Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive484

Xx236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) most of his time spends on articles' talk pages disusing editors. Some old past characteristic edits (some of them are in general amnesty time frame):

• 2007-06-26T11:45:07 NKVD rulez
• 2007-02-19T14:45:22 Lokyz, don't address your texts to me, even your thank you is offensive for me.
• 2007-12-28T15:24:28 Hi Mr censor
• 2007-12-28T15:24:28 Thank you for you open bias. TV series Smersh is a must for you etc.

In the past I tend to ignore this Polish contributor, but recently he crossed the limit:

• 2008-06-19T11:08:37 don't do your propaganda here
• 2008-10-03T09:29:33 Adolf Hitler would be proud of you.
• 2008-10-06T06:55:13 racist texts, apparently addressing to his comment
• 2008-10-08T09:34:31 Have someone nominated you to prosecute the Poles, or are you a self made D.A.?
• 2008-10-08T15:38:24 Your activities in Dariusz Ratajczak are close to vandalism. referring to my edits [1] [2].
• 2008-10-14T10:32:36 You are vandalising this article. referring to my edits [3] [4] (+ I am the principal contributor on this article)

This contributor is long enough on Wikipedia to familiarize himself not only with

The article Dariusz Ratajczak should be removed, because the person isn't notable. If preserved - the article shouldn't be used instrumentally by M.K. as one of his several anti-Polish battlegrounds. Dariusz Ratajczak is a living person, the article is biographical. Xx236 (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just because you don't think he's notable, doesn't give you the right to breach the civility policy. Cut it out. Discuss the article, not the people editing it. --

how do you turn this on

16:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even here I am accused of being "anti-Polish". Straightforward another personal attack. M.K. (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Folks, don't turn this into an arguing den. It's not a den of any sort, it's AN/I. M.K, no personal attacks have been made on this page yet. If we see one being made here, we'll take action. Equally, if anyone starts using this page to argue, we'll take action. A complaint has been made, let's see if people chip in with solutions, and keep the mudslinging off here.. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am pleased to hear this, now lets see if it actually works. Cheers, M.K. (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing this, the good Doctor and I have sorted out our differences directly between our talk pages and will be dropping a proposal on the NC pages later together. :)

• For those curious to follow it through, discussion has moved to here.
  T
  ) 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP blocked

This IP is doing nothing but vandalism. The IP has a long history of it and in the last few days have recieved many warnings (including today) but contiues to vandalize (their current main target is

Resolved

 – Gb^T/c 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Or more specifically the dates parts of it. For example Windows 98;

Current version: 4.10.1998 ("Gold"), 4.10.2222A ("SE"), 1998-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 3862 days ago ("Gold"), 1999-Template:MÁNUÐUR-05; 3449 days ago ("SE") info

As you can see there appears to be some attempt to add a template that doesn't actually exist. If you look at .NET Reflector

Latest release 5.1.3 / 2008-Template:MÁNUÐUR-18; 25 days ago

So that's two different info boxes, but both software related both of which have date weirdness. There appears to be a bunch of transclusions to this non-existent template, but I cannot for the life of me workout where it's being included from. --Blowdart | ^talk 16:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It was all caused by an edit to {{

Release date and age}} where the word "month" was replaced with "MÁNUÐUR", which is Icelandic for the word "month". Anyway, that template was fixed, and it the problem has been corrected - you might have to purge your cache to get it to display correctly again. Shereth

17:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. --Blowdart | ^talk 18:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Fixed..._Gb^T/c 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

A change to the template:

Fixed, I think. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rapid response - I don't know why the move you did worked, but it seems to have fixed it.— Rod ^talk 10:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When the text was moved outside the <noinclude> and </noinclude> tags it was included in the article :) Moving it back within the tags stopped it. It's explained here. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AIV is that way. fish&karate

12:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So it is; and were I reporting vandalism, that's what I would have used. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The edits are bad, but I would be amazed if an admin working on AIV would handle this.—Kww(talk) 13:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Done! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Pigs-on-the-wing that this is/was disruption rather than vandalism. If the British approach is to treat it like a plural, then so be it. And I'm pretty sure it is, an other example (from Monty Python) being that such-and-such a city "have never won the English football cup" (not "has" never won, as we would say in America). Also note that it's the "The Beatles were", not "The Beatles was", no matter which side of the Atlantic you're on. What's with all these bogus "grammar" arguments today? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammar-negative bacteria in the water? Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 13:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got the germ of an idea there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Spend some time watchlisting any British band that are popular in the US, hehe - certainly at least one well-intentioned person a week "corrects" the perceived grammar mistakes in the lead of Iron Maiden. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though it's not standard American English usage, I could easily argue that it should be, for consistency. "The Beatles" and "Iron Maiden" and "Pink Floyd" are all bands, with multiple members. The British are pluralizing based on that fact rather than on the words used to make up the groups' names. But in sports we take the British approach to some extent: "The New York Yankees are..." and "The Minnesota Wild are..." show consistent usage. But with bands, for some unknown reason, it's not done that way. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to take this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to get a consensus. While 98.192.11.182's edit pattern is definitely disruptive, Andy's assertion that British English should always pluralise collectives ...

Note: This article is written in British English, which treats collective nouns like bands as plurals (that is: Pink Floyd ARE a band). Don't change this

...is plain wrong.

UK English swings both ways according to context (i.e. whether the focus is on the collective as a single entity or as its members). See, for instance, Huddlestone and Pullum -

Geoff Pullum is one of the current authorities on English descriptive linguistics). "Pink Floyd are a band" looks pretty weird to me. The statement is about the band as a single collective entity - the thing called "Pink Floyd" - so "Pink Floyd is a band" is preferable. Whatever, putting stealth editorial inside articles as comments is not the way to handle it, nor, I guess, discussing a content issue here. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Gordonofcartoon (talk

) 16:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Aha. So there's still a question of whether Pigs-on-the-wing are right or wrong about this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but is ANI the place for such discussion? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did I assert that "British English should always pluralise collectives"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry! As you were defending it against 98.192.11.182's changes, I assumed you were the one who added the "Note: This article is written in British English ... etc" to the article. Whoever added it, though, it's bollocks. (I see there's a discussion at Talk:Pink Floyd#Subject/Verb Agreement, but nobody actually seems to be basing their arguments on anything tangible like corpus data or current usage guides - which don't support the "are" version).

As you say, here isn't the place to discuss it - except that it makes a difference if you're reverting on grounds of undoubted correctness or on grounds of disputed opinion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the Pink Floyd website, it says "Pink Floyd have received the such-and-such award for their contribution..." Presumably, the writer of that page knows how to refer to his own group. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems commonsense to me. Pink Floyd are a group, groups are made up of more than one person, just as football teams are, so we talk of them in the plural. Here in the UK we would say the group are going on tour, or ,the football team are playing tonight. Jack forbes (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

In America, we would say "the Yankees are" but would say "the Yankees team is". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something, or are abusive IPs edits repeatedly getting past the indefinite semiprotection that appears to have been applied and reapplied to this article several times without apparent effect? -- The Anome (talk)

It appears that the prior protections had been 24 hours each and eventually expired. The newest protection added today shows "indefinite", so that shouldn't happen again. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, talk pages aren't generally supposed to be protected long term (it may be the only way for an IP address editor to contact the user), but in cases where repeated vandalism occurs after the unprotection fades, it may be wise to either increase the time its semi protected or to indef semi-protect it and wait it out till the vandals lose interest. SirFozzie (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

My bad. I forgot to read the expiration dates. -- The Anome (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems to happen quite a lot: the semi expires, but the page doesn't de-tag. HalfShadow 01:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving my complaint from

This user is having repeated problems with using non-verifiable sources and not using sources in general. Looking at the user's contributions, he mostly edits articles about Chinese military hardware, and often mis-cites. This user also adds information that is not backed up by reliable sources. Also fails to properly use edit summaries, or when making potentially controversial edits, seeks consensus. Has already been given a edit warring warning [9] , and was warned by a administrator [10] about the issue. He has also been warned plenty of times in the past about using non-verifiable sources or non-sourced edits [11] [12] [13].

It appears that friendly warnings are having minimal effect on him; it was only a threat of a banning by a administrator regarding a specific page has actually made him stop on that specific page. This user needs further scrutiny and perhaps a warning with way more teeth. Either the user fails to understand Wikipedia policies, or requires extra help (which has not been asked by the user, but has been provided with the resources, such as the policies regarding reliable sources to correct such behaviour in the past). ThePointblank (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I gave him a one-day block. He stopped immediately after your warning and then continued again hours later. The lack of discussion at all is what got him. He needs to learn to respond to other people, not just sit by and do the same things again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Geniusdream (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long line of image violations, with a final warning from Bearian three days ago, even though I'm not 100% sure the final warning is an image final warning: this editor seems to be a problem in multiple arenas. Today, he's been uploading copyright violations and overwriting a free image with multiple copyrighted images [14], [15][16].—Kww(talk) 00:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a final warning specially stating it's for image violations. ~

User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk}

) 01:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no harassment (or harrassment), issue closed Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The above user has already spent far more time and energy copping an attitude than would have been required to simply answer my questions. He has now deleted three fair questions and comments from his talk page, so I'm done talking to him... hopefully permanently. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And the "past experience", to which he refers, goes all the way back to yesterday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am now asking the same reasonable question of other users who I suspect have equal knowledge but a less obstinate attitude. The complaining editor clearly has no idea of what real harassment consists of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

IF he is sincere about that, that would solve the problem. We'll see. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he'll stop. That's that then.

^X

04:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any harassment - rather I see attempts at discussion and an attempt by Ward3001 to avoid discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Shh, you don't tell reporting editors that they were wrong.

^X

04:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen many cases where the complaining editors are the ones that ended up with indef-blocks. I don't think that's called for here, though. What I'm seeing is a guardianship of the E.T. page that borders on ownership. That's understandable, as I am pretty protective of certain pages also. The difference is that I'm always willing to talk to anyone who raises a question, and I don't try to dictate to them where they can ask those questions, as my talk page does not belong to me any more than an article's talk page does. And when I do ask them to refocus on an article's talk page, I actually continue the discussion there, instead of pushing it there so that I can ignore it and not have to see orange "new message" banners. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is, I have simply asked for the discussion to occur on the article's talk page so that the entire Wikipedia community can be aware rather than Baseball Bugs repeatedly sending messages to me. I have expressed opinions on the article's talk page, let's see what others have to say. I just want the discussion confined to that talk page, not mine. I'm not avoiding discussion, I just want it in the right place. Ward3001 (talk) 04:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk pages exist so users can send messages to each other. It's not outside his rights to want to contact you directly. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Precisely, and he didn't ask, he ordered. I am not in the habit of following orders that aren't rule-based. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, a kinder soul both answered my question and found a citation: [22] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not outside anyone rights to send a message. But when the debate pertains to an article, and the recipient of the messages (again and again and again) requests that the discussion should be moved to the article's talk page, then it becomes harrassment. Note as evidence of the proper venue for discussion that once the issue was moved to the article's talk page, the issue was almost immediately resolved. Baseball Bugs wasn't satisfied with addressing the issue pertaining to the artice (on the article's talk page). He had to repeatedly add comments to a user's talk page, long after the user requested that discussion occur on the article's talk page. His purpose wasn't to discuss the issue; that could have been done very easily on the article's talk page. His purpose was to harrass a user with whom he had a disagreement. Ward3001 (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't "ask", you ordered, despite the lack of any rule or authority to issue such an order. You are the one at fault here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's get a little perspective on the time frame involved. It was only when Baseball Bugs sent five messages to my talk page ([23], [24], [25], [26], and [27]) after I asked him to take it up on the article's talk page that I insisted that he cease harrassing me. I didn't begin the discussion by insisting on anything. I simply told him that I wished to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. It's quite a stretch to call that ordering him to do something. There was absolutely no reason he needed to send those messages to my talk page except harrassment. He could have taken the issue up on the article's talk page very easily because I had copied our entire discussion there and had informed him of such, but discussing the issue on the article's talk page wouldn't have been enough harrassment for me, would it? And he couldn't even stop at that. He had to throw in a personal attack in one of the edits. And speaking of ordering other editors, he didn't have any compunctions in the least about ordering me to put something on the article's talk page if I moved the discussion there in this edit. And I wish someone would explain how I was trying to "take ownership" of the article based on two edits in which I properly asked for a source. The last time I checked

WP:OWN, asking for sources is not assuming ownership. This is not me "taking ownership" or "ordering" or any of the other descriptors that Baseball Bugs conveniently came up with after the fact. Once I moved the issue to the article's talk page, it was pure and simple harrassment. Ward3001 (talk

) 00:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I also find it interesting that Baseball Bugs has had a couple of blocks for ... (take a guess: not simple vandalism, not 3RR, not those thing that don't directly involve other editors ... no he was blocked for) ... harrassing users. Ward3001 (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, 10 months ago. And it was for something more like actual harassment, not for asking fair questions on a user page despite being ordered not to by someone who thinks the user page is his personal property. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

10 months ago does not make it less of a pattern of behavior. If I am arrested for shoplifting for a third time, how much sympathy will the judge have if I say, "But the first two times were 10 months ago"? And you have utterly failed to explain why you had to ask "fair questions" on my talk page rather than the article's talk page after I moved the discussion there. You ignore that little detail because it's that particular issue that defines your behavior as harrassment. Why did it have to be on my talk page, when you could raise any issue with the whole community on the article's talk page? And, of course, your feeble reply will be that you wanted an answer from me rather than the whole community, despite the fact that I am perfectly capable of responding to your questions from the article talk page (and it's my choice whether I want to reply to you despite your ordering me to reply), and placing your questions there might have generated opinions from editors in addition to me. If anyone was assuming ownership it was you, assuming that you owned my talk page (and even owning my editing rights) by harrassing me instead of placing your concerns where they belonged. Ward3001 (talk) 12:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but once it was resolved Ward3001 could have just Cc'd the discussion over to the Talk page. I've done similar things in the past when I felt like a particular conversation needed to be visible in another place. No need to make a federal case out of it...

It's funny, when I saw the section header, I was all set to say, "Baseball Bugs can be kind of a dick sometimes, but when he is, he's almost always in the right." hahaha, no offense Bugs. But you weren't even being a dick this time! How disappointing. heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When I'm accused of something, such as harassment or wikistalking or disruption or edit-warring or of being a general pest or a jerk, I would at least like for the accusation to have some merit to it. I strongly object to lame accusations. Or at least I lamely object. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. How exactly does this define as Harassment? ~ Troy (talk) 03:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

He saw it as harassment because he ordered me to stop asking him questions on his talk page, which he is under the mistaken impression is his own property, and I ignored his order and continued to ask questions because I actually believed (AGF) that he might answer them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Truly odd ... on Wikipedia we try to discuss and resolve issues on each others Talk pages ... suddenly, the communication pillar of Wikipedia is harassment? Although, it might have been mildly humourous to see Bugs with a 24hr ban ... any post that has "lame", "jerk" and "dick" within a few words of each other deserves some action :-)

(drive)

13:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Picky, picky, picky. :) Most users are open to reasonable discussion on their own talk pages. Some adopt an ownership attitude and try to manage the behavior of others or to stonewall them. One index for such behavior is User:Tecmobowl, who managed to get everyone mad at him for just such behavior and was eventually indef-blocked. In this case, the user's behavior is nowhere close to that, although I have confidence that with some effort he could at least get into Tecmobowl's neighborhood. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I think there have been more comments here after the "resolved" posting than there were before it. So I'll stop commenting now (unless something new and different comes up) and hopefully this "resolved" thread will get archived soon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no action needed here, community updated by this notice. Toddst1 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Referring back to the latest recent discusson about Oxford Round Table, I have created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Astutescholar. Toddst1 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting report. It seems to be a complex case. An experienced admin should investigate this case. AdjustShift (talk) 07:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RFCU shows yet another highly likely sock. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – FBI contacted, nothing further can be done. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Against Barack Obama here by 74.167.102.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). It's a static IP. I've blocked the user. Can someone else follow up with law enforcement please? I have a RL commitment that I need to attend to or would do it myself. https://tips.fbi.gov/ would be where would start - I've had quick response on issues like this in the past from that site - they've called back within minutes. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 00:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I second this request - we should not take these kinds of threats lightly. Tvoz/talk 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've contacted them via the link Todd has provided with the url of the diff. Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

02:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did the same thing now that I'm back. Thanks Eric. Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service just called. Couldn't access the diff. It's kind of scary to think that the people guarding our leader can't pull up a web page. :) Erik the

Red 2 ~~~~

03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

← Did we provide the IP address and any other information that a checkuser can find? Tvoz/talk 06:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

IP address and time is all they need. Yes, they have that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking that this is the type of publicity wikipedia doesn't need. However, if someone actually gets nailed for this, such publicity might (I only say might) discourage future threats. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Two editors
  Osho
  article.
• Discussion had led to a condition of lede stability that lasted a number of weeks. User Jayen466 then made this change [28].
• Semitransgenic reverted to this [29] and requested, via the edit comment, that any such changes be discussed on the talk page first.
• This led to the following revert [30] by Jalal and the following comment [31].
• Jalal claims that concensus for his reversion was arrived at and is citing the following as support [32] [33] [34]
• Semitransgenic again reverted to this [35]
• Jayen466 reverted to [36] and left the following statment saying I prefer the shorter version
• The users are forcing a
  WP:3RR
  stand off to desuade change, and have not reached concensus.
• An informal review relating to GA approval by Vassayana, on the 14th of August 2008, mentions that the lede is a bit too long and this is being cited as justification for excising from the lede material that is viewed as negative by both Jalal & Jayen466; despite the fact that efforts were made to address a wider range of sources and establish evidence of differing opinion: [37] [38].

This is simply one incident of many relating to a pattern of

Seems like a content dispute. I had forgotten about that guy. Oregon has a reputation for being tolerant of all types of loonies, but this guy's crowd pushed the state's tolerance level pretty far. Have you tried talking to the other editors directly, about the most recent disputes? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found that talking to the two in question is often futile, when there is a difference of opinion about content, and it's a 2:1 scenario, hence this post. The lengths that need to be taken to make the smallest contributions are tiring, see the source reviews I provided as an example. Semitransgenic (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• First, from the header of this page: "This page is not part of our dispute resolution process. If you want to discuss the possible misuse of administrative powers, you can do so here. However this is not the Wikipedia complaints department. If your problem concerns a content issue and does not need the attention of administrators, please follow the steps in dispute resolution." This is a content dispute;
  informal review that the lede needed "some trimming"; the previous GA review
  likewise commented on the lede being a bit long.

• Now, given that the last sentence of the second
  lede paragraph clearly states that there were problems with the government and the surrounding society, the addition to the 3rd para advocated by Semitransgenic
  (and no one else) does not add value and only makes the lede even longer than it already was.

• As for "dictatorial attitude": this accusation is part of a periodically recurring pattern of
  WP:AGF infractions by Semitransgenic (talk · contribs): [39] [40] [41] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#No_personal_attacks User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#How_about_some_mediation_and_general_cooling-off.3F Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive483#Editing_dispute_on_the_Noise_music_page [42] [43] User_talk:Semitransgenic/Archive#RFC
  .

• I am sorry, Semi, but at the moment it just seems like every time you do not get your way, even over the slightest thing, it becomes a huge personal issue. This is not what Wikipedia is about. You have contributed much to the article, but so have I and others. Jayen466 13:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

• Not a personal issue at all Jayen, simply a matter of dealing with the facts, some of which you are not comfortable with. Semitransgenic (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Jayen if you really need to air my dirty laundry please keep the comments in context, cheers full comment Semitransgenic (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues have been hashed out in great detail on other parts of Wikipedia, so I won't repeat them here, except to mention that there is also a lot similar to-and-fro'ing from January 2008. For anyone with the time to search through the histories it is there. I will however add my opinion that I find Semitransgenic dictatorial and bullying and difficult to work with. It is up to him as to whether he wants to look at that. It is not only editors on the Osho article that have had this experience, so it is not just the subject matter that is controversial and disturbing to him.

As the Osho article stands, it is to all intents frozen as edits cannot be made without some sort of approval from Semitransgenic. This is the same situation as arose in January. The article had to be locked and administrators called in.

On the plus side, Semitransgenic has provided a lot of useful input and a certain balance to the article. His input is usually good, it's his attitude that is a little difficult. jalal (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote jalal on this: "As you are aware, that is a sword that cuts both ways." Semitransgenic (talk) 15:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which this board does not deal with. Please pursue

If editors need a break to be able to sort out a DR process, we could protect the article for say 7 days to afford them some space and time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine by me. Jayen466 16:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue posted the other day about

I don't think a block will work as the IP keeps rotating. Given the increasing desire to post the copyright, I'll try a week-long semi and let's see if they stop. If more people could watch the article, that would help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Some extra eyes on the current TFA:

Protected for an hour 17 minutes ago by John Reaves. Hopefully that will give them enough time to grow a brain. 211.30.16.21 (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That might be optimistic. This is 4chan we're talking about, remember? -- ChrisO (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Are they all being reverted to one revision? If so, delete that revision and all revisions using it after the time on the MP is up - Experience has taught me that doing so takes some wind out of a 4chan attack's sails. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it. We can always re-protect it. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lose interest then.Geni 16:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The one behavior problem which apparently was solved in about February this year was the habit of marking virtually all edits as minor, though it was complained about again in June: diff and diff . I think that the "sarcastic edit summaries" complained about also have stopped. Perhaps actual "edit warring", too, after this: blocked - 24h - edit warring. Some edits are definitely justifiable and valuable.

One type of complaint I have not studied, as I don’t see it as the major issue here. (Others may chime in.) This involves pov religious edits and marking anything about evolution as npov, such as this diff in June. This recent edit may also be an example.

There are several types of disruptive editing here. Comments at Andycjp’s talk page show that the same types of problems have come up again and again throughout 2008:

• From January on (and on and on): creating wikilinks which "did not add content or meaning" and/or bluelinking just a part of a previous redlink, making the link totally meaningless. This continues. See, for example, the very recent edit to Barbara Mujica where the redlink Trailblazers Award was changed to Trailblazers Award, a totally uninteresting blue link in the context, see diff. Another recent (yesterday) example is here.

The editor has repeatedly been warned, with careful explanations, about the wikilinking "errors", for example here. In July, an admin warned: "Andy, some of your recent additions and removals of links seem to me to be perverse." Another typical example from July is in this edit (changing

• Another disruptive and damaging type of edit is removing the ^{[citation needed]} tag from statements of fact which still need a source/reference. This is typically done by removing a few non-essential words from a sentence, removing the ^{[citation needed]} tag at the same time. See: diff and diff from today. I have explained the problem with exactly these two edits on Andycjp’s today Talk page here (and promptly received a flippant reply).

This editor’s unwillingness to follow Wikipedia’s policy has been briefly discussed here at incident noticeboard before, and that conversation continued on a talk page, where Andycjp actually change the title of the section from Andycjp ignoring policy (cont’d) to just Andycjp, here.

It may be unwise to speculate about this editor’s motives, but s/he has offered one explanation/justification: here: "My theory with red links is that although they have the potential to create new articles, in practise they are often left uncared for, looking messy. [...] ... I can`t help feeling that a good blue link leading somewhere is on the whole better than a red link leading nowhere unless the red is of vital importance. I mean, wikipedia is enormous already, when are we going to stop? I guess it goes back to how finished WP ought to look."

In my opinion it is essential for the good of the encyclopedia that this editor be stopped, whether by mentoring, banning or whatever works. Repeated explanations have been tried and do not work.

I will inform several earlier involved editors as well as Andycjp about this report.

Hordaland (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think his continued ignorance of

WP:RED, whether deliberate or unintentional, is disturbing. He's had it explained to him as early as 11 July, but has continued the behavior until even yesterday today. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 19:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I don't know the ins and outs. My report stands. I'd been told to put it at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism [44], but put it here by mistake. Now at AdminIntervention, they tell me it should have been at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I am not going to put it a third place, so I'll remove the strike-out and leave it here. Sorry about the confusion. Hope in any case that the problem gets solved, as the unconstructive edits continue at a terrific pace. --Hordaland (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of the first scene of Ikiru. You're in the right place (I'm reasonably sure). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

So it looks like Colbert is encouraging editing of the Bill O'Reilly "Papa Bear" article; he said he added that the host was a nobel prise winner, among other things. Can we have a unit go check on this please?

Was taken care of when it first aired last night.

^X

19:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh i dont know cuz I just saw it again this morning at 10am.

It's currently

semi-protected which seems to have stopped all the Colbert-related vandalism for now. ~ mazca ^t|c

21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

This IP has been spamming links to some commercial entity into a variety of Neuroscience-related articles, as well as creating articles that are really advertisements. (contribs) The "commercial entity" is a bit nebulous—possibly a venture capital thing—but clearly a commercial entity of some sort. When I removed the spam from human brain, the IP put it back. I'm going to remove all the spam and AfD the advertisements (The Open Source Science Project and Research Microfinance), but I'll probably need an assist to keep the cruft from coming back. I have warned the IP about what I am doing. Looie496 (talk) 21:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Research Microfinance and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Open Source Science Project Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mmmovie, who has previously self-identified as Mark Bellinghaus, has added a userbox to his user page which is a misguided attempt to out me. I am not the person named. This is a slightly edited version of a userbox I have on my user page because of an off-wiki campaign by Bellinghaus to connect my account with a variety of unrelated persons following my nomination of his biography for deletion. Bellinghaus also refers to another of his off-wiki targets as a "crook". I would contact the user directly, but I believe that would only escalate things. Can someone please take a look? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

True or not, attempting to out another user is beyond unacceptable. Indefblocked.

96

13:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the Outing userbox ... is oversight required?

(drive)

13:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hard-deleting all alleged personal references, true or not, would also seem to be called for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think oversighting is necessary (since the allegation has already been made in several places off-wiki), but I'm not the person identified by Bellinghaus, so I'm not sure it's my call. Thanks for the quick action on this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The name cited has a familiar ring to it, but I can't place it. I wonder if it's the real name of another user here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

As a result of the off-wiki accusations, that person did create an account here in order to contact me. I don't believe they are currently active, and the username is very different. You may have seen the name on my user page, where I have a userbox stating that I am not them so that they are not held responsible for my actions. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks like oversighting occurred.

(drive)

14:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Mmmovie has left a statement on their talk page, including, among other things, the same mistaken outing and the suggestion that the blocking admin is part of a conspiracy to support "a mean and sick fraud project which is out and created solely to defraud the paying public with some foolish fabrications". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Dealt with by Blueboy96. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Me and user:Greekboy have had enough of user:Imbris's personal attacks. What was originally a dispute over a page has turned into insults, accusation, and inappropriate behavior. Imbris has accused user:Greekboy of being my sock [45] because Imbris feels like we cant be the same religion, live in america and like Eurovision. (Something that was a definate and un-needed personal attack the way he worded it) He also tells me that [46] i know nothing about Yugoslavia because I was not born there, and even adds "And Grk1011/Stephen is the master of the Universe (and this talk page also) :=)" as a concealed note after one of my responses so that the next person will read it.[47].

We are not the only ones having problems with Imbris, he gives anyone who edits an article having to do with Yugoslavia a hard time, bringing politics and irrelevant and original research into every discussion he engages in. There was a big debate about the Olympics as well, just read some of his edit summaries [48]. He always reverts everything back to the last version approved by him whether any edits since were acceptable or not [49] (reverts to bad grammar again [50]). He also adds mis-information about the Eurovision Song Contest, considering politics that have nothing to do with the contest [51] (According to contest, only one Yugoslavia in the contest).

He continues to put down the official site of the contest [52] and officially released books saying that IT people made the website and therefore it is unreliable, and the book is not written by a credible author?? We have had it with this user and he is making editing very stressful, which is why we have decided to submit a joint civility complaint. His POV edits and his childess personal attacks need to stop. I'm sure if you look at his edits, you will see that he can't do one thing without causing controversy; ignoring reliable sources for his own agenda.

Our goal is not to complain, but the personal attacks and such have made it very stressful to edit, with today's attack about being from the US the breaking point. We cannot just sit back as he goes around causing so many problems, so please help us and other editors out. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC) & Greekboy (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking only a cursory look at this, User:Imbris is making some rather bold statements without any substantiation; a statement like "I belive that those three users deliberately post data based on dubious sources" isn't helpful anywhere without substantiation. Personal attacks... maybe... definitely ad hominem arguments- saying that because they are not from Yugoslavia that they are incapable of knowing as much/more about a Yugoslavian subject than native-born persons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The complaint of Greekboy and Grk1011/Stephen has nothing to do with my alleged disruptive editing but with an attempt to discredit my editing and in addition trying to shut me up.

Yes I commented about the similarity of approaches by those two editors but not accused them of sockpuppetry. I simply expressed my suspicion in that direction. This was obvious when Greekboy changed the comment of Sims2aholic8 to a support vote [53]

My sentence: "I do not know why Grk1011/Stephen who lives in USA thinks he knows better what happened in ESC 1992 than Dzole, Zvonko and me (editors who live or were born in Yugoslavia)." posted [54] do not presumes that Grk1011/Stephen do not know what happened in ESC 1992 but that it is obvious that he knows best.

The entire complaint is based on false reading my comments.

The comment made in a summary line, quoting "And Grk1011/Stephen is the master of the Universe (and this talk page also) :=)" was made because Grk1011/Stephen demanded that I do not reply on my talk page. This comment was ended by a smiley.

Also it is worthy of commenting that Grk1011 decided to quote what has happened a few months ago. Why dragging the alleged disruptive editing to the such extend if he did not react when those suspicions were made.

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is an official site "reliable"? is the best description of the merit of our dispute. Namely Grk1011 and his WikiProject Eurovision supporters insist (here) on a one source policy and the perfection of that single source.

I have successfully brought the Olympic editing to a compromise and if I have reverted some grammatical errors it was done because Grk1011 reverted the meaning of my previous edits. It is a completely different story when someone revert a meaningful edit (which contributes to overall correctness) and a mere grammatical or spelling error.

I will continue to defend my self from those numerous accusations by Grk1011 and Greekboy even if they themselves listed and used foul language and phrases without proper sourcing and with a hidden intent and agenda to discredit my person and not my editing.

Imbris (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to go about this, but this is not to "discredit your editing". I & Grk1011 have commented on the past about taking those remarks as personal attacks, and just today you re-wrote and insinuated that since Grk1011 is from the US and you and other user were born in Yugoslavia, that you know better than he does. As for your comment on vote change, as I said back then, all I did was move my comment up to where it was supposed to be, and add a vote tag in front of Sims' response, which he was obviously for. (but did not put as he did not know the procedure). He commented that he was for it after you accused too. It wasn't like I changed a no to a yes. But regardless, this is not about that. This is about your personal attacks about us being from the US and mentioning our religion, which was def. not needed. Just a couple of hours ago, Imbris posted a comment starting out with "Our Greek friend". ([55]) I way I read it, I see it as very unnecessary to mention nationality at all. Anyway, I will let Grk1011 speak for his own part too. Greekboy (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My intent is not to discredit Imbris, but his editing style is inappropriate. His idea that using the eurovision website would constitute a one source policy would be true if it wasn't the official website of the contest. It is only source that we cannot ignore. In response to misinterpreting Imbris comments, I didn't find his little note funny, it was because he has a habit of dragging conversations over several talk pages. I understand his quest to allow wikipedia to accurately reflect the situation of Yugoslavia, but that does not overwrite the history of an event. What happened at Eurovision did match up with the political situation of Yugoslavia at the time and Imbris will not accept this, insisting on writing what should have happened as if it did, all of which is original research. Our argument has been going on for well over 2 months and we cannot seem to settle the matter and now it is getting heated again. Like I said, I applaud Imbris for his intent, but it is irrelevant in terms of Eurovision and he just needs to stop. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 02:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could I ask for some more eyes on Special:Contributions/98.192.167.30? I've blocked the IP for a week for persistently making uncited and apparently false changes to various zoological articles, but I've also found at least a few edits that seem more or less factual. Even so, I'm tempted to just revert all of them, but I'd like some second opinions first. And is there anything else I can do besides waiting and reblocking if it continues? I'm not really used to handling this type of vandalism from what appears to be a random Comcast IP. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then. Where shall we begin. The

WP:RS, and then calling a level-headed editor who did a better job than me of explaining the issue my "crony". [76] I'd be happy to take up the editorial issue on the article's talk page, and see no reason this should be here. That is all. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk

) 02:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)