting in the way; I'll leave it open for you, and won't post here anymore. I'll even lay out a nice spot for you below. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Instead of using sarcasm, try to follow Wikipedia rules and policies. Alefbe (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A month ago moved the page Turfan to Turpan (the reasons aren't really relevant here, but can be found at Talk:Turpan#Title), and changed the text accordingly in about 80 articles that link there. Alefbe contested this today and, after we each re-moved the page, I have tried to have a discussion with him at the talk page. He has ignored the discussion and ignored my suggestion that he seek outside opinions; then, after walking away from this discussion, he proceeded to go start undoing my spelling changes in all the articles that link to this one. In other words, he wasn't willing to discuss the naming change at the main article, but felt he could go and edit war across 80 other ones if he couldn't win his argument at the main one.

I BOLDly blocked him while he was doing the reverts, to avoid having an 80-article edit war started. I left a message saying I will unblock him immediately, as long as he agrees to participate in the discussion and not edit war across scores of articles. Just thought I'd leave a message here to get some other eyes on this as well (and to undo my block if people think it was inappropriate—like I said above, I know I'm involved but I was being BOLD, and the block is preventative rather than punitive, and is not intended to stay for any longer than 30 minutes...hopefully much shorter than that). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This block and misuse of rollback was totally inappropriate. — RockMFR 22:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you did not "change the text accordingly" a month ago. [138] [139] [140] [141] I think Rjanag is being far too aggressive here. Highly inclined to block him for the duration that Alefbe is blocked. See other discussion here. Gimmetrow 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I changed the text accordingly a couple days ago, after having waited over a month and seeing no objections to the new name (apologies for the poor wording in my earlier statement). I am also discussing this with Alefbe at his talk page.

Again, the only reason I was being "aggressive" was to IAR and prevent a massive revert-war across 80 articles. also, as I explained to Alefbe at his talk page, the reverts he was making across numerous articles were reverts he knew were going to be contentious (and he did them deliberately, knowing that), whereas my edits a couple days ago were ones that no one had objected to. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And as for your link to the AN thread: that's an example of just what I"m talking about, Alefbe's refusal to respond to the discussion I was trying to have. Are you saying it's appropriate for a user like him to say "ok, I'm not willing to have a discussion with you about your change in this article...but I'd like to go revert 80 other articles now even though I have not bothered to respond to your discussion?"

And as for the "aggressiveness" of my block... it's only a 30-minute block. Like I said above, I just wanted to stop him before a massive revert-war happened, and try to get a real discussion to happen. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And (in case there aren't enough ands here), I did report this block here myself, didn't I? It's not like I gave Alefbe no opportunities to be unblocked...I submitted my own block here for review, for the sake of transparency. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've unblocked Alefbe. If one spelling was common in articles, and it redirected, could it have been left alone? WP:NOTBROKEN and all? Gimmetrow 22:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The spelling in the other articles could have been left alone with no serious problems, but again: when I first changed it from Turpan to Turfan, it was not a contentious change because no one was objecting to it. Alefbe, on the other hand, started to make massive reverts to 80 articles when he knew there were objections and when he knew there was a discussion. (I won't go so far as to say there was a discussion "going on", since he was refusing to participating it. But there was a discussion sitting there waiting for him to join in.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This article gets few edits, and only about 100 views per day. Isn't it possible nobody who cared noticed before Alefbe? Gimmetrow 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, why does that matter? Like I said, when I made the change there was no one objecting to it. When Alefbe made it, someone was objecting. When an objection was raised, I participated in discussion and listed numerous reasons for the change (have you bothered to look at Talk:Turpan#Title before judging?), whereas Alefbe's response to objections was to ignore discussion and go look for other pages to edit war on. Is BOLD editing and rational discussion suddenly worse than deliberate edit warring? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The article was stable at one form for years. You changed that with some reason, but it doesn't seem to me a reason that Wiki policy gives preference, such as BLP issues. So you were being bold and Alefbe reverted. Might it have been better leaving those reverts - and the long-term status quo - in place? If Alefbe still refused to discuss, then it would be fairly clear where the faults were. Gimmetrow 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alefbe had ample opportunity to discuss what the article should be, and instead he set about reverting over and over again. Apparently these days you can get a free get-out-of-jail card by recusing yourself from any discussion that you don't like, and edit-warring instead. And is already was "fairly clear where the faults were". Are you suggesting that when an editor refuses to engage in discussion, I should stop editing the article forever in the off-chance that his unspoken arguments might have been really convincing? No—if he has convincing arguments, it's his responsibility to express them, rather than just going to look for another place where he can try to edit war while no one's looking. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I first discussed the issue in talk:Turpan and mentioned that your move wasn't justified (because "Turfan" is the common English spelling of the name). I also told you that after realizing that your move was contested, you should file a move request, rather than insisting in repeating your arguments and dismissing opinion of others. But anyway, the main issue here is that no matter what the title of the page is, you shouldn't use scripts for the systematic change of the common spelling of the name in all Wikipedia pages. Your edits in those 80 pages (without getting any consensus) were quite disruptive and your later rollback of those 17 pages (to insist on your systematic spelling change) was a clear misuse of the rollback tools and blocking me was a clear misuse of your admin tools. Alefbe (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of long term edit warring by Alefbe

This block was on one set of edit warring. This shows long term edit warring by Alefbe that resulted in multiple page protections. This user has edit warred on multiple pages on Iranian topics, refuses to build consensus, and is actively disruptive on hundreds of articles. I recommend a topic ban as the only way to possibly stop these actions. Edit warring is not appropriate in any regard and this user would rather push their own "truth" and edit war than actually discuss matters in a civilized manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to file and RfC against me, go and do it. This is not the right place for continuing your old disputes. Alefbe (talk) 04:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Alefbe is right. This is just another of Ottava's vendettas against people who actually have some clue about Iranian history. Ignore. --Folantin (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans occur all the time against long term edit warriors. Folantin, your comments are only revealing that you have no respect for our policies when you support someone who edit wars merely because they edit war to your preferred version. According to WP:MEAT and WP:3RR, you too could be blocked for his edit warring to your version since you avoid making the 3RR by having him edit for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Drama at Jewish Internet Defense Force

Two anons and a single-purpose account are having something of an edit war at Jewish Internet Defense Force. That article has attracted drama before. (The organization has previously expressed concern with their writeup in Wikipedia not being sufficiently favorable[142].) A day or two of semi-protection might be helpful. --John Nagle (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, John. You may want to request this at WP:RPP. Basket of Puppies 23:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Locked for now. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, that should give that crowd some time to cool off. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of edit history

[143] was modified to remove the IP or name of the editor. Could someone tell me which admin did this and the reason, in the name of tansparency?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That would normally mean the username itself was a personal attack or other gross policy violation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to ascertain the justification? I am not asking for the name, but do admins not list their reasons for doing this so that there be no question?--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reasons are listed, but they're privileged; other editors with appropriate rights can and do monitor the logs to make sure things are above-board. I looked at the log for this one, for example, and it seemed a reasonable and appropriate use of the tool. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain, JP.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:S-J-S-F-M-W

Resolved

 – blocked indefinitely; some cleanup may still be needed --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This account is being disruptive and I think should be blocked. First of all, another user came to my talkpage (see User talk:Rjanag#Re: possible block) requesting that S-J-S-F-M-W be blocked for repeatedly re-creating a copyvio article. Secondly, he has edited with unapproved bots several times today; I gave him a "final warning" and he hasn't used an unapproved bot since, though, so this alone isn't a blockable offense yet. Finally, he seems to be engaging in horseplay in several places; at his BRFA, after I requested details on his bot's functions, he left this response; and at an MfD of one of his userpages, he left Hello!.

If you guys don't feel he needs to be blocked yet (which I could also understand; he's being a pain, but not destroying the wiki yet), I think his BRFA at least can be speedily closed as he obviously doesn't take it seriously. Although for that maybe I should contact a BAG directly (or is there a BRFA-related noticeboard somewhere?) (never mind, a BAG already beat me to this.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, and this is pretty funny too. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Am I late? wat 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd think blocking would be a good idea... User isn't helpful or contributing. Netalarmtalk 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, block is needed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Also shows evidence of being an experienced editor, leading to questions about sockpuppetry and/or serial account user gaming the system. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, probably going to need a checkuser as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He already had an SPI a few days ago and they didn't find anything interesting. But anyway, what's the point of an SPI unless you have some other account to compare him to? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 Concur with block; the oddness surrounding the BRFA they were involved in is scary. I have a feeling they do not want to contribute constructively. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• User is a likely sock of User:AndyCrogonka. On his user talk page, he mentions "helping" Andy on another wiki, and the MO is similar. Compare Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SJSF-2-Bot with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AndyBot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AndyzBot. In both cases, the operator seems to know little about running bots, and the "bot" makes edits that are clearly manual - [144] vs. [145]. Mr.Z-man 02:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Given all this evidence (esp. teh last part), I have indefinitely blocked him.--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock of User:Ionas68224

User:216.241.55.204 has been attempting to stir up trouble regarding an alternate account or other alleged conflict of interest by User:David Shankbone. As it turns out, User:216.241.55.204 (as well as User:Nevadawp2) have acknowledged actually being socks of User:Ionas68224, an editor indefinitely banned for personal attacks and harassment. He has been advised on how to proceed should he wish to request an unblock, and it doesn't appear as though he has done so. Further, he appears to be engaging in disruptive behaviour and harassment all over again... user:J aka justen (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, folks...(Diff linked oversighted -v^_^v) user:J aka justen (talk) 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked IP for 1w, Nevadawp2 indef, and Oversight contacted. Will look over Nevadawp. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 03:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlogged

If an admin or two could take a look at WP:AIV and clear the backlog, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

On it -- Samir 03:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

23prootie/122.53.101.148

Check these edits to T:TDYK, where the IP 122.53.101.148 posts as user 23prootie (talk · contribs) who is currently blocked for 3 months.

• signs as 23prootie
• adds 23prootie for DYK credits, with the edit summary "block evasion?"
• and again, with edit summary "probably evading a block (WP:IAR)"

There are some similar edits in his contributions. Further, this IP has started editing on 3 October, the same day 23prootie was blocked. This IP is obviously being used by 23prootie to evade the block, or someone else is trying to get him in trouble for it (see the two weird edit summaries above). I just can't figure out which one it is. Any help? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 04:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blatant block evasion, I've blocked the IP for the remaining duration of prootie's block, but I am not opposed to an extension to 23prootie's original block. An extension to indefinite does seem appropriate since this user apparently has no desire to abide by our policies. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

For ease of investigation: 23prootie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 122.53.101.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -MBK₀₀₄ 04:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended block. Enigma^msg 05:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I also blocked 194.213.52.82 for the same reason; same place, same edits. 194.213.52.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock User:216.241.55.204 used for block evasion by User:Ionas68224

The IP above admitted on his talk page that he is a sock used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as simple:User:Jonas D. Rand. The IP was warned yesterday both at COIN and on his talk page by User:SlimVirgin that he should not be editing. IP returned today to edit war with User:J over harassing statements after a resolved issue. Also editing sensitive articles and starting talk page threads. -->David Shankbone 04:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm frankly surprised he still feels he's wanted on any Wikimedia project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I just gacked the bakebrain (see related thread above #Sock of User:Ionas68224). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 04:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy. @Ryulong - little 's' in 'Simple', thank you for fixing the error. -->David Shankbone 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Best to keep the reaction prompt and bland; less likelihood of his sort reacting emotionally (i.e. continuing to sock). Durova³²¹ 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I amended the wording to be more clear about the reference. -->David Shankbone 11:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible socks

Would somebody with Checkuser run Ericf9 (talk · contribs), Bigbusinessonly (talk · contribs) and Thisisamericamyfriends (talk · contribs)? They've all confined their edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bee Money and two of them have similar sig styles. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tagged them all with SPA tags, placed {{notavote}} on the AfD. No real point in blocking them unless they're actively disruptive, the closing admin will take this into account, and you never know, the person/people behind them might start reading the policies quoted and become a good contributor. I've seen it before. Black Kite 08:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Lapsed Pacifist

Is this eit covered under his topic ban: [146]. I can´t sort it out.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist is topic banned from articles related to Corrib gas project (broadly defined). Is Eoghan Harris connected with Corrib Gas, apart from the fact that they are both Ireland related subjects (too broadly defined IMO). Mjroots (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

LP is currently only under an injunction on Corrib gas articles. LP however IS topic banned from topics related to the conflict in Northern Ireland from a previous RfAR. D4D is asking if they are in violation of this remedy. I have brought up some diffs relating to this at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Lapsed_Pacifist. I added the same diff after the 2 admins discussed 2 initial diffs that I had concerns with. GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a valid question, but please keep discussion of the scope of ArbCom injunctions at arbitration enforcement.  Skomorokh, barbarian  08:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chagai

This user has been making uncivilized and false comments in edit summeries of the article Bareket observatory, after I have nominated it to SD because in my opinion it was blatant advertisment. It must be noted that he was banned from the Hebrew Wikipedia for very similar reasons. I wood like that the admins here will assist me against such defamation. Broccoli (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Condensed argument

I see two edits that you may be referring to: this one with the edit summary "reverse edit without knowledge wgatsoever [sic]", and this one with the summary "Never wrote an astronomy article in his life". There are no specific hints that these are defamation or even directed at anyone in specific. What I am seeing is an edit war, and some potential 3RR issues. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC) As I stopped editting this article there is no edit war. What I'm complaining about is defamation (I do have proven knowledge in Astronomy) and un-civilized edit summeries. And now this. Is this sort of behavior permitted here? I can't believe it is. Broccoli (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC) BTW, you misunderstood me (and that's my fault) because I mentioned that he knows perfectly well that he is wrong. This sort if behavior from Chagai (חגי אדלר in Hebrew Wikipedia) was part of the reasons ha was banned. I think that I should have some credit in writing articles (I have 11 FA articles in hebrew, and over 625 total) without having to suffer such insulting comments. Broccoli (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC) This article is there for a long time, and user Broccoli, which is running after me since day one in Hebrew Wikipedia took a personal assualt against it. Let me repeat, he never wrote an astronomy article in his life, as far as I know, while I am running the Astronomy project in Hebrew Wikipedia with hunderds and thousands of edits and new articles. I can give you reference if you want. My knowledge is way much more, and my edits are according to wiki rules. I am not going and ask for speedy deletion like Broccoli did here, just for personal reasons. The article in Hebrew Wikipedia is in a comeback process, as it was deleted without real reasons. Chagai (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC) I'm going to be impolite for a moment: so fecking what??. Everyone is just as qualified to edit Wikipedia as everyone else - merely dismissing someone's input/edits because they have "never written an astronomy article" is bollocks. Your job is to help integrate those edits, not dismiss. Your statement is a complete dismissal of an editor. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC) The fact is that almost everything Chagai have said is not true, and he knows it very well. The article was deleted after there was no prove to its notability. And even if I'm wrong, it does not justify the insults you have said to me, nor does it justify that you reverted my comment in your talk page. It also does not justify restoring of advertising content and removing templates without dealing the problems. I noticed the article here only after the one in He.Wiki was deleted. I have much better things to do than running after you. Broccoli (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) He does not know the subject. I checked his edits, which ended up in a speedy deletion request, and concluded they need to be reversed. Simple as that. That is an edit too, right? Chagai (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Broccoli, read again your initial message in my talk page. Like I am a new comer in first grade, that you put in the corner. Like you don't know me for 3 years. For such comments, I do not want you in my talk page. If you looking for insult - this is it. To write this to someone with 90,000 edits. Chagai (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And here again you refuse to apologize for your insults and explain with reason and rational your edits. And this you say to user with almost 80,000 edits (not that this numbers matters to me, but since you asked) and over times articles more that you wrote (again, since you hinted this). Broccoli (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Have a look at this. Broccoli, you really did little to attempt to actually discuss the issues, you simply used a template (and I have no issues at all with templating the regulars). However, the response from Chagai was very dismissive, and uncivil. Indeed, it looks like you two have a history from elsewhere, and as we say in Canada "come on over, but leave your damned wars behind". The use of a template is not discussion - and dismissiveness is neither colloboration nor consensus-building. You both f'd up. A WP:TROUT to both of you. Now go back to editing collaboratively (50 points if Chagai is able to implement some of Broccoli's changes). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC) As I said, I have more urgent things to do. Chagay wasn't active here in the last weeks before this thing started, and I was astonished to get this treatment from him, even after what happened in He.Wiki. I do apologize for my few moments of bad judgement in this incident. I also see that he would not sincerely apologize for his behavior, and I know when to step back and return to the article namespace like a great user always recommends. Happy חג סוכות. Broccoli (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You both need to go off and read WP:CIVIL a few times. Neither of you has behaved well here. Neither of your behaviours is likely to encourage other editors to assume good faith for either of you (as other editors are all paragons of impartiality, then this won't influence their opinions one jot, but it makes it harder work and less pleasant to have to work on an article under those conditions). An edit war will get neither of you anywhere, nor will anything that looks like POV pushing, advertorials or especially the vast cloud of WP:COI that hangs over this. Please behave yourselves, so that other editors can focus on the issues, not the politics. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take everything Andy has said to heart. You're both human and you're both civilized; you won't help either of your respective cases by arguing with each other. I'll leave Chagai a warning for personal attacks; Broccoli, I'm hoping that you hit the wrong key when you called Chagai "Chagay".

Either way, it would be best if you both stayed away from editing that article for a while. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A terrible mistake and typo which I of course apologize for. Broccoli (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for undeletion of user page for evidentiary purposes

I believe that User:SSS108, who was banned by Arbcom from Sathya Sai Baba and indefinitely blocked by administrators, is the same person as User:Sbs108, a single-purpose account now focusing on the Sai Baba article. Both accounts share the same interests, same POV, and have account names that differ by only one letter. They both also exhibit occasional broken grammar and capitalization errors. Despite passing the duck test, Sbs108 denies being SSS108. I would like to examine SSS108's user page to see if there are any similarities that might further confirm my suspicions in this case. Could someone please undelete this page? Thanks. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Y Done.  Sandstein  18:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin removing talk comments

This, IMHO, is not an acceptable removal of user comments by an admin; he shouldn't have removed the user comments, and he shouldn't be biting a newbie with the soap comment. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bite? The user has edited since 2007 with almost 100 edits – albeit all of them squarely fixated on Olivenza. MuZemike 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Acted like a new account. I am just not sure why what he had to say was so inappropriately removed, as it clearly isnt a soap piece. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 16:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Reads pretty soapy to me. Reminds me of old German maps showing Poland as "German territory, currently being lived in by someone else." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it could go either way. It reads like an opinion piece but does mention a source and contain a clear request regarding article content. I think it would be best to err on the side of non-biting. Equazcion (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please inform Husond that he is being discussed here, SqueakBox. Thanks in advance. Nick (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue should have been taken up directly with the admin on their talkpage before it even arrived here ... I see no attempts to do so, or maybe I am just missing something ... (it is Monday after all) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this should have been discussed with the administrator, I strongly stand behind Husond on removing said content. The content could be used as an example of what soapboxing is. The user has a clear COI; he says that "We hope that the Wykipedia (sp) will cooperate", not to mention that the site he keeps linking to is referred to in a form in his username.

I suppose that one could argue that the edit summary is unnecessary, but that's a matter of personal opinion. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Page

Can one of you unprotect Westbang? I want to create an article on an iPhone application that I found enough reliable sources for so that it can pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not create it in a personal sandbox? Work on it there, if it can be shown to pass WP:N and other policies the title can then be unprotected. Mjroots (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please use WP:RFUP for such requests.  Sandstein  20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user objecting to a PROD

Resolved

 – Transclusion is now allowing User:Jemesouviens32 to participate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eskimo Buddhism. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where else to bring this up, so I'm posting it here (feel free to send me off to the correct board if there is a better forum). Here is the chronology of events:

• On October 4th, Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs) created Eskimo Buddhism.
• I later added a prod tag to the article.
• Gensbon (talk · contribs) removed the tag.
• Checkuser confirms Gensbon is a sockpuppet of Jemesouviens32.
• Since the prod was removed by a confirmed sock, I restored the original prod tag.
• At the same time Jemesouviens32 was blocked for one week due to the sockpuppet issue. (He is currently trying to get the block reviewed...)
• On his user page, J32 has objected to the prod, but obviously is not in a position to remove the tag due to his block.

IMO, I think I need to remove my PROD tag and nominate the article for AfD instead... But how is that going to work, exactly? It seems J32 has the most interest in the article, and is probably going to be the only editor arguing for a keep. Should I remove the prod tag and hold off an AfD nomination until J32's block expires? Or is there a better solution? Singularity42 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Leave the PROD tag on it. As the article stands, it appears to be a non-notable neologism sourced only to blogs. If the PROD is removed by an editor in good standing, take it to AfD, where (unless other sourcing appears) it will be deleted. Black Kite 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that a prod is a prod, no matter who removed it. It's probably better taken to AFD. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) What you propose is a very considerate way to handle it, and probably is fine as there is no deadline. That being said, I did a cursory search and could not find a single reliable source on the topic, so it seems likely that a deletion discussion would wind up in a delete, likely quickly. It might be best to just go ahead and nominate it for deletion, and maybe it would not be absolutely ridiculous to transclude a keep statement from User:Jemesouviens32, in good faith. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem with that, go for it. Black Kite 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

Superbub (talk · contribs) hasn't edited in almost two years, only to show up today to begin vandalizing. Possible compromised account? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Log In Trouble

Hello, I'm User Halls452. I'm having trouble logging in as I have forgotten my password to my account, and press "send a new password" only to find that my e-mail account (that I've twitched to four months back) had stop allowing e-mails notices from Wikipedia. I've put in my e-mail account change months back and do not understand why it won't recognize it. Please help! (I might need the e-mail address to let them know -again- to allow e-mail from this address. I also may need to know if it got resent to my old e-mail address.) Thank You--24.209.230.174 (talk) 22:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Does your email account automatically delete spam? If so, and you can disable that option, do so - I know my email addy sometimes kicks back Wikipedia emails as spam. After you've done that, try resending again and, when you receive it, whitelist the address. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 22:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a few hours if it works.--24.209.230.174 (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like your account has email disabled. Unfortunately you probably won't be able to retrieve your password. I'd just create a new account and redirect the old account's userpage and talk page to the new one. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 23:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Until It Sleeps is doing a mass revert

I can confirm that I am User:67.180.161.183, only I can't until I get back there. I travel alot... Unfortunately, Until It Sleeps is reverting every edit I make, so editing is tough. Can somebody stop this? --67.180.161.183(talk)WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)} this is actually 99.20.133.159 Wknight94 ^talk 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This is apparently carryover from User talk:Baseball Bugs, etc. 67.180.161.183 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is trying as hard as s/he can to stay an IP, even from other locations. So now his/her other IP, 99.20.133.159, is signing as 67.180.161.183. Both IPs were pestering Baseball Bugs to create a sort of user page for the IP combination, with several other IPs commenting at User talk:67.180.161.183. The whole thing smells like a massive trolling campaign and I recommend putting an end to it sooner than later. Wknight94 ^talk 13:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a he. And I use two IPs, and the other IPs are a bit confusing for me. I too noticed how many IPs tried to defend me, and I assure you, at least my part was not part of a massive trolling campaign. 99.20.133.159 (talk) or as I like to say it, --67.180.161.183(talk)WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

Wait- pestering? --67.180.161.183(talk)WHY SO SΣRIOUS?_{13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)}

I don't understand why you don't make a user account. It's a nightmare to keep confirming that you're the same person as another (which we haven't even done). I'm also curious as to where all those other IPs came from. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the user may already have an account that is blocked: 99.20.133.159 removed a message from a blocked user's talk page, some of the edits by 67.180.161.183 are similar to the blocked user[147], and 67.180.161.183 made an edit to User:Shii/Hoaxes adding a hoax created by a sockpuppet of the blocked user, and claiming that it had been there longer than it was. snigbrook (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• user 67.180.161.183, could you please stop using multiple IP address as your main user names? you risk been blocked.... Ecoman24 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you want me to do? hack the system? 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused. What's going on? The title doesn't seem to relate to the thread. And I can't find any edits by aither IP on User talk:Baseball Bugs. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 14:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It refers to this probably: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:67.180.161.183&action=history

I see. Well, 67.180.161.183/99.20.133.159's edits seem justified. The problem seems to be they can't prove who they are until they get back to the old location. This method of editing as an IP from multiple locations does seem problematic, though- you risk impersonation by other IP addresses that can claim they're you. The only solutions I can come up with are 1. Resolve to edit using only one IP address or 2. create an account to use. You've already expressed you don't want to create an account, though, so I'm sorry if this isn't helpful. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 14:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I may suggest, IP editor; when you get home, email one of us to confirm your identity (on Wikipedia), then make a confirming edit from your address. That way we know who to talk to when someone says they're you. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• why can't he just create an account? Ecoman24 (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Various IP editors have responded to this in different ways. I think 98.248.33.198's answer sheds some light: "If I did that (created an account) then those editors with tools and an anti-IP bias would be much more difficult to spot." A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 15:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're no longer seeing it on my talk page because I archived it. The IP kept trying to delete the Sinebot entry that indicated the actual IP that made the posting. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was I never notified of this thread? Until It Sleeps ^alternate 16:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one didn't bother because it's pointless. But the initiator - I guess we'll have to call him Mr. X - may have a better answer. Wknight94 ^talk 16:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A look at their various comments to various editors, as well as the pointy comment a few lines above, indicates that this IP family is here primarily to cause disruption. So far, it seems to be working. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you have the impression that I'm trying to troll? I am not in any way affiliated with any of the other IPs, and plus, I have no idea of how to plan something so elaborate :P 99.20.133.159 (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't know where to reply- it's a bit messy. But, I'll tell you this- to ease things up, I will not make any edits claiming I am 67.180.161.183 (which I am, trust me) until I get a chance to edit from that IP. It should not be long. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and with an admission that I used to be vandal, I added the hoax entry just because I wanted to add it. It was a hoax in itself, so maybe that should go in the article- Oh, that hoax greed is back... :) But a hoax about a hoax- that's not the point... 99.20.133.159 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I barely know what's going on here, but I was mildly amused by this and thought I'd chime in. Even though everyone is entitled to edit from an IP, this user shows at least a lack of consideration for the havoc he's causing and the people who are tasked with dealing with him. If he were an upstanding individual I think he would feel bad and do everyone the favor of forgoing his IP experiment. At most this does seem to be causing an unnecessary disruption. We (you all) shouldn't have to waste time on such things, and at this point, forcing him to create an account or discontinue editing wouldn't be entirely inappropriate, in my mind. Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If trolling is not trolling if it's unintentional, then it is not trolling. All I wanted to do was clear up that I am the same person. I did not imagine this thread getting so large. The Seven Hills, Nevada thing was the same. There is much more controversy than should be happening, and I have to say that it's not my fault. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how owning up to being various traceable IP's serves your best interests. Not only do we know where you are, we know where you go. Someone less scrupulous than we are might decide to go looking for you. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I use two IPs, so letting people know what those are will be much easier. All of my (two) IP addresses are in Santa Cruz, in the same district mind you, so it really is not big deal. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why did you try to revert Sinebot's posting on my talk page? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was pointless, as I clearly posted the fact that I was not the IP in a language the bots could not understand- English. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It was not pointless, nor was it your place to remove it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am starting another paragraph- to point out that I am not related in any way to the other IPs. There is no "IP experiment" going on. I only have two IP addresses. I do have a feeling that other IPs may be under the purpose of causing disruption, but I am not here to do so. 99.20.133.159 (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other IP's made snide comments about me on your page, and you chuckled with them even as I was trying to show good faith in responding to your question about a user page. Your credibility at this point is questionable. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) By forgoing your IP experiment, I meant bite the bullet and create an account. I sympathize with your multiple IP situation and your idealistic want to weed out the IP-ist admins, but maybe it's time to make everyone else's lives easier. I didn't suggest you were intentionally trolling (though I'm not saying you're not doing that either). The right to edit without signing in to an account shouldn't necessarily extend to situations where it causes problems. Equazcion (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's not required to create an account, but what he should do is do something more constructive than trying to prove that IP addresses are discriminated against. It's his off-kilter behavior that's garnering negativity, not the fact that he's a pair of IP addresses. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Not required per se. But it would sure be nice of him. And if it comes to it, an IP causing problems can be blocked. After that, since having an account would assumedly eliminate the blockable issue, he could be allowed to create one. Equazcion (talk) 05:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• any objections to closing this silliness? → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • you're saying you don't enjoy the silliness? but yeah go ahead. Equazcion (talk) 05:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The IP twins haven't gone far enough to get blocked, although they might achieve that if this discussion continues. So maybe it would be best to close this and keep them out of trouble for now. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Metrodome problem

Need a little help from an admin. Some overzealous editor has renamed the article. However, the stadium itself has not been renamed, but only the football field. It's some kind of deal the Vikings arranged with the Mall of America, probably figuring there would be no baseball after October 4th. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem implied that it is just the field that has the sponsorship, rather than the building itself. I've moved the article back for now, in anticipation of a discussion/better sources for the name of the building itself. Resolute 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing. The Vikings article citation, which I posted on the Dome's talk page, indicates it's only the gridiron. Vaguely like Zuppke Field at Memorial Stadium, at the University of Illinois. I think this kind of marketing thing has been done elsewhere also. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be what it is, although the articles are confusing. Of course, there is Invesco Field at Mile High, which is another kettle of fish ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is confusion, as other news articles (including a column by Sid Hartman) indicate it's the stadium. Yet Sid also refers to it in the same column as simply "The Metrodome". So some clarification is needed before we go renaming the wikipedia article. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are troubles working it out on article talk page, bring it back.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a minor edit war starting to brew. It might be a good idea to protect it for 1 day, until we have an answer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• What need is there for an admin notice regarding a content dispute? 140.247.23.208 (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You need an admin to move an article over another which has had content. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, that was the reason I brought it here. It is still unclear whether the stadium itself has been renamed or not. Once that is clarified (properly cited), the article can be renamed, if necessary. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Druid.raul

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by Blueboy96. Mjroots (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Druid.raul (talk · contribs)

I'm bringing this here because I feel that I may be too "involved" to act myself, having had previous interaction with this editor. I'm looking for an admin who does not edit in the field of aviation to look over this user's contributions. There are copyvio issues and also civility (bordering on attack) issues too. Any non-involved admin willing to take a look? Mjroots (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a look-over. Any specific edits you're concerned about? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His recent edits don't appear to be anything unusual. Perhaps some diffs of the behavior to which you refer? --Smashville^talk 19:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at User talk:Druid.raul#Gross incivility for a start. Also, see this diff with particular attention to the edit summary. Further correspondence at user talk:LeadSongDog where I asked advice on how to approach this one. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That attack is unacceptable. I'll be talking to the user. Any diffs of copyvios? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 19:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked LeadSongDog to provide evidence of other copyvio edits. Mjroots (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See [148] entries beginning 19 August 2009.LeadSongDog come howl 19:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll await their reply, then. If they continue in their disruption, I'll block them. Good work, you guys. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear lord. Yeah...that's...wow. Sidebar, is there some negative connotation to "uncle" that I'm not aware of...because he clearly seems to think there is. --Smashville^talk 20:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly he means Uncle Tom. Mjroots (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• As for being Civil,I am Civil to only Asians and Africans from Africa not Whites and African Americans. Because according to my Principles being Civil to "Whites and African Americans" is against the Laws and Rules i follow

Block indef, imho. → ROUX ₪ 20:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Something tells me this is a younger user. I'd like to hear a reply to this situation before blocking. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Any admin checking the (deleted) user page will be able to see age and location info. It is just after 4am (6 OCt) Indian Standard Time now. Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see age being any reason to not block this person indefinitely. Many of the comments summarized by others are utterly vile, we don't need that at all. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Those comments, to my mind, prove this editor isn't mature enough at this point for Wikipedia. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note I have just noticed that this user used to be User:Rhp 26 who was blocked indef for Gross incivility in September 2008. MilborneOne (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He's now removing the indef-blocked banner from his talk page. Does that matter? I reverted him once, he reverted me back, so I'm done with that. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated the block notice. Blocked users are not allowed to edit and the talk page ought to be protected as he is abusing it. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He reverted again. An admin needs to prevent the user from editing his own page, then reinstate the notice and rub out everything else. It's obvious he's not going to file an unblock request, especially having been declared a sock. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

An admin reverted me and said indef block templates are not supposed to go on talk pages. Another one told me he's allowed to revert his talk page even though he's blocked. Whatevs. I'm gonna stop trying to help out on blocked user and user talk pages... I get different interpretations of policy and what to do depending on who I ask and what time of day it is. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

AIV is backlogged, if an admin or two could take a look it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV is again backlogged. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

URGENT! User:Regisfugit and continued vandalism and trolling

Resolved

 – Temporarily blocked. MuZemike 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A newly registered user, Regisfugit has today twice placed a deletion notice - subst:prodwarning|Charles Karel Bouley|concern = NPOV, not suitable - on the Charles Karel Bouley article. Yesterday, in the article's talk page he proposed the article be deleted and was plainly told by one of the article's editors, Seaphoto, that this was not an option as the subject of the article as met the Wikipedia standard for notability. Since Regisfugit has been on Wikipedia, he has received several warnings for editors to stop his attempts at vandalism and his disruptive edits. I ask that an admin look at this editor and possibly ban him from editing Wikipedia. He has yet to make a meaningful edit, rather, he has only been seriously annoying. Oh, and he just left a message on my talk page that states, "Please, keep changing it back, you can't censor me.... Regisfugit (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for looking into this. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given a brief vacation by User:SarekOfVulcan. MuZemike 04:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a POV-only account, which wouldn't be so bad if his POV had any factual basis. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out again to SRQ that calling semi-constructive edits "vandalism" does not automatically absolve you from being blocked for edit warring. Watch it going forward, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He caught my attention on another article, where he was trying to claim that the Giants are not rivals of the Dodgers. Must be a cousin to the guy who said the Giants were "defunct". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism User:FenderMag

FenderMag (talk · contribs) The user has blanked my article with no question and any kind of discussion! [149] --Añtó| Àntó (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Which you've reverted (correctly in my opinion) - the article needs some work but looks valid and a viable subject and it's not appropiate at this time to blank and redirect. It's possible it should be merged at some point but that's another argument. If it happens again, try WP:AIV. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I just merged two articles, as it's suggested in talk page (I invite other users to give their contribution in editing Foreign relations of the United Kingdom. I started a new section based on Aredic's article: Foreign_relations_of_the_United_Kingdom#Yugoslav_wars) It's clear that Aradic-es should be warned here as well as FenderMag. FenderMag shouldn't blank tha page. And I've just seen what Aredic did. For example, he included a part in an article called Bosnian Mujahideen, although his action is not supported by the sources within article. He did that twice. After that he started to accusse other nations such as Britain, Serbia, France etc for alleged support to Serbs and Bosniaks which is not a good way to edit articles. [150] Kamiondžija (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus his blind reverts:[151]--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "my article"? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said my article I thought article that I created--Añtó| Àntó (talk) 11:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The article now at United Kingdom during Yugoslav wars (originally Great Britain mentioned above) is highly problematic, it doesnt seem to be very neutral and i question the need for an entire article on this matter at all. As mentioned above it was suggested that it be merged with Foreign relations of the United Kingdom but that article does not go into detail about any wars, it certainly cant be used for detailing this minor conflict in the way the article currently does. I was wondering as its been mentioned here already if there were any neutral opinions or suggestions on what should be done about the article? would AFD be justifiable in this case or would it have to be merged with something else? Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion, discussion here. Not possible to salvage this one as currently constructed, as far as I can tell, even if the topic is suitable for an article of some sort. My view is that blanking/redirecting of this sort of awfully written, propagandistic, WP:SOAP bollox is entirely appropriate, but there are of course proper channels ... --Nickhh (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as there articles like this there is no reason to delete

Pages relating to the Balkans, India-Pakistan, the Middle East and any other real world conflict area are filled with WP:SOAPy propaganda and terrible material that consists mostly of partisan original research. That's no reason to add even more of it. I guess this thread is done now? --Nickhh (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

statements are clear and sourced by WP:V . If you don't want to see them that is your problem.Añtó| Àntó (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Henjeng55155

I was looking through Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index and saw this User had made vulgar/non-civil comments, so I checked his contributes and got many offensive remarks to other editors directly and indirectly. I have never had a discussion with this user; I am just appalled by his behaviour and I am reporting him.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 06:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot of incivility and some personal attacks in his contributions. However, he seems to edit only once in a while, and hasn't been warned before. I've given him an only warning ({{uw-npa4im}}). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Misleading with unrelated books and insulting

Resolved

 – Jingeby blocked for a year. Orpheus was the final straw

Reliable_sources_describing_Orpheus_as_of_Thracian_origin_and_deified_by_the_Thracians.User Jingiby started this thread in the Orpheus talk page.Up to now has provided 8 sources that dont support what he claims but continues giving general links with no inline citations.I 've been called this diff.User supports theories like Jakob Philipp Fallmerayer's diff,in particular to support justify this diffMegistias (talk) 10:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys are fighting over the nationality of Orpheus? Unbelievable. Wow. Allow me a minute to think about this, but we can't allow such striking WP:LAME to go unrewarded. Moreschi (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, jingiby doubts the origin of the myth.Megistias (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see this is a meme in Bulgarian nationalism. Hehe, extraordinary. I can't decide whether to hand out barnstars or bans. Moreschi (talk) 10:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not both?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Jingiby is blocked for a year, anyway, as this really is the final straw in what's been several years of disruptive editing, nationalistic trolling, revert-warring, etc, that has accumulated a lengthy block log. The article's a nasty mess which I'm trying to clean up a little. Moreschi (talk) 10:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attacks

I have recently had a few interactions with User:gu1dry we were involved in an content dispute [152] and a 3RR report that he made [153].

Because of the negative interactions we have had, I put a message on his talk page explaining my actions and stating

I think we are not interacting well together, maybe we can both enjoy working on the same articles a little more in the future, from the articles you have edited it seems we share common interests - consider this comment to be an olive branch.

I got this message from User:gu1dry A. The editing warring, I posted had nothing to do with you & I would love to point out all the "incidents" you've had, with the extremely few "contributions" you have made. B. EdJohnston posted on my talk, therefore I would naturally go to their talk page if I have something to voice, which I did obviously. C. Your so called "olive branch" is not a peaceful gesture but an insult. And I'm really starting to get sick of your arrogance, especially since you hide behind your pitiful IP. There was no consensus on the STI issue, discussions take time on Wikipedia & you have jump the jumped the boat too early. So please stay out of my way & DiaF[[154]]. I really don't care if I'm blatantly not being civil, because I'm really sick of you. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢ 05:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC) [155]

I take offence to my offer of an olive branch being responded to with numerous personal attacks all within one message, I also think the "I really don't care" comment shows a lack of respect for the rules we are supposed to be following.

Note: DiaF means Die in a Fire [[156]]

119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion. Can you try explaining it again, but more briefly and starting at the beginning not the end? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah, sure - the above is a bit of an essay - give me 5mins and I will change it. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 06:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I frankly do not give a fuck if I blocked at this point so let's play this way. Let's review 119.173.81.176's past interact with others.

• Wonderful edit comment: [157]
• Personal attack #1: [158]
• Personal attack #2: [159]
• Edit warring with SchnitzelMannGreek: [160], [161]
• Provoking/personal attacking SchnitzelMannGreek: [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167]
• Provoking/personal attacking Until It Sleeps: [168], [169]
• Being blocked & their response: [170]
• Baiting Greglocock: [171]
• Edit warring on BMW: [172]
• Edit warring on Subaru Impreza WRX STI: [173], [174](there was no consensus on the issue & anon attempting to rush the process)

 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

personal attack number two was me restoring a user talk page comment that was deleted by an editor other than the user whose talk page it was. not my personal attack.

the above are not relevant to this issue - they either relate to issues that I have been blocked for or are not personal attacks - would you like me to be blocked for edits that I have already been blocked for?

it does not matter if I have been blocked a million times for posting goatse - I still don't deserve personal attacks. I interacted with you in a civil manner and deserve the same in return. The fact that you do not give a fuck if I blocked says it all really.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I will no longer respond to you & really if DiaF bothers you (which is really the only thing that be taken as a personal attack), you need to leave the internet, like now. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  07:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This was in response to the anon pointing out that he was edit warring ([175]). This is uncalled for and can in no way be justified whatever his past interactions with the anon are. The above comments and diffs also indicate that Gu1dry is aware that he has breached WP:CIVIL, but is continuing to do so. What makes you think your comments are justified? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

you need to leave the internet is entirely inappropriate, and should be retracted soonest. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a little stale, could someone give it a little attention please? Excuse me for being a little tongue in cheek, but as the user "doesn't give a fuck if he is blocked" - so why not take him at his word? 119.173.81.176 (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – Edit warrior blocked, article protected.  Sandstein  19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to the specific editing restrictions placed by the community on the article for Sarah Palin, I believe it's appropriate to note here that a report has been filed this report at wp:anew this morning regarding an editing dispute currently taking place at the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Folks, it's up to seven reverts and counting. It would be helpful if an administrator could take a moment to deal with the report. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page until the dispute can be resolved on the talk page. Protection is not an endorsement of this version of the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to borrow from Bwilkins. "Bwilkins first rule of Edit Warring: Except for clear vandalism, DON'T. No excuses" --Tznkai (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And I've processed the report, blocking the edit warrior for a week (following two recent 72h blocks for edit warring).  Sandstein  19:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In hopes of avoiding further protection, I've placed a note on Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring asking that a one-revert policy be maintained on that page, and also hoping for a clean start. Sandstein, would you be willing to reduce or remove your block of Scribner? I understand it completely, but it can always be re-imposed, and I'd love to give everyone a chance on that article to try things this way. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the past day, I'd likewise be willing to support User:Scribner's unblock, provided he agrees to abide by a one (and only one) revert restriction at Sarah Palin. As well, I've posted a survey at the article as to whether or not the tags should be removed, and it would be helpful and appropriate for User:Scribner to contribute. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no objection to any administrator lifting the block if they are confident that doing so won't cause editwarring to resume.  Sandstein  19:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Confident that it won't cause edit warring to resume? I won't be so brave as to say that. ;) But I'd love to give the 1RR thing there a chance, and I (and hopefully other administrators) will be enforcing it with blocks, so I'm going to lift that block on Scribner in a bit here. Thanks very much. kmccoy (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Scribner's account since I'm confident the edit warring on that article won't continue (for the next 24 hours...). Any administrator is free to reblock if the disturbance moves to other pages. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks to those involved in my unblock. I suppose I should have requested a page protection before I engaging in a tag revert war. Since an admin had commented in my favor on the issue, I thought, and still do think, my actions were correct. So, random removal of tags from articles is not considered vandalism? Scribner (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(OD)No. As I told you here [176] in the middle of your edit war, vandalism is clearly defined and not subject to each editor's interpretation. By the way, I'm sure every editor feels their actions are correct. That's why we have policies to encourage discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense but your comment was so vague I couldn't tell which side of the issue you were on. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So you do don't think removing tags placed in good faith compromises the integrity of Wikipedia? Obviously, I disagree. Scribner (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling something vandalism to justify edit warring is just gaming the system. Vandalism is something that no one can reasonably argue improves the article. Plenty of people made reasonable arguments on both sides of keeping and removing those tags. That is not vandalism. Vandalism is when someone blanks an entire article, or someone adds gibberish text, or offensive text, etc. Anything else is a content dispute. Even blanking of sections is a content dispute. Also, let me make it clear that administrators do not get to make content decisions any more or less than any other editors. You cannot justify an edit war with the blessing of an administrator. Please stick with the edit restrictions given at Talk:Sarah Palin for everyone's benefit. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's continue discussion of this at Talk:Sarah Palin, for convenience and to keep the noise on ANI down. kmccoy (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm serious, I think removing a tag without discussion is vandalism. And, that happen today. I didn't tag the article to "game the system", that's a ridiculous claim and it's not appreciated. I normally only contribute to wiki when I find POV violations. I could care less about Palin's article, until now that I know that it's being nested and bias is being protected. Scribner (talk) 01:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply removing a tag without discussion is WP:BOLD, not vandalism. At that point, things should enter WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. If the tag just gets re-added and removed, it becomes an edit war; but, simply removing it the first time is not vandalism. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter Dais

Resolved

 – edit filter modified. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just indef blocked User:I AM PETER DAIS for this edit to another Admin's talk page. An indef block for their only edit may seem on first sight to be excessive; However, there has been a spate recently of IP editors inserting "Peter Dais" into various articles. I did see a request somwhere for the phrase to be blacklisted. IP users who have been doing this include 24.18.108.88 (talk · contribs). Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Found the blacklist request at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Requested#Inhibit_.22Peter_Dais.22_addition. Mjroots (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I just blocked 110.33.165.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) after he triggered an article on my watchlist. I don't know standard block time for people like this, but I set it to two weeks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Other IP users involved are:-

• 75.118.54.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 121.219.125.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 110.32.134.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 121.214.28.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log),
• 58.168.215.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 121.219.119.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

When I have run into axe wielding socks of this editor, I typically only block for 31 hours because the editor has shown they have the ability to rapidly shift IPs. It would also appear that this person has more than a passing familiarity with Wikipedia, based on certain edits. Ultimately I believe that the request edit filter is our best bet. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added to edit filter. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank Pais and User:Lapsed Pacifist.

Could someone review the recent edits that the two have made at Cuban Five and the ones that User:Frank Pais have made at Pinochet[177][. Both are working to add unsubstantiated and NPOV probelmatic edits at the former, and Pais is edit warring and using an IP address to avoid 3rr at Human rights in Cuba[178] Thre times he has made an edit from a computer at the [redacted] and the IP has been removed although he is socking from it(USER:[redacted]). (he also claims that because Google hits 2,000,000 times with Pinochet and Fascist, we should say sources often claim that he is.) Lapsed Pacifist has taken the bevavior for which he has been sanctioned for else where and brought it to communist related articles. I will return with diffs, but a quick view of their contributions should show this pattern to the discerning reviewer. Lapsed PAcifist is also having problems with this at [179] This edit is also troubling [180] from Pais.--Die4Dixie (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This revert by you of Frank Pais's edit would seem to indicate that there are problems on your side of the dispute. Dropping "including by such persons as" and making it an absolute list is hardly neutral, especially when you're claiming weasel wording.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be delighted if someone could make it right. If I have misunderstood how to do it, by all means fix it. Care to address the other issues, and look at it it in its totality. I am certainly not above criticism in the matter.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Die4Dixie, at no time was I ever engaged in sockpuppeting, and nor did I ever attempt to avoid any three revert rule. I've emailed Wiki admins twice regarding the subject of your allegations, and received responses both times. Your claims are completely speculative, and simply go to paint a larger picture of the paranoia, offensiveness and abusive behaviour that you've demonstrated on here. A combination of your bias and aforementioned behaviour is creating a poisoned environment, and I would encourage you to stop. Frank Pais (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have not been editing from the [redacted] IP, and say so, I will be glad to retract that. If you are indeed there, then you have used the IP to avoid 3rr. It seems that the IP was engaged in the editing of a similiar pattern. I would welcome a uninvolved admin to review the patterns in their totality and abide by that this edit[181], where you insist on including "aledgess" with out even checking what you are reverting would show further evidence of the bad faith. As far as the admins with whom you are in contact, they are welcome to use my talk page, or email me about any possible concerns. Feel free to email me, as it is enabled.--Die4Dixie (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:DucanhZ5Z

Ran across this user's talk page User talk:DucanhZ5Z in Recent Changes. User is new, with no edits outside of their talk page which appears to be a glossary / dictonary from technical terms in English to Vietnamese. I double checked the translation and it is what it appears to be, but WP is not a dictionary or glossary. I left a message on the talk page for the user with no response.

Thoughts? The edits are fast, so its possible its just a bot...but they're not outside the range where a human could be making them by any means.

Going to notify the user now of this discussion. Syrthiss (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is probably completely unhelpful as I can't recall the username (it started with an 'S', so it was a distinct user from the one you've listed), but I noticed another account (via Recent Changes) doing the same thing late last week. They were simply compiling technical terms to their talk page in alphabetical order, then adding a translation. Maybe it's a class project? --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

appears to be a bolt, HOOP! wiki does not interfere with content of talk pages so long as they are within the wiki policy, which those content are. so, can't do anything. Ecoman24 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am glad to have the comment of a new editor, but the section below doesn't give me confidence on your grasp of wiki policy. Syrthiss (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what does appears to be a bolt, HOOP! wiki mean? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussions and wikipedia is not a webhost as that is what it appears this user (And if there is another) is using it for.--Crossmr (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

urgent: block this IP User:64.251.53.198

Resolved

This Ip is blanking articles, block it now before further disruption and vandalism. see IP (64.251.53.198) contributions. Ecoman24 (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User had not been warned since Sep 12 2009. Warned user, and this type of report is better suited for WP:AIV. Syrthiss (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fynire again using IP's

Fynire has a history of disruption on various articles both as an IP and as an Editor. This includes the addition of unreferenced comment and opinion, removal of referenced text, synthesis of published material, edit warring and so on. I've included below a number of articles in which this has occured. For a more detailed but not complete list of IP's see here.

Fynire was told here that they were banned from editing anonymously because of their IP abuse detailed somewhat below. Since opening their Fynire account, they have continued to edit disruptivly and have again used IP's disruptivly, illustrated in their edits on the Dunmanway Massacre. On the Dolours Price and Martin McGartland articles as I have illustrated below, they have continued with the same disruptive editing and edits, and this really needs to be addressed.

The Ip's they use on Dunmanway Massacre:

1. 86.147.52.238 [182]
2. 217.43.234.202[183]
3. 217.43.234.202[184]
4. 86.163.79.164
5. 81.156.129.168Block ignored
6. 81.156.28.108[185]
7. 86.164.246.191[186]
8. 86.143.63.189
9. 81.158.228.91[187]

Their edits to the article, including their edits as Fynire and using IP's since been warned.

[188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] Fynire [236] [237] [238] IP again [239] Fynire [240] [241]

This is the IP on just on the Hart Article.

1. 217.43.234.202[242]
2. 86.164.136.21[243]
3. 86.147.53.63[244]
4. 86.156.113.180[245]
5. 217.43.236.187
6. 86.147.52.226
7. 81.153.148.246[246]
8. 81.129.245.63[247]
9. 81.157.55.189
10. 217.43.234.190
11. 86.150.37.92 [248]
12. 86.147.52.238 [249]

Here is an example just using the first IP used on the list. The articles they edit and the IP's they use.

The Articles:

1. Irish general election, 1918
2. Dunmanway Massacre

The Ip's they use on Irish general election, 1918:

1. 217.43.234.190
2. 217.43.235.73
3. 217.43.236.11
4. 86.147.52.238[250]
5. 217.43.234.202[251]
6. 86.150.37.33
7. 86.156.113.180[252]
8. 81.153.148.246[253]
9. 81.129.245.63[254]

Each IP can have a subset of articles using another group of IP's such as:

• George Noble Plunkett
• Protestant Nationalist
• WWE Velocity
• Irish general election, 1918
• Dolours Price

[255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] Fynire [264] [265] [266] [267]

• Roger Casement
• Julius Pokorny
• Ruth Dudley Edwards
• Black and Tans
• Kilmichael Ambush
• ETA
• Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom
• Killings at Coolacrease
• Evelyn, Princess Blücher
• Martin McGartland

[268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] Fynire [285] [286] [287] [288] [289] [290] [291] [292]

• Charles Bewley
• Bulmer Hobson
• List of H2O: Just Add Water episodes

Could Admin's please address this, as it has been going on from at least January. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Technically there's nothing to be done, short of semi-protecting all the articles involved. The editor is using a BT Broadband dynamic account, which are impossible to rangeblock (as you can see from the massive range of IP addresses). If there are particular articles that are problematic, WP:RFPP would be the place to request semi-protection. Black Kite 16:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the registered account? As it appears this my also be Fynire and as is clearly and obviously, being nothing but disruptive. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:SPI would be your best bet here. Black Kite 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We know that it is the same editor, and they have registered an account. That they have continued in the same disruptive way regardless can and should be addressed here. They established an account, and still used IP's. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree could an admin not do a checkuser on this editor, enough evidence provided to at least deserve a look. BigDunc 09:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser is certainly needed. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a possible case of block evasion, a checkuser is certainly needed. This IP 86.145.134.66 makes three edits one of which was on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association which some of the IP's used above have edited disruptivly. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator JzG (Guy)

Resolved

 – Talked through, userfied, good to go. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please refer to my user page where I painstakingly (at Administrator JzG (Guy)'s request) searched the archives of my college newspaper and found more than 50 years worth of articles regarding the organization in question. Also, refer to my user page where he performed an errant search on the school newspaper site and then claims that the resource failed. Worse yet, he tells me "to go away and stop wasting his time." This, in my opinion, is the most egregious and appalling behavior I've encountered in any collaborative online forum. It is a terrible way to represent any organization.

The root cause of this discussion is the deleted existence of a page for an organization I was a member of while at Luther College, Decorah, Iowa. The organization's name was "RAKEOP." There used to be a Wikipedia page named "Rakeops" that was created by a different editor. I was about to undergo the process of adding verifiable resources and making the page a respectable encyclopedia entry. I wanted to make the page "respectable" because there are hundreds of members spanning 50 years of history that deserve a Wikipedia entry. Then the page was deleted for A7 Things Made Up In School One Day.

Following this assertion, I found dozens of verifiable resources indicating the Rakeop organization has been in existence since 1953 and that it has several significant characteristics within its history. These resources and further information can be found on my user page. I also produced arguments of merit and posted them on JzG's page. For example, there are dozens of other school organizations/brotherhoods/fraternities that are similar to the Rakeop organization. This creates a precedent that fraternities/Greek organizations, etc are worthy of an encyclopedic entry.

After I referred to my research on JzG's user page, the above instance occurred. At this point, JzG (Guy) posted further personal character insults against me by stating that my endeavors were "foolish" and a "hoax." He even referred to a Wikipedia page that refers to sarcasm.

I have been respectful and forthright in all of my communication regarding this matter. JzG has been rude, rapid to false judgment, and in turn has made me question the entire collaborative efforts of Wikipedia. I am astonished at the way I have been treated by JzG(Guy) in this forum and believe that his administrative privileges should be suspended pending further investigation.

My arguments, my entry, my editorial rights should never have been referred to as "a waste of time" or "foolish" or "a hoax" without sound examination. JzG(Guy) was not thorough and then personally attacked me and my efforts. This is certainly not becoming of Wikipedia.

I will be more than willing to discuss this further and hope that I will have ample opportunity to defend/prosecute my case against such terrible and unethical behavior. This sort of behavior is unacceptable. I also aim to have the page "Rakeops" reinstated so I can move forward in creating a respectable page for such an important organization.

Thank you. OleOlson (talk) 09:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. First, it is customary to notify others that you are bringing up their conduct here. So I'd suggest you leave a note on JzG's talk page. Next, to save us a lot of problem, I suggest you post diffs of the interactions that concern you.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I have expressed all of my concerns to JzG(Guy) prior to posting here and have continued to receive substandard responses. Second, what are "diffs?"OleOlson (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rakeops and the subsequent discussion [293]. According to the AfD, the speedily deleted article by Olsonandrew concerned an unnotable college drinking club. Mathsci (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to provide WP:RS. Is your school newspaper an RS? I doubt it. Verbal chat 10:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The school newspaper of Luther College is a Volumed and Archived publication that spans more than 100 years. I am not quite sure why that would not be a RS. But, in any case, there is no reason for such characterization from an Admin. Second, the Rakeop's were/are much more than a "drinking" club as the school history indicates. If the school newspaper, the school archives, and a letter from the Dean of the school are not RS's...what would be? Thanks for your response. OleOlson (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:DIFF for a discussion of Diff's. I believe that the concern that Guy has is related to the concept of Reliable Sources. I acknowledge what you're trying to find, and the links you have provided - but there is a concern about the reliability of the source that perhaps needs to be dealt with at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. Admins merely maintain policy, and he has pointed you towards the concern about the reliability. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The question would be, I think, Andrew, whether the school newspaper is independent of the organization, since both fall under the school. Can you find outside newspaper articles regarding this group, such as from the town paper from the town where the school is located? If you can find two or more, and use them as sources, I think you'd have a good case for undeleletion.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is Rakeops. See also User talk:JzG#Please reinstate Page "RAKEOPS". Some editors think that it's a hoax. WP:DRV is the correct venue for deletion revue. If the user is serious and can find a 3rd-party source for the existence of this group then it could be userfied. It looks like JzG acted reasonably in re-deleting the article.   Will Beback  talk  10:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

...and yet none of this prevents Andrew from creating the article in his own personal WP:SANDBOX, providing 3rd party references in the article, having it checked out by someone for "admissibility", and then getting it moved into articlespace. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. JzG did give Andrew the proper advice, but I'm afraid it got lost in a discussion which used jargon that included words like "hoaxes". I think JzG probably should not have used the "made up in school" language as a bit WP:BITEy. However, Andrew also overlooked the fact that he was given advice there. I don't see any administrative action needed here, this should be worked out either at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or else as Bwilkins and Will Beback suggest.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I did post RS's by a publication with an editorial board and oversight. I accept that Admins maintain policy. I will look for additional sources, and know that I can find some external to the college. However, I believe JzG crossed the line by telling me to "go away" and "stop wasting 'our' time" and calling my work "foolish" and a hoax. This was all done without due diligence. There are two separate issues at hand. One- did JzG act in "good faith" in trying to do the right thing? I would say that this is possible- however, I provided RS's/3rd-party sources that span 50 years and there was a rush to judgment. The second issue: Is it acceptable for an administrator to tell an editor to "go away and stop wasting 'our' time" and refer to my work as "foolish"?? I think that is absolutely unacceptable and should be acted upon. OleOlson (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Also- I did follow JzG's advice and posted the RS's on MY page for JzG to review. That's where the "go away" language was used. OleOlson (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I cannot see the original article, but was Ferris Bueller really in the article? You'll have to admit that if it was, it completely undermined any credibility, and the "stop wasting our time" concept might have been a little more valid ... can someone userfy the original article to User:Olsonandrew1/Rakeops or something so that we can comment and assist, if we can? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. And yes, Ferris was a responsible officer of the organization, in his time. Ahem.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes- Ferris Beuller was the actual nickname of a member and was an officer. But, that was established early on and there's a whole bunch of information on the page in addition to that that is valid and noteworthy. That would have been one of the edits that I would have made had I been given the chance. Please note my page too, where I listed the RS's. I'd post it here, but I need to figure it out. I can rewrite the whole page, if need be. I was just trying to use the original "skeleton" page and fix it up...for my "first" entry/edit.OleOlson (talk) 10:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. Well, we've given you advice and even set up the page for you. Clean it up, and when it is ready, ask one of us for help on whether or not it is likely to survive AfD and we'll help you move it to article space. I think that's about it here and the iris is closing on "That's all, folks"--Wehwalt (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You must be one of Guys comrades, Wehwalt, and trying to rush this through like NFL coaches try to rush the next play so instant replay can't be called. I have accepted the editorial advice from the onset of my quest and have acted on each bit of it. I will continue to do so. However, none of this has addressed the inappropriate language and behavior of JzG as an administrator. If I had written evidence (which you do) of an employee speaking to a client of mine like JzG has spoken to me, I would at the very least have the employee undergo additional coaching and training. But, since there are repetitive instances it is more severe. There should be some sort of punitive action taken to prevent JzG from repeating this behavior with me or other users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsonandrew1 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC) OleOlson (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We're all volunteers here, not employees. Also we don't take punitive action against anyone. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. ↪REDVERS ^{I dreamt about stew last night} 11:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken..I like the reference to the horse carcass. Thank you to everyone. OleOlson (talk) 11:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Let us know if we can help. And think about how an article that listed Ferris Buehler as a real person would look to the uniinitiated ... "Save Ferris"--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

J. A. Chatwin - possible hoax wrapped up in a good edit

Resolved

 – warned user, as it looks like a static IP block on next instance of similar disruption Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

re: recent vandalism to J. A. Chatwin (a Victorian architect).

The editor (Special:contributions/82.36.89.155 / talk) has a track record of recent vandalism & here to another article, but it's an anon so hard to tell for sure that it's the same person. This comment admits that they are.

Their recent edit here looks broadly good (Can't think why the article omitted him using a classical style rather than the gothic in the first place), but the claim that Julius Alfred also went by the name "Timmy" rang a few alarm bells. I suspect that it's a more subtle vandal than usual, hiding a hoax wrapped up in a contribution. The editor has now cited a book ref that surely describes the subject, but it's not a book I have on the shelf, so it's impractical to check that the ref supports the cite.

I'd be inclined to regard this as vandalism and undo it accordingly, but would appreciate independent comment as it's otherwise likely to look like a personal edit war (as mentioned, I think most of the edit is probably a genuine improvement). Thanks (and should I have taken this to WP:AIV instead?). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was unable to verify that the source book even existed, let alone whether it is reliable or contains the information in question. I have removed the "timmy" infomation. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has a history of very recent vandalism and edits like this are not constructive. I'm convinced it's the same person because of the timing and content of this edit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

N word in a delete log

Can this be oversighted/otherwise removed [294]? Skomorokh has deleted the discussion on his talk page trying to get to the bottom of this. Even if there is a perfectly good reason for this, the log entry is ill judged and offensive. Verbal chat 17:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This unfathomable curiosity could be quite swiftly satiated by reading the restored history, though if the words of vandals are enough to trouble delicate sensibilities, I might advise against viewing the imagery.  Skomorokh, barbarian  17:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that justifies the log entry. Verbal chat 17:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I see that you were repeating what the vandal called you in the log entry. This is still not on, not at all. Delicate sensibilities have nothing to do with it. This is about denying recognition and not repeating such uncouth statements in a permanent log entry. –xeno^talk 18:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit summary is worse than the vandalism that brought it about, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pubic handwringing of this sort that gives currency to trolls and puts venom into otherwise empty epithets. I restored the history precisely because nonsense of that sort is nothing to be brushed under the carpet as if it has significance. I don't mind whatsoever if the summary is altered, but I object firmly to this busybodying – I suggest you find some productive means of spending your time other than enabling vandals.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... repeating the words of vandals and enshrining them in the deletion log isn't enabling, but calling you on being deliberately offensive is? Did we jump back in time 25 years? → ROUX ₪ 18:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe it is you who enabled this vandal, by repeating their language in a log entry. You could have restored it with a less inflammatory summary. –xeno^talk 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not impressed in the least with the deletion log summary, but I'm more concerned that this account may have been compromised. This doesn't seem at all typical for Skomorokh (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) –xeno^talk 17:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I've had disputes in the past with the editor, and even I agree this totally unexpected and is out of character. I would have asked this on his talk, but he deleted the thread. Can it be removed/altered? Whether Skomorokh be blocked until identity established, or any other action, I'll leave to those that know better than I. Verbal chat 17:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I'm pretty sure it's really him. I don't know him that well either, but I don't have any trouble believing his explanation ... I agree it was probably a bad idea though. (Note: I have Skomorokh's page on my watchlist, as I have the pages of many other admins; that's how I found this discussion.) -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whether the account is compromised or not, that kind of language use is beyond unacceptable and he should be blocked until he understands that and agrees to never, ever do it again. → ROUX ₪ 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Using the N word in the uk can and will land you in court on a racism charge. Is it ok to use it here on wikipedia? Off2riorob (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Only in an appropriate context. As in, "please make this edit to the Nigger page, because it is semi-protected." Skomorokh's usage was unbecoming of an administrator. And what is this about? –xeno^talk 18:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  What IP vandals say and do is one thing , but the actions and rude comments of editors and Admins are judged at a higher standard. Off2riorob (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  So, it is ok to use these sort of edit summary? Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  It is not prohibited (nor should it be), but it is likely to be considered disruptive anywhere it could be avoided (as it should be). There's plenty of middle ground between "strictly prohibited" and "encouraged and required of all editors", you know. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes agreed and I am looking for the middle ground, ...perhaps an admission that , hey, I shouldn't have used the edit summary, I was upset after my page was vandalised and I won't use that kind of edit summary again...there somewhere is the middle ground.imo Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

{{resolved|Wikipedia is not censored, and considering he was just repeating what the vandal had called him, there's no issue for admins to resolve. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)}}

What exactly does not censored have to do with this? Not censored is there so that we don't have to compromise on encyclopedic content. It doesn't grant administrators a license to go around repeating racist languages in log entries. –xeno^talk 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it ok for Users to use the N word in edit summaries? No it is not, even if you have been called names by a ip vandal it is still not ok, will the offending Admin Skomorakh recognise that ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, people have made their views known, and the admin is aware of it. I see no point in compelling promises out of him. Either he will or he won't do this again, and my guess is not. Let's build an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not object to a resolved tag based on this. –xeno^talk 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Leaving the vandalism in the history to show the bigotry is one thing, but repeating the racist vandalism makes that editor a vandal too. And you vandalised the delete log, which is tricky to undo - if it is possible (no one has answered yet I believe). The other edit xeno highlights is also troubling. That language is not acceptable in this context by any editor. Verbal chat 18:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Original topic which is not resolved: can this be altered/removed? Verbal chat 18:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, with WP:RevDelete, which is presently only available to Oversighters. And this might not be a valid criterion. –xeno^talk 18:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  It would seem to fall under 2 (the group being a race) or 3, imo. Verbal chat 18:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

  You're probably right. I'll drop an email to Special:Emailuser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 18:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block request

Resolved

 – requester indef blocked by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs) as a sock.

this This is personal attack and I request block of 1 year against POV pusher user:DIREKTOR--Trusciante (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

And who are you a sock of? Wknight94 ^talk 15:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

...I was going to say "you're either really new or not at all new" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am I--Trusciante (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• • user:DIREKTOR is a veteran editor, see his [here], I can't understand why he is lowering himself to a level of extreme personal attack. He understand wiki policy well? Can he tell us why he is getting involved in personal attack? Ecoman24 (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am having extreme difficulty trying to find a personal attack anywhere in those two diffs. He was asking for clarification about something another editor had said, and then pointing out an inconsistency. I do, however, see extreme cause for concern in the actions of Trusciante (with a total of three edits) pretending it's a personal attack and immediately calling DIREKTOR a POV-pushed. How about a nice solid block? I hear quacking. → ROUX ₪ 15:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no personal attack in the diff's provided. Is there some conflict between y'all and Direktor that we should be looking further into? I will WP:AGF, but people do not usually try to get someone blocked for no reason (or by hoping that Admins will mis-read a diff) unless there's some conflict brewing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the rather personal question was my ongoing suspicion that User:Sir Floyd is a sockpuppet of a user from the Italian group of editors User:AlasdairGreen27 and I reported for socking and such (User:Brunodam, User:PIO, User:Ragusino]], User:Giovanni Giove etc.). I'm more-or-less fluent in Italian, so when I voiced my suspicions about his curiously Italian sentence structure, User:Sir Floyd attempted to explain it by stating he has dyslexia. Having received some (relatively) basic training in recognizing the symptoms of common learning disorders from my studies, I found the fact that he actually invented a new adjective ("Wikipedic") rather strange. I find it extremely distasteful for one to use a serious disorder as an excuse to avoid getting blocked, especially because the fictitious ailment allows the blocked party to assume the moral high ground ("how dare you doubt I'm sick!").

User:Trusciante is a sockpuppet, of course, but who does he belong to? The only suspects that come to mind are User:Luigi 28 or User:Sir Floyd. Perhaps a check with User:Sir Floyd, as he's not blocked? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not know about what the discussion is really about, but DIREKTOR constantly breaks the AGF, also he is prune to offend other users, call them nationalists, even ultra-nationalists. DIREKTOR should be repremanded. I believe that DIREKTOR has puppets (CO xxx) being one of them. DIREKTOR then defends himself as if he is a saint, and pushes other editors into endless disputes. DIREKTOR often made up claims that users called him a communist, which is not the same if you call someone out as a Yugoslav POV warior. He misguide users by gathering support through canvassing, often complains to admins without notifying the user about which he complains, etc.

DIREKTOR should be warned not to continue his accusatory, inquisatory and other methods, he offended me as if I said to him he is former UDBA. I never said such nonsense, because DIREKTOR was not even a Pionir.

His expertise on the Yugoslav topics are: evading providing sources and insisting on unsupported POV.

Imbris (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Says who? Proven hardline Croatian nationalist who's been edit-warring on articles such as Hey Slavs for months, ignoring any kind of consensus-reaching discussion by the most perverted logical fallacies conceivable. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, can I just add that starting a paragraph in the middle of an extensive discussion with "I do not know what the discussion is really about...", and then just raising prior, unrelated disputes with one of the involved parties is probably not the most productive way to deal with the situation. Singularity42 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuddruckers

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by John (talk · contribs); revisions left there for all the world to see. No further admin action needed.

There has been an ongoing issue of people trying to insert an anal sex reference to this article. One of the most recent involves someone replacing its content with buttfuckers and spelling it out in the edit history. Could an Admin please purge the obscenity from the history on 17:29, 29 September 2009 98.105.157.104 (talk) (252 bytes)?

--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally hide revisions on the basis of offensiveness and there is much worse around. Rodhullandemu 15:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If the vandalism itself gets too persistent, take it to WP:RFPP. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Rod and Bugs. This looks like standard run-of-the-mill silly vandalism. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)}

User:BADBOYS_BLUE

User has been editting article Bad_Boys_Blue and admits in the contributions that he is a representative of John McInerney, a member of the group. I don't know enough to make a decision on what to do here. It is COI but I dont know if the edits are accurate or not. They seem to be good faith edits, but he also changes arguable information.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TParis - I commented on their talk page and trimmed some of the more contentious info out, and BWilkins gave them a more friendly welcome.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 17:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have received a rather lengthy post on my talk page from this user and in regards to the article page. I do not think it violates WP:NLT, but they do state their desire to "reserve rights" and the like. I highly suggest reviewing it, here. Basket of Puppies 00:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It does look sort of like a legal threat, but it also looks like a claim of ownership of the article.--TParis00ap (talk) 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months. MuZemike 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody block 69.135.191.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), being used by User:Grant.Alpaugh/User:Spydy13/User:AfterMayAndIntoAugust/User:Football.Fútbol.Soccer per comments at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grant.Alpaugh. The SPI has been opened but let's spare everybody the wasted time, this one is quacking loudly. Grsz¹¹ 20:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months. Either here or SPI would've been sufficient. MuZemike 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment/outing in progress

User:Die4Dixie is threatening User:Frank Pais with outing. See this edit this edit where he discusses "outing" the user. Please take immediate action. 64.229.177.187 (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both users of this thread, on their talk pages. Basket of Puppies 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You've shown two diffs where Die4Dixie is promising to not out the editor. They are instead trying to pursue a COI claim without outing them. Looks to be a non-issue. -- Atama頭 00:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I spcifically said I would not out him. I have asked him to disclose his WP:COI as directed by policy. I will not out him.--Die4Dixie (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Die4Dixie is attempting to enforce COI policy and should be applauded for attempting to do it carefully. They should be aided in doing so, and the user in question should comply with policy. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

D4D is calling the editor out on policy. However, he does have a habit of slipping in some Spanish that is at times inappropriate, here eliciting a reaction. Grsz¹¹ 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what the editor wrote on User:Frank Pais' talk page "I beleive that you have a WP:COI for fascism related subjects and Cuban politics." This is an absurd position. There is nothing in WP:COI which says someone opposed to a political ideology cannot edit articles on that ideology or its adherents. It's like saying supporters of the GOP are barred from editing Barack Obama. Similarly, it's absurd to say someone who is interested in Cuban politics or is Cuban can't write about Cuban politics. That's like saying Americans can't edit articles on US politics. Quite simply the user is trying to harass Frank Pais. 64.229.177.187 (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not outing. Also, I think we have some socking issues here. Grsz¹¹ 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not WP:COI. 64.229.202.15 (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The conflict of interest can be discussed, there's a noticeboard where it can be discussed without prejudice or accusations. Considering the fact that a COI on its own doesn't lead to any administrative or other action Frank shouldn't be offended by the suggestion. The irony here is that if there is socking going on, considering D4D's outing concerns regarding IPs, Frank would be outing himself. -- Atama頭 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in outing this user. If it has been decided that there are not WP:OUTing issues with me, I suggest we roll this up. Frank hasn´t hadan opportunity to respond yet to my request to disclose. Let´s let him discuss this when he logs in again.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"que ya te conozco" means "I know who you are". That's clearly meant to intimidate. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The other part is "mosco", and it is a saying. "Te conozco mosco". It is said when someone knows what someone is up to. Nothing sinister.I´ll gladly strike it. You´re grasping--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit late to strike it, you've already made the threat. There's no way what you wrote wouldn't be interpreted as a threat to out someone. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's a true outing threat or not depends on whether D4D thinks he knows who Pais is in real life, or thinks he knows who his alleged puppetmaster is. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting to login hardly makes you a sockpuppet. 65.95.117.31 (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When the Ip is engaged in edit warring, then it is a sock. My concern , so that you can move on, is not with the interests that Frank has or his/her political leanings. It is with who he/she is and then chosing to edit some of subjects that he/she does in a pov pushing way. I really hope you can let this drop so we can protect Frank´s identity .--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved in this incident. I've read the comment by D4D that you're objecting to and I don't see any threat to out anyone. What I see is D4D alleging a conflict of interest on the part of another editor and vowing to pursue it through appropriate means. He specifically rules out outing anyone. Crafty (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

RFPP backlog

Heads up, edit wars are raging as we speak! Auntie E. 01:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done mostly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Racist personal attack?

Does the comment "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?" by User Throwaway85 on his talk page [295] constitute a racist personal attack? I have been in a content dispute with said user and have already informed him that I am a person of color. Irvine22 (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked this editor indefinitely pending an explanation. (the actual edit is here btw.) However, the reporting editor should be aware that a number of admins are monitoring xes edits as well. Black Kite 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Was just about to say that, ya beat me :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have added an unsigned template to that, as it appears BK accidentally signed with five ~s instead of four.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "Fracking"??? To paraphrase a line from some 1980s movie, and ironically it involved somebody saying "Kite" thinking it was an anti-semitic slur... "He's so stupid he can't even be prejudiced right." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, no xe isn't. Read profanity in science fiction. The choice of spelling in fact depends from one's choice of the two television series (although I wasn't able to reliably source that at the time) and that is the 1978 series' spelling. Uncle G (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
        • In any case, if editor A calls editor B a "spade", then editor A gets the "club". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Baseball Bugs, you have no "heart". MuZemike 07:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
            • He's a real diamond in the rough, and that trumps everything. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That was too funny. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Throwaway85. The previous "calling a spade a spade" discussion on his talk page referred to the permissibility of calling User:Irvine22 a "troll" for his disruptive behaviour. At the point Throwaway85 made the comment for which he was blocked [296], Irvine22 had not in fact made it clear that he claims to be a person of colour (even if he had, the use as a slur remains a US one which few Europeans are familiar with). Irvine22's claim that he had made it clear seems to rest on this statement which cannot be read as providing that information to someone unaware of it. Irvine22 asked me about the comment, and 2 minutes after I said I thought there was nothing to it, he posted here. Overall, in the time I've been somewhat involved in moderating this topic, Throwaway85 has been an excellent editor, whilst Irvine22 (a past sockpuppetmaster - User:JonnieIrvine per SPI) has displayed behaviours that have pissed off a number of editors (notably at PIRA and its talk page), and I've had to impose a temporary topic ban[297], which Irvine22 accepted [298] but shortly after his edit warring block expired has now violated [299] [300], in the latter case using an IP (which is clearly him since the IP also continued Irvine22's conversation on my talk page, so perhaps not intended as ban evasion, though it is a ban violation). I'd like some feedback on what to do about Irvine22 at this point. I've tried quite hard to help him integrate into the community, but between the drama he has created over the "spade" comment and his violation of the topic ban, my willingness to do so, and hope that this has much chance of success, is much decreased. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I should note that Irvine22's ANI post might be considered retaliation for Throwaway's ANI post a couple of days ago [301], which was effectively superceded by the block/temporary topic ban I imposed. Rd232 ^talk 10:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly dispute that I am a disruptive editor, or that I have edited in violation of your topic ban. (The articles I made minor edits to last night are not marked as Ireland/Troubles related, and in fact are not.) As for your contention that I would need to prove that I am a member of any particular racial group to be offended by the racial epithet that was directed at me - that seems ludicrous on it's face. Do all Wikipedians need to post a picture before they get to be upset by racist personal attacks? Where should I do so? Or would you prefer I appear on webcam so you can verifiy my racial identity? And are racist personal attacks really ok as long as they are directed against people who are not members of the group in question?

Now, I have already indicated that I am prepared to move past Throwaway85's racist personal attack and to work cooperatively with him on improving the PIRA article. He has not made any reciprocal indication: quite the contrary as he continues to issue personal attacks, calling me and "idiot" and a "retard", amongst other bon mots.

The main issue I have raised at the PIRA article is one that User:Rd232 has himself acknowledged is a a valid one. In fact it is central to the coherence and credibility of the article in question. The fact of the matter is that there is group of editors with a particular POV that (so far) prevents them from acknowledging the force of the point. I know there are strong feelings around issues relative to the Troubles (I also have strong feelings - I lived through them) but I continue to believe that compromise is possible between people of goodwill, acting in good faith. I have always acted in good faith in my attempts to edit Wikipedia, and such transgressions as I have made were simply because I didn't know the relevant rules/procedures at the time I made them.Irvine22 (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i) Does anyone agree with Irvine22 that Orange Institution and Patrick Pearse are not Ireland/Troubles related? ii) you don't need to prove that you're a member of a racial group to be offended by a racist epithet. You do need to make it clear that an obscure (for Europeans) racist usage of a traditional phrase might be applicable to you because you fall into the relevant racial group. iii) you hadn't made it clear at the time the comment was made, so continuing to insist the remark was racist in intent is highly problematic. iv) Throwaway's angry responses to getting indef-blocked due to your unnecessary complaint on ANI are something I'm willing to overlook. iv) the PIRA issue is a valid one, but you've been told repeatedly that the issue cannot be furthered without relevant sources. In this context, blaming other editors' "POV" for lack of progress is a severe violation of WP:AGF. v) I imposed the temporary topic ban as a "cooling off" period to allow you to gain experience elsewhere, and to allow you and the other editors on this topic to have a break from each other. You have violated both the spirit and the letter of that ban, both with your edits and with your ANI post after asking me about the "spade" comment. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Troubles began in 1969 - Pearse was dead by 1916. The Orange Institution is, as the article makes clear, an international organization with a presence in many countries and continents. The PIRA article is labelled as falling within the Troubles group of articles. I assumed that your topic ban applied all such articles that are so labelled. I have not made any edits to articles that are labelled as Troubles related, which is the only reasonable interpretation of your ban. Am I supposed to guess?

As for sourcing for my main pont about PIRA activity - the edits I made on that point were sourced, and extensively discussed. I even incorporated language suggested by both yourself and Throwaway85.

And yes, your initial tolerant reaction to what was clearly a racist personal attack was disappointing. This is not a European/American issue, as you have attempted to suggest, or an issue of cultural misunderstanding. I have been called a "spade' on the streets of Belfast and Glasgow, but never in the U.S. (until I came on Wikipedia). Like you, I am willing to overlook Throwaway's angry responses to getting blocked and I have already indicated that I am prepared to work constructively with him going forward. To be blunt he can call me a "troll" an "idiot" or a "retard" and its water off the proverbial. Call me a "spade" or any other racial epithet and he and I are going to have a problem.Irvine22 (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i) The temporary ban specified "Ireland/Troubles". It's a stretch to interpret that as referring only to the "Troubles". (And I don't see how PIRA is labelled as being within that anyway.) I've clarified this in my talk page conversation with you. ii) The sourcing was disputed in terms of whether it justified your edits. The conclusion, AFAIK, was that more/better sources are needed. iii) my reaction was not "tolerant" to "what was clearly a racist personal attack". I said it wasn't intended as a racist attack; and repeating the claim ad nauseam that it was doesn't make it true. And I'm not making up the European/US distinction - it's from To call a spade a spade (plus my own experience of never having heard it). Rd232 ^talk 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a stretch to think saying dont edit Ireland/trouble articles includes a guy that died 40 years before the troubles start. The orange order is more linked, however articles are not clearly marked what fits into "the troubles", perhaps they should be, its certainly a mistake someone could make. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that an indef block is extreme without warnings, ive noticed several other indef blocks being issued recently by different admins without warnings or more moderate blocks first which is alarming.

However what ever Irvines past editing history is, that is no excuse for something so abusive, although i accept "spade" isnt known as an awful insult by many people, the fact Irvine had clearly explained this to Throwaway85 a month ago is important. I also fail to see how Irvine has been misleading anyone with his comment here. ""Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?"" is a shocking and disgusting statement, and whilst Throwaway has apologised to anyone else that may have been offended, he doesnt seem to be prepared to apologise to the person the attack was aimed at. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It's only "shocking and disgusting" if you read it as racist. I see no reason to read it that way (as I said above), and every reason (from the context of the previous discussion) to read it as calling Irvine22 a "troll". Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I appear to be on good terms with Irvine22. I would be willing to help if he and other people can agree some basis for improving their interactions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope its shocking and disgusting to use it to attack someone after they have already explained the offensive meaning, no matter what the persons intentions or other persons editing history is. If there was no past conversation then its an easy mistake to make as theres millions of terms out there that some consider offensive. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the fact that there is no indication that Throwaway thought Irvine fell into the racial group which would make the attack capable of carrying racist intent. Rd232 ^talk 12:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, here's [302] the prior discussion that Throwaway85 and I had, a week or so previously. You be the judge!Irvine22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Yes, please, somebody uninvolved read that and say whether that discussion gives any indication that Irvine is declaring himself to be black. I don't see it. Rd232 ^talk 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, and if someone addresses such a comment to me in those terms I woudl assume that they were a person of colour. DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Its certainly implied, althought you dont have to be a certain skin colour to be offended by a racist attack. Rd232, if Irvine had clearly without any possible misunderstanding stated he was black would that change your views on the comment in Throwaways edit summary? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I always block indef for blatant racist, homophobic or other hate-speech related insults. I don't see any choice - blocking for a defined length would mean me making a value judgement on "how bad" the insult was. It should be pointed out that "indefinite" doesn't mean "infinite". and I agree that in this case there is more to it than meets the eye, so I don't object to the unblock.Or perhaps not, given the previous edits. Black Kite 11:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I see your point about issuing time specific blocks its just always seemed strange to me when i see indef blocks without previous blocks first. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering Rd232 has been involved with Irvine and used tools on him in the past, it would probably have been better if an uninvolved admin had undid the block to ensure neutrality. Being prepared to overlook someone calling someone else a retard which is offensive in both Europe and the USA clearly raises concerns. And blaming the victim for asking a question here about a racial attack is shocking. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what I don't quite get about Rd232's behavior in this is that Throaway85 evaded his block [303] to appeal specifically to Rd232 to review it. Is this kind of shopping for a friendly admin by block evading users typical? Irvine22 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps another admin could comment. Is using an IP to ask one other knowledgeable admin (especially in the given circumstances of an indef-block without prior warning), "block evasion"? If so, should it be sanctioned? Rd232 ^talk 16:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If you ever get indef-blocked at the instigation of someone you've previously said may be a "disruptive editor", do you think you'll remain completely civil? And again, the fact that a term has a racial/racist interpretation by some people does not mean that its use is automatically racial, racist, or anything else. Rd232 ^talk 15:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be mad as hell, however id avoid calling someone a retard when attempting to get unblocked, not that id call someone that anyway. You seem prepared to overlook one parties actions when angry, yet you condemn Irvine for questioning a possible racial attack here which is 100% the right thing to do. There is no justification or excuse for putting in an edit summary "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?" a week after being told by that same editor what that term spade meant and that sensitivity is needed to avoid causing offense and the guy still refuses to apologise to Irvine for it. Its just wrong and sick. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed something - I've not condemned Irvine for raising the issue, but for raising it at ANI after he asked me on my talk page, and after I responded that there was nothing in it. And I saw that conversation and it could easily be interpreted as Irvine being arsey, raising a "somebody might be offended by this" point just to be argumentative. It was not "explained what that term spade meant" as if there were only one meaning for the term. And it was entirely unclear that he is in the racial group which makes the slur use relevant. (Even if it were, it follows from the previous discussion that the reference is to Irvine as troll, not as black person.) Rd232 ^talk 15:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 - so when you have made your comment Irvine is not allowed to get other opinions? And I will add, it is not necessary for someone to be a member of a particular racial group for the use of a racist epithet at them to be unacceptable. If someone called me a kyke or a nigger, it would be completely unacceptable, and my being a white goy doesn't make it any the less so. DuncanHill (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

See below on your first point, and how exactly is a comparison between this situation (see further below - read Throwaway's talk page) and an unambiguous racial slur like kyke, relevant? Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I'm puzzled by the claim that "spade" wouldn't be recognized as a racial slur by Europeans - certainly I have heard it used many times in just that sense in Britain. I am also very concerned about the implicit threat against the complainant made by an admin above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm heavily exposed to both British and US culture, and I've never heard the term used as a racial slur. And what "implicit threat" are you referring to? My concern here is that an editor with a history of being (probably unintentionally) disruptive, who I've been trying to help fit it in with the community, may have succeeded in turning the narrative on its head, by accusing an excellent editor of making a racist comment, for which there is no evidence. Rd232 ^talk 15:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"You have violated both the spirit and the letter of that ban, both with your edits and with your ANI post after asking me about the "spade" comment." Was the sentence that concerned me, making it sound like by posting here he is somehow doing something wrong. The quality of contributions made by either editor should not matter when it comes to "potential" racial attacks. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, BW, that was the sentence which concerned me too. I agree, being a good content contributor doesn't allow one to use racist epithets at other editors, whatever their shortcomings. DuncanHill (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was that he asked me, and then either didn't wait for the reply, or chose not to respond to it, and posted here instead. That's what I'm disappointed with. If we'd exchanged a few more comments and he'd said "well I disagree and I want input from others", fine. But he just jumped to ANI as if he was looking for a chance to get back at Throwaway, who'd previously reported him here as a "disruptive editor". He also violated the topic ban, though I suppose I have to believe him when he claims misunderstanding of its terms. Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are several others here saying that it appears to them to be a racial slur, and I am amazed that you haven't encountered in in British usage. DuncanHill (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand people not knowing all the different racial slurs and misunderstandings can always happen. The fact they had a conversation on the fact "spade" is a racial slur a week earlier means the excuse of not knowing it was offensive doesnt wash for a second. Throwaway may not have intended to use it in a racial way (perfectly legit question to ask about it here for exactly that reason), but he knew it was one. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a spade in this specific phrasing is very unambiguously a racist comment. I have lived in US, Canada, and UK - the word has no other meaning in those countries when used in that specific phrasing. I can AGF all I want, but it's just not possible. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, unambiguously a racist comment.Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope the editors so unambiguously declaring the comment racist have actually read this thread and Throwaway's user talk page, where "calling a spade a spade" is clearly established as a reference to calling out Irvine as a "troll". Rd232 ^talk 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it hurt you so much to say "I may have misjudged, thanks for the guidance folks?"? DuncanHill (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't, if there was any evidence I had. Throwaway wasn't familiar with the slur usage, and Irvine gave no indication that he was in the racial group where the slur is relevant, and a non-racist meaning for "spade" is clear from the prior discussion. Would it hurt you to admit you may have misjudged? Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"Throwaway wasn't familiar with the slur usage" - He wasnt aware when he first used it, Irvine then spoke to him about it on his talk page in a reasonable way explaining the term . So this idea he didnt know it was a deeply offensive racial comment a week later when he made the attack in the edit summary in an attempt to get Irvine to "go away" according to his recent comments clearly isnt the case. Im still unclear why exactly he is calling him a spade at all. I get the term call a spade a spade, but that means you call them what you think they are, you dont call them a spade. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, if he wanted to call me a troll why call me a "spade" instead? Why not just call me a troll? That would be less insulting, if clearly untrue. Irvine22 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And its clearly established that spade is a racial slur on his own talk page, although throwaway does say he "don't care" when asked about possibly offending people by using it, i guess thats enough justification to go around using insulting words! [304] BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The context for "not caring" is clearly that it appears Irvine isn't in fact in the racial group and appears to be merely being argumentative in a "somebody somewhere might be offended" kind of way. That's what "don't care" refers to. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good unblock Rd. BigDunc 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with BigDunc, good unblock. No showing that any racial meaning was intended, without that, it is par for the course on Wikipedia (see WP:SPADE). Context is everything. I was at a concert the other night which many teens attended and one yelled at the lead singer, "You're the shit", much to his pleasure. Apparently that's considered quite a compliment.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, given that Irvine is a highly disruptive editor, and today is evading the reasonable edit restriction place on them (arguing that articles to do with the Orange Order are nothing to do with the Troubles) its difficult to see them really being offended. Its only a matter of time if Irvine carries on this style before a permanent ban is in place so if anyone has infuence then would be better mentoring them than arguing for a editor with a pronounced POV unwilling to work within the rules of this community, --Snowded ^TALK 16:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see so its not possible for "disruptive editors" to be offended there for its ok to call them what we like even if we use a term previously described to us as a racial slur. Wonderful. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to judge whether there was intent to offend racially. If there was, come down on them like a ton of bricks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If it wasnt for the previous conversation a week earlier on his own talk page when Irvine explained sensitivity is needed because its a racial slur then it wouldnt have been a problem. Although throwaway admitted it was meant as an insult so he shouldnt have said it either way. But being told one week earlier by the editor in question spade is a racial slur changes things, especially when he responds by saying he "Don't care" when asked about possibly offending people. I still dont understand why he called him a spade? The call a spade a spade logic implies Throwaway should have called him a troll or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not take that as an indication the other person was black. I would take it as an indication that the other person was very politically correct, and I might personally (I wouldn't do it here on WP, though) needle him a bit by the use of such phrases. Until and unless there is a community prohibition on using such phrases, it is within the pale.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Im no fan of political correctness, however when someone says sensitivity is needed when using a certain term because its considered a racial slur (especially racial slurs as they are by far the worst), a week later you do not say in an edit summary "Who let you edit here, you fracking spade?", its sick and it still doesnt make sense to call them a spade. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

BW, Irvine's comment made a general comment about calling of "calling a spade a spade". S/he did not say that s/he came from a mixed race background and it was a dubious statement anyway, from an editor who was being disruptive, edit warring on controversial articles, refusing to take part in discussions, and gaming the system by multiple edits all slightly different, but all with the same POV in an attempt to avoid 3RR. There has been a clear statement from Throway that s/he intended no racial slut so lets drop it shall we. I doubt we will have to wait long before Irvine's behaviour brings us back here (if anyone out there can mentor this editor, please take up the challenge for the sake of the rest of us. --Snowded ^TALK 17:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm we shouldnt just sweep this under the carpet. Im not saying throwaway shouldnt have been unblocked, although considering its now been pointed out Throwaway bypassed the block to ask on rd232 talk page for him to take a look, rd232 certainly should NOT have undone the block himself.

My concern is Throwaway STILL refuses to apologise for causing offense to Irvine, which is the editor he attacked. He went out of his way to suck up to everyone else, but the actual victim who he doesnt seem to think deserves an apology.

I always think warnings should be issued except in very extreme cases, although considering the language in the attack and the fact he knew it was a racial slur, i can totally understand the reasons behind the intitial indef block. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I tend to agree that I could use a mentor. In what I hope is a true Wikipedian spirit of cooperation and conciliation, I have asked Throwaway85 if he would be my mentor. Whether he accepts is of course up to him, but I now consider this matter between us closed. Irvine22 (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You should consider LessHeard vanU's offer to help. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's close this. No further admin action is required, and that's what this page is here for.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I see he has made a questionable comment on race before this incident too. [305]. Have people actually taken a look at throwaways edit history, almost all his editing has been related to the PIRA article since the account was created in August, Even rd232 originally thought hed been previously editing with a different name although accepted the story about a suckpuppet having the name "throwaway" would be too obvious. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of the prior questionable comment. That does make the matter seem a bit more serious. Irvine22 (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)Hold on, I'm not sure that this matter is closed - I think the unblock was done under a misunderstanding of how the term spade was applied. I have been carefully reviewing the discussion at Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army and have determined that Throwaway85 had been interacting only with Irvine22 and BritishWatcher regarding the disputed addition to the article lead, and exclusively with Irvine22 when he made the "spade is a spade" comment. So when Irvine22 came to Throwaway85's talkpage and noted how the terminology might be misconstrued, the obvious inference was that he was speaking about himself or BritishWatcher and most likely about himself. I would also comment that Throwaway85's interactions with Irvine22 in that discussion had been aggressive and confrontational, refusing to discuss the premis of the dispute but instead focussing on Irvine22's sockpuppetry, and purported trolling and POV warring. Other persons in that talkpage discussion did engage over the dispute and bring it to an understanding, but Throwaway85 contributions were only adversarial comments toward Irvine22; it is therefore clear the only party Irvine22 was referring to was himself. Under the circumstances for Throwaway85 to then use the term "spade" (preceded by the adjective "fracking") in an aggressively dismissive comment directed to Irvine22 was to use it in a manner to hurt the sensitivities of the recipient. It remains the gratitious use of a racist epithet to insult another editor. I am disappointed that Throwaway85 was unblocked, over a technical "misunderstanding" fostered by the blocked editor of how the term spade was applied. I do not believe that Throwaway85 used the term in the manner he subsequently claimed he did. I invite others to consider whether in fact that the indef block should be re-applied until such time Throwaway85 apologises to Irvine22 for using a term regarding after being told by that same editor that it is considered racist. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There were other editors involved as well LessHeard, and none of us (except possibly BW after the event) took the comment as meaning that Irvine had identified himself as a possible target for "spade" being interpreted as a racist comment. Neither do I think Throwaway was being confrontational, he like other editors had bent over backwards to try and get Irvine to discuss rather than edit war, and to be honest Irvine's behaviour would try the patience of a saint. The subsequent comment was a mistake, the earlier one looks to me like a response in kind to an accusation of "wanting to the English". Neither comment is really appropriate, but it looks like a mountain is being made out of a molehill here and we should move on. --Snowded ^TALK 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

His previous jokes about the British Empire were amusing although would have offended some. "Funny, 'cause it seems to me that every place you've ever invaded turned around and kicked you out. One wonders why? Was it the warm beer, the ugly women, the boiled meat, or some combination of the three?" [306]

Thats the standard sort of thing British people must put up with on a daily basis, so ive no objections to him making that sort of comment. But im not quite sure how anyone can defend [307], where he says "Racist? Oh, I see. You must be Pakistani, or perhaps black. My apologies if I offended you. I only meant to insult the skinheads whose country you're slowly taking over. Kudos, BTW" That steps way over the line of the standard and "acceptable" anti English / British remarks. Thats clearly offensive and linked to race, which shows he does have a history. Also lets not forget much of the argument here has been undermining Irvine as very disruptive who deserves to go anyway, whilst painting throwaway like some kind of saint. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to meet any saints on wikipedia BW, and I can't see any attempts at beatification above, time to move on. --Snowded ^TALK 21:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can just let the matter drop now. There's been more than enough vitriol and people reading waaaay too much into way too little. Also, must allegations of sockery arise anytime my name pops up? There was an SPI when I joined, thinking I was a sockpuppet of Domer48. It was dismissed due to the small matter of us living on opposite sides of the globe. But if you still think I'm a sock, BW, you're more than welcome to request a checkuser or whatever. I don't mind a bit. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Im not accusing you of socking, just highlighting some of the history. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Which is why I blocked indef, and after initially agreeing with the unblock, I've changed my mind again now. Black Kite 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm two of my comments were reverted by someone with no reason stated so i am readding them (I cant undo as theres been futher posts)... BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also this claim throwaway tried like others to get Irvine to discuss instead of edit war is questionable. Irvine raised a legit problem, which was simply dismissed because of his past that Irvine had already been punished for. Thats not encouraging others to discuss, simply ignoring peoples points is going to increase the chances they engage in edit wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No i think theres still a few outstanding issues. Previous debate did not take into account he had made that previous offensive comment. He was unblocked by an Admin who has been heavily involved in this case because they have applied bans to Irvine (clearly not as neutral as one would hope) and Throwaway violated his block to post on that admins talk page asking them to take a look. This whole thing smells fishy to me. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If something i have said in the above two posts is unacceptable, then please remove them but state in the edit summary why they are being reverted so i can make sure i do not make a mistake again. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked throwaway for two weeks, so s/he will have time to reflect on racism. She was informed that spade is a racist term, and her response was, she didn't care. S/he also asked if it was her responsibility to know every arcane racist term in the world. This is the typical response of a racist. No, you can like everyone else be ignorant until you are educated. But as far as "spade" goes another user explained that it is a racist term. One Wikipedians know this, they should stimply avoid using them. It is very simple, and there is no cost to not using the term (one can discuss how to improve ANY Wikipedia article without using the term, unless the article is on (1) kinds of shovels or (2) card games or (3) racial slurs, none of which was the case here. Some users have brought up nationality as an issue. It is true that the English are generally more racist than Americans (yes, deliberate irony, but I strike it out anyway), but thatjust does not matter: at Wikipedia people from all countries have to get along with one another, at least English speaking countries. If an Indian user informs me that a term i can easily avoid is racist in India, why shouldn't I avoid using the term? The only reason to coontinue using the term here is to provoke. That is wrong. It was not used in any way that would be required for the improvement of an article, therefore it is simple racism. 2 week block. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

After blocking someone for racism, you come up with "It is true that the English are generally more racist than Americans"? I'll just have to assume that's very subtle irony or something. Or complete bollocks, one of the two. Black Kite 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol i thought it best to avoid commenting on that sentence, as i agreed with many of the other things he said. However i see the block has been undone by another admin already now. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The reblock was contrary to policy as the editor had committed no new offense. You just can't do that, I'm sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

And similarly, you can't just undo it, either. This has descended into wheel-warring now, I'd suggest it would be a very good idea for everyone to just stop right there. Black Kite 23:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "just undo it". I acted in response to an unblock request, pursuant to which I did not find the block permissible.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd still think about undoing it, to be honest. No discussion with blocking admin... Black Kite 23:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I've undone it, and will leave a note for Slrubenstein asking him/her to comment here further. Everyone else is welcome to comment. I'm still considering the unblock and will wait for everyone to have time to comment. Might as well centralize discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand both your unblock and reblock rationale, but where no active harm is being prevented by the block, it might be more helpful (in future cases like this) to leave the unblock in place whilst the issue is under discussion, and impose a temporary ban on the user in question editing anywhere but the relevant ANI thread. Just a thought for the future. Rd232 ^talk 23:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone else wants to do that, I have no objection, since the editor is indicating on his talk page he wants to post here, and I said if he did it as a new section on his talk page, I'd post the link.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway85 has entered his defense here. I'd really appreciate comments on this matter from others.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This was my comment in response: "I find it very,very unfortunate that pretty much your entire defense against the accusation of levelling a racist personal attack should essentially be another personal attack levelled in racially-charged terms. Let me be clear: I am a proud person of mixed-race and I find it highly insulting that you presume to deny my identity. This, together with your previous racially charged comments, makes me reconsider my resolve to try to work with you in future. Irvine22 (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

THrowaway85 has also responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unblock

I'm prepared to wait longer for more comments, but it is my thought that Throwaway85 should be unblocked. The reblock has no basis under WP:BLOCK, and since he had been previously unblocked, consensus should have been sought and achieved prior to any reblock. I've asked for comments here, and would be grateful for some.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia should not be a place that tolerates racism. Irvine22 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my reason for re-blocking. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

(PS - My comment above was made just after I read Throwaway's defense at his talk page. I was angry because I felt the defense was essentially a reiteration of various accusations and personal attacks directed against me. Throwaway85 has since reflected on his behavior and offered an apology, and I have reflected and accepted.) Irvine22 (talk) 05:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Address the policies at issue, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I've allowed ample time for consultation, but have not heard from the reblocking admin. It is my opinion that the reblock was a clear mistake, since such an action should only have been done with consultation and consensus, and even though there was some discussion, there was no consensus that the prior unblock was a mistake. Thus the reblock did not follow policy. To allow for further comment, I will wait half an hour before implementing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm no expert on Wikipedia policy matters, but it seems to me that the original unblock by rd232 was questionable, as Throwaway85 had evaded his block to make a direct appeal to rd232, and rd232 went ahead and unblocked before the original blocking admin had approved. I think you should wait to hear from other involved admins before you unblock. Irvine22 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. I will give it until the morning. But then we do need to bring it to an end. Any uninvolved admin should feel free to take action in my absence (I'm going to bed) if they think it appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out that the original blocking admin Black Kite had said on Throwaway's talk page "If any other reviewing admin would like to remove or reduce this block, then please feel free to do so without contacting me." And I hardly think Throwaway contacting me by talk page rather than by email (as would be permitted) is a big deal. Rd232 ^talk 09:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrators have to be checks upon one anohter, so I welcome further decision hee. I once remarked that an indef. block seemed awfully harsh until another admin asked me to consider the difference between an indefinite block and a ban - indef does not mean "eternal," it can be unblocked at any time. Now, I would have given an indef black on precisely htese grounds but given the discussion it seemed like a 2 week block was more appropriate. I want to emphasize two things: (1) it looks there are other conflicts that some editors here are involved in. My block has nothing to do with that any other conflice. (2) WHEEL is important in principle but I do not believe administrators should adhere to it dogmatically (remember, policies are descriptive not proscriptive) ... that said of course it would be silly if admins went back and forth blocking and unblocking. My point: I blocked because I read sufficient discussion here to suggest that there was some serious doubt about the unblock.

There is only one reason I blocked again: the use of a racist term. I have seen a lot of discussion on this and the user talk page that amounts to rationalizations and excuses (it is archaic or arcane; people shouldn't be so touchy). Also, I personaly find it astoundingly disturbing that anyone would suggest that Throwaway not knowing another user is black is an acceptable excuse for using the word spade in this way. That is like a group of people telling a racist joke and then upon realizing a black (or jew or whomever) was overhearing, apologizing. We should all oppose racism and racist remarks, regardless what our race. If someone tels an anti-Semitic joke, that is not racist only if a Jew is present, it is racist, period.

I have no objection to an admin undoing my block. I ask only one thing, one condition if I may use the word, first: that we have a display, on the part of Throwaya and others, that calling someone a spade is wrong. It does seen to me that it was explained to Throwaya that the term is a racist term before the incident. If I have really screwed up the chronology, I apologize. I say this because i understand that perhaps someone living in Kenay or India or some other English speaking country may not know that spade is racist, and given the heterogeneous nature of Wikipedia, it is fair to give another editor a warning (spade, nigger, wop, dago, kike, yid, kanaka etc. are racist terms, do not use them here). I thought Throwaway had been warned. But as far as I am concerned that is th only excuse for using such a term and once warned, there are just no excuses. What really disturbs me here is all the other excuses I see, on the part of Throwaway and some who defend him. The discussion that starts this whole thread (whell, then calling someone a club a diamond, a heart ha! ha! ha!) - is really disturbing to me. Discussion like that trivializes the whole thing. The bottom line is, there is no need to use racist terms in order to do the work of building an encyclopedia, and the use of racist terms should not be tolerated. If Throwaway sincerely agrees with me and understands that s/he has now learned something she didn't know before, that spade is derrogatory and shouldn't be used that way, then unblock and sin no more. I just wanted to enusre that adequate time was given to let this sink in. It is not a joking matter here. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've said it a dozen times if I've said it once: the issue is whether the user deliberately made a racist comment. Using a racist comment requires (a) knowing that a word has a racist connotation (b) knowing that the person it's directed at (NOT somebody overhearing! Not when the term is being directed at someone - it would be different if the term was directed at a third party) is of the relevant race (c) racist intent (jokes and irony may easily go wrong, but are possible intended uses). Irvine22 made (a) clear, but not (b), and there is no evidence for (c). Throwaway was not familiar with the term, and rejected its relevance qua slur, on the basis that "I don't live where it's a slur" and "you're not even in the relevant racial group, you're just being argumentative". I think it's extremely dangerous in these circumstances to take a position where you effectively end up saying "I can read this user's mind, this term must have been intended as a racial slur". At any rate comparisons with unambiguously racist and much more widely known terms (is there an expression "call a kyke a kyke"? Is there an everyday item called a "kyke"?) are extremely unhelpful. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Condition b is not required. The problem with racism is that it is not an attack against one person, it is an attack against an entire race. Not know it is a racial epithet is a valid excuse, but that is it. Using it, even if you are not sure that the other person is a spade, nigger, yid, kike, wop, dago, whatever, is not an excuse. The very nature of racism is that it is an assault upon an entire race. I have left this comment on Throwawy's talk page and I would just ask any other admin considering undoing my block to read it before unblocking. My block was for two weeks and I am not opposed to someone unblocking before the two weeks are up, but I would like to see some serious reflection on this issue, not legalistic arguments that miss the point. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're continuing to proceed on the basis that the term must have been bearing racist intent (yada yada anything else is "rationalization"). Not knowing that the person was in the relevant racial group should have an enormous weight in judging how certain we can be of that, in the absence of telepathy and in the presence of the ambiguities described and in the fullness of the context. You're simply coming at this as "it's a racist term, full stop!" and that does not do justice to the context of the usage. Rd232 ^talk 09:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no racist intent. "Spade" is not such a term that the racist intent can be implied. Note that we have a page called WP:SPADE. I don't think WP:NIGGER will show a blue link. Accordingly, this encyclopedia does not consider "spade" to be beyond the pale, no color pun intended. For the reasons stated above, and for that reason, I'm unblocking. Also, WP:BLOCK carries procedures for an unblock. It does not carry any procedure for further review. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and whatever the merits of what the editor said, I do not think we will see any repetition after this experience. Enough. Let's get back to building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, this whole "not knowing their race, so it isn't racist" line is a crock. The intent is to belittle someone by using a racist term; their actual race is irrelevant. People do use racist terms as an implication, ie. saying someone is of less import by marking them as a "lesser" race. It doesn't matter that I'm white, if someone calls me a spic, nigger, kike, etc. they're doing so because they believe it's an insult to associate me with another race.

Given that Throwaway was already shown that the term "spade" has racist connotations, you'd think he'd be careful about using it again. And seriously, who literally calls someone WP:SPADE? You call them what you percieve them to be: troll, spammer, what have you.

At this point, we're arguing that it's not incivil enough because we don't know the targets race, so we can't know the accused's intentions. That just doesn't make any sense. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm always willing to discuss my administrative actions, but as you say that a stated reason of mine is a crock, I'm uncertain as to how to reply except by referring you as well to my other reasons for the unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the unblock. I won't go into any defense, as all of that is covered in detail on my talk page. I do, however, feel the need to admonish some of the commentors in this thread. There seemed to be a "me too" mentality, where everyone felt they needed to comment--often without taken the time to read the relevant background discussions. Particularly distressing was that an admin aparently issued a block without reading my talk page, which was the only place I could respond to allegations as I was unable to post here. I recognize that racism is a touchy subject, and many people have very strong feelings on the matter. Nonetheless, that does not absolve editors, be they administrators or not, of their responsibility to do the research before contributing. This matter could have been cleared up far quicker, and without any questionable blocks/unblocks/reblocks if people had merely taken the time to become informed and address their questions to me, rather than arguing amongst themselves. The misrepresentations that found their way onto this page were pretty egregious.

Nevertheless, I feel it is in the best interests of everyone involved to bring this matter to a tidy conclusion. The block has been served, and revoked, and I have endeavored to pursue a more productive working relationship with Irvine22. I think this report can be labeled "resolved" and filed away for posterity. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The admin in question did indeed read your talk page, which was the reason for re-blocking. Since that was unclear, I have left a final message on your talk page. HandThatFeeds is right. But now that the issue has been fully aired, hopefully the point has been made clear to you, and some others who didn't understand the point, and as you say, we can all move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we're merely misunderstanding eachother here. My interpretation of your comment is that it is based upon the top half of my talk page. I realize there's a lot to sift through, but your comment on my talk page simply doesn't appear to have been written with knowledge of the more recent discussion that took place there. That is my only concern here--that people's opinions have been formed, and later acted upon, based on a less than complete set of information. In the interests of moving forward, however, it may be best to agree to disagree on this, so as not to restoke the flames. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a resolved tag here? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ban of user User:Fraberj

Resolved

 – Ban enacted.

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.

---

• Fraberj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (2nd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (3rd)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (4th)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fraberj (5th)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fraberj
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fraberj

I am frankly getting tired of this user and his blatant disregard for policy. Awhile ago he was indef blocked for issuing legal threats, threats which I'm sure he still hasn't retracted, check his many talk pages. I'm sick of his soapboxing and using article talk pages to further his own goals, and I'm sick of his many, many sockpuppets.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I obviously support for the reasons above.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. After all those positive reports and blocks, why is he still here? Ironholds (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support. I assumed he'd already had an indef. block. We need to do this ASAP. SteveBaker (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I don't know what else can be added, that behavior is intolerable. -- Atama頭 00:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - the sooner this is finished, the better. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Be gone. Crafty (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I reluctantly conclude this measure to be necessary. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - if only to dot the i's and cross the t's. → ROUX ₪ 03:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - has exhausted the community's patience. Auntie E. 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Wouldn't this be better as a request for comment on user conduct? 23:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scrap that. Isn't he banned already? Five sock pages and several indef blocks should mean an indef block on sight, ostensibly the same as a ban. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He isn't listed as a banned user, and a search for his name turns up nothing, so I wish to make it formal, instead of informal.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a mixed opinion about this matter. Generally, I oppose editor bans; in spite of vandalism and ill-will, consensus and conscientiousness seem to win out; article quality improves regardless of bad editor behavior. Still, Faberj is very disruptive, shows no interest in developing encyclopedic content, and has a personal agenda that prevents and subverts comity. My ideals aside, wanton disruptive behavior does not help Wikipedia, and I am more interested in a quality encyclopedia than am I interested to see all comers participate in the generation of that encyclopedia. I'll support a permanent ban, if ban we must. William R. Buckley (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To prevent archival

As this is a ban discussion, I believe the broadest possible consensus should be obtained, and it should not be archived until finished, therefore, I am typing up this post to prevent premature archival.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if this really is a ban discussion, we don't use RFA style voting, so those headers have been removed accordingly - a note for future such discussions. Also, the ban has been enacted by Gwen Gale already, per the user's talk page and user page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 7 October 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.

Mark Levin

Resolved

 – Article locked, and due to persistent bullying, Talk page also, for 24 hours Rodhullandemu 01:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be the current target of a pro-Mark POV campaign. Blanking of controversies, repositioning the stance of critics, all the usual tactics. Some short-term protection might be in order. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some existing additions/deletions can be seen in this diff. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: off-wiki canvasing to promote vandalism being done: http://twitter.com/marklevinshow --67.183.232.99 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And the sheep obey... 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, wikipedia is often accused of being too liberal. Someone must have put a gun to our heads this time. A gun called "the rules". →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: earlier today, the off-wiki requests for vandalism was changed to now point everyone to vandalize the David Frum article. --67.183.232.99 (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

69.226.55.29

This IP is the most recent one used by a sockpuppeteer (68.125.20.12, 69.226.189.20, and 69.226.188.96 are just a few of the other socks) who has been adding false information to movie studios' pages for months. Please block it immediately. –Merqurial (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment account created: Bikeric

Resolved

 – no specific action taken on this case as was grounds to AGF for the newbie. General conduct management has begun at Mark Levin Manning (talk) 05:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems someone has created an account solely to leave harassing messages championing Mark Levin on my Talk page, and then restore them after I remove them. This is most likely an offshoot of the vandalism campaign Levin began yesterday and continued today. Could an admin please intervene? Many thanks. --BobMifune (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Investigate if you wish, but bear in mind the complaining editor may be affected by WP:Plaxico and the other editor may just need TLC normally given to newbies, unlike the face slap delivered by the complaining editor. I say this because the complaining editor has repeatedly reverted my own edits as "rvv" when that was simply not the case, and now he is here complaining about the same thing, only with another person. Be that as it may, I have not myself reviewed the alleged activity. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has a longstanding grudge with me over the Mark Levin article, and has now resorted to Wikistalking me to this page. Please see his offer of encouragement to an account limited only to harassment, in an attempt (one supposes) to gain an ally. This behavior is not exactly new. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any help with the Bikeric account. --BobMifune (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am looking over the account and the many related Mark Levin issues. No-one can claim the high road here and so far every party involved is guilty of some exceptionally bad conduct. IMO this is NOT a good time for anyone to go claiming they are an innocent victim.

I do not think any action is appropriate on this specific item because everyone has contributed to this s**tfight. Instead I am going to lay down the laws of good conduct at the Mark Levin talk page, and then try to ensure that everyone behaves appropriately henceforth. Manning (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think BobMifune has a legitimate complaint. Bikeric's only contributions has been to repeatedly post the same quasi-attack message on BobMifune's talk page over and over again. He has made no other types of edits. BM keeps removing it, and Bikeric keeps adding it back. This led to Bikeric BobMifune ( Manning refactored this) posting a warning on Bikeric's talk page. (A Level 4 warning was probably too high, but that doesn't mean BM's complaint is unfounded). I'm not disputing that no one can claim thte high road here, but it does appear that the Bikeric account has been created for the sole purpose of harrassing BM. Singularity42 (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Singularity - I refactored your above comment to change Bikeric to BobMifune. I hope no offence was taken. There are grounds to AGF about the comments made by Bikeric as it could be a newbie not realising their comments were deleted and innocently reposting them. (Of course they could be deliberate vandalism too - I'm not entirely sure). This is my hesitation. Cheers Manning (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. (And good refactoring too - I should probably stop editing while tired and get some sleep.) I just didn't want to BobMifune's complaint dismissed out-of-hand by the obvious problems going on at the Mark Levin article. Singularity42 (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Singularity - no, not ignored. I just think all the parties need a good time-out. Hence I've written a list of "THOU SHALT NOTs" at the Mark Levin article: Talk:Mark_Levin#Administrative_Time_Out_declared. Any other admin is free to add/modify and add their name, should they so desire.Manning (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like some WP:BITE all the way around - BobMifune's reaction to unwanted accusations on his talk page, and LegitimateAndEvenCompelling both here and on Bikeric's talk page directed at BobMifune. I wouldn't call it stalking exactly, this notice board is a public place... but biting biters is not going to calm things, and making semi-impertinent accusations against people for filing an AN/I complaint doesn't help much either. I've left a sort of welcome message on the new account. It is looking awfully WP:DUCK-ish as a WP:SPA and possible WP:SOCK / troll, but I don't think we've got enough to make that assumption. Better to WP:AGF here and treat the new account with the utmost of calm and politeness. If they mean to edit the encyclopedia productively they're welcome. If they persist in harassing BobMifune we've got plenty of time to deal with it. No hurry, huh? Being in a hurry to deal with provocation usually just makes it worse. Just my $0.02. Wikidemon (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon - I concur on all points. Cheers Manning (talk) 05:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nemesis of Reason

Nemesis of Reason (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email) Doesn't seem to get it; is still using WP as a social networking site, and indeed is recreating pages in his userspace deleted by MfD. Not sure what's to be done; I don't think my solution for User:Guitarherochristopher will work here. → ROUX ₪ 16:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User is now removing MfD templates from userspace pages nominated for deletion. → ROUX ₪ 17:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-create4im. If any further hidden pages are created then a block is in order. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Could even be an AIV-report, non? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It seemed a bit nebulous for AIV. He had indicated a desire to be adopted by me, but with my new work schedule I simply don't have the time--the fact that I've actually had 48h off is flabbergasting. I suspect the adoption request was a stopgap/wallpaper measure to avoid more problems short term only, given his immediate return to such page creations.

Penguin Warchief (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

is also worth looking at both for editing problems and strange connection to Nemesis of Reason, Orangesodakid (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

and Coldplay Expert (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

who were all very connected in the various secret page deletions last week. → ROUX ₪ 18:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Coldplay Expert seems to be actively trying to distance him(?)self from the general Myspacing, though. --bonadea contributions talk 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Givin that I know nemesis of reason in real life, I have reason to believe that he has a sockpuppet account called User:poornutz.--Orangesodakid 18:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

CE and I are not connected to this matter in any way. Yes we both participated in the MFDs for the hidden pages, but CE doesn’t have one, and I really don’t care anymore. Yes, I made a mistake in the past, user:Gurrenlaggan is a dark part of my wikipast, but I really want to forget about it and move on and work for Wikipedia.--Orangesodakid 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not just block the lot for a time? None of them seem interested in contributing to the encyclopedia, but would rather chat about on their talk pages and create useless and silly pages. Once their block(s) expire, they could be put through some sort of adoption/mentoring project and the ones that are interested in building the encyclopedia will stay and the ones who are not will leave. Warmly, –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 18:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would support that, especially given the blatantly obvious socking going on somewhere in the Nemesis of Reason/Penguin Warchief/poornutz triangle. → ROUX ₪ 18:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not talking about CE or me are you?--Orangesodakid 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are considering blocking CE and OSK (sorry for the abbrev.s), then let me say this. Coldplay Expert has actively distanced himself from the WP:MYSPACE stuff. He seems to be genuinely interested in helping WP, and has become interested in vandal fighting, even requesting rollback rights (he's still waiting to find out results). And he's added a Wikicat icon to his userpage. No that that's particularly important. OSK claims to have "turned over a new leaf". He's asked me about vandal fighting on my talk page. I have limited experience with OSK, but I think they're both deserving of another chance, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would provisionally agree with that, but for OSK's involvement with Penguin Warchief--see the latter's contribs. → ROUX ₪ 18:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely something odd going on there. If you mean PW editing OSK's page, that is. Could simply be that PW knows OSK in real life (this group all seem to be familiar with each other in real life) and is taking Wikipedia too casually. I'm too tired to comment anymore, my brain's hardly functioning. Well, if Poornutz turns out to be sock of the accused sockpuppeteer, a block is obviously appropriate. I think that should be investigated, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok now its time for my 2 cents. I know that some of you have suspicion of me. I have had some confrontations with some of you in the past. I can tell you that I am serious. I have now decided to fight vandals to some degree and have even applied for rollback like what spongefrog has stated above. I will sever any connections with anyone who violates my WP:NOTMYSPACE rule. (its on my talk page). I have even told Nemesis of reason to stop using WP as myspace. As for Orangesodakid. Let me assure you, he has “turned over a new leaf” He has also expressed interest in vandal fighting. (wether or not he will is anyones guess).--Coldplay Expert 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it is true that I talk to PW, and its true that he made a edit to my userpage, but I don't mind, I kind of like it, if its illegal, then I will take it off ASAP. I really would like to start working for vandal fighting, well bye!--Orangesodakid 19:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. let's assume that Coldplay Expert and Orangesodakid are intent on doing some vandal fighting. Their editing will show whether or not they mean it. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, though let's not put on blindfolds. The question now is Nemesis of Reason (who has clearly demonstrated through the hidden page recreations that he doesn't give a tinkers' about WP:ENC or WP:MYSPACE) and Penguin Warfare. → ROUX ₪ 19:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NoR is on a uw-create4im. One more inappropriate page created and the problem solves itself. Mjroots (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As his adopter, I'll see if I can set NoR straight. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 20:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

@Mjroots-I have been reverting vandals, just check my contribs. Now OSK on the otherhand has not but has expressed intrest in it.--Coldplay Expert 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is penguin warchief, i'm sorry for using wikipedia like myspace. I'm definately NOT a sock puppet of NoR, i'd rather not bring names into this but orangesodakid and coldplayexpert know me in real life. I'm kinda new to this and just learning the basics. I'd like to try to learn to use wikipedia in a more responsible way.--Penguin Warchief 12:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to clarify a few things. First, poornutz is a sock-puppet of me, however, I did not create him for vandalizing purposes. Second, User:Penguin Warchief is not a sockpuppet of me, so leave him out of this.--NemesisofReason 13:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the account? Why did you not disclose it until now? Why did you recreate your hidden page silliness after it was deleted? Do you actually have any interest whatsoever in contributing to the encyclopedia? → ROUX ₪ 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, the reason. I just wanted to make another account. I don't know what I was thinking. It was a dumb move on my part, but I have learned from it. Second, it wasn't there for vandalism purposes so I had no reason to disclose it. Third, the real reason that I re-created the hidden page was because I was using Wikipedia as a social website, even though I knew that I wasn't supposed to. Sorry about that. Lastly, yes, I do now that I realized Wikipedia is not a social network, so now, I actually want to help keep Wikipedia clean and prosperous.--NemesisofReason 14:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So what will happen to poornutz? blocked?--Coldplay Expert 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Given Penguin Warchief's comment above about wanting to contriute constructively I've left him/her a welcome notice. Mjroots (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, I guess that is case closed?--Coldplay Expert 10:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone protect Druid.raul's talk page

Indefinitely blocked Druid.raul (talk · contribs) is continuing to cause disruption by vandalizing his own talk page. He has reverted three or 4 different people continuously to remove the indef template. Can someone please reinstate it and protect that talk page, as well as the one of the sockmaster at User talk:Rhp 26 <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's allowed to remove that template. Go have a read of WP:UP#CMT.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• The indefblock tag should not replace the talk page. The history may be useful to anyone wishing to review contribution in the event of an (unlikely) unblock request. Black Kite 05:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it shouldn't be put on the talk page. But: he's an indefinitely blocked abusive sockpuppet. Since when are they allowed to edit their talk page except to request unblock? <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've a feeling that this editor won't be away for long. Fortunately he edits in a fairly narrow range of articles so any further sock shouldn't be too hard to spot. Mjroots (talk) 07:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when were they not?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So indefinitely blocked abusive sockpuppets can edit their talk page at will. I learn something new every day. Cheers! <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as they follow policy, and do not use it abusively, yes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed his IP sock's rant from this spot [308] and his registered user is blocked from his talk page now. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Pornographic image masquerading as a legitimate image

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.

Are thinly veiled pornographic images such as this, which are masquerading as legitimate images, allowed on Wikipedia? PintOfOJ (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks appropriate to me. I don't think this is intended to be pornographic. --Rockstone (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a real model of such an image? or are you just seeing peninses where they aren't any? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The right word would be "penes". Anyhow, though there's little doubt that the artist was having a little fun, that's how the engine looks, and that's that. PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to get my "penis" terms incorrect. But, as an artist myself, I sure the artist was having a little fun. Lmao, loving it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It looks like teh pensu. :) Crafty (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I was curious to find out if such an odd-looking device would have any functionality, so I checked and it's currently used at Reciprocating engine, Stirling engine, and Rhombic drive, so I guess it's legit. Can't honestly figure out how it works myself, but I'm not that mechanically inclined, I guess. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The creator of this thread might be shocked to learn we actually have a penis article. With pictures. -- Atama頭 00:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That does indeed appear to be a functioning stirling engine equipped with a rhombic drive, yes. Perhaps we could ask the image creator for an animated version. Skinwalker (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though, with the pink shaft and even "blue balls" isn't this image a bit too near the knuckle? Obviously the parts are not that colour in real life. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There are only so many designs out there, it is only natural that shapes get reused every so often. Sam Barsoom 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is just a phallic type of motor[309]. Other websites have diagrams similar to ours. I would not worry about it, even if it makes you feel funny inside. Sam Barsoom 00:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"...makes you feel funny inside." There's a "blonde joke" out there someplace. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, it doesn't turn me on or anything, nor does it disgust me (even though penises/penes are not my cup of tea), I just wonder if it is appropriate on a serious website such as this (I understand that the penis article will legitimately have a picture of a penis). It is not uncommon for people to try to sneak this kind of image onto websites, pretending that it is a serious image. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What other articles have you edited? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean on Wikipedia, none. In fact, I don't think that I have actually edited an article on any website. I have posted to forums of course, and also have a blog (although I would prefer not to link to it here). What I mean is that some people will try to post suggestive images if they think that they can get away with it by passing it off as a legitimate image, which may be the case here. PintOfOJ (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's worked for you so far. :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Does the animated stirling engine graphic excite the engineer in you?

In that case, how do you feel about the animated version? — Kralizec! (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sufficiently excited now; thanks, Kralizec. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs) 00:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that's just plain kinky... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The animation doesn't work on my PC. Is that a 2-stroke or a 4-stroke? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This would be a good illustration for the policy page WP:Don't be a Rhombic drive Beta type Stirling Engine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not boldly add it, then? - Pointillist (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: This page has been locked to prevent editing. - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:DICK isn't actually on Wikipedia. You have to log in on Wikimedia with an autoconfirmed account to edit it. -- Atama頭 01:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Bah... I'm autoconfirmed here, with global login... doesn't that mean the autoconfirmed extends to the other projects? That's just silly... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When I first saw this incident, I added it to my watch list just to see how it turned out. Anyways, I would think auto confirm would not automatically include other projects, as they are other projects after all. It's weird, but it makes sense to me. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So I'm not cool enough to be bold on the other projects... that's OK, I rarely leave this one anyway... can we get back to the topic at hand, now? More engineering pr0n! - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Britney Spears' Guide to Semiconductor Physics? DMacks (talk) 02:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh look, the animated version has a Prince Albert! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's not be sexist about this issue now! Why aren't women demanding equal time? Consider the opposite sex too: Vulva. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

PS:And for a better view of the lovelier counterpart on that WP page - look here: [310]. --Ludvikus (talk) 05:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Or check out most any of Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings of flowers. This one, for example: [311] Or this one:[312] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at account compromise (or maybe just being annoying)

Resolved. User blocked for the time being. --EEMIV (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I awoke to an e-mail this morning telling me someone from 129.42.208.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) requested a new password for my account. This IP's recent edits overlap with Kystien (talk · contribs)'s recent edits, which I and other editors have largely reverted over the last day as WP:BOLD gone amok. I reported Kystien to AIV for persistent page-blanking, but no block went in because, in fact, there were no violations after my level-4 warning. However, this apparent attempt to fiddle with my account came after those warnings. Now, technically, this editor hasn't received a warning for screwing around in this manner . . . but, it's pretty shoddy behavior, and I figure worth drawing attention here. --EEMIV (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor is now making ricockulous page moves. --EEMIV (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Appropriately addressed by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thanks! --EEMIV (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

99.144.255.247

99.144.255.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) This IP has been warned several times for BLP violations in the article, and the talk page of Roman Polanski, the IP edit warred multiple times [313] [314] [315] [316] [317] [318], adding material against consensus. This disruption resulted in the semi-protection of the article. Now, the IP continues POV-pushing and keeps inserting BLP violations (accusations of pedophilia and possession of child pornography without reliable sources to back them up) on the talk page. The IP should be blocked to stop this disruption. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the IP user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did add "Is currently a fugitive" to the Polanski article. Do I need to produce a ref for that here? I also changed "plead guilty" to "convicted" and changed the capital S in sex to lower case. All of those edits linked above were mine. If that "disruption" caused Cenarium to lock the article - perhaps this discussion should widen a bit.99.144.255.247 (talk) 18:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You need to provide reliable sources for everything you add to an article, particularly if the information is contentious, and the article is about a living person. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 19:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing contentious about noting that Roman Polanski is "currently a fugitive", indeed it is directly related to his world famous "conviction". Is there also doubt about spelling sex with a lower-case? Honestly, I do not get your point. Do you wish to presently see a ref supporting those facts you indicate are somehow "contentious"? Do you seriously not think those editions are/were supported yesterday when they were entered?99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you think that "fugitive" is absolutely the correct word to put into the article, you should have no trouble finding a source to back it up (if it's accurate, there is bound to be a newspaper article or something which you can use as a reference). I look forward to seeing it! ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[319] --Smashville^talk 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a link[320] to numerous NYT's articles describing him as a 'fugitive". (Thousands more exist around the world, but the NYT's is representative of the class) He is currently being described as such and will remain so until his return. If it occurs.99.144.255.247 (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out below, this week, he's been arrested. How can he still be a fugitive? ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 19:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, if he's been arrested by the Swiss Police, I'm not entirely clear what makes him "currently a fugitive" – ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This IP seems to be a single purpose account created only with the Polanski bio in mind, and has imo been adding excessive content to the talkpage and failed to stop when warned. It is a talkpage and not a place to just add content that you could not get into the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Uhm...how can an IP (as in, something without an account) be a single purpose account? It doesn't sound too sinister if he has been proposing content for an article on a talk page for that article. --Narson ~ Talk • 19:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything all that contentious about the edits. Is there any question that Polanski is not a fugitive? I mean, it's already properly sourced in the article. --Smashville^talk 19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's all good as you say, why has he got a gaggle of warnings on his talkpage? Its excessive ranting and raving on the talkpage, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The gaggle of warnings on his talkpage appear to be unwarranted and I advise you and the others to take a look at WP:BITE. --Smashville^talk 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, wikipedia bite. I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on that but I expect time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well...in this humble admin's opinion, it appears to be more of a WP:BITE issue than anything else. He hasn't really posted anything that contentious (and...seriously...adding Polanski's conviction to the lead is POV pushing?) nor anything that appears to be in bad faith. Instead of screaming "Block! Block! Block!", perhaps some of you could actually participate in dialogue with him instead of simply hounding him for his talkpage comments. --Smashville^talk 20:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That is a bunch of good faith and respect to you for that. At this point in time with the coverage I imagine that the talkpage is getting a lot of views, so I felt the excesive ranting (it is not discussion is it?) on the talkpage was a bit much, but I am more than happy to leave it to your experience. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not about adding that he was a fugitive, but the accusations of possession of child pornography and pedophilia that are wholly unsubstantiated. The IP cited only one source, for a topless photo, if this were child pornography, then Wikipedia would host much worse child pornography on Virgin Killer (talk page) and many other pages. Smashville, this is not a BITE issue at all, would you argue we should not block people for BLP violations on the grounds of WP:BITE ? maybe we should not block newcomers for vandalizing too ? the user had plenty of occasions to discuss but kept restoring the material. WP:CENSOR is no free pass to violate BLP (and the policy states this). Cenarium (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected and by the time you had made this report, he hadn't made an edit to the article in over a day. What purpose would a block have served? --Smashville^talk 13:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The IP repeatedly restored the BLP violations on the talk page. We have a policy, WP:BLP, and it needs to be enforced when editors repeatedly violate it. I had a similar experience on Talk:Barack Obama, it's clear in policy that sections starting right off based on BLP violations and have no incidence on the content of the article should immediately be deleted, they are in practice often collapsed when too much developed. So have I done, but it's useless when there's someone always restoring them. Cenarium (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You removed discussion long after it was created without contention. You removed discussion unilaterally without consensus. I've reverted it one time - and I opened up a section discussing BLP concerns. This is BLP: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Your abuse of the three letter BLP to wave around as you want is not supported by policy and your abuse of this forum to battle for you in a content dispute is a gross violation.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Stranger still - I've just noticed that your time-stamped complaint about me predates my actions by a couple of hours.

First you commented in the section:[321]. Then you collapsed it 7 hours later:[322] and then a couple of minutes later[323] while it's still collapsed and with nothing happening you arrive here to ban me? Your actions are unacceptable and your edit history via the time stamp shows them to be false and unsupported accusations designed only to further your own interests at the expense of fellow editors by abusing the system.99.141.254.118 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh really ? We had a little edit war long before that [324], [325], [326] and I repeatedly told you why I was removing the material on your talk page and in the edit summaries, I stopped the removals after having reported to ANI. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

After trying to familiarize myself with this topic (Polanski and related events) and help in editing it, I would like to voice my opinion that this IP is in-fact being very tendentious on talk pages and in his edits. He has morphed into another IP (as shown in his last signatures above), and is continuing in the same manner. The "ranting" description applied above is not wholly uncalled for. That's all I have to say about this.

IP has made 169 edits to Polanski and Talk page in last day..., take that for what you will.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the entire exchange I had with P&P[327]. If that type of exchange is unacceptable here, I'd be surprised. But then again, considering Cenarium tried to first get me banned for having the audacity to say Polanski was convicted - or his latest attempt to ban me by making a false accusation above - who knows what acceptable community standards are around here. 99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on just that exchange, I was commenting on the whole thing I'd read through. In fact, if it makes you feel better, at first I didn't even realize you were the same IP.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 03:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your totals, note that like in this sequence[328], I tend to retouch each edit quite a few times for all manner of reasons. It also occurred over three days in an active high volume article, not one. In fact, it pales next to the roughly 60% of all edits which are signed by you and that completely dominate the talk page at [talk:arrest of roman polanski]. Now that's a significant number.99.141.254.118 (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I reiterate my request for admin action, the IP restored again the sections accusing Polanski of pedophilia and creation and possession of child pornography, those accusations are wholly unsubstantiated and of no relevance whatsoever to the article, just ranting and unacceptable POV-pushing violating to the extreme WP:BLP. This lack of BLP enforcement is really disgusting. Cenarium (talk) 12:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP now moved to improperly edit and edit-war on Anjelica Huston, [329], [330], citing inexistent consensus for material violating WP:UNDUE and potentially WP:BLP (with hidden implications), and argues to have the same material inserted in the page Roman Polanski. And while I'm sure there are more interesting matters, the material clearly violating the BLP policy remains on Talk:Roman Polanski. Cenarium (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. Cenarium has reverted the established edit. His interpretation of BLP lacks support here and at the article - he is edit warring and basing it solely upon his personal dictation of policy. I, the same editor mentioned here, have returned the talk page to the long standing consensus and simply un-collapsed the sections. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally a section was opened several days ago to discuss BLP concerns here:[331]. The editor has chosen to unilaterally impose his will without discussion or support. I've included this information simply for background purposes. Thank you.99.151.164.92 (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And prior to that, this thread was opened to bring certain additions to the article into clear dispute on the talk page, under BLP concerns, while the same concerns were raised even prior to that (though less visibly on an evermore crowded talk page). The BLP concerns regarding this article are far from unilateral. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Cenarium is certainly not the only editor with serious BLP concerns regarding Roman Polanski and the associated talk page. IP editor 99...92 has been one of the more prolific editors adding some of the more egregious material (in relation to WP:BLP) to the talk page. I initially came to the Roman Polanski page from the notice placed on WP:BLPN, and what I found there was of serious concern to WMF. I am backing off the topic to some extent, lest I be accused of edit warring or POV pushing for attempting to boldly remind editors of BLP policy, but my concerns for the invasion of the rape victim's privacy and the clearly stated harm done to her by decades of invasive publicity are nonetheless diminished. This article and the associated talk page contain some serious BLP concerns, and if only a few editors attempt to enforce policy in the midst of such virulent and prolific editors as this IP editor, it takes on the appearance of a typical content dispute. I have little interest in the POV of the article, as long as the article comes into compliance with BLP policy, with which I believe it currently is perilously at odds, thanks to the contributions of editors such as this IP editor, who seem to have an axe to grind without any regard whatsoever for policy. That also includes cohorts who have clearly stated their intent to edit war material into the article in spite of BLP policy. This article needs serious intervention. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your BLP concerns in regards to the privacy of the victim are not directly relevant to the collapsed sections. Those sections dealt specifically with Polanski and his ref'd history discussed here.[332] The apples and oranges difference between BLP concerns of victim and internationally famous artist/convicted felon are significant.99.151.164.92 (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment WP:BLPNAME might have some relevant info on this. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 15:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Those sections accuse Polanski of creating and possessing child pornography and being pedophile, this is as repeatedly stated wholly unsubstantiated and a clear and egregious WP:BLP violation. (Also, the only source that could have been considered seriously who called him a pedophile has been totally discredited, he admitted to lie on the case...) Unless we come to an agreement, in a few hours, I am going to collapse the sections once more, and if you revert this again (you reverted the removals three times and my edits to collapse the section twice), block you. I hoped other admins would step in, it would be good if this happens, but I won't let this situation goes on indefinitely, even if I'm relatively involved in this. I really don't see why you absolutely want those sections not collapsed, since discussion is no longer active there and of no relevance to the article. Also, do not pretend that I haven't been fair to you, I could have made you break WP:3RR, or block you quickly despite my involvement, instead I gave you plenty of occasions to discuss and brought this into the open. This situation clearly demonstrates a failure of the system though, and again that high-level drama monopolizes admin's attention at times. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not high level drama, it's you personally opposed to the content. You've not found support in the discussion page nor here. And now you've stated without equivocation that you will use your administrative powers to ban me in a content dispute.

Look, it is a content dispute until, and if, you find a community consensus that the factual discussion of reliable sources is somehow a violation of BLP. Once a consensus is achieved, then and only then, does the content dispute become elevated into a BLP violation.

Please note that normally BLP violations are readily apparent to all and consensus is reached within moments, the fact that your position has failed to find any takers over the course of many days and literally hundreds of eyes should be throwing up flags by now in your internal processing.

And please let's respect policy, don't threaten or use your administrative powers to further your position in a content dispute - it's totally unacceptable. 99.151.164.92 (talk) 21:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute: this material is on the talk page, not in an article, and of no relevance to the article; and it's simply a matter of collapsing those sections under the WP:BLP policy (and they soon will be archived anyway). We routinely courtesy-blank material for BLP concerns for much less than that. Discussion is no longer active in those sections, and it's been established that they are of no relevance to the article, since those allegations are totally unsupported (you cannot deny that there is consensus on this). When talking about high-level drama, I was talking of other things happening on WP, distracting admins, for example this and that presently (so less will handle this kind of stuff). How could you know how we handle BLP matters anyway ?, hasn't someone argued you were a bitten newbie ? Furthermore, it's not how we handle BLP, if material is judged to violate BLP by any user, the editor is allowed to remove it immediately, policy states: "Material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.", and this applies to non-article space, and it's generally an exception to WP:3RR. I would not consider blocking you if we were indeed in a content dispute, but we're not. I preferred to take it here for more input, but many admins would have chosen another option than reporting you here. Cenarium (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is neither unsourced, nor poorly sourced. It is a well sourced[333][334] and impeccably referenced discussion of "how, where or if" to properly include in the article mention of Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls"[335] when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, his well referenced dating of multiple children [336] [337] [338] [339][340] [341] including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde[342] as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child[343] that he took himself.

These are tough but true realities directly related to the article and the matter at hand, BLP is not a tool for censoring verifiable reliable source material. And Wikipedia is not to be Censored. Abuse of rules to further one's editorial preferences is never acceptable.

How, where, and even if to include these facts is for community discussion and consensus - not for an individual to unilaterally remove by a false assertion of policy. BLP is a protection against falsehood, it is not a tool for the censorship of inconvenient well known fundamental facts.

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

And no, although no one asked and it is not relevant, I have always edited without a membership and am not a newbie.99.151.164.92 (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you mention, or any other source given on the talk page support the allegation that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. This (a 'debate' from the Daily Mail, no RS for anything) mentions a "paedophile photo", but this is not in relation to Polanski at all !, it's about a photo from Brooke Shields and is wholly unrelated. The photo referred to in [344] is not child porn by any recognized standard, it's been said repeatedly, and I told you above that WP has much worse photos (the one I cited above, virgin killer, has been the source of major controversy, and the iwf classified it as "potentially illegal indecent image", so not child pornography, yet this was far worse than a topless photo and of a much younger girl). Anyway, no RS says it's child porn, you could call it like that, but it would be WP:OR and we cannot accept this, so it's a BLP violation. Same for saying that because he dated another 15 yo girl, he's a pedophile, well no, you're not a reliable source for this, it's WP:OR, we cannot accept this because not a single WP:RS said he was, it's negative, so it's a BLP violation, and it's of no relevance to the article, so it should be removed from the talk page. His relation with Nastassja Kinski, the rape, and all the rest that can be reliably sourced, in no way am I censoring it. But I will remove or collapse any thread attempting to push the point of view that Polanski is a pedophile or created and posses child pornography. Those are BLP violations of no relevance to the article, and by all means, falsehoods ; multiple editors agree on this, yes there is consensus, and you well know this, just look at the threads again. And yes, this is standard talk page practice, just look at Talk:Barack Obama. Cenarium (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Reality check

I agree, to some extent. Let's be perfectly clear what we are talking about here. Paedophilia, properly defined, is nothing more or less than a sexual attraction to children, which may or may not be acted upon. That's the APA definition, in a nutshell, although somewhat limited for the sake of this discussion. However, there is a very wide grey area as to what "child" means here, and there are various disputed definitions from which anyone with an axe to grind may choose. Furthermore, the popular media have applied that term so indiscriminately that it is now weakened beyond rational analysis, and is used as a stick with which to beat any sexual offender against people under the age of sexual consent. I do not condone those activities, but not all these offences should be labelled as paedophilia. In the case under discussion, we are talking about Hollywood society thirty years ago, in which one might think that morality was, as normal, somewhat fluid; in particular, is it unthinkable that the putative victim's mother closed her eyes to the obvious, and the victim herself, who no longer seems to think it's a big deal, having moved on, is no longer interested in pursuing a case? Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for investigative journalism per se, but relies wholly on reliable sources. Tabloid journalism and purple prose fail that test, as far as I am concerned; facts are paramount, but opinion is cheap. Rodhullandemu 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a straw man argument to state that Wikipedia should not clinically diagnose Polanski as a pedophile.

Let's be clear here: The discussion is about how, where, and even if the article should mention Roman Polanski's recorded sexual preference for "very young girls"[345] which he made when asked about the issue in the weeks after he fled, or his well referenced dating of multiple children [346] [347] [348] [349][350] [351] including one described by a French reporter for the impeccably credentialed Le Monde[352] as "just a baby" and his arrest in possession of pornographic images of a child[353] that he took himself.

The discussion is based upon, - indeed the discussion is about - the very usefulness of, specific verifiable reliable sources and nothing more. And your arguments are content arguments about what, and what not, we can draw from those sources. They are not arguments that the sources and discussion of said violates BLP - each objection you've presented requires a finding and an article edit that does not exist - yet you seek not only to prevent the hypothetical edit that never occurred - but the reliable source discussion itself. We can quite readily state that Polanski dated Kinski when she was 15, and we do at the Kinski article. Yet you would silence that discussion here. A discussion about what, and how, to describe the complexities of the article's subject encyclopedicly .99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that although the debate is about the specific documented history and statements of Polanski - if you require reliable sources that state that he is being verifiably called one thing[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=17027][354][355][356] or another [357][358][359] there is quite a bit - and it's metastasizing. References such as this are common:

Thomas Kiernan's biography, "The Roman Polanski Story" was published in 1980, just three years after Polanski fled the United States following his arrest for drugging, raping and sodomizing a 13-year-old girl.

Kiernan's smooth biography is candid about the legendary tyranny, sadism and pedophilia that led to Polanski's rape conviction.

Said Kiernan, "Roman just couldn't understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He's screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn."

My personal preference is that we work with his history directly. Or do you feel that verifiable reliable sources finding him to be one thing or another should be produced first? 99.151.164.92 (talk) 01:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite in your latest comment are reliable in the least and especially not for such claims, mostly blogs or commentaries. On your previous comment, again, if you want to discuss a particular aspect for inclusion in the article that can be reliably sourced (his relation with Kinski for example, which actually is mentioned in the article, or presence of Huston in the house, presently discussed), I have no objection, but threads attempting to push a point of view that cannot be reliably sourced and violates WP:BLP such a pedophilia and child pornography will be summarily removed or collapsed. You still claim a topless photo of a child is pornographic, yet I have demonstrated to you it was not by any recognized standard. And concerning his alleged preference for "very young girls", once more, we do not make original research or to be more precise, synthesis, either you have a reliable source discussing the whole aspect, and if not, only specific incidents may be included and not linked together in any way - further, I don't see any of the written sources alleging a 'pattern'; and saying it's pedophilia (a term with a precise meaning) while no RS states this is a BLP violation. To come back on the central point, you may discuss specific reliably-sourced incidents, but a section pushing the POV that he is a pedophile or creates/posses child porn is not acceptable (without multiple RS to support - unlikely to exist). I won't wait much longer to collapse the sections. Cenarium (talk) 03:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not his "alleged preference for young girls" - it's a quote from him, "I like young girls, very young girls"[360]. It's not OR, it's a fact that he said he likes very young girls, and it's a fact that he was arrested in possession of photographs he took of a topless child. We're discussing verifiable, reliably sourced, references. You've dismissed out of hand dozens of sources I've quoted here - including the 1980 biography of his life he assisted in and linked recorded interviews of him. I'm sure I could add new ref's continuously from sources like CNN[361]only to have you dismiss them all with not even so much as a comment. This is starting to verge on the surreal. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

At least we're making progress, you no longer argue that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn. You'll have to find a reliable source discussing this quote if you want to use it. But again, if you want to discuss this quote, or the photo, there is nothing preventing you from doing that. What we're not going to accept are sections pushing the point of view that he's a pedophile or created and posses child porn unless it's directly supported by reliable sources. Because that would be original research and violate WP:BLP. Cenarium (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to find a reliable source discussing a CNN quote for it to be discussed? The only progress being made here is your acceptance that no BLP violation have occurred.99.142.1.147 (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Re first question: For the quote of Polanski: we don't discuss PRIMARY material, we need secondary sources discussing it (or WP:OR again). BLP violations have occurred, I told you what they were, now I'll remove them. Cenarium (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CNN is not a primary source for purposes of the Polanski article. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to the quote you cited as from Polanski. We cannot mention it if no RS has discussed it. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Cenarium has now taken to "Archiving" active discussion in order to suppress. I have reverted the "archiving" of the active section.99.142.1.147 (talk) 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have archived your section claiming censorship and pointed here because it's not about the article, how we handle the talk page should be discussed here. I have archived the sections violating BLP and strongly advise you to cease edit-warring over this. Cenarium (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no support for your contention that BLP is an issue, you've put forward no justification for your position and no consensus, let alone indications of interest. Your actions here - in which you've accused me of all manner of thing from using the word convicted to describe Polanski's ...ummm conviction ... to destroying the Anjelica Huston article to about 11 more items including this - would in many eyes be considered harassment and abuse of authority. Your baseless suppression of reliable source, referenced discussion is unacceptable. 99.142.1.147 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for 48 hours. Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested unblock (link). Cenarium (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It was probably a bad idea to block the IP yourself, given the involvement level in the dispute. However, I wouldn't suggest anyone overturn it. 99 is wrong, this is absolutely a BLP issue. There's been little response here because it's so blatantly a BLP violation to put in unsourced/poorly sourced accusations of this nature. I'd suggest 99 back off until he finds reliable sources and discusses adding them on the article's Talk page, rather than edit-warring and claiming censorship. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that unilaterally invoking administrative privilege to ban - after failing through over a week of effort and a dozen separate charges ranging from BLP cry's that a violation exists in calling Polanski a "fugitive" or the accusation that a BLP violation exists in noting he was "convicted" - to "disruptive editing" charges that I destroyed Anjelica Huston - are, to put it mildly, "probably a bad idea to block the IP yourself, given the involvement level in the dispute."

I would disagree however that any BLP violation can ever occur when discussing the when, where or even if to include mention of biographically salient and reliably sourced material. BLP policy is crystal clear on the subject:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."

Indeed, one should note that many of the BLP violations I'm accused of and that were cited in support of administrative action here by Cenarium, such as including note of the fact that the articles subject has been both "convicted" and is a "fugitive" have achieved community consensus and were included in the article. As has been my edit to Anjelica Huston, which also stands untouched to this day. Additionally, the more contentious discussion regarding how to address the numerous RS ref's that discuss the subject, in shall we say, less than glowing terms[362] - continues unabated and is at the center of Talk page discussion with nearly hourly comment and addition on the area.

Quick nod's to acronymic shorthand like "BLP" do not give flesh to the charges out of thin air, this ban is unsupportable and without basis. As would any ban be that was unilaterally imposed after being brought to - and failed to gain support at AN/I. It can never be acceptable to ask for a ban for someone you're involved in a content dispute with and then impose it yourself when no one agreed. Such action is expressly forbidden.

I understand that editing without an account entails enduring a great deal of discrimination - but this was over-the-top. A week of being accused without foundation, here at AN/I in this section, of dozens of things on multiple pages SHOULD NEVER conclude with the original complainant arbitrarily banning me because he was unable to find anyone else to do it here. A week of being unable to find support for ones complaint should have concluded the matter. Surely there are limits and rules to how far one can use administrator privileges to further ones objectives.99.142.1.147 (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As I believe this incident to have been a significant violation of policy, I would like to pursue this further and am preparing a succinct and thorough synopsis. Where is the appropriate venue to escalate discussion of this incident and Cenarium's use of his administrative privilege? 99.142.15.209 (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My interactions with you were purely administrative, no breach of policy has occurred. I am not involved in any kind of content dispute with you, we are not engaged in any edit-war over article content. If an admin finds a policy violation, the admin is entitled to enforce that policy, which I have done by removing or collapsing policy-violating material and blocking, considering your persistence. I am perfectly entitled to go to ANI to seek outside opinion, but doing so doesn't preclude myself from taking administrative action. Cenarium (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why say things that are so readily impeachable? Your first half dozen or so edits were purely content related[363][364][365][366][367] before, of course, you put on your badge and started editing by dictat through the imperious application of administrative authority.99.142.15.209 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But they were not related to you; and most of my comments were before I reverted or collapsed sections. The fact I made a few comments on the talk page of the article and reordered sections on the article (as well as removing an expired protection template, wow) doesn't make myself involved in a content dispute with you, we're not edit-warring over article content, and our interactions are limited to this situation. Yes, I am attempting to make the talk page compliant with policies and have as 'objective' to ensure consensus building runs smoothly; and I can take administrative action to ensure this. However, I will refrain from taking admin actions on you from now on, since I am tired of this. Cenarium (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your administrative sanctions furthered your content goals[368], and you did make specific reference[369] to discussion of content with me and another user, "I concur with the comment by Mike Godwin ... in [#Child molester needs to be in the lead|this section]" . Period, full stop, you are deeply committed to content in this article and you seek to suppress any discussion of things that counter your stated view:

"This is not an opinion, this is fact. Outside news outlets, many texts and books have been written on Polanski, they were not about this crime and scarecely mentioned it, if at all, but about his cinematographic work and life as director. (try international google books and scholar searches for example). Overall, there are many more news pieces centered on his work in the film industry, even in the US.Cenarium (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)"[370]

You have clearly decided that putting down your pen and picking up your badge allows greater influence over the article content through suppression of reliably sourced and verifiable material you found inconvenient to your stated objectives for the article. Your actions here are a clear ethical violation of the trust the community placed in you when it allowed you access to administrative tools. - 99.142.15.209 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't you just blocked for several days for repeatedly beating this dead horse? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to climb off the soapbox and put the stick down - it's hard to read important policies as influenced by law when you're waving such a thing around. Let us know if you ever actually have the backing for an WP:RFC/U on the admin in question, I'm sure we'll all participate. Have a day. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP is crystal clear, "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." _{(This discussion being referred to here though was purely about the "when, where or even if" of RS material and not an article edit)} As is policy prohibiting the use of one's administrative privilege to further one's content objectives.

Equal treatment, and fair honest enforcement, are baseline community fundamentals.99.142.15.209 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)