Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589

Strange username issue

Resolved

 – Blocked by another admin. Will encourage name change or new account creation. NJA (t/c) 09:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed (first in my watchlist) that User:Irongargoyle has been created as a new account. This was the original name of my current account (I renamed it to User:IronGargoyle several years ago for capitalization reasons). I didn't create this new (old) account, and although the account doesn't seem to have done anything harmful yet, it seems to be in violation of the username policy as an impersonation of myself (I find the possibility of a coincidental account naming highly dubious). I didn't bother to make the account a registered doppelganger account because I was under the impression that something in the Mediawiki software blocked the creation of accounts that too closely resembled existing accounts (particularly those of administrators). Anybody have a thought on what happened, and the best course of action for this weird situation? I should also note that any revisions prior to December 31 are my revisions. They had been deleted and thus were not re-assigned when my re-name originally took place and were subsequently undeleted. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like impostor material to me. But if I were you, I'd AGF and consider leaving a message on the talk page of User:Irongargoyle, explaining how you are the previous owner and how there could be a possible identity problem. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem with leaving a message on the talk page is that the "talk page" is a redirect from hundreds of my old signatures. Anyways, isn't the software supposed to prevent things like this from happening? IronGargoyle (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That is a serious problem. Yes, the software should automatically prevent this from happening, but it does glitch every once in awhile. IMHO, perhaps you could try waiting and watching the behavior of the old account. If it starts vandalizing/disrupting, then it's probably safe to indef. If not, then perhaps you could try emailing the newbie? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd block the account and encourage either a name change or registration of a new account. NJA (t/c) 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks, I blocked before but then the power went out here and I had trouble getting my router to let me back on so my apologies for the delay getting back here to tell you that and save you all from looking. IronGargoyle, you're right that the software now has an anti-spoofing feature which is meant to prevent people creating accounts too similar to existing ones. Admins can bypass the anti-spoofing feature though so I checked but it doesn't seem to have been created for the person by someone else, so I don't know what happened. The same thing happened to me though when I changed from Sarah Ewart to Sarah and before I could re-register my old username, someone else had registered it. I blocked it before they used it to edit and a kindly bureaucrat later renamed the account for me so I could re-register it myself. I will leave the person a message, in case it is a coincidence and not anything malicious, but you should think about usurping the name yourself. Sarah 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IronGargoyle, I broke the redirect on the talk page of that account to leave a message telling them why they've been blocked, on the off-chance it's not a troll or whatever. I also left a message pointing at your talk page for people who might be looking for you and following old signature links. I will go back and restore the redirect in a day or so. Sorry about that but I just think we need to try to communicate with them the reasons the account is blocked on the small chance it really was just a coincidence. Sarah 12:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for all your help. I agree that communication was probably the best course of action, and that blocking was the right call. I would have left a message, but I didn't feel like I could block the user myself without a conflict of interest—and I felt kind of silly leaving a message along the lines of "I think your username should be blocked because your username is too close to mine, but I'm not going to do actually block you. Someone should be along shortly though..." It seemed a bit odd coming from me. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock of Multiplyperfect

Resolved

 – User blocked indefinitely

Wikiidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is almost certainly yet another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this time impersonating User:Wikidemon. Can someone please nuke this guy's entire site from orbit per WP:DUCK? It's the only way to be sure. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Even the name, Multiplyperfect, sounds socky. The Wikiidemon name does not have an excuse but numerical names do, such as Johann 1 and Johann 2009, etc. That's because there's a shortage of names in Wikipedia, lots of them are taken already. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction restriction

I would like to request that a community-imposed, non-prejudicial interaction restriction (across all Wikipedia namespaces) be enacted between me (talk · contribs) and JohnWBarber (talk · contribs) (and any other usernames operated by this editor, of which there appear to be several). JohnWBarber (particularly as Noroton) seems to relish any opportunity to attack me, and has done so frequently. A restriction that forces us to completely ignore one another, enforced by the threat of sanction, would seem to be an ideal solution. I would appreciate it if another editor could notify JohnWBarber of this thread on my behalf. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Notified. –xeno^talk 15:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that :) -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this request procedurally-acceptable, by the way? I am aware that ArbCom can impose interaction restrictions, but I am not sure if it can be done here. If this is inappropriate, I would appreciate advice about what alternatives there might be. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't why not (in theory, mind you - I haven't reviewed this case). I vaguely recall seeing similar things enacted in the past. –xeno^talk 19:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the notice. About a year ago, I think, I made numerous complaints about Scjessey's conduct, then didn't have any contact with him until earlier this month. I was commenting at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident when Scjessey began replying to my posts there. I responded. I think the tenor of his comments and mine on that page are adequately represented in this thread. [1] Once Scjessey made this statement [2], and in good part because of it, I decided my participation on that page was not worthwhile. When an RFAR came up, I commented [3], mentioning Scjessey's conduct. Which resulted in this comment on my talk page [4], and now this complaint here. I mention all this because I've long thought it would be a good idea for admins to keep a close eye on Scjessey. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot. I notified him about my RFAR comment mentioning him with this [5] comment, and he initially reacted with this [6] edit summary before replying on my talk page and then making his complaint here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• There was nothing wrong with my conduct. I'm not interested in Noroton's spin of events. I want the interaction restriction so that he leave me alone and stop making statements and comments that misrepresent me. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IP !voters at AFD

Resolved

 – Complainant was blocked as a sockpuppet. Fences&Windows 00:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Are IP users allowed to !vote at AFD? This AFD appears to be dominated with them, and the majority of !votes are plagued with WP:ILIKEIT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IP !votes are allowed in deletion discussions. They are not allowed, however, in RfA discussions. It seems like you are not keeping your objectivity on that AfD since you are the nominator. Ultimately, it is up to the closing admin whether the article is kept or not based on the arguments presented. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

comment This editor has already been reminded how AfD works. Suggest he lets the debate run its course without worrying about whether or not the articles get deleted or kept. Mjroots (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If a flood of single-purpose accounts/IPs pop up, the closing admin can give less weight to such commentary (as the purpose of AFDs are to develop a rough consensus within a cross-section of the community as opposed to outside of the community). –MuZemike 21:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can also tag them as single purpose accounts that have little or no contributions outside that topic and this will help the closer to see what is going on. Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

— Off2riorob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. using this template.. {{subst:spa|username}} Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a domination there. There are two IP keeps, so I wouldn't worry about this at all. The IPs are also from different areas as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I believe in this case we have a clear case of deletionitis. My recommendation would be that WossOccurring took 2mg of WP:CHILL and 1cc of WP:DGAF and then return to the discussion. (I hope you appreciate my attempt at humor here. :P) > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• WP:PLAXICO. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 22:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • He gawn, bye-bye... both the single-r and double-r version, and another miscellaneous item or two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Daedalus969

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.

---

Resolved

 – Warned both users to knock it off. Will block if necessary, contact me if it continues. tedder (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I'm being bombarded by this fellow on my talk page. [7]. He's made 13 comments, he is becoming increasingly belligerent. I think it would do him so good to have a break. The argument is near hysterical. I asked him to stop, I told him I'd come to this noticeboard, etc., but that seems only to have inflamed him more. Thank you.Malke2010 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not shopping anything, btw. I'm trying to get help. I was once blocked for far less than this. I did not instigate this, Daedalus did. There is no rhyme nor reason for this behavior. He has continued to post to my talk page offensive posts even after I told him to stop and that I would go to this board. I am not adept at reporting these things, I am not shopping anything. I am simply sick of this man's rants about me on my page and I believe that his behavior more than justifies a temporary block for him to regain his perspective. Thank you.Malke2010 04:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And please think about this: what reasonable individual starts this in the first place? He puts something on my talk page, said I didn't even have to reply to it. It sounded nutty to me so I deleted it. I'm allowed to do that on my page. Out of nowhere he appears on my page and he's telling me I'm allowed to do many things on wikipedia,but lying is not one of them. I have no idea what he's talking about, so I leave a message on his talk page, "Dude what are you talking about?" And then the next thing I know he's unleashing a torrent. User: Coldplay Expert and I were having a discussion when Daedalus appeared. Coldplay Expert made the reply to him, and then it went on from there. I stayed out of it. Finally, I told Daedalus, I did not lie in my edit summary, I made a mistake. I told him to stay off my page or I'd come here. He is following me all over the place. I go to JpGordon's page, and there he is. I've been blocked in the past so I went to JPGordon's page because I know he lives in California and he's probably still awake. Then Jade Falcon, for reasons unbeknownst to me, archives my request. I don't know what is going on here, but this man needs to be blocked. This behavior, these posts, this entire argument is his, and it has no rationale other than apparently to create all of this distress. So please, I ask you, stop him. Thank you.Malke2010 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to mislabel the facts. I was not ranting to you, or about you, and I don't see how anything I have said was offensive, in fact, you were the one being offensive with your insults about myself, and your insults about my motivations, both of which are completely wrong. I never ranted about you, all I did was try to tell Coldplay that they were wrong in putting words in my mouth, and to read my posts.

Secondly, you did instigate my further posts on your talk page when you insulted me behind my back at CE's talk page. If you can't take the heat, don't play with fire.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues aside, why are you shopping this around? (example, example) tedder (talk) 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love how you continue to misconstrue the facts. Initially I left you 3 messages. I first told you that you cannot tell another person to stay out of any discussion. You removed that with an inaccurate edit summary. I then told you that you cannot lie in edit summaries, as that is what I thought you did. You then sent me a message asking for clarification, and I replied further. That is 3 messages. All the rest were addressing and in regards to Coldplay Expert, not you, so there is no way you can say that I was harassing you. Secondly, I only continued to post to your talk page after you wrongly assumed my reasons for discussion and insulted me by labeling my arguments as without reason.

For any who do not wish to read the discussion here, I'll post a summary of what happened. As a disclaimer, it is the same summary I have posted 2 times now:

“ Alright, first, I'll start by stating things in a summary, then I'll explicitly cite and explain:

First of all, I stated that Mal is not allowed to lie in edit summaries. You then come on the page defending Mal, saying that she can remove posts and other things. I correct you, saying that she cannot do specific things, and again refer to my above statement. You fail to listen and again put words in my mouth.

Now for the explicit explanation:

I stated, to Mal, that she is not allowed to Lie in edit summaries, as she did here. You come defending her, stating that she can do whatever she wants with messages on it, citing WP:UP. I clarify to you, that she can not indeed do anything she wants with any messages. I state what she cannot do with messages. I do not state that she perpetrated any of the described acts. Further, I never stated that she was not allowed to remove messages.

You then quote policy at me again, putting words in my mouth again while calling me blind, citing WP:CIVIL(talk about double standards). I tell you to make sure you've read my entire post, because it was quite obvious you weren't reading it, otherwise the aforementioned points would be obvious to you.

You wrongly state that you have read the post, even telling me that I didn't back up my accusation(even though I quite clearly did, when I cited her lying in an edit).

I express rightful disbelief at your fallacy of having read my post, per my points above.

Therefore, I stand by my statement that you have not read my post. You are quite obviously assuming and reading into my posts, instead of reading them explicitly, as I have asked of you. So again. Read my post, please, before responding any further.

”

There, there is everything that happened. Only 3 of the initial messages(those posted before Mal insulted me on CE's talk page) were directed to Mal, the rest were directed to Coldplay and only Coldplay.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

For some reason the {{xt}} template appears to be experiencing some problems.. my summary is there, but I don't know why it isn't showing up..— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was doing something wrong, I finally figured out what with some help, and found it was tad ugly, so I opted for cquote instead.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. Just stay off of her talk page and let this go. AniMate 04:31, 31 December 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.

Unblock request of Daedalus969

Resolved

 – Unblocked by Gwen Gale after discussion on user talk.  Sandstein  14:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Tedder has now blocked Daedalus969 for this edit which Tedder believes represents "continued incivility", also citing WP:NOTTHEM as a block reason (see User talk:Daedalus969#December 2009). As an unblock request reviewer, I believe this is a mistaken block. While I hold the strong view that incivility is blockable disruption, I see no incivility in the cited edit. Also, WP:NOTTHEM (which I originally wrote, by the way) is part of WP:GAB, which is intended as nonbinding guidance how to write a successful unblock request and not as general policy for conduct while not blocked. I'll grant the unblock request unless other admins disagree here.  Sandstein  07:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) '

Please do not unblock this user. Here are the diffs of incivility: Tedder:[8] 1st. [9] 2nd. [10] 3rd. [11] 4th. [12] 5th. [13] 6th. [14] 7th. [15] 8th. [16] 9th [17] 10th [18] Thank you for your consideration of others. Malke2010 07:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These are unhelpful diffs. Not all of them are by Daedalus969 or are even diffs. Those that are by Daedalus969 are not incivil on their face. "You are an asshole" would be incivil, but "Stop doing this and that" is not. I'm also not examining the whole history of Daedalus969, just the edit that was specifically cited by the blocking admin as the block reason.  Sandstein  07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

in this diff he is definitely incivil. Please keep reading down on the right. [19] Thank youMalke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(big ec here) I'd like to see some quick admin consensus before unblocking. It's harassment to carry on with this dispute across multiple arenas (~65 edits across User talk:Malke 2010, User talk:Coldplay Expert, User talk:Daedalus969, WP:ANI, User talk:Tedder). He was given many warnings to disengage and to understand it from other points of view, not to mention the warnings on his page. That's my take on the situation. I tried de-escalating both users. I cited NOTTHEM more as advice to Daedalus969. No complaints if he is unblocked, but I did want to explain things from my point of view. tedder (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

forgive me for not being an expert at making diffs. I am not a regular user of noticeboards, etc. But Tedder is correct. Daedalus969 has been crossing over pages, he's insulting, using foul language, abusive language, and being accusatory. He's accused me of lying, etc. This man has come onto my talk page and created this drama. There was no need for this. A block will help him regain perspective. Blocks are meant for that. It is not a punishment. It is meant to give the user clarity and time to reflect on his own behavior. Malke2010 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocks aren't supposed to give a user clarity, they are only for disruption. Blocking to "cool users down" is not the right thing to do. (note: Also removed huge paste of content from Malke 2010, please use diffs or links instead) tedder (talk) 07:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, forgive me, but that is exactly what I was told back in the summer when I was blocked. It is meant for the user to regain perspective. And something else, the jade falcon had adopted me, but apparently after an email with you Tedder he has withdrawn. So this whole thing, not of my doing has cost me a good relationship with someone who was helping me on wikipedia. Now who do I see about that?Malke2010 07:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that nowhere in the e-mail did I say it was tedder who I conversed with. It was an uninvolved user who wishes to stay anonymous so that they don't become involved. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO: this should have stopped after EC made the edit that the "Added comment" edit summary was likely a mistake, if Daedalus969 would have assumed good faith, it would have stopped there instead of him continuing to press the issue that Malke was lying and going against policy, when there was no policy violation, just Deadalus969 assuming bad faith that Malke is out to get him or something. Q ^{T C} 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, thank you. He arrived on the page already acting like something had been done to him, that he'd been disrespected in some way. The whole opening line, "You can do many things on wikipedia, but lying isn't one of them." and then the diff of the edit summary, as if something egregious had been done. I don't even know this person. I've never had any prior contact until he came to my page. Malke2010 08:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to say one other thing: I do sincerely feel bad for this man. I realized this when I started to read over his posts and realized how rambling they were and that the anger didn't make any sense in view of this perceived edit summary insult. Something is clearly upsetting him. I can see where everyone has tried to reason with him in his unblock request and I admire the patience everyone there is showing him. And I want to thank Q for understanding.Malke2010 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Can someone just unblock Daedalus969 or block me as well? After all I contributed to this just as much. The dispute is over so cant we all just get along?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how blocking you would help anything. I've more or less told Daedalus what he might do, to get a swift unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a sec. I don't think your actions merit a block in any way, Coldplay Expert, but that doesn't mean you were completely in the right. First of all, you apparently leapt to Malke's defense without actually knowing what you were talking about. WP:UP most certainly does not give users free license to do whatever they want with their user talk pages. Daedalus969 replied thus, and you began putting words in his mouth, arguing (repeatedly) that there was no refactoring of comments when in fact Daedalus969 never alleged that there was. Now, I don't know whether you misunderstood what he wrote deliberately or not, but your behavior wasn't good either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This block should stick. I don't know Malke or the full story here, but the nutshell is that Daedalus has a long-term pattern of uncivil, strident belligerence. He's been cautioned about this many times and has long acknowledged his WP:STICK issue in his editnotice. This block is not for a specific recent diff but for his history of being on the wrong side of a bright line. Daedalus needs to acknowledge the totality of the concerns and agree to change his approach. In a word, he needs to listen. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I thought Daedalus was biteing Malke so I decided to defend her. Yes, I misunderstood what he was saying apparently but not on pourpose.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 20:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence by SingingZombie

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked by LessHeard vanU. Edit summaries oversighted.

User SingingZombie appears to have posted real life threats of violence or exhortation to violence in several edit descriptions in the edit history of Murder of George Tiller. Here you can see the descriptions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_George_Tiller&action=history. His statements appear to constitute a threat of lethal force against anti-abortion activists. I'm not really sure how to handle this, but perhaps authorities need to be contacted (who? where?) and a ban seems appropriate to prevent him from advocating violence any further on Wikipedia. Presumably his edit descriptions should be removed from public view but somehow preserved if needed as evidence by authorities. Also, based on his talk page it seems that there have been previous incidents in this subject area, raising even greater concern. Locke9k (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon review of SingingZombie's talkpage I noted they were previously advised not to make comments in regard to anti abortionist activists, following an ANI discussion. As a consequence of the comments made per Locke9k notice above I have indefinitely blocked SingingZombie. Since SingingZombie's other edits appear generally good faith, if not exactly policy compliant is all cases, I would like a review of my actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. Perhaps if SingingZombie agrees to the terms of a topic ban (via email) and to abide by the letter and spirit of WP:CIVIL, he could be unblocked eventually, however, comments like those in edit summaries, especially after being cautioned against them, are totally unacceptable and if ti weren't for his previous good faith contributions, I would unreservedly support (in my non-admin opinion) an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There's a large difference between civility issues and the comments shown here. I don't know what other edits this user has made and frankly I do not care. There's no place for that on wikipedia and no place here for the person who writes it. Support the indef block and indef should mean forever.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There is just no way that SingingZombie's edit summaries are in anyway acceptable. And in case anyone doesn't know incivility, attacks or any other bad behaviour in edit summaries cannot be gotten rid of. We are stuck with SZ's remarks in edit summaries in one form or another (even if we delete the edits) LhvU's block is spot-on and while I understand HJMitchell's point about SZ's action elsewhere being in good faith IMHO nothing can mitigate this--Cailil ^talk 17:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please confirm: oversight can't do anything about it? --NellieBly (talk) 23:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also contacted Oversight at the time, and they have been removed, but I didn't want to make a drama out of them by noting it then. I worked on the basis they would be visible long enough for people to comment upon my indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'd point out here that people like SingingZombie make Baby Jesus cry, but I'm non-religious. HalfShadow 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm atheist and pro-choice, but I don't condone violence against those who hold contrary opinions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
• That is a less than helpful comment. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Block review please

Resolved

 – Block endorsed, editor has resolved to continue socking. Fences&Windows 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like a review of my most recent block of Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).

The editor has been a decent vandalism fighter, but also has a long history of some pretty strong incivility. After a recent block for this gem, his block has been modified a number of times for further incivility and most recently extended to two weeks for sockpuppetry. However one of the socks he created was Jim Leavitt's Attorney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) which appears to have been created with the sole purpose of making this legal threat. I have indefinitely blocked the sockmaster for WP:NLT until the legal threat has been retracted. Note that COM is not able to edit his own talk page due to misconduct during block, but the sock is able to retract it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction: COM has been able to edit his own talk page. since the block was modified so both he and the sock are able to retract the threat and/or request {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correction 2 :COM is now able to edit his own talk page, and this admin needs more coffee. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Seems to me to be more of a case of a blocked angry editor (who said when blocked, please block me indef so I can start socking) who was more being stupid that really making a legal threat, imo that it wasn't as a legal threat very meaningful and although for the issue and the socking round it I suppport an extension to his block I feel that an indef is perhaps not the best option in this case as having him in a known account would be better than multiple socks. I have left COM a note asking him if his sock wants to withdraw the legal threat. Off2riorob (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

May be hard without talk page access, unless he uses another sock, of course! Ravensfire (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My mistake in my post above. COM should be able to edit his own talk page since the indef block. He also has the capability of requesting {{unblock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, Crotchety Old Man already got consideration for being an established user with valued contributions when I extended his block to one week and removed talk page editing privileges for a vicious personal attack. I can't speak for other admins, but speaking for myself, the edit on his own talk page while he was blocked would by itself be enough for me to indef block most other users. That it was only extended to a week was a leniency that he abused. I recognized the "blocked angry editor" angle as well, but he's still responsible for his own edits. We of course walk a fine line between preventative and punitive. In this case, the right result appears to have been reached, keeping in mind that "indefinite" is not "forever". Todd could have asked someone else to review the legal threat rather than take action himself (since he'd been previously involved). However, we're still within the 1-week extension that I issued, so Todd's request for review here is perfectly appropriate. A review of that behavior by itself might well warrant it being changed to an indef regardless of any subsequent behavior.  Frank  |  talk  15:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think he is a good vandalism fighter, he reverts as vandalism anything he disagrees. 201.43.205.124 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Note – The IP is a sock of de facto banned user User:Pé de Chinelo, part of a /17 range I just blocked. –MuZemike 16:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really sure if the legal threat block was entirely appropriate; he did do it, as another editor mentioned, while he was "playing in character". However, I recognize that we have to take even that seriously. I would be fine with leaving the indef block as is, but perhaps after a week, we should reenable his talk page access so he can actually withdraw his legal threat. Note that his most recent block included: "00:55, 31 December 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Crotchety Old Man (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page)". NW (Talk) 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dammit - I thought I fixed that this morning. It's fixed now and he can edit his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef We have 2 issues: the socking, and the use of that sock to violate WP:NLT. The socking is bad enough, the NLT is horrendous. Not only de we need the block for the NLT, but the socking as well. Support indef, with reduction to a week once legal threats retracted/recognition of the absolute stupidity of the action tales place - not concurrent. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef until the legal threat is withdrawn. That's standard practice. Durova³⁹⁰ 16:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. No doubt COM had a history of valued contributions. No doubt also COM had a persistent history of incivility and WP:TALKO violations (see e.g. this AN/I or this thread). The user also vandalized a high-profile article only to prove a point ([20]). Adding to that the fact that the user, in defiance of the block, resorts to socks and add the legal threats, and add the fact that he seems incapable of constructive dialogue with whoever disagrees with him or warns him, I cannot see how anything less than an indef (or a very long, like months) block can be useful. --Cyclopia^talk 16:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. If he wants to come back, he can withdraw the sock's legal threat, declare and cease use of any and all socks and abide by policy and norms, particularly in regard to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:SOCK. If he agrees to the above, I see no reason not to unblock him, though any breach of the above should render him liable to an indef block. HJMitchell You rang? 17:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef - If Crotchety Old Man is willing to make a serious {{unblock}} request that acknowledges the trouble he caused, we should consider acting on it. Lately he has seemed to be off in his own world so an apology is unlikely. If he does make one, lifting the block may be considered. What he's been doing lately is unacceptable behavior for an editor, and there is no need for us to put up with more of that. EdJohnston (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• COM has replied on his talkpage to the question, does your sock want to retract the legal threat? with... "Hey guys! Todd finally got it right. My attorney withdrew his legal threat"... Which if it is a retraction is a bit of a cryptic retraction . Off2riorob (talk)
• Support indef - this kind of behaviour, renders an editor irrelevant to the project. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef at least until or if the guy decides to get serious about a retraction and own up to his socking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose indef. The idea that COM was making a genuine legal threat is fantasy. The two-week block for incivility and socking was already plenty: we should have the flexibility to see when a further block is unnecessary, and this is one of those cases. If he carries on socking and swearing left, right and centre, then we can extend the block. I don't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that his 'legal threat' justifies an indefinite block, especially as COM's non-existent attorney has withdrawn it: "My attorney withdrew his legal threat." Fences&Windows 19:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support Indef. per above. This has been going on for a bit too long. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support indef. Vandalism reverts don't make up for socking, trolling, and legal threats. When asked to desist, he just promised to make more socks. Pcap ping 03:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Given the trolling that has resumed on COM's talk page, I have protected it indefinitely. It seems this discussion has run its course. Toddst1 (talk) 08:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block.  Sandstein  14:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough using main account to run bot tasks

Over the last 8 months, Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has made approximately 400,000 edits [21], rocketing themselves to the setting themself high atop of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. The vast majority of these edits were done with AutoWikiBrowser and furthermore, many were primarily cosmetic. Irrespective of that, they are seemingly using some kind of macro or modified AWB build to automate the saving process unless we are to believe that they really are sitting in front of their PC for several-hour-long stretches hitting "save" at close to 30 edits per minute [22].

Most recently, they had been running a task that made three edits in sequence to articles in order to complete a task that could conceivably be done in a single edit. [23] Had the proper steps been taken and Bot Approvals Group was engaged, they surely would've denied a bot using such an inefficient method of editing. I note Rich has since discovered a workaround for this issue after my prodding.

My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use and furthermore flooding recent changes with tasks that really should be run with a bot flag (if at all). Upon querying the user, their stated reason for running bot tasks from their main account was uncompelling [24] and they resumed the task from their main account.

I invite additional scrutiny and advice as to how to convince or compel this user to respect Wikipedia:Bot policy and AWB's rules of use. –xeno^talk 17:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hardly in the last 8 months. There's a serious amount of low level dirt that needs cleaning, BRFA is seriously slow, I prefer to fix a problem rather than file a request for someone else to do it. Wiki - if anyone had forgotten - means quick. Rich Farmbrough, 18:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm not asking you to ask someone else to do it, I'm asking you to ask BAG for approval to do it from a bot account rather than your main account. The tasks you are running are not in any way mission-critical such that you can't wait a few days or a week for BAG approval. –xeno^talk 18:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't just ignore bot policy because WP:BRFA "is seriously slow". Singularity42 (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a lot of respect for Rich and he does a lot of excellent work, however, as an occasional recent changes patroller, I can tell you the AWB edits do flood the recent changes- he can be in the same list 4 or 5 or even more times and the standard 50 edit display only shows the last 1 or 2 minutes on a normal day (perhaps someone can give a statistic for how many edits are made a minute to the whole wiki?). I have to say, it would be preferable for these edits to be made from a separate, bot account, though they do need to be made. HJMitchell You rang? 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are roughly 12.57 every second. This is the total number of edits divided by the total number of seconds that Wikipedia has existed (I rounded up to 9 years here). I agree with Xeno though in that Rich has way to many edits. He has already opted out of the list of edits here, and until this recent dump, his name was on the top. He has 250,000 more edits than the guy right behind him as well. I don't see anything wrong with a ton of edits, but the flooding of recent changes and other things is a concern. Also, he practically is a bot with the number of edits that he has. I don't even know of a bot that can make over 106,000 edits in one month, as he did this past month. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

OK guys point made. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

"My concern is that the user is blatantly flouting the WP:AWB#Rules of use ". Darn this guy is doing a good thing. He makes good edits that nobody else can be bothered to make!!. Guys we shouldn't be sitting around moaning about Rich. His edits in my book have been of great help to this project and I seem no harm in him using his own account to do so. I think this is a case of jealousy over his edit count above anything else. Who cares about edit count? What the frick does it matter whether he notches up 400,000 edits with his own account or under a different account? The same tasks will still need doing either way so who cares? There are far more serious things to be worrying about than Rich Farm having a high edit count LOL!! I will always support whatever Rich wants to do, we should be thanking him for his dedication to making such repetitive edits, he doesn't have to bother making a single edit on here. If you add um the sum of his edits this year they have made a massive difference to the encyclopedia in terms of considtency, formatting and cosmetics. He is clearly content to do so using his own account so why stop him. Have a great new year Rich I appreciate every edit you make even if these people don't. Above all is this ANI report really necessary? I strongly dislike the way such decent editors get reported here like vandals. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do try to assume good faith. The problem is clearly stated and has nothing to do with jealousy or relative edit counts, but with the reason for the edit count: namely, running unapproved bot tasks from a main account contrary to bot policy and AWB rules of use. I'm not saying the edits aren't useful, but they should ultimately be done from a approved, flagged bot account. The ANI thread was necessary because I've brought this up to Rich a couple times, and it did not appear that he was going to modify his approach. I've given him a suggestion as to how he could have a fairly open-ended bot approved for tasks like these and hopefully this can now be marked {{resolved}}. Thanks for your input. –xeno^talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I did assume good faith but the way you started your post saying "he has made approximately 400,000 edits, rocketing themselves to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits" makes it look as if you resent this fact and the way he achieved it... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It was more to highlight the dramatic and exponential increase in Rich's editing rate. –xeno^talk 19:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any concern about the content of the edits? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen his bot's block log? He is prone to making controversial changes (moving tags, mucking about with named refs, etc.) which is why BAG should have oversight. –xeno^talk 19:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience I'd say the vast majority of his edits have run relatively smoothly and he is responsible enough to sort any major issues out. I wouldn't go as far as to say he is prone to making controversial changes, he seems to get most things right, unlike BetaCommandBot.... As for Smackbot, when it has performed the level of edits it has, one can imagine that issues crop up everynow and then... Actually I have advised Rich to run a bot instead to do certain big tasks as it would be more efficient, but he seems content to do thinks using AWB with his own account even if it takes longer. Do you think he is suffering from editcounteritis? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The tasks that should be done, should be done from an approved, flagged bot. The procedures in place should be followed rather than ignored without good reason. And it looks like Rich has got the message (see above at 19:28), so there's probably no need to draw this out any longer. –xeno^talk 19:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh - We had a shit long discussion about this a year ago, and the community decided that it was against policy to run a bot on the main admin account, unless it was still being developed, so he is technically not following policy. However that being said, BAG has been insanely slow at approving anything, for the past few weeks/months, so I totally cannot blame him for continuing to run it. Unless you plan on getting BAG to start fixing and approving shit faster, then I recommend we allow him to continue running the bot. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

  The tasks he are running are mainly cosmetic and are not time-sensitive in the least. He can wait for BAG approval just like the rest of us. –xeno^talk 20:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Coffee the problem is that BAG is too slow to authorise things as its projetc members have many other committments on here. Given that Rich often performs a mass of different tasks every day I think it is a tall order to expect him to file requests for each one. Everybody is free to edit and do what they think is an improvement to the encyclopedia. But for the especially big runs that may be sene as "flooding the recent changes" at a rate of 20 odd edits a minute I'd say that might need some discussion if it is a prolonged activity... But to date he has made over 600,000 edits to english wikipedia and is still using the method he has used for a long time and seems to mostly be a success... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Rich is in agreement. However, I would like to point out that the general consensus with Rich's last BRFA was that it should be approved, even though not technically necessary. At that point, Rich withdrew the request. It's actually faster if you leave the request up to get approved. There's no hurry for general fixes. They can be approved in a fairly timely fashion. --IP69.226.103.13 20:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think proposing an "open-ended bot" is a good idea. That sounds equivalent to writing a blank check that allows the bot to do whatever Rich (in his good judgment) thinks needs to be done. That bypasses the checks-and-balances that the BAG is there for. On a different note, I'd prefer to see a reduction in unnecessary edits, such as removal of optional spaces and blank lines that has no effect on presentation, but clutters up diffs – particularly multi-version diffs where changes by other editors are obfuscated because the diff engine has difficulty matching paragraphs. Lastly, I think running an unapproved bot because the BAG is too slow to respond sets a bad precedent – particularly so when the bot behavior (partial-date delinking) id different from the bot proposal (full-date delinking). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the past eight months Rich has been "rocketing" to the top of the List of Wikipedians by number of edits? Ah, I think he's occupied No. 1 position for years. He has gained the immanent trust of the community. BAG should get its act into order. Tony (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? [25] Anyhow, this is peripheral to the true issue which I noted was the lack of a bot flag for the vast number of edits being made. –xeno^talk 01:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, BAG has been less than helpful to get crap done for the past few months (other than MBisanz). It looks like we might need more people or different people. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see more people commenting on the BRfAs and more BAG members, however, atm there's a very small number of people active there, and they seem to receive very little thanks. But just because the process takes a long time, does not mean it's okay to ignore it, as Rich appears to have done here. There are good reasons that automated editing is supposed to be done on a separate account which has the bot flag. There are also good reasons to go through the BRfA, for example, the task gets input and ideas. Rich has gone against policy, and what appears to me to be the sensible path. I don't think it's unreasonable to except Rich to always go through a BRfA, and he should do so in the future. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A compromise?

Obviously Rich is running what amount to multiple bots on his main account. From the comments here it appears that the bot tasks he's been running have been largely unproblematic. (Indeed, if someone had made a half-million or so controversial edits, there would already be blood on the floor.) As noted, there are a number of good reasons to want automated tasks to run under proper bot accounts, and there are also at least a few minor concerns about a few of the tasks. Since bot-flagged accounts tend to draw less scrutiny when in action, it is also proper for us to want the BAG to approve the tasks in advance. Tcncv's point about offering any editor a blank cheque is also well-taken; it wouldn't be a good idea to give Rich a free hand to run any bot task he wants, just because even the best of us occasionally make mistakes.

So, a compromise. Since it appears Rich's bot tasks have generally appeared helpful and responsible, could we get the BAG (and/or the community) to offer a blanket presumption of permission to Rich for running tasks, and only demand the full BAG process for tasks for which an explicit objection is raised? Here's how I envision the process:

1. Rich posts an 'expedited request' at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This request will include a brief description of what task is to be performed. As part of the 'presumption of expertise', this step may also include a link to a batch of test edits (fifty perhaps?) demonstrating the principle.
2. A brief comment period will elapse. (Three days? Five days? No more than seven days, certainly. How long should it take for some reasonable number of BAGgers to skim the new request?) During this time, any editor may raise an explicit objection to the expedited process. If an objection is filed, Rich will have to go through the regular, full BRFA process.
3. If the comment period elapses without any comment (or with only positive comments) then Rich may proceed with the new bot task.
4. If any unforeseen problems arise, any member of the BAG can request the suspension of any of these 'presumed permissible' tasks pending review by the normal BRFA process.

It's nice and lightweight; it takes into account Rich's general competence; it avoids overburdening the BAG with additional paperwork; it means that there will be a second set of eyes on Rich's bot edits; and it gets these bot edits under a proper bot account. The BAG is free to add any other standard conditions they feel appropriate (edit throttles and the like) which would apply universally to all of these 'presumed permissible' requests. What do people think of that process? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds better than other possible ideas. Thanks for being the sane one here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think adding a speedy approval process for proven bot operators is a good idea, but I think this would be a policy decision within the BAG, preferably with at least one BAG member granting the speedy approval. If we can't get even one BAG member to review the request (and either grant, deny, or hold for further discussion), we definitely need to increase the ranks. Requests such as SmackBot XXII should not sit for weeks at-a-time with no activity. I would further suggest that requests for speedy approvals be limited to clearly uncontroversial operations and that and have at least some independent discussion as evidence of consensus and need. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 22:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The six weeks it took for SmackBot XXII not to go anywhere is impressive, by any standards. Ohconfucius ^¡digame!

Agreed, good idea. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, something like this would be fine. Anything to have those innocuous cosmetic edits start to be made with the bot flag would be an improvement. –xeno^talk 02:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pleased to see this issue close to being resolved. Rich is a janitor of the first order, like a big machine gobbling up selectively all the garbage in the sea without doing harm to the ecosystem. His making scale edits in his dynamic way (when he perceives a job needs doing) is obviously counter-culture to the bureaucratic functioning of the BAG. We are all agreed that Rich is responsible and responsive with AWB, and the only concern I note from the above discussion is the potential for problems if another editor starts making non-controversial edits on a large scale. The above proposal is good, in that it streamlines the bureaucratic process and allows Rich to get on with cleaning up the crap floating in our ocean. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Me too. A bot should be running with a bot flag, and there seems to be general agreement that Rich does good work (with a few reservations). So there must be some way for BAG to nod this one through quickly, and I hope that the solution above is acceptable all round. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding this discussion about the BAG moving to slow ironic. While I do think it does drag out a bit, people need to remember that earlier this year, the BAG took quite a bit of heat for moving too fast. The criticism was they were not waiting long enough for community input. And it was over items that on the surface seemed to be just as routine and non-controversial, but turned out not to be. Well, the community got what it wanted... -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to move Rich's tasks through as quickly as possible. But the problem has been and remains that very few people comment on BAGs. I could quite easily approve most of the pending bots, and then in 2 months get my head handed to me for approving a bot without consensus. So I wait long enough to be able to plead that it looked like silence was consensus. MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is true that BAG has taken heat, and also that individual members (and others) have been great with their work, whether considered opinions on fine detail, or swift approval of requests. It just happens that it is voluntary, therefore sometimes requests languish. As I say, WP:SNOW requests have been approved or approved for trial swiftly, and xeno has made some helpful suggestions. I don't think this is a big deal, maybe I should get a little more involved with BAG, and spend a little less time with reg-exes. I thank everyone for their suggestions and kind words and wish them a great new year. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

Isnt it the job of the bot op to advertise the bot? Go to wikiprojects, the village pump, even (dare I say it) IRC? If the bot-op does his/her job correctly, then we wouldn't have the problem we have now. Tim1357 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If people weren't so wonky we wouldn't have problems, either. But I suppose that's another discussion for another day. I don't see a problem with Rich's edits. But I also am not one to look for rules that are being broken for the sake of it. Don't say that isn't what people are doing. If the edits are fine, and the only complaint is that they did not go through BAG, then that is what they're doing. But of course, we're all free to spend their time however we want to. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If nobody comments on a BAG request then silence is consent, BAG can use their own judgment in the lack of community input. If someone complains about it tell them they are welcome to contribute to future discussions instead of not contributing and complaining about it later. If the community decides a bot should not be approved after it has been approved then unapprove it. People are going to complain no matter what you do, don't try to please everyone or you will accomplish very little. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Silence is not always consent. BAG had already had serious problems with treating silence as consent. It has been discussed at WP:BOT. BAG members weigh the community impact of a request. Rich's bot request probably would have been approved and was moving towards being flagged even thought it might not require a flag when Rich removed the request.

If the proposer withdraws the BRFA, it won't get a request. There's no need established with the broader wikipedia community for a special set of policies for Rich. If there is, link to it. Rich can post a BRFA. If he uses the bots responsibly and he's good at coding and he's a communicative editor, and the task is well supported or uncontroversial he can make an argument at BRFA in the BRFA for speedy approval. As can anyone else. BAG needs more members. A useful bot operator is currently running. Others can also offer their services. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 17:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If people don't choose to participate in BAG discussions then yes, that means BAG has to use their own judgment. People need to speak if they want to be heard and if they stay silent then those making the decisions need to assume they are not objected. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that most of us here are in agreement that Rich's edits to date have been good and that he is considered a reliable and responsible editor. I'm not saying that Rich shouldreceive special treatment above anybody but I do think that given the scope of his tasks on a daily basis that it would be a good idea for him to forms a good agreement with people like M Bisanz and is given freedom, and reviewed every few weeks or something, I dunno. I also sympathise with Bisanz that the input at BAG is very limited and how he could be blamed down the line for authorising a bot to run with little discussion. Hopefully we can reach a conclusion on this but I'm glad to see that all here are with Rich so to speak and not against what he does in practice in his edits. I believe his edits have overwhelmingly been uncontroversial and are mostly acceptable (and often much needed). A good New Year to you all. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

request block for IP 93.222.90.99

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours by LessHeard vanU.

IP number 93.222.90.99 added completely unsourced and false info about the model Iga Wyrwał [26]. The IP is very similar to the IP which was adding the same nonsense in October: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. I suggesting blocking both IPs.  Dr. Loosmark  18:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think this is vandalism, it may be better posted on Administrator intervention against vandalism instead. Mononomic (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ok.  Dr. Loosmark  19:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

LoadsofJerks/LotsOfJerksOnHere

Resolved

 – I'd point out the irony of this guy being a jerk, but I suspect he wouldn't have the intelligence to get it... HalfShadow 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Two users (most likely just one), User:LotsOfJerksOnHere and User:LoadsofJerks have been posting comments similar to this on editor's pages (User talk:24.176.191.234 and User talk:AussieLegend). Block or ban or something please? Mononomic (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without any 3RR or Warning?

2/0 recently indef blocked two users, Rameses and Brittainia without warning. Neither of them had a 3RR warning in the past year. They were accused of being sockpuppets and checkusered in the past without any due procedure by Raul64. They explained they were a husband and wife and have not been editing any of the same articles recently. Rameses has been an editor since July 2004. Do you believe this indef blocking without warning is fair? - 59.164.204.229 (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to AN thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indef Blocking of User:Rameses and User:Brittainia without 3RR or Warning?. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

edit war

Resolved

I filled an RPP @ [32]. The reason I am posting here is becuase User:119.173.81.176 has been engaged in 2 edit wars in the past few days. --MWOAP (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days for continued disruption. Since they appear to be willing to dispute any matter they come across I have disallowed their ability to edit their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

michael jackson album invincible

Resolved

 – For future reference, these requests belong at WP:RFED.

i recently noticed that the page for Michael Jackson Invincible (album) says 10th album when actually it is his 6th with epic/sony records, could someone with "protection-access" for the article please see this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.89.48 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this is part of an edit war. This is a content dispute that belongs on the article talk page. 71.125.80.139 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – blocked for legal threat

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has threatened to sue Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I believe normal practice here is to issue an indefinite block until a retraction is made. Nableezy has requested that the block be made with autoblock turned off as he has a shared ip at work. nableezy - 22:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...You're requesting your own block? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The "legal threat" is that he'll sue if Sandstein doesn't block his account. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep, for reference, the rather weird goings on are occuring on User:Sandstein's talk page. O_o We don't block on request, but we do block for legal threats. Not sure here. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 23:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Well he could be blocked because of the legal threat, and because he is arguably asking for it in bad faith... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sure, I have gone with the "we do block on legal threats". Indef blocked. A request to be blocked is typically ignored, but a request to be blocked coupled with blockable behavior is generally responded to with a block. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor can always ask for an unblock. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Empty

Resolved

 – Question answered by Zetawoof.

I noticed that the newpage patrol list is virtually empty, except for every few moments when people create a new article and its dealt with at a normal rate. Redirects, which are not part of the default display, are not empty. That suggests to me that there was not an error in the database, but that someone or some group has essentially cleared out the backlog.

While this is a good thing if it was done as normal page patrol is, I don't believe I've ever seen the backlog clear. This means thousands of articles were marked patrolled over the last few days (last time I remember looking).

Is there some project doing this, or an individual? I'm in the process of looking through the patrol logs to see any strange patterns, but if anyone can help point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it. [Cross posted to Wikipedia Help]. Shadowjams (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ironholds (and other members of WP:NPP) brought the backlog to zero early on the 31st. Massive, well-deserved respect for all involved. :) Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what I needed to know, thank you. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to ask there first. Shadowjams (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Conservapedia troll returns

Resolved

 – Blocked by Antandrus. Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

DaMo2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is outing, trolling, and now edit warring. I've sent an email to WP:Requests for oversight, but I haven't heard back yet. It might be best that we block this one for now until something is done about oversighting; the user is posting my name and making inaccurate claims about my age in edit summaries. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

USER:Cathar11

how do i report a user. i have been giving the stament of an "authors opinion" as per wikipedia policy WP:Rs . but a user keeps removing it. (user:Cathar11)

the stament i used is below

• critics of islam(such as Nonie Darwish,Geert Wilders e.t.c) think this was a terrorist attack carried out by Muhammad.

i have given the view of the critics and have not called anyone a terrorist or even stated a fact.just opinion to make an article balanced. these views are notable because they are opinion of high profile critics such as "Robert Spencer, Nonie Darwish, Geert Wilder, Ali Sina"

but the user keeps removing it. saying this is not possible because terrorism is a word that was invented only recently(about 50yrs ago). his conclusion is that this view of the critics can not be true, so should not be on wiki.

he also has the idea that in an article i am not allowed to say "critics of islam claim that what Muhammad has done promotes terrorism because..." he claims terrorism can not not be used, claiming it is a modern word.even though the references use that word.

in my opinion the way he talks is like saying "Julius Caesur had a house" then he would say, this is false because, the word "house" is a modern word invented 50 years ago (or however many years), so can not be used.

But this is not the case. he would never remove such as thing. but if something is critical of Islam. He removes it !

he also edited the article Islamic terrorism and added a tag that says "the title is not neutral" and is a POV title. I dont understand this person. He is also engaged in edit warring in the article Muhammad and assassinations --Misconceptions2 (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed this issue on the article talkpage? This appears to be a content dispute. All entries must be by WP:CONSENSUS (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be best to discuss this on the talk page first. Also, I think you need to provided better sources as well. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be worth directing the user to the mentoring process judging from some of his edits. I'd also question how appropriate it is to have statements about maybe killing former presidents on your userpage, but hey ho. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The position isn't quite as the user describes it. It has been forum shopped on 4 forums which is frowned upon to say the least. His use of reliable/unreliable source(s) is being actively discussed here at the RS Noticeboard.[33] which is probably the most approriate forum. The discussion has been interesting if somewhat confusing in layout. It is normally common courtesy to send a message to a user if they are being discussed here. I can elaborate on his Agenda/POV issues if it assists and I'm not the only editor with concerns.Cathar11 (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

ITN

Resolved

 – Admin attention has been achieved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Admins, please see relevant thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#ITN. HJMitchell You rang? 01:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer us to respond on there, or on here? Both?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk now HJMitchell. Where do you want a response?--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hoolio9690 again

User:Hoolio9690 was blocked for [34] carrying on an on-wiki fued about a couple of articles. He's at it again. I don't have time to deal with it. It's party time. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss the matter through my talk page or email. I am trying to establish that I am not carrying out a wiki feud, but am merely attempting to prevent slander and denigration of an article which I started. Now that unreliable sources are being introduced to the article, I am found helpless and only desire the Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) article to be deleted rather than have libelous and untrue remarks about the author. Concerning the other article (Isacovici), that is also my main desire. If you wish to deal with this issue, please write to me. I am more than happy to explain exactly what I've been doing. For example, the primary source material that is sourced in the Isacovici article actually exists and if needed, I can upload it. Even though wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you must realize that the published sources out there are unreliable and do not source the legitimacy of the copyright documents. This is a serious issue and I'm starting to tire of the wikipedia community ganging up against me. Hoolio9690 (talk) Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

OK, you're entitled to discuss it, as long as you're civil. However, you must stop reverting or you'll end up being blocked for edit warring and if you revert 3 times in on day you're very likely to be blocked. Leave the article(s) alone and take it to talk pages to discuss the matter. I'll be happy to act as an informal mediator if needed. HJMitchell You rang? 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

HJMitchell clearly remembers WP:3RR. Oh no. We are doomed!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"Party time"? This is Wikipedia, not Rambo.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you HJ Mitchell. I'm perfectly willing to be civil. I just don't want the pages to be constantly reverted back and forth. Thank you very much for your help. I've sent you an email Hoolio9690 (talk)Hoolio9690 —Preceding undated comment added 02:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC).

---

I have rolled back Hoolio9690's changes for a number of reasons:

1. He has introduced non-article text into the article. Hoolio9690 should refrain from doing so, even if he feels that the article should be deleted.
2. The article seems to be well sourced and so far as I can see there is no libellous material.

It would be best to take this to the talk page if there is a content dispute, however if the article is to be deleted then please ensure that discussion is done under this forum.

With regards to the editor's conduct - may I suggest that they use the talk pages more frequently to discuss the changes they are making? I have done a brief review of their edits, and it appears that they are not trying to find consensus on various articles but are just reverting changes. I have checked the logs for this account, however, and I cannot see that they have ever been blocked. However, after delving into the history of the user's talk page, it appears that they have been, quite rightly, warned about their editing practices. That they have blanked their talk page is their right, however it does not seem sensible to me to have done so.

I would strongly advise that Hoolio9690 review Wikipedia's policies, in particular Wikipedia:Consensus and the 3 revert rule, but only after understanding the spirit of this policy.

I would also ask other editors to please refrain from making comments that could be seen as aggressive, even in jest. It's easy to make these comments (I've done so before, to my regret) even when you are probably in the right. We must really all rise above bad behaviour! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I have also reverted his edits on Salomon Isacovici. I have studied the sources at length, and Hoolio9690 is clearly inserting unverifiable, POV, Original research material in order to further his dispute with the late Mr. Isacovici and his family about the primary authorship of a book. See this previous ANI posting by the other side]. Hoolio9690 has a very serious conflict of interest here. His self-created bio is up for deletion [35], and he is now requesting deletion, which I personally think should be granted, though the AFD tending towards keep. I urge other administrators to keep an eye on this situation.--Slp1 (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. It looks like there are some good eyes on the situation. There's no reason for User:HJMitchell to not monitor the talk page discussions-he's an editor in good standing, and that's what is often needed: outside eyes from one more editor in good standing who is not already editing in a situation. HJMitchell qualifies.

If you look at the user's talk page you will see the block notices, just check the last revision before blanking. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 07:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User: MisterWiki

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reverting all of my edits (which were CONSTRUCTIVE) for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and is not explaining why he is reverting me. As of right now, the Internet is barely working, so I can't really do much about it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here. I took a cursory look at the anon user's contributions and found things such as [36], which is not obvious vandalism, at least not by my standards. It appears constructive. WP:ROLLBACK explicitly states rollback should only be used for blatantly obvious vandalism. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm used to having my constructive edits reverted. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism at one point.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Being "used to having constructive edits reverted" is not a good thing.... Just because someone has rollback doesn't mean they can stomp all over you. (Note that is not an accusation of MisterWiki, just a general comment about User:66.177.73.86's past history.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can't stand up for myself. If I do, they'll just block me.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reverted your edits because of your past history.

I reverted them because I believed they were vandalism. Again, sorry. Cheers, MisterWiki talk contribs 02:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody hates 66.177.73.86...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to blunt, but you didn't even think to check? Rollback is quite a potent tool and those to whom it is entrusted are expected to use it with caution which, evidently, you did not here. Also, for the record (and I'm not taking a side here, contrary to appearances) this is not the first time MisterWiki has been reported to ANI. HJMitchell You rang? 02:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rollbacked again my edits. So there is no problem. :) --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regardless of whether or not they were vandalism, at least in my opinion, they were not obvious. On 22 December you were warned for a second time regarding rollback and that it is specifically to be used for only blatantly obvious vandalism (as WP:ROLLBACK states). If there is any doubt, the undo feature should be used instead with an appropriate edit summary. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia hates me. Under my countless IP addresses, I have been prosecuted, reverted, blocked, and harassed... and, 99% of the time, I didn't even do anything. People have reverted my constructive edits and then blocked me for asking why they reverted me. People have blocked me for no reason at all. In fact, I've actually been blocked for reverting vandalism. I am really considering just leaving the site for good.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies 66.177.73.86. Sorry. :( --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. I'm really very used to it. At least I wasn't blocked this time.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well you've come to the right place- ANI is where this kind of thing can be dealt with. Now, I hate to make a fellow rollbacker look bad, but this not being the first (or, apparently, second) time you've been warned, rolling back your own edits is not quite the point. HJMitchell You rang? 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried. They've just blocked me for it. Nobody ever listens. When I was blocked for reverting vandalism, they gave me a longer block just for proving to them that I was reverting vandalism.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have revoked MisterWiki's rollback. From the diffs provided above, it is clear that there has been a pattern of misuse of the tool. NW (Talk) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it is not clear to me.--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I hate to say it, I really do, but I think it was the right decision. HJMitchell You rang? 03:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't!--122.57.94.15 (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I do have to agree with NW on this one as well, regrettably, as another fellow rollbacker. I talked to MisterWiki on IRC and advised him to try to learn from his mistakes, demonstrate this with tools like twinkle, and then perhaps request the permission later after this has been adequately demonstrated. I'm not an administrator, but I assume rollback takes 2 seconds to add and 2 seconds to remove. It shouldn't be a big deal. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite true. It takes two clicks of a mouse to remove or grant rollback. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To the original IP poster, I would strongly encourage you to create an account on the site. While it is regrettable and A Bad Thing, IPs are often not given the same regard that an account holder gets. I think you'll find your experience here much more pleasant if you use an account rather than an IP. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edgar Martins and user:A.montenegro

Copying my post over here from WP:COIN, where it has gotten no action and the user had continued his/her behavior. If there's a better place where someone will actually read this, feel free to move it there and let me know.

• Edgar Martins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• A.montenegro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

user:A.montenegro has been appearing repeatedly over the past few weeks to do what appears to be a whitewash of the article Edgar Martins. Article before a.montenegro appeared: [37], A.montenegro's additions: [38] (trouble is mainly in section Digital Alteration Controversy"/The Ruins of the Second Gilded Age Portfolio Debate ). Because the user's additions were so non-neutral, I integrated the parts that could be kept and removed the rest: [39]. We've now gone back and forth from his/her version to mine (as seen on [40]).

Warnings have been left on his/her talk as well as the article talk, explaining what was wrong with the user's additions. Other users have expressed on the talk page their agreement with my perception of A.montenegro's version. Based on the user's talk page, which contains a bio of Edgar Martins, and the user's determination to add only favorable information to the article, it appears A.montenegro is someone strongly interested in the reputation of Edgar Martins. I gave him/her a final, non-templated warning this afternoon, explaining the policies he was violating and why, and he/she just reverted the article again to his/her version. I'm not well-versed in what can be done in a case like this- the user is not responding to their talk or to article talk, and their edits are disrupting the article. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing any interaction by A.montenegro in attempting to come to any consensus as regards their editing. However, before commenting on possible sanctions I would ask if any of A.montenegro's additions are verifiable? If it is not, then it is also a case of OR as well as COI. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

His additions are generally cited to the article subject's website or art critics' comments, which is fine as far supplying the artist's or critics' take on the controversy, etc. However, he tends to use these bits to overwhelm the factual matter of the section - posting paragraphs of direct-quoted text where the artist praises himself, etc (i.e. [41]). I'm struggling to find a precise way to characterize it, but I think the trouble is basically...he's overwhelming the encyclopedic quality of the article with shiny, overly-positive quotes. This wouldn't be such a problem if the user was willing to interact on any talk page, and hash out with other editors what he wants said, but instead he just keeps pasting. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The article subject's website is a WP:Primary source, but if the art critic's comments upon the content from the primary source is a reliable secondary source then they can be incorporated. However, given that the only edit outside of the article appears to be a self bio on their talkpage, it seems to me that an NPOV inclusion of any content would be best done without input from A.montenegro. We have the information needed for the article, so perhaps a block on the account for violation of WP:Consensus and disregard of WP:COI is appropriate. I would look to other comments before a uninvolved admin makes any agreed action, of course. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, LHvU. Hopefully some other admins will throw in opinions here... keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Attempted insertion of Javascript into my talk page

In User:Torchwoodwho's edit [42], they appear to have tried to add some Javascript into my talk page, perhaps in the belief that it might be activated when the page is read. I've asked them on their talk page to explain this. It certainly does not look accidental: it looks like an attempt has been made to hide it in a link in another editor's comment on that page.

Has anyone seen any similar suspicious activity recently, from this or any other user? -- The Anome (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where that java came from, but frankly, I've been very accommodating in trying to hunt down what happened. It seems to reference a user named Henrik in the code and I'm not sure what the connection is. I have a long edit history as a vandal fighter (just check my contribs) and I'm just as worried about this as Anome. The issue seems to have corrected itself for whatever reason in my end, but I have asked general help if anyone has seen something similar and I've reached out to Henrik to see if he knows what's happening since the java appears to be associated with his namespace.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tracked it down to an issue with either the Articles for Creation Helper tool or another mod I'm running written by Henrik [43]. There must've been some kind of a wire crossed in my dashboard, but this is obviously not a malicious script. It seems to run rampant sometimes and I've found the code inserted (via google search) in other <script type="text/javascript"src="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Henrik/js/automod.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>wiki pages. [44], [45]. The google search: [46]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. I certainly don't appreciate being warned about vandalism! I've obviously been doing research into this to discover what the issue was and I've come up with some compelling results that it was either a user error or a malfunctioning helper tool. I'm quite offended with this warning and would appreciate having another admin look into this situation. I've done nothing but constructive work on Wikipedia for quite some time and this is a blatant slap in the face to a good long-term user AND VANDAL FIGHTER! Where is my assumption of good faith in this matter?! I've been communicative, proactive, and engaged on the issue and I get a vandalism warning?!--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work tracking down the cause of the problem. Ignore the warning. Give Fastily a barnstar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 3:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fastily, hastily slapping a warning template on a user for what appears to be some kind of bug in some javascript I wrote a long time ago is entirely inappropriate. If someone should be warned it's probably me! :) With that said, I hardly remember what that script does, is it still used? henrik•talk 12:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's still used regularly. I think it's part of the Articles for Creation tool, but I'm honestly not sure. I've gutted my mods, but I have think it's more of a misplacement of the link in my monobook file. For some reason I've been getting malformed monobook renders lately, although I haven't made any changes to my template files. I've also noticed that there have been issues rendering barnstars and other templates. A link might have overlapped my twinkle, afc, and other helpers leading to an accidental click. It's really strange and I haven't been able to recreate it.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this: your explanation above is enough to satisfy me that this is a bug, and not anything more serious. If the old script is both buggy and rarely used, perhaps Henrik might consider deleting it? -- The Anome (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TheDJ kindly came along and fixed the problem, so hopefully it wont occur again [47]. henrik•talk 17:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hedley Verity

Resolved

If you look at recent edits you will see that I am involved in an edit war with a person using several IP addresses who is intent on posting original research based on his own interpretation of a film clip on the Pathe News site. Would you please place a protection control on the article to limit editing to experienced members only? Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 09:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. And it looks like our unwelcome visitor has got the message. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Xeugene and Pacifica Forum

This has come up before, but needs a closer look. Xeugene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a single-purpose account solely for editing the controversial article Pacifica Forum - he has no other edits, not even to Talk:Pacifica Forum or User talk:Xeugene. Today, he has repeatedly inserted the same content, an edit that adds unsourced disparagement of the Southern Poverty Law Center, falsifies the contents of an existing quote from a referenced newspaper article, and adds al large amount of unneeded whitespace in the article, causing the diff view to be nearly useless at detecting his actual content changes. He marks his edits as minor. I don't care to break 3RR (I am right at the limit, if others do not consider this blatant vandalism), so I would appreciate having others take a look at what's going on here. In my opinion, if others do consider this vandalism, or similarly unacceptable, it is simply time to block him. As I said, he has no edits outside this single page, and his current edits are an attempt at sophisticated deception. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a slow-moving edit war over this article between apparently pro- and anti- Pacifica editors. Each of these editors has inserted info that turns out to be a twisting of the facts presented in the refs provided. I've attempted to keep the article neutral. One of the editors warned the other about vandalism, but other than that, I don't think there has been much communication between the parties involved. Or with the parties, I might add. I did alert fellow members of WikiProject Oregon to the situation here. I'm not sure what admin action is needed--the edits have been easily corrected so far--though I haven't looked at the most recent edits (I have other stuff to do today). Whitespace and marking edits minor are newbie mistakes and I don't think these should be considered part of the editor's more worrisome actions. Katr67 (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about sophisticated deception, but they are certainly not interested in the Wikipedia model of consensual content building. Since they have not changed the content of their preferred additions to the text there is no need for them to remain within the editorship, at least for the time being. I suggest an initial lengthy block (1 week - 1 month?) will convince them that their disruption is not appreciated. If they return with the same edits then they can be indeffed as a disruptive SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Katr67, I agree with you about the long-term problem on that article (I have it watchlisted due to some previous noise on the article); my singling out one editor wasn't meant to imply that others are clean. It happens that this one editor is a problem right now, since they are explicitly falsifying the contents of sources. For the record, I do think there's a "sophisticated" element to the way they are repeatedly adding whitespace, but per WP:BEANS I really don't want to advertise the technical issue here. It is not the main point in any case. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There was more activity on the article today. I again attempted to clean up the additions, which included adding info from a news report that wasn't factual but merely a discussion of the situation by the reporter. I can see that Xeugene is trying to prove some point about the way the group is perceived, but I'm having trouble figuring out what that is. In any case, I don't think the material adds to the understanding of the topic. I see that Xeugene has been informed of this discussion. It would be helpful if s/he would explain him/herself. The apparent conflict of interest is definitely a problem. Again, I haven't looked at the guidelines to see if Xeugene's actions are blockable (I don't think there's quite been a 3RR violation), but s/he certainly needs to take a step back and learn to discuss proposed changes with others. At the time of this post, Xeugene has still not posted on any talk pages. I get weary of editors who think they will eventually get their way through edit warring--it is indeed disruptive. Katr67 (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have issued a 24 hour block, and in the notice on their talkpage I have strongly urged the editor to talk to others before making edits. If they disregard the request, then I can only suggest asking for further sanctions until they get it - or get blocked for a long time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that the editor continued to make the same type of edits without communicating or responding to communication, I have to think that's unavoidable, though I'm not confident that Xeugene will ever respond to outreach. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope the editor will get it. They're willing to make big/complicated edits to the page, so perhaps they'll be willing to make relatively easy edits to explain the edits. Thanks. (not blocking because I'm sort of involved now) tedder (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Ermm.... NLT and COI?

Resolved

Final warning given by Chillum. Durova³⁹¹ 23:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Burd (talk · contribs): here and here. Reads like a legal threat to me. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't sound so to me. He is not saying "take the pic down or I'll sue you." He is just saying he can provide evidence of copyright. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very stern and final warning given to the user. He is saying "The previous comment is unwarranted slander, legal ramifications may apply."(in response to the comment "Unlikely uploader is copyright holder"). That is a threat, if the user continues it will result in a block. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations

Resolved

 – For now. User:Misconceptions2 blocked two weeks indefinitely for edit warring and socking. SPI still ongoing. Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help. 3 users have teamed up together and deleted entire sections of the article Muhammad and assassinations.I know using the word teamed up is a bad one. But thats how i feel

Even though i have referenced the information, they all started removing sources and sections. I only checked the article today. i dont know what the reason or motivation for remvoing it are. Please get invovled.

please check the edit history. Also we got an adminstrator involved regarding a source: Rodney Phillips, land of gold. But a consesnus has not been reached for 1 day yet.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN) i do not like how they started rmeoving stuf even when a consesnsus had not been reached.

Size went from 80kb to 30kb in 1 day

--Misconceptions2 (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• That article is absolutely terrible. Where's the evidence that one particular individual was more likely to try to knock off his enemies than any other? That was how politics worked back then. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

here is the edit history. it is 3 user remvoing everything wich they cosnider , unreliable, un noteworthy, e.t.c. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_and_assassinations&action=history

This is a POV war on a very controversial article. Let the admins sort it out--Mirroryou1 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry for that. please revert. Also i do not think this article should be deleted. This already passed AFD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirroryou1 (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This article did not used to be ridiculous. It is now. Because some users have deleted almost all the data and background and views of muslim and non muslim scholars--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14

29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirroryou1 appears to be a sockpuppet account. I've worked at trying to cut rubbish out of this article, I wouldnt shed a tear if it was speedily deleted. Its the only article I've ever worked on where I can't work on the lede because I can't fully fathom the purpose of the article. There may be something salvagable in it with further editing. I don't know. That will be worked out on the talk page.Cathar11 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should this article be deleted. secondly we discussed Rodney Phillips but you still removed data from the article. Why is this. A consensus had not even been reached !http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN

Regarding sockepuppetry, i have been accused of this before. with user admit the truth. this user is my room mate and his account was banned, not for sock puppetry but from meat puppetry. Secondly i will find sources calling them assassinations as i already have found. but you say they are not RELIABLE..What is the point them of me finding sources. how about i just call them killings and then discuss that non muslim scholars or critics of islam see them as assassinatins????--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Mirroryou is a pretty clear sock of User miscondeptions2. That article is awful -- a content fork, unfocused, not really about "assasinations" not approached via the scholarly literatutre... one could go on and on. What you have is a single minded, tendenentious editor figthing to prevent an article from at least being made "less wrong." Wikipedia is usually terrible at dealing with such problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

the problem is peopleall have different views. Critics of Islam consieer them assassinatins. Muslim ight not. Some muslim who have a POV delete sections they dotn like. Whereas critics will add them baclk. This will go on forever. I think we need to do something to satisfy both sides. Also I am not a sock puppet ot mirroryou1. Please check the computers we use. They are different. Check our IP's--Misconceptions2 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of sockpuppetry Cathar11.I have different computer than the above, as well as differet IP adress and ISP, i think. U can verify this with the checkuser--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

well i def have a different IP address, and am not using a proxy,either.--Mirroryou1 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you know you have a different IP address? You aren't a checkuser? You have no access to Misconceptions2 IP address info, now do you? Unless you do... --Jayron32 15:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've opened up a new SPI on Misconceptions2 here [48]. The last SPI in december turned up 2 or 3 socks, all being used in the same POV battle. "Mirroryou" has defended himself at the SPI by saying variously he is Misconceptions "next door neighbor" and also his "room-mate."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added many sources that consider them assinations.Now what? i have gotten admin involved and u choose not to discuss. u told me to add websites which cosnider them assinations. and i did that. now u reject this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misconceptions2 (talk • contribs)

• You really think the article is better when it includes great chunks sourced from Ali Sina, Islam Watch and Faith Freedom? That's an interesting definition of better whihc I thik can be explored at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad and assassinations, though hopefully not by Misconceptions2 as his POV-pushing, edit warring and sockpuppetry are probably sufficient to earn him a one way ticket to the door. Guy (Help!) 16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick note

After this diff, I have blocked Mirroryou1 indefinitely as an admitted sock of Misconceptions. I'll be blunt; I've seen less obvious rampaging Tarrasques. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

After receiving an email (rather calm, given the situation) from Mirroryou, I'm going to wait and see what the SPI digs up. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 22:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comments and edit summary

Resolved

 – User warned to comply with WP:CIVIL.

Editor User:Nomoskedasticity has picked up on an earlier dispute regarding content with me and has made comments a bit uncivil as regards me that I felt to be personal and today I have left a request for him to be less personal and he has responded with the removal of my request and this uncivil edit summary I think that volunteers acting in good faith deserve a bit more civility. Off2riorob (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I should think the best response is to ignore the edit summary, and assume that they have read and understood the request - and will comply with it. If there has been egregious previous remarks perhaps you could supply a diff, but really I feel it would be best if this thing was allowed fade away. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that option Less, but why should another editor be allowed to talk to me in that way, perhaps he would like to apologize? Here are the cant read comments from the discussions/..here he accuses me of having reading difficulties quote "Off2riorob is apparently encountering reading difficulties in evaluating these sources." and this edit here with the edit summary of reading ability and included the accusatory comment, "This comment is either deliberately misleading or the product of faulty reading ability. I'd like to think it's the latter, but given that the additional sources supporting the contention in question appear in the first screen of the BLPN discussion leads me to the former. These comments are uncivil and excessive, I was polite and requested a less personal discussion and was repaid with the removal of my comments and the uncivil edit summary of piss off, this is not the correct way to speak to editors here, is it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't the correct way to communicate but neither is it a matter that sanctions are going to be a solution to. There is little that admins can do here, other than to remind the editor to act according to WP:CIVIL same as any other editor. I shall do that now. In future, should there be a recurrence, perhaps you could use the WP:WQA page? The people there are pretty good at sorting out these things. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Right thanks, in future I will go there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I miss good ol' WQA *sniff* (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them [55] [56], while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times [57] [58] [59]. There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously [60] [61] and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europe. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic - [62]

“ Georgia is geographically in Asia—the mountains forming its northern border serve as the Europe-Asia boundary ”

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europe and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgia will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europe were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage [63]. I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann [64]. Izzedine's response? [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70]. Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first[71]. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of [72] edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. [73] is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics[74] has been undone by five different editors since May[75][76][77][78][79]. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far [80][81][82][83][84][85][86]. - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time [87], repeating the same line over and over again [88]. It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And he's edit warring over other issues as well: I count seven reverts in Muntadhar al-Zaidi from Dec 14 to Dec 24, no matter who had edited in between.[89][90][91][92][93][94][95] - Ankimai (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing by Izzedine

While Google searching for information that might clarify a content dispute involving Izzedine, I accidentally came across a forum in which a user who identifies themselves as Izzedine on Wikipedia attempts to enlist other users to vote in his favor on talk pages and revert any change to his version of the article. Well, you can read it here but in a nutshell it seems he is trying to defend his Iraqi heritage and is POV driven (note: the forum has been edited to remove the evidence. The original can be seen here). Can this be handled by ANI?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 04:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I like how Google works both ways on help. Well, where else would this go? We're allowed to "note" that that exists but can't treat as what would be anything close to a reliable source. ...It's been awhile since I read the ArbCom ruling on defining such things, but I do remember that it was "more okay" in article work. Honestly, it's not like it drastically changes the situation, but that it makes any additional good faith all that much more of a challenge. Sigh.... like 5 days ago when this disappeared as stale Izze contacted me on my talk page[96] in what was an encouraging tone... but given I was attempting to be equally encouraging in a reply[97], actually suggesting optimism if they felt they had materials to improve the article... sadly it seems that optimistic view died in less than 24 hours as that forum posting was on the 27th (talk page here the 26th). That would seem to be in contrast to my 'reminder that any admin is within his/her rights to block you without further notice' as a conclusion that the majority of civility ANIs reach. Also specifically said that ANI wasn't for content disputes which is why our replies had to be limited. Cont.

Give a final warning, imo. On anything and everything on the topic. If the wholeheartedly refuse, do say they're subject to a block for disruption until the starting of the official DR process is taken, as I also suggested originally. After trying to be ridiculously fair and neutral in my evaluation, the "optimistic" Izze within that same day was apparently of the same mindset as before? *Sighs* ... Ignoring any kind of civility suggestions and refusal to admit to anything whatsoever (even things such as "edit warring", general concept, being shoved around by everyone at the time)? No desire to listen to a third party at ANI shows a continuation of a disruptive pattern of things started at the articles. ... gives low expectations for any future compliance. This is still way better than the last time I offered significant opinion to a edit warred Middle East article, though. ...Yeah, final warning to desist on pretty much everything, and that off-wiki promotion of disruption of on-wiki matters can at least [strongly] subjectively be be read. Key point being the call to disruption here since that's what any block is meant to based upon ongoing types of. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann has already suggested a topic ban for Izzedine's on-wiki behaviour. I think this off-wiki canvassing merits an indefinite topic ban if not an indefinite ban. He seems to be breaking all the rules of wikipedia - the canvassing on the forum reveals that he is indeed pushing a nationalist point of view. This was already evident when he started arguing that the terms Iraq (or Ancient Iraq) and Mesopotamia are synonymous on the two talk pages - something Dbachmann has described as "nonsense". Mathsci (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there some sort of admin shortage, or do they just get Christmas to New Year off?--Stinging Swarm ^talk 10:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Many Admins have an off-Wiki life, & the holidays place especial demands on our time from SOs, family & friends. (For example, I spent most of yesterday helping my wife clean the house for our New Years' party.) Unfortunately, many troublemakers have fewer such demands on their time & can devote a lot more time to disrupting Wikipedia. Maybe the solution would be for the community to show less patience with problematic users at this time of year. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks as if Assyrian-Babylonian/Izzedine has deleted those forum posts in the meantime, but Google cache still has them, here. - Ankimai (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTE ABOUT LINK: You have to scroll up the page to Assyrian-Babylonian's previous comments to see him self-identify as Izzedine. He has removed the identifications from his second posting (where Ankimai's link goes). (Taivo (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Ah yes, he must have read this page. It's now very hard to assume any kind of good faith on his part. Mathsci (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's also hard to assume good faith when he characterizes me as a "Freemason" and Athenean as an "(anti-Iraqi) Greek" rather than just talking about "other editors". (Taivo (talk) 15:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

Seems like it wouldn't be possible to connect the editor definitively to this on line canvassing, and if it is not actually punishable then there appears little action needs to be taken. Off2riorob (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Salam brothers and sisters, I am trying to defend our heritage on Wikipedia and I urgently need your support ahlan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mesopotamia (I am lzzedine) Please help us ya ahlan, before they ban me, there are only two Iraqis on there, myself and Mussav, any support you can add will help, you can post there anonymously if you wish."

- I'd rather say it's impossible not to connect him. - Ankimai (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's quite clear that Izzedine and Assyrian-Babylonian are one and the same person. How else would A-B know that I was a Freemason unless he had read my Wikipedia profile before I removed personal information a couple of months ago? It's called soliciting meat puppets and every other case I've known of has resulted in either indefinite or year-long bans. (Taivo (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC))

General responses to off-wiki canvassing can include:

• Heavy additional short-term watchlisting, either by involved editors e.g. a wikiproject or by uninvolved editors e.g. admins or a dedicated anti-vandal wikiproject.
• Temporary EditNotices, if necessary and more helpful than harmful.
• Semi-protection, if necessary.

If such off-wiki canvassing, either of this type or of the /b/-type disruption in a thread below, becomes too common it may be worthwhile asking for "transclusion" to be added to watchlists, so interested vandal fighters can "transclude" {{WP:Articles needing short-term watchlisting/List}} to their watchlists. The list would presumably be permanently-protected or in an admin-edit-only space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow! The evidence is absolutely damning. There is no doubt that Assyro-Babylonian is Izzedine. This is the very worst kind of disruption and for me this is the final straw. This editor is not here to help write an encyclopedia, he is here on a mission. IF nothing comes of this ANI posting, I will request a community ban. Congratulations to Stinging Swarm for finding this out and posting it. --Athenean (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Izzedine's gone quiet since the 28th, but this is clearly unacceptable. I've been keeping a somewhat loose eye upon his activities at Iraq, Mesopotamia and elsewhere and he's on a final warning. Any further disruption, no matter how slight, and I will block him for a couple of months. There is no reason why good contributors should have to waste their time over patent silliness. Moreschi (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, his MO is to lay low following a major dispute and/or rampage. He seems to have a knack for pulling back right before he is about to be blocked, which is why his block log is relatively small considering the amount of disruption he has caused. Laying low for a while also has the benefit of throwing admins off his scent, allowing him to resume his POV-pushing at a later date. However, this has the net effect of being EXTREMELY disruptive. Thus, I would go even further. At the next rampage, I will ask for a full community ban. This has been going on for almost a year now, and has GOT to stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a good tactic, but it doesn't work with me, Athenean. I've had a lot of practice :) Moreschi (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I figured. That's why I'm particularly glad to see you on this case. --Athenean (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

This has fallen quiet for over 12 hours, so I'm going to say this is as good as it might get with things being watched in great detail and I'm inclined to agree to the "zero tolerance" views given above since this pattern is so incredibly long and established. At the very least, this a section break for anything needing to be added in the near future. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Izzedine hasn't edited since Dec 28th, as has already been noted, and the probable reason for this has been given. Moreschi is now on the lookout and has issued Izzedine with a warning on his talk page. There was no need for Datheisen to start a new subsection, so I've suppressed his header. The main point, alerting an administrator, has been achieved. This discussion probably can be closed now. Mathsci (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Joemama993

Joemama993 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Back in August of 2009, I wrote to Joemama993 saying that radio station airstaff schedules like these were strictly not-allowed under WP:NOT#DIR. After several warnings Joemama993 was blocked for his actions. He came back and said he would only write schedules in prose, which is allowed. On January 1, 2010, he went back on his word. I warned him again, several times, and took it to AIV and was directed here. This is clearly a user who is violating WP:NOT#DIR. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified Joemama993 of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, this guy seems to edit on everything radio station related. There is no variety in his edits. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Could we get some eyes on this situation, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I fail to see why there is a substantive difference between edits here to call one version "vandalism." If anything, Joemama's version is easier to read, while conveying more information. THF (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually missed that, it should have been completely stuck. In a subsequent edit, I removed the entire section from that page. That was a goof on my part. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas

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

Would an uninvolved, independent admin like to take a careful look at this user's overall edits, please? I get a strong sense that he is engaging in some kind of parody. While that can be amusing, the purpose doesn't overall seem to be to improve Wikipedia. I could of course be completely wrong about this. --TS 06:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop wasting admins time. At least provide some diffs. --GoRight (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC) It has been suggest that my sarcasm is unhelpful, therefore I shall strike my comment. --GoRight (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a very civil thing to say to Tony! However, Tony, why do you think he is doing what you say he is doing? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I ask for more admin opinion. Lar has arrived at an opinion, describing an enforcement request he filed as "frivolous and tendentious wikilawyering" [98], then blocked him briefly for "disrupting this process and wasting time." [99] This user's conduct on the enforcement page, and elsewhere, seems to be ridiculously over-the-top, and there's a feeling that something funny is going on. His confrontational discussion style (see for instance talk:dog) is rather unusual even for a very new Wikipedian unused to our ways. I think the more admin eyes here the better. --TS 07:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours (before seeing this thread, for what it's worth). His editing over the past few days is unacceptable. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Just before that I left him a note. Hopefully he heads that advice when the block expires. Prodego ^talk 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the ridiculous behaviour on Dog, I really have to support MZMcBride's action. Either they are trying to prove a point, or there is something very odd and disruptive about this editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he's responded to you. Apparently there's something fishy about you [100]. (Actually I think you're more Ta bu shi than fishy, but there you go.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Tony, more eyes are needed with this user (and more generally, at Wikipedia:GS/CC and Wikipedia:GS/CC/RE) I felt a very short block was a good way to get the disruptive behavior to stop, and it did get a bit better, briefly. It may be helpful to realize that Noth already deleted some feedback from his talk page related to the edit warring on Dog thing, material which was present when I warned him. For reference: [101] As always, I invite review of my actions, of course... ++Lar: t/c 08:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I added a friendly note to the editor's talk page, but the editor has blanked it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits like this while blocked may indicate this editor will bear watching on his return. --John (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness! Definitely a problem editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

"fetishist sexual gratification through abrasive formality and belittling tonality in discussion style and modalities"? WTF? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The user has now admitted that they have added the unblock template to their talk page six times. Would this not be grounds for page protection? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Tony that there is something fishy. On his talk page he now claims to be a poor grandmother (initially elderly, later crossed out). A few hours earlier he made reference to off-wiki IRL coordination of his edits. The tortured style of his prose writing seems like an attempt at parody - it suggests a teenager, adept at sending text messages, trying his hand at writing like an older person, but failing hopelessly. Mathsci (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm torn between advocating a lock of the user's page (and requiring them to use the unblock mailing list for any further requests) and just watching in bemusement to see what they come up with next. But since it's not nice to laugh about the issues of others, that latter suggestion is probably not the right thing to do. A CU check (run by someone else) didn't turn anything up so I'm at a loss as to what exactly this users deal is. ++Lar: t/c 15:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Sometimes people are just odd. *shrug* Contentious topic areas can attract people who hold unconventional views. There's nothing we can do about that, and we can hardly block someone for being a bit strange. If eccentricity produces disruption, that's a different story. Let's see how things develop when the block expires. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well ya. I mean, I build with LEGO and edit Wikipedia so who am I to talk? But did you actually walk the diffs on that talk page? Very odd. We shall see what happens after the block expires. ++Lar: t/c 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The user is now adding the {{helpme}} tag to her talk page instead of adding the unblock template. Their behaviour is getting more and more bizarre, which I suppose is fine so long as it doesn't get disruptive. However, adding the helpme tag to their talk page is clearly disruptive as that is not the point of that tag. However, to assume good faith I have added a note explaining what it is to be used for, and have told them not to readd it. I've now removed the tag from their talk page. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He now appears to be using his talk page to solicit potential members to an off-wiki forum. This doesn't seem like an appropriate use of Wikipedia to me. [102] --TS 05:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bourgeois provocation "communists should be crushed like worms" not being correct doctrine. Boris thinking user in need of expert medical attention. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to agree! But let's leave them alone, so long as they are only editing their own user talk page, they should be fine. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

need a rollback if possible

Resolved

 – Edits reverted by Frmatt.

hi the skytrax page, which although low traffic is about the a pretty important organization, has had its award list changed around several times in the past few days, removing other airlines/airports and adding back in Lebanese ones... so I tried to undo, but because the other person had made them all intermediate I could only undo 1 out of 4 edits they made. I don't edit the page much and so I don't know what the correct entries are anymore. If you look at the history you will see that there hadn't been many edits at all before Dec 29, so if someone could rollback to that point it would be helpful. Or please tell me how to handle this. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last version that was edited by a bot on December 22. I hope this helps! Frmatt (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Those look like good faith, if perhaps unsourced edits. I don't see any need for admin intervention right now, and you should take this up on the article's Talk page unless the editing becomes disruptive. Rodhullandemu 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Geolocate puts that IP in Beirut...I reverted as per WP:DUCK that this was probably a promotional vandal based on the changes. Frmatt (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

thanks guys 66.220.124.56 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two problem articles from Peer Review

Resolved

 – Blocked, deleted, redirected. Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Two problem articles have come to light through the Peer Review process and I would appreciate some community input on them and the editors involved. Both articles are written much like advertisements by single purpose account editors with problematic user names and probable conflict of interest issues.

The newer article is Machine Tattoo Removal by Elimitat Tattoo Removal Resource (talk · contribs), who seems to have a close connetion with this company. I think it could be deleted with a redirect to Tattoo removal, as almost all of the information is already there. I have warned the user of the username issues, but have not blocked. Someone else has warned about COI.

The older article is IDiscoveri Education by IDiscoveri (talk · contribs). This is about an Indian education company which seems not to be notable from a quick Google search. The author also seems to have a close connection with the company and I have left COI and username warnings on his/her talk page, but have not blocked. I think this could probably be speedied.

Any input is appreciated, thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged IDiscoveri Education for a speedy delete per G12. The whole article seems to have been pasted in from various websites. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have softblocked the two users, deleted the copyvio, and redirected to content fork Machine Tattoo Removal to Tattoo removal. Can someone ensure that any useful content that was in the Machine Tattoo article is merged into the mother article, and also close the peer review requests appropriately ? Abecedare (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I have closed both peer reviews and will look at the useful content next on Tattoo removal next. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan refactoring comments at sock puppet case

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.

---

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked by LessHeard vanU. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Betty Logan is the subject of a sock puppet case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WalterMitty, filed by Beyond My Ken. She has been in the habit of refactoring statements posted by editors on this page, including ones by the filing party [103] [104]m whereupon he asked her to stop refactoring comments [105]. She continued, moving one of mine [106], which was reverted by J.delanoy, which she reverted as vandalism here. When Beyond My Ken filed a comment regarding a post by the clerk that the user is probably a sock but since she is "behaving", a block may not be warranted, I posted a comment endorsing his statement [107] that socking is, by defintion, disruptive. It was posted properly in endorsement of a comment. User:Betty Logan moved this comment out of sequence in the case here, to a section where I have posted comments regarding the case. I returned it to where I posted it, stating "please stop moving comments by other editors - this is directly related to the comment just before it and is where it needs to be". User:Betty Logan moved it again here, telling me where I can post on the case. I returned my comment to where I posted it and User:Betty Logan moved it again, stating oved Wildhartlivie's comments to appropriate section. 'Response to Clerk' is a section started by Ken in his section. Please restrict your comments to the appropriate section. I even posted a comment that I posted this comment where it was properly a response. This was followed up by a personal attack posting by User:Betty Logan, casting aspersions on my editing history and commenting on her perception of my edits as "I'm wondering exactly what his role is on Wikipedia besides arguing with other editors." [108] [109] I do not appreciate a user refactoring my comments according to how she thinks they should be posted, and I strenuously object to the movement of my comments from where they pertain. Besides this, she speciously posted various other editors' names with whom she had disputes to a sock puppet case involving me, which was dismissed as specious and unsupported, and filed a report here. I would appreciate something being done about this disruptive editor who spends more time refactoring the comments of others than to providing evidence in her own case. I want my comments returned to where they are pertinent to the sock case and her to stop refactoring. How is this behavior not disruptive? Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been just watching this case and the other sock case that Betty Logan got involved in that she shouldn't have. What concerns me is that Betty Logan freely moves others comments without a thought of whether she should. The clerk at the case says that this is probably sock account but that if there is no disruptions well... Since when do sock accounts who are originally blocked and evading given good faith like this. Socking alone should be enough to return the user to their blocked status. If you read through the evidence on the case you will see the disruptions that this user has caused. I think the Betty Logan account needs to be blocked and she need to return to her other accounts and return to the project when her block expires. She shouldn't be allowed to evade a block or ban with a sock. Thanks for listening and happy New Year, --CrohnieGal^Talk 20:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for the duration of the SPI case which, per my comments at their talkpage is indefinite - since I don't know how long it will be. I also noted that any block review should include an undertaking not to make such edits again. I felt that a block was the only way to convey the seriousness of them editing other peoples comments on a page where they are being investigated for alleged sockpuppetry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike has unblocked Betty Logan since that editor has pledged to stop refactoring other people's comments. Woogee (talk) 08:27, 3 January 2010 (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.

Something that could turn into a 4chan attack,

Anal masturbation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

See this link. The user who added it in is EFG2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and is very likely the same one who opened that thread on 4chan containing this image. They have also been trying to edit war their edit in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 13:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerning. I see the contributor has now been cautioned. I've watchlisted the article. Blocking or page protection may prove necessary if it persists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 13:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank link doesn't seem to be working. However, I'm inclined to think that the least said the better, in the interest of not feeding. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of personal attack over a period of nine months by User:Binarygal

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.

---

Resolved

 – Binarygal has decided to leave Wikipedia. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Information Technology Infrastructure Library starting in April 2009 (see Removed external links), Binarygal (talk · contribs) (at times using an anonymous IP, see WQA) has made repeated accusations of being bullied and the victim of personal attacks as well as making vague accusations against other editors being involved in a conspiracy. The recommended WQA process has been followed twice with no resulting change in behaviour or acceptance that this behaviour is a problem. Repeated passive-aggressive style claims of being a victim of personal attack can be considered a personal attack against those accused and in this case is disrupting the normal consensus process. Binarygal has become a WP:SPA, only editing this talk page since the beginning of 2009. In the most recent RfC discussion, Binarygal has made references to my previous account name which was changed for professional privacy reasons and prior issues with Binarygal making assumptions and statements about the professional associations of other editors that may be considered infringements of the guidance of WP:OUTING (see example diff). If she/he wished to substantiate these claims of attack, Binarygal has been advised many times of the dispute resolution processes available by several editors over this period on the talk page itself as well as during the associated WQA discussions.

As advised in the last WQA (see WQA), rather than raising this issue for a third time on that forum, I am raising this notice for assistance with these repeated accusations against me of bullying, conspiracy and harassment which are disrupting potential consensus on this talk page and I believe constitute a personal attack due to being repeated consistently over such an extended period.—Ash (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a simple topic editor. That is all. I know little about Wikipedia procedures, but I do know about the topic I edit and related issues.

Some months ago, prior to the date mentioned above, it became evident that there was a concerted attempt to misrepresent the reality of the topic in question, ITIL. It became clear that there was an issue regarding the Open ITIL movement, and a fairly clear attempt to marginalize it in terms of documenting its very existence.

I correctly resisted this in the article, but the reaction by the editor above in particular was almost unbelievable from my perspective. He launched what I can only describe as a campaign of attrition against all references to the open movement, and simultaneously against myself.

This continued beyond a point which anyone could consider reasonable, nor should have to tolerate. Votes on links came and went, but were repeated if they went the 'wrong' way. The determination to remove all such links is self evident to anyone who reads the history.

That is what I invite everyone to do. Please, please read the full history, because I am sick of this. He has used his knowledge of the Wikipedia procedures as one of a number of sticks with which to bully me, including outright abuse.

You will see that I have consistently requested a full investigation by Wikipedia. This has never been forthcoming.

On the specifics above: no, I have never 'outed' anyone. Please read the history. No, I am not a conspiracy nutcase as he tries to imply. Please read the history.

Yes, I stopped editing other articles when this campaign and the associated abuse began. He destroyed my enthusiasm and I lost my faith in Wikipedia. Please read the history.

It is all there to be seen. My colleagues are appalled, and I have often felt sick having read his diatribes, innuendos and false accusation. This HAS to be stopped.

Even here he is using his knowledge of Wikipedia procedures as a pseudo-bullying technique. I have no idea how this page differs from the others he has placed his abuse and false allegations on, but it is yet another attack upon myself.

Nothing is going to stop him: he will continue to seek to remove the last of the Open ITIL links come what may. The countless hours and thousands of words he has invested in his pursuit of a single link tells a tale of its own. This is not normal, and I feel very uncomfortable: yet all I have done is try to defend the integrity of an article!

Please could someone finally investigate? Read all the history, and then try to tell me that this is acceptable, that his behavior is ok, and that the assault on the link(s) is that of someone merely trying to improve the quality of the article. Please also look at those other places he made his false allegations against me.

Please, this time, research this edit campaign and what has been happening with respect to the abuse of myself. Please check everything. All I ever wanted to do was use my knowledge to improve articles, yet this has become impossible to do.

BinaryGal (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked this over, first, I don't see any outing happening. Please supply diffs showing outing, Ash, your's don't show outing. This looks like a content dispute over a set of links, and yes, there's incivility from both sides. I don't actually think we need admin involvment. Looks like a content dispute, looks like you may need a mediation or something a bit more.

_{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As explained above, I raised this notice for repeated accusations of bullying rather than being outed (the form of outing is a subtle one of claims of professional affiliations for with the guidance would be tricky to interpret, for example in this diff where there is an assumption of my professional affiliation). As described in WP:HA#NOT, unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly. As Binarygal has constantly resorted to accusations over such an extended period rather than engaging in creating a consensus, it seems reasonable that this guidance applies.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There are no unfounded accusations, just as there is no 'outing', except in his mind. I couldn't be less interested in an argument. Please someone, do read the whole history and research this carefully. The determined edit campaign, and abusive treatment of me for resisting it and protecting the article's value, is self evident if you see the whole picture and understand the place of the open movement in the ITIL landscape. You should see why I feel like I am the subject of bullying. All I want is to be left in peace. BinaryGal BinaryGal (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I have been involved in some of the discussions regarding a couple of external links and whether they are appropriate - simply expressing my opinion taking on board the guidance at WP:EL. I disagree with User:KoshVorlon about this being just a content dispute - it has got well beyond that. User:Binarygal has repeatedly made accusations against User:Ash for which she has presented no evidence, at the same time claiming to be the victim of bullying, abuse, etc.. Anyone else who expresses an opinion that she doesn't like receives similar accusations, and the suggestion that they are not acting in good faith. Binarygal has repeatedly been advised to make her complaint at the appropriate venue rather than just repeating her demands that a 'senior editor'/'Wikipedia police officer' investigate on the article's talk page, but has failed to do so. It should be noted that while Binarygal claims to be 'a simple topic editor' who knows 'about the topic I edit', a look through the last two years of edits to the article itself shows no contributions from Binarygal other than reverting the removal of external links. Editors cannot be permitted to continue to make these accusations without presenting any evidence to back them up. The nasty dispute on the article's talk page may well be detracting from efforts to improve the article. I would suggest that (a) an uninvolved admin looks at the existing RFC on the talk page and closes it with a recommendation that whatever the outcome, it is respected by all editors for the next 6 months - the issue is whether an external link is included - it's a trivial matter, and it certainly doesn't justify the unpleasantness that has gone on, and (b) one or both editors be asked/forced to step away from the article, its talk page, and each other completely for the next 6 months or more - neither editor has made significant content contributions to the article in the last year, and there are other editors around who will revert vandalism, etc. Both editors may see this as harsh, but they would both be able to use their time more productively, and it would benefit the project as a whole. I would suggest that 'do nothing' would be the worst outcome of this discussion.--Michig (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation. Whilst those two, who know more about the mechanics of Wikipedia procedures than I do can round upon me, all I can do is ask for people here to investigate the truth. Please read the whole history. Please focus on what has actually happened.

You will very quickly see what is wrong: you will see that the edit is not a simple article quality edit, but part of a bigger drive to remove references to all of the ITIL Open movement. ITIL is very political, with large vested and commercial interests attempting to marginalize 'open'. I am sure senior Wikipedia people will be well aware of this sort of aspect.

Removing all the links to open movement websites only makes sense in this context. That is what has happened, until now, when the article is left with just a single open link. That link has been attacked multiple times by the same people. There is no consensus at all to remove it, despite the efforts of Ash, supported by Michig.

That is the context, that is the background, and that is the truth.

Michig refers to the link issue as trivial. If it is, why has there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive to remove it? Why would someone expend countless hours and words over months/years to drop a link which so clearly is of more value than most of the others on there, and without repeating the talk page, offers very useful content to article readers? The answer is because I am telling the truth.

Please read through the whole history spanning back years. I am not a nutcase with a conspiracy theory - this is how the market is and it explains what has happened here throughout.

As for the personal attacks, again, read the history. You will see that by defending this article I have been subjected to repeated bullying. Yes, bullying to a degree that colleagues have urged me to do something to stop it.

That isn't an extreme allegation. I have been very restrained and careful, and not accused either of the above with affiliations to anything, nor of anything else other than attempting to remove all the open links.

Is that wrong, when it is the truth? I don't think so. Please, please read for yourself.

Yet what I get back in return for doing this has been awful. The mechanics of Wikipedia have been repeatedly misused against me, I have been abused and I have been falsely accused... again and again and again.

Yes, I have been asking for an investigation for many months, on every page this has been discussed. I readily admit that I just edit and know less about the procedures here than they do, which is why maybe I have asked in the wrong places, but I would hope that somewhere someone might care enough about that article and the foul behaviour going on, step in and do the necessary research.

Maybe now someone will do it. I hope so. BinaryGal (talk) 09:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In would be very grateful if some could actually investigate this fully. It would then be abundantly clear that the major problem here is Binarygal. Look at the article's edit history. Several editors have removed the external links in compliance with WP:EL, only for Binarygal to repeatedly revert - this is why "there been such a sustained, determined, long term and pretty brutal drive", but on her part to prevent their removal, by claiming that the link in question is so important and constantly playing the victim, making accusations of a conspiracy against 'the open community' (I thought we at WP were part of the open community), and accusing others of bullying. Comments such as "Anyone who does what I am asking will see exactly where Michig fits into this equation" are typical of the innuendo and assumption of bad faith on her part. Go ahead, investigate away. If any of BG's claims are found to have substance, take action aginst the offenders. If BG is found to be at fault, please ensure that it stops. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. The "innuendo and bad faith" is clearly in the head of Michig, as my words were harmless. Why twist my words like that? In fact why come back with such comments at all when all I am asking for is a full and thorough investigation? Why try to discredit me like that?

And yes, the irony of Wikipedia procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic isn't lost upon me.

Please do look at those edits, and who made them. Please do look at ALL the edit history and talk page history. Also please consider the politics of the topic in question, and definitely the abuse I have had to suffer for defending the integrity of the article. This really has to stop now BinaryGal (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Binarygirl has above again claimed "Wikipedia procedures being used to marginalize the open movement on this topic". There has been a difference of opinion regarding several external links for some time. User:Ash has raised several RFCs about these, which is a perfectly reasonable approach aimed at gaining consensus. One of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus. Differences of opinion are not a problem. Accusations that other editors are acting in bad faith, however, are. Please review the following edits by Binarygal:
  • 8 October 2009: "The reality of the ITIL arena has been bulldozed aside and hidden through these edits"
  • 4 November 2009: "The undemocratic raidroading removal of that link..."
  • 11 November 2009: "Perhaps one day the hierarchy of Wikipedia will investigate and see for themselves what has gone on and who has been involved."
  • 22 November 2009: "If it wasn't wrecking the article and so clearly political, it would be laughable". "I wonder what the thousands who have registered there think about what is happening here? I know what I think: I think that attempting to hide open ITIL from the public will not stop it from existing and flourishing, but it may bring further ridicule onto Wikipedia".
  • 23 November 2009: "Not that you are biased of course". "a desperate attempt to remove a valuable resource link, because it happens to be open"
  • 25 November 2009: "And we know from the ITIL Community abuse that this is isn't a democracy, but a political/commercial campaign."
  • 27 November 2009: "have been subjected to abuse and a constant string of allegations for my troubles"
  • 24 December 2009: "another effort to subvert democracy".
  • 28 December 2009: "simply more abusive behaviour, and bullying. An investigation is essential"
  • 28 December 2009: ":I have been systematically bullied in this manner and via abuse throughout by one editor, with another engaging from time to time."

So in summary, Binarygal has, over the past 3 months accused User:Ash of having an agenda against the open ITIL community, "undemocratic railroading removal" of links, "wrecking" the article and having political motives, a "political/commercial campaign", "abuse and a constant string of allegations", and has above accused another editor of also "engaging from time to time". I would invite Binarygal to specify who this other editor is and provide evidence for any of these claims.

She has directed towards me: "Not that you are biased of course".

These are serious claims. If evidence can be provided by Binarygal by reference to specific edits then they should certainly be investigated. If Binarygal is unable or unwilling to provide evidence for these claims or justification for these assumptions of bad faith, then she should be prevented from repeating them.--Michig (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Several issues arise from those further false allegations:

"User:Ash .... one of them was perhaps ill-advised as it was repeating a previous RFC that failed to achieve consensus." - Michig. I suggest looking at this more closely. It was not just ONE repeated effort to remove the link having failed, but months of repeated arguing, and yes, abuse. Repeating the effort again and again presents a pattern. Ditto repeating abuse over months, which I consider to be bullying.

Taking my comments out of context, as Michig has done, is frankly out of order too. Anyone can selectively take words out of context to wholly misrepresent them like that. I hope that someone will actually read them in context: in the context of the abuse I have been subjected to, and in the context of the repeated efforts to drive this edit through.

The genuine abusive phrases, rather than manufactured ones like those above, will be self evident. But I would much prefer an Administrator to actually look at the real evidence and read those pages than engage in fruitless argument here.

"Discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above" - Ash. Both were raised by Ash himself and got nowhere because there was no substance to them. Quoting ones own efforts as evidence is surely transparent.

The bottom line is there to be seen on the talk pages and other pages this has been dragged through. All I have done is to seek to prevent an edit which devalues the article on the topic I know a lot about. That is all. The repeated efforts, without consensus, using different methods is something I have never encountered, nor ever expected to.

I too want an end to it, but not at the expense of allowing the article to be edited such that there is absolutely no reference to a significant part of the ITIL landscape. I want the article to represent the reality, and to be accurate. That is all, and it is why I am in this situation. I am not the one who has been driving this, as the pages will confirm to anyone who reads them. It has to be ended. BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

• What I can see is a lame content dispute (it's just a couple of external links), and a lot of tl;dr comments about it. Don't drag each other to AN/I, do some proper resolving of this content dispute. I can see nothing for an admin to do. What do you want me to do, ban BinaryGal for annoying you? Fences&Windows 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that the content dispute itself is lame, however Binarygal's long term behaviour as discussed in the two previous WQA's referenced above constitutes disruptive editing, particularly where this has had to effect of disrupting potential consensus in RfCs. I was advised in the last WQA to raise this matter by using ANI and WP:DDE also advises to go to ANI so I don't feel like the issue has been "dragged" to ANI unnecessarily. If the advice of the ANI is that no admin is interested in dealing with a deliberate pattern of unsubstantiated passive-aggressive accusations of personal attack then perhaps an RfC on the ITIL talk page about Binarygal's contributions might be in order? By the way, I'd guess "dr" stands for "drama" but what is "tl" shorthand for?—Ash (talk) 21:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think a further discussion on the ITIL talk page is the last thing that's going to help. If nobody is prepared to take any action, the most helpful course of action would be for both User:Ash and User:Binarygal to voluntarily leave the article and its talk page alone and move on. You both have the opportunity to put an end to the whole issue by walking away from it, which is exactly what I intend to do.--Michig (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Fences & Windows here... this appears to be a dispute over an external link. There are many ways in which to deal with this matter, I don't believe that any of them need to be addressed on ANI. I would suggest that it continue to be discussed in an appropriate manner on the talk page of that article. Whether or not the link should be in the article I'm not sure, and though I could wade in here myself (I work for a software vendor that specializes in ITIL and I've passed ITILv2 and v3 foundation certs) I don't really feel the need to on ANI.

I should note that if uncivil behaviour is occuring, then it might be best to go to Mediation. But I would advise that all participants stop making flammatory comments, and focus on the topic matter. I would like to remind everyone on this page to assume good faith!

Should this fail, what do the parties wish for Wikipedia administrators to do? Protect the page, etc.? I'm not sure what they can do about a content dispute. If this is not about content, then I would suggest that matters be taken to the RFC page, etc. but only after mediation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now rereviewed the talk page of that article and I'm now rapidly reassessing my above comments. I am quite concerned now that the editor is getting disruptive - the conversation has devolved on this talk page with accusations of bias, political interference and vague conspiracy theories that editors here are trying to hide or stop the efforts of the Open ITIL movement. None of that is helpful to the discussion at hand, and in fact is causing a lot of hand waving. This is mostly coming from BinaryGal, the other participants have so far been fairly civil, except for once where I see that Ash got exasperated and called her a troll. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that despite the repeated efforts to remove all references to the open ITIL movement, consensus was never achieved. But attempts were repeated again and again. What can be done to stop that? Is there any mechanism available to stop someone simply going on and on like that indefinitely? BinaryGal (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that actually. There was a straw poll for one of the links which was open for a fortnight, and quite a few reasonable points were put forward, but you didn't recognize that consensus had been achieved. I think it worthwhile at this point to note that voting is considered bad form. I have also read through the other discussions, and the other contributors made some fairly valid points, none of which I believe you have adequately addressed. Could you also confirm for me whether you have any affiliation with the websites in question? If so, then you should not be adding them to the article. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course I have no affiliation with it, and given the context I feel a little miffed that this is being asked. If it IS valid to ask about affiliation though, perhaps this is what should be asked of others.

Please understand that this is a very political topic. There are significant commercial and vested interest groups, which oppose an open movement in ITIL.

If you look at the situation from this perspective... given the scale of the dispute when we are only talking about a single link... and given that links to trivial websites on the same page are NOT disputed.... maybe you can see more clearly why I am so concerned?

Can you see that, the political aspect? Can you see why that could be perceived as explaining a lot of what has happened?

Perhaps you can also see that recognizing the existance the open movement is important to the quality of the article, and thus why this last remaining reference is important. All the other references have been edited out over the months!!!

This is core to understanding the context. BinaryGal (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would though also like to come back to the issue of an edit being repeated again and again, when consensus or adequate support is never reached. My question was - what can be done to stop that happening? Is there any mechanism available to stop someone simply going on and on like that indefinitely, as in this case? Is there a way to draw a line and stop month after month of effort to drive through a change? Or is it just allowed to go on for ever? Is there a procedure or something similar in place? BinaryGal (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a reasonable question, thank you for confirming that you are not affiliated with this site. I do ask how you know how many users the site has though, given that it's not readily evident on the site itself? However, This is now a content dispute, it is not appropriate to continue discussing this here. I would strongly advise ceasing accusations of political attacks and only discuss the site itself. As for the dispute escalating... well, I think your editing practices have not helped. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Further comments

The above discussion has devolved to the content dispute itself. However, having reviewed the talk page, I agree that this editor is getting pretty disruptive. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If disruptive is protecting the integrity of an article, you can call me that. I call disruptive refusing to cease attempts to remove a link when no consensus or agreement has been reached, month after month after months. I call disruptive the throwing of abuse at the person who is simply defending the article. What do you call the never ceasing drive by an editor to remove every link to an open movement? Is that ok?

I note too that you have unilaterally deleted the link. Why? Have you even read ALL the material? On what basis have you removed the last reference to the substantial open movement in ITIL? The lack of reference makes the article much much weaker, especially as so many people know that it exists and support it. Is that what you seek? That is what you have done.

I never did get my full objective investigation. Rather, one person jumped in to this and supported the guy entrenched in Wikipedia procedure, ignoring the lack of consenus and the actual reality of the topic.

I have found the whole experience to be absolutely sickening, everything from the sanctioned bullying to the vested/political interests on the ITIL topic. I have also been exposed to some pretty nasty characters to be honest, hiding behind keyboards. Wikipedia is not what I thought it was. Well, at least this Wiki isn't. I suspect that the founders would be pretty disappointed too.

BTW there is no need to ban me for telling the truth. I will ban myself and never edit again. BinaryGal (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, this looks like a case where the person who may well be in the right made a mistake by hunkering down in a controversial area (or one involving strong vested interests) without fully appreciating the opposition's strength. I would ask that someone seriously look at BinaryGal's accusations in detail. It looks like my timing might be rather poor (to say the least), but I was about to involve myself.Julzes (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Every route I took here was blocked. I admitted I know little about Wikipedia protocols, but I do know about ITIL. The problem is that protocols are more important here than being right, and being dedicated to an accurate article. They are more important than articles.

People who know them can use them to beat down honest topic editors. Sure, they will beat up on me for saying that, but it is the truth a lot of people her will not face.

Even on this very page I was asked if I was affiliated to that website. The answer was no. But why wasn't Ash ever asked about his affiliations? Why wasn't he asked why he changed his name when his affiliations were even indirectly on the radar? Why is that? Why?

Why was the link to the last open movement website even selected for the onslaught, when all sorts of nonsense was linked to?

Why is the article itself a broad sales pitch for ITIL, rather than a detailed description of what it is? Why have all the people who have raised this previously been ignored or marginalized? Look at the history if you don't believe me.

Vested interests? Look at the ITIL landscape and look out there at the groups who try to marginalize free information, to protect the almost cartel like structure that is in place. Paid licenses to offer training, expensive user groups (rather than open groups), licensed sellers of material, and so much more. Anything that opposes this setup is pursued, and yes, ironically on here too. And Wikipedia has allowed it to happen, depsite my cries for help over many months.

I am sick of it. Wikipedia will get the article it deserves: in fact it has the article it deserves. The vested interests will be laughing their socks off. Congratulations (not you Julzes, but to everyone who has walked by and allowed this abuse to occur). BinaryGal (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should be improved (I also have a good deal of knowledge about ITIL), and I urge you to try to make it better. But Wikipedia is not your soapbox or a place to push your point of view. By all means add material about the Open ITIL movement (personally, I've never heard of it, but of course that doesn't mean it doesn't exist!). I also suggest that it might be worthwhile reviewing the best way of editing Wikipedia, because you seem to have leapt in feet first without understanding how to contribute to the website. A good place to start might be Wikipedia:Your first article, though as you have been editing now for a bit and you have the hang of the editing process, you might want to also peruse Wikipedia:Five pillars. In particular, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Civility, because I am not seeing much of it from you at the moment! Civility involves a certain restraint in the comments you make, certainly it means you should immediately cease rants that involve paranoid conspiracy theories! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Julzes' comment above, as Tbsdy found in reviewing the detail, Binarygal has never supplied any supporting evidence for the accusations of a conspiracy or claims of vested interests by other editors. Where anonymous SPAs have been used in a doubtful manner (and some of these accounts later blocked) these have been in support of the link in question rather than against. Binarygal's accusations date back to April 2009 but she/he has never been minded to use the dispute resolution process despite this being spelt out by several other editors during that period. I am happy to support any investigation though as Binarygal has decided to cease contributing to Wikipedia and is unlikely to make any further accusations, this may seem a bit pointless. As for being part of a determined "opposition", I am in favour of implementing the guidelines of WP:ELNO and as my article contribution history shows, ITIL or related articles do not make it into my top 10 most edited articles.—Ash (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't you stopped re-writing history yet and covering tracks? Instead of selling the myth, why not invite people to read ALL of the history of that talk page for themselves? They might just uncover the game.

No, an investigation into you and others is NOT pointless. Perhaps it might reveal answers to questions like the ones I posed earlier:

Even on this very page I was asked if I was affiliated to that website. The answer was no. But why wasn't Ash ever asked about his affiliations? Why wasn't he asked why he changed his name when his affiliations were even indirectly on the radar? Why is that? Why?

Why was the link to the last open movement website even selected for the onslaught, when all sorts of nonsense was linked to?

Why is the article itself a broad sales pitch for ITIL, rather than a detailed description of what it is? Why have all the people who have raised this previously been ignored or marginalized? Look at the history if you don't believe me.

Vested interests? Look at the ITIL landscape and look out there at the groups who try to marginalize free information, to protect the almost cartel like structure that is in place. Paid licenses to offer training, expensive user groups (rather than open groups), licensed sellers of material, and so much more. Anything that opposes this setup is pursued, and yes, ironically on here too. And Wikipedia has allowed it to happen, depsite my cries for help over many months.

Wikipedia has been seriously abused in a manner which required industry knowledge to uncover. Unfortunately, uncovering it was not enough. I was subjected to an onslaught using protocols of which I am unfamiliar, using outright abuse, and using attrition over many months.

That familiarity with protocol is a key, because it attracts support of people who are relatively ignorant of the topic in question, and too lazy to open their minds and research.

It is clearly a major weakness within Wikipedia itself, enabling articles to be hijacked by the likes of the vested interests to which I refer.

The article will remain skewed, not even describing ITIL, but selling it and marginizing free ITIL and Open ITIL. This is absolutely clear.

It is an insult to the very principles upon which Wikipedia was formed. Those engaging in it appal me, but have been given a free hand to continue. It is why I will never edit another article.

As I have stated on the article talk page, in the long run the truth has a habit of emerging. If and when it does, I hope that those admins passing by, and buying the lies that I am a conspiracy nutcase, realize that they share some blame in allowing the abuse to succeed and the abusers to profit. BinaryGal (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2010 (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.

Caravan raids

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.

---

Resolved

 – For now. Lede rewritten and trimmed. Misconceptions2 now indef blocked for socking with the IP again to get around his two week block. IP is currently blocked for two weeks. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

. miconceptions2 did not sock. the ip ,188.221.108.172 is mine. i will get him unbanned after this sock investigation is over--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Unresolving. The plagiarism has not been addressed. Durova³⁹¹ 22:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

---

a user has deleted the article caravan raids, claiming its a fork?is this alloweed

see here--188.221.108.172 (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a deletion, but a redirect. My personal opinion is that a merge should be discussed on the talk page as being bold has generated some controversy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a content fork to force a negative POV, nothing more nothing less. No compromise needed on such clear violations. Also, the complaining IP is a sock of User:Misconceptions2, who is currently blocked for edit warring over another content fork he created, the since speedily deleted Muhammad and assassinations. There's a discussion opened by him further up this page and an unfinished SPI case here [110]. The Caravan raids article is not the generalized article one would expect, but a highly attack-oriented content fork on Ghazi -- the raiding parties that Mohammed participated in. I'm happy with a redirect since the better, non-forked article certainly needs a lot work and there might be some useful material in the fork for a well-meaning editor to look through in future. Probably the best thing is to make a hard redirect (and dab if anyone gets around to writing a general article on Caravan raids writ large.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The IP making this request is, with very little scope for doubt, Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading his two-week block for disruptive and tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the first SPI on Misconceptions2 from a few weeks ago found that this was his ip [111]. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody get this sockpuppet banned.Cathar11 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Misconceptions2 was blocked for 2 weeks, almost immediately evaded the block with a known sock. The sock has been blocked for 2 weeks but I think that Misconceptions2's original block needs to be extended, ditto the IP, at the very least. Dougweller (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• IP has been blocked for the same duration as Misconceptions2 (talk · contribs). -SpacemanSpiff 19:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• Misconceptions2 just got an indef block for that. I think enough is definitely enough now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, agenda account impervious to Clue. Waste of our time trying to help that one, I think. Guy (Help!) 21:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Lost upon the earnest participants to this discussion is the fact that the entire lead of the article being "attacked", Ghazw, is plagiarism from this low-quality source.[112]. It was copied and pasted onto Wikipedia by User:Tigeroo in 27 August 2006,[113] and has remained unaddressed for over three years now. I've quoted Aboul-Enein and Zuhur in full:

“2. Ghazw is a raid that has evolved into the term for battle, ghazah or ghazwa. These were battles in which the Prophet Muhammad personally participated. The term ghazi came to mean “warrior for the faith,” as these battles came to be associated with the expansion of Muslim territory.

3. Siriya (s.) Saraya (pl.) were battles Prophet Muhammad commissioned but did not lead. This is also the name for raiding parties and reconnaissance groups, usually on horseback, which he authorized.

4. Ba‘athat (s.) Ba‘athat (pl.) were expeditions or missions primarily diplomatic in nature (e.g., a courier of political exchange), but which some consider combative. It differed from saraya in size.”

Compare Wikipedia's Ghazw:

Ghazi or ghazah (plural ghazawāt; Arabic: غزو, giving rise to Italian razzia) was originally an Arabic term referring to the battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally participated. It has since evolved into a term for battle associated with the expansion of Muslim territory. The term ghāzī or Warrior for the faith came to represent participants in these later battles and is cognate with the terms ghāziya and maghāzī. In modern Turkish the word means "veteran".

Sirya (plural Saraya) were battles which Muhammad commissioned but did not participate in, and also the name for the usually mounted raiding and reconnaissance expeditions he commissioned but did not participate in.

Ba'atha differed from Saraya in size, and while were sometimes combative were generally expeditions or missions primarily diplomatic in nature (i.e couriers or political exchanges)."

To the extent that it has been reworded, it has only been to introduce further inaccuracies, such as "originally an Arabic term referring to the battles in which the Islamic prophet Muhammad personally participated", when in fact the Arabic word predated Muhammad, meant simply "raid [for plunder]," and had no religious significance. Where is this army of informed volunteers that, we are assured, will correct problems of this kind? Three years should be enough to demonstrate that Wikipedia's model isn't working.98.203.142.17 (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Such content issues are best discussed on the article talk page, or just be bold and reword the article lede, or update the source. Note that the source is possibly in public domain (it is a Strategic Studies Institute publication, and contains no copyright notice), so it may be sufficient to attribute it appropriately through use of quotation marks and citation. Abecedare (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

See Plagiarism.98.203.142.17 (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The person who made an edit on caravan raids. Was me, misconceptions2 got perma ban for this, since people say he carried on edit warring. Though this is my IP, and not Misconceptions2

188.221.108.172. i will try get him unbanned afer sock puppet investigation is over!--Mirroryou1 (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Ankur sharma

Resolved

A legal threat has been made at Talk:Ankur sharma, an article which was recently deleted at AFD and has since been recreated a few times. Cassandra 73 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. Mifter (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP is dynamic and the range is common, so I'm not sure an indef block will be very helpful. I had salted three titles previously and this threat was posted after the salting. -SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think their concern may have been that the article is cached in Google and shows up on searches [114], but clicking it leads to the deleted page and then the AFD discussion, which has comments like "vanity" and "self-promotion". Can AFD discussions be courtesy blanked - I've seen this on older ones but I don't know if it's still done? Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've just courtesy blanked the AFD, per your request :). Best, Mifter (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

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.

---

Resolved

 – Bowei Huang now blocked for either impersonation or sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MBisanz posted about this at WP:AN but it has fallen through the cracks there[115] and, since the guidelines at WP:AN indicated this was the more appropriate venue, I'm raising it again here. In short, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name[116] but, after the name change was implemented, he re-registered User:Bowei Huang and has continued editing under that name. His edit and, more importantly, his warning history has been transferred to User:A1DF67 so he has received a fresh start, with no obvious indication of his previous history. He failed to respond to a request to comment at the WP:AN discussion and that's where everything has stalled.

The result of this is that User:Bowei Huang, who has been identified as a pest, has successfully gamed the system. Surely User:A1DF67's history should be merged back to User:Bowei Huang and appropriate measures, perhaps as suggested by some of the admins in the original discusssion, be implemented, especially since he's still being disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be him who registered the new account. I would suggest indefinitely blocking the account Bowei Huang for suspected user impersonation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That account is blocked either way. I would suggest gathering some diffs of disruption from both accts. and initiating a sockpuppetry investigation. User:Bowei Huang must be blocked indef. either because of sockpuppetry or impersonation. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be... which account was blocked? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently neither so far...but at least User:Bowei Huang should... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. I would suggest using suspected impersonation as the reason, because that would more closely follow WP:AGF. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A case for sockpuppetry could be made per this edit though... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's impersonation, it's by his clone. The edits being made by the "new" Bowei Huang are the same as being made by the "old" Bowei Huang. As I indicated in the AN discussion, A1DF67 hasn't edited since the name change. All edits since then, with the exception A1DF67 posting a thankyou for the name change, have been made by Bowei Huang. Edit comparisons can be made at Australia, where he has changed a manual figure to an automated one, implementing it poorly. I've warned him just now about certain changes he's made that have been rejected by other editors:[117]

• "Old" Bowei Huang[118][119]
• "New" Bowei Huang[120][121][122]

This is really WP:DUCK in action. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems fine to start a sockpuppet investigation... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Investigation open

Investigation open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. No checkuser request, per WP:AGF and that it is not really necessary. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Just block the guy and be done with it! Too much wikidrama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would if I could but I won't because I can't. I know we are not a bureaucracy but sometimes bureaucracy helps. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How? You know that the account was used by an old editor, you also know that if someone else has taken over it then this is a clear case of impersonation. If it is not impersonation then the old user is now using two accounts, which is not allowed. Either way, that original account name should be blocked indefinitely. However, if you use the reason as suspected account impersonation, then you are in essence saying that you have assumed good faith. Everyone is a winner here, and nobody goes away disadvantaged. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the man is in for an indef. If I was an admin he would already have it. But I am not, so, proper channels should be used. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, more evidence can show up at an investigation, and that is how bureaucracy can help. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's either impersonation or sockpuppetry. Either way I've blocked them. The investigation can go on to find out which it it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a request for CheckUser be placed? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why... what would be gained? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much really. Lets wait for further evidence of sockpuppetry to request it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:53, 3 January 2010 (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.

Quack

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.

---

Resolved

Durova³⁹¹ 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TokosMakos (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs). The user's single edit to Wikipedia is enough to convince me. Recommend orbital bombardment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Punted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. A quackingly bad title for this section.--219.89.10.170 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not resolved, resolution opens a new can of worms

This has been handled in a very bad way.

Jimbo Wales wrote an editorial in a national newspaper saying how rude people are on the internet. What better place to reverse this trend than Jimbo Wales' own website, Wikipedia.

A reformatted request could have read:
TokosMakos (talk · contribs) edit at single edit is unconstructive and disruptive. Due to the nature of the article, this is forbidden. Request blocking user. I think he is a sock of Multiplyuser but the proof of unconstructiveness and disruptiveness is in the edit itself. ---Scjessey

Blocked (or punted) ---LessHeard van U

(the IP quack is ok because that was the title).

When we go on jargon and just guessing on behavior, non-Wikipedians don't understand this and question the clanishness and the lack of precision of the accusations. We need to re-earn the trust of non-Wikipedians so that Wikipedia will be respected as an encyclopedia. We need to act like we are all on an editorial board of an encyclopedia, not a myspace bulletin board. Lastly, we must listen to Jimbo Wales and stop being rude and start acting like a professional website that people rely on for information. What better time to start than a new decade.....oh wait, I have to add a user box, award a barnstar, and fix that porn star article. :p JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I take on board your suggestion that we need to "not be rude", but my action in this case was based on the fact that Talk:Barack Obama has recently suffered a series of socks who have all turned out to be Multiplyperfect (or someone else indistinguishable from same) in quick succession. The style of post is very distinct, and I only opened this thread because I was 99% certain. If I'd had any doubt, I would've waited for a couple more confirmation posts before pulling the trigger. You must understand that this one puppeteer has wasted thousands of Wikipedian hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Scjessey. That single edit is a sort of distilled essence of the editing style that caused Multiplyperfect to no longer be welcome to edit here. If it is not them, it is someone deliberately continuing their exact style of disruption - but it actually extending more good faith to assume that is simply the same person doing the same unwelcome things, rather than two people doing unwelcome things separately. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As this sounds like it's resolved now, I'm adding archive tags. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:LegatoXxXxXxXx and their apparent WP:DE behavior in Celine Dion article.

• This user, who is new and still unregistered, has, for quite some time, been adding, deleting, and reverting massive amounts of material on the article Celine Dion. This user created the section, "Voice" a few weeks ago and has been adding unverifiable information, and unreliable references in it. The frequent use of inline citations and unreliable sources, like Youtube have been quite tiring to revert. Please see here: [123] The user gives no reasoning towards why he/she gives edits. Other users, including myself have given their input on the user's talk page, and so far, I have not received any feedback from him/her. I feel that the user is utilizing malicious behavior by not giving any of their personal input, ignoring other user's requests, and giving unreliable information in the article and the section. As you may know, the article, Celine Dion is featured, and I do not want this user's uncivil editing and behavior to jeopardize that status. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor might not be reading or understanding the edit summaries. There have been a couple of attempts to hold a dialog with this person at user talk, but not at article talk. Suggest initiating new dialogs there. If the person continues to alter large chunks of text and use unreliable sources without discussion, then admin intervention might be needed. Durova³⁹¹ 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will try that. I am just concerned for the article's status. I am trying to stay patient with the user and I'll see if I can engage in some positive discussions with him/her.BalticPat22Patrick 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If they respond and want to take the article in a different direction, try a content request for comment. If they ignore attempts at dialog and attempt to edit war, then it would be time for admin intervention. Durova³⁹¹ 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried to make an attempt at some sort of conversation to why they are editing this way. You can see on the user's talk page what I said. Aftwerwards, the user wrote on my talk page, here, at the very bottom [124]. I honestly don't know where to go from here. They stated that they do not care of my contributions, and are acting extremely uncivil in nature. I am concerned that they do not care for the well being of the article itself, only their own personal contributions. BalticPat22Patrick 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the user just deleted every bit of info in their talk page. I don't know if this is an attempt to conceal anything written, but it surely emits extremely distruptive behavior, at least in my eyes. BalticPat22Patrick 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It would be best to discuss matters on the article talk page. If the editor refuses to discuss their edits, then we can review. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Lincolnshire and Talk:Lincoln.

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.

---

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute, and this is the wrong forum for this. I'm not sure what admins can do to resolve this. Suggest following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution guidelines before bring this to ANI. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeni and others are operating a WP:CABAL involving the Lincoln page, trying to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire over other pages in the disambiguation. They tagged the disambiguation page as part of WP:Lincolnshire, despite the fact that disambiaguation pages rarely are linked to projects other than WP:DAB and it was a POV violation (It's completely unfair to tag it as a project only associated only with a single link, when there are other links involved). When I boldly untagged it, they screamed bloody murder. In addition, they continue to push POV and disrupt, while accusing others like me who have not violated policy, pushed POV, or disrupted as doing so. These users should stop their cabal to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire on other pages. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that you failed to remove the Biography WikiProject, which is in line with your personal POV. More proof that you are out to disrupt and prove a point Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatent lie: If you look at my edit, you'll see that I also deleted WPBiography. Also, biography applies to several people on the page, Lincolnshire only applies to Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't look close enough. But still, you have purposefully stirred up trouble despite others telling you not to. Jeni ^(talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many members of WP:Lincolnshire have commented on the latest proposed move? Please check your facts before posting defamatory comments about whole groups. I strongly suggest you redact mention of WP:Lincolnshire from the title of this section. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a member of WP:Lincolnshire, are you Nev? Jeni ^(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, and since I am one of the one's who "screamed bloody murder" (read: asked what the policy is on the matter) I resent a whole project being grouped with my actions. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that you still POV pushed and disrupted while accussing me and a mop of being disruptive, when we weren't POV pushing and being disruptive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if a user is a mop, bucket, spade, badger, ferret, rock, paper, scissors, lizard or Spock. I fail to see its relevence --Narson ~ Talk • 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

The above user has started stirring up trouble again over at Talk:Lincoln removing project banners whenever it takes his fancy. Several users have cottoned on to this and attempted to let him know (via his talk page and mine), yet he still continues in his quest to eradicate anything that isn't in line with his POV. It needs an administrator to have a word with him, since he blatantly won't listen to anyone else, then failing that, further action. Jeni ^(talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User notified here Jeni ^(talk) 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having banners that represent only one line of a disambiguation page involving many lines is completely wrong, it violates POV and is a cabal. Jeni has been pushing much more POV than I have--another editor and I cite numbers, and she accuses us of POV. I violated no policy (I edited with bold), those banners clearly did and that's why they must be removed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It was two acctually, there was a biography one there too which you removed (Though never complained about). You edited with bold, but were then reverted and failed to discuss. In fact you had already discussed this on the page, so being bold after discussion has started can be seen as plain disruptive. It was certainly ill thought out as it was only likely to ramp up tension further. You also spouted some rather offensive nonsense about people from Lincolnshire here. While the rather nasty mood on the page is by no means Purplebackpack's fault, he seems to be (I'm assuming through inconsideration here rather than some design) ramping up tensions by constantly poking at things like the disambig's start and the banners. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx3 or 4 or argh. So many)

Apologies for the duplicated threads, it appears that Purplebackpack89 beat me to it by a few seconds. Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the project tags on the dab are probably not appropriate, considering I doubt the Lincolnshire Wikiproject has much to do with a dab that consists primarily of links to place outside Lincolnshire. That said, it's hardly an "incident", so you should probably take your concerns to the relevant talk pages or to WT:WikiProject Lincolnshire. Oh, and enough with the accusations of "stirring up trouble again" and a "cabal"). HJMitchell You rang? 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects specifically have an article class for disambiguation pages. If it is "probably not appropriate", why are they there, and used? Jeni ^(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not for what they're being used for on the Lincoln page. Agree with Mitch Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (this is still the wrong forum) I suggest you remove all project banners except the DAB project or add the banners for each and every project whose area is covered by the links at Lincoln. In response to your point, btw, I would imagine it would be appropriate to tag a dab whose links all consist of pages within the scope of that project, but in this case, the vast majority do not. HJMitchell You rang? 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are they being used for on the Lincoln page, in your honest unbiased opinion? Jeni ^(talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly? Taking up space and fuelling tension. HJMitchell You rang? 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that was aimed at Purpleback, indecently the only person that has a problem with it. The other appropriate wikiprojects should be added. Jeni ^(talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both sides could truly use a cup of tea here. I agree with HJM above, I don't understand the purpose of a disambig page being tagged as part of a project, when the page deals with every other mention of the word on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Its only a problem because we have a paranoid editor screaming cabal, when no members of the wikiproject have actually made a comment on the subject at hand. Last I checked, there was no policy against Wikiprojects tagging disambiguation pages, and just because one editor has an issue with it (who can't back up his problems with any sort of policy) doesn't mean it should be removed. Jeni ^(talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that not make one wonder if the Lincolnshire wikiproject actually gives rat's arse about whether the page is tagged as within their project or not? As Dayewalker said, the page deals with just about every mention of Lincoln anywhere on WP. HJMitchell You rang? 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that (as its name infers) Lincoln is the county town of Lincolnshire, then Lincoln is very important to the Lincolnshire WikiProject (and is tagged with such importance), hence it is tagged in the first place. Its also perfectly feasible that there isn't anybody online from said WikiProject to comment at this time. Jeni ^(talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that their editors will, like most of us, not give a rat's ass. However, what pages are tagged should be mostly a project's choice IMO, not to be decided by third parties telling them what is good for them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx2)

(ec x2) Seeing as no one from the project has commented in the discussion (yet), the answer is perhaps not. I don't see the need for project tags on talk:Lincoln (the point of tagging something for a project is that it draws the project's attention to it for improvement, but this seems outside WP:Lincolnshire's remit), but I was concerned by 1) the timing and 2) Purpleback's action despite the fact that he'd started a discussion about it on the talk page and didn't wait for consensus. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but reverting Jeni was wrong, and it should have been pretty obvious that it would cause confrontation. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How many cities worldwide have been named after British cities? Do you propose that every single dab on the project relating to them be tagged as part of that Wikiproject? I was going to use Boston (disambiguation) as an example but it's already tagged as part of WP:Lincolnshire (the town in Lincs is tiny! Why isn't it tagged as part of the Massachusetts project?!?!). Either tag Lincoln with the Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, New Zealand, New Brunswick etc etc etc project banners or just leave the dab project banner on. HJMitchell You rang? 23:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we add all the appropriate wikiprojects, there is no maximum number afterall. Jeni ^(talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jeni: I honestly think, POV or no POV, that the purpose of the tag was to get as many Lincolnshire editors involved as possible, including those discussions involving articles outside the scope of WP:Lincolnshire (and that's where my concerns of POV come in). When JHunterJ started a discussion of redirect, you yourself alerted the Lincolnshire project, but did not alert the disambiguation project (I had to myself). Also, if we tagged every concerned project, there'd be 50-100 projects tagged--some articles in that section already, and there are dozens of articles. And there you go again with the accusations--I am not a paranoid schizo! Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (the alternate account of Purplebackpack89)

I hate to appear to be taking sides here, but to tag it with every project banner is just ridiculous. I just counted- you will need 47 different WikiProject tags. HJMitchell You rang? 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That few? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Get your facts straight please, the page had the Lincolnshire banner way before you or I even edited it. It was added here. I'm sure if other wikiprojects felt they needed to monitor this page, then they would add themselves, as it stands others haven't, so we can presume they aren't interested. Jeni ^(talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of this, if the project is there to improve articles about the subject, what possibly could they do to improve a disambig page? It's just a list. Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) They can't. This isn't about interest, this is about equity. Either we have the impractical world of a bazillion projects, all of which would have to be notified from time to time, or just 1. Make it just 1. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please just let the wikiprojects make up their own mind? They are all adults, they don't need us telling them yes or no. Lets try to stop playing Nanny State: The Board Game. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, progress is being made on discussions on the talk page regarding the project banners. Something still needs to be done about disruption though. Jeni ^(talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean your disruption, POV pushing and threatening? Definetely. Mitch and Walker, would you be so good as to comment on the thread at the Lincoln talk page? Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I remain concerned about your use of terms like: It looks like the narrow-minded people of Lincolnshire have come out to defeat your proposal. I've asked you to refactor that but you have instead chosen to let it stand. (And for the record, Purplebackpack, I am not from Lincolnshire, I have no love for lincolnshire and have no links with Lincolnshire) --Narson ~ Talk • 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:SkagitRiverQueen and rollback

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.

---

Resolved

[125] [126]. This editor is clearly abusing rollback. --Rschen7754 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Full disclosure: I'm one of the editors whose comments were removed. I've posted to SkagitRiverQueen asking for an explanation, but pending a good one, I can't see how these rollbacks are what the tool is intended for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed rollback from SkagitRiverQueen. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally posted this as a separate section below, I am including it here for the warning diffs.

SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) apparently received rollback on the first of the month, since then she's been involved with a dispute at Talk:Ted Bundy with user Wildhartlivie. She used rollback to remove WHL's comments on another user's page here [127], I commented on her page here [128], specifically warning her about using rollback in a dispute or to remove non-vandalism here [129]. She ignored me, and roled back another editor's comments on the page here [130]. I am requesting her rollback rights be removed until she can understand what the tool is to be used for. Dayewalker (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore you. Here's what happened: I haven't even been home at my computer since before 2pm PST. While I was gone, I did try to view some stuff on my watchlist from my cellphone because of the events of today surrounding a Wikiette report I filed. My phone is a touchscreen, and at times it is difficult to get it to respond on the right spot - when I thought I was hitting "diff", my finger must have hit "rollback" both times. I'm sorry for the error, but it really was beyond my control. Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody makes a mistake now and again, but just to be on the safe side it might be a good idea to register an alternative account, without rollback, for use from your phone. --TS 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? After this, I will never even go to Wikipedia again with my phone! ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably an even better idea :-) The question now is: do admins accept this very plausible explanation, and will someone re-grant the rollback rights? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you browse as an IP from your phone, there's no danger of accidentally hitting rollback, because it won't be there. I sometimes only log in when I realize I need to use an admin tool, or else talk to someone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I never log on with my phone. Mostly out of fear that I might get accidently accused of being a sock puppet, since I have no idea who else has used a particular ip address and for what. I can see how this can happen though. I would advise that the user gets rollback again. Its a valuable tool and as long as this is an isolated incident, the reasons she gave makes perfect sense.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make sense to me. Dayewalker (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since SkagitRiverQueen was granted rollback rights three days ago because she's thought to be trustworthy, it would seem rather mean not to accept her reasonable and plausible explanation and promise that she won't make the same mistake again. If she misuses rollback again the previous problematic behavior will be in her user rights log and it's unlikely that any explanation will be adequate for her to retain the right. --TS 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to re-granting rollback. I think this editor is very unlikely to repeat the mistake. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I'd do it right now :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who's editing with a cramped (or slightly dodgy) touch device, I recommend trying User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js, a script meant to avoid this exact problem. All it does is require you to confirm rollback on a popup dialog box, when you invoke it from the crowded watchlist screen. Take it from me, it does prevent fat-finger rollbacks. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback access restored, per above discussion. --John (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This actually raises a good question and potential change request... who actually uses rollback from their watchlist anyway? I know I don't. I usually go to the page and take a full look at history first, or moreover, am using Huggle anyway.   Thorncrag  01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do, frequently, after looking at the change using WP:POPUPS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Same here, also after using popups. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done it, every so often, when a massive amount of content was removed and the edit summary says something like "Replaced content with (obscenities)" No need to even use a popup and look at that those, just hit rollback. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't use popups, but when Herman Melville is suddenly, like, 6 bytes long, it's pretty clear what happened. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (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.

Incorrect Linkage on Front Page Version of Today's Featured Article

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.

---

Resolved

 – Camw did the honors. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the front page version of Today's Featured Article, there is a link to American Broadcasting Corporation or ABC. The problem is ABC stands for American Broadcasting Company. American Broadcasting Corporation just redirects to American Broadcasting Company. I have changed this on the 2000 Sugar Bowl page, but obviously can't change this on the front page. Could an admin take care of this, please. Many thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, done per the request. Camw (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also taken American Broadcasting Corporation to RFD, as it sounds like it should never be used. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:17, 4 January 2010 (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.

Invitation to Community Discussion

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [131]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [132] and here [133]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [134] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [135] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [136]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [137]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [138] and Virtual Steve [139] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [140]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [141] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [142]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[143], including with an IP[144][145] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[146]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[147] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [148] [149]
• MastCell [150]
• David Ruben [151]
• FeloniousMonk [152]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [153])
• Jim62sch [154]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [155])
• Friday [156]
• Jefffire [157]
• Arthur Rubin [158]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[159], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Email spamming

User:Whadu has been abusing the "Special:EmailUser" messaging service and sending emails promoting his website, www.whadu.com. I am unsure if any other users have had similar issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Header details:

Email header details

From Whadu Mon Jan 4 08:49:25 2010 X-Apparently-To: ---(my user email)--- via 206.190.38.174; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:49:26 -0800 Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org> X-YMailISG: 0X25s6IWLDsxXEIUBy5iOGLZ1a8jcUJ6XDn9VKSYbtKlyQj2Y.bPp1FyenptOxxXBC_wltS5svYzvJ4j59jiDgbjN7y8J2iGkraNVvQg8hDZ0JbxMLYCJltUvZiJ5Lwd.KbNGdYvPZ5BA5Yh8qPs6qgUr2ONHxSGYhsG.ySiJHIkEawubUnw4YnXR85XndolHIX7K6hTP4AZjdQMKDni4UCVx.rmh5rHZJn33SY5zJeyo8LT7Er53xgtxHJebHR.kkTGvuLbEmEHgjKt9WqhePv81zZuZdS8Y0I6gT3_OZRlbrailsUkjAOTzUterXOFpf8j_kfGg0BDz9dH6BVYnkTMbtZeMFcYUcxRpswFk133rpe8bcE63s6pIMgnQXQt8fMcg1qtGzGRmTvhJfGSS3mipA5AvdCjWchrw8hf9baTDA-- X-Originating-IP: [208.80.152.133] Authentication-Results: mta147.mail.ac4.yahoo.com from=brokencontrollers.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=brokencontrollers.com; dkim=neutral (no sig) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO wiki-mail.wikimedia.org) (208.80.152.133) by mta147.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:49:26 -0800 Received: from srv158.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.158]:49855) by mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <whadu@brokencontrollers.com>) id 1NRicv-000174-3q for ---(my user email)---; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:26 +0000 Received: by srv158.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:25 +0000 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:25 +0000 To: Benlisquare <---(my user email)---> Subject: Contributing to a new search engine. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer From: Whadu <whadu@brokencontrollers.com> Message-Id: <E1NRicv-000174-3q@mchenry.wikimedia.org> Content-Length: 1045

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor, see the top of this page. I've done that and asked him to stop. He's using talk pages also, but this is inappropriate as well as it is promotional. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell and James dalton bell (talk · contribs)

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article [160], has tried to repeatedly post allegations of judicial misconduct and his own theory on global warming [161][162][163][164][165] which I removed as being unsourced, clear cut violations of WP:BLP and WP:OR. I and other editors have told him multiple times [166][167][168] what the issues are regarding the edits, but he continues to be argumentative about it and claims that I am part of some inept conspiracy to silence him and that I am editing on somebody's behalf.[169][170] He also opened a MedCab case and called for my banning [171] and that I am harassing people [172]. He has now added allegations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry [173]. Can some involved uninvolved admin or editor please intervene? Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As probably the only "involved admin or editor" having written the bulk of the article, I would encourage anyone inclined to pitch in to read very carefully the history of the subject, and proceed with any dispute resolution with the greatest consideration for the positions and dispositions of those involved.  Skomorokh  17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bad typo... "uninvolved". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have written what I hope is a comprehensive overview of the issues, and the means to address them, on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is 'the subject of the article Jim Bell', James Dalton Bell. The point of dispute, at the moment, is NOT the state (the contents) of the 'Jim Bell' article prior to December 18, 2009. Rather, the dispute has (so far) been strongly the product of the abrupt, rude, and malicious process by which Gogo Dodo engaged in a 'drive-by-deletion' of material I added to article 'Jim Bell'. Misleadingly, Dodo pretends that the real problem is the material I added. Instead, I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that Dodo's actions were and remain HIGHLY improper, EVEN IF it is assumed that SOMETHING is wrong with the material I added. Facts: I am a NEW user, having not had access to the Internet for 9 years. (Anybody who actually READS the article 'Jim Bell' would have known this. They would also have noticed that I would be released from prison December 20,2009, so Dodo can't pretend that he 'didn't believe' me to be the 'genuine' Jim Bell.) Thus, Dodo (if he had read the article) was fully aware that I was unfamiliar with not merely the as-written policies, but in fact the as-applied procedures, in WP. (Please note: Written polices and actual procedures can very well be DIFFERENT, and I assert they are different.) I fully understand that if SOMEBODY had sabotaged the article (or any article), there would be no problem in reverting such tampering. But, I hasten to add, the contents of what I added could not possibly be described in that fashion. So, that option/excuse is UNAVAILABLE to Dodo. The next excuse he might claim to use is the lack of 'citations'. Well, having read well over 100 WP articles in the last few days, it is quite obvious that some articles can last FOR YEARS with few or any citations, even those whose subject is living, etc. I know this because I see DATED notations on some articles, bemoaning the lack of citations, and the dates are over one year in the past! Obviously, nobody believed (in those other cases) that somebody had to INSTANTLY remove uncited material! Double-standards are often a symptom of hypocrisy, or even downright malice. So, Dodo can't claim he had to act instantly. The next problem is that, while WP is 'advertised' (in policy) as a place in which _consensus_ is important, you should note that Dodo didn't wait for any such consensus to develop! In fact, his precipitate action (erasing ALL my additions, and not merely a fraction or a portion of them) could have no other goal that to PREVENT any such 'consensus' from happening: It was as if Dodo was trying his upmost to CONCEAL the contents of my edits, not merely from the public, but also from all other editors/administrators. Moreover, he repeated his actions FOUR times. Nor did he bother to even put my edits into the 'talk:jim bell' article (instead, I did that): If he had GENUINELY believed that there was sufficient justification to 'immediately' remove my edits, EVEN BEFORE some sort of consensus had developed, and since it was clear that 'vandalism' wasn't involved (at least, not from me), the only logical action (for him) would have been to place my edits into talk:jim Bell, to let that consensus develop. But not only did he not do that the first time he acted, he went on to do the same thing three more times, and yet he STILL didn't do that! Moreover, he did not merely delete a portion of my edits: In every case (so far?) Dodo has CAREFULLY deleted EVERYTHING I edited. Not merely some portion that, ostensibly, is unacceptable or improper! Yet further, despite my repeated complaints and objections, Dodo has so far been virtually silent for days on the substance of my complaint. Somebody suggested, 'because he is busy'. Really? If he's really THAT busy, how did he manage to even FIND my edits, FOUR TIMES IN A ROW, in a few hours each, and why did he take the time to charge in and delete them?!? Which is it? Is he BUSY, or is he NOT busy?!? Dodo's actions simply don't 'added up'. His actions are NOT consistent with a reasonable, non-malicious person who is genuinely attempting to follow a consistently-applied policy. Rather, his actions are those of a thoroughly malicious person who has tried (in an extremely effective manner!) to engage in sabotage, yet attempting (in an extremely ineffective manner) to conceal his true motivations. It's really quite simple, given these extensive facts: Dodo is rude, malicious, and abrupt. Dodo may, indeed, have a longstanding practice of engaging in 'drive-by-deletion' of other people's edits. (I've seen messages which indicate exactly that: And, such a person would not be changing his 'MO' ('modus operandi') much to intentionally direct his actions against some additional specific person, such as myself.) But, I think it's obvious that this specific incident (with article 'jim bell') transcends even such general harrassment and sabotage. His silence in the face of my numerous reasonable objections constitutes an admission of guilt: He knows that even if he can justify, in principle, erasing SOME edits, SOMETIMES, he can't explain his improper method of doing so in this situation. It's most likely Dodo was put up to this: He is merely acting on somebody else's behalf. It's the only thing that would accurately explain what's been going on. Note that I would welcome (as I have clearly requested, for a week!) an intelligent discussion of this matter, but Dodo (to mix a metaphor) 'plays ostrich', sticking his head in the sand. Dodo's actions amount to "Don't let Jim Bell edit ANY article, especially 'Jim Bell'". If Dodo disagrees, he should explain how his actions CAN'T be interpreted in exactly this fashion, and why he didn't respond before.James dalton bell (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chummer, do yourself and everyone else a favor, calm down, and, in as succinct a manner as possible, please summarize the Mighty Wall O' Text above - Nobody's gonna bother even reading the above as it comes across as a rant. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, he's annoyed that Gogo Dodo reverted his unsourced addition to his biography a few times and says Gogo Dodo didn't communicate with him (despite the evidence on his talk page). He also seems to be unaware how easy it is to review and revert changes via article history and wants to be given a break because he's a new user and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I managed to get about half way down, but it appears that the crux of his argument is that he believes he should be able to add in unsourced material and then source it at a much later date because this has occured on other articles. However, just because other articles are in a state of flux or are not sourced does not mean that the article that he is editing should be a reason to add unsourced material to other articles. Doing so could be seen to be disrupting to make a point and is certainly contrary to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. James dalton bell also believes that as other articles had citations added quite some time after the article was written that he should be able to add it later as well, and he is questioning why Gogo Dodo needed to remove the material instantly, not understanding that Wiki means "quick" and this is perfectly acceptable to do this. Then there is a very long rant about how he is being harassed and there is a conspiracy against him by some unknown group or individual, which to be frank I gave up reading because I've read this sort of drivel on hundreds, if not thousands, of long winded posts from people who don't understand how Wikipedia works. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the post here, it seems to me that he is indeed acting as Tbsdy lives states. As a totally uninvolved editor (I'd never heard of him before this thread), I would say 2 things: firstly, Gogo Dodo did leave messages on the talk page explaining their actions (using the standard templates for that purpose); secondly Bell has been inserting unsourced, unverified information. Although I understand Bell's anger on this issue, the fact remains that Gogo Dodo was acting completely in line with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. "Other Stuff Exists" is never counted as a suitable argument for keeping specific articles or specific versions. Using that logic, I could pop round Jim Bell's house, break in and assault him "because other people assault people" - or would Jim Bell think that would be OK as an argument for doing it - I'm guessing not. I fail to see where Gogo Dodo has breached any policies here (including WP:CIVILITY). I appreciate that Bell is a new user here, and so cannot be expected to understand the policies here from the off - but he was notified of what was wrong with his edits, and proceeded to add further unsourced, unverified OR to the article. The first time, ignorance could be used as an excuse. The second time (and beyond) it cannot. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm an enemy of Wikipedia!

About time I was declared evil. I've just blocked 67.58.191.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week due to the user's revival of a rather silly debate from two years ago at Goosebumps. Background from 2007 can be found on the talk page; then, it was Jonamatt (talk · contribs) whose name was quite close to the "expert" who wrote the nonexistent-to-Google "analysis" that is referenced in the 'scholarly review' section that has, since then, occasionally been inserted by IPs; in this case, the IP has demanded that I telephone them (not bloody likely) and reinserted the section several times despite instructions to provide real references or discuss on the talk page. I'd appreciate reviews of this from outside admins; I suspect an unblock attempt will appear shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I found a link which might help. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to me.... however, a week may be a little long. I would suggest reducing this to no more than 48 hours - other anonymous editors might be editing from that IP addresses and may be affected from a long-running block. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So... if an IP address was posting extensive, vile threats, grotesque personal attacks, and highly personal information about other users... you wouldn't give them a long-running block because "other anonymous editors might be affected by it"? The user(s) should be told to create accounts. Of course, this seems weird coming from me, but... I'm sure that, if the editors are being blamed for someone else's actions, they will most likely create an account for themselves. I don't create an account for myself because I'm just weird. Don't ask.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This user is a reincarnation of an indefinitely-blocked sock puppeteer. This person has been trying to add his "Scholarly review" to that article for years, now. –MuZemike 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I was talking about the "innocent editors" who just "happen to use the same IP address".--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I went with the two weeks because a whois on the IP came back oddly and suggests that it's probably static to my untrained eye; I could certainly back it down to 48 hours; there's been no response since the block and notification of this thread. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This shows the level of scholarly demeanor the editor brings to the table. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything unreasonable with the week block; there's little indication this IP is shared.. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Eternal edit war

Please note that I have moved this from AN to ANI. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do here? I locked a page for a few days because of an edit war over one contentious little paragraph being reverted back and forth over and over. However, despite my plea that discussion continue on the article talk page rather than continued reversion, none did (both editors went to other talk pages, including mine, instead, to complain about each other). A few days after the protection lapsed, we have yet another revert, and yet another revert.

Please keep in mind that this is occuring during an RFC on one of the editors in question, focusing on just this sort of behavior. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just re-protected the page, although protection can only stop the reversion and it doesn't tackle the root of the problem, if this continues we may have to topic ban both editors or block them from editing altogether for short periods of time. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how much good that will do ultimately, but we'll see. I like both of these guys so I am hesitant to apply a block personally, but the edit warring is irritating to say the least. A page ban went into affect after similar disputes on Rhino (comics) and Abomination (comics) for a time, so we may have to look into instituting a similar process again here. Although, honestly, those page bans didn't really address the root of the problem either. I was hoping the RFC would help, but thus far we don't have much of anything in the way of outside community input. BOZ (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just cross posting from WT:CMC#Dormammu

Two thoughts:

1. Double check the edit histories for those two. I mentioned last time this popped up that this really feels like feud between them across multiple articles. If it is, the next step may be a flat warning to both and then a pair of blocks if it persists - RFC or no RFC.
2. On a slightly different tact: Either lock the article(s) or, preferably, topic ban the pair from them. Set up a pair of sandboxes at each article - ie Dormammu/X's draft and Dormammu/Y's draft - and let them go to town on those with a caveat that they have to incorporate edits made by other editors to the live version. Incorporating from the drafts to the live version is left up to other editors and redirects, templates (like navboxes), and other articles cannot point to the drafts.

- J Greb (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This same sort of thing has also been going on at Juggernaut (comics) as well, which is another page I have locked in the past. I think you may be right, that a page ban for the two editors in question from these two pages (and possibly more; we'll see how it goes) may be in order. I'll also suggest J Greb's idea to both, and have the caveat be that if they can work it out between themselves then I will lift the ban. I'll mull that over for a bit. BOZ (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the prior discussion regarding the page ban I mentioned above. I'm going to use that for reference purposes. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: David A

I have to insert this to ensure some neutrality as this issue is already slightly off. The real issue here is the conduct of David A, and I am now seeking outside opinions on this matter.

1.

As I have already indicated to J Greb, this user has admitted to having a medical condition - [174]. I have linked to JGreb's Talk Page and the examples I provided him, including the now stock-standard comment that Dave makes on any occasion that I express concern regarding his editing practices [175].

2.

Both JGreb -[176] - and BOZ - [177] - have needed to speak with Dave regarding his conduct. Another editor also recently attempted to discuss his editing practices on his Talk page: [178] although it would seem to have had little impact.

I have even tried a Wikiquette alert :[179], although it did little good, with the main response being:

“ Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops. He's using this as yet another excuse to state that telling the truth is unacceptable and systematical disinformation and deceit is completely ok. Again, I have no other way of handling him, and multiple users are consistently making pleas to have him removed. I'm so very tired of him. And no I'm not "abusive". I'm telling the truth- Asgardian methodically abuses my nerves far more than I abuse his, and I can't remotely "assume good faith" with hundreds of experiences with him personally that contradict this. In fact Asgardian is the by far least trustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered. Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ”

3.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to Dave that many of his edits, while well meant, are inappropriate. I have been very patient and accommodating, as can be evidenced at Mjolnir (Edit History: [180]) the Talk Page for Dormammu : [181] and in return receive blind reverts and inflammatory comments such as these [182]. There is also the Edit History of the article, in which I constantly attempt to explain but make little headway: [183]. Note on an aside that there are also two other editors, who would appear to be somewhat inexperienced, that also erroneously back the use of an invalid text (the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. My latest comment on said Talk page addresses while this is still an unfortunately invalid source.

In conclusion, I have tried. Repeatedly. In my efforts to improve many of the articles, I have had to deal with a number of other editors that while well-meaning are often inexperienced, and this is reflected in their edits, particularly when they don't "get their way." Most are unwilling to discuss, just opting for blind reverts - a recent example is here [184], which I post as there was a comment made regarding an during an RFC. I would encourage outside parties to note the outside view presented by Scott Free.

Please also note that while not an administrator, I am posting this added comment as I feel there has not always been neutrality displayed by those administrators involved, which is disappointing. After truly trying to outline changes and explain them, being "I don't want to hear it" is unfortunate : [185].

I am happy to discuss side issues, but would like a discussion and hopefully ruling on Dave's conduct, given the special circumstances that his medical condition presents.

I will also post this at the ANI.

Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"have to insert this to ensure some neutrality as this issue is already slightly off. The real issue here is the conduct of David A" - at no point was there any express bias towards one or the other party. This is an admin asking other admins what to do. He can take it from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Asgardian, he has admitted himself that he is cheerfully provoking me to get easily quoted extremely weary honest responses, and contrary to his claims othervise I have mentioned that he has finally started to reciprocate my attempts to find adjusted compromise solutions by incorporating rather than censoring any new information (rather than do the same revert over and over) in the Mjolnir (comics) case, but given a long line of attempts for Talk discussion on various pages, that we had a prior agreement after the last feud that I should give benefit of doubt and assume consistent good faith no matter literally hundreds of past experiences, and he should reciprocate by not doing sweeping reference-deletions, and stop reinserting inaccurate details, (which I did for at least a few weeks) and he regardless quickly diverted from it to do virtually the same reference-deleting edit over and over, even though it was adjusted according to the input from uninvolved users that he himself sought at the general comics Talk board (due to consensus being against him, and practices disfavouring reference-deletions to be partially replaced with opinion), and in previous instances, such as Thanos he has likevise returned a few months after compromise has been reached, and in addition there are the (drop in the pond) examples of proving himself untrustworthy below, so at this point it would take an awful lot of consistent proof (of doing the same thing as myself by incorporating any new information and make matter-of-fact error-adjustments) to not make me think that he's simply doing a turnaround from his usual 2-year long streak due to the complaint page being put up, but I've regardless mentioned the areas he has lately improved in. However, as seen in the link above, I was proven right when he returned and deleted references once again at Dormammu, even after the (very unnecessarily long) problems to finally get Mjolnir (comics) error-checked.

In addition just for a local example, he knows full well that I find it annoying when he repeatedly tries to use my handicaps as an in themselves "validation" for that I somehow cannot be trusted and should be discriminated against, rather than strictly focus on what's actually happened. You don't see me thinking or saying something like "He's a possible homosexual, so he cannot possibly be trusted", which would be exactly the same thing (or actually less so, given that it usually isn't nearly as big a problem for whoever is born with that personal leaning). What this in practical terms means is that I have a major problem with filtering myself, i.e. I'm clinically honest, but I have made an effort to tone this down to be matter of fact concerning individual edits, and went to extremes in this regard for a while. I do however believe in the necessity to be able to point out exactly what he's doing, while he's doing it, without being threatened for it.

Other examples of untrustworthiness that I have repeatedly noticed myself, as relayed by others: User:Tcaudilllg states that Asgardian's tactics correspond to those of a troll, and in the same case User:Duae Quartunciae calls] his manipulative use of regulations (to create either fear, or annoyance, such as later putting a complaint against User:Tenebrae for what the admins considered ridiculous reasons) "self-serving" even after a brief interaction, and warns him that he might get banned. The former would fit in with the old comment that Asgardian finds annoyance with manipulation funny and when User:J_Greb mentions that he has also noticed the misleading edit-summaries, referring to this case: [186], along with Asgardian stating that he will continue to do so as long as he gets away with it in the following edit; as well as the ongoing "incivility defense" for pointing out what he is doing, here in connection to an edit-war on Red Hulk; along with that he appeared entirely willing to vandalise multiple pages just to make an exaggerated satirical point, and following talk about that he just keep sticking to (more sophisticated versions of) the same behaviour no matter how many chances he is given (likely a few specific examples in the J.Greb talk, if I remember correctly): [187] [188] [189]. User:Tenebrae also agreed with my assessment of his behaviour and attitude.

Another problem is that he thinks that sticking a smarmy "Regards", "Best Wishes", "All the best", "Many thanks", "Yours forever", or similar comments at the end of his sentences somehow make his consistent neverending actions okay. Politeness is good, but not to an overtly manipulative extent.

Or for that matter, that he can somehow divert attention from his long history of instances with far more users than myself, by, as he stated himself, making me a convenient target due to being clinically outspoken when consistently provoked (in this case literally hundreds of times over the past two years).

Also, regarding the handbook, it is an official statement from Marvel the company's editorial department, based on the then published issues the characters have appeared in, along with editorial evaluation, but is recurrently devated from as writers feel the need. What the advisement really says is that it is okay to use in contrast to individual issue references, which it is here, and the admin he contected himself stated that it is fine to use it with an initial disclaimer, which I inserted. Asgardian however has repeatedly stated that it is all entirely untrustworthy simply due to the deliberately severely toned down symbolic "strength comparison scale", and inserts his own opinions instead. Dave (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Asgardian blocked for 3 weeks. Past that, escalate. Please review diffs above for reasoning why, which does not require a lot of context (particularly if you're an AN/I patroller). Xavexgoem (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) David, yer on notice. Your diffs aren't always the prettiest things in a dump heap, either.

Yeah, the edits probably could do with more structure to them. I have a problem with that, which is why I tried to defend Asgardian from troll accusations for a while. He's actually good with structure, which I find useful, but at least I'm honest and usually reasonable. I am making an effort to control down my annoyance though. Dave (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to postpone/reset the length of the page bans in that case, or even proceed with it? BOZ (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it'll work; you seem to know this area better than I. I handled a bit of it, you get the rest ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll reset for three weeks, or sooner, whenever Asgardian's block ends. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image violations

Tamariki is adding fair use images to a series of biographical actor articles (perhaps out of ignorance) but has not stopped despite my warning, and actually restored one image here immediately after I removed it. I think a quick block may get his/her attention. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help, this editor has added images to dozens of articles and is not stopping, I can hardly keep up.— TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by GoRight

Unarchived by Viridae: collapsetop|GoRight has been blocked by Viridae so this becomes moot at this stage

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

GoRight (talk · contribs) warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else " he "may be blocked without further warnings". (by Jehochman, transcribed to User talk:GoRight by me). ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to appeal the warning imposed at [190] and specifically [191], logged at [192] and specifically [193] – GoRight (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that editor

[194]

Statement by GoRight

We have here a brand new process related to the probation of the Climate Change articles. There is a pending arbitration request regarding this process at [195]. However, should these probationary sanctions be upheld as valid, either explicitly or by a failure of Arbcom to hear the case, then some amount of "kicking the tires" of the process to establish the acceptable boundaries thereof will be inevitable. Someone has to be the first one to work things through the system, and since I was indirectly and informally "nominated" to do so in the first such case I see no reason not to accept that dubious role. So here we are.

I was surprised to actually be sanctioned as a result of filing this case. As I explained in the case itself I was choosing the make use of the new process rather than engage in the edit waring that I was reporting. These sanctions list edit waring as a primary example of what they are intended to cover. My report clearly drew the attention of the admins who monitor the request for enforcement page to an article that is clearly covered by the probationary sanctions where active edit waring was currently taking place. The edit waring in question was obvious and was being done by multiple editors. I chose NOT to single out any editors for action but merely requested that editors from either side of the dispute be blocked for a violations of these new probationary sanctions.

If this use of the request for enforcement page is not appropriate, simply stating as much would have been sufficient. However, since I was sanctioned merely for trying to make use of this new process let us follow this all the way through and thus I am filing this appeal.

In this instance I have been warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests". The use of the word "further" in this case clearly implies that this filing was either (a) frivolous, or (b) vexatious.

I claim that it was actually neither:

(a) A Frivolous Filing

My report was clearly drawing attention to violations of the probationary sanctions on an applicable articled. Though my report may have been insufficiently specified, it clearly was NOT frivolous. There WAS edit waring occurring at the time and place I indicated. Is it not the purpose of this request for enforcement page to have such instances pointed out? If not then this should be made clear.

(b) A Vexatious Filing

To be vexatious I have to have been trying to harass someone. Who was I harassing with this report? I singled out no particular editor, nor did I call for blocks to be applied to only one side of the dispute. So I fail to see how this can be considered a vexatious filing.

Given this I seek to have this sanction reversed and to have it stricken from the log. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses

@Jehochman: Please WP:AGF. What is the harm in taking a new process through its paces? I have already uncovered a bug in the appeal template. If for no other reason this exercise was useful. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasting people's time with frivolous process is not a good thing to do. You ought to be blocked until you agree to desist. Wikipedia is a volunteer project to create a high quality encyclopedia. It's not the Senate where filibustering is often used. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB: I was specifically directed here from [196]. --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: This sanction is duly logged as such on the probationary sanctions log page. I believe that should qualify it as fit for appeal. There is, of course, a real sanction even in this warning as it asserts that I may now be summarily blocked without further warning. So there is an impact on me. --GoRight (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action [122] which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests" - This is incorrect. That filing was closed as not being at the appropriate venue. No sanction against me came out of that report nor have I pursued the matter further. --GoRight (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" [124], and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt [125]." - This is incorrect. I am not adament in opposition to anything. I merely want to ensure that if these sanctions are imposed that they truly and unambiguously have the full force of community deliberations. My use of the term "puported" is accurate in this instance since the legitimacy thereof is still being challenged. Only after such challenges have been put to rest can the sanctions truly be considered enacted. If anything my actions in that respect only serve the strengthen the legitimacy of the sanction should they survive those appeals. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals." - I dispute that my request or that this appeal are frivolous. The request was properly drawing attention to violations of the conditions of the probationary sanctions and should, therefore, not be considered frivolous. I have been tangibly harmed by this warning and so its appeal should not be considered frivolous either. Please WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I disagree. The issuance of this warning allows (or so it indicates) admins to block me without having to warn me further. That is a tangible loss on my part. And since my report was neither frivolous nor vexatious as Jehochman asserts I should not be subjected to such a loss, hence I am appealing the decision. I admit that it is not a major loss on my part but it is sufficient to run this case through the process, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@JzG (aka Guy): Strictly speaking, an appeal is not a forum shop. Also, this is the first place I have taken the appeal. Neither are you uninvolved with respect to myself so your comments should be weighted accordingly. --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Process Notes

• The appeal template seems to have a bug as I don't know why the "Appealing user" comes out as "Example" above. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed that bug in {{Sanction appeal}}, thanks.  Sandstein  20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Please block GoRight for vexatious abuse of process. It is foolish of them to appeal a mere warning. (I should have just blocked them, instead of hoping for a good faith response to the warning.) Jehochman ^Brrr 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

A probation article period "warning" is a admin sanction that maybe apealed like any other issue. The final venue for dispute resolution is ArbCom. This appeal must be taken seriously here at ANI. I an disheartened to see so many vexatious calls for blocks at GoRight, without acknowledging the basis for his appeal, or council for better dispute resolution. An abuse of process claim clearly requires many separate instances and not a single issue with appeal, else it may become an abusive process claim itself. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So ... GoRight get's blocked for Wasting Time. For what purpose did admins chose to invest their time in this, when they could chose to ignore it. I am concerned about vexatious admins in this case. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by GoRight

Sometimes it takes multiple attempts to make an end run around consensus decisions for an editor to see that he cannot get his way by creative use of process. I urge that we permit GoRight the leeway he needs to see that Wikipedia is against his behavior. He has been banned from vexatious behavior a venue where he has pursued particularly vexatious claims, but I think he has a right to see that ban reviewed. --TS 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I'm not sure that I follow what Tony means but personally this is enough. GoRight needs a block now to prevent further disruption of the project. Enough is surely enough now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see any actions worthy of a block, what specifically is the block to be for? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Multiply vexatious wasting of the communities time and patience. Its a classic preventative block for disruption, because while GoRight is blocked they cannot lodge any more bogus and pointy requests. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all, this is a good faith appeal of a restriction. Are you from the opposing side of the content dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I never edited a climate article in my life so I'm not sure what side you think I am on, but it is obvious to everyone that I would be unable to fairly undertake any admin action involving GoRight as I think he is a disruptive editor who should be banished from the project. I am entitled to state my opinions like anyone else and the value or otherwise of my arguments can be judged in the final analysis. I can see that I am not alone in considering this appeal to be vexatious & disruption so I'm not really sure what your point is. And what side are you on by the way? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were personally involved, I assumed climate but it seems to be just a general involvement, I dislike the shouting for the heads of editors except when really needed.. and then I find that there is no need for the shouting, the editor is simply blocked and that is that. I am on the side of the underdog. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know GoRight hasn't been banned from anything. He's merely been warned not to make frivolous and disruptive enforcement requests concerning the recently enacted Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action [197] which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests; an enforcement request against unnamed "Multiple Editors" [198] which resulted in a second warning; and now this appeal of the second warning. This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" [199], and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt [200]. It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals. This sort of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It just looks like a good faith request to appeal what he sees as a unwarranted warning. These single admin restrictions are controversial, Jimbo said he was against them on his userpage recently. Are you involved in the content dispute CrisO? I would like to see if some uninvolved editors feel a block is needed for reguesting this appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is about a content dispute. No content is involved. GoRight's complaints have all concerned the process of the article probation, not the content of any specific article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no restriction (yet) to appeal. This request is pure grandstanding or pot stirring. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have suffered a tangible loss by the issuance of this warning under false pretenses. I merely seek to have that reversed. Rather than commenting on me, perhaps you can address my arguments above to support your contention that my filing was either (a) frivolous or (b) vexatious. Please take these proceedings seriously. --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) If Jehochman is allowed to post in this section then I am allowed to respond here as well.

• My threshold for vexatious litigation is a bit higher than GoRight has met at present (not including this, as the request for review is perfectly legitimate), but strongly encourage them to be more considerate in the future and take heed of the warning. I did not participate in that discussion, but agree with the result. I stress that specific requests regarding specific behavior of specific editors who may have edited in violation of the probation continue to be welcome at WP:GSCC. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think one can usefully appeal a mere warning, as such, any more that one can "appeal" a warning on one's user talk page: it is not an actual sanction. I agree with many of the above that this is a borderline vexatious request.  Sandstein  20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Venue

Without commenting one way or the other whether the appeal has merit, it is not clear to me whether WP:ANI is the appropriate venue. Perhaps those administering sanctions should create a subpage of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation where appeals can be heard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation page does say that sanctions under this remedy can be appealed to AN/I. A warning is not a sanction per se but the same principle surely applies. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see it now (linked under "appropriate administrators noticeboard"). But I still think it would be better for appeals be centralized under the sanctions page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I suggest that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement rather than here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. It needs a CENT under sanctions, or that location just above mentioned by ChrisO seems like it's exactly what we're looking for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea to referring appeals here is to get review from fresh perspectives. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think this makes sense, as the dedicated enforcement page (WP:GS/CC/RE) is likely to be watched mostly by people involved in the subject-related disputes. It would be good if more uninvolved admins were to watchlist it.  Sandstein  20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Location aside, with WP:CANVASS, WP:ADMINSHOP and the like, this guideline is pointless and I don't know why it was ever permitted. It's just plain common sense with weaseled working included. It's like saying "users cannot create new socks if currently a participant in an SPI investigation." Not sure how this is "fresh eyes", since I'd venture 90% of persons reading here are either already involved somewhere in the process, accidentally involved via others, or just sick to death of it. Oh, and there will never be any kind of consensus, about anything here. Ever. Especially if actual end opinions are for non-involved administrators, for which there seem to be very few left. Between some being active topic participants and so many others involved in enforcements on general Wikipedia standards in general, I don't know what good pumping a dry well like this is going to do. If not this time, it'll come up next time, or the next, and so on. There is actually a finite number of admins generally active most days, and especially a limit to number who will read ANI daily... this being why I'd say a centralized discussion will be needed at some point, regardless. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. The old saw about there being a thousand admins has always sounded hollow to me, since easily 900+ will not touch this kind of festering sore with a ten foot pole. I'm pretty sure they are the smart ones. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The forum shop is now closed

GoRight has just about run out of venues to take this, I'd say. Time to close the discussion. He's been warned, he doesn't like it, bad luck. Until some action is taken as a result of that warning there is nothing to do, nothing to see and nothing to discuss. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the wrong way to do things

I share to a considerable extent GoRight's opinion about the way these sanctions were implemented. But I think he is choosing about the most unproductive way of calling attention to it there can possibly be; I ask him to heed Jehochman's warning, before he forfeits all possibly sympathy and harms his position. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this has still been a useful exercise of the probationary sanction process as it helped to clarify a few points and fixed at least one problem with the appeals template. I still believe that Jehochman has failed to make any case that my original filing was either frivolous or vexatious and his failure to take this appeal seriously does not reflect well upon him. That all having been said, I do not object if some truly neutral admin wishes to close this appeal. --GoRight (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that you have now moved very far away from actually editing an article. You are engaged in a dispute about procedures that have to do about you starting procedures that address the legality of procedures implemented to deal with a recent dispute about some editors (including you) who use procedural tactics like adding a POV tag when editing an article and starting disputes about that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stack-heap collision. Core dumped. --TS 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your stack analogy is really quite apt. At each point the process was interrupted, and not always by me, by intervening procedural moves from both sides. So while CI's assertion that we are knee deep in procedural assessments is technically correct, it is not just me that has been introducing the procedural roadblocks to progress.

On the other hand this appeal is really quite straightforward. Ryan implemented probationary sanctions based on a contested community consensus, I was sanctioned (via a warning) as part of that probation, and I am simply following the process provided within the probation process that was setup to appeal the sanction against me. We are really only 3 levels deep (4 if you want to count Tedders Arbcom request). Either way I am following the rules as they have been established. I should not be punished for following the rules. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warning seems appropriate. I'm unsure GoRight gets it yet that the goal is to reduce disruption, not control content. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Entirely in agreement with DGG... ANI listings are not part of the dispute resolution process and I'm amazed this was ever suggested. I'm not saying "punish" this (bad faith, uncivil, awful word to use at Wikipedia in general), but this is a mile away from "following the rules" on both ends... Partially because of no set policy on a situation like this and partially because of the loose instructions, but mostly becasue ANI is policy-related troubles and for violations/incidents that do not have a separate incident board. The process basics at WP:DR are the way forward. ANI also isn't an RFC or place for a centralized discussion. The sanctions are, to my conclusions, completely moot and not worth discussion because the policy is a synthesized and non-vetted way to work together existing policies. As I stated in my last post within-topic, WP:ADMINSHOP is already one way of demonstrating this, and I'm sure there are many other ways to describe. You have to combine a few dots together while thinking about it if confused, but such thinking is needed if working to discuss policy regardless, hmm? If someone is shopping by making multiple incident posts at once or is creating reports on extremely similar issues more than once, that should be dealt with regardless of the topic, and is not at all unique. That can come to ANI. The spirit behind this glorified essay is proper, but shouldn't be considered its own guideline. Get up one centralized discussion on the appropriateness of this "policy" and go about your own business while ArbCom starts to piece this together. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

May I point out one aspect to this whole thread? GoRight wants to appeal a warning telling him "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else". Appealing a warning strikes me as an undeniable example of a "frivolous or vexatious enforcement request". If GoRight believes the warning is inappropriate, he should talk to the Admin who warned him -- simple as that. If GoRight thinks he is the victim of harassment by an Admin, he can bring that up here -- but none of the evidence produced indicates that. -- llywrch (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GoRight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Please keep unproductive bickering out of this section

Since when do sections of this page get limited to "uninvolved admins"? This is an open forum. Woogee (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Ask GoRight, he put this here. Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I thought so. Woogee (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Actually it's from Template:Sanction appeal. GoRight can't take the blame for that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) Actually it's boilerplate from {{Sanction appeal}}, whose format is derived from {{Sanction enforcement request}}, which is the template used at WP:AE. This is the section dedicated for a summary of the discussion by the closing administrator, as is customary. The text can probably be removed from the template if it bothers people.  Sandstein  20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Then I will withdraw my bad faith assumtpion above. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC) It should be noted that Jehochman has a history of supporting editors with certain perspectives and going after those with alternative perspectives. We have also seen very biased enforcement actions from Sandstein who has made clear his political views in his article editing. I think we need to be VERY careful about blocking and banning editors of certain viewpoints in order to censor those perspectives. The netural point of view police is a core policy and makes clear that notable perspectives even those not held by the majority warrant inclusion. The aggressive scrubbing of global warming skepticism and notable controversies with regard to leftist politicians while conservatives and republicans are disparaged is inappropriate and does a disservice to our readers. We're here to write an inclusive encyclopedia, not to propagandize our personal beliefs and opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Have you learned nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight? Wikipedia is not a political battlefield. If the conservative editors would stop being the nails that stick up the highest, they wouldn't keep getting hit with the hammer. It is hard to tell the political affiliations of a really good editor, because they write for the enemy. Jehochman Brrr 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I am not Conservative, but as you suggest, it can be confusing to figure out the political affiliations of good editors. It's also none of your business what political parties or ideals I support. The main issue is that no admin should abuse their tools to go after editors they disagree with ideologically. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not one to advocate our pet causes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest the following resolution: that the warning should stand, after all "frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests" are never a good thing, and the present case seems close to that sort of behavior, but that any further action against GoRight based on the warning be carried out only by an admin who has not previously been involved in this matter.--agr (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there everyone. As some of you might be aware I have blocked GoRight. The reasoning for this, as given on his talk page, is this: This isn't supposed to be an infinite/permanent block, just indefinite because the length depends on GoRight shaping up and treating this place like a collaborative project. When he indicates he would like to edit again in a collaborative manner, I will quite happily unblock or someone else can do so for me. Until then though, he is not worth the time being wasted on him by countless volunteers with better to do. I understand there might be objections to this block, but I suggest that time spent arguing over it might better be spent helping GoRight see the problems with his behaviour, thereby bringing this incident too a speedy resolution. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to add the insults. From your initial statement to GoRight telling him he was blocked: You are blocked. Basically for being a complete waste of time, but your block log gives more specifics. Come back when you have something constructive to add. [201] Your statement in the block log: account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Wikilawyering, wasting the community's time, forum shopping, inability to edit collaberatively, general waste of time ) [202] If you're going to use the tools, do it without insulting the person you're blocking. It makes the block look suspicious, which tends to waste the time of others who then beginsifting through the background. I agree that GoRight was wasting people's time. That doesn't give you an excuse to call him or anyone else someone who is "a complete waste of time" or a "general waste of time". Your statements make your action look like a back-alley fight, which just postpones the calming down, therefore ... wasting everybody's time. I emailed GoRight over the weekend in an attempt to steer him in a constructive direction, but that didn't seem to result in any, ah, time-saving, and I can't find a good reason to object to the block. Although your time-wasting rudeness makes me want to. Speaking of time-wasting: I originally wanted to contribute at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, but rudeness and POV-pushing behavior made me decide I was wasting my time. Then the situation was taken to RFAR. Further waste of time. Then this was taken to AN and to its own AN subpage. More time spent. And then GoRight takes it back to RFAR, and back to here, and I take time out to send him an email, and now, on top of all this you, Viridae, are wasting my time and now I'm complaining about it, potentially wasting more time. If Wikipedia had a better way of dealing with articles on contentious subjects that have a large number of editors contending over them, we'd certainly waste a lot less time. I know, I know -- complaining about it is just a ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement of fact - he was being a huge time sink to no gain =/= insults. Viridae^Talk 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way we measure incivility. You know that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, he has said "I haven't put up an unblock request because it is probably actually a good thing for me to be blocked for a while." Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request that has been ignored

Resolved

 – undeletion request declined, requester pointed to WP:DRV if he wants to pursue it. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I placed a request for restoring a page. The request has so far been ignored. Did I do anything wrong? However whatever (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It can take more than a couple days to review these things. That said, given that BLP is involved, you might be better off filing at Deletion Review. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I though deletion reviews are only for closed AfD. I was under the impression that since this article did not go through an AfD, the appropriate action is a request for undeletion. I currently do not know what was in that article. I can only guess what the concerns were, which I've addressed in my undeletion request (that even though she is best known as the mistress for the mayor of Los Angeles, she should be notable in her own right as a news anchor woman for a local television station. However whatever (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If a long paragraph about the scandal, and a shorter one about her other "romantic relationships" with "other (named) well-known Los Angeles based California politicians" were removed, what would be left would be a three-liner saying where she was born, educated, and worked. I don't think just being a news anchor is notable - see WP:ENTERTAINER. This article was more suitable for a gossip-sheet than an encyclopedia. I have declined the request at WP:REFUND and suggested WP:DRV if the requester wants to pursue it. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Resolved

It appears that User talk:Nooch1213 and User talk:Robertkdenman are socks have a look at their edits here might not need attention as warnings a building up on User talk:Robertkdenman. BigDunc 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Puppetry implies there's a master or ringleader account of some sort, so without that information available and nothing to even guess on, this will almost certainly be handled as disruptive editing. There are several IP users that have posted recently to these areas and it's at least possible they decided to create accounts. Though that can be proven, it's actually the recommended course of action on their parts if true. Don't worry about the possible sock or meatpuppet tagteam editing, as incivility and disruptive edits will speak for themselves quickly if this continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have they behaved abusively? Socks are frowned upon, but a user cannot be blocked for sockpuppeting unless the user is using their sockpuppet(s) for abusive purposes. If a user acknowledges the fact that their sock is the same person, they can't be blocked for it. But, if they pretend the sock is a different person (for voting, backing up their opinions, ect.), then it is a blockable offense.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts have vandalised the same articles Beaver and Minnesota. BigDunc 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Then they both should be blocked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority admins prefer to use good faith and ask the users to just stick to editing logged in or with a sole account with the 'accidental socks' which thing is the right way to do it-- this being in line with the open admissions of socks since it means the situation can be fixed. AGF or ABF, sock or not, denials or affirmations... disruptive edits usually stand out a lot more easily and can be acted upon in short order versus often lengthy SPI case research to "settle" things. Unfortunately, good faith here seems to have been for naught, with diffs from those page histories kind of speak for themselves and since the disruption is ongoing a SPI might be necessary. Without a parent account known we'd have to hope some IPs and usernames lump together . imo, This[203] is seemingly the last edit that was 100% constructive before the massive disruption string at Beaver started about 3 weeks ago, if needed for reference in any report. As a non-admin I can't openly suggest blocks, but something short-term might be necessary so that SPI research could get the bigger picture. Last disruptive edits were about an hour ago and seem to come at random so it wouldn't really be punitive. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the second account. The first account remains unblocked, for now, but it is being watched. Jonathunder (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

continued vandalism on Beaver, I have reported to AIV. BigDunc 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose DYK and press release

I have a last minute request for an upcoming DYK related to a recent image donation and WMUK press release. It would require some pretty quick admin intervention, so that's why I'm posting here. The details of the request can be found here.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like us to respond here, or there?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball to reduce space/clutter here and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this section reaches the top of the noticeboard page. –MuZemike 03:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created inappropriate pages (see User talk:Mainman873 for a history of the warnings he has received). Template warnings and personal warnings do not seem to deter him in his desire to create articles on albums that are non-notable, or that do not yet exist. User received a level-4 warning in December, but has continued to create inappropriate pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty dismayed to see him back after all his articles got deleted following his last editing spree. He is clearly here to hype a small clique of artists and is prepared to introduce unverifiable, speculative and outright fictional content to do so. He has no interest in discussion, makes no serious attempt to reference anything and ignores all advice and warnings. None of the albums he writes about checks out on Allmusic or is available to buy on Amazon. He claims that they feature guest appearances by major rap artists, which would pretty much guarantee coverage if it was true, yet Google News has nothing. I don't see why we should have to continue to waste our time checking this stuff and shepherding it to deletion. He has had quite enough warnings. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I tried to help them by pointing out how to verify notability, but they never responded, and continued the same sort of editing. Woogee (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs to be blocked for disruptive editing; I'm just conflicted as to the proper length of the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking indefinite, till they discuss it on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Polylepsis

I'd like to bring attention to user:Polylepsis who is most likely a sock of user:Zhonghuo. Both are likely the same person judging by their near identical edit histories and that user:Polylepsis was created just after user:Zhonghuo stop editing. Both have histories of much more vandalism than good. Editors such as user:Nirvana888 wouldn't have to waste their time anymore undoing all the vandalism if user:Zhonghuo, user:Zhonghuo's sock user:Polylepsis and any other socks or future socks were removed. 88.104.207.88 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please file an investigation here. Fences&Windows 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Need a Bot for a Job

• Moved to WP:Bot requests per request. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

190.209.46.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – WP:PLAXICO, reporting user blocked as a sockpuppet.

The user 190.209.46.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) constantly reverts my edits on Chilean people claiming that the photos collage in the infobox is of my family, very untrue. I request protection or block the user. Thanks. --MW talk contribs 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article. I did so before I read this, or your message on my talk page pointing to this. Your message asks me to unprotect the article. I have no intention of doing so any time soon, and would advise any other admin not to do so. -- Hoary (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At least you should look at his contributions. It's just a single purpose account. --MW talk contribs 05:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at his contributions. He does seem to have a general area of interest, as do many people. I can't see a single purpose, and of course it's not even an account. He got blocked; with the agreement of the blocking admin and the admin who confirmed this, I unblocked him. ¶ Chilean people remains protected. I shall be watching its talk page with interest. -- Hoary (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture (Image) question

Resolved

 – Question answered by NellieBly (talk · contribs).

Dear Sirs, I have a question since I am new at this. I was reading the story of Robert-François Damiens and became interested in his picture, here. I am thinking about creating a user page and adding art work and sketches, yet I was told by a friend that Wikipedia policy does not permit the usage of pictures regardless of their domain status as decorative in articles unless the subject of the picture itself is discussed. If this is true, does it also apply to user pages, since I noticed that the above mentioned picture is posted on one users page, considering that user pages are also in the public domain? In other words if that user used an image to decorate his/her page, can I do the same? If it isn't true then why does the person (a user Damiens) in question have the picture in his/her user page? 63.215.26.138 (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not quite correct. Users are not allowed to have non-free images on their user pages. The relevant section of the User Page article is here. Public domain images and free images (released under a free license such as the Creative Commons license) can be used to decorate a user page as long as they don't bring the project into disrepute (per Jimbo Wales). In articles, public domain and free images can be used anywhere editors agree that they are useful. The policy regarding non-free images is stricter. --NellieBly (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Barnet

Resolved

 – IP blocked by Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs) for one year for making legal threats.

Single purpose account making disruptive edits, probable sock, adding unsourced content and intimating legal action [204]. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked by Tan...Modernist (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick work by both of you! Thanks for reporting here [205]. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhealthy Interest In Me

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.

---

Resolved

No sysop intervention needed.

---

User:Tbsdy lives enjoys participating in my Talk page with great regularity. So much so that I have had to request he stop, so that I can keep track of the logical flow of information. I have had to make this request five six times in the last 24 hours to no avail. He edits my Talk page with such regularity that he often is making edits so fast that he makes Good Faith errors, and then has to go back and make even more edits to explain the AGF, as is the case here, currently - User_talk:Nothughthomas. He is trying to work as a volunteer mod and I appreciate his spirit of volunteerism. I'm not asking for any sanction on him, just a gentle request from a mod to this user. At this point I think it would be best if he stopped editing my Talk page completely since he doesn't seem to be able to self-police. Again, user's intentions are innocent but it is cause a bit of a headache for me as I'm currently on a 56K connection. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Nothughthomas's assumption of good faith, and I can assure them it was innocent. I didn't realise their block had expired so I added back on the unblock notices. I have formally apologised for my error on their talk page now. I won't be adding much more, unless it is relevant and pertinent. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably it was not simply this one instance and user's definition of "relevant" seems to not be analogous with general sensibility. I know your efforts are well-intentioned but, perhaps you could find a different user to befriend for a bit? Just AGF that I am competent to handle organization of my own affairs without your almost constant assistance (which I do appreciate, but I also like to think and act for myself, too). Thanks for your kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, you have been quite disruptive in your editing practices so far, which was why you were blocked from editing. Now that your block has passed, I'm sure you will modify your behaviour and edit in a manner more conducive to Wikipedia norms. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My 24-hour block was because another user and I were in a heated discussion on a hot-button topic (climate change) that was under probation and I got carried away and said something I shouldn't have. This has nothing to do with this noticeboard request, nor you. It is between me, the user who was rightly offended by what I said and the sanctioning mod. Please stop this. I want to continue to AGF but this is really going way overboard. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility is definitely disruptive, and I appreciate that you understand that now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

>SIGH< ... a big and advance thank you to whatever admin ends up having to read all this. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (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.

Comment Just for the record, Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now claims on his user page [206][207],

I am a 78 year-old divorcee grandmother and Tourette survivor who came out of the closet last year as a lesbian and am PROUD to be a gay woman. I am a former meteorology instructor at the community college level and support the theory of man-made climate change, however, am opposed to the manipulation of climate change articles on Wikipedia by my fellow supporters to push POV and how some mods let them get away with it. I am well known in Wikipedia for my sense of civility and fair-play and my tireless promotion of etiquette and tolerance among all contributors.

There is also a userbox "Ph.D. in meteorology". Some of these statements do not seem to be correct. Mathsci (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

They appear to genuinely be on a wikibreak. He/she has not edited Wikipedia via that account since the 3rd. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:IZAK

Resolved

 – The dispute is not actually resolved, but an arbitration request has been filed so this thread need not continue.

User:IZAK has embarked on what I call a "crusade" and another editor has called a "jihad" against editors affiliated with the Chabad Jewish movement.

1. He posted long diatribes on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in which used statements like "There are probably even discussions and guidlelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Wikipedia as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the Internet." and "He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Wikipedia policies." Many editors have disagreed with him, stating that the only problem they see is individual POV edits, but User:IZAK does not concede a milimeter.
2. Now he is stalking my edits, as can be seen from this belligerent edit.
3. And from this revert of my edit.
4. He uses misplaced sarcastic arguments when making a valid point in the course of his anti-Chabad campaign, like in this edit.
5. He used an insulting header when referring to an Afd discussion where users disagreed with him. The heading was actually forcibly changed later on to a neutral one, after long discussion in which User:IZAK did not concede a milimeter.
6. Now he has made the accusation in this edit "Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much?". Because a 12 (previously 11) year old kid decided to make a userpage, is that justification for accusing a respectable world-wide religious organisation of "sending kids to the front lines"?! He also said about this kid that "he is a product of something far bigger and more complicated", and actually recommends to "call up his father and yank the kid off Wikipedia". Note that in the ensuing discussion User:IZAK as usual does not concede a milimeter.
7. He is trying to overstress the importance of an institution in Jewish seminary, falsifying the facts, and ignoring the original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary, possibly because he is conected with that institution, or simply because it is not a Chabad institution.
8. He continues to edit the first posts of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in a way that misleads the reader as to how discussion eveloped. That post now reads more like a "J'accuse". When I posted a warning about that, he changed the text of that warning.
9. He kindly welcomes all editors who agree with him to the WP:COI/N thread, but if anybody disagrees with him or even his style, he either adds him to his list of editors under scrutiny, or advises them to remove themselves from the discussion in a self-justifying edit like this one.

In short, IZAK (talk · contribs) has become a tendentious editor, engages in disruptive editing, stalking and personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:IZAK of this thread in this edit. I just happened to see he is always that curteous, see the edit summary and the names-calling in this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of the heated and elaborated discussion on WP:COI/N, I urge all editors to keep a cool head, and address the subject in short posts, as much as possible. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in that WP:COI/N discussion I have not always been civil to User:IZAK, but ever since I asked for advice in another WP:ANI thread I stopped that, and am willing to apologise if necessary. This present post is based upon the general recommendation I received in that thread. I'd also like to draw attention to my first post (timewise) to the discussion, from which anyone can see my rationale and open approach to the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

1. There are no "diatribes" and there is no "tendentious" editing, just a serious in-depth review of the edit history of Dbresser and 3 other editors, that Dbresser does not like, so he comes crying here. Admins are taking the COI case very seriously at the discussions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver that are still ongoing with a number of admins checking and guiding the proceedings as more information is added.
2. User Dbresser has already been reprimanded by an admin and he fought her, at the main discussion, so now he opens a new front here with the hope of escaping the scrutiny he and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors are getting at the main COI complaint. At least 10 outside editors have already added their additionl comments there. They are not giving "diatribes" either.
3. User:Debresser admits about himself: "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi and he is cited as one of four pro-Chabad POV editors who have been violating WP:OWN of all Chabad-related articles, see his own at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs for the full citation of User:Dbressor's WP:COI violation with many diffs -- collection of diffs is NOT considered "stalking" -- it's required.
4. User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI. His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction. There is no merit to the issues in the few articles he cites. He's desperate and it shows. Anyone can see for themselves by taking a look at the articles. He is playing mind games and making false accusations about nothing, hoping admins will forget about the main case of his and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors violations at the main case that is far from over.
5. Rather than deal with the COI citation rationally and calmy, he resorted to the most vile and disgusting personal attacks against me, violating WP:NPA multiple times: calls nominator "mentally ill" sees his error (no apology, though), returns to "mentally instable" (sic), introduces lies about the "FBI", is warned, but again cites "mental problems", adds need for "psychiatrists" to insults,imagines he's against "crusaders and fanatics", calls this post "insane ranting"; calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed". Now he gets upset and cries about the additional diffs I have provided to verify the serious complaint against him and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors. He has some nerve.
6. The articles he cites here, recent small edits of no real value or meaning, are recent edit issues and have nothing to do with any organization or group, unlike Dbresser who when it comes to Chabad-related topics on Wikipedia always edits according to that organization's party line and violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:LAWYER and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.
7. His claims about the new material are patently silly because there have been constant requests for diffs that has required the addition that editors, including Dbresser and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editor allies, as well as admins have requested. Adding diffs is not a luxury or a negative of any sort, it's a required part of a serious complaint and it takes time, in this case it involves four editors being cited for COI violations, and looking up and producing those diffs has required more space as well as time.

To sum up, the rest of Debresser's points are just frivolous minor distractions and a delaying action that he is trying to create from the focus remaining on him and his three allies. He is not doing anyone here a favor by trying to split up the discussions between two points and making admins jump back and forth. This new thread should be combined with the main discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I have not "fought" anyone, I have disagreed in a so far open-ended discussion. The accusation of "opening a new front" is incorrect and just serves to distract from the point.

4. I have no idea what is meant by "User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI", nor do I appreciate "His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction".

6. Calling his own edits "small edits of no real value or meaning" is a clear attempt to avoid the issue.

7. He continues talking about an "organization's party line", thereby stresing my point that his distorted perception of reality is leading him to disruptive and tendentious editing.

Debresser (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that IZAK's editing is bothering you, Debresser. From a quick reading of your evidence, I'm unable to form an opinion as to whether any policies have been violated or not; I'm sorry I don't have time now to look in more detail. I suggest the following course of action as more likely to achieve positive results: first, apologize to IZAK for each of your own incivilities; the reason is that people find it hard to really listen to messages from people who have been uncivil to them. You can't force IZAK to change, but you can have the greatest chance of influencing IZAK in a positive direction if you start with your own behaviour first. Second, try very hard to make all your comments to IZAK as diplomatic and friendly as possible, to help IZAK forget the incivilities and be able to really listen to you. Third, when IZAK behaves in a way you consider inappropriate, discuss it in a friendly way on IZAK's user talk page, trying to express your messages in a way most likely to actually result in IZAK understanding your reasons and complying with your requests; stating things in a gentle and friendly way tends to help here. It's often best to discuss one issue at a time. Fourth, if you and IZAK are unable to resolve things through discussion with each other, then escalate slowly through the stages of WP:DR (which might or might not eventually bring you back to this noticeboard, but I suggest you try my suggestions first). Good luck, and feel free to ask me for help, though I'm editing less often these days. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig for your kind words. This is a very complicated situation and User:Debresser only opened this frivolous "complaint" here to escape the hard realities HE and his three pro-Chabad POV co-editors must come to terms with, deal with and answer for at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver with the specific complaints of violating WP:COI and the many diffs about that for User:Debresser at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. I have also requested below and at the COI discussion Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Attempt at splitting this discussion that User:Debresser has done us all an injustice by splitting the debate, trying to open a "second front" as it were here and even a smokescreen to avoid facing the music at the COI complaint. I have asked for admin help in not splitting the discussions into two, and to consolidate them together there where they began and where they belong at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver where all the facts and background are presented and would explain why Debresser is trying to run for cover here. Thanks again for your patience. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I resent the insinuation that I "ran here for cover". I have stated in my very first post in the WP:COI/N discussion that I have no problem with any uninvolved party examening my editing, and that I am confident they will find my edits to reveal no noteworthy POV editing. I shall wait with patience for another editor who has the patience to see whether User:IZAK is indeed being a tendentious and disruptive editor, as I am sure he is. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been no "disruptions" of any sort by me. You only feel hurt because I have cited you and 3 other editors for your VERY real tendentious pro-Chabad POV editing, and I have cited elaborate diffs for that at the COI complaint. In fact I have not been involved in any editing disputes with you or the 3 other pro-Chabd POV editors, so you are really making up fairy tales. It is not "disruptive" to file a WP:COI complaint either (my first one in seven years against anyone, so I don't take such measures lightly). From your edit history it is evident that whenever you don't get your way with another editor you run to various admin boards, as you have now done yet again here, to get intervention to help you with you own problems, in this case the COI complaint against you and the 3 others of very real pro-Chabad POV tendentious and disruptive editing, but it will be to no avail to create this frivolous red herring side show and smokescreen, in the hope of distracting from the main discussions and complaints against you at the very serious COI debate. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel hurt, thank you. I feel very confident in my standards of editing, and have invited others to scrutinize them at will. It is you I am worried about, which is why I posted here. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(for transparency, IZAK notified me of this discussion on my talk page)I find it odd to see this escalated to here from COIN by someone who has also been behaving in a tendentious manner themselves. It's a bit ironic seeing Debresser complain about IZAK's personal attacks and sarcastic comments when I have had to warn Debresser for doing those things himself with frequent provocative personal comments and references to IZAK's mental health and responding to others with sarcastic comments. He and others have adopted a battleground approach to editing here and it is causing these types of disputes to escalate, rather than collaborating and working together with others who may not share their beliefs. There would be a tremendous step in the right direction if editors would stop basing entire articles on primary sources and instead stick carefully to verifiable sources that comply with WP:RS. Several uninvolved admins have responded at various points of the COIN report and all have expressed varying degrees of concern with different aspects of the issue so I really don't see how Debresser can make out that it's just some lunatic meritless conspiracy theory that IZAK has come up with and he would do better to spend his time focusing on making sure the content complies with our policies, rather than focusing on personalities. As I said at the COIN discussion on Saturday, I had a very good look at the dispute when it went to COIN and I honestly don't think IZAK's concerns about this subject area are without merit. I'm very concerned about articles in this subject area which violate a range of policies and guidelines, including NPOV, V, and RS and editors who seem to violating CIVIL, NPA, OWN, and NOT. I'm also concerned that this ANI report is a strategic move, an attempt at removing the person speaking out and trying to alert us and draw attention to the problems. Of course, IZAK is not without fault and could be much more diplomatic and careful with his communication, but there's a lot of bad behaviour going on on both sides of the fence. This is really something that is outside the practical assistance of ANI and COIN and it's either going to be ignored because it's way too extensive and involved to be looked at properly without setting aside half a day (as I found out on the weekend) or it's going to be looked at superficially, so I really think this should be archived and referred to dispute resolution. I can see this heading to arbitration very quickly if people continue down this path and a better option would be for everyone to stop arguing and agree to work together and ensure articles are compliant with policy. If anyone is not willing to collaborate and accept input from people with different viewpoints, then they have no business editing here, period. (I also agree with Coppertwig's suggestions re interpersonal behaviour). Sarah 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You may notice that so far this so-called "behaving in a tendentious manner" has been no more than unproven accusations by User:IZAK, as far as my person is concerned. General worries have been raised, but no more than that. So please... no accusations. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not just according to IZAK, but according to me as well. I have seen your tendentious behaviour myself. Secondly, it's not just "general worries" but specific concerns about the glut of spam-like external linking to a non-neutral site on articles that aren't warranted, the reliance on primary sources to the extent that entirely articles and biographies are based only on primary sources and many repeatedly noted concerns about the behaviour of the parties involved. The admins who have commented have pointed out specific concerns. Look, what are you hoping to achieve with this ANI? Do you want IZAK banned? Topic banned? Blocked? I can actually see merit in topic banning the lot of you so if you'd like us to pursue that, I'm happy to propose a motion in that regard. But we're not going to remove the whistleblower and give you (collectively) free reign with the articles to continue ownership and misusing them for non-encyclopedic purposes. So you might like to think about what you're wanting to achieve on ANI and then either get to the point or withdraw because I see no reason to allow the absolute mess of arguing that's been going on at COIN to spread over here as well. Sarah 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where have I added external links to Chabad.org (etc.)? Where have I added the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a source? These things have nothing to do with me. And as far as tendentious editing goes, I willing to answer any claims to that. And in the process could show you a few edits which are quite contrary to my POV. Because we all make POV edits, however hard we try not to. But we must look at the overall picture. And tendentious editing I can disprove.

What worries me more is you usage of the phrase "give you (collectively) free reign with the articles to continue ownership and misusing them for non-encyclopedic purposes". If you are seeing conspiracies as well, perhaps you should read WP:SLANDER (or create it if it doesn't exist). Any accusation like that shows only that you do not know what you are talking about regarding Chabad as an organisation. In addition you offend me personally. Do not say what you can not prove. Just like I do not say that you must be a real-life friend of User:IZAK. Even though he posted on your talk page, and you are the only editor who seems to agree with his "conspiracy theories" is no reason for me to say things that I can not prove. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I do not want to weigh in on this particular dispute, I think it behooves me to add that I have had problems with Debresser acting in a disruptive manner and misusing the ANI process. In that case, as in this, he made no effort to communicate with me on my talk page, although I believe I showed myself willing (however belatedly) to answer his malice with grace. His perpetual involvement in ANI disputes evidences a quite glaring interpersonal deficit, which I hope he will become conscious of and work to improve, because he is so lovely and intelligent a fellow whose edits improve Wikipedia when he stays on the tracks (not trying to OWN articles with hair-trigger reverts, not saying nasty things about his fellow editors, not feuding ad infitum). Happy New Year all, DBaba (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise, and indeed we have worked together at times. But I do not (intentionally) misuse WP:ANI. I posted about you then, and about User:IZAK now, because I saw then and see now a real problem. I would like to see somebody address those problems. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had done all or even any of those things. I said in response to your statement about reviewing admins having only general concerns about the subject area, that admins who have reviewed the COI report have actually expressed varying but specific concerns and then outlined the concerns that have been raised by admins who have reviewed that COI report. That is not a statement about you or an accusation about your editing. Please stop trying to escalate disputes and disagreements you have with people. Sarah 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, ok. For one reason or the other your posts just sound like accusations. that's why. But I agree that the concern of POV edits has been agreed upon, I think by all. Debresser (talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from Zsero

According to Izak, I'm apparently another member of Debresser's vast conspiracy to take over Wikipedia, so I feel the need to chime in here to say that Debresser is not being snarky or sarcastic but very serious, and I back up every word he wrote. Izak's behaviour over the past two weeks can only be described as paranoid. That first sentence just above is not sarcasm either; Izak has literally accused us (and several other editors) of exactly that. He's also spoken of our activities being coordinated by the "high echelons" of Chabad, which he seems to imagine as some sort of Bavarian Illuminati, with "vast resources", "sending" even 12-year-olds to the "front lines" in an effort to "turn Wikipedia into a mirror of chabad.org".

More to the point, Izak has deliberately filed a frivolous COI complaint against four editors, including Debresser and me, and for that I call for sanctions. COI is fairly well-defined: merely having political opinions, even strong ones, does not create a COI. In all my time editing articles related to politics, I've seen many arguments accusing people of POV-pushing; I've seen people reminded of the need to maintain NPOV in articles, and I've seen people blocked for failing to do so. But never have I seen anyone accused of a COI merely for having strong opinions on the subject of the article. Whether it's Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, editors who strongly support or oppose them are welcome to edit, provided they try to maintain NPOV in the articles. Only someone who actually worked for them or their opponents would have a COI. Izak does not allege that any of the four he accuses work for any Chabad-related organisation, so the COI complaint is frivolous from its inception and he should be sanctioned for that. I should also point out that Izak, despite making no secret of his own fierce adherence to Orthodox Judaism, has felt no compunction at editing Jewish-related articles, which under his own theory would appear to be a COI!

I also call for him to be sanctioned for harassment, NPA, CIVIL, etc. He started out with the COI filed against one editor; every time someone came to that editor's defense, he was added to the complaint, which is how it grew to four. After that people stopped coming; I guess nobody wants to be the fifth. He also accuses all of us of being uncivil, attacking him, etc., merely for defending ourselves against his ever-more-hysterical accusations. And once again I must stress that when I call them hysterical I am not exaggerating or attacking him, but merely describing them as soberly as I can. They are what any neutral observer would describe as hysterical and showing signs of paranoia, and they've been getting worse.

This is getting long, and I apologise for that. But I have to say this: One of Izak's lines of attack has been to distort the meaning of WP:FORK, and claim that any article that could conceivably have been included in a larger article is a FORK of that other article, and what's more a POV FORK, because it was created for the purpose of proliferating articles. Now I've read WP:FORK many times and I just don't see what he is seeing there. A fork is when two articles contain the same information; a POV fork is when they are created deliberately, in order to present that information with different spins. But nobody claims that, e.g., an article on a school is a fork because it could have been included in a larger article on schools in that area. Such articles can be challenged on whether their subjects have independent notability, but not for being forks. Now some of the articles Izak has been involved in challenging recently are notable, though they are stubs that need to be expanded; some have not established notability, and were properly deleted. But none of them were forks of any kind, and certainly not POV forks, and in accusing their creators of that (as he has explicitly done) he violated at least AGF, if not NPA.

Just one more thing, I promise. Sarah, above, accuses Debresser of "frequent provocative personal comments and references to IZAK's mental health and responding to others with sarcastic comments", and seems reluctant to believe that "it's just some lunatic meritless conspiracy theory that IZAK has come up with". But it really is that. Debresser has described it accurately and soberly. Sarah then complains of a "glut of spam-like external linking to a non-neutral site on articles that aren't warranted". That is a specific complaint that I confidently assert is without any merit. Chabad.org is not a "non-neutral site"; it is an invaluable resource on almost all Jewish topics. It was the first Jewish site on the WWW, and it is one of the most important such resources, so it's not surprising that links to it can be found on many Jewish topics. Every single one of those articles would be poorer without these links. On most of these topics there is no particular "Chabad POV", just the same Orthodox POV that any Orthodox site will have, including any site to which Izak would link instead, such as aish.com. Sarah also mentions an excessive reliance on primary sources; that can be a problem, though often what she thinks is a primary source is actually a single secondary source, which can also be a problem. But that is hardly a COI or POV issue; it's more a matter of lack of research, or of there not being any other readily accessible sources on the topic. One may legitimately put a refimprove or singlesource tag on such articles, and hope for someone to come along and improve them, but from there to accusing their creators of acting in bad faith is a long long way.

Sorry for the length. I tried to keep it as short as I possibly could; obviously I failed. I hope at least it was readable. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is not a place to continue your dispute with people. It's a dedicated and specialised noticeboard for requesting assistance from admins. Either show something in the form of diffs which is sanctionable (and without the long and bad faith rants) which requires admin intervention or find something more constructive to do, but keep in mind that any potential sanctions will be applied without favour and having read through a whole lot of material myself I think any blocks for personal attacks and what-not require blocks to both sides because both sides are at fault. Admins are perfectly capable of reviewing diffs and working things out for themselves and we don't require these long ranting "opinions by" from you all telling us what is really going on here. As for your references to what I said, I was outlining issues that have been raised by other admins who have commented on the COIN report, they're other peoples concerns, so stop trying to make out like they're things I've just pulled out of thin air. You lot have basically bickered so extensively that you're rendered the whole COIN discussion useless because most admins simply do not have the time to read through pages and pages of bickering and look through pages and pages of discussions and spreading your bickering to this workspace is unacceptable. Nothing is realistically going to be achieved here except you lot continuing your back-and-forth arguing so I request another admin close and archive this discussion. Sarah 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Izak's entire attack is the subject of this complaint. Just look at every single thing he's written about us in the past fortnight; it's all personal attacks, uncivil, accusations of bad faith, and the terms keep getting more hysterical every day. Enough. We will not stand by and let him do this to us. We are here seeking justice. As far as I can recall I have not once attacked him or written anything that I should be ashamed of. All I have done is defend myself and his other targets. But AGF has limits, and Izak has long passed those. I do not AGF of him any more, and no rule requires me to. There is no conspiracy, there is no evidence that any of us work for an organisation we edit about, or get our marching orders from anyone, or were "sent" here to take over Wikipedia. Izak's false accusations must be dealt with once and for all. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you show a complete failure to understand the conflict of interest guideline. You don't have to be employed by an organisation or be "sent here to take over" to have a conflict of interest. Under the WP:COI guideline, which is what IZAK is referring to when he talks about "conflict of interest", if you are trying to advance the interests of an outside organisation over advancing the goals and mission of Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest. It is my view, from my own review of the subject area and not because of what IZAK said (though he obviously drew attention to it), that that is exactly what some are doing. I believe that you (collectively) are here trying to use Wikipedia to promote and advance the interests of your religious group, but if I'm wrong and you are actually here because you want to help Wikipedia build a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, then please put aside your differences with people outside your group, extend some good faith and collaborate with them to clean up this subject area to ensure content is neutral and encyclopedic and complies with our policies and guidelines. Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no basis whatsoever for any such claim, and I resent your accusation. I'm here to advance the interests of an outside organisation?! And one that I don't even work for?! Why would I do that? And more importantly, how could anyone possibly determine it without telepathy? At any rate, Izak did claim that the four of us were "sent" by the "high echelons" of an organisation with "vast online resources", and which deploys "even 12-year-olds" to the "front lines"; there is no evidence for that. He even claimed that the broad range of articles I've edited are a cover, that I deliberately do so in order to mask my true agenda, in hopes of becoming an admin so that I can advance the cabal's interests from that position! If that's not paranoia, I'd like to know what is. -- Zsero (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop talking about other users and what you think are their mental health issues and mental status. It is inflammatory and serves no constructive purpose and if i see another post from referring to other user's mental status, their insanity, paranoia or whatever, I will block you.

As I said in the post you're replying to, if I'm wrong and you're not here trying to advance or promote your religion, then prove it: "if I'm wrong and you are actually here because you want to help Wikipedia build a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, then please put aside your differences with people outside your group, extend some good faith and collaborate with them to clean up this subject area to ensure content is neutral and encyclopedic and complies with our policies and guidelines." Sarah 05:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, re "Sarah also mentions an excessive reliance on primary sources; that can be a problem, though often what she thinks is a primary source is actually a single secondary source, which can also be a problem", I've never told you what I think is or is not a primary source so how you could possibly know that "often what [I] think is a primary source is actually a single secondary source" is completely beyond me. I really do not appreciate you misrepresenting me and trying to mislead other admins and I think this is really at the root of the disputes you people are having. It's all political and strategic maneuvering, twisting people's words, trying to discredit and remove people who don't agree with you. Sarah 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you complain about excessive reliance on primary sources, I need to respond to that, don't I? And I absolutely reject and protest at your false characterisation of my responses. I and the other three are the victims here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can respond to my comments without trying to mislead other admins by making outrageously false accusations. I'm really appalled at this behaviour. To so blatantly try to discredit a completely uninvolved admin whose only involvement in this subject area has been to review a COI complaint by misrepresenting them, their views and their statements is really disgraceful behaviour and it only convinces me of the political game-playing going on here. You presented an accusation that I do not know what primary sources are without a shred of evidence whatsoever and as though it was a simple statement of fact. Either put up some diffs to support your accusation or retract it. As for my characterisation of your post, I will leave it for other admins to decide if they feel your long commentary with no diffs or evidence whatsoever to substantiate your accusations is consistent with the purpose of this board and the directions at the top ("unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations..."). Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What "outrageously false accusations" do you think I've made? You wrote "There would be a tremendous step in the right direction if editors would stop basing entire articles on primary sources". I commented that you may have mistaken a secondary source for a primary one. I don't know which specific articles you were talking about, but this can be a problem when one isn't familiar with the subject matter and what has been written about it. That's all. I don't know where your defensiveness and outrage is coming from, and I feel that you are attacking me. As for diffs against Izak, all anyone needs to do is look at his attacks; it's not just one or two posts but a concerted attack, in terms that get more hysterical every day. I've quoted them at length. But the main complaint is simply that he filed a frivolous COI complaint. -- Zsero (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Your words are up there for everyone to see. You did not say that I may misunderstand sources, you said: "...often what she thinks is a primary source is actually a single secondary source, which can also be a problem". You clearly stated this ridiculous and baseless assertion as a matter of fact, not a possibility. You clearly fail to understand policy and you clearly attempt to obfuscate and escalate, to discredit and mislead. Your input here is most unhelpful, misleading and only serves to confuse. I do not intend discussing any of these matters with you further as it has become increasingly apparent that there are political games at play to discredit and eliminate people who do not support your group, however, your word play here is not going to fly as what you said it very clearly evidenced. There is no "may" in there, it's a very clear and definitive statement. Substantiate this accusation or retract it. " As for diffs against Izak, all anyone needs to do is look at his attacks" Again you fail to understand how this works, if you have a complaint and want to request administrative intervention, you present evidence in the form of diffs. Evidence, not conjecture, not your lengthy opinions about him, not vague references to his general contributions. As it says at the top, we do not review complaints that are not substantiated with evidence in the form of diffs. Sarah 04:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh wow, a crusade and a jihad at the same time with the Bavarian illuminati as well. Since this seems to be tangential to the COIN discussion, why should any admin here pre-empt that and permit forum shopping as apparently is being done here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Because this is a complaint against the person who filed the frivolous COI complaint. I and the other three targets of that complaint have been attacked in ever-more-hysterical terms for two weeks now, and we've had enough; or at least I have. It's time to sanction Izak. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  You (collectively) have likewise engaged in hysterical accusations and repeated personal attacks. There's no point-scoring here, we deal with disruption and blocks and other sanctions are issued without favour on the basis of disruption. As the COIN shows, you've all had a role to play in the disruption. If you hadn't responded to IZAK's report with personal attacks, personal comments, long ranting commentaries and such, you might actually have a valid complaint, but as it stands all of you have behaved badly. Admins review the behaviour of all parties involved, so if you want to talk about sanctioning IZAK, we'll also be talking about sanctioning all the other involved parties. Personally, I'd support topic banning the whole group of you. Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  That is completely untrue. There have been no "hysterical accusations" or personal attacks from any of the four editors whom Izak has attacked. None. We have simply and calmly responded to and reported on his words in the soberest terms possible. The only rants have been Izak's. When subjected to such an attack we are entitled to defend ourselves. I know that I have done nothing in this dispute that I would have any problem defending. -- Zsero (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  Of course there have been. There have been repeated NPA, CIVIL and AGF violations, numerous references to his mental health and his person and I'm not the only admin who has noticed it and commented that it is unacceptable. Slim Virgin, another uninvolved admin, told you all a week ago that "Referring to IZAK as having a mental problem, or as writing in language reminiscent of antisemitism, isn't appropriate."[208] Yet your response, completely unsupported by the policy of this site, was "I don't think it's uncivil and inappropriate; I think it is entirely justified..." [209] and the personal comments in that vein have continued unabated. All of you on both sides of this either need to accept WIkipedia's policy regarding assuming good faith, personal attacks and civility and knock it off, or you need to stop editing here or be stopped. "We have simply and calmly responded to and reported on his words in the soberest terms possible" - perhaps that is how you all intend your responses, but that is most certainly not how it comes across. To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with IZAK or any of you and I have not ever edited in this or related subject areas. I am not Jewish and have no special interest in/for/against this subject area or the religious groups specifically. I came to review this case simply as a result of reading the COIN report and I'm probably as uninvolved an admin as you're going to find and I'm telling you that to an outside observer, you all most certainly have not been responding in the manner you claim. Your responses have been derogatory, argumentative, attacking, provocative, mocking and sarcastic. It's a bit hard to sanction IZAK for his comments when people on the other side are likewise behaving contrary to WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF, but as I said, I'd personally be very happy to block all of you equally for ongoing disruption or propose a topic ban for all of you equally. A week ago SlimVirgin also proposed a solution to move forward: "Two things would help: (1) all the articles you create, and any arguably contentious points you make within articles, should be based largely on reliable, published secondary sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V, and (2) you could be extra careful not to overemphasize your own perspective or to remove other perspectives, per WP:NPOV."[210] This is also entirely consistent with content policy and what you're supposed to be doing here anyway, yet apparently it's not acceptable because you all ignored her and have continued arguing, CIVIL and AGF violations for another week since then. Look, while I think that somethings very off in this subject area, I don't think that IZAK is an innocent party either. He has made lots of NPA and civility violations too and some of his comments are inflammatory, but that doesn't excuse your side or give you a free ticket to violate behavioural policies yourselves. If this isn't resolved very soon and you can't come to some agreement along the lines of what SlimVirgin has suggested, I recommend this go to arbitration for the arbitrators to investigate and sort out who needs to banned, topic banned etc. We cannot have this fighting back-and-forth and ranting at each other going on indefinitely across multiple noticeboards. You either need to come to some kind of understanding and work together collaboratively or it needs to go to arbitration where the actions of all users on both sides will be examined. This is way too involved and extensive and potentially involves a large group of articles, and it's just way too much for an ordinary admin to be expected to address properly via the noticeboards. Sarah 05:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse Sarah's suggestion of arbitration. I'm going to recommend it at WP:COIN. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, IZAK (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Official request for arbitration has begun

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of this, I'd agree with a closure of this thread. Debresser (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Belugaboy535136 WikiProject Problems

After exhausting all other options to try and curb this user it has come to my attention we now require administrator intervention. Below is a Copy of a Posting on User:Belugaboy535136s talk page that is a direct result of his continued actions to disrupt WikiProjects concerning animals.

---

WikiProject Intervention

Belugaboy535136, It has come to my attention that you are infact deceiving not only me but a large number of other users.Below is a list of my concerns.

1. You wrote User_talk:ZooPro#WikiProject_Primatesthis on my talk page then claimed you did not want the coordinators job yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Primates/Participants&diff=prev&oldid=335465448 th

is] comes up.

1. In your first instance of speaking with me you told me you were voted in as coordinator, i knew this to be false, once again an attempt to decieve myself and others.
2. Your lack of experience on wikipedia is in itself not a problem, however your "obsession" with power/position is a very big problem.
3. If you had been a part of the projects for some time and had contributed to them greatly i would have had no problem with you seeking a position as a coordinator. This is not the case though. You have in fact not contributed to any of the projects you have signed up for instead hindering some.
4. If you were infact trully dedicated to a project like Cetaceans you would not have jumped ship and moved to Primates this again just reinforces my view you want a title instead of a job.

I have personally left this off the Admin Notice Board as i dont want to see you punished for some silly mistakes as with some work you may come to be a good editor (if you lose the power complex), however i have no control over other editors so it may very well end up there.

In regards to your editing of articles such as Red-faced Spider Monkey it is called a Red-faced Spider Monkey that is the IUCN name, i am somewhat annoyed by this though. You have claimed your uncle works for IUCN i find this extremely hard to believe and is another attempt to deceive editors. When an experienced editor is telling you something you should listen.

In light of all this i am requesting that you cease and desist. This matter has been let go for far too long, i allowed you to continue unwarned as i assumed good faith now i am not so sure if i did take the correct action in that respect.

Consider this an official warning.

ZooPro 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems more and more of your actions are coming under scrutiny such as this. I may reconsider my decision not to bring this to the admin board. ZooPro 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

and another ZooPro 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now whilst i dont always see eye to eye with Michael both on and off wikipedia i have never yelled at him,another issue. ZooPro 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And this. ZooPro 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does your whole family work at IUCN?? i only ask because of this. ZooPro 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are a lot of dubious claims of your family being part of the IUCN. Perhaps you should read WP:ORIGINAL; everything on Wikipedia needs sources, not someone's imagination. --ZooFari 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belugaboy535136, the following message was written after your immature reactions to criticism of your co-ordination aspirations. At the time I wasn't sure if it was too harsh, but since other Wikipedians are becoming frustrated with your lack of progress, I've decided to chime in to show the general impression you seem to making on the community.

Belugaboy535136, we need a chat. I think you mean really well, but it seems you started off on the wrong foot. I don't know what caused your manic opening stint here at Wikipedia, but it's clear that you've stubbed your toes and need to reconsider the pace at which you barge through the doorways. You've started an article out of the project scope, mangled an article, mislead the community and no you seem to have tried to cover your tracks.

These represent, however, only one side of your mostly fine edits. You do seem to be sincerely interested in benefiting the project which is why the community has been understanding of your actions, correcting issues that arise and pointing you in the right direction. That won't change as long as you are open with people about what you're doing, discuss issues that arise and learn from your mistakes.

No-one is interested in your past (thus there is no need to erase it), only your potential as a beneficial contributor. A few suggestions: Make sure you don't consider articles you've contributed to "yours". They're not. Leave your personal ambitions at the door, right next to your ego. Don't take things personally, but assume responsibility. Be straight, clean up your mess and read up on project policies and guidelines to learn about best common practices.

I hope you draw some meaningful, positive lessons from your first week as a Wikipedian and look forward to working with you on Cetacean-related articles. Happy editing, --Swift (talk)

Let me just add that I hope you take these last few comments from your fellow Wikipedians to heart for their good intentions. But you'll have to make a sharp turn on this: You're losing friends quickly. --Swift (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Swift is saying, there are editors here, myself included that would be happy to take u under our wing and show you the ropes but you also need to take our advice. ZooPro 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

After further issues of this user then removing all of this from his userpage without responding to our questions/requests i had to bring it here at the request of a number of other users.

There is muliple issues surrounding this user and a quick look through his contribution page shows the extent of the problem. He is removing valid and correct information regarding the IUCN on alot of animal pages, this inturn is misleading anyone who reads those articles.

I will leave it in your capable hands. Cheers ZooPro 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I ran into Belugaboy535136 on Talk:Killer Whale recently, as shown in one of ZooPro's links, and I've now looked at some of the others - and I agree, this is a problem. He is claiming multiple relatives who work for IUCN as a "source" for changes to well-referenced data, over a large range of species articles. In my interaction with him, he didn't seem to know about the page history, didn't grasp the concept of "references" at all (!), and implied that IUCN would be interested in finding out who reverted his changes. I have no comment on anything that touches on the internal politics of any WikiProject, but it's reasonable for those sort of unacceptable changes to raise a red flag in combination with a desire to give oneself bureaucratic titles. I'd suggest asking him to voluntarily stay away from directly editing species articles for now - that's where the problem is, and if restricts himself to talk pages the bad changes shouldn't pass muster with other editors. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Has an RFC been filed about this editor's behaviour? What other dispute resolution measures have been undertaken before taking this to ANI? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have understood those steps are only taken if edits or behavior concern a specific article or behavior, however this is a cross-wikiprojects problem, one that many editors have already raised with the editor concerned however each and everytime he has failed to answer us or change and has deleted the comments without response as it is an unusual set of circumstances it was brought here. ZooPro 07:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a potential impostor, who is seen as having a bad Wikipedian attitude. Is this a consensus displayed elsewhere, or is it only happening here on AN/I? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Im confused as to who you are refering to, are you refering to Belugaboy535136 as a potential impostor?? If so then yes consenus is displayed on multiple projects and multiple user talk pages.ZooPro 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is the referent. At least he's on notice. Any more problems that pop up post this, link to this header and bring it back up at AN/I. Again, he's on notice. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

ZooPro, I see you've removed Belugaboy from several WikiProjects. I understand where you're coming from, but personally I think it's an overreaction. WikiProject membership doesn't entitle members to assess articles or to do anything that non-members can't do. If a new editor makes one or two decent edits to a relevant article it's common for that person to be invited to join a WikiProject. Would you mind if I put his name back on the lists? I've left him Belugaboy a warning under your warning on his Talk page. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no issues if you would like him to be a part of a wikiproject as long as his edits are constructive and helpful to those projects.ZooPro 07:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Hm2k won't stop editing/hiding comments in an AFD

Resolved

 – Hm2k (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked.

Note: I was never asked to stop before this "incident" was raised. --Hm2k (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

first User:Hm2k commented out my part of afd message [[211]], which was reverted. then he commented out a thread, which effectively hides the conversation, and is disruptive and confusing to those unaware of the hidden messages. comments out/hides half of my afd message again and then he comments out my edit again. could an uninvolved user please take a look at this and let us know if modifying users' comments is appropriate on an AFD. an edit war would be lame, which is why i've brought this here because i think an outside opinion would solve the problem, at least for my end of it. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't appropriate. The only time a user's comment can be edited or removed by a different user is when that particular comment is abusive. Your comments obviously weren't abusive, so he had no write to hide them.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unhidden the comments, and left a clear message on the AfD discussion that refactoring is unacceptable. Further occurrences should be reported back here for administrative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on Hm2k's talk page first would have been a better idea than bringing this grievance straight here. Tan | 39 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it, "Hm2k" has some kind of grudge against Theserialcomma (or is just a troll), and is not willing to reason with him.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'm glad this matter can now be put to and end. --Hm2k (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No ... I think we'd like to ask why you were refactoring others comments? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...What? Nothing has been put to an end. The matter has not even begin to settle.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fanning the flames of drama, Mr. Random IP. I gave a final warning on Hm2k's user page. I don't think we need to know why anything was happening; if it happens again, he will be blocked. End of issue. Tan | 39 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Random IP"? I'm a regular here. And I wasn't intending to "fan the flames of the drama" or anything of the sort. I apologize if that is how I was perceived, but that was certainly not my intent.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, so we're just getting started then... Firstly, as per Mjroots's comment, "Personal attacks are excepted"[212]. Further more, I see nothing wrong with hiding drama[213]. Since when is bad faith assumed? --Hm2k (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When you started refactoring other's comments. They are clearly not personal attacks. Take a break, this issue is over if you drop it. If you don't you will likely land yourself in a block. Let it drop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone listing an article that you created for deletion is not a personal attack. Please remember that no editor owns an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:PA, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". In the FIRST LINE of the AfD he's talking about me, not the actual content. Go figure. --Hm2k (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I take that and raise you a WP:POVFORK. Actually, I turn it into a mirror backwards, since deliberate baiting won't help resolve the situation. As the article creator, it is your responsibility to assure it meets general article guidelines and standards, and the method of which an article is created-- as a forked info split you did with zero support from the talk page or reason given to do so. In fact, the only other opinion is stating an opposition to such an action. By ignoring the closest thing to consensus available and zero rationale for actions taken, that in and of itself turns the 'comment on content' into the need to discussion actions of the contributor. The ANI is about you and these disruptions and not the article and its contends. The AfD remains and runs independently from this. Edits in the AfD were absolutely unacceptable and an experienced user should know better. Tan was pretty clear above; happens again, he's given a warning on a block. I'd say mark as resolved, but I don't want any incivility spilling out onto user talk pages for now and just spawning another ANI later. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

povfork has no relevance here, tl;dr. --Hm2k (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How else would you justify your actions on creating a forked article with a subjective POV and unprovable title? Fork + pushed POV = POVFORK, to be really blunt. Even if accidental, it still is. Call it a day, please. Everyone seems content to offer just a warning and I'm not sure what else you're looking for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is about me hiding personal attack comments. So, this "POVFORK" issue still not relevant here. --Hm2k (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I would observe that whilst Hm2k has done himself no favours with his attitude, he does appear to have reasons for being grumpy since stub articles he has created recently do seem to get nominated rather quickly for deletion. Justin talk 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...which has absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion. "Being grumpy", whether reasonable or not, isn't an excuse for anything. Tan | 39 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect before you jump all over my comment I was not excusing it, merely pointing out there is more to this than meets the eye. Justin talk 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to create well sourced, non-stub articles of at least C class. The more sources there are the easier it is to assert notability and the harder it is to nominate for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet, you can't expect that to happen over night. --Hm2k (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ...and that's why you build articles in your WP:SANDBOX. They should never be live until they're ready to survive an AfD. Nevertheless, this ANI is about you refactoring other people's comments, which as you now know is a big no-no. Of course, this didn't need to be said in the first place, but it's solidified now. You may also want to take a closer read at WP:NPA, as you seem to be missing great chunks of understanding there. I think this thread can close, based on the warning issued. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this user. He is proudly disrupting Wikipedia and considers it a win [[214]], I suggest a appropriate length block to deal with this attitude. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The only personal attacks I've seen are from the user HM2K [[215]]. Kinda funny that it started out that he thought he was being attacked and now it's ok to attack others in a clear comment on the contribute. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Put down the stick, HiaB. You're only antagonizing the user now. Don't go on a crusade to bait him to being blocked. Tan | 39 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

of course, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Before being accused of a Crusade, I removed a personal attack on myself. It has since been reinserted [[216]] will someone else go deal with it and re-remove it. I've stepped back as it could appear to be a COI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

imo, just WP:DENY at this point, and Tan is spot-on. Might not have been in the cleanest of ways, but the ANI topic was addressed both here and the user's talk page, no sanctions were given as a good faith sign of worrysome edits ending. If your antagonist would like to shoot themselves in the foot and move to hounding you and get themselves blocked, that's their problem. Take a power nap, have a snack, check your talk page's edit history when you get back. Pretty sure it's not going to happen again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He continues

This time he has resorted to completely removing other peoples comments, despite being warned not to. [217][218]. Warnings at [219] and [220]. His edits in general at the AfD discussion are borderline disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 12:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

My response is here. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't matter: you were told to stop refactoring other's comments. Your brutal interpretation of WP:PA does not matter. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As per m:troll I am trying to ignore Ash as discussion with him is clearly pointless. I felt that a good faith undo of his false statement was the best approach, I was very clear in my edit summary. I am getting fed up with Ash's and Theserialcomma's attempts to game the system and attempts to discredit me just to get their own way. Any more of this and I will happily gather evidence of bad faith against them for ANI, however, I'd rather not spend the time getting someone banned, so let's just drop it. --Hm2k (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is only one person at risk of getting banned here, and it isn't Ash. Jeni ^(talk) 12:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So we're reduced to threats now? This is really productive, well done. Why don't you go back and justify your AfD statement instead of just causing trouble. --Hm2k (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Per my usual practice, indefinite is only for as long as required. If continuing discussion leads to the prospect of appropriate editing by the editor then the block may be lifted without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

one look at his talk page and the afd in question will show his extreme failure to get the point. i support a block that lasts until he agrees to stop arguing and trolling pointlessly Theserialcomma (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Review request psb777

Please review this decision: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Psb777

My issues:

• Undue haste: 13 minutes from time of registering the complaint to time of adjudication.
• I was writing my statement while the allegation was adjudicated. My statement therefore was not taken into account.
• The evidence presented (and unpresented) does not support the allegation.
• Incorrect result (well I would say that, wouldn't I) - read the statements.

Thanks, Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be continuing, so if you have an additional statement to post (I note you have posted a series of them at that page), now would be the time. Agree that the decision may have been swift, but the only thing for it is to calmly present your position, and convince other editors and admins through discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to really side with Paul on this one I'm afraid. This seems to have occured far too quickly. At least let him respond! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose account and obscure politician

It appears that an obscure politician once appeared as possible a key extra in a movie, is being repeatedly shoveled into the movie's article. She seems to not be notable enough to earn an article, but her rabid supporter keeps inserting a line about her, and refuses to discuss the issue other than repeating the mantra that "Some people don't want you to know about her."[221]

I personally think that wikipedia conspiracies should be dealt with at AN/I because they are the one area where humor crops up regularly from admins. Could an admin also warn the user to stop putting the line in, make supported arguments on the talk page of the article, and wear aluminum foil? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An administrator did look into the matter and post appropriate warnings (User:Orangemike), and it probably will only take one administrator to deal with. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report Advanced research (talk · contribs) to WP:AIV if editing pattern continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

At least an obscure politician is better than a Kentucky-Fried Conspiracy married to the Men in Black. *sigh* My paws have been full of that one since before Christmas. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 10:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• This user's previous edits were also to repeatedly add a (different) non-notable individual. I wonder if they are a rather inept PR or something? Guy (Help!) 12:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits from shared College IP

Resolved

 – Reports about vandalism should be made at WP:AIV. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

194.82.16.252 is a shared IP address for "Henley College, Coventry" and certain people using this IP address have re-started disruptive editing. Warnings have been left on their talk page, but to be honest the chances of these being read is minimal; students probably edit from shared computers within college without ever reading their assigned talk page.

It has been mentioned on the talk page that anonymous editing may be disabled from this IP address. Do you think that this would be the best course of action considering the shared usage of this IP? Any soft block will most likely be ineffective at deterring disruptive editing due to the nature of the shared use of this IP in a college environment. _Will^Dow 11:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs)

Worrying post to Ref Desk

Resolved

 – It appears that consensus does not exist to maintain this block - user unblocked and advised that questions of a subjective nature are best suited for sites such as Yahoo Answers. –xeno^talk 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I should draw the admin community's attention to WP:RD/Miscellaneous#Moral boundary. Although the poster isn't threatening _violence_, she's threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking, and is very probably in need of professional psychiatric help. Per WP:VIOLENCE, I have _not_ informed the user in question of this posting, and will not mention her username in this post. My apologies if this is an over-reaction on my part - however, the general trend seems to be that this sort of issue needs to be reported. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So... are you suggesting that she be blocked?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

indef'd. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, wow. Why did you delete my question? All I did was ask whether the OP wanted her to be blocked. And isn't it a little too soon to be indefinitely blocking this user?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete anyone's question; I only blocked the user and deleted the user's userpage. We have someone who is seeking advice, albeit in a sideways manner, about stalking another person in real-life. This is cut and dry. It's an easy block to make. SPA's are pretty ugly in the first place, but when their only purpose is this...? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had posted a question here, but you deleted my question and replaced it with "indef'd". I've inserted my question back. In this case, it's not really an "easy block"; the user's intent is not entirely clear, and she never really mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what are the benefits of having him/her unblocked? The OP said nothing about whether he himself wanted a block; he was asking what to do in this situation. And to be sure: I don't know the intent or the degree to which illegality is express or implied, either. That's exactly the problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry about accidentally deleting your question... there was an edit conflict ^^;

I admit our [lack of] "policies" regarding mental health lapses are at very least in need of an overhaul. Wikipedia is not therapy. We don't however, just block people who say something "creepy" and seem to want an actual moral and ethical discussion. I saw no legal issues at face value... *shrugs*. Not seeing any doesn't mean the assumption should be there are, in any way. "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" being questionable logic so if that's the only means I want more talk on an indef. It implies someone can prove a negative to defend oneself. I'm not suggesting it be changed, btw, so I'm sorry this might look grumpy/frustrated, since it's honestly a troublesome area. Far weirder/worse/more dangerous things come up around here, you must admit, without these ends. Not at all justifying that user's odd discussion topic, either. Also also not saying it shouldn't have been reported originally, since I'm of the opinion that such matters are worth watching and getting a pair of admin eyes on for awhile.

Maybe change the template on the userpage to one with an unblock request area included? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I'm always worried about using uw-block3 over indef, since the former seems a bit... off, given the circumstances. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the user should have just been told to keep discussions of her mental health off of Wikipedia? The indef block seems quite harsh, given that the user never mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the merits of this block. What harm or disruption is caused to the project by this user? Tell em that this isn't really the venue for these sorts of questions, and move on. Hell, direct em to Yahoo Answers, this would fit right in there. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The block seems a little unneeded, I didn't think we made it a policy to block anyone who has broken the law. Tevildo stating that the blocked user was "threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking" is inaccurate to the extreme, the user was just relating something that they had previously done (which may or may not have been against the law), in fact, they even stated that they were sorry for having done it and that they didn't intend to do it again. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the blocknote. User wants to try an unblock, then they're interested in improving the project. So far, hasn't been that way. I'll defer to another admin who's watching this. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In their position, I wouldn't request to be unblocked, imagine: you've heard about wikipedia, this apparently brilliant project, you want a little bit of an opinion on a moral subject, so you go to an online reference desk on wikipedia and ask your question in a polite and well-mannered way, immediately someone comes and tells you that your question is inappropriate for the ref desk, a little later the same person makes some comments about your mental health, you nonetheless maintain a polite demeanor, and when you later try and update the thread, you get a message telling you that you've been blocked for your comments in the thread. Personally, I'd leave the project, and tell all my friends about what a pigsty it is.

This isn't the kind of image that we want to encourage, nor are we encouraged to promote it by policy. That the user does not request to be unblocked is not a good enough reason to leave them as such.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the block or any other admin response to this situation, but I feel I should defend my action. The user was asking for advice on whether or not it would be "moral" to befriend a work colleague of her victim (and I use the word deliberately) in order to, and I quote, "let me into their life". This is a clear statement of intent, IMO, and carrying out the action would constitute a criminal offence in England under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. She was threatening to engage in activity which would be illegal in England, and possibly in other jurisdictions. I therefore feel my wording was justified. Tevildo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Threewords,eightletters... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a single-purpose account. His ID likely refers to "I LOVE YOU". Either a stalker or someone pretending to be. No apparent value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a marked distinction between a single-purpose account and an account that has yet to be used for more than one purpose. –xeno^talk 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Firstly, the hamfisted way this has been handled makes me sick. Secondly, nothing that user did deserves a block. "Stalking" is entirely subjective, and the user at no point threatened violence. Simply keeping track of someone and trying to be part of their life isn't illegal anywhere as far as I'm aware. If this block is allowed to stand as it is, regardless of whether the user requests unblock themselves or not, I've entirely lost faith in wikipedias administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said the other place you posted this, the user shows all the early signs of someone who could eventually try to murder someone. The now-zapped user page talked about "obsessive love". No intent to contribute to wikipedia, just using it as a personal web page. In fact, someone should figure out who the user is and notify the police. Think John Hinkley and Jodie Foster, as one example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bullshit argument. The user did NOTHING to deserve a block. Being weird is not a crime. Anyone can turn violent at any point, should we block you because there's an off chance you might turn violent? No, of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. And regardless, blocking them does nothing to prevent violence in the real world, and in fact may very well lead to them becoming violent as they've been denied an outlet when they attempted to reach for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From a thorough reading of the foregoing there appears to be no consensus to maintain the block, so I have already unblocked and left them a note directing them to a more suitable site to discuss relativistic issues such as the ones they raised at the RD. –xeno^talk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The unblock is a good decision, should the user page be restored? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. –xeno^talk 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Everyone needs to see why he was blocked in the first place. I see his other so-called contribution is in process of being deleted. Since when does wikipedia give sanctuary to stalkers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sake Bugs, why are you so insistent on ramping up the drama over this? A persons asks an inappropriate question, is told this isn't the place for it, and life goes on. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's unblocked, so we'll see how things work out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is appropriate to allow an editor like "Baseball Bugs" to answer questions on the reference and help desks? It's widely known that he is both uncivil and sarcastic. It's very likely that these kind of comments will run people away from the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlike edit warriors? Woogee (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Saturn is a fine one to be lecturing others about their behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Go have some tea and disengage...this is headed in a dangerous direction. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, downhill. The guy is unblocked, so dat's dat for the foreseeable future. Let's hope I'm wrong about that guy, and won't have to do the "Told You So Dance" at some point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Better watch out, Saturn; he's runnin' rings around you. HAW! HalfShadow 03:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Man, that's lame. I wish I'd thought of it. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn has violated WP:NPA with respect to Baseball Bugs and should retract his comment. Edison (talk) 03:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how stating the obvious is a personal attack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Saturn's comment wasn't a personal attack. It was merely an ignorance-based opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's over-dramatic and somewhat out of date with his comments. I was told to improve my work on the ref desks and have stuck to that for the most part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break?

... Enough on the sniping, please. It'd be far too depressingly for a topic that started as it did to end up with a WQA or any other sad result. Since iffy NPA seems to be turning into the acronym of the day and has wandered a million miles away from the actual ANI topic, I'll just restate from some opinions above that this is treading into dangerous territory when looking into slight forked angles of the discussion.. There's a reason why mental illness is just as taboo a topic as Terrorism or our other normal locales of angry soapboxing talk pages instead of Wikipedia-related contributions. Such discussions like this tend to happen. There seems to still a desire to talk about future guidelines on matters similar to this, and I'm glad we're over the block proper and are on WP:AGFDPTI territory... being that we should Assume Good Faith During Presumed Temporary Insanity. I'm not thinking many contributors to this discussion truly want to admonish the poster at WP:RD, but can also agree that some safety measures taken up-front were appropriate while it was talked over.

Actually, the level of discussion has surprised me, and even if it's gotten a tad off-track I think it's still better than mostly sweeping it under the rug. Thoughts on future actions in these kinds of situations, anyone? Past the rare chance of the user being put off by an indef sans logic immediately, the discussion here seemed appropriate (to me) while sorting it and this is something to mark as at least some kind of niche precedent to be loosely interpreted for when an editor just seems... a bit off. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk (rapper)

Resolved

 – Semi-protected. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lots of trying to claim that this person is dead. Has been reported to WP:RFPP, but not been looked at yet. Would a kindly admin please do the necessary. Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it time. Most requests aren't handled in real-time. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He is likely still alive. A quick Google News search is not turning up anything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, and for most vandalism it's not usually that urgent, but in this case it is serious BLP vandalism that had been happening every couple of minutes from numerous IP addresses. It appears to have stopped since my last revert though, so maybe they've stopped trying now. Quantpole (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats by User:Lceliku

Resolved

 – user blocked

A few days ago, this user was blocked for a week for this comment [222]. Two days later, he evaded his block through an IP and re-posted his original threat [223], followed by another threat [224]. Since this appears to be a disruption-only account, can someone indef him so we can be done with this? --Athenean (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done also blocked the ip for six months. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Athenean (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to interrupt, because I'm probably missing the mark, so I apologize in advance, but aren't all three comments coming from the same date, i.e. BEFORE the user was banned? sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, he is blocked, not banned. He can still request an unblock via his talk page. Also, the two ip edits were in fact made after the initial block. But none of that really matters in my opinion, we simply can't have users threatening to track down other users and beat them with baseball bats. Anyone who can't work within even that minimum standard of civilized behavior is not welcome. Lceliku needs to take a chill pill if he wants to come back. If you have a dispute with another user, you pursue dispute resolution, as opposed to threatening to hunt them down and beat them. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When WP:MEAT clashes with WP:OUTING

You'll doubtless be delighted to know this involves climate change! A comment left in a blog post at "Watts Up With That?" by "emerson cardoso" seems to be a pretty blatant violation of WP:MEAT:

I would invite all readers to help improving the climategate article on wikipedia, which has been hijacked by alarmists that have a troop of sleepless zealots that work in conjunction with the aim to keep the page as useless as possible. Please bear in mind the use of reliable sources and read and add your views in the discussion page before changing the main article. We need more people to counter W. Connolley and his troop of alarmists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

This matter was raised here by William M. Connolley. I'm fairly certain I know the identity of this "recruiter", themselves a prolific Wikipedia editor in the topic of climate change. Obviously I cannot name them per WP:OUTING, but it concerns me that this significant attempt to recruit meat puppets should be addressed. I would appreciate advice on this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can email me at Prodego@gmail.com with your concerns, if you would like. Prodego ^talk 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I will do just that. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Should also be emailed to the Arbitration Committee. Orderinchaos 19:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: this ought to go to the Arbitration Committee, along with any evidence. Durova³⁹¹ 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Right you are. I'll send the mailing list a copy of the email with expanded detail momentarily. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bah - "Post by non-member to a members-only list" - someone will have to approve, or I'll feel forever scorned! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well okay, I guess we'll let it through ;) And thank you for the note. Shell ^babelfish 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome. I feel like someone who was received by Her Majesty. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I'm not totally familiar with all the policies on this side of things, but is the article currently stable-ish? Could it be feasible to semi-protect it until all this blows over? I have a feeling that protecting because something *might* happen is frowned upon, but to me in this situation it seems like a sensible action? Of course, if I'm wrong, just ignore my whittering! Jeni ^(talk) 19:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed relatively stable, thanks partly to it being on article probation now; however, the conduct of the user in question is still a matter of concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer it not be protected at the moment, if possible. Prodego ^talk 19:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no evidence (yet) that this attempt to recruit has been successful. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues of disrupting an article

Resolved

 – Original complainant blocked for socking. -- Atama頭 23:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a serious problem here all starting with unjustified edits along with racially charged insults by Noopinonada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He/She also continue to leave me insulting messages after I told him/her to stop personally attackging me please take a look and handle the situation.

• Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Holdone (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So we don't have to delve through this editor's history, can you provide us with a few examples of what you considered to be the racially changed insults? Also, you state that they are being disruptive - please explain precisely what they are doing. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Holdone has been blocked because he is a notorious sockpupeteer and edit warrior. In my defense, he engaged in unabashed lying to this board and the one that decided to permanently block him for sockpuppeting. As you can see in my discourse with him, no "racially charged insults" occurred, unless accusing someone of sockpuppeting is now a "racially charged insult." The word amoung the Ancient Egpytian race controversy page editors appears to be that he has been a sockpupeteer and shameless POV troll for years. He also seems to revert to accusing others who reverse his POV of "vandalism" or "vandl" as he calls it. I think this case is closed for now, as a plethora of legitimate editors are back at work on this oftentimes contentious page.--Noopinonada (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Farah writes an article about Wikipedia - but how did he find the screenshot?

Resolved

 – No admin action needed.

User:86.143.121.127

Resolved

 – Range-blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs).

User:86.143.121.127 is fraudulently changing votes in AfDs right now. These are AfDs near closing. Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well done for catching that IP. You've got a lot more work to do though... 86.143.123.252 (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• ..cos it only takes a minute (or 2) baby, to drop that DHCP... 86.143.125.100 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• ... oh yeah. 86.143.125.33 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All edits by this person to afd's have been reverted I believe, I've checked all changes on every open afd, if someone could keep an eye on them that would be great, and perhaps a rangeblock too--Jac16888^Talk 01:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"86.143.120.0/21" has been blocked (2048 addresses). Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Death threat on user page

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked, only contribution oversighted. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Made by Stalkerman345 (talk · contribs) on his userpage. Diff here. I wouldn't like to comment as to the credibility of this but I feel it best to leave it undeleted (I have blanked it) for now and report it here. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to have been oversighted, diff no longer visible to a lowly user such as I. Frmatt (talk) 04:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Such as me. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mccready topic ban still unresolved; he is editing in banned area again

• Moving to WP:AN whihc has a longer archive cycle. This is not an "incident" as such so that's probably the right place. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The new section is at WP:AN#McCready topic ban. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass nomination at AfD

Resolved

 – AfD speedy closed as keep by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs).

Can someone please look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All untagged deadend pages. I would ordinarily be bold and NAC a nomination like this but I would like some admin eyes on it. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Closed as keep. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the proposal to delete all unreferenced pages. it is however true that about half of the articles there probably should be deleted, and the other half will need considerable work. The work will be the hard part, as usual. That, and making sure they are not deleted before the work can be done. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I must say I'm rather sorry I've only caught this AfD when it was already closed. If I had seen it when it was still open, I'd have !voted "strongest possible delete all"... Ah well, it's too late now. Though I must say that "half... should be deleted, and the other half will need considerable work" is a very, very generous conclusion... (I'd estimate at least 97.75% needs deleting straightaway -- probably more!) -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I think the idea was half-baked, but not malicious. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On (non-scientific) random sample of mine, from those articles about half are okay, but I prodded the other half (and sent one or two to AfD). Pcap ping 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiples of Quack

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another multiple of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs) is haunting Talk:Barack Obama. The new sock is TomasGerbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who like Bamao (talk · contribs) and Róbert Gida (talk · contribs) is pretending to be foreign with a somewhat limited command of English. I am requesting a block of TomasGerbs per WP:QUACK, but also I would like to ask if anything else can be done to prevent this new-sock-every-week problem. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Quacking mole wacked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL Quack-a-mole. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Watchover - need an independent admin review

Resolved

 – Turns out that the editor was a sockpuppet. Watchover, as well as another sockpuppet and the sockmaster, have been indefinitely blocked. NW (Talk) 00:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please look at User talk:Watchover? The user was blocked two days ago after an SPI. All admins there (there aren't many) are in some way involved at this point, I think (from the end of the penultimate bullet point) it is proceeding to a resolution where this person can be unblocked, but I'd much rather an independent admin can view the relevant evidence and make the call on whether to unblock or not.

I'll try and provide a background:

• Watchover is an editor dealing mainly with WikiProject Australian politics articles, and is well known to those who edit there (not a high number of users). Watchover is a member of the conservative Liberal Party of Australia and, while their editing is often unproblematic, a sizable chunk of it is tied up in POV editing, or in engaging in syntax disagreements with editors over list articles, titles (as in Sir), etc. I have personally had one such dispute with this editor back in November, although at other times (as can be seen on their talk page) we have engaged fruitfully.

• Kapitalist88 is an editor who was recently indef-blocked by User:Nick-D for lying about an image rationale - according to the blocking admin, they are a serial offender. One look at the user page and talk page and some contribs, including a "fuck u queer" edit summary and their response on being asked a simple question about this, suggest that they were probably not a very good fit for Wikipedia anyway.

• Someone alerted me at the weekend to sockish behaviour and tag-team editing going on at an article, so I filed an SPI naming the two editors involved (W. and Cantwejustbefriends) as well as a very recently indef-blocked editor (Kapitalist88). I included this user as the sock had started editing within hours of the block on Kapitalist being enacted by Nick-D, and thought that if it was not a sock of Watchover, it could be a sock of Kapitalist. Hence it was intended to establish what was going on with this new account; however, when I came to write the report, I noticed some interesting edit patterns over time - my rationale can be read at the SPI.

• The result came back as expected for the accounts on the article ("Confirmed") but, surprisingly, linked as "Likely" Kapitalist88 with Watchover. A subjective look at the edits suggests two entirely different individuals in my opinion - not just language use but also ideology is quite separate (Watchover is a mainstream conservative, Kapitalist is most definitely non-mainstream.)

• Watchover was not blocked at the time but was caught three hours after I blocked Cantwejustbefriends in an autoblock per the SPI result. The account was subsequently indefinitely blocked by Sarah after an attempt to resolve at the talk page, but Sarah indicated at the time that this was pending resolution and was not intended to be infinite (more that we did not know when it would be resolved).

• Watchover has admitted meatpuppetry with their spouse, and has agreed not to do this again, but has contested any link to Kapitalist88 (and has indicated some distaste for Kapitalist's expressed views). The interaction between Watchover and a good faith admin (User:Sarah) trying to resolve the situation on Watchover's talk page at one point became fairly heated and laden with bad faith accusations towards Sarah.

• In the last few hours, some progress appears to have been made, but the issue of any link with the Kapitalist account has not been resolved. I'm not sure if it actually needs to be - I'll leave that to whoever opts to review this.

Beyond the user's own contribs, the SPI and the talk page you're unlikely to need much by way of information. If you do, I'll do what I can to help. Orderinchaos 16:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything that inspires me to assume good faith in this case. When you had opened the SPI report, you noted, "Watchover's and Kapitalist's edits are almost mutually exclusive to a scary degree - one edits for a few days, then stops, and the other one edits in the interval." That sounds very much like a good hand/bad hand tactic which is very common for sockpuppet masters (see WP:ILLEGIT). This, combined with unwarranted attacks on people at the talk page just screams out "sock" to me. Checkusers aren't perfect and I've seen a couple of times when data was misinterpreted but it's very rare and my gut tells me that this editor is pulling our leg. I would decline a further unblock. -- Atama頭 01:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I clerked the SPI case and have followed the discussion on the talkpage; my opinion on any unblock changed over time, as things with Sarah progressed, and I agree with Atama that an unblock doesn't seem called for at this point. Maybe point them to WP:OFFER. Nathan ^T 02:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Orderinchaos for notifying me of this discussion. Just to clarify my involvement, I blocked the account after responding to her unblock template. She was caught in the autoblock of Orderinchaos's block of the sock. When I responded, I was initially leaning towards unblocking but was not entirely satisfied so blocked the account directly pending a resolution. At this point and having looked a little more closely at the accounts, I'm really not in favour of unblocking at this time. There's something about this situation that strikes me as rather odd. Looking at the Wikistalk tool, KAPITALIST88 and Watchover both have a limited number of edits (Watchover 718 and KAPITLAIST88 329) yet have both edited some relatively special interest articles including, Higgins by-election, 2009, Kristina Keneally, Electoral district of Auburn, Bradfield by-election, 2009, Premiers of New South Wales, Tony Abbott, Liberal Party of Australia, Australian federal election, 2010. Another shared subject area, although with no direct crossing of edits is the military, with Watchover editing USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) and HMAS Newcastle (FFG 06), and KAPITALIST88 editing Royal Australian Air Force‎, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Royal Australian Air Force, RAAF Base Richmond, and OH-58 Kiowa, among others. I'm just having a hard time accepting two unrelated people, sharing some technical connections, would come to Wikipedia and both not only be focusing nearly exclusively on the same subject area but also editing articles like these, most of which really aren't high traffic articles. There's also similarities in their edit summaries. For example, both have used edit summaries referring to "truth" when reverting other users - Watchover -"‎(Undid revision 303685086 by Mattinbgn (talk)--- true circumstances)" KAP88 -"(Undid revision 333473980 by Theworld2 (talk) Stop removing facts, it is true". I just feel that something is not right and on top of her bizarre attacks on me for responding to her unblock template, basically accusing me of being out to get her and trying to set her up, I'm just not satisfied and am no longer in favour of unblocking, at least for now. Sarah 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sarah makes good points in the above. Something is very amiss with this whole situation - I am starting to wonder if we've been taken for fools by this editor. Orderinchaos 10:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the KAPITALIST88 account's evasive answers when asked about the copyvio (they repeatedly claimed that they had taken the photo, but changed the details of why it didn't look like a photo from a personal camera and lacked metadata) and rude comments after being blocked is similar to that of the Watchover account following their block, albeit to a much greater extent. They have not provided any explanation of why the KAPITALIST88 account could have been mistaken for their account and have rapidly become rude and trollish. As Sarah notes, aside from the technological evidence found in the checkuser inquiry, the crossover in editing patterns provides strong evidence that the various accounts have the same owner. As a result, I think that this is a case of good hand/bad hand editing and that the block should remain in place. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm often accusing of assuming bad faith, but my error here was to assume too much good faith. The Kapitalist business proved to be a red herring (unrelated, it turns out, although more than likely know each other) - the others are all socks of a third user User:Stravin. Had we not been led around the twist for the past four days, I would be minded to unblock one (and only one) of them, but per the comments above and my own observations, I've reached the conclusion that Wikipedia doesn't need this particular drama. Unless someone really disagrees, I'd be happy for this to either be closed or go to archive at this point. Orderinchaos 00:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said on Watchover's talk page, you have done everything right. You assumed good faith until you were presented with evidence suggesting the user was not operating in good faith and then moved quickly to clarify the situation with the SPI report. You did everything right under WP:AGF policy so don't allow some time-wasting POV-pusher make you feel foolish. I agree this may as well be archived now. After the time-wasting manipulation and game-playing of the last few days there's no longer reasonable circumstances to unblock the primary account. Sarah 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption to Canwest

Resolved

 – Blocked - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Haida chieftain (talk · contribs) has been on a crusade to expose The Truth (TM) about this organisation by adding his own original research on Canwest[225][226][227] coupled with considerable talkpage soapboxing [228][229] for which he was eventually blocked for 31 hrs. He has now taken to making the same edits while logged out [230][231]. Could he be further encouraged not to do this - he has repeatedly had it explained to use proper sources and that Wikipedia is not the place to pursue a one-person campaign against this company. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've sent the user an email asking them to consider the feedback they've received, and respond to the criticisms on their tlak page. Hopefully that will encourage them to engage more fully with the community. Failing that, a longer block may be necessary. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP vandal

Resolved

 – Abuse report filed Throwaway85 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this when perusing the recent changes. Removal of anonymous editting priviledges may be in order. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just block that IP address? We get a hell of a lot of very good edits via IP editors, and I wouldn't want to lose those. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. The IP belongs to a private school in Vancouver. Perhaps we could talk to their tech support about figuring out a solution, as I don't think blocking that one IP would do much of anything. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We once set up a project to contact schools and let them know their computers are being used for vandalism. If kids know that vandalizing Wikipedia from school computers will actually get them into trouble, that could really help, it would seem. I'm not sure whatever happened to that project... -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I filed an abuse report, hopefully that will get the ball rolling. Anything else for AN/I to do? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BQZip01

Resolved

 – I'm going to mark this as resolved because after some more digging I found evidence of the image being PD, and because it's unlikely a warning will have any positive, beneficial effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to block User:Thatcher for misusing WP:CheckUser numerously over the last 6 months

Resolved

 – IP Blocked for 72 hours; WP:AUSC if you actually have a legitimate complaint. NW (Talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This admin misunderstands how WP:CheckUser privileges should be used. He executes this command without the proper request from users. This type of action appears to be a misuse of these powerful privileges. Please look into this at once. Thank you for your cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.27.6 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs, please? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I really isn't the proper forum for this. Please read WP:CHECK#Complaints_and_misuse, and bring your concerns to WP:AUSC. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, LoveMonkey, Dances_with_donkeys on Spiral Dynamics

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. Fences&Windows 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread concerns:

• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dances with donkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and edits associated with the article

• Spiral Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this is disruptive editing: The contested category 'New Age' was reinserted ("restored") again and again without providing any source, chronologically by Snowded [233], [234], [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], LoveMonkey [242], Dances with donkeys [243], [244], [245], [246], LoveMonkey [247].

Discussions are going on at

• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#removal_of_.22new_age.22_category
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#The_new_age_issue
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#Category_.22New_Age.22
• Wikipedia:OR/N#Spiral_Dynamics
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Snowded_and_Spiral_Dynamics
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Spiral_Dynamics_tagged_as_New_Age

--Pevos (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive" doesn't mean "something I disagree with". ANI is not the place for content disputes. There's an RfC for the issue, that's the proper venue. No administrator action is needed, nor is it likely to occur. -- Atama頭 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that there's no ANI issue here, at least not yet. There is also too much forum-shopping in this dispute. Advertise your RFC in appropriate venues (ANI isn't one of them) and let that be the central place of discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIV by User:Saturday

Resolved

 – Tan has indef blocked the account. Fences&Windows 03:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See example edit and edit summaries, going back over the past 3 years (there are probably others): [248], [249], [250], [251], [252] . 91.84.123.26 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) (Not logged in because, well I don't fancy being on the receiving end of more personal attacks).

He's made 2 edits in an entire year. The guy has retired from Wikipedia, leave well enough alone. Administrative actions are meant to prevent disruption, not punish someone for something he might have done years ago. -- Atama頭 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A little correction: the first diff is from 23 December 2009 [[253]] and is clearly over the edge. After similar edits in September 2008 [254] [255] the account had been indefinitely blocked, fearing it might be comprimised [256], however following an explanation by the user it was unblocked shortly thereafter.[257]. Since then the user has repeated his behaviour [258] [259], so either the account is constantly comprimised or the mentioned explanation was a lie and the user was vandalizing themself; in any case the account should be reblocked indefinitely. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree; I have indefinitely blocked this account. Tan | 39 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirections

Resolved

 – The redirects are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Help links?. Fences&Windows 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think these redirects are not correct [260]. --the, 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.111.214 (talk)

Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee5binky

Resolved

 – StevenMario blocked indef by an admin

Coffee5binky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatingly reverting every edit to The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and is reporting them as vandalism. He has even threatened to ban me and he repeatedly stated that he wants me banned from this site. I try to revert his edits, but he continues to revert them to his edits, therefore causing him to assume ownership. Even though his edits are not stricly vandalism, his behavior is getting worse. Somebody lock that page and ban that user. StevenMario (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple content dispute. See WP:DR. Have you tried talking reasonably to the editor on their talk page? All I see is the two of you threatening to get each other banned. It takes at least two to edit war, so mind out for WP:PLAXICO. Fences&Windows 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hardly blameless in this matter - he's been editwarring on this article for the last month, and has been blocked twice in the last week for editwarring and ownership issues on two other articles. I've reported them both on the 3RR noticeboard. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I forget the name of the article on this subject that needs to be amended, but this certainly ranks as one of the silliest edit-wars ever. THF (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Are you two guys aware that you made no substantial changes to the prose? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I have full-protected The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! for 24 hours. –MuZemike 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Main page link wrong

Resolved

Today's main page features Elwood Haynes with a (more) to link to the whole article. The (more) link is mis-directed, or the article has been replaced with "bonehead" material.Rgdboer (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked, and I don't see this problem. It looks like this has been fixed. If this comes up in the future, the correct noticeboard to report this is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. --Jayron32 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Snowded, LoveMonkey, Dances_with_donkeys on Spiral Dynamics

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. Fences&Windows 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This thread concerns:

• Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• LoveMonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dances with donkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and edits associated with the article

• Spiral Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this is disruptive editing: The contested category 'New Age' was reinserted ("restored") again and again without providing any source, chronologically by Snowded [261], [262], [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268], [269], LoveMonkey [270], Dances with donkeys [271], [272], [273], [274], LoveMonkey [275].

Discussions are going on at

• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#removal_of_.22new_age.22_category
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#The_new_age_issue
• Talk:Spiral_Dynamics#Category_.22New_Age.22
• Wikipedia:OR/N#Spiral_Dynamics
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Snowded_and_Spiral_Dynamics
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Spiral_Dynamics_tagged_as_New_Age

--Pevos (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Disruptive" doesn't mean "something I disagree with". ANI is not the place for content disputes. There's an RfC for the issue, that's the proper venue. No administrator action is needed, nor is it likely to occur. -- Atama頭 22:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Atama that there's no ANI issue here, at least not yet. There is also too much forum-shopping in this dispute. Advertise your RFC in appropriate venues (ANI isn't one of them) and let that be the central place of discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIV by User:Saturday

Resolved

 – Tan has indef blocked the account. Fences&Windows 03:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

See example edit and edit summaries, going back over the past 3 years (there are probably others): [276], [277], [278], [279], [280] . 91.84.123.26 (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC) (Not logged in because, well I don't fancy being on the receiving end of more personal attacks).

He's made 2 edits in an entire year. The guy has retired from Wikipedia, leave well enough alone. Administrative actions are meant to prevent disruption, not punish someone for something he might have done years ago. -- Atama頭 00:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A little correction: the first diff is from 23 December 2009 [[281]] and is clearly over the edge. After similar edits in September 2008 [282] [283] the account had been indefinitely blocked, fearing it might be comprimised [284], however following an explanation by the user it was unblocked shortly thereafter.[285]. Since then the user has repeated his behaviour [286] [287], so either the account is constantly comprimised or the mentioned explanation was a lie and the user was vandalizing themself; in any case the account should be reblocked indefinitely. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree; I have indefinitely blocked this account. Tan | 39 02:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirections

Resolved

 – The redirects are being discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Help links?. Fences&Windows 03:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think these redirects are not correct [288]. --the, 01:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.111.214 (talk)

Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee5binky

Resolved

 – StevenMario blocked indef by an admin

Coffee5binky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatingly reverting every edit to The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! and is reporting them as vandalism. He has even threatened to ban me and he repeatedly stated that he wants me banned from this site. I try to revert his edits, but he continues to revert them to his edits, therefore causing him to assume ownership. Even though his edits are not stricly vandalism, his behavior is getting worse. Somebody lock that page and ban that user. StevenMario (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a simple content dispute. See WP:DR. Have you tried talking reasonably to the editor on their talk page? All I see is the two of you threatening to get each other banned. It takes at least two to edit war, so mind out for WP:PLAXICO. Fences&Windows 03:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

StevenMario (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is hardly blameless in this matter - he's been editwarring on this article for the last month, and has been blocked twice in the last week for editwarring and ownership issues on two other articles. I've reported them both on the 3RR noticeboard. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I forget the name of the article on this subject that needs to be amended, but this certainly ranks as one of the silliest edit-wars ever. THF (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Are you two guys aware that you made no substantial changes to the prose? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I have full-protected The Super Mario Bros. Super Show! for 24 hours. –MuZemike 03:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Main page link wrong

Resolved

Today's main page features Elwood Haynes with a (more) to link to the whole article. The (more) link is mis-directed, or the article has been replaced with "bonehead" material.Rgdboer (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked, and I don't see this problem. It looks like this has been fixed. If this comes up in the future, the correct noticeboard to report this is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. --Jayron32 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiscriminate accusations of 'Vandalism'

Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has, since about October 2009, been going around WP indiscriminately accusing other editors of vandalism in his apparently automatically generated edit summaries. His talk page is littered with complaints, polite messages to desist such behaviour which is regarded by fellow wikipedians as uncivil, lacking in good faith and intimidatory to new users in particular. His habitual defense is that the edits in question violate policy in some way, or that the user in question has previously been reverted, but he sidesteps responding to the "why is this edit vandalism?" question. Many have made the point that it is important not to mislabel edit summaries, but he appears obstinate. I also tried to explain it to him, although I believe he should know better because he is an admin, but he never addressed the points I made. He did, however make some remark on his talk page asking about possibly reconfiguring Twinkle which I thought was another half-hearted attempt at shifting the blame and finding a solution.

Rubin has been warned at least once a month after which he seems to back off, and then it resumes three or four weeks later. He was most recently warned on 14 December by User:Tony1. However, some edits this month [289] [290] [291] [292] [293], continue to be labelled 'Vandalism', although I am at a loss as how they meet the definition of vandalism. As there does not seem to be any progress or improvement of his problematic editing behaviour, I reluctantly ask for intervention here. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems he's doing it through twinkle, probably hitting the "revert (vandalism)" button because it's easier (no need for an edit summary). And this is an admin? He's been warned enough; as a starting point, I'd suggest deleting and salting his monobook until he indicates that he's willing to talk; at the end of the day, such an action will end the "vandalism" summaries once and for all. Ironholds (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisted: [294]. Extraordinary amount of warnings to stop first. Viridae^Talk 04:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That works. Perhaps send a message to him to confirm he's been blacklisted, and we're done here. Ironholds (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Viridae^Talk 04:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this resolution. There simply is no excuse for such behavior. —David Levy 04:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for that. Note that he does not appear to have a monobook. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can work out its no longer added to the monobook because its a gadget. Viridae^Talk 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't he just do the same with the normal rollback feature? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, but if he does he's in some deep shitake mushrooms. Abuse of rollback by an admin? That'll turn out.. interestingly. Ironholds (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that obviously Twinkle and rollback are considered separate (despite performing the same function), but he was abusing the "rollback (vandal)" button specifically. Yes, Twinkle is slower, but shouldn't that be regarded as virtually identical to abusing rollback? Or is there something I've missed somewhere explaining why Twinkle and rollback are always considered apart from one another? (goes to check policy pages for both) --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 05:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well by those arguments not only he abused rollback, but he also gamed the system... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just want to point out that at least one of the examples given by the OP as not vandalism is, in fact, vandalism. Specifically, this [295] edit is considered vandalism - see Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment. Likewise, the reversion around the same timeframe to Federal Reserve System [296] also easily qualifies. (NOTE - last diff is not in the OP's list, but could also be considered vandalism by someone not familiar with the article) I have no comment on any of the others, but wanted to point out that at least one of the diffs given was correctly reverted as vandalism. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that first example as vandalism at all. Vandalism is insertion of dirty words, addition of inappropriate images, page-blanking, replacing text with "Aaron is gay"... that sort of thing. If it can possibly be a content dispute, then it's a content dispute, and not vandalism. Editing against consensus is not vandalism, because it's easy to believe in good faith that one is right and that others are wrong, even when one is outnumbered. We define "vandalism" very narrowly here, and we do that on purpose. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Failing to cite a reliable source is not vandalism. Unintentional misinformation is not vandalism. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but in this case, completely disagree with you. If you didn't, please read the RFC for some background. Suffice it to say that tax change essentially tries to say that grass is red. The arguement is legally considered frivolous, and will get you a fairly nice fine for even trying to raise it. Yes, that is vandalism. Ravensfire (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that you consider it to be vandalism, but it simply doesn't meet our site's definition. We define vandalism very narrowly here, and when you use the word outside of those narrow definitions, you end up in conversations like this one. You can avoid this if you simply refer to biased, inaccurate, un-cited edits as biased, inaccurate, un-cited edits. Calling them vandalism is guaranteed to generate more heat than light. Please don't generate more heat than light; surely that's not your intention. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we WP:AGF, it is not vandalism, as it would fit unintentional misinformation. Also, we are not legal advisors, so we are not responsible for any fines any readers can get for trying to argue or apply anything they read here. It is not our responsibility to take care of them. Inappropiate content? I agree, it was not appropiate, but not being appropiate does not mean it is disruptive. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how those edits are not intentional misinformation, if I remember correctly the tax protester edits. I'm not the only one who uses rollback on those, although I would certainly be willing to have the rollback not say vandalism. It's certainly not worth more than one click to revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's very important that we define "vandalism" extremely narrowly; if we allow edits such as this to be called vandalism, we're shooting ourselves in the foot, and weakening ourselves considerably. Please don't weaken this encyclopedia by abusing that word.

How on Earth can you know whether misinformation posted by someone is intentional or not? Are you psychic? I wish you would realize that accusations of vandalism in any but the most obvious cases weaken you. This is important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The edits in question seem to range from simple content disputes to editorializing. Reverting those edits needs to be explained in the edit summaries. "Vandalism" is neither accurate nor useful as an edit summary in those cases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So, perhaps "revert tax protester lies" would be an appropriate edit summary? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you could say, "Reverting editorializing". To them it's not a lie. They actually believe it. They're just dead wrong about it, that's all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you can undo the edit and ask the editor to provide a reliable source to his statement. But he did not vandalize WP. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, why are you looking for an insulting label at all, Arthur? Why go after the person? They're biased, inaccurate, uncited edits. None of that says anything about the person making the edit, whereas "lies" says that you're psychic, and that you somehow know that the person is not misguided, but actually intentionally deceptive. You don't know that, and you never will. Keep it professional; this should be easy. Hundreds of us have no problem doing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have asked Arthur Rubin three times over several months to cease and desist this behaviour. The accusations of vandalism, almost all of which are contained in edit summaries of reverts, are harming the project by upsetting both established and new editors. It would be aggressive and unconstructive to pursue this strategy of wild accusations just a few times; yet it has been going on for some time. Here is my last post on his talk page about it: [297]. Tony (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If he were a non-admin with the rollback tool, we would take it away for this kind of nonsense. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Why? Because it's a breach of trust. Isn't an admin doing this more of a breach of trust? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Precisely. Admins are expected to know better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
        • As I said, the problem is that Rubin has been clicking on that button irrespective of whether a specific edit he objected to can be interpreted within ANY definition of Vandalism. It isn't as if he's misinterpreted one edit but got the remainder right, but the rather indiscriminate action he seemed to be taking. The history is there, the complaints are also all there for all to see. It's also possible that he may have been using it as an intimidatory device in an edit war. He should know better: one adminship, WP:ADMIN, WP:VANDAL and three months of warning. I'm satisfied he's got his fair dues. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree that there was an abuse, but I find no evidence to believe it has been used to intimidate other users. Blacklisting from TW seems fine. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Black Brazilian

Resolved

 – This is not the proper place to discuss these issues. PLease try the article talk page, and if a reasonable solution cannot be reached, then try WP:CN or WP:RFC to bring this to the attention of editors who may help break the deadlock. Admins have no power to enforce one side or another of a content dispute

There's an article called Black Brazilian that is filled with personal opinions and views in the first half and most of the second half such as "the American-style term 'African-Brazilian' is not used," even though the peson who wrote it did not provide proof. The second half contains accurate data, but it has opinions, too I think an article that is full personal opinions like this should not be here. It should be redirected to Afro-Brazilian or deleted. B-Machine (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This article can be re-written, or a mass deletion of the first half could occur. I would prefer the former as it is less damaging. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think the article should be re-written, but it's not all that concerning at first glance. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really the right place for discussion of NPOV issues in articles.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a content issue, not an admin issue. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So here is my issue,

with a little bit of background. Recently while at the library where I work I got bumped off while being signed in without knowing it and discovered that I could not edit while signed off, that my IP address was blocked. I approached the person who blocked me [298] and had a sort of unsatisfying discussion but ended up thinking, "Oh well." Today a patron at the library who does not have internet at her home (quite common in this sort of remote chunk of America) wanted to register as a user (somewhat at my urging) and we discovered that the block would not allow this to happen. She could not register as a user. This is what I call bad feng shui. If someone is creating sockpuppets from the library where I work than I'd like to know about it. If this is some sort of blanket block, a dropping an atomic bomb to kill a few mice then I think it is a bad idea. So what do I do now? The patron will be back on Saturday (Jan 9th, 2010) and I told her that I'd help her get set up. Please do not make a lier out of me. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask your patron to go to WP:ACC with the username she wants and someone with the relevant rights should be able to do it for you. You might want to try that beforehand and if it doesn't work, you can email an administrator with the information and get them to do it. You could also consider requesting an {{unblock}} of the IP, explaining it belongs to a library used by many people. Hope that helps. HJMitchell You rang? 05:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

...and if I remember correctly, the "you are blocked" message says the same thing, n'est-ce pas? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The worrying file uploads of User:Persia2099

Persia2099 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Check out their log. An image they recently uploaded, File:Parthian cataphracts.svg, was deleted not that long ago, as an obvious copyright violation. What is concerning about this is not so much the copyright violation(although that is a pretty big concern), but several key factors, mainly with the point that this user is lying about what they are doing.

The key factors(in no particular order):

1. Images uploaded to file types do not match their file types. Examples: (File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg(gif), File:Parthian cataphracts.svg(gif), File:Achaemenid Infantry.svg(I'm assuming this was a gif as well))
2. Images uploaded give false information, such as the above File:Parthian cataphracts.svg was uploaded with the information of being a picture taken by a camera, when it quite obviously was not. Other examples where the meta-data doesn't match the summary: (File:Dead wolf.jpg(Summary: Canon Sure Shot Z135 camera, Meta-data: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP. E-410) .. there are more, but I don't think listing them is necessary.
3. User has violated copyright several times with the first 3 listed images.

Concerning these points, the behavior of their uploads is worrying. Sure, the images can't really be found using TinyEye or the like, but that doesn't mean that the user didn't upload them. Not all images that people take are uploaded elsewhere.Notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave a standard copyright warning message to the user based off the evidence from the deletion logs. I also added a note about OTRS just in case the user does in fact have permission but doesn't know the proper avenue in which to get it uploaded. This is basically a 4im-level warning at this point, in my opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

While false information is certainly an issue (which can easily be fixed), this post just reeks of copyright paranoia. Seriously. Why are people so ridiculously OCD about this? It's just ridiculous. No site has ever gotten into trouble for fair use images. For some reason, Wikipedia editors feel the need to have a 500-page legal document below every image, or else it gets deleted.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This comment is entirely unuseful. Copyright is an important issue, and if not controlled, could lead to willy-nilly copyright violation by anybody who wants to upload anything, and then what leg does Wikipedia have to stand on? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica seems to be doing just fine...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:General_Disclaimer#Fair_Use_and_Copyrighted_Materials You seem to have absolutely no idea of what you speak. They follow copyright just like we do, because they know that if they don't, they might be sued.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, using ED as an example that Wikipedia should follow? Woogee (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You must be joking. Why would we care what EB does or doesn't do? They are entirely unaffiliated with us. If they have copyright infringements, then this doesn't mean that we should. This is a very silly argument. Please don't use it again. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think the fair use rules are just about getting sued perhaps you misunderstand the "free" part of free encyclopedia. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand the free part, do not assume things about me that you don't know, I was simply citing an example that the wiki cited follows the rules we follow here as well, and I listed a possible reason.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you did, my response was to the IP claiming the post was copyright paranoia. Not sure why you are so quick to jump in and take offence--82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that I'm the only one who actually used the word sued, I find it difficult to believe you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the indentation, I indent one deeper than the IP I was responding to, you know as pretty standard practice, and my post is essentially supportive of the notion that we should give a fuck about copyright issue. Please if you can point out how caring about being interested in being a free encyclopedia is contradictory to your concern over these images, then I'd be interested to know. Ultimately if you don't believe me, then that's your problem. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios

This list will increase as more are discovered.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• File:Bisotoun inscription Darius the Great.jpg(Image, CP information at bottom of page.)
• File:Sassanid coast of arm.svg(just check the file page, it will be deleted soon)
• File:Derafsh e kavian.gif(Obviously exists elsewhere)
• File:ShapurII statue.jpg(Again, exists elsewhere)

I just looked at random at this user's edits to Darius I of Persia. This unreferenced diff [299] was copied and pasted from a posting on a blog from 2006 here. I am also wondering whether there is a possible link with the indef blocked editor Ariobarza (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also edited articles on Ancient Persian history. Mathsci (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

warning

I would suggest that someone give them a stern warning, as they have claimed copyright over work which is not their own, indeed, they have even lied about making it themselves. They have also done this on commons, where I requested the speedy deletion of both of their files, which were blatant copyvios.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

They have been warned already. But the last time they did an upload seems to have been December 2nd last year... have they uploaded since they were warned? If so, then probably they need to be blocked. Otherwise, it looks like they've corrected their behaviour. It's good that you have caught the copyright infringements though - good work! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

TfD Close?

Resolved

 – Discussion closed as keep. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please snow keep close Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Template:VG reviews. The pile on is getting a bit silly at this point and as far as I'm aware, non-admins can't close TfDs like you can AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. For what it is worth, non-admin closes are allowed at TFD in appropriate circumstances, although non-admin WP:SNOW closes are discouraged generally. --RL0919 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Cremepuff222

Resolved

 – Per below, there's a consensus to maintain the block, and review upon request after 3 months have elapsed, i.e. after 7 April, 2010. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi all,

I'm sure most of the regulars here are familiar with the recent Cremepuff222 debacle. I recently proposed a provisional unblock on User talk:Cremepuff222 which allows the editor to create or rewrite an article while blocked in a subsection of his talk page; and if the result is satisfactory, we unblock one week later barring any further issues. There have been some objections to this proposal, but also a few endorsements, so I'd like to hear some more opinions before going forward. Thanks! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse {{2nd chance}} approach. –xeno^talk 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (though, before anyone calls me on it, I know this is their 3rd chance (or something) - it will also be their last)

Here's an opinion: Don't feed the trolls. Friday (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's the troll? I only see a long-term user and admin who got bored one day and, after being blocked a couple times, turned himself around. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Two things, one - Whats to stop him getting bored again?, and two - I seem to recall he "turned himself around" after he got blocked the first time--Jac16888^Talk 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No. As much as it is your time to waste reading whatever Cremepuff wants to put up, I don't put any real faith in his protestations that 'OK, NOW I'M SERIOUS AND WILL NO LONGER BE AN ASS DESPITE ME SAYING THAT LAST TIME AND THEN BEING AN ASS'. Syrthiss (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's not a very helpful comment. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• All you need to really read is the 'No' part then. I've been an admin for far longer than cremepuff, from far fewer supports (since that is one of your arguments on his talkpage), and I've never had a day of being a tosser on wiki because there was nothing good on the vid. Is that more helpful? Syrthiss (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I strongly believe cremepuff should remain blocked, his block has nothing to do with his content editing, its down to his behaviour. He had his last chance and he blew it less than a week later, now he comes back saying the same crap he did then, even openly admitting that his actions were because he found the reaction funny. Add to this his sockpuppets, vandalism etc, I can't see how we can trust this user ever again. And as a final note, take at look at cremepuffs own opinion on a situation very similar to this, taken from his rfa.

:9. Let's say this happened: You came across a user who had done serious damage, then got unblocked and did even more damage. He says he really won't do any more damage, and please unblock him. He says that at the slightest bad thing from him, please block him. What would you do?

A: One thing IRC has taught me is that people who say this often will continue doing disruptive things. This can be applied to Wikipedia as well. The user would likely continue vandalizing if unblocked, and if not, he or she can create a new account and start over again.

--Jac16888^Talk 15:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• No thanks. Blocked for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after a week, and is blocked again for being disruptive and wasting time. Comes back after another week and requests unblock knowing that doing so after such a short time would be disruptive and would waste time. I'd assume we'd only have to wait a week after another unblock before that wasn't enough and he started being disruptive and wasting time again and got blocked again. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked liar, vandal and a waste of time who already had his "last" chance. Let him work constructively on some other wiki for six months and then come back, maybe.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unsure He was given a second chance already, and was reblocked. No doubt that he can be useful, and I believe in second chances, but thirds so quickly? It sets a bad precedent. JC, let me ask this: are you honestly willing to risk your personal reputation on Wikipedia by being linked to this situation? Hypothetically, would you put for example your adminship on the line for this kid, based in his actions since mid-December? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Sure. I'm willing to take full responsibility if I unblock him and he resumes being disruptive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per my notes on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Preserve the status quo. Got another chance, and blew it. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I found it disappointing how long it took us to deal with him last time, and don't think we need to make it worse by unblocking. Here we have a user who has clearly abused the admin tools, created sock puppets, and used them for vandalism, among other disruptive actions. They've been given a second chance already, and I see no good reason to give another. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Why are we wasting time on this user? Tan | 39 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. Has long since squandered the good faith of the project. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, at least for 1-year. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. I don’t go along with the proposer’s benevolent approach. CP himself has suggested 3 months; I’d just about go along with that. I simply don’t get this “develop an article on a talkpage” idea. Obviously he’s going to keep his nose clean for a week so what would it prove? I’m also unimpressed by another Admin’s idea of getting him to “agree” that any further disruption will lead to a swift re-block. Agree? Why does he need to agree to potential sanctions? As the same Admin. goes on to say, “we just need to ensure that the problematic behavior will stop.” Well it has stopped, so take up the editor on his own 3 months block suggestion. Leaky Caldron 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Blocked: see longer note on Cremepuff's talkpage. Maybe in six months Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Go for it We have nothing to lose and something to gain. Either he helps us make the encyclopedia or we just block him again. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts exactly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Question: Can someone please explain to me what, exactly, this user did? Some vandalism is far worse than others. If he got bored, wrote "LOLDONGS" on a page, and then apologized, I think it's safe to unblock him. If he posted a user's address and threatened to kill him... no. And how many times did he do this? EXPLAIN, dammit!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Who are you? why aren't ya signed in? GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Pssst... don't tell anyone, but I'm Jesus Christ. I'm not signed in because I don't want God to know what I'm doing with my spare time...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• He posted a few silly messages on talk pages and created some mostly harmless sock accounts. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• He also abused his admin tools by deleting pages for fun and blocking himself for fun; edited while logged out to vandalise articles and harass other users; and made disruptive comments on RfAs. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Mostly harmless...? HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the spamming of editors using the "e-mail this user" link, played a bunch of silly games, ran around saying "Oh, I did nothing at all wrong", etc, etc, ... should we link the two recent ANI threads here? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, deleting an article for fun was not a good idea, but that's why he's no longer an admin. I still can't see any cases where he actually vandalized an article. Could you please provide diffs? This all seems extremely putative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Firstly, as I keep saying to you, he doesn't need to have vandalised in order to be disruptive. However, this is him vandalising while logged out, for one. His vandal-sockpuppets also vandalised multiple articles. As Bwilkins points out, I received multiple spammy emails from him after his indef-block. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the user is just bored, jittery, and a bit immature. Sure, he definitely shouldn't be an admin... but an indefinite block seems a bit harsh for such a silly thing.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep him blocked. Sorry, but the links above are quite convincing. Julian, if you can provide some sort of rebuttal, I might reconsider my opinion. HJMitchell You rang? 16:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• No Ta We have enough drama without inciting more. had a second chance, blew it. Fool us once... Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked - Messed around, said sorry, messed around again, got blocked, said sorry, unblocked, messed around again, blocked again, rinse repeat. Once was a forgiveable offence, shame on them. Twice was shame on us. Several more times? We shouldn't waste any more time on this. Canterbury Tail talk 16:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked per Redvers, just one too many chances blown I'm afraid to say. I fully understand Julian's commendable good faith, but feel the communities continued extensions of good will have now been exhausted. Pedro :  Chat  16:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)x2 Not yet - I have no problem with a 2nd chance, but a test edit to an article on his talk page? It was a behavior block, not an ability to create/edit content. Having said that, it's too soon to even consider it. Try again in a couple of months if they're still interested in coming back. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Do the people who are suggesting that Cremepuff be unblocked really think that harrassing another editor is not significant? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked At the risk of WP:BEANS, I can almost guarantee that if left blocked, Creampuff will disappear for a short time, refresh his DHCP and get a new IP address, create a new account, and go off to edit articles he has never, ever touched before in order to evade his block. He will abandon the Creampuff account completely, and come back as either a total prick, or as a totally fantastic article editor. God forbid, however, that he *ahem* applies for adminship under that new account - we've suffered through that one enough already. I am all in favour of WP:AGF, but as I say here, I am not willing to ride the AGF toboggan into the trees below. The maturity level simply is not there to ensure consistency in his editing at this point - someday, he may prove me wrong, but today is not that day. Although Juliancolton may wish to continue riding the AGF toboggan, and hats off for that, I simply cannot (I was also one who recieved silly e-mails from Cremepuff). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Bwilkins, you !voted unsure above, care to strike this? Ikip 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you saying it's better to drive the editor underground - and into further socking - rather than cautiously unblocking them so they can be monitored in place? –xeno^talk 16:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(to xeno) we should never use the threat of possible future socking as a reason to unblock. If we keep him blocked and he comes back as a disruptive sock then we'll also block that sock when discovered. Syrthiss (talk) 16:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, threat of further socking is a good reason to keep the user blocked. Unblocking does not prevent socking anyways, ie good hand/bad hand. I am assuming though that his sock drawer is closed for now, but either way sock puppetry is no argument for unblocking. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't... I was responding to BWilkin's statement, which doesn't make much sense to me. I think the editor should be invited to complete the {{2nd chance}} process and be unblocked given their assurances the tomfoolery of the holiday is behind them. Though I understand the opposition per "fool me once...". –xeno^talk 17:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

xeno, I see this situation as significantly different than say ... the WGB situation at the top of the page. We're already past the fool me twice point, and the consistant "I've never done anything wrong, others just seem to think so *shrug*" attitude across his talkpage shows that he does not have the maturity to accept his "change". I almost encourage him to start afresh and keep his nose clean forever and prove me wrong, but I cannot - based on the reading - he's taking goodwill for granted. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked Although I was originally in favor of unblocking him, the spamming and deletions are concerning. Hopefully he leaves and comes back better than ever though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, stop feeding, and move on. We expect admins to know what is acceptable. Jonathunder (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Nobody should ever question authority...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr IP, will you ever post anything actually useful on this board? Just askin' (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, who cares? He's a random IP; his opinion automatically has no value. HalfShadow 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's the fact that he's contributing to a discussion he's not involved in about another editor's behavior while wearing a mask. And that's not typically helpful, especially if the IP is being provocative. Auntie E. 17:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

He's less anonymous than you are, and he has a right to his own opinion, which is just as valuable as yours. Prodego ^talk 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a wikiface, over 5000 edits, my record here is open to perusal, every conflict, every screwup, it's all there. If you want to call that "anonymous", go for it. Auntie E. 01:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I've been here longer than you have. And yes, contrary to popular belief, IP addresses are indeed living, breathing human beings.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please continue this separate discussion in a separate section, if at all, to help keep the threading clear. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sorry about that. I just got really pissed off with the "you're an IP, so you don't exist" bullcrap. I am trying really hard to refrain from personal attacks, but some people just make it really, really, really hard. And I'm on a medication that's making me jittery and agitation. I apologize if I've caused any disruptions.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm all for forgiveness and second chances, but this user has already had theirs. We all know the saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice ... CP already made us the fool by reneging on his "first second chance". Lets not make the fool of ourselves this time around. Shereth 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's fine if the community wants him to stay gone for now, but the wasting time argument is flawed—the only person wasting time would be me and any other admin who volunteers to monitor CP222 while unblocked... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)I’m not convinced that your persistent lobbying on his behalf isn't actually doing him more harm than good, not that I’m bothered about that. You’ve had an idea, it has not received universal support, yet you persist in chiming in with your counter-arguments. There IS more at stake than your time being wasted – it’s called credibility. Why not show a bit of wisdom and let it rest awhile because to me your stance is beginning to look OTT. Leaky Caldron 17:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• I think the verdict here is pretty clear, and anyone following Cremepuff's talk page already knows this, but since we're here now I also feel he should remain blocked. Why don't we call it WP:OFFER and be done with it for a while? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:OFFER sounds good...almost willing to reduce the time myself. Didn't CP suggest 3 months anyway, or did I read wrong? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

he suggested 3 months on his talk page. Leaky Caldron 17:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see no consensus to specify an end-time, and absolutely no agreement on what it should be. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not quibble over the exact details. How about we just say "don't ask to be unblocked or engage in sock puppetry for several months" and leave it to CP to decide when it's been long enough. That puts the ball n his court, and how long he waits will be a factor in the next discussion of his unblocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• strong unblock I find it ironic that most of the editors who are screaming no second chances here have screamed for lienency in other forums.
  Creampuffs crimes that I am aware of were incredibly minor and trivial. Treasury tag's smoking gun
  "abused his admin tools by deleting pages for fun and blocking himself" sounds bad on its face, but are obviously harmless when editors actually click these links. There was no disruption at all.
  In the spirit of WP:EQUALITY, compare this to editors blocking other editors they are in a dispute with dozens of times over several years and protecting pages they are in edit wars with, this infraction is a complete joke.
  From the edits differences I have investigated thus far, Creampuffs two real crimes are #1 acting immature, #2 not building a network of powerful editors to support him.
  User:Jehochman was talking about civility and NPA, but I personally feel this can be applied here:
  The problem is that our enforcement...has historically been quite selective. If you're unpopular or unpowerful and criticizing somebody popular or powerful, you are likely to be blocked. The other way around, not so much. We ought to come up with objective standards and stick to them.[300] Ikip 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Number 2 looks silly and irrelevant, but your number 1 is a great reason to leave him blocked. Wikipedia only benefits from editors who are able to behave like reasonable adults. Friday (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It is treasury's number 2. For those of you not familar with this crime:

02:19, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (132 revisions restored: oops)

02:17, 24 June 2009 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (:D)

02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) restored "Giggle" ‎ (78 revisions restored: Just for giggles)

02:30, 5 February 2008 Cremepuff222 (talk | contribs) deleted "Giggle" ‎ (Just for giggles)

A grand total of 2 minutes the Giggle page was deleted, in the space of 15 months, and then restored by cream, and editors are calling for an indefinite block. Was this during an edit war? Not to my knowledge. Was any other editors editing priveledges blocked? No.

Beeblebrox brings up the giggle deletions for the first time ever (to my knowledge) on 09:55, 17 December 2009 here at ANI, 6 months after the 2 minute 24 June 2009 deletion.[301] There has never been any conversation about the deletion before that, including on the Giggle page itself.[302]

I weigh this against other editors repeated disruption which is sanctioned by the community and there is truly no comparison. Ikip 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ikip and belated Happy New Year to you. I agree your point that objective standards should be used, otherwise there's a risk of what you called "selective enforcement". Are you talking about situations where repeated disruptions similar to Cremepuff222's were apparently sanctioned by the community, or do you mean disruptions that aren't similar but are arguably just as significant? BTW, I'm not going to !vote here, so this question is just about the wider wiki-jurisprudential issue(s). We can discuss elsewhere on-wiki if you prefer. - Pointillist (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I shy away from casual discussions with editors. I have seen how those casual philosophical conversations can sometimes come back and bite. Thank you for the generous offer though. :) I refer you to the essay WP:EQUALITY. Creampuffs behavior was stupid and immature, I have said this repeatedly. Thanks. Ikip 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying so quickly. My question wasn't casual: I was specifically asking you for examples from historical cases that would help identify general principles for future situations. Of course there's a risk such principles would "come back and bite", but that goes with using "objective standards" as you proposed. It doesn't seem reasonable that you can argue points about other situations without identifying them (apart from this). I've always seen you as being on the side of greater transparency and straightforwardness, so I hope this is just a little misunderstanding. - Pointillist (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

RE:

• User:TreasuryTag: "[ User:Cremepuff222 ] also abused his admin tools by...blocking himself for fun." (above)
• User:Wehwalt blocked Cremepuff222 stated reason: "User not allowed to unblock himself" (after Cremepuff222 blocked himself)[303]

I sampled 135 of the 1698 current admins.

These user included all admins with bureaucrat and checkuser rights, in addition to the first 87 admins (alphabetically) with edit filter manager rights:

• 23 admins (17%) had tested their accounts by blocking themselves.
  • of these, 6 admins had blocked themselves for fun.
  • of these, 2 admins had blocked themselves then unblocked themselves later.

All 1698 admin self-block links can be found at User:Ikip/test57.

Sample of administrators who have blocked themselves

Testing Angela Rdsmith4 UninvitedCompany Brion_VIBBER Deskana Tim_Starling Fred_Bauder Mackensen ABCD Antandrus Carnildo Dragons_flight Graham87 For fun Animum "with an expiry time of a partridge in a pear tree" "with an expiry time of a hoagie, two water fountains, and a blue jay" "Obvious sockpuppet" Anonymous_Dissident%E2%80%8E "let me just see what its like ;)" Ilyanep "I've never been blocked and am wondering about what the screen looks like ;P" "can I really block myself?" Acroterion "Creating nonsense pages: Disruptive account - extending to indefinite" Chris_G "ZOMG SKYNET!!!!!!" "Oppse must be careful with DerHexters Tool" DarkFalls "What does it feel like to be blocked?" Unblocking self Icestorm815 "I am back and able to edit now" Chris_G "Stop anyone missusing my account while on wikibreak" Other admins not included in this sample which have blocked themselves Juliancolton Moreschi A+Man+In+Black

Rules about editors requesting to be blocked by admins:

• Wikipedia:BLOCKME#Self-requested_blocks
  • Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_15#WP:BLOCKME
  • Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_15#Self-requested_blocks

Ikip 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for going to all that trouble, but it proves nothing. I expect that a high proportion of people living in London have committed insurance fraud, say; while it's widespread, it doesn't become any more acceptable.

Cremepuff's messing about with the admin tools in terms of blocking himself was symptomatic of his general abuse (such as the deletion-and-undeletion) as well as non-admin-related nonsense. The fact that some other, respected, contributors have done this occasionally in a non-disruptive way doesn't reflect well on them, but it certainly doesn't exonerate Cremepuff. ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:MASTADON#Avoid_angry_mastodons: When people are involved in disputes there is a tendency to take offense, sometimes called "mock outrage", at statements that are either not intended as slights, or that transgress the norms of discussion only in a technical sense but are not in fact hurtful to the target of the comment." Ikip 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked, why do we need a "bored, jittery, and a bit immature" editor around? Stop feeding him. –blurpeace ^(talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked. Enough disruption. Pcap ping 21:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked but... not an indef block. I think it should be until the end of January, and then if JulianColton (and any other admins) want to monitor CremePuff222, then they can do so. Alternatively, is it possible for specific editing restrictions to be set in place as a condition of unblocking? I think that there would be enough people who would notice his actions that a listing at WP:RESTRICT could be policed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock or reduce block length - someone who was trusted enough to be granted the bit can be productive again. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seriously? The fact that he had the bit and still did all this makes him far less trustworthy as far as I'm concerned--Jac16888^Talk 02:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think it means that he was once trusted and productive but then got sidetracked and bored. I think that he can come back and make a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Actually, I feel that the potential benefits outweigh the negatives by such a large margin that I am willing to propose this. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ed is absolutely correct. I don't know of any troll who's willing to spend years being productive, mature, and well-behaved—sufficient to pass RfA, one of Wikipedia's most strict forums for criticism—just to make a few silly edits at the end. Maybe your trolls are more advanced than mine, though. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think there is a bit of a disconnect here, with regards to reducing the block. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. That is what we always say, and how this block should be applied. If CP does not have community support for unblocking at this time (it seems clear he does not, although a minority do support his return) then the block should simply be left on until such time as the community will sanction his return. If he doesn't engage in socking and doesn't keep requesting unblock once a week he wold most likely be unblocked in a few months, but even then yet another discussion of the matter will probably be warranted. When he feels enough time has elapsed, he can request unblock again, and if he hasn't jumped the gun or evaded the block, the block will most likely be rescinded at that time. Giving him a specific length of time where all he has to do is wait it out and then he's automatically let back in seems unwise in the case of a user who block is upheld by consensus. But consensus can, and in these types of cases almost always does, change over time. "Indefinite" does not mean "forever," it simply means that the length is not defined. Rather than prolonging this debate with a discussion of block length, I really feel we should just leave it lie for now. CP wants one more chance to prove himself, seeing if he can just sit there and not edit and not ask ask to be unblocked for a few months is that chance. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Reduce block length, long probation Having interacted with Cremepuff on his talk page, he seems to be contrite and aware of what he did wrong. Blocks are not meant to be punitive. We must weigh the potential damage to the project against the potential gain. We have in Cremepuff a long-term productive editor who made a few silly edits then renegged on his promise not to. He never really damaged the project, just annoyed a bunch of people. Let him think about things for a month or so, then let him back on probation. I can think of several editors whose behaviour has been far worse that have never received more than a 2 week block. Cremepuff is correct in saying that the reaction to his behaviour is overblown. His block is well-deserved, just as his eventual unblock will be. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Message from Cremepuff222

I am reproducing the below message from Cremepuff222 that was just posted to their talk page [304]. –xeno^talk 23:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm glad that the community is providing input on the situation, but I have a few thoughts on what has been said so far. As I am not able to post there, I will instead post them here. If someone could bring up at ANI that I have said these things on my talk page, I would much appreciate it.

First of all, it seems that everyone is under the impression that I want to be outright unblocked. I have said a few times that I feel the block length is unfair, and that is what I wanted to be discussed. I did post the {{unblock}} template on my userpage, but only did so in order to bring editors to my talk page to discuss the matter. My apologies if I didn't make myself clear, but that is why I brought this up in the first place. I didn't do it to cause more disruption.

I have been accused of being a liar, a vandal, and a troll, among other things ("jittery", "immature", ...). I have been very upfront about my doings, and throughout the whole ordeal I have been very cool, I haven't made any personal attacks, and I haven't responded to anything "immaturely" (in my eyes at least), and I have certainly not engaged in any trolling. My actions were certainly not called for, but I find the responses to them rather harsh.

Much of this debate is related to my allegedly harassing another user. Are edits like [305][306][307][308] really that big of a deal? Would it not have been easier to discuss the edits directly with my rather than going off to the administrator noticeboard? I have also been accused of abusing Special:EmailUser. I do not deny that I used them for non-constructive purposes. However, I never went on a massive email spam rampage like it sounds like at ANI. I sent one to User:Anonymous Dissident thanking him for this edit, and one to User:Bwilkins regarding this comment. I sent User:TreasuryTag three, all asking him to discuss the issue with me, rather than bringing more people into the drama. I don't see that any of these are abusive, and if the receivers thought they were trolling, they should have asked.

I agree and acknowledge that my actions have caused much disruption and waste of time, but I still find the actions themselves not very disruptive in themselves. I still see users bringing up certain admin actions that I am not proud of. Sure they look bad, but what harm actually came from them? I doubt anybody would have even noticed if I hadn't engaged in my recent edits.

If the community feels that I am not ready for an unblock right now, I still feel that the block should not be indefinite. Anywhere from a month to a year seems reasonable to me. I think the community should move away from this "guilty/not guilty" phase and decide on an expiration time for the block.

Much appreciation to everyone for discussing this matter. --cremepuff222 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I don't see why the bar should be set at "very disruptive". Why not just refrain from being disruptive at all? I've been here for more than five years, and have never made a single edit "for the lulz". If you think dicking around a little bit is ok, I think you should go away until you don't think that anymore. This isn't romper room; it's an encyclopedia. Play silly buggers offline, and when you're here, play it straight. Thousands manage to do this; CP222 should be able to do it as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well said sir. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Two points, really. Firstly, despite what is claimed above, I did try to discuss the harrassy-talkpage-edits with Cremepuff first; he ignored this, so obviously I came to ANI next. What else did he expect me to do?

Secondly, his multiple emails to me were not "all asking [me] to discuss the issue" – the first said, "Sup. :P Gonna post this on ANI as more evidence that I should be burnt at the stake? Okay. :) Sounds like great fun!" (very constructive!), the second simply, "How predictable. :) Thanks for your help!" (not really how Cremepuff described it above!), and the third was vaguely threatening in tone: "You make me giggle, you silly goose you. :) Making it sound like I'm spamming you hundreds of emails? Okay. How about instead of going off and complaining to the big old administrators you talk to me yourself for once?"

So, even now, he lied about me going straight to ANI rather than coming to him first; he lied about the contents of his spammy emails... and it's so blatant, too :( ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 08:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He also appears to have forgotten the email he sent me, so his account is slightly short of being comprehensive. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly is disturbing. Could you specify the dates that those emails were sent, so we can see how they stack against CP's recent statements? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I received mine (the only email contact I've ever had with him) at 12:03pm, 12:09pm and 12:15pm – UK time – on December 24th. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Redvers, Throwaway, TT: [309] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption elsewhere

Per a template I have been developing, I ran across something on test-wiki. To that effect, I have asked 222 this question. I realize that test wiki is not wikipedia, but this should still count for something.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, off-wiki behaviour has no bearing on an editor's on-wiki status. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You do not recall correctly. Several times now, editors have had privilages removed for off-wiki behavior, such as creating a blog to personally attack others outside the site, release their personal information, calling another's employers because of an RfA vote.. the list goes on. Indeed, if Cremepuff can't even follow policy at the test-wiki, letting a clear nonsense page remain against policy, what evidence is there that they will here? They already broke a promise once.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of the instances you listed were due to gross misconduct with possible legal implications. We're talking about protecting a Douglas Adams quote. I fail to see the parallel. For example, were I to violate the policies of some other wiki, say, encyclopedia dramatica, that violation would have no impact on my status here. It's a similar situation. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica is trolling in encyclopedia form, not a good one to cite... Soxwon (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

~~

My thought

• Give it a month: I get a funny feeling that we are still the subject of a big running joke. Give him a month to produce several nice sourced articles. If, after a month, there is enough content to satisfy folks, he can be unblocked. That would be long enough and enough reward to make me not feel like a dupe. If it happens again, we go for two months - and will look for two months of content. We have countless people who have far worse records and waste far more time, that are allowed to continue almost unabated. Also, for the record, put me down as not caring in the least what happens at a test wiki. Wknight94 ^talk 01:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how article contributions are even relevant here. The user was blocked for troll-like interactions with other users, not something to do with poor contributions to the mainspace. They should not be judged upon their contributions to the mainspace, but by the ability to follow key policy, such as their interaction with other users. Take for instance, the question which I asked them, linked above. They replied that they thought the page was awesome/funny, despite the fact that it was against policy on the test wiki. If they are unwilling to abide by policy there, what is stopping them here? Oh right, a block. Let's keep it that way until they can show to not keep a page because they think it's funny.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Article contributions are always relevant. That's what we do. Troll-like interactions can be shut down in minutes (esp. if the usual ANI whirlwind is shut down more quickly than usual). That's an acceptable price to me if the reward is a whole month's worth of good content. It gets the encyclopedia built with only a few minutes of intermission. Wknight94 ^talk 02:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I share Daedalus' reservations re: relevancy, I can certainly see no harm coming from allowing Cremepuff to edit articles in his userspace then copying them over. Let's give it a shot. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Thought from Cremepuff222

Cremepuff posted the following on his talk page and asked for it to be copied over:

It seems that the general consensus of the community is that I should remain blocked, though most editors have expressed that the block should not be indefinite. This is perfectly understandable, and I'm willing to wait out my block. I think all of the evidence has been brought forth, but if there are still any questions feel free to ask.

I feel that this is dragging on a bit too long... is anyone willing to draw a conclusion as to what should be done? Should I ask to be unblocked again in a month or so? Or should a block expiration date be set? I am also willing to write/rewrite an article to prove that I am still dedicated to the project, if that is what the community thinks I should do. Any ideas? --cremepuff222 (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I see no problem with revisiting the matter in a month. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't suggest less than three. That was the minimum mentioned above. Auntie E. 04:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I also wouldn't suggest any less than three; the fact that he openly lied about the contents of his spam-emails, and still feels hard-done-by because I told him to stop edits like, "Do you like apples?" on my talkpage, rather than discussing it with him (!) suggests that he is nowhere near ready to return yet. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 08:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Support 3 month block -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support review of block in 3 months. It seems a reasonable amount of time to allow the wounds to heal somewhat and for him to learn his lesson, though I don't think we should guarantee an unblock after that time. It should either be up to an individual admin or decided via a thread here or at AN. HJMitchell You rang? 10:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I haven't weighed in before now, but I think a 3 month block (then another review) is reasonable as well, and seeing that Cremepuff222 is amenable to such an idea it seems fair. -- Atama頭 17:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I think he should stay blocked for 3 months, then at said time he should write an article or something of content contribution, that shows that he is again serious about contributing to this project. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 17:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - A review in 3 months seems fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support - this is effectively what was suggested above as WP:OFFER, as was the 3 month period before a review. Such review definately has to come with SPI checks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support 3 month review per emerging consensus. Would be open to further reduction upon steady controversy-free article improvement from Cremepuff. I do find it slightly distressing that Cremepuff's block appears more punitive than preventative, given that nothing he did really harmed the project. Annoyed many, many people, sure, but no real harm to the project. I've seen people who were much more malicious get much, much shorter blocks. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Support closing this thread and being done with it since CP seems to have agreed to try again later, and he's already blocked, there is really no need to keep !voting/discussing this. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.