Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive513

CCFSDCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is creating a lot of pages about holidays around the world. Only source given is a book, "Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World".

Claims on user page to be Christopher Corbett-Fiacco, and probably is. So there is only one source - the articles' author.

Google search for "The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World" reveals only hits from Wikipedia.

There are

The user has a thing or three to learn about editing on wikipedia - like not signing articles - and it is evident that he's pimping his book. But the one substantive article I've checked so far checks out - there is such a holiday. I suspect he needs a good talking to, which I see you've started; I'll pitch in. All of the articles he's created need to be checked and very probably de-sigged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

A note - it is considered extremely rude to not notify a user when you mention them here. The user is now notified, but please remember this for any future noticeboard postings. —

neuro^(talk)

00:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As Pablomismo pointed out, the very existence of the book being cited/flogged appears to be impossible to establish. It therefore can't be used as a reference in these articles. Deor (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then remove it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The book can't be found because it's, by the editor's own admission, not only unpublished, but unsold. The editor clearly has some fundamental misunderstandings of a host of policies (ranging from obvious conflicts of interest to the complete unreliability of sources), so perhaps someone who has the time should have a word in his ear.--CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – shy bairns get nothing

I previously used the account "thomsonboy93" in a very juvenille way that eventually got me banned. I now have taken the wiki process much more seriously, and am even the senior editor to a page that I helped create and improve

• So you're an indef blocked user, evading their block and you're asking for a favour. Is that correct? RMHED. 03:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's probably a fair assessment of the situation. However, I don't see a problem with giving reformed editors a second chance, if they can demonstrate that they're here to edit constructively. I've sent the images requested to the email address the user provided. Parsecboy (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Chalk one up for common sense. RMHED. 03:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Inviting scrutiny like that is about as "good faith" an attitude as we'll find here. In contrast to a certain other user. What's his name. Alpha Commando, or something like that. I'm a baaad boy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tsk. Uncalled-for. //roux   06:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but could Bugs have not listed about 3,000 others while he was at it? (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 12:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I listed that specific one is because of the latest sockpuppet that turned up on this page in the last day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The past months I have interacted with several editors over whether or not

This is now the fourth noticeboard Nescio has complained to after every single editor to evaluate it on the first three rejected his claims, and four separate editors (including a member of the arbitration committee) found policy violations by Nescio's edits. The issue is that Nescio wishes to insert a pet theory of Lyndon Larouche into three articles based on the synthesis of an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Ahmad Chehab and blog posts by Scott Horton and a half-dozen unrelated articles that don't mention the underlying subject. Since Ahmad Chaheb has absolutely no google footprint or notability, I've repeatedly asked Nescio why he is so insistent on including this material in multiple articles, and this is the first he's denied a COI. Fine, but there's still the problem of RS, SYN, WEIGHT, SPS, and BLP. Content dispute: nothing to see here except Nescio's violation of

WP:MULTI, there is a discussion at Talk:Unitary executive theory. THF (talk

) 14:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody rejected since nobody commented. This misleading statement is a fine example of how this user operates. Second, I am asking for assistance in stopping the abuse which is entirely different from my previous request meant to establish why this user is removing RS. I reitterate: no help on article but to stop the accusations and stalking.!''Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First, both of you are at the line with regard to

WP:3RR on this article -- take a break from this, or risk having it frozen at the wrong version. Second, accusing each other of "WP:VANDAL", "WP:SYN", "WP:WEIGHT", and "WP:RS" doesn't make either of you to look good. Lastly, after reading this article a couple of times, I still have no idea why this section entitled "Neoconservatism" belongs in this article. It's a non sequitor, with no clear reason what a third-rate Fascist philosopher has to do with Neoconservatism. If I were to weigh into this content battle, Nescio, your edits would lose. Either find some published sources showing how Schmitt influenced Neoconservatism -- or any modern -ism -- or find another article to work on. (We have almost three million of them, so it shouldn't be hard to do that.) -- llywrch (talk

) 00:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The user

I'm rather concerned by this. Looking at some of the usernames he has been tagging (e.g. to do with swirly faces or a certain notorious glam-rocker) , and one possible interpretation of cp leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. DuncanHill (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

... and I took away his self-awarded barnstar (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 19:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That seems a bit mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.88.87 (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

We aren't supposed to give barnstars to ourselves (see WP:Barnstars). They are 'awards' we give to each other, so removing a self-awarded barnstar isn't mean. -kotra (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, can you provide a diff or two of this editor calling others "stockpots"? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the claims of referring to other editors as kitchenware, I'd point out the the above user was created 3 days ago and has edited nothing else, and this appears to be a content dispute. Dispute resolution is

that way, third door on the left. The discussion here also appears relevant. Black Kite

21:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The submitter of this complaint, User:Eranist, has been blocked as a sock per checkuser. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/philscirel/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. —

neuro^(talk)

02:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Could any of the Administrators place a protection log on Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Page is being vandalize by IP 65.32.128.178(talk) who insist on inserting false information claiming it is sourced. Please refer to both talk pages here [[6]] and here [[7]] He also made 4 reverts already today. Thanks--

Firstly, requests like this should go to

WP:RFPP, not here. If it's just him I don't see why protection is warranted, you can discuss it with him, and if he becomes disruptive he can be blocked.--Patton^t/c

00:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh O.K. sorry, I was not aware of

talk

) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked WikiWeb151 (talk · contribs) as a duck/likely sock of Audi151 (talk · contribs), who was in turn blocked due to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YoMamma6188. As I am not at all familiar with the details of the puppeteer, and for checks and balances, I'd like other users to review this block (and my deletions of their nearly identical subpages User:Audi151/Audi's and User:WikiWeb151/Audis). Thanks for any input.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also Jaguar151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and WikiFan151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify further, I am not seeking to get Lear blocked for any of this; I'm sure he is a very helpful contributor in other areas. I think an editing restriction would be a much more effective means to rectify the situation. Parsecboy (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered an RfC on the subject? After one year, established

consensus can change. Either way the RfC should either reaffirm the consensus or establish a new one.--Ramdrake (talk

) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we did have an RfC on the issue a couple of weeks ago, but there wasn't much of a concrete result (mainly due to lack of participation from uninvolved editors). Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban (as a participant in the dispute), and I don't think a block is necessary. Consensus can change, certainly, but the point is more that Lear clearly doesn't intend to accept any consensus that doesn't go his way - he tells us to "be prepared that this boring discussion will go on every day for the next years" in one of Parsecboy's diffs - so RFC would be a bit useless.

I've found it difficult to AAGF in Lear since he told me I was here to spread hate and ignorance early last month, and the recent discussions (if they can be called that) rather reinforce that view. I, too, was reminded of

WP:TRUTH when reading these posts - he uses the word "reality" instead, but the concept is the same. Pfainuk talk

00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking - Come on guys, discussions can get quite emotional and hot. For the vast majority of his statements in the long discussion of the EU's entry Lear21 always came up with very valid points. The whole discussion became quite fruitless because of a lack of new arguments and not because of uninvolved editors as stated above. So don't try to find some single incidents that may be caused by some frustration about the fruitless all-over-again discussions to cut him out here, as this would be censorship. - Additionally, I feel obliged to add that it was Pfainuk who opened up this Pandora's box by deleting the EU's entry and violating the standing comprise in the first place. This started the whole mess/discussion and therefore his view in this incident notice can hardly be seen as impartial. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll not get into the details of the content dispute here because it's beside the point - though I'll point out that the original edit did not delete the EU from the article (I moved it from one part of the article to another), and that the EU did not have an entry on the list before this discussion started. I will note that I did declare my interest in this at the very beginning of my message - and I note with interest that you, also an involved party, did not.

Discussions can become emotional, sure, that does not justify Lear's personal attacks, nor his apparent intent to force through a change by perpetually edit warring, nor his refusal to AGF (here he told another editor that his comments were "a joke and therefore inexistent"). I'm not arguing for a block, I'm arguing for a topic ban. I think that when an editor all but announces that he's going to continue to edit war against consensus for "years", he needs to stop editing on those articles or be stopped from editing those articles. You say the discussion has got quite emotional - maybe (though apparently only one one side). But that's not an excuse to edit war until you get your way. Pfainuk talk 10:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Any block or topic ban should be based on the real facts. So, he announced he could go to edit war ... so what? Did he actually do it? When did he violate the

WP:3RR? ... I think that in both our countries we wouldn't get convicted only on basis of announcing a misdoing - why should we act differently on Wikipedia? Cheers, MikeZ (talk

) 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is this: Lear has canvassed in violation of

disruptive editing in my book. Parsecboy (talk

) 13:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that partially goes for Pfainuk as well, as he has pushed for the removal of the EU's entry from the initial section of the article, in direct violation of the established consensus without creating a new consensus on the talk page first. That's disruptive editing by the same standards. Consensus can change, nobody is saying anything different, but there was no new consensus in the first place. - Having said that, if Lear21 should be topic banned, so should Pfainuk ... and I'm nominating myself as well, as I'm not completely sure that I acted without flaws in all my past edits. - Otherwise, we all could just cool down and forget this whole nonsense. Really. Cheers, MikeZ (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I

When I was reverted, I took it to talk. That's actually endorsed by guidelines, not condemned. Pfainuk talk

14:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, no one is perfect, but that doesn't give Lear an excuse to be disruptive. I think all of us—save Lear—could quite easily drop the issue and leave it as it is. That is exactly the problem; Lear has indicated that he will accept no outcome other than his own version. That unwillingness to compromise is totally unacceptable. Parsecboy (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 has tried to uphold an article´s version which has been thoroughly discussed over several years including many editors and ended in a stable compromise version which lasted for more than year. User:Parsecboy and others have been involved in these previous discussions and now deny to stick to the compromise version. In this light user Lear 21 has come forward with a new proposal citing several external expert sources. As these credible sources (among them the CIA World Factbook) are constantly denied user Lear 21 took the freedom to insist on the acceptance of these sources. User Lear 21 has given credit to one of the basic principles of Wikipedia while conducting an argumentation based on multiple facts and high-profiled references. Lear 21 (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Lear has mischaracterized my position in regards to the article; my only comments have been in support of maintaining the long-standing consensus version and towards attempts to keep the discussion on track and within policies (i.e., no edit-warring, canvassing issues, etc.). As far as I know, Polaron is the only other editor (with Lear and me) who participated in the old discussions, and he too (I believe) favors retaining the old-consensus version.

None of that really has any bearing on this discussion though. We are talking about the disruptive actions Lear has been doing over the past weeks. He has posted biased notices on the talk pages of those he believes will support him in an attempt to votestack (example diff provided above), he has edit-warred with other editors, and has more or less announced his intention to continue to edit-war. He has also attacked other editors who disagree with him. In my opinion, Lear 21 clearly needs to stop editing in an area that he has obviously made a personal issue; if he will not agree to do that of his own volition, then we need to make that decision for him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

User Lear 21 insists to either recognize external expert sources and the methodology of more than 20 sister Wiki languages OR to stick to longterm stable version which was backed by more than 10 editors over the last 3 years. User Lear 21 has not announced to start an edit war ! Quote "This will be a very long boring discussion in the next month, I promise." Instead user Parsecboy (initiator of this notice) and user Polaron have not intervened the breaching of a longstanding compromise version although both have been part of it a year ago. User Parsecboy is only willing to give incorrect and biased summaries of the discussions in order to get rid of an unwanted participant but established Wikipedia editor Lear 21. I have no doubt that this behaviour stands in a stark contradiction with guidelines issued for administrators. Lear 21 (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

We do not follow what other Wikis do, we are our own project; what fr.wiki or de.wiki do is totally irrelevant. Moreover, this discussion here is not over any content; it's about your poor behavior on both the articles and their talk pages.

As for whether or not you literally said you intended to edit war, "I will be a frequent editor at this list from now on to ensure that credible sources are acknowledged. On a daily basis." seems to be pretty clear in its meaning to me. I have made 1 edit each to both of the articles in question; I have no intention of fueling any edit-warring by adding to the reverts. Note this edit summary, where I chastised both edit-warring parties to stop reverting each other. Where exactly have I made incorrect or biased summaries? You have canvassed in violation of

disruptive manner. That you have not refuted any of these is telling. Parsecboy (talk

) 22:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly against blocking too

It's sort of intellectual dishonesty to quote people out of context. If interested, people can judge by themselve how does Lear can progressively come to such behavior. I can witness that the communication with two wikipedians on this article, namely BritishWatcher and Pfainuk, appear to be impossible as long as we don't follow their POV. They seem to fail to understand the aim of making medium proposals when there is strong POV dispute, they seem to fail aswell to understand that their POV are not worth more than others, they are infringing the 2nd pillar of WP and yet reminding others about WP rules.

For what I have seen, they are pushing -consciously or not- to avoid reaching a consensus that could not satisfy them at least at 90%. That's not called trying to reach a medium equilibrium between parties, and that's not an encyclopaedian spirit, a WP spirit even less.

So, when facing such behavior, when you keep explaining that 1+1=2 and you keep being answered that 1+1=3 for more than a month, I can understand that people can lose patience. Some here judge that Lear has been disruptive, he's probably not perfect in his behavior, but maybe those who launch such accusations should take a look in the mirror too and get a perspective.

I personally stopped fighting this, as such closed and rigid mind is out of my understanding. I'm trying my best to assume good faith and accept something that please everyone, but I have to admit that in the present case, it's hard. Rules, conservatism and own POV should never overlay common sense, wide view, flexibility, honesty, self-questioning, logic and deductive mind.

I, too, could ask for something that suit me better, but I'm trying not to overweight my requests to allow different POV to be displayed, as I'm constantly trying to follow the spirit of Voltaire ("I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it"), but I have limits, like everyone else, including Lear. Orravan (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you're reading the same discussions I am. Barely a week into the current discussion, Lear was already attacking Britishwatcher and Pfainuk: I congratulate BritishWatcher and Pfainuk being a stereotypical, aggressive anti-European deletionists at Wikipedia like many others before, be proud of it. But please spare your hate and ignorance for the tabloid sections in your country without spreading it here in an encyclopedia. Nothing taken out of context; two whole sentences, linked to the post he made. Note that it was the second post he made to the discussion. This does not seem like someone who has tried for weeks to circumvent

WP:ICANTHEARYOU type behavior, and finally losing patience. Parsecboy (talk

) 13:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's indeed a personnal POV and we agree that it definitely does not allow someone to be rude. Now for my opinion : I don't consider him to have been rude, just being tired of what could be considered as vandalism in others situations, tired of what he saw several times and saw once again when Pfainuk and BW started to argue exactly the way 50 persons did before, with the same flaws and yet the same extreme self-confidence. Early into the discussion, I felt really uncomfortable myself about the way they were eluding some basic rationales and facts, like if they wanted to prove that their POV were better or something, while WP is about neutral knowledge, and not partisan choices. There can't be consensus nor agreement without fair equilibrium. Orravan (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That's missing the whole point of this issue. "Being tired" is not an excuse to attack other editors, nor is it an excuse to votestack, or edit-war. Lear is just as guilty of ignoring basic rationales and facts as anyone else; "being tired" doesn't give him a free pass to behave as he wishes. I've also been involved with these issues for quite some time. I too could say I'm tired of the whole debate; why don't I just delete the article and indef-block all the involved users, and save us the trouble? According to your line of reasoning, I too would be entirely justified to do whatever I want. My point is this: we have limits on behavior for a very good reason. If we choose to ignore them because a user is "tired of the same arguments", then what good are the rules in the first place? Parsecboy (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear could have been way softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé.

Now to make it clear, no one said tiredness is an excuse, I'm just telling you : put things into perspective, in-context, to fully understand it before judging. Is the one speaking out loud guilty when pushed repetively by someone more disruptive but silent ? So I can keep insulting someone for days until he punch me, he's gonna be 100% the one pointed out ?

Also, if someone keeps erasing the data of an article, and I keep reintroducing it, would it be edit-war stricto sensu (aka : POV conflict), or protection from vandalism ? Pure POV issue here.

You can be highly disruptive without giving it the stance, I don't even argue that they have been on purpose, I think they are of good faith, just being overconfident about their POV, misunderstanding about the need for neutral point of view and fearing to see their POV overlaid by another one. It has not been the case here, as the aim is to reach an equilibrium between every POV. It can't be done when someone keep seeing your POV not worthy to be displayed along with his and reject POV he disagree with.

So, why is Lear blamed here ? Because he stated an opinion he made over his experience and expressed that BW and Pfainuk were acting the same way dozen of people did before ? To say it again : definitely Lear could have been softer, but for what I've seen, he have not been insulting or agressive at all, just tired and blasé. That was the substance of my previous post.

Also, you say that he reacted vigorously already in his 2nd post, but I started arguing with them myself one month and a half ago, do you think Lear unable to read what have already been wrote, compare to what he saw repetively in the past, and make a statement over it ? That's why it's important to me to look at the whole issue, to put things into perspective, to avoid being blinded by visible events only.

Once again, what I've seen definitely lacks tact, indeed, but is not at all over limit, especially when you look carefully at the dispute as a whole.

Now to make it clear, I'll be slightly off-topic to make a quick reminder to understand the dispute. Here's what WP says about the EU sui generis specificity : "In political science, the unparalleled development of the European Union as compared to other international organizations has led to its designation as a sui generis geopolitical entity. There has been widespread debate over the legal nature of the EU given its mixture of intergovernmental and supranational elements, with the organisation thus possessing some characteristics common to confederal and federal entities." (from Sui generis article).

Arguing that the status of the EU is not clear and fixed —both de jure and de facto— is not a POV, it's a FACT, and that's why the dispute is and will be endless as long as someone think to hold the Thruth. The dispute is now about whether the EU should be above or under the list, which is childish and a loss of time, and endless aswell.

I came with a proposal already applied elsewhere on WP and almost everywhere out of it : including it unranked in the lists. If you've carefully read me until now, you easily understand how it's a compromise as it reflects a reality, a fact. Should you be a pro or anti EU, nobody cares, as the purpose of WP is to provide knowledge, and as far as I've seen, it seems that Lear had been the one willing to accept compromise and sticking to facts (as I try to do myself). Orravan (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As for a precision, I care no more about how things will change (or not) on said article, I don't want to fight more for it, I let people do as they want. But I don't like when people are judged in an indiscriminate manner as Lear is in the present case. And by the way, I write a lot and I may do some mistakes, please accept my apologies if there is some misunderstanding, as I'm not a native english speaker. :-) Orravan (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

To be blunt, Lear called other editors (among other things) "chauvinist ideologues"; that surely doesn't pass

WP:NPA. I disagree with your assessment that Pfainuk or BritishWatcher have been silently disrupting the article any more than Lear has. In my view, a more correct assessment would probably be Pfainuk/BW and Lear shouting past each other, to no avail. The crucial difference is that Pfainuk and BW have not resorted to name-called or votestacking to "win" the debate. It's a bit disingenuous to frame the dispute (which is 100% a content dispute) as vandalism and reversion of that vandalism. If Pfainuk and BW were editing from an anti-EU POV (whether consciously or unconsciously), as you assert, then wouldn't they be attempting to remove the EU from the article completely? They have both said that they want the entry in the bottom, in the footnotes to the table (regardless of POV, this could be viewed as a logical solution. Footnotes are used all the time to include information, say in a book, that doesn't necessarily belong in the text, but is relevant to modify/clarify information). I agree with you 100% that the current dispute, whether the EU should be above or below the list, is a waste of time (and hence I have not commented on either proposal). Regardless of any of this, Lear has apologized, and pledged to refrain from personal attacks. I think this is enough. Parsecboy (talk

) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

If any user had the impression of being personally attacked by my edits I´m sorry. I apologize for it. I will return to fact based argumentation, citing references and providing logic reasoning in the future only. The initial complain of this notice, the disruptive POV-pushing, has to be rejected by all terms though. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Lear, thank you. I was hoping that this would be a sort of "shock" to get you to examine the comments you've made a little more closely. If you agree to restrain your behavior in congruence with policy, then I think that's a suitable resolution to this issue. Parsecboy (talk) 16:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It [8] reads like an advertisement, and the belligerence displayed by its author is typical of self-promoters. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Guy has been, in my view, reasonable in his dealings with LirazSiri, who apparently feels that there have been personal attacks and harassment occurring, none of which I've been able to spot in their dealings. Rfwoolf has a long and problematic history with Guy, was not involved in the discussion, and then threw an attack in out of nowhere. There is also a lengthy discussion on

the Policy pump that is horribly misplaced as it's turned into an argument over the admin activities. While the deletion may have been a borderline decision at the start (I may have AFD'd the article, for example, while others would speedy it), the entire situation is now spiralling into a brawl. Definitely needs more eyes (besides mine, as I'm a cranky bastard with too many deadlines this week and next and the block button is getting bigger and shining red as I go along). Tony Fox (arf!)

17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both of you... but...

propaganda_deeds

10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Per this edit it sounds like the editor is stepping back too. Various editors have left advice should LirazSiri (talk · contribs) choose to re-create the article. Mark this as resolved?

Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

17:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking; I'm not convinced that the editor has stepped back.

propaganda_deeds

10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what you mean by railing against other editors, but I feel your original assessment on stepping back from the article is true. Perhaps if I truly had something to gain personally by continuing to pursue this I would be more motivated to continue fighting for the article's inclusions and the basis for its notability but I've discovered an ugly side of Wikipedia that has discouraged me from further engaging myself in this dispute. I created the article in the image of the other articles on Ubuntu derivatives covered in Wikipedia. In this form it existed for months without any objections being raised. Sure there was room for improvement, there always is. Perhaps as you mention the article didn't emphasize the notable aspects of the project it described sufficiently. I would have welcomed friendly collaboration with other editors to improve the article (or any feedback really). Unfortunately, instead of a peaceful discussion that would have perhaps led to the necessary improvements, I suddenly found myself thrust into a battlefield, with much of the fire directed against me personally. Naturally I got defensive. I didn't sign up for all this drama and though I find Wikipedia's community and culture fascinating I really do have better things to do with my time than fend off these attacks. Now that I know how quickly things can turn into a battlefield just as soon as you attract the wrong kind of attention, I'll come back only after I believe my position is strong enough to convince even the likes of Guy, other die-hard deletionists and the blue wall of allies that would otherwise gang up on me and accuse me of having bad faith, abusing Wikipedia by advertising "yet another non-notable Ubuntu fork" on Wikipedia (in order to promote myself of course), while acting in conflict of interest. I don't know why they singled TurnKey Linux out as it is more notable than any of the other unofficial Ubuntu derivatives that have articles. I have my suspicions. It's a free software project that is giving away software appliances that other proprietary vendors are charging a hefty ransom for. I can't prove anything though, and there's the old adage that you should never attribute to malice what can attributed to simple incompetence. It doesn't matter though. An article on Wikipedia matters little in the grand scheme of things. LirazSiri (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(Small aside: by "railing against other editors" I meant, in part, the section on your talk page titled "

propaganda_deeds

14:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Wouldn't it be helpful if an outside person had a sit down with Rfwoolf about his/her "help"? AnyPerson (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"Help" indeed. This minor skirmish reminds me of the battle royale that occurred last summer over someone else's pet computer language, something called MKR. [9] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not being an admin I don't have access to the delete logs (or I do and I'm too stupid to know it), but what was the reason given for deleting the userspace article? And what does this say about using userspace to clean-up articles? If we can't collect our thoughts and improve an article we're just supposed to get it perfect the first shot out of the box? That doesn't seem right. Padillah (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – indef block Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Referred from

Blocked for 2 weeks for that since the second one was on the heels of a final warning. Watch for the promised socks. Toddst1 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks may be turn out to be too brief. The user's talk page contributions subsequent to the block do not demonstrate willingness to become a model community member. See the last three edits in page history. --Orlady (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted upage vandalism and changed length to indef and protected user talk for 2 weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Can someone double check David Dein - User:David Dein has removed a substantial amount of information; some referenced & verifiable some not. Lucian Sunday (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User blocked, under policy pertaining to usernames matching those of well-known individuals. Appears to have a COI at any rate, whether he is Dein or not. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to deal with this, because blocking seems to be rather extreme, but it's frustrating dealing with an editor who refuses to comply with a behavioral guideline.

Ignore it for goodness' sake. Bishonen | talk 22:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

↑What Bish said. Is there really nothing worse going on to worry about? – 

iridescent

22:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'll ignore behavioral guidelines. Should I ignore all of them, or only certain ones? Horologium (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Just the ones that, when ignored, don't actually harm the project. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Only certain ones. Knowing which ones to ignore is part of the IAR final exam. --

barneca (talk

) 23:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I *did* say that I tended to be more EGOUR than rouge. I've invoked IAR only twice since confirmation, although I have been tempted on a few more occasions. However, it's a bit frustrating to have to pull up the talk page history to leave a message with a user who doesn't have his sig linked, which is what originally prompted me to address the issue. The page in question (the one on my watchlist) is under article probation, so it's a little more than just rule-wankery or nannyism. Horologium (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought that it was going to be something stupid like a excessively bolded names, but I would say a sig with no identification is bordering on disruption, and

pointy disruption at that, considering he apparently wants to "avoid" those who follow policy. There's no reason to invoke IAR for this; it's not improving the wiki; I say we give him the chance to fix it or block. Simple as that. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk

) 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly inconsiderate. If he didn't sign his name at all, I'd be more inclined to make a big deal of it. But if the signature includes his unlinked username (I believe

barneca (talk

) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's User:Docu who used to do that (and still does: [12]); and similarly drew complaints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Echoing EVula, while having a non-

WP:SIG compliant signature is annoying, annoying ≠ disruption. --Kralizec! (talk

) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I've made thousands of edits without any major problems so far. Is it a wank that I think

(as an addon to my previous post) That said (for whatever reason my browser didn't want more text, sorry to split this) do you have examples of no-name signatures in article talk? That's where it's disruptive, and while it's still acting like a jackass to not link your username if he's at least making it clear it's him there's not as much of an issue. (ec twice) ...And the above is exactly what I'm talking about. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David Fuchs. Ottre is aware of this is causing discomfort for others. If he is unwilling to be a collegial member of our community by following simple norms about signatures, he should choose an alternate hobby. If he doesn't fix the signature promptly, a short initial block would be in order. — Carl (

Just ignore me then! I have never made a completely anonymous post to a talk page, and indeed have signed ~100 IP contribs—particularly at AFD. Not linking to my history on WP is a core part of my editing philosophy; do you refuse to consider the idea that if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition? I do, and am actively in sourcing information by adding page refs, and checking the print edition of newspaper refs used in WP:ACOF articles. 23:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottre (talk • contribs)

So, I genuinely prefer

WP:V? I'm really confused. Skinwalker (talk

) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am really confused. Some of the posts above have no signature at all. I do not know how I can follow this thread when I don't know who is posting the message. It becomes impossible.SteelSkin (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll watchlist both your talk pages now. I'd also like to submit this case be closed, as I always sign with my unlinked name (except in this case, to prove the conversation can easily be followed with just a timestamp and identifier) and this practice per se can hardly be considered disruption. Likely just an intolerant administrator, rejects the concept of generationalism (my name for the above, editing philosophy). Ottre 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but what does this have to do with verifiability vs. reliable sources? Does not having a linked signature somehow abrogate

WP:V? I'm not an admin, and therefore can't block you, but I'm genuinely curious about your stance. Skinwalker (talk

) 00:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place to discuss how (incredibly) well it works. Ottre 00:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warn & block. There are good reasons for linked sigs, and I'm unconvinced by reasons to the contrary. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Warn and then nuke. The attitude to ignore is ridulous and a reason for alot of drama. Should we ignore until there is a certain threshold of disruption and drama? Is or is this not against policy/guidelines? If it isn't then I apologize but I would be more than annoyed if I was interacting with this user with his present signature. --Tom 00:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support a final warning, followed by a block if there is no improvement. EdJohnston (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? And what , Tom, does "policy/guidelines" stand for—why do you call it that? Do you think

WP:SIG is "almost policy", or "policy on a bad day"? It's in fact an editorial guideline Do we really need to display our ZOMG Great Adminz Powerz at every opportunity, like the peacock displays its tail? I'm sure very few people *want* to sign like Ottre does, and out of those that do want to, peer pressure will stop most of them putting it into practice. That leaves a miniscule minority who will actually do it. It's a bagatelle. But contrariness might turn it into a Movement, if somebody here insists on making a big deal of it. Please mellow out. Contrariness ≠ disruption. Bishonen | talk

00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I think the only one who needs to mellow out here is you, Bish. We agree on a low-drama solution to possible and past POINTy disruption, that's done with. Ottre and you want to turn this into something more. Bringing this back in hand, Ottre, I think you should consider yourself warned. Please sign with at least your username, linked or no. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Bishonen, I was trying to say that if this user is not breaking any policy or guideline, then I apologize and that user can carry on, but I would find it annoying, thats all. Also what does ZOMG stand for since i see it alot. I know after its explained I'll have know that. Anyways, no biggie, cheers, --Tom 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As explained here [13] and also with somewhat less clarity in wiktionary, OMG is "Oh My God" and the "z" or "Z" in front of it has no particular meaning except emphasis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to note that "All Gods Forfend" is the most common equivalent amongst pagans. Anyway... Ottre 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You entered the discussion without even clicking on

WP:SIG first? Wow. I mean, I see. ZOMG means Oh My God, with a Z in front of it for extra internetspeakiness. :-) Bishonen | talk

00:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC).

I did read it, but missed the part about it being "behavioual" vs a "guideline" which is different from a "policy"?? My freaking head is going to explode :) Even with the user name, without it being link does make it more effort to contact a user. For the 3rd time, if this user is within policy or guidelines or whatever, then its my problem not his.OMG :) --Tom 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been following, please don't use words like "effort". My talk page can be accessed via PageUp > History > Ottre:Talk. This is a matter (I hope) of whether or not it is acceptable for an experienced editor to flaunt established but minor editing practices. Ottre 01:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to waste your time. That past POINT was made for a very constructive reason, unlike the "policy-wise" admins who are calling for a block if there is "no improvement" (Come on! Of course I am going to agree with consensus), and I only had to sign three times without any username at all. Ottre 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• For the love of [offensive object removed ], you're not required to have an account, you're not required to sign your edits, you're not required to link to anything in your sign - it's a polite suggestion, and shrugging it offer carries the penalty of getting nasty looks and naught more.
  • You're not required to respect other Wikipedians. You're not required to assume good faith. You're not required to use common sense. You're not required to say anything useful. You're not required to talk about Fight Club. Er.. wait. Ignore the last one. I hope you get what I mean, tho. :) --Conti|✉ 14:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• WOW! what an utterly ridiculous complaint this is. Some admins really have too much time on their hands. RMHED. 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Cheap. On a collaborative project the ability to communicate clearly is rather importance. Making authorship of talk page comments easy to identify is kinda an important part of this.Geni 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or, they could just edit as an IP, or register a new account for every edit. Then they'd be perfectly in line with policy and even less traceable. WilyD 01:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I might add that my words above, where I said this whole discussion is about a "minor editing practice", aren't meant to suggest it is unimportant. It's minor/trivial because by this stage in the project, there are probably millions of edits where people have logged out to contribute something to an article. Ottre 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Then log out and edit as an IP so no one will bother with you, or else continue with your unlinked sig; however,

WP:SIG as guideline or essay or no, leaving only a timestamp is disruptive; if you continue to do so, you may be blocked. That's all that needs to be said. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk

) 01:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this an encyclopedia, or a social experiment by one member to see how much annoying behavior can be withstood by other project members? The only convincing argument s/he has made so far is that s/he does it so other project members will have a more difficult time verifiying if s/he is making constructive edits. The ability to do this is what protects the integrity of the project. I'm all for personal privacy rights, but their rights end where the rest of societies rights begin. Deliberately annoying behavior for it's own sake is disruptive.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What is going on here? Ignore this guy. There is no reason to ban/block/lose someone over something so amazingly trivial as a signature. there is a name and a timestamp. IF we are honestly considering blocking this person for that and only that, i'm...well I'm not even sure that I recognize this place. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Come on, it says right at the very top that there can be exceptions. This. Is. Not. Blockable. SarekOfVulcan, 03:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• No name signatures are little different than IP signatures; there's no return address likely to connect with the sender so the conversation must be of little import. Although I shouldn't be by now, I am surprised how much angst such a minor thing that doesn't affect anyone gets some people - go on, edit something by now... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SIG clearly states that a signature must link to the user page. This is to provide easy communication amongst users. Some think that communication is a minor thing, but I think it is vitally important. My suggestion to Ottre is to put the link back into your signature and sign your posts properly to avoid angst among other users, and to end the fuss. Do it now, then we can all go home.SteelSkin (talk

) 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Always listen to Bish. This could have been over at post number two. I really dont see why people want so much unneeded drama. -

M^ask?

10:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably because the first thing we tell anyone who's in a dispute is to discuss it with the other editor. How's that possible if there's no link in the sig?

It might or might not be strictly against policy, but it's certainly an arrogant statement, one that says "if you don't already know how to contact me, you shouldn't be doing so anyway." Dayewalker (talk) 10:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a bit

WP:POINT. It does confuse n00bs, and annoys some people. The obvious answer is for the user to simply fix the problem. I have a redlinked user page, and that is deliberate, it is actually quite useful to see how people react to a redlinked user page, but my sig still takes you somewhere you can talk to me. It's that absence of a quick way of getting to the user directly, which causes friction. Guy (Help!

) 10:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Lemme see if I can get this right...based on: "if people can confirm a user has added unsourced information in the past with a single click, they tend to delete, when they otherwise would have considered researching the addition", it seems the primary motive here is deliberate obfuscation. They don't want to "have contact with" anybody who tries to enforce

Breakfast Machine-esque obfuscation scheme and confuse people wherever he goes. Bullzeye ^contribs

13:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's see... in the case of User:Docu it is relatively easy to type in the username and get to the appropriate page. On the other hand, SHEFFIELDSTEEL isn't terribly helpful for anyone trying to get to my pages. That's because I use caps in my sig that aren't in my username, of course - but what about an editor who has extended / non-Roman / Unicode characters in their user name? It seems that the only way people could get to their user page would be to cut and paste their sig. Not exactly convenient.

Now, in the real world I would be right there on the barricades if anyone suggested we all had to get our addresses tattoed on our foreheads, but this is a wiki. It's based on hypertext. It is supposed to be easy (convenient, even) to click on links to get to other pages. Those users who have refused to follow this communal norm, of providing a link in their signature, have yet to provide any convincing justification for this. Whether you call that refusal "making a point" or "being

pointy", it is counter-productive to the ideal of building a community whose purpose is writing an encyclopaedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Or people could click the history. We should also be pretty wary of community norms that develop in the late stage of community formation. They may have more to do with defining a community (outwardly or inwardly) than they do with making an encyclopedia. We should be doubly wary of our temptation to equate those community norms with what is or is not "counter-productive". Protonk (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem getting to User talk:Ottre as such, it just requires extra typing. It's basically rudeness on the part of Docu and Ottre to compel people to do that extra work. But there are a lot ruder things that go on here that don't get blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Either it's okay for the everyone else to force individuals to put a link to one of their pages (user, talk, or contribs) or it's okay for individuals to force everyone else to have to go to the history to scrutinise their edits. Personally, I think that avoiding scrutiny is bad, and that having a link in one's sig is good, but I'm willing to accept it if consensus is (after e/c) that a certain amount of rudeness is okay, as long as it's within the letter of the law. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

No one has been able to force Docu to change his ways, so consensus must be that it's not important enough to make a thing out of. Consensus can change, though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This whole issue sounded familiar, so I checked the

VPP archives and found Method to protect your user and talk page from "quicky" vandals. However that editor was eventually convinced to added a link to his sig. --Kralizec! (talk

) 19:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

In the early stage few people thought it was worth faffing around with their signatures. That kind of MySpacery is a late-stage artifact, to be sure, but not necessarily a welcome one. I for one would not care if the ability to customise signatures was simply removed. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oy. When I brought this up, I noted that I thought a block was extreme; in other words, I wasn't suggesting blocking. If I thought a block was appropriate, I would have done it; I'm not afraid of using the tools when appropriate. In this case, I was looking for any community input on how to resolve this situation without going the block route. Some of you flamed me, some of you went off on wild tangents, some of you provided relevant input, and a few of you got to the heart of the issue. I remembered the dustup over signatures a few months ago, but I couldn't remember the relevant players (
  WT:SIG), so I'm not going to press the matter. My main concern was that on the talk page of an article which is under article probation, an editor who had never posted before challenged the reliability of one of the sources; that editor's signature had no links in it. My first request to modify the signature was totally unacknowledged (it wasn't even deleted/archived, which is a form of acknowledgement). Perhaps I overreacted, but those of you who are berating me for bringing this up on AN/I are out of line, in my opinion. Horologium (talk)
  19:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Next we ban people whose signature displays a name that isn't their username. That'll show 'em. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would fully support that...err, ahh, never mind....--Tom 18:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please could someone decide on this TFD here: [14] ASAP - the deletion template is very disruptive. AndrewRT(Talk) 01:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed as keep. — Edokter • Talk • 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish was nominated for deletion on the 2nd of February, see AFD. On the 6th user:Grassfed created a new account and their sole edits were to vote Keep in the discussion. --DFS454 (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably sufficient to make that information available on the AfD so that closing admin(s) can review it accordingly. AnyPerson (talk) 18:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• SmashTheState (talk · contribs)

Without looking at the users contributions I see two problems:

1. Username is probably not inline with Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames (may fall under eiter promotional or disruptive usernames)
2. Userpage is a violation of
   Wikipedia:User page

Please take a look at the users userpage before replying.

--

15:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

i.e. "Wikipedia is the place where angry, white, male, overprivileged, socially-dysfunctional nerds with serious personality disorders come to take out their frustrations on others." I wouldn't be against a block here (even if what he's saying is true in my case :) )

 GARDEN 

15:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's a poser: If someone calls you a name, and it's verifiably true through reliable sources, does it still count as a "personal attack" under wikipedia guidelines? Or if it's not verifiably true, but could be true, is it really a "personal attack", or is it just a POV-push? Some IP address awhile back called me an "ugly ignorant fool". My answer was, "How dare you call me ugly?" Because he might be able to prove the "ignorant fool" part, but the "ugly" part is strictly POV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with the name. You can ask the user to change the offensive portions of their userpage. Protonk (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the Username concerns, that is a little bit of a reach to my mind. As for his userpage....hrm. It is iffy. Is it a breach of NPA or just a lack of civility? Does it demonstrate a systematic failure to AGF? Can't say I'd want to make the call. Garden does help by highlighting the exact concern phrases. Perhaps if Whitecat could highlight the specific things he thinks are wrong, SmashTheState could take care of it without the need for admin. --Narson ~ Talk • 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC) (ec)

It's threads like this that got me to unwatchlist AN and ANI a little while ago, and (after backsliding) have just caused me to unwatchlist it again. Everyone needs to grow some thicker skin, and stop actively looking for things to be outraged about. This casual talk of blocking for, I suppose, not showing proper deference in the phrase quoted by Garden (or maybe it was having the audacity to use the word "factotem"?) is.... I don't know what to call it. "Proving SmashTheState's point" comes to mind. --

barneca (talk

) 16:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap. You had AN and AN/I watchlisted at some point? Wow. Dedication. Protonk (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Heck, I'm even thinking of unwatching my own editor review - two editors who disagree with my comments (or who cannot read) have taken the opportunity to majorly skew context and trash me. Good thing I'm used to

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time I had WP:AfD watchlisted. I found that was about as useful as alphabetizing the entries in a dictionary. -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like satire. Don't fret none about the user page. Watch the contributions. That's what's important. If he's engaged in POV-pushing and original research, then he'll be brought to a screeching halt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Satire? Read the rest of that section and see if you still think he is being satirical rather than nursing a grudge. Ironholds (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I read it. It's a rant. But it raises the question, If he really hates wikipedia so much, then what's he doing here? Hence the need to watch the contribs. If he starts pushing a point of view, then he can be stopped faster than you can say, "Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing: if he hates us then why is he here? (And I have to seriously question the judgment of anyone who considers the average Wikipedian to be a "Randroid".) -- llywrch (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the presumed superiority of the old Soviet system vs. the American system reminds me of this one, from Will Rogers: "In Russia, they ain't got no income tax. But they ain't got no income!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Honestly he's probably just another white, male, middle class person from an English speaking

OECD country bitching about wikipedia being comprised only of white, male, middle class people from English speaking OECD countries. Pretty standard, and easy enough to ignore. Protonk (talk

) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I was going to write something about the whole rant being sadly amusing, but you kind of nailed it down there. His editing style *is* rather confrontational, looking at some of the discussions he's had in the past, so it's probably something to keep an eye on. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, the user is an anarcho-syndicalist, just like Dennis from the greatest movie ever made. Surely the user sees "the violence inherent in the [Wikipedia] system". MuZemike 19:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's not so much the grudge-bearing evident on the user page as edits to content with summaries like "Rand was a psychopath" which raise major red flags for me. I have blocked the user pending a credible explanation of his behaviour. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe they have good reason to bear a grudge, who can say. The edit summary was appropriate given the content and ref they added. So all in all an extremely piss poor block without any merit at all. RMHED. 20:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Why has this only just been brought up now when the user account was created two and a half years ago? I would have preferred the user to have had the chance to explain himself before a block considering he isn't a very active editor. Plus, his rant has been on his userpage since July 2008 - I'm a tad surprised at the block given the fact its only just been raised now. D.M.N. (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good god there are some thin skins on Wikipedia. That was the most entertaining userpage I've read in months. DuncanHill (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This was his eighth edit: [15]. Nothing has changed since then. He has never been anything other than a political activist bringing his battles to Wikipedia, and I'm astounded he lasted this long. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Funny I feel the same way about you Guy. RMHED. 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What, that I'm a political activist bringing external battles to Wikipedia? You might have a hard time proving that, since I have been accused of bias by both left- and right-wing POV-pushers. Do tell, though - what external battles am I bringing here? I'd love to know. Guy (Help!) 21:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was the "astounded he lasted this long" bit he was referring to. DuncanHill (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me too. When I was at school I was absolutely convinced I would be dead by the age of thirty, to find myself still here aged 45 is a constant source of amazement. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. Now, instead of just ignoring someone we have fulfilled their prophesies about wikipedia banning people for their views. The easiest way to avoid granting credence to these folks is to avoid making them martyrs. Protonk (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Eventually he's just going to get unblocked and be all kinds of obnoxious about this. TastyCakes (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The very act of pursuing a case against him proves what he stated in his rant. Sweet, sweet irony. --Nik (talk) 23:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• To repeat what I said on my talk page just now, it's not that he's outspoken and surly (I am both), the problem is that his content edits are polemical, and his interactions with others appear to be those of the picket line. His eighth edit was to add Category:Wikipedia culture to Kangaroo court, [16], and that seems to be representative of his behaviour consistently from there on; and his content edits are of similarly confrontational nature, for example, Rand was a psychopath, scarcely calculated to ease tensions on a particularly contentious article. Do we really need rock-hurling activists? Hence no expiry: I don't think a short period will fix the issue. I consider adding polemic to articles to be a serious problem, much more so than polemic directed against users. I think I explained this in the block message. But, Nik, iof you can have a word with him and get him to make some sort of comment indicating that he recognises that Wikipedia is not Usenet, then I am sure it will be no problem. We can't, however, follow a policy of not blocking people who have a martyr complex on the grounds that we will prove them right. Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a name problem, it sounds like any number of 'down with the dysfunctional US .gov' names we hear from young idealistic zealots. Big deal. It might, otoh, be an album he really likes. The Rand was a psychopath, although clearly provocative, did have citation, and looks to me like one of those 'out to change the world by higher consciousness type edits that the same youthful idealistic zealots make. I don't agree with this block. We can instead watch him. If I'm proved wrong, I'll take a public trouting, and apologize for an over abundance of (rare) pateince and goodwill. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather uncertain about the block myself, but until the editor provides more of a comment than this, I'm personally not going to press for unblocking. Tony Fox (arf!) 02:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat baffled by a system that allows "rather uncertain" blocks, and then demands the person being blocked explain themselves. Meanwhile, the person who did the blocking casually mentions "Oh, by the way, I'm off for a while now." Doesn't anyone else feel like they're watching a strange farce take place? --Nik (talk) 02:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Not particularly. I'm one admin, and I feel that StS has in fact left a bad taste with many of his edits; I'd like to have the editor provide some information on his intentions going forward, and whether he's going to edit productively or continue to act as a local champion; I have no intention of undoing the block myself, but am looking for further information so that other admins can act how they see fit. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I support unblocking Smash the State. The commment on Ayn Rand is actually based on the writing of

talk

) 02:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought Guy's behaviour had improved after the RfC and Arbcom case, but this block and deletion nomination shew that the old Guy is still with us. DuncanHill (talk) 03:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not quite a block and run, with 2 hours from block being noticed here to his departure, we do have real lives after all. Guy will likely check on this thread before bed or in the AM, depending on his location, and will follow up. I'm not concerned by that part. That said, I'd like the community to hear from STS, as to whether he really is more interested in editing cooperatively or in staging some grand revolution. I'm not thrilled with the block, but he's not lily-white in this either. ThuranX (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems like Guy immediately after he blocked SmashTheState, sent one of his articles to AfD. This just smells of incredibly bad faith especially when the AFD is heading towards a snow-y keep. D.M.N. (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone tried, you know, talking with him before you hit the block button? --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no bad faith whatsoever. The article is for a term with very few ghits, and those mainly in reference to the Starbucks union dispute; the creation fo the article coincided with several polemical edits to content by the user. There is no bad faith whatsoever in reviewing the content edits of an obviously biased user. Incidentally, if anything I share his political leanings, though I am more soft left than hard left. By US standards I am practically a Communist. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, it's not about your politics or people's perceptions of them, it's about they way you deliberately set about hitting a man when he's down, and goading him with invitations to participate in an AfD when you yourself have prevented him from doing so. DuncanHill (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
    • If so many agree that the block stinks, why is the block still in place? --Nik (talk) 14:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

No clue, let's get it off, and let him at least present his side of the situation. ThuranX (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I'll leave a note on his talk page, and on Guy's as well. I'm open for disagreements and any admin who thinks this was a horrendously lousy decision may reblock with no hard feelings from me whatsoever. GJC 15:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Username is misleading, user wants a sprawling, central planning meta-state, which is what most countries (along with the US and UK) already have. Either way though, the username is harmless, though the

soapboxing is a worry. Gwen Gale (talk

) 15:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have any evidence for your assertion about what he wants? Or did you just make that up? DuncanHill (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He says he belongs to an org which advocates putting more or less anyone who works for a living into a single labour union, with no wages. That's a form of world collectivism, which to pull off, would in itself need to become a meta state (world government). However, I was only hinting at the irony carried in his username, if you don't agree with my take on it, no worries, I think the username is ok. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that's an accurate take on the Wobblie's aims - or rather, it is a gross oversimplification which tends to mislead. DuncanHill (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We disagree, have fun, I'm bored, all the best to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The remaining question that concerns WP rather than society in general, is whether JzG's actions were unduly provocative and unbecoming an administrator--using his position for what seems to be a concerted attack on a user and his work here. DGG (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, but that is the most irredeemable nonsense. I may well be wrong about this, I am the very last person to claim to be infallible, but the assertion that this is in some way malicious or vindictive simply does not bear any kind of inspection. I had never seen this user ever before this thread, and the only reason I bocked him was that a review of his contributions showed
  WP:NPOV? I don't. Wat is it that I am supposed to have against this user, other than that which I identified here and elsewhere - that is, polemical edits to the content of the encyclopaedia? Guy (Help!
  ) 16:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• "never seen this user ever before this thread" eh? Guy, if you are going to lie have a problem with your memory, try not to do it when the evidence is right at the top of the editor's talk page. [18]. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• And here [19] is a deletion review in which you both participated. DuncanHill (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
• Here [20] is the second deletion review a couple of weeks later, in which you say you have never heard of the subject of the article (i.e. User:SmashTheState), even though you had participated in the previous review. DuncanHill (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yup, I had completely forgotten all that, and that's not really a big surprise since it was over two years ago. Hard though this may be for you to believe, some of us do not actually harbour grudges for years on end. Nor can we be expected to remember every single inappropriate edit which we revert and comment on, or every single participant in every debate in which we take part. This is, after all, just a hobby. Any time you want to stop shit-stirring is good. Oh, and that second DRV? SmashTheState wasn't there. I had to check the first DRV to even work out what the connection was; that's almost an outing there, please be a bit more careful :-) Guy (Help!) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I had thought that you might actually have looked at his talkpage when you were deciding to block him indefinately. outing? If you had read his userpage at any point in your decision making process, you would know that he himself says he was the subject of the deleted article. DuncanHill (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I had made it clear that my problem was with his polemical edits to content. I never did give a toss who he is, and I cannot remember the title of every article whose deletion I have advocated, opposed or enacted. Life is too short for that kind of crap. I wish I was perfect like you, but not everybody is. Bye. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I've never claimed to be perfect - but I can spot my own signature at the very top of a talk page. DuncanHill (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

End of

Thanks, Gladys, for unblocking (I was about to). Seems the editor's actions are not as far over the line as I perceive them to be. Fair enough, that's the consensus, I still think that they are provocative and the edit summaries doubly so, and it affects content, which is a big deal for me.

A couple of notes:

• Someone accused me of being "vindictive" in nominating the article on Solidarity unionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for deletion. Naturally before blocking I reviewed SmashTheState's edit history, this one leapt out at me. I did check it out, especting to find some connection to the Polish trade union Solidarity, but found instead a one-para article founded on the teapot tempest of the Starbucks dispute. Google showed few sources, mostly polemical and self-published. If I did not think SmashTheState was writing biased content, I would not have blocked him; it is not really terribly surprising that I thought this article he created was biased.
• DuncanHill accused me of being "dishonest" in posting a message to the talk page of a blocked user about a deletion debate. This claim is risible. Twinkle does it automatically, I heve never even looked for a way to turn it off. The irony of accusing me of acting bad faith, based on ana assumpotion of bad faith based on past grudges, is not lost on me.
• According to those wonderful people at Wikipedia Review, whose grumblings are brought here with such alacrity by some of their number, this is politically motivated. I'll take that offline on my talk page, since actually I don't know enough about Ayn Rand to even understand how my personal political opinions might intersect with the views of the subject. Rand is not typically studied in the history courses I took at school thirty years ago, I have never read any of Rand's books, had to look up the subject's gender having got it wrong once, and a cursory inspection would indicate that Rand is if anything a right-wing figure - you might want to ask the fans of Free Republic whether I am sympathetic to their cause. I am a lapsed member of the Liberal Democrats, if anyone would like to tell me how the views might overlap.

And now I will go and work on my model railway for a bit. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Using Twinkle to issue templates which you know to be incorrect or inappropriate is misuse of the tool and not permitted - and it is dishonest. You made no effort to correct the misleading template that you issued. That is why I believe that you were acting in bad faith. Good faith admins check their edits and correct their mistakes. DuncanHill (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since I didn't do that, your comment above is as pointless as the original insult. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Are you saying that you didn;t know what Twinkle would do? DuncanHill (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• No, I am saying that the assertion that i was issuing templates which I "know to be incorrect" is not only false but a deliberate and calculated assumption of bad faith in furtherance of your long-standing grudge against me for something which was of mind-numbing triviality at the time. Incidentally, dince you apparently have nothing better to do than trolling at the moment, how about fixing up an article dear to your new best friend's heart? Ottawa Panhandlers' Union has serious problems. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much wikidrama? Listen, it's kinda obvious that Guy made a mistake. He nominated it for deletion and instinctively warned the user about it. Although he didn't check it, I really don't think he put the template there to laugh at the user, because he was blocked. My 2 pennies. Simon^KSK 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you didn't know what the template would say when you issued it. If you had known, then you would have realized that it was incorrect. I will happily assume incompetence on your part, as it explains so much of your destructive behaviour. "new best friend"? No, just an editor who I have seen being treated badly. DuncanHill (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Duncan, I would like to know why you are assuming so much bad faith for a silly mistake? Wikibreak time? Simon^KSK 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I assure you, now Guy has explained himself I am convinced that he is acting in good faith, he just doesn't have a clue what he is doing. DuncanHill (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's a bit unfair, because you can't think a user doesn't know what he is doing just because of one silly mistake. Simon^KSK 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Which one silly mistake are you are referring to? DuncanHill (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sigh* I'm not going to go after this, anymore. It seems like it's going nowhere. Simon^KSK 23:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at South Korea and some related articles

List of countries by military expenditure he removed hundreds of entries while giving a misleading edit summary diff). He has received several warnings

from me, but has blanked them from his talk page. I reported him to AIV yesterday but the case was too complicated, so I'm bringing it here instead.

From what I can tell, he has made some constructive edits to other areas of the encyclopedia, so I don't know if a total block is warranted; I think the best thing would be a temporary topic ban from South Korea and other articles where he as engaged in disruptive editing.

(FYI: I will not be at my computer much for the next couple days, so if you need me to comment here again or respond to any questions, the best/fastest way to get in touch with me might be to shoot me an e-mail letting me know there's more discussion at this thread. Thanks.) rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 15:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, just so you know, User:Sennen goroshi has said that Manmohit2002 might be a sock puppet; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ziggymaster for more information. Personally I think action needs to be taken even if he is not a sock puppet; if he is, of course, then the action to be taken would be a bit different. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 15:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he was indef blocked as a sockpuppet. rʨanaɢ (formerly Politizer)^talk/_contribs 00:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Pope John Paul II

Resolved

Just had it confirmed that this is it for the current socks in this case.

T

) 01:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hope I'm reporting this at the right place — a lot of edit warring is going on at

Endothermic (talk

) 16:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a vandal, this is what he's inserting, suggest immediate block, he's already recieved his last warning.--Patton^t/c 16:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

JohnofEngland (talk · contribs) also needs blocking.--Patton^t/c 16:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I tossed in a semi protection; something fishy is going on there with multiple IPs/new users all getting into it across each other. Sockiness?

T

) 16:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User:Pastor Leo to act professionally. If he is a real pastor, even if he had a burst of anger, he will become a good user. If he doesn't, then I am not interested in giving him further advice. Chergles (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I've indeffed both four new usernames for obvious sockpuppetry, and IP for 1 week for the same.

• JohnofEngland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pastor Leo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Truth Crusader 666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Hanswold (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 93.97.167.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• T
  ) 18:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Subject to review, of course.

T

) 17:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please also block

WP:SPI report about this, oh well...). E Wing (talk

) 17:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Hansfold as well, as that edit summary admitted he was Pastor Leo. Can we get a CU to look this over for any sleeper socks?

T

) 18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Indiana University South Bend

OUTING

!! Oh my!!

I would appreciate another set of eyes to have a look at what's going on over at

WP:RFPP

, but I felt it went beyond simply protecting a page. Here's a quick timeline of the article's weirdness:

• On 14-15 August, an SPA IUFaculty (talk · contribs) added a section "Free speech concerns" to the article about a student reporter who was charged with and later cleared of stalking an actress. This user has made no edits since then.
• On 6 October 2008 and again on 21-22 November 2008, another SPA LASProf (talk · contribs) added a section about a grading controversy. This account has been inactive since November.
• On 2 February 2009, anon 67.236.154.17 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed the grading section and trimmed the stalking/free speech section, claiming COI. A new SPA IUSBProf (talk · contribs) replaces the information, causing much of the stalking/free speech stuff to appear twice.
• On 5 February, another anon 173.24.22.167 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) makes an attempt to trim the sections and restore some semblance of NPOV.
• Today, IUSBProf returns some of this information to the article. He is reverted by a third anon 149.161.50.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). These two edit war, with the anon claiming vandalism and COI and IUSBProf claiming censorship. This ends with the anon trying to out IUSBProf.

Response from IUSBProf: I am indeed a professor at IUSB, but had no involvement whatsoever with the grading controversy or the free speech concerns that were raised. A now removed posting claimed that IUSBProf is a student. That is incorrect. I came across the earlier removal and edits to a posting by LASProf and was concerned that the removal of those comments constituted censorship. The free speech concerns and grading controversy edits were originally well-documented with reference to public information (newspaper articles and information from the FIRE website). I believe that these issues are (or should be) of concern to those who study at or work at IUSB. Individuals involved were named as their names are already in the public domain. Also, it is commonplace elsewhere in wikipedia to name individuals involved with particular controversies. The earlier materials posted about the free speech and grading controversies appear to have been edited to such an extent (or removed at times) in an effort to downplay the significance of these events, to protect the identities of those involved in these events (even though their names are already in the public domain), and to provide less substantive detail in the explanation of the events in question. The grading dispute was not "inconsequential" as it had implications regarding the possible violation of student privacy. The issues regarding free speech indicate that the Judicial Affairs office at IUSB attempted to censor a student newspaper and that university officials would not listen to complaints from the student reporter regarding Judicial Affairs handling of his case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IUSBProf (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My actions

I immediately blocked 149.161.50.216 for a week for the attempted outing. I have cautioned IUSBProf on the COI problem and deleted the whole "Controversies" section because, in the grand scheme of things, grading disputes are pretty inconsequential.

I wanted an uninvolved admin or three to give the whole thing a sanity check and to check if oversight is needed. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 17:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

oversight of the whole string of edits is needed, in my opinion, and also a block of IUSBProf, quite regardless of his true academic status. [21] and similar edits are not acceptable; they are edit warring to insert & maintain BLP violations. DGG (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SoUnusual

Resolved

 – It seems that it takes so long to put these reports together that it was taken care of before I even saved my first message

This user has made several disruptive edits in the past few days. [22],[23],[24],[25],[26], and others. Although this user has only been warned twice, an oversite if you ask me, the user continued disruptive editing by making this edit on his/her talk page [27]. A personnal attack perhaps??.

I should be so insulted as to be called an unwilling sex symbol. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but it seems that an involved admin has already taken care of the problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP concerns. The overriding concern is protecting the encyclopedia, which is what I do. --Rodhullandemu
  00:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Godvia

User:Godvia was blocked indefinitely for a variety of tenditious behavior. The user has returned tonight to post a series of personal attacks upon established editors on her/his talk page here, here, here and here. I am asking for protection on this talk page as the user apparently has no intention of asking for the block removal and is now using that page to attack editors. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take the page off your watchlist; the editor is indef blocked and is likely to remain so while they post such rantings, but it does not help move the situation forward by reverting them. Once the situation calms and the editor drifts away or apologises or becomes World President and Gets Various Asses Seriously Pwned then the page can be restored to the appropriate version - in the meantime, let them air their grievances and do something more fun somewhere else. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? That's the best an administrator can offer when presented with vile attacks posted by a banned editor when I've reported personal attacks aimed at me?? With all due respect, that's the poorest answer I've actually read on this noticeboard. Meanwhile, the editor is being encouraged by someone whose best response is to mollycoddle the person who is posting viciously against more than one person. Does it have to be an adminstrator that is called racist and "wildhog" for you to act upon this? Bluntly, this answer sucks and certainly is in no way supportive of any editor in good standing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We get indef-blocked users ranting all the time; LHvU has a view that many take - ignore them until they actually request an unblock, or until they go away. I've left a note for the editor that if an unblock is in the works, to request it without the personal attacks or else their page may be locked. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I had two options here - the one I was suggesting to you; ignore it and get on with more fun stuff, or two raise the ante by responding. I shall follow the course that most appeals to you; I have in the past two days received 3 sets of postings to my talkpage regarding blocks I have enacted. One called me an "ass-wipe" and was ignored, one laboured some point about my blocking creating a biased (ie not their pov) article which I attempted to address before withdrawing, and the last one who called me an "Asswhole" (presumably being a complete mule is a vile insult in some parts of the world, although I would be more affronted by being referred to as only 73% of a mule personally) and who I responded on their talkpage - they being blocked on account of the attacks on my page - in a fairly humorous manner. So, really, I actually do know what I am talking about and my advice to you (and I shall write it more slowly and in shorter words this time) is "do not let it get to you - or you will end up getting angry to no effect." Now, does this help or do you now think it would have been best if I had let this pass following the good advice already given to you here? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As the subject of the "vile attacks" – who was the administrator that was called racist in said attack – I think my poor sensitive self can cope with the trauma of leaving his talkpage unblocked. I get worse abuse than this all the time and so does everyone else. – 

iridescent

20:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Tony. Iridescent, you weren't the only person called racist in the series of rants posted, so was Pinkadelica at one point, and my name and another were left. However, it isn't true that everyone else gets that sort of abuse all the time. I certainly don't get abuse like that all the time or I wouldn't waste my time here. It may be something that adminstrators get inured to, but then, that's why I never wanted to be an adminstrator. We tried being decent to this person, that didn't work either. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, he's only being rude to you on his own talk page and if I protect his talkpage he'll have no place to contest the block; and when I blocked him indefinitely, I did it with the firm intention of "indefinite meaning undefined", not "indefinite meaning infinite" (I deliberately removed the autoblock the next day as well, in case he wants to make a quiet fresh start under a new name). If it bothers you that much, unwatch his talkpage. – 

iridescent

21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Godvia is also accusing me of racism, most likely based on the erroneous assumption that I am white. I think the page should be protected so that other users aren't be defamed on Wikipedia's own server, but whatever is done, I think it should be done quickly. We can probably all agree that no matter what action is taken, lengthy discussions about the situation likely serve only to satisfy the blocked user's desire for attention. Chicken Wing (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming revert war on several articles

User:Tool2Die4 deletes information in all lead section about the award achievements of film industry artists. He states, that it would be against NPOV or violates any term of MoS. Infact there is no single entry on this matter in these WP policy articles and awards are simply facts, which are clearly NPOV. I warned him at the userpage already, but he quickly re-reverted all articles. He is also using offensive language diff --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I notified this editor and left an actual message about the edits. Please don't simply substitute template messages for communication. Protonk (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I always get a kick out of these ill-advised ANI's. I'd like an apology on my talkpage after this is cleared up. Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also request that the "Ultramegasuperstar" re-revert his erroneous edits, and he be forced to read up on the MoS sections in question. Having to deal with abrasive editors who don't understand policy only hampers the project. I also got a good LOL at the notion that the diff he listed was "offensive". Tool2Die4 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think, you are not able to keep a respectful tune. Kindly advise you to leave wikipedia, if you don't have intentions to change your attitude. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please take some action administrators. I'm getting warned by him for the rereverts, because he is not sticking to the mediation initiated by User:Protonk. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you read up on the requested reading material yet? If so, you'd understand the maintenance tags being added. Tool2Die4 (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

First you have to show all complaints at the discussion pages of the articles. All arguments will be reviewed and only then we can tag the articles with maintenance tags. You have ignored this demand on your talk page already. --Ultramegasuperstar (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Both of you Stop. UMS, I don't think that your approach to this is productive (note, the tone that editors need to take here is collegial, not "respectful", both imply civility but the former implies mutual respect and the latter implies some sort of dominance). Tool2, you should slow down or stop adding tags to those articles. Like I said on your talk page, the preferred solution is for you to edit the pages in order to improve them, not necessarily just to tag them. Tagging them being only more preferable to deleting materials altogether. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ultramegasuperstar was just listed on AIV for this[28], but I removed him from there as this is being addressed here.

T

) 18:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both of them for edit warring in an attempt to stop this from spiraling out of control. Protonk (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: Tool has been now indef blocked.

Tan | 39

18:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Since he claims that "If you're this fucking stupid, just make it an indef ... This way I can stop trying to be constructive, and can just go back to good ole' anonymous vandalizing" a CU might be useful to see if there's a static IP behind him that can be blocked. Black Kite 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I set the autoblock, so if he is on a static IP, it shouldn't be a problem.

Tan | 39

18:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Only works for 24 hours, though. Black Kite 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

True.

Tan | 39

18:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(out) I believe the consensus at WikiProjectFilms, as reflected in

WP:MOSFILM is:

Avoid using the phrase "award-winning" in the opening sentence of the lead section, as it provides insufficient context to the reader. Instead, provide a short overview of any significant awards and honors later in the lead section.

So, it's not that "award-winning" or its equivalents should simply be removed from the first sentence, it's that it should be removed and replaced with a fuller mention of the subject's awards later on in the lede. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c}

20:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's a good read of the policy side. I agree that "award winning" isn't really proper but the edit warring and nastiness was pretty uncalled for. Protonk (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that really what the MOS says? Almost every bio I have seen lately starts out with "award winning this that and whatever" and I find it so annoying, but since I saw it everywhere, I thought it was the preferred MOS. Anyways, --Tom 00:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)ps, opps, sorry, that is for films, what is the MOS for bios? Can somebody link to that? Thanks, --Tom 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is on

Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Words_and_phrases_to_watch_for as well. Protonk (talk

) 01:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The dilemma is that there's always the rule to establish "notability", and saying that someone won an award is one way to do that. Of course, there are brazillions of actors who are apparently considered "notable" who never won anything. But it certainly makes sense to state in the lead which award they won, in order to set them at a somewhat higher plane of notability. Starting out with just "so-and-so is an award-winning actor" sounds kind of cheesy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxification by Dwiakigle

User:Dwiakigle is vigorously adding bio infoboxes to articles that have (in the opinion of various editors who've brought them up to FA) existed perfectly well without. He seems immune to warnings on his talk page to get consensus first. If I did not have such a straightforward and oft-expressed opinion on bio-infoboxes (briefly, that they suck), I'd warn him that continuation of this activity would be regarded as disruptive and would risk bringing on etc etc. (Of course, he's most welcome to argue for these things, but not to add them unilaterally.) However I do have such an opinion, and thus am not the person to issue such a warning. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I also left a note for Dwiakigle asking him to check with article editors first; infoboxes are by no means universally loved. For a while he was adding an "infobox-needed=yes" param to project tags, which seemed a reasonable way of signalling his intent and allowing for discussion. I think any editor should feel free to add infoboxes to any article they like, but since it is something on which reasonable people can differ, it may be unproductive to do so to a long list of articles at one time. If this is not regarded as disruptive behaviour I suppose there's nothing to be done, but it seems both uncollaborative and inefficient to me. Mike Christie (talk) 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I for one do consider it disruptive. Most of the articles involved are featured articles; major changes to formatting can have a very significant effect on these articles. Earlier today when he was adding the "infobox needed=yes" templates to some of these pages, I asked him to discuss on the talk pages. He failed to discuss then, and has repeatedly failed to discuss after requests from three separate users. This is not appropriate. Risker (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He is also using obscure edit summaries such as add junky "infobox". Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

By contrast, I might term that a splendidly candid edit summary, free of obscurity, though one that of course raises the question of why he's consciously adding "junky" material. -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Risker. -- Hoary (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "confusing" is the correct word. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I, too, have asked him to desist, on his talk page.

talk

) 10:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandal harrassing User:MBisanz

Either Gr*wp or a Gr*wp-wannabe is vandalizing User:MBisanz and his Talk and Talk archive pages. The socks keep getting blocked and new ones keep cropping up. Semi-protection of MBisanz's User space may be necessary. Note, however, that the same vandal was also creating an article attacking NawlinWiki. AnyPerson (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz is an admin with more than enough gumption to protect his own pages if necessary. I'm guessing he doesn't see it as necessary. //roux   03:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He isn't currently active. So you're saying that if a vandal is repeatedly attacking the User space of an admin who isn't currently active, nobody will bother to do anything? Thanks for letting me know. I won't bother to undo vandalisms on admin pages any more. AnyPerson (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Rootology already semi protected the user page. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But not the Talk page and the Talk page archive pages. AnyPerson (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that nobody needs to do anything. For one, the Hugglers will catch it quickly, as will anyone with his upage/tpage on their watchlists. For another, the repeated vandalism just builds more information in the CU logs, which allows us to nuke and pave sockfarms. //roux   04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) no, don't stop reverting vandalism. What I'm saying is that protection probably isn't necessary, and Mbisanz can implement it himself if he wants to. //roux   04:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as the pages are not protected, the vandal will continue. If nobody's going to do anything, I see no point in trying to carry water with a sieve. AnyPerson (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

His user and main talk are already protected, that's why they moved on to the archives.

T

) 04:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I won't be fullprotecting my archives or semi-protecting my talk page, per the whole idea that I shouldn't take admin action with regard to people who are attacking me personally. Although it another admin saw it fit to fullprotect my archives, that would be nice. MBisanz ^talk 04:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, Rootology also semi'ed User talk:MBisanz, and I just semi'ed User talk:MBisanz/Archive 1. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

@MBisanz: I've just fully protected all your archives per your request here. — Aitias // discussion 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't want his page protected; every IP/named account that vandalises his page gives them one fewer to use. HalfShadow 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello hammer, I believe you just encountered a nail in the headular region. //roux   05:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Large sockfarm

Resolved

 – According to the discussion after the list of sockpuppets, they've all been blocked. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Luna Santin#Checkuser request (permalink). 200+ likely sockpuppets, mostly disrupting articles on Windows Vista or relating to Barack Obama, though there's some vandalism at "central" pages like the village pump or Talk:Main Page. Many of these accounts are blocked, already, but I'd appreciate it if someone else took over the review from here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:HorseGirl070605

This user has so much bad behavior, it's difficult to know where to focus. She has abused [29] (and perhaps threatened in earnest) editors, has a sockpuppet account (71.68.223.17), has ignored several editor's requests to stop vandalism, edit wars, blanks her discussion pages to hide final warnings,[30] and repeatedly announces she's retired, when she is editing as usual.[31] I have consulted with other editors,[32] and the suggestion was to begin here. She shows no sign of changing her habits of making off-hand, often childish edits, based on personal opinion, or information from social sites. Of particular concern is indicating she's willing to delete other, established edits for no reason. She wanted the articles for

The Easter Bunny entirely deleted, for example.[33] She seems to be largely unwilling to improve her behavior in even small matters. This thinking is so contrary to Wikipedia values, so persistent, it seems time to take some action.Piano non troppo (talk

) 02:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Some of this evidence is really questionable; she does not actually want

The Volten Sins. Her threats are clearly not serious ("I'll get my dog Nsync to bite ya'll and I'll get my cat Spicey to bite and scratch ya'll"). Editing after announcing retirement is not forbidden and may just indicate a change of heart. And I would hardly call editing while not logged in a sock puppet, unless it was done with the intention of presenting an alternate identity, which you have not demonstrated evidence of. Nevertheless, her uncooperative attitude and poor communication ("I'm not going to work together with any of you peons. And ya'll can't make me."), as well as her technique of avoiding conflict by pretending to cooperate and later misbehaving again, not to mention her persistent OR edits, are really difficult to deal with. Dcoetzee

05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The idea of retirement she has I introduced her to but she's run with it and now believes she has retired, just not enough to actually cease editing. She has recently been editing whilst logged out but I don't think it's an honest thing as she still blanks the IP talkpages with "(retired)" even though IP accounts can't actually be retired so I do feel it's more to do with gaming the system than just editing without being logged in. If she edits whilst logged out, to her it doesn't count and if her HorseGirl070605 account is blocked then she still gets to edit and nobody gets to bug her. All I'm wondering is just why we shouldn't be considering this to be sockpuppetry, she might not be identifying as someone else but is trying to avoid scrutiny by doing this. treelo _radda 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, difficult to deal with. We were, in part, seeking a suggestion about what to do. Statements such as "You A-Holes can't stop me."(cited above) suggest she has no intention of changing behavior without correction. (Switching from editing as HorseGirl070605 an anon IP is a part of a larger pattern of avoidance, that is, she stopped editing in one, and started in another. Only later did the editors watching her discover what she'd done).

I got involved only lately, and was appalled at the amount of effort earlier editors had expended trying to reason with her. Her disdain for proper sourcing is real enough, and based on a worldview coming from social sites, and apparently her interpretation of the Bible, as, for example, in this edit on Ghost: "Ghosts are mentioned in The Bible. Ergo ghosts are real."[34]

We've tried reasoning with her, what's next? Thanks. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Inspecting her recent edits, I think most of the damage is limited to The Saddle Club, and she's stopped editing there for the moment. She may be uncivil and have a poor attitude, as well as the issue with reliable sources, but relatively few of her edits are manifestly bad and she doesn't continue pushing them if challenged, so I don't think there's a significant problem. I've left a clear warning on her talk page (and that of her IP). Dcoetzee 07:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. That would be the warning that she just blanked without comment. [35] But thank you for your message to her, that at least lets her know there are some rules and guidelines. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking warnings on talk pages is fine - we can take it as proof that they were received. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless the user is that naive. In either case, it looks like she bucking for a block. Someone should remind her that a person cannot

revoke his/her contributions under the GFDL. The user has acknowledged all such warnings given and still does not heed them. MuZemike

09:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Aoi has been keeping a record of every contribution added to the talkpages of accounts she's used and given just how many times she blanks the page it really isn't acknowledgement of the contribs but more that she doesn't want to read what others think. treelo _radda 14:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible sock of Manhattan Samurai

Resolved

• Manhattan Samurai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• An Argento Fan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Is Google Making Us Stupid?
• Talk:Is Google Making Us Stupid?/GA1

An Argento Fan has been inactive for almost a year, and has "returned" today to make a few edits and nominate Is Google Making Us Stupid? for FA-status, an article which Manhattan Samurai worked on and helped. In the FAC nom, An Argento Fan states "My editor Skomorokh and I have been collaborating on this article for some time now." - the edit count for that article disagrees. Suggest indef-block for block evasion. D.M.N. (talk) 10:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked, and left a note to explain themselves using the unblock template in the unlikely event that this is not the case. Black Kite 11:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 69.14.222.125

Could someone rollback all of this user's edits please - they are all indiscriminate link-promotion of a certain band. They're adding them as quick as I can undo them and I don't have rollback. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with by User:Heimstern. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Content Managment System pages and Deletion

I bring this up due to the fact, this is the second time Seditio page has been brought up for deletion. No the CMS does not have news articles or awards given to it, but its a CMS that as been around for many years, and was created from a Previously known CMS as Land Down Under which is 7 Years old. Seditio which is 3 years old which was built upon Land Down under. I'm not going to continue debating on if it should stay or not. I do not have the time, and have better things to do.

But what I would like to bring up, is I feel this decisions is biased. I can link to half of the List of content management systems which could potentially fall under the same critera. For this reason it is unfair and biased for one article to be deleted and not others. If you take even a moment to look at half the articles, most are no better, or even worse then the Seditio page. Half are marked for no notablity or biased, or cleanup. Yet they do not receive deletion. This is clearly biased. If need be i'll go through and link all the articles of such myself for this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilandor (talk • contribs) 12:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. It is quite possible that many of these pages do not fit our criteria. But there does not seem anything here that specifically requires administrator attention (the AFD discussion still has some time to go, and nothing has been decided yet). Kusma (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:TAway

Resolved

Jesus myth hypothesis without giving any explanation on the article's talk page, despite a request to do so on his/her talk page. Diffs: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. TAway hasn't violated 3RR, but has 3 reverts in the last 24 hours. (So do I, but at least a started a section on the article's talk page about the disputed text.) Could someone uninvolved please remind TAway to use the talk page? Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk

) 02:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jesus myth hypothesis, we could use more input there... --Akhilleus (talk

) 02:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He's still removing the content, and still not using the talk page [43]. In addition, it looks like he's used an IP address to make the same edit: [44]. I think a block is in order. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I've given TAway (talk · contribs) a final warning (another admin also gave a warning). Seems the IP (user|85.225.123.178}} also shared edits with Joe hill (talk · contribs), engaged in his own edit war at Historicity of Jesus. Will monitor. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by User:Panlatdelkwa

This is a relatively new user that is being disruptive, particularly in

talk

) 10:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

-Sigh You don't stop. The user clearly does not agree with you hence the fact he has been reverting you, and explicitly stated on the talk page that he disagrees with you! Also, you're reporting me for incivility after I warned you over

WP:CIV for calling me names - what a laugh. Panlatdelkwa (talk

) 10:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Panlatdelwka ... why in the world are you re-adding posts to someone else's userpage when they distinctly asked you to stop ... you should not be refactoring anything on someone else's talkpage. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 10:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted because his edit removed a comment to another unrelated thread. I of course acknowledge that he is allowed to remove the warning once he has read it though. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read

Aecis·(away) ^talk

11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"I of course acknowledge that he is allowed to remove the warning once he has read it though." Panlatdelkwa (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That's why you re-posted twice, edit-warring on my talk page. --

talk

) 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The removal itself indicates that the message has been read.

Aecis·(away) ^talk

11:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He did not undo this edit of mine [53], even though he had all the time in the world to do it. That implies agreement. You are clearly lying, and breaching my consensus with him. And then you repeatedly call me the "rudest editor" you've come across. --

talk

) 10:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Having reverting you countless times on the page anyway, after your last revert, he did this, which effectively undoes your relocation of Turkey into the "usually considered Middle Eastern" category anyway. Yes, I stand by my complaint of your civility, after you called me arrogant for doing nothing more than reverting you. Panlatdelkwa (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But he kept Turkey in the "Territories and Regions of the Middle East"! That's the whole point! All he did was remove the "Usually considered ME" title heading, which makes it even more explicit! And he did not undo my edit, you did. And no, I did not call you arrogant for reverting you. You are lying once again. But then, what is this little comment by you: "Stop POV-pushing. The community has had enough."? What is that supposed to mean? Who made you "community spokesperson"? --

talk

) 11:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh really now?. I did nothing other than transfer Turkey from the "usually considered middle east" back to the "greater middle east", and I was told you didn't want me to "arrogantly" come reverting you?

What sort of superior status exactly do you think you hold? Panlatdelkwa (talk

) 11:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The incivility continues, with innuendoes such as this: [54] and this [55]. --

talk

) 11:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This is now beyond amusing. One of the diffs you provided was from before this, so how is it "continues"? And secondly, please have a look at what

incivility actually is - heaven knows you could do with it. I also notice that after ranting on that I'm a "liar", when I disproved this in the comment above, you completely ignore it. Also, after checking your contributions, you've been in literally dozens of edit wars in the last month alone. I suggest an admin take a deeper look at this user. Panlatdelkwa (talk

) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL at "dozens". And though you are a new user, you are already immediately involved in two edit wars, on

talk

) 11:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet both of them are with you? I haven't had any problems with anyone else. Oh, and again you're clearly not telling the truth are you. Let's have a look at what you actually said after I reverted the first time:

"we really don't need you arrogantly coming in out of nowhere" (that's the bit you talk about being an adverb)

"I'm starting to get really tired of your arrogant and hypocritical attitude" - but wait... "I did not call you "arrogant""??

And that was all for me doing this? Panlatdelkwa (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, making false accusations, e.g. such as "dozens of edit-wars in the last month" is also a form of personal attack. --

talk

) 11:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion: Both of you obviously need to
  talk
  ) 19:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP concern John Burris

Would some other Wikipedia editors watch-list this article, John Burris. He's not really the nightmare of a human being portrayed in the article, whose editors seem to have missed a less negative thing about him that also received tremendous publicity, and that was in most of the articles used as references for the Wikipedia article. This concerns me, when someone is recently in the news, but has had plenty of other news about them, including something that could represent them in a different light, yet this is ignored in the Wikipedia article. The article needs to find a neutral ground that isn't there. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This might be more usefully discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum; That said, I did watchlist it and note that User:THF appears to be working through most of the concerns and is interacting with other editors. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I think just getting another pair of eyes or two going from posting here will do fine. Thanks for watchlisting. --KP Botany (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Continued userspace campaigning by indefinitely blocked user

Posturewriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on indefinite block as a disruptive single-purpose account.

He has been told by an admin: Continuing to use your talk page as a forum whilst blocked is inappropriate - either request an unblock using the {{unblock}} template, or stop editing. If you continue to soapbox on this page your ability to edit it will be removed.[58]

However, he is continuing to use the Talk page to solicit discussion by other editors outside the {{unblock}} process (see [59]). Any chance of the block being upgraded? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What they need to do is clear and protect his talk page. It appears that the user does not understand what the purpose of wikipedia is. Specifically it is NOT "to publish his ideas". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, the warning and the breach of it are both pretty clear. I'm blocking Posturewriter from editing that page. There is no sign from their contribs that they are moving in any way in the direction of understanding or appealing their block. If anyone wants to offer advice tho them, the user talk page is still open, but further output from Posturewriter is going to have to be via email. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User moving articles without discussion

Talk:Prokletije, and there was consensus that the name should be "Prokletije". Albnaian was warned on his talk page not to do so by User:Tadija after the first time. Vanjagenije (talk

) 16:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Racism and the panarabism ideology

Ok... I just spotted this in new pages patrol. I have no idea what to do with it, it seems like it's a blatant POV essay with mondo links to blogs and the like. AfD? Can't be speedied. PROD? Any ideas? §FreeRangeFrog 21:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedied. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, dodged that one :) Thanks. §FreeRangeFrog 22:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Cheapfriends and North / Northern Cyprus

Cheapfriends (talk · contribs) appears to be duplicating every article and category with "Northern Cyprus" in them by changing the wording to "North Cyprus". It's all a huge mess, rather that propose redirects or page moves he appears to just have starting creating new articles. Does anyone have an automated way of cleaning this? After I queried it he left a legalese justification on my talk page. It's obviously getting out of hand very quickly and there appears to be no link to a wikipedia discussion in his edit history. --Blowdart | ^talk 20:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 20:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I'll ARV and sock puppet it then, and start to flag/revert, unless someone with some "power" wants to save me the trouble *grin* --Blowdart | ^talk 20:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK this got a little more worrying, by the way the following explanation on my [talk page -

Dear Friend Blowdart, please do not misunderstand us. North Cyprus is under embargo, and the internet is the only way of getting our voices out. If someone blocks the one NC Wiki-user, the other NC Wiki-user can try to express the things truely. So, putting me to the list of sockpuppets is not a good thing: Here, I am in the dorminatory of a NC University. What NC people do here is follow the internet. You can be sure that another NC Wiki-user in another NC Univ's dorminatory will edit the Wikipedia with correct knowledges. Thx for you patience to read this much :)

To me this reads like there will be a concerted attempt to push their POV onto North(ern) Cyprus articles. Gosh that will be fun. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked User:IntensityOfTheLight as a sock of the above. How big is the list of likely target articles, and will semi-protection give the required dissuasion without compromising the ability of good faith ip editing? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Get the big guns out? I think these articles should be semied for some time, just in case. and also protect the North Cyprus pages from being created. Simon^KSK 22:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the North Cyprus articles as redirects - they may easily be search terms - and fully protected will stop that malarky. Is this an option? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; I only noticed because I was patrolling new pages; it's not like I'm admin, but my mummy tells me I'm special (I can has barnstar now? *duck*). There were quite a few pages created, check my contributions today roughly 100 db flags or reverts, it was painful; I'd guess anything with Northern Cyprus in the title, or whatever links to there is fair game for them *sigh* Maybe salting or creating then locking the North article titles might help somewhat. --Blowdart | ^talk 22:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And we have another one already Literal64words (talk · contribs) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Reported and reverted. Ironholds (talk)

Beat me to it :) Thanks. Shut eye time here now though, have fun with it all. --Blowdart | ^talk 23:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And another TitanicLordIceberged (talk · contribs) judging by this edit on my talk page. Right sleep time! --Blowdart | ^talk 23:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have worked through Blowdarts contrib history as relating to North/Northern Cyprus articles and have make all North Cyprus pages redirects to the parent Northen Cyprus one, and then indef protected; this is a type of salting, but means anyone searching under this supposedly new official terminology will get the historical page with full history. I would comment that I recreated and then redirected a few pages that had been deleted for that same reason (and also to have a live page should the name change actually be correct and the old page needs merging to the correct version). I have further sprotected for a week all pages that were targeted by the socks, per Blowdarts contrib history, to dissuade the waiting new socks - I only did a week both to release the pages to legit ip editing asap, and new accounts would easily be autoconfirmed within that timescale. If I have missed any page, please feel free to let some other sysop know... or me, if you really have to. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And we're off again Hansiermann (talk · contribs) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And Else where we are (talk · contribs) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And SecondInventory (talk · contribs) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And Newlysaturateds (talk · contribs) --Blowdart | ^talk 23:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor/Sockpuppet

It has happened:

User PARARUBBAS (at least the first account i acknowledge) had the custom of the following: removing, just because, links, references, sections ("SEE ALSO", "NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH") and paragraphs, "gluing" all sentences (list of "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pararubbas); i provide an example here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aly_Cissokho&diff=prev&oldid=226305530).

(Over)Duly warned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked), including in what seemed his mother tongue, Portuguese (i am also from that country and did so), he, after having made zero edit summaries and responded to zero talkpage "interventions", was finally blocked indefinitely (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pararubbas#Blocked).

Afterwards, the person logged in under the account PEP10 (list of "contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pep10), continuing with the same disruptive patterns (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jo%C3%A3o_Pereira_(Portuguese_footballer)&diff=prev&oldid=257327999). After a while and some reports, this account was blocked indef as well (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pep10#December_2008), after a check user was performed by admin/user Satori Son (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Pep10)

It did not deter this individual still, as he opened a third account, PASD08 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Pasd08), with same modus operandi (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pawe%C5%82_Kieszek&diff=prev&oldid=265304604). After extensive reports (see here for instance http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=265562039#Disruptive_editors) a sock puppetry pattern was finally acknowledged and the person received its due punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasd08#Sock_of_Pararubbas).

You'd think the vandal had had enough by now, would you not? Well, here is the FOURTH account, KAKD08 (list of "contributions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kakd08), with the same patterns (example here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vitorino_Antunes&diff=prev&oldid=269312444). He has already been warned in this fresh new "vandalic adventure" (talkpage here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kakd08#February_2009).

Attentively, VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Damjanoviczarko

An edit summary written by

TALK

) 00:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Having noticed the report,

TALK

) 00:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He then responded to my notification of this report with another salute of the same sort [62], and another [63], you get the idea.... :P --

TALK

) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who is supporter of Pavelić, Hitler or any other fascist bustard can suck my cock. —Preceding unoriginal comment added by Damjanoviczarko (talk • contribs) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's the Croatian expression for "begging for a block"? P.S. He got a short one, 2 days, just as a test. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, its something like "Pliz blokiraj me" ("Please block me"), the expression comes close to bridging the cultural barrier, don't it? Just like ignorance... :P --

TALK

) 01:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked, DIREKTOR, who basically violated 3RR on

UDBA, has been warned. Like I said on your talk page, DIREKTOR, literally the only reason I didn't block you was because it wouldn't have prevented future edit warring (because the only other person was Damjanoviczarko). Don't skirt the rules on that again. Protonk (talk

) 01:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, rest assured I take your warning seriously. Like I said on my talk, it was like reverting someone's persistent inclusion of an "alien assassination theory" about the death of JFK (which probably has better sources than this). I had the idea I was reverting what amounts to little less than vandalism (plus he was removing the AfD tag, so...) --

TALK

) 01:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Once an edit war gets to 3 reverts, it's clear that it's likely futile, and then it's time to turn the other guy in here (or somewhere) and let additional users review the matter. The exception is that if it's obvious vandalism, turn the guy in to

WP:AIV and let them block him. Then you can fix the article, since fixing true vandalism is exempt from the 3 revert rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

02:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward Vote Notice Box

Moved discussion to MediaWiki talk:Common.css#Steward Vote Notice Box. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Resolved

I've just blocked

talk

) 03:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Gee. A

single purpose account whose sole edits have been to input grossly-POV material into a high-profile public figure... blocked? Good block. seicer | talk | contribs

04:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seicer beat me to it. That was a good block. I'll go leave a longer note on his talk page which will hopefully explain Wikiprocesses in more detail but I'm not optimistic. I've taken the liberty of marking this as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:LOLthulu

Some technical data for this post is available at User:Deskana/LOLthulu. All personally identifying material has been redacted.

During a routine CheckUser investigation of User:LOLthulu, which was endorsed by another checkuser, it came to my attention that both User:LOLthulu and User:GrendelLover contributed from the same connection, which appears to be a private residental connection. As you can see, the behaviour of GrendelLover was less than above board, and the user ended up getting blocked. I asked LOLthulu what his intentions were with this account. His response was that multiple people contribute from his connection (using NAT), and that someone else was responsible for these edits. Unfortunately, this explanation is not entirely consistent with the checkuser data.

Initially when GrendelLover started contributing, they did so with a different user agent to LOLthulu, and that user agent was fairly unique. This part is consistent with his explanation. Then, GrendelLover switched to a different user agent, which was also identical to LOLthulu. It is at this point that his explanation is inconsistent, as the identical user agents points to both users contributing from the same computer. LOLthulu made a few edits afterwards, noting that his IP was blocked, which was due to the GrendelLover account. LOLthulu then began using a different user agent, one that was identical to the somewhat unique user agent that GrendelLover has used.

LOLthulu has explained that the person on his connection behind the GrendelLover account is not him. GrendelLover clearly is not new to Wikipedia; a fair portion of his vandalism was directed at checkusers. It seems odd that someone who doesn't edit Wikipedia at all would then decide to start throwing abuse at CheckUsers. A much more plausible explanation is that LOLthulu is behind the account. This explanation is made much more plausible by the fact that it is unlikely that there are multiple computers involved, and by the fact that LOLthulu is also not a new user as it may seem at first inspection (though I do not see any inappropriate attempt from LOLthulu to hide this). LOLthulu denies all of the above, and maintains that there is a second person on his network behind the account. Given this person has never contributed to Wikipedia from his network before, and that they do not appear to be contributing from multiple different systems, it is odd that they would be as familiar with Wikipedia as was suggested by their edits.

It is my opinion as a checkuser that these accounts are operated by the same person. A wider review of this is required. As GrendelLover is blocked indefinitely, I would be inclined to block LOLthulu for a short period, for the abuse of multiple accounts. An indefinite block on LOLthulu would be excessive, given the good contributions of the account. --Deskana (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I would block LOLthulu indefinitely or (preferably) not at all. If the previous contributions are generally good then there is nothing to protect the encyclopedia from, and they are now on notice that GrendelLover type edits will get their account blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Multiple people (actually, about 14) behind one DSL line with a dymanic IP. User-agent strings are not uniquely identifying. User:Deskana is not pointing out that this account regularly edits from another IP range, whereas User:GrendelLover, presumably, did not. There's no story here. LOL^thulu 17:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not true. You appear to edit from two connections: one which appears to be a private residential connection (where only you and GrendelLover have edited from), and a public one (which appears to be some sort of business) where there are multiple people editing, who are obviously unrelated to you. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I said fourteen people share the connection. I didn't say that fourteen people regularly edit Wikipedia. Can a CheckUser see the user-agent strings of everyone who browses (as opposed to edits) Wikipedia from behind an IP? I guarantee you'll see more than two users, even if you can only count unique user-agent strings.

That business is where I work. Notice how the edits from there are primarily made during business hours on weekdays? It's emphatically not public; the wired and wireless networks are 802.1x-authed. It's probably the most secure network I've ever had access to. LOL^thulu 17:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're either not listening, or are attempting to twist what I'm saying. The GrendelLover account edits from your residental connection, and has never edited from your business connection. The other users on the business connection are clearly unrelated to you, so why would I want to check them? --Deskana (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you're missing it. I never have access to a private internet connection. At home, I share it with a bunch of other people. I do so at work too. This account is the only account that edits from both places. It is evidence that this account is not controlled by the person who controlled User:Grendel Lover. I'm done with this; you're persecuting me. LOL^thulu 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What Deskana said, the same residental computer computer appears to have been used. Given your intransigence and "persecution" comments I am inclined to review my comment about your not being blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Either LOLthulu lives in a dorm or something where they share an internet connection, and his house mate GrendelLover likes to attack people. This kind of situation certainly exists. The strange thing is that GrendelLover doesn't appear to be new to Wikipedia and CheckUser didn't find any other accounts. Or, LOLthulu registered GrendelLover to do some attacks without getting his main account blocked, then saying it's someone else. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Check my early account contribs. Dorm-like, to say the least. LOL^thulu 17:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just mention because nobody else yet has, that both names are derived from monsters, Lovecraft's Cthulhu and Grendel from Beowulf. Looie496 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Further to Looie's cmts - Hceline is likely to be based on Hagbard Celine - the 23 that is tagged on is a 'mystic/magick/whatever' number in such works.--Alf ^melmac 11:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Having been asked by Deskana to look at the accounts, and to post my findings here, I believe that currently available technical and behavioral evidence indicates that it is  Likely that the following accounts are related/the same PC:

• LOLthulu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GrendelLover (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• GrendleLover (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tdasch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Hceline23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It is  Possible that the following account is related as well:

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

I'd be happy to have a third checkuser verify these findings.

-- Avi (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm totally HCeline23 and Tdasch. Decided I didn't like either of those account names. No problems there. LOL^thulu 19:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... Triple checking the data. — Coren ^(talk) 19:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

LOLthulu (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is  Confirmed to be

• Hceline23 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Tdasch (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

and very  Likely to be

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

especially given the behavior, and timing, I find the argument that different persons that happen to share a connection to be unconvincing.

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

is  Possible in isolation, and given the context, I would call  Likely. In other words, I concur fully with the evaluation of both checkusers above. — Coren ^(talk) 19:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Drake Circus

There has been a long history of countless editors who have been blocked or banned for attempting to publish any fact or article that might conflict with the promotional activity of a handful of other editors To summarize Drake Circus is an area of Plymouth which is home to the university of Plymouth, the Art gallery, the Museum, the Art College, grade 1 and 2 listed buildings, the planetarium, the Drake reservoir, the scene of the great bomb shelter tragedy etc etc and yet all and any attempts to publish articles or facts on these topics have been deleted in favour of an advert for a shopping mall. Indeed the search phrase 'drake circus' has been redirected to the mall advert. I recently entered this debate when I tried in vain to point out the mall is not even in the Drake Circus area (the only similarity is its name). The co-ordinates in the article will, on any map (e.g. Google earth), point to Drake Circus the area and not the mall which is located further south. My attempt to discuss this issue rationally has been met with hostile abuse and deletions from webhamster a.k.a hoary and jolly janner. If you look at the history of both the article and the discussion pages you will see the endless number of people who have been blocked. On one occasion somebody in Indonesia was blocked as being a sock puppet for somebody who was online and with an IP in the UK. Various ip's from all over the world have been constantly blocked. So why are these handful of editors so desperate to protect and preserve an article which is factually wrong and a blatant piece of advertising. The only inference one can draw is that they are going to these extraordinary lengths in order to benefit the mall. If you Google search 'drake circus bomb shelter' the first web-site contains many interesting comments that in the long term will lower the reputation of Wikipedia. There has already been an attempted deletion however so many useful facts and comments were edited out by the pro-mall spammers it made a discussion pointless. Those same few editors are gaming the system to skew any reasonable discussion, debate or introduction of fact.86.157.96.112 (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I only see one edit to Drake Circus, a 2007 redirect to the mall. Am I missing something? Just put the article about the geographic area there. ThuranX (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's evidence at Talk:Drake Circus and Talk:Drake Circus/page 2 that there's been controversy and article deletions. And, the mall article has been protected due to perceived vandalism. Perhaps the option of editing a redirect was not clear. I just changed it from a redirect to a stub Drake Circus article to receive info about the place, separate from the mall. doncram (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you for helping to create an article on drake circus. I (and hopefully many others) will try and add to it however given the past history of the spammers activities i suspect it will not last more than a few days.86.157.96.112 (talk) 18:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

you were wrong - it lasted only 2 hours! Distan russell (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

for whats its worth i re-published it however i suspect that by doing so i will be called a troll/vandal or whatever and like soooooo many before me i will be blocked for trying to rid this encyclopedia of the spammers commercial bile81.132.107.66 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually no, you'd be accused of spamming and vandalism for the rest of your activities. --WebHamster 01:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drake Circus; history is at Drake Circus Shopping Centre thanks to a history merge. --NE2 18:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a loooong history of disruptive editors related to the location/shopping-centre, with a whole puppet show and morphing roles of even the same IPs. As such, the article got protected, blocked handed out, etc. IPs have thus far done nothing except rererepost the same comment and spam links (to the point that the links got WP-blacklisted). Given this history, we really need a viable article before we can overcome the previous AfD=Delete consensus. Users have been (and are again) invited to create an account and file deletion-review of the

WP:RS supporting that claim, and writing a viable article in their sandbox. DMacks (talk

) 20:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

100% agree with DMacks. Until the user does so, let's try not to waste our time over it. Jolly Ω Janner 20:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I see the article on Drake Circus has been torn down without discussion and replaced with a redirect to the nonsense about the mall. As an impartial observer even i can see how the same user webhamster/jolly janner/hoary is intent on keeping out notable academic material in favour of their own commercial agenda.Distan russell (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

While i think that the place/location deserves an article, and while i think it is inappropriate to put in place a redirect to the shopping centre nearby, I think it is entirely preposterous for Distan russell or anyone else to assert that the regular wikipedia editors and administrators involved have a "commercial agenda". I am willing to put in some effort to develop a hopefully-acceptable article (please see Talk:Drake Circus and the related Temp page for a draft article). But if Distan russell and others choose to keep insulting people with ridiculous projections about their motives, i am certainly willing to walk away. By wikipedia processes, the other editors were entitled to remove the draft I was starting to work on, despite my request not to, because the previous article had been well-discussed in a quite reasonable AfD. The AfD was not a final decision that there can never be an article here, but it was a reasonable decision given the state of the work. doncram (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

the same user webhamster/jolly janner/hoary: If you believe that you have evidence of this, you shouldn't hesitate to ask for investigation by CheckUser. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The national archives or theuniversityor thelocal authority and land regisrty sites all refer to Drake Circus the area in much the same way London refers to Picaddily Circus. As the mall is not in Drake Circus surely the redirect should be removed otherwise anyone and everyone who like me searches Wikipedia for information on Drake Circus is redirected to an unrelated article on a shopping mall and is then accused of being a troll, puppet or whatever the minute he or she tries to rectify what is so obviously factually wrong.81.132.107.66 (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Piccadilly Circus is not an area, it's a roundabout, regardless of which it is a notable place. Drake Circus is a single, short, boring road that could well be in any city in the UK and is entirely without note. The correct area is North Hill which is equally as boring and surprisingly enough also doesn't have a Wikipedia article. All of which is just more feeding of the troll. It may be more insightful if we start a sweepstake as to which puppet master you belong to. Your arguments and sentence structure are very familiar but I can't quite put my finger on it just yet. I'll get there eventually though. --WebHamster 02:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is an alternative name, it isn't there to imply they are the same thing, also the shopping centre is on the edge of the area, its just that the address is on one of the other streets (I think it's Charles Street) but it could have been Drake Circus. Maybe a separate article could be written but the references you mention only refer to it as a street, in a postal address of various buildings, not as an area. —Snigbrook 02:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we all pause, breathe deeply, and calm down a little, please? Not referring to others as pains in the arse, dicks, trolls, and so forth would probably be a help. -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why being a dick/troll/spammer/sock-puppet (delete as applicable) seems to make more sense to some people rather than creating an account, writing their own article in their own user space and then asking experienced editors to see if it answers the arguments that were brought up in the AfD. If I were to assume bad faith though, it might be thought that to take the sensible route is the route to far less dissension and attention-seeking. But who am I to assume bad faith about anyone? Hmmmm. --WebHamster 02:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

if you search for 'drake circus bomb shelter' in google you will see the parts of the originaldrake circus article and this intresting link exposing the corruption of the same editorswho are now blocking anyone attempting to challenge their spamming activity.81.132.107.66 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why go to Google? The article's history will give you the same result. Duh!. Meanwhile in another part of the galaxy I see no part-built articles in this SPA IP's user space. --WebHamster 02:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I searched google as there was nothing in Wikipedia on the subject except a reference to an unnecessary speedy deletion[66] made presumably because such historic fact interferes with your malls marketing agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.107.66 (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure that everyone redirecting is a spammer working for the mall, calls for an ironclad article at first edit are insane, and contrary to the collaborative spirit of the project. I do note, however, that if all we DO have is the old wiki-article and some postal code maps, then the editor, after trying to build it up fairly, will either overcome the burden of a legitimate AfD, or he won't. But giving him an hour or two then reverting and attacking is hostile to every new editor here. If there's an article there, in a week or two it'll be apparent, and if there's no article there, the same applies. AGF here, let him try it. ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC) DMacks' behavior on the talk page is getting surly. He's demanding a level of completeness and quality far above the minimum standards for articles, and that's a problem. It's BITE-y and overly authoritative. ThuranX (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the article has already had AfD=delete, I think we really can't just start with the old article in mainspace comparable to that deleted content and let it grow for a while and hope for the best. That's pretty clear CSD-A4: there is consensus that that form of the article is not viable for mainspace. So the article can either be written in a form that clearly establishes notability beyond what that previous one had (i.e., resolve the consensus-opinion concerns) or else...um nothing really. Writing an article out-of-mainspace is a perfect way to let it grow until it's viable (i.e., does make some new claims of notability). That's a process that has already been started. Please participate there so we can finally get a decent article written about this place if indeed such task is possible. DMacks (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. It's clear that DMacks would rather see all new editors shot than encouraged, and new articles discouraged rather than given a chance. I've seen no proof the old and new articles are identical. IF they aren't simply a resurrection of the old, then AGF ought to apply. that said, I've got enough walls on wikipedia into which to smack my face, so I'm walking off from this one. My condolences to the editors who tried. ThuranX (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I too am walking away from the redirect/article for a day or two, maybe some new notability will be added and we can get on with it. DMacks (talk) 06:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin who has no interest in little bits of Plymouth. My interest in these articles has been and remains purely, um, administratudinal. However, since I've been accused by a certain party as being a sockpuppet/spammer/toady, etc., perhaps it's better if I didn't do what I'm inclined to do, which is to put the "new" (mostly old) article back in a sandbox, delete the premature re-creation, wave my cluebat around a bit, and encourage people to work on the article in the sandbox before bringing up the matter at DRV or somewhere. Some other admin is free to do that, or something else entirely. Oh, and perhaps to lart me together with various other warring factors. -- Hoary (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There already is a germinating article at Drake Circus/Temp that Doncram is working on. So if the paranoid and delusional IPs wish to help make it better then perhaps they should go there instead of fucking about with stupid accusations and incident board bullshit. --WebHamster 17:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnlemartirao

Can someone block this user for a short time? I don't think I am neutral enough to do this. He repeatedly removes deletion tags from images, removes image listings from PUI, etc (please read the warning I left on his talk page for explanations and diffs) and has kept on with this after being warned. See here for the latest. Now he has taken to vandalizing user talk pages of anyone who has warned him with {{expand}} tags, somewhat puzzlingly.[67] He has good contributions but I think a block is necessary to make clear that this nonsense must stop. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This disruptive edit alone [68] warrants a block in my opinion....I agree with Calliopejen1...Modernist (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Gatena (3rd nomination)

I'm not sure exactly what I'm asking for, but it seems like someone should step in here. There are comments being added at the top, the bottom, and the middle of the debate, making it hard to follow. There are numerous spa accounts whose only contribs are to this AfD, so something fishy is probably going on there too. It's a real zoo, and if this keeps up for the full five days this AfD will be a mile and a half long and just close as "no consensus" yet again. Anyone got any ideas?

talk

) 02:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, per this [[69]] it appears the article was created by the subject, and that it was part of a class project, which would explain the proliferation of SPAs.

talk

) 16:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 128.208.32.177

Moved discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#IP 128.208.32.177. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of large numbers of my edits by User:Pigsonthewing

Another contributor,

start-date}} will reveal that they are robust, nontrivial, and can provide substantial benefit to users. The change has been discussed civilly at this page. So far only one user other than myself and Mr Mabbett have voiced an opinion. Mr. Mabbett believes that it is necessary to revert any use of the template rather than give me the opportunity to fix whatever he thinks is wrong. As far as I know, none of the "damage" he claims has been made is visible to Wikipedia users, so the remedy of mass reversions is difficult to understand. I have attempted to reach agreement with this user over some ground rules over settling these differences, but I have failed, and I am reaching out for your assistance. Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk

) 22:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on your talk page and in the relevant edit sumamries before you came here, I reverted several of your edits, but by no means "a mass revert", because in each case the metadata you were emitting, and in some cases the on-screen text, was broken (for example a place-name of "Boeotia,country=Greece"; BC dates rendered as AD dates). I can supply screenshots if necessary. If you wish to test or demonstrate your work on templates, please do so in a sandbox, not in articles. Your proclamations about my supposed beliefs are fallacious, and fail to

Boldly edit; if Reverted; Discuss. In at least one case, you have simply re-reverted, to again emit faulty metadata. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are many ways to emit microformats. You certainly have strong opinions on the subject as you have amply shown at the commons geocoding project, and that is good. You have given me instructions in the past as you have the geocoding group, and you have been proven to be correct as many times as are incorrect. I proposed that we mediate these disagreements on the microformats.org mailing list, but you have declined to participate in that process. As it was, it turned out that your advice was incorrect. I value the input though because I know there is an issue to investigate. However, I cannot presume that you are correct without evidence. I repeat my request for mediation. There are pages that exhibit new behavior (for example linking to map sites) that can be shown to no longer function due to Mr. Mabbett's belief in the rightness of his position. I ask for an unbiased observer to make a decision. I will happily comply with whatever ruling is made. I'd like to move on and get some work done. -J JMesserly (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

There are indeed many ways to emit microformats, including many wrong ways, such as those you used which I reverted today; and cite above. I have given you advice and assistance, not instructions. You are wrong to imply that I am incorrect half of the time. Please provide evidence to support your assertion that "There are pages … that can be shown to no longer function" due to anything I have done. External mailing lists are not the place to resolve disagreements over Wikipedia templates. Please cite evidence of me declining to participate in any discussion. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is a pointer to the commons thread being discussed where Andy requested that I do things his way which was found to be incorrect by the experts at microformats.org. My Mabbett asserted that "There are no authorities in that community, and my answer is as authoritative as any you will get there." I am not sure why Andy asserts this. Last year's book on microformats Microformats: Empowering Your Markup for Web 2.0. cites Brian Suda, and Kevin Marks as internationally recognized experts on microformats. Their advice contradicted Mr. Mabbett's, and I chose to follow the guidance given by the microformats community. I meant no offense by not following Mr. Mabbett's opinions, but I cannot take his assertions at face value, so I go to authorities to settle these matters. That seems like a process that is workable, since this subject is fairly obscure at this point. I am not sure if there is some restriction on Mr. Mabbett contributing to the mailing list, because I know he was banned for 16 months from edits to their wiki. But I would certainly agree to post his arguments verbatim and ask for a ruling from them. Anyway, next year maybe this process will not be necessary, as many major browsers will be microformats aware. What I am asking is that until then that anyone asserting incorrectness to be concrete in their descriptions of what is incorrect with each others templates, and to show that what is being done is recognized by authorities to be incorrect. If any party cannot show this, and if there is no recognizable harm to Wikipedia, then it seems reasonable for WP administrators to take a wait and see position, and ask that each of the parties not interfere in the activities of the other. WP can defer consideration of such correctness debates until such time as there are sufficient contributors who understand and care about these differences in style. If there is some other proposal for common ground, I am open to any suggestions.-J JMesserly (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It's generally worthless to come here without diffs to the problems you are complaining about. AnyPerson (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing which I proposed at Commons was found to be "incorrect" on the microformats mailing list, nor anywhere else. Indeed, I provided (on Commons) citations from that list to support my position, at the request of J JMesserly; he disregarded them Do we really have to rehash that debate here? I have already provided descriptions of the bugs produced by J JMesserly edits, and offered to provide screenshots if necessary. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is a side by side comparison of the kind of thing we are talking about. EG: My version of Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC) changed a single parameter to an infobox: [edit- locality change better shows value of feature]

|place={{address|[[Boeotia]], [[Greece]]|locality=Chaeronea|country=Greece}}

The original line read:

|place=[[Boeotia]], [[Greece]] 

With my change, users with microformats aware browsers will see map buttons for (google, yahoo or mapquest) activated when they visit this page. Click on the google map button, and you can see where the battle occurred. Pretty cool. With Andy's change, this capability no longer works. This template talks in a way to the outside world that Andy thinks is wrong. It works, it delivers functionality, and it has no negative visual impact on anyone viewing the article- the article looks exactly the same as before. To see for yourself, add Firefox's free Operator toolbar, visit the page, and see for yourself, then compare to Pigs on wing "Fix". It will be clear that his "fix" actually removes functionality. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Case 2:Lamian War Here, Andy's summary edit reads: "rv - emt8s bogus metadata (323-321 AD)"

1. in operator, click options box. Click data formats, and check the debug box.
2. View the current version [70], you will see no events button highlighted.
3. View the edit from J JMesserly: [71]. You will now see the events button.
4. You will see that once again functionality is present with my version. Now, let's look at this claim of "bogus data" that Andy is talking about. He claims the emitted dates are AD dates, not BC dates. Click on Events.Lamian War.Debug. you will see a dialog that gives the dates 323 and 321. Andy assumes these are AD dates. Now click on the source tab. If you can't search the dialog, copy paste it to a word processor and search for dtstart. You will see the value is -323Z. Now, no one sees any of this stuff and it really impacts zero applications, but Mr. Mabbett feels that this number is incorrectly formatted. That is what he is talking about. According to the docs I have,
   ISO8601
   standard for BC says the year should be negative. It is.
5. Why will this matter? Well- one day, just as you can click on a google map, you will may be able to click to go to a scene that recreates a village in ancient greece, or with a video recreation of the battle. The other site needs to know what time period you want to go to. This data shows where. (A technical note on the second date, the end period of an event is always +1 unit, so if the event ends on friday, you have to give the date for saturday. This war ended on 322 BC, so the correct number is -321Z. This calculation is done by my template, and correctly does it whether the precision is hours, days, or months. (Respectively, +1 hour, +1 day, +1 month). Template editors can imagine that this is non trivial code, and puts in context Mr. Mabbett's edit summary suggestion "rv please do your testing in a sandbox". I do my testing in a sandbox, and move changes when they are stable. Sometimes errors happen, but the number of articles is fairly low, and I check my work.

Should folks doing this work be needing to go to the adminstrator's board to request arbitration on this sort of minutiae? I think not- Seems like we all have better things to do. If and when it turns out that these numbers could be formatted better, well what the heck- WP contributors will rise to the challenge and fix it. Until then, why should we have edit wars over this stuff. I'm just asking for a live and let live policy until we have more folks that understand these debates. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your first case, you were emitting a metadata 'locality' value of "Boeotia,country=Greece". There is no such locality, and the string "country=" should not have been included as data. The correct output would be a locality value of "Boeotia" and a 'country-name' value of "Greece". You again misrepresent me by claiming that I think something which in fact I do not. Please desist from doing so. I see that you have since fixed the problem, thereby acknowledging the initial fault. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

In your second case, I concede that the BC/AD date is indeed a parser bug and I have written to the author of Operator (with whom I am in regular contact) to request a fix. However, Your comments about end dates also shows a basic error; the need to increment by one does not apply to year values.

In another example, your metedtaa asserts that the

Battle of Caer Caradoc

took place at "Herefordshire Beacon, Herefordshire UK"; whereas the text in the infobox is "Location - Unknown. Possibly Herefordshire Beacon Herefordshire Beacon or Caer Caradoc Hill"

You clearly misunderstand several aspects of microformats and what you are doing with them; that's OK, because we all have to learn, but please do your learning in sandbox pages - not in live articles - and accept help. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Andy, whether or not you are the authority on microformats that you have portrayed yourself to be is immaterial. No one would contribute if they didn't think they knew something that others hadn't put in wikipedia yet. I really like the fact that you understand how revolutionary microformats are. Heck- my first published paper on the subject of encoding semantics of encyclopedic material in SGML is now 20 years old. Today, the world still doesn't appreciate the value. Microformats are revolutionary, and many admins reading this thread may have discounted this subject matter as yet another dispute about arcania of no consequence. We both know that this isn't the case. Of course the battlers always say that, but the point is that I really I view you as a brother in this cause. But as a brother, I ask that you give me a little more of the benefit of the doubt. Ok, in

start-date}} handles end dates in the superior way as described above. So please, perhaps we can express a little more mutual respect and collaboration with each other?

I proposed a solution to handling arbitration of such microformat disputes. Will you please agree to mediation of this dispute by an impartial admin, and agree to follow the ruling whatever it is? -J JMesserly (talk

) 16:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never portrayed myself as "the authority on microformats", though I undoubtedly have more experience of implementing them on Wikipedia than any other editor; please feel free to cite evidence if you disagree. This is not an academic debate about "encoding semantics of encyclopedic material in SGML", but a very practical consideration of the means of doing so to a specific set of standards, with the tools available in this medium; at which you do indeed appear to be a novice. I am happy to give you "the benefit of the doubt" where doubt exists, but in the cases under discussion the facts are indisputable. You are free to propound reasoned arguments otherwise, but don't seem to be doing so. I have removed no functionality from Wikipedia articles or templates; I have merely prevented them from emitting bogus metadata. I am quite happy to collaborate, an have already asked you to do so on your talk page here and in Commons. Your responses seemed to me to indicate a disinclination to do so, in both cases. If you wish to initiate a mediation process, this is not the forum, but I will not object if you do so properly; though it seems a very long-winded way of arriving at the point which we will reach anyway, if you desist in your current approach to adding microformats. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

And please stop edit warring, as you are on

WP:BRD refers; and you should be using sandbox ages for your testing. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

17:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I already have shown where you have claimed authority, in fact authority equivalent to recognized authorities at the microformats.org site. You chose to be dismissive of them. Who knows- maybe in the end you will be proven to be right. In any case, as I remarked, whether or not you are a authority doesn't matter. What matters is what benefits the visitors to Wikipedia most. You make the surprizing claim: "I have removed no functionality from Wikipedia articles". This is demonstrably false using the instructions above. The functionality removed can be verified by anyone using those steps and there is no point in denying it. Mr Mabbett reverted article

Battle of Caer Caradoc, Battle of Chaeronea (338 BC), Zagrepčanka... on the basis of arcane and controversial points of microformatting correctness. Wikipedia is not a testbed for research on microformats. We use what demonstrates benefits to users. Mr. Mabbett has not demonstrated any tangible harm caused due to this alleged "bogus" encoding. That in a nutshell is what I am requesting mediation on. To establish ground rules for dealing with this sort of dispute so that there will not be recurring instances of it burdening admins. There are multiple disputes Mr. Mabbett has had with multiple users over this very theme. It is not productive, and mediation is respectfully requested. -J JMesserly (talk

) 19:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed no functionality from Wikipedia articles. You have not and cannot cannot demonstrate(d) that I have done so. The functionality is in microformat parsers, which I have not touched. They act on metadata emitted by out articles, I have removed metadata (and things causing metadata to be emitted) which was bad: bogus; malformed; erroneous; misleading and unhelpful. Bad metadata does not benefit our users; bad metadata is harmful. The fact that you mentioned your testing on a talk page does not mean that the article was the correct place to carry out your testing. Again: please use sandbox pages: why will you not do this? I have already told you, more than once, that Wikipedia already has ground rules; they are in

WP:BRD. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits

20:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) So exactly what admin intervention is requested here? Seems like you two can either discuss this on your talk pages or go to Wikipedia:Mediation without admin involvement.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Mabbett has not agreed to mediation. These disputes are unary- you either agree that a particular tag is permitted or it isn't. It is new terrain- there isn't a lot of published material to cite, so discussions quickly reach an impasse. This is a general class of problem that Mr. Mabbett has frequently been involved in with other contributors. This is nothing against Mr. Mabbett, and I freely admit that Mabbett may have been correct on the theoretical principles he has battled with other users and with other communities over. My point to him is that if there is no damage of any consequence to encoding it one way or the other, what does it matter that WP encodes it the "wrong" way for a year or so if there is no perceivable negative consequence to the "wrong" encoding? We can always correct it later if it turns out that some mistaken way of doing things was is in fact wrong. That is the beauty and perfectibility of wikipedia. We don't have to have immaculate conceptions in some pure form. We go with what works until some better way of doing things comes along. I propose a tie breaker metric that any admin can apply. The measure is, "What benefits Wikipedia?" I propose that if one party can't demonstrate harm to wikipedia, and the other party can demonstrate benefit of the change to an admin, that such microformat related edit wars be remedied with a block on the party that is basing reverts on unseen and unfelt harms. I agree that this should be a mechanism of last resort and that all parties must still agree to good faith efforts to reach compromise before this kind of escalation. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

For admins reading this, I realize that it is unusual to request such a standard operating principle for

microformats disputes. While I believe Andy is motivated by a belief in the correctness of his positions and long term benefit to others, his methods require consideration for unusual action by admins. A new approach is necessary because this is not the first incident of this user in microformats dispute. Apparently the most recent dispute escalated all the way to an Arbcom ruling. I had no involvement of knowledge of this fact when Mr. Mabbett first began with the disputed behavior I describe on Commons. I was completely a clean slate for him, and yet I soon found myself involved in an edit war regarding Microformats- the same subject involved in the 2007 arbcom ruling (as summarized in this Signpost). The Finding of fact of the Arbcom was that "Evidence has shown that Pigsonthewing disregards the Wikipedia way of doing things and is unable or unwilling to improve his pattern of participation."

Given this context, I think it is proper to request a new approach to the problem, given that the same pattern of behavior is in evidence in the incidents with me, a contributor entirely uninvolved in the previous disputes on wikipedia or at other sites where Mr. Mabbett has also been subjected to 30 month bans and is currently subject to an 18 month ban[73]. Soon after the arbcom ban on Mr. Mabbett had lapsed, he is again involved in the same behavior. If my proposal for a new approach is not the best one, then I request advice on what course I should take on this matter. Thank you. -J JMesserly (talk

) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I ask what is it that you need an admin to do? You've asked several times for mediation -- this isn't the place for it. If you're worried that Andy won't agree to it (have you asked him?), Wikipedia:Dispute resolution lists other options. Other than that, you two seem to have a content dispute. Again, this isn't the place for content disputes. So what are you asking for here? I'm not seeing a blockable offense, I'm not seeing a need for page protection, and I'm not seeing a situation where a note from an admin on someone's talk page will move things along. Have I misread this?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The blockable offence is damage to Wikipedia pages, specifically the quickest one to view is that described before "Case 2" above. This is not about content, it is about template behavior. When these templates are used widely, the impact is hundreds if not thousands of pages. Mr. Mabbett removes functionality as described. You can't see where the battle took place by searching maps with Mabbett's edit. (See steps just prior to "Case 2" above. In the earlier incident at Commons, I referred to this sort of damage as vandalism in the edit summaries. Although the intermediary did not understand that Mabbett's edits had in fact damaged the pages, it was unnecessary to belabor the point since the solution made it academic. As for the damage on Wikipedia, it is reproducible and easy to see using the steps described above. It's as if most people did not use CSS capable browsers and someone nuked some div code in a template, but none of the admins could see the damage because their browsers didn't displayed the results of the damage.

To your earlier questions, yes, I earlier proposed that this esoterica be arbitrated at microformats.org where everyone understands these issues. Refused. I made a proposal for mediation in this thread to Mr. Mabbett, and have sought participation of an intermediary (to date unsuccessful). After the earlier incident at commons, the recommendations of the intermediary were not followed by Mr. Mabbett ("Pigsonthewing hasn't heeded my advice"- source). Regarding the current situation, yes I have proposed mediation, as well as arbitration at microformats.org (to date, both are refused). There have been multiple Revert-discuss cycles, but I have refused to edit war on the subject. There has been discussion, but the other party is intransigent, as is the pattern in disputes with other contributors. This is not a content dispute, because it involves template behavior, not the content that is in the templates.)

I am not sure that locking pages or sending a note on someone's talk page would be effective. Mr. Mabbett was sanctioned by arbcom over his behavior on microformats related dispute and we are seeing similar behavior. Previous methods have failed. I repeat: I am simply another contributor getting exposed to the same pattern. What is your recommendation? -J JMesserly (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, you'd see that Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration would be your next logical step.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid you would recommend this. I am extremely reluctant to go that route at this point due to the history of its ineffectiveness with this particular pattern. Perhaps the other party will agree to the proposed binding mediation, and we can reach a mutually agreeable resolution to this matter. Although I have substantial disagreements with him and find some of the histrionics and tone stressful, I honestly bear the other party no ill will and would like to foster a live and let live attitude about this obscure subject matter

microformats that we obviously both care deeply about. -J JMesserly (talk

) 18:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

←J JMesserly makes a number of dishonest claims in his above posts, most notably the false claim that I have been "subjected to 30 month bans" on any site. He has previously had to apologise to me for making false accusations about me on Commons; it seems that he is determined to continue to do so here; and to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than address the demonstrable problems with his edits. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. This was an unintentional typo. The earlier bans were for 30 days. Mabbett is currently subject to a 16 month ban from microformats.org. The arbcom ban on him for contempt was 12 months and has expired. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of edit warring by User:Arimareiji in Rachel Corrie

There was an edit war in progress over material in the lead of the Rachel Corrie article, so I moved the disputed material to the talk page until the dispute could be resolved. (These are the reverts by various editors of the same disputed content since Jan 31:[74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89])

Arimareiji has ignored the moving of the material to the talk page, and returned the disputed material to the article lead [90]; and thereby undoing the attempt to resolve the problem by discussion on the talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already made my reply at Talk:Rachel_Corrie#Wikipedia:Edit_war, but I'll repeat some of the salient points: Malcolm Schosha was not "removing disputed material," he was continuing to revert to one of two disputed versions. He was doing so after arguably having followed an editor to Rachel Corrie whom he had been repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against. If there's consensus for removing that section of the lede altogether (rather than fighting over which version to use), that's quite possibly the best course. This is not what Malcolm Schosha was doing. arimareiji (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji has accused me of "continuing to revert". I only made three edits to the article, and I am a marginal player in the edit warring on Rachel Corrie. One of my edits had nothing to do with the disputed content, and one edit was to move the disputed content to the article talk page. According to my understanding, moving disputed material to the talk page is not edit warring, but rather a way to stop editing warring. It was my intent to stop the edit warring that was already in progress when I made my first edit. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Three edits = three reverts in three hours, and two before saying anything at all on Talk. He had no prior involvement with the page whatsoever, much less familiarity. arimareiji (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

NO. It was two edits. The third edit was well explained on the talk page. Just what do you thing is wrong with three edits? You have far more reverts there than I do. I am the most marginal player in the ongoing edit war, which was not my doing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against you making edits or reversions. I do, however, think it's highly inappropriate that you only made edits to this page after an editor you were repeatedly warned and blocked for edit-warring against did. Your first two edits at the page were reverts-by-proxy of him through PR and myself. You reverted him directly three hours later, and only after that did you come to the Talk page. This is exactly the same behavior as before, and 3RR is not an entitlement. arimareiji (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

That is surmise, and is incorrect. I have an interest in articles involving the Israel/Palestine conflict, and have edited a number of such articles. That, and particularly the problem with the lead, is what got me involved in the article. I do not need your permission to edit. I was never warned not to edit articles with Untwirl, and the first I saw of Untwirl today was when he/she reverted my edit. Had he done any editing to the article before then? I have not looked.

You seem to think the issue is me. But it is you who has persisted in edit warring, and that is why I brought the issue here to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The claim to innocently stumbling across Untwirl gets less and less credible. Now you're asserting you don't even know the contents of your own Talk page or the block log that documents the block you got because of it, one of several. You seemed proud of it then; I'm guessing you've changed your mind. arimareiji (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, the problem is that you (not me) were edit warring on the Rachel Corrie article. Will you, as I requested, move the disputed material back to the talk page so the dispute can be settled without further edit warring?

Every thing you have said here so far amounts to ad hominems against me, the ad hominem being the most famous logical fallacy. If you think I am a nice guy has nothing to do with the validity or truth of my argument. For instance, I have heard it argued by those who are against vegetarianism, the argument that Hitler was a vegetarian. But if a bad man happened to be vegetarian does not refute the premises of vegetarianism. Likewise Hitler wore clothes, and breathed air; but that does not stop even those who despise Hitler the most from wearing cloths (at least in public), nor do they they refuse air and hold their breath.

So, Arimareiji, once again, my question is: will you return the disputed material to the article talk page for discussion? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Schosha - I would suggest that you read the talk page instead of only using it to make demands. You would see that I've been talking to editors on both sides and we've got consensus to remove both disputed versions from mainspace, rather than keep reverting to only one of them as you were doing. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bravo! Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguably amusing, but the edit is not what you kept reverting to. I admit, however, that I got the idea from your false claim of "removing disputed material" - it made me realize that actually doing so would be a good idea. arimareiji (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For the edification of anyone who cares - removal of both versions was proposed at Rachel Corrie Talk at 0221, with endorsement by IronDuke at 0223 and Untwirl at 0325. Malcolm's demand to restore his version was here at 1317. I leave it to your good judgment whether he was even aware of Talk discussion, let alone heroically "trying to stop an edit war." arimareiji (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I said the situation was better, and it is. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

---

(undent) To whom it may concern: Malcolm Schosha received this warning from DGG (who has since recused himself) two weeks ago. It was immediately subsequent to his receiving yet another block, this one for revert-warring against Untwirl (my bolds):

"And the only practical way you will be able to avoid violating 3rr again is to avoid reverting altogether. Discuss the matter on the talk page instead. I suggest further, that you not concentrate of the exact wording of specific points in controversial articles--such disputes are rarely productive. The best thing to do with a difficult article, is usually to find some additional indisputably good sources.

"You now have a choice: if you do mean to stop editing, you can stop. If you want to contribute peacefully, you can. Or, if you contribute in the manner you have been doing, you will receiver longer blocks, soon quite likely indefinite. IO won;t hesitate to do it myself."

In several different aspects, he's flagrantly disregarding this warning. He had no involvement with Rachel Corrie until Untwirl (the editor he just got blocked for edit-warring against) came to it, eight edits prior to his. His first edits were to twice revert (against Untwirl's perceived "side"), and revert again (Untwirl himself) three hours later, over "exact wording" in a "controversial article". Only after doing this did he come to the Talk page for the first time. His reverts were, in fact, to remove reliably-sourced wording and replace it with unsourced wording - not to find better wording based on sources.
Finally, please note that the warning admin above refers to Malcolm Schosha's claim to stop editing. You can still see this claim on his talk page. He did not do so; he came back and quickly resumed the same behavior. Please do not think this is a moot issue. An RFCU may also be appropriate, as one of his blocks (June 2008) was an indef for socking.

This will be my last post on this matter here. If an admin has questions, they can reach me at my talk page. arimareiji (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, then so be it ... decisions may be made against your liking in your absence. You're not compelled to be here, but while you're still a subject, it's likely a good idea to hang around. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 14:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did not block was that I saw this as a minimal violation. I'm aware of the problems with the article, though I haven't to be recollection worked on it. The material Malcolm removed from the lede was in my opinion clearly inappropriate for a lede, being contentious detail material not necessary to give a clear introduction to the article. It should almost certainly be used elsewhere in the article, but that wasn't the question. I doubt it was wise of him to get involved at all, but it wasn't heinous. Arimareji has repeatedly insisted on my talk page that I proceed to a block. My own view is that this should just die down, unless it becomes a pattern continued there or repeated elsewhere. But at this point I think it would be fairer if I left others to judge. DGG (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I brought this issue here in an attempt to resolve an edit war. I was not involved in the edit war, aside from in the most marginal way. If Arimareiji (or other users) think I am a wiki-creep, schmuck and/or liar, they are entitled to that viewpoint. But that has nothing to do with the issue I brought here. I think the attention the edit war got on AN/I did add enough pressure to motivate the necessary change. Despite a lot of surmise by Arimareji, that is all I wanted.

I have not been placed under any editing restrictions, and I think that my edits of the Rachel Corrie article were helpful, even if much resented by Arimareiji. It is not my intention to do more than occasional editing of WP. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I contradict myself to note that this is already a long-standing pattern, arguably wikistalking of an editor whom he'd been blocked for edit-warring against, and to note again that Malcolm was not removing characterization of the sides - he was reverting to one of two disputed characterizations. The actual removal which he alludes to is not what he was fighting to attain, as a quick comparison shows. Bwilkins - I will try to be quiet, but that doesn't mean I'm not present. I will be; I'm not walking out. arimareiji (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji I only made three edits. One of those was to move the disputed material to the talk page, and another was not related to the edit war. On the other hand you were edit warring for days, as can be easily seen by anyone who takes a look at the the article's recent history. But despite that you want to insist that everything wrong with WP is my fault, that there is absolutely nothing at all is your fault, and that there is nothing wrong with your edit warring. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (ec)

i also would like to stress that the disputed material was not removed by malcolm, only the part that he disagreed with. and this "moving disputed material to the talk page is a one way street for malcolm. he did the same thing at the article he was last blocked for edit warring on, yet when i attempted to follow his lead and 'moved disputed material to the talk page', he immediately reverted it.

malcolm, if you care to review the history you will see that you reverted 3 times in three hours. you did not "(request) to move the disputed material back to the talk page so the dispute can be settled without further edit warring" you edit warred to remove only the viewpoint that you disagreed with. those of us participating in fruitful discussion have agreed to remove all of the 'disputed' material' from the lead until a version both sides can agree on is found. my interpretation of arimareiji's posts to DGG's talk page is not a request to block, but a request for him to warn malcolm that he is repeating the same behavior for which he was recently blocked. his first participation on the talk page was after his third revert. whether DGG believes that the content removal was right or not seems to be beside the point, his methods clearly are disruptive. his first edit to the article was to revert me after he had been blocked for incivility and edit warring against me on a different page. DGG's continued defense of malcolm's disruptive behavior:edit warring, wikistalking and unwillingness to participate in discussion, especially after he was the one to unblock malcolm last time, shows poor admin judgment. regardless of dgg's personal views on the content, he should not defend tenditious editing practices.Untwirl (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

as i think I mentioned, I am simply saying I see no grounds for further action. Once I had said that, you were free to ask any other administrator. I certainly am not going to take further action once I am accused of being partisan in the matter--it would be totally wrong at this point for me to do so. DGG (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, was there an edit war in progress before I made my first edit? Has the dispute now been settled? Just to answer for you, there was an edit war in progress, and the dispute is now settled. Perhaps you can explain why you think I made things worse even though the editing situation is obviously better? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

seeing how you didn't participate in the discussion or suggest the removal that has now occurred, only did drive by reverts to match your pov, i dont see how you can claim responsibility for those of us who actually have been discussing and working out a compromise.Untwirl (talk)

Untwirl, you did not answer my question. To repeat: can explain why you have accused me of making things worse even though the editing situation is obviously better?

By the way, WikiStalking is a rather serious accusation made by Untwirl and Arimareiji against me. I would appreciate it if any administrator, or other experienced user reading this, could point out if it actually appears that I have been harassing any user. If there is any suspicion that this is the case I will try to clarify -- or if it should be that I have done something I should not have without intending (because there has been no such intention on my part), I will apologize. But, since Untwirl edits only Israel/Palestine dispute articles (to the point of being a single purpose account), and since I also edit Israel/Palestine articles, an expectation that I will never edit the same articles as Untwirl seems an unfair, and irrational, demand. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

dgg - i beg to differ with you as well. your response to malcolms edit warring without participating in discussion was "I consider that the material he deleted has no place in the lede." that is a content dispute. you ignored his disruptive tactics and supported his (in your words) "good editing." this was after you had overturned his block and told gwen gale you thought she was involved in a test of wills. any neutral admin could see that reverting 3 times in 3 hours is disruptive and deserves a warning to participate in discussion. if you endorse the version malcolm was pushing for, you should come to the talk page and discuss it, not refuse to warn an editor that he shouldn't edit war. especially considering it was you who unblocked him a couple weeks ago, with the caveat that you wouldn't hesitate to call him out for edit warring. Untwirl (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

just in case anyone has been misled by the above comment, I have ever made any edits to the article, nor have i protected it or unprotected it, nor have I taken any other administrative action about it. The above comment seems to imply that I am in some way bound to take administrative action even when I think it will not help the situation. As anyone can see from my log, I very rarely do take any actual administrative action, other than deleting spam and blocking persistent spammers, because I think it very rarely does help situations. On the other hand, I say-- asked or unasked -- whatever comments I think appropriate about the quality of edits, and I usually do so without the least regard to whoever it might be who has made the edit. DGG (talk) 02:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

inserted

i apologize if i implied that you were "bound to take administrative action." of course you weren't. my comment was on the fact that you unblocked him after at least 3 other admins found him too uncivil and unrepentant to do so. (his 2nd unblock request included the phrase "(I) still feel that the article was gang raped"). your willingness to go against the decisions of 3 (actually there was a 4th one who expressed his approval of the block) admins to unblock him did make me think you were a forceful admin. the tone of your comments to malcolm about refraining from further reverts and participating in discussion was stern. when he started making multiple reverts, i expected that you would offer him another suggestion to avoid reverting and discuss. there was a content dispute, and reverts arent the way to solve that. does the fact that you agreed with his version mean that it would be okay for him to do one more revert and pass 3rr? i am new, and i may misunderstand the role of an admin in these type of complaints, but i didn't think that an admins personal opinion about content came into play in a case of 3rr unless it involved vandalism. i'm truly sorry if i'm coming across bitchy about this, but i dont understand that aspect of this situation. thanks for your patience. Untwirl (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, please dont divide comments, my signature was lost from the above comment. did i say, "malcolm has made things worse?" i don't remember that. this is an example of your straw man arguing. i stated explicitly that it does not matter whether you (or dgg) think your edits reverts were "good," many people disagreed and were discussing it on the talk page, in which you did not participate. is it just a coincidence that the 7th page you edited after being unblocked for edit warring and incivility against me was a page you had never edited and you then engaged in multiple reverts without discussion against me and others who supported the same wording? if it is, then i apologize and retract my accusation. as to my being an spa, this is not an inherently bad thing, i am active in discussions and dont perform ninja reverts like you did here.Untwirl (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, you and/or Arimareiji have accused me of incivility, wiki-stalking, disruptive tactics, edit warring, of making three edits in three hours (is there a rule against doing that?), unwillingness to participate in discussion, deleting sourced material, putting words into your mouth, cherry-picking sources, repeatedly reverting back to one version, chasing an editor whom I've "repeatedly" been warned to leave alone, and I am sure I have missed some accusations. (Arimareiji also suggested a check user, which is okay with me.) I had not realized that I had done so much in just three edits to the article (and in just three hours!).

Of course, not a single one of these accusations has anything to do with the reason for this AN/I thread, which is that you and Arimareiji were edit warring for days at the Rachel Corrie article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, but I don't know if you're doing yourself any favors by repeating your activities when they're easily verifiable by following the links and this present conversation. Carry on. arimareiji (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not verified anything. You just hoped you could get me blocked if you made a lot of accusations, and repeated them often, and tried to convince two administrators to block me [91][92], all while you continued to edit war. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the complainant Malcolm Schosha is a problematical editor who makes a practice of wasting the time of good faith editors with tendentious editing[93] and accusations such as this one. He takes a hard-line and abusive attitude to anyone with whom he has a disagreement.[94] He has edited under different problematical UserNames and, when reminded, boasts of having been blocked "Yeh, I have been blocked plenty of times. So what? I take pride in not being an ass kisser. Do you have a problem with that?". I don't see a serious complaint here, and this ANI should be kicked into touch right now. PR^talk 22:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered, if your point is that no one should pay any attention to what I say because of my block history, then no one should pay any attention to what you say either because you have been blocked more often, and with longer blocks, than I have.

But what I think you are really saying is that you want to see me gone from WP because we have edited on different sides in disputed Israel/Palestine articles. In other words you find me an inconvenience to your editing goals. That attitude is certainly understandable, but deplorable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, leave it alone. your constant need to bring up i/p is tiresome. yes, many of us have different opinions, but that doesn't excuse personal attacks and disruptive editing. Untwirl (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wondered across this thread not expecting to find anything funny, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Talk:2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict. Next thing I know, who is making his very first edit at the Rachel Corrie article and reverting my edit? You got it - Untwirl! Things are quiet for a few days; none of edit the article. On the 6th, I make another edit to the article, and - you got it - twenty minutes later Untwirl is again reverting my edit. The irony in his wikistalking accusations is delicious. --brewcrewer (yada, yada)

07:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive tactics of editors making tendentious allegations against others will be better understood by reading this complaint at "Arbitration Enforcement" and this comment at the end of the section. PR^talk 14:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This thread was initiated by me about the edit warring of Arimareiji at the Rachel Corrie article, an issue that is now resolved due to a compromise. Since the issue of the thread is resolved, I would appreciate an administrator closing the thread.

Strange to say neither Arimareiji, Untwirl, nor PalestineRemembered, in their numerous edits, ever had a single word to say about the dispute that caused the edit war at the Rachel Corrie article. Instead, they chose to discuss me, and what they consider to be my negative personality traits, and my shortcomings as a WP editor. In other words every single comment was an ad hominem, which is the most notorious logical fallacy. It should be noted, particularly, that ad hominems are still logical fallacies (and therefore worthless), even if the attacks made against the person are true, because they do not concern the real issue. However, in this case, since I made only "three edits in three hours" to that article,the accusations seem particularly silly. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

malcolm, this thread was begun by you misrepresenting yourself. you came here claiming to be the noble edit war ender, which was complete bs. you did not remove disputed material to the talk page. you removed only the part that you didnt like.

strange how you rewrite history. you perpetuated the edit war by making three reverts in a three hour time frame without participating in discussion. so your coming here to report arimareiji is rather comical.

brewcrewer - as i said before, dont flatter yourself. you are not interesting enough for me to follow. you and malcolm both have come to this page and reverted consensus based material without discussion.

see this diff - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rachel_Corrie&diff=269301128&oldid=269126999 where you reverted to a disputed version just 2 hours after your comment here. if you had read the discussion page you would see that the 3 of us who were discussing it (not you or malcolm, who only make ninja reverts) had compromised on the version that was there. do not revert again. participate in discussion.

in fact, brewcrewer, your only participation on that talk page has been to accuse me of stalking you. you are disruptive. do we have to get the page protected at the compromised version to keep you from edit warring? Untwirl (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

brewcrewer also takes this vendetta out at various admin boards against respected neutral editors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE#User:Cerejota_accusing_editors_of_.22taking_marching_orders.22_from_CAMERA.28redux.29

cerejota and i have disagreed (in fact he defended you when i thought you were wrong), yet you feel like you can get sanctions imposed on him and have him banned from an article in which he has made excellent, balanced contributions. Untwirl (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl, I started this thread because there was an edit war at the Rachel Corrie article. By your own admission I had not participated significantly in editing the article. But there is no requirement to have participated in an edit war to report an edit war on AN/I. However I did participate in talk discussion here [95] in an effort to stop the edit war. Virtually every statement you have made about me here is either a distortion, or irrelevant to this thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Untwirl, I think it would be accurate to call brewcrewer's change to the article lead an edit, not a "revert" -- as you called it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You tried "to stop the edit war"... by making your very first appearance at the page to make three reverts in mainspace against three separate editors in three hours ([96],[97],[98]) to your preferred version, then finally appearing at Talk after your third revert to claim your deletion of one side (and putting it on the talk page) was a neutral edit? Followed by threatening two hours later to bring it here ([99]) unless your version was reinstated?
2. Editors from both sides came up with an unquestionably-neutral solution to remove both versions. Not only was it without your input, you obliviously demanded again ten hours later that your version be reinstated. And now, you're upset that when Brewcrewer reverted again to your version a full day later, Untwirl accurately calls it a revert?
3. No question, you're a real peace... maker. arimareiji (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Arimareiji, I am starting to worry about your rationality.

I will explain again in the hopes that you will eventually understand. I said that I initiated this thread because there was an edit war at the Rachel Corrie article. You were a major player in that edit war, and I was not. But nowhere in this (now very long) discussion did I say that I was a neutral party. I did say that I wanted the edit war to stop (which is a true statement), and that I am glad that a compromise was reached (which is also a true statement). I did not say that either the edit war, or the the compromise that ended it was my doing....aside that it is clear that my bringing the problem to the attention of a larger WP community on AN/I seems to have resulted in an increased willingness -- on your part -- for compromise that seemed missing previously. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

so, this is what i hear from you:

1. you believe you can justify 3 ninja reverts against 3 editors without discussion.

2. you believe you can justify bringing to the ani board a bad faith excuse about 'ending an edit war' in which you were the most active recent participant.

3. you believe that "moving disputed content to talk page" means to remove only the side you don't like.

i'll leave it to other editors who have seen your current and past behavior to decide whether

A. you are a noble compromiser, always willing to find solutions and work with editors you may disagree with or

B. you love drama and can't be bothered to contribute constructively when you can have so much more fun being tenditious.

so far i have been very patient with you and i tend not to make admin noticeboard reports so your behavior has gone unreported by me. but it is agreed by many that you are a disruptive presence and i wont hesitate to report you in the future.

ps stop trying to tag this resolved, leave it to someone less involved, you've been told twice by an admin not to do that. Untwirl (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl wrote: "you believe you can justify 3 ninja reverts against 3 editors without discussion." Question: Untwirl, what is a "ninja revert? An edit that you don't like?

Untwirl wrote: "...your behavior has gone unreported by me." Question: Untwirl, just what accusations could you possibaly think of making against me that are that have not already been made here by you, Arimareiji, or Palestine Remembered? You have accused me of everything you can think of, but never conceded the fact that you were edit warring on the Rachel Corrie article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Question 1 - "what is a "ninja revert?"

continuous reverting by an editor (especially one who has never contributed to the article) without discussion.

Question 2 - "Untwirl wrote: "...your behavior has gone unreported by me." what accusations could you possibaly think of making against me . . ."

my statement was that i havent reported your behavior, not that i haven't commented on your offensives in frivolous noticeboard posts that you start. Untwirl (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm, I love this. I question the plausibility of your assertion that you were nobly "[trying] to stop the edit war," and note with diffs that what you actually did was the opposite. Your response is to "worry about [my] rationality" and to deny having implied that you were responsible for ending, rather than aggravating, an edit war. A small sampling of your actual words prior:

"I made an effort to stop the edit war"

"It was you who ignored my try at ending the edit war"

"Untwirl, was there an edit war in progress before I made my first edit? Has the dispute now been settled? Just to answer for you, there was an edit war in progress, and the dispute is now settled."

"I said the situation was better, and it is."

Please decide whether or not you're going to imply that you're responsible for the compromise made by Untwirl, IronDuke, and myself with no input from you (in fact, ten hours after the compromise was made you demanded that I instead revert to your version), and stick to the choice. Better yet, leave it alone altogether. arimareiji (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, Arimareiji, there was that. I tried to end the edit war by moving the disputed content to the talk page [100] for further discussion, and you continued the edit war by returning it to the article [101]. Why do you think that contradicts what I wrote above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Untwirl wrote that a "ninja revert" is: "continuous reverting by an editor (especially one who has never contributed to the article) without discussion". Untwirl: I only made three edits to that article. Of those only one was a revert back to a previous version, and there was a second in which I moved the disputed content to the talk page. How does that make "continuous reverting"? As for talk page discussion, where is the WP rule that edits can be made only after talk page discussion?

Untwirl wrote: "i havent reported your behavior". Really? According to my understanding, putting an accusation against a user on AN/I is reporting it. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what the "that" is in reference to, in your statement "Well yes, Arimareiji, there was that"? arimareiji (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR discrepancies

Today, User:THF specifically invited Benjiboi to correct an cquote which User:Benjiboi added. THF and Benjiboi got into an edit war over whether or not the fix fixed it. These edits resulted in a 3RR report by THF. William M. Connolley then blocked both editors, because they were both violating 3RR. But William M. Connolley wrote on THF's page:

With some reluctance, I've blocked you for 3RR on BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant. I'll be amenable to unblocking, if you can find me a good reason[102]

THF, then gave him a reason,[103] and Connolley unblocked THF[104] No such offer was given to Benjiboi. I asked two admins to look at this case, none did, and three editors opposed this block. Benjiboi recently put up a unblock request,[105] and it was denied.[106]

I would ask that an uninvolved admin look at this case, and give Benjinoi the same offer that Connolley gave to THF.

talk

) 11:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

As

talk

) 11:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

From reading the actual dispute, what you said there is possibly the most negative spin one could put on it in regards to Connelly and the most positive to Benjiboi. It appears that Benjiboi added a cquote or such. THF asked him to fix. They got into an edit war over whether or not the fix fixed it. William blocks both. Why weren't both users given the same unblock advantage? They were. Benjiboi could just as easily put in an unblock request to plead extenuating circumstances as THF. Whether they are treated differently may be because they are different people, even in law courts you will find past behaviour taken into consideration, justice is not digital. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, I agree with your factual assessment and I clarified what happened. You didn't mention the offer which the admin gave to one editor, and not to the other.

talk

) 12:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Acctually that is what I was referring to with the treated differently comment and the equal ability to use the unblock command. I am not familiar with either editor, but it is entirely possible (And likely) that they both have different pasts on wikipedia that lead WMC to be willing to consider an unblock. As it is, Benjiboi did appeal for an unblock and was turned down by an uninvolved admin. I must say, only from a quick glance at their user and talk pages, I can see that Benjiboi has had some issues in the past that he seems reluctant to let go of (the topic ban et al that is so prominently featured), and while I make no judgements as to him being right or wrong on that, it may make an admin less willingto extend their engagement with him, if they felt it would turn into a protracted drama. For better or worse our admins are not paid arbiters but untrained volunteers, as such we cannot force them into extending their interactions with people they may not wish to converse with. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Benji's disputes have nothing to do with this one and therefore you shouldn't have even brought them up. The fact is, the block - and following decline to unblock - was total shite. William handled THF with velvet gloves with all that "reluctantly, I blocked you but give me a good reason to unblock and I will" but beat Benji over the head with a block and left it at that. Any person with a brain can see there is most definitely a seemingly favoritism for one of the involved parties. And if you want to bring up the past, William has been at notice boards numerous times for bad blocks. Regardless now, an admin with a brain saw fit to finally unblock Benji. Cheers. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 22:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No. "Any person with a brain" can see that one user was treated differently from another. That observation might support but is not sufficient to justify the related claim that WMC "favored" one user over another. Considering that we have an operating principle that

requires us to be distrustful of such a claim, we would need some strong evidence to support it. Because it is a strong claim. If you are asserting that WMC intervened in a dispute to disproportionately punish one editor and reward another, you better be prepared to back it up. Protonk (talk

) 01:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I support both editors being unblocked so that they can discuss the changes on the talke page. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Nationalist320 and his sock User:Sea888

User:Nationalist320, AKA User:Sea888, AKA USer:David873, and crossed the line in his major sockpuppeting here, trying to push a POV that cantonese are vietnamese yueh.

User:David873 is blocked, and he is using proxy ips to avoid checkusers, he has been posting his own agenda all over the

han chinese

, and other articles to make it seem as though cantonese are related to vietnamese and not chinese. its sort of obvious looking at his contributions that the 3 are the very same, look carefully though all the contributions of all 3 accounts at the articles i mentioned and their talk pages.22:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

He is located in Australia, all his sock ips trace back to there.

he also has been placing personal attacks on USer:HongQiGong's talk page with his nationalist320 account. he has been spamming his POV for too long, i recommending watching the Nanyue article closely and its history and its talk history for his POV pushing.22:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

his sock account attacking HongQiGong, totally innapropiate and POV pushing all over his and his other socks USer:Sea888 looking at all 3 account's edits, you can hardly tell them apart.....23:00, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

His sock ip using the very same link USer:DAvid873 once used

two of his sock ips, i suspect both trace back to australia, no? 122.105.149.69 151.151.7.53

trace the ips

23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)~~

Nationalist blocked for being troll only, likely on proxies. The other two aren't related. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

if they are on proxies, that EXACTLY why checkuser doesnt work

i doubt you ran a checkuser, considering that your live in australia and are vietnamese like david —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.163.24 (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He ran three checks. But then again, you'll just come up with a reason to not believe what I'm saying, like you did with Yellowmonkey. --Deskana (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This IP troll keeps on saying that I am David873 even though I blocked him (David) last year YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

since you block him for trolling, pray tell why didnt you block his trolls, or was it because you are the troll?

I have no idea if those accounts are related, but Nationalist320 did vandalise my userpage once.[107] Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Given the same writing habit like USer: and obsession with David873 and HongQiGong, this IP reporter is endlessly block evading ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Julius Ceasarus From Primus and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ. I guess another range-block for a long period would be necessary.--Caspian blue 02:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• The personal attacks by the likely sock of the reporter and the banned sockpuppeter are redacted. --Caspian blue 21:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Nothing actionable. –xeno (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

caspianblue gives himself way to much credit for getting huandi blocked, #1 huangdi was already blocked when caspian blue brought up the checkuser. #2 huangdi was blocked for posting a sock template on dave1185's page, not from caspian blue doing anything. caspian blue claimed "haungdi had a grudge against him for getting block". this shows typical korean arrogance, when huang di was blocked BEFORE caspian blue even posted the checkuser link LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by ㄭㄭ (talk • contribs) 05:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: The 2-square user above was indef-blocked due to his string of uncivil comments here today. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, Bugs.--Caspian blue 22:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Food Fight Bowl

Special:Contributions/C. Gerstle - seems to be a lot of recreation of deleted material, this guy seems really geared towards this Food Fight Bowl. I haven't talked to the editor, and nobody seems to have noticed the trend, based on the user's talk page. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 09:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The only source is a brief mention in a local newspaper (and the link seems broken). It's a shame, because he seems to have put quite a lot of work into it. yandman 10:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The page was speedied as A7, but it does not fit into any of the appropriate categories, so I changed it to a prod. The prod is very likely to be removed, so we will have to do this by AfD. I could not immediately see any re-creation of material removed by AfD, so I did not G4, but if anyone can find it. that's fine. DGG (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Those were just the images, which have all been deleted. If this page is deleted, then it might just be recreated as well... ~ JohnnyMrNinja 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Dingaww + Anon IP causing chaos in List of Rock Band track packs

Moved discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: Dingaww + Anon IP causing chaos in List of Rock Band track packs. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs

dilemma

I've come to report a growing problem; new user Eugene Krabs. The username pretty much gives away that he likes Mr. Krabs. At first you'd think that he's just a normal new user, but if you look at his contributions, you'll see he's getting very close to being disruptive, he makes all these weird edits and when someone reverts them, he leaves a false warning on their talk page.

And when i tried to help, he got mad and said that i'm trying to boss him around. I thnk we've either discovered a very disruptive sockpuppet, or a disgruntled child/teenager. I decided to come here for some advice on what to do, Eugene obviously doesn't want help.

talk

) 13:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call him new anymore. We had an issue with him moving his talk and userpages to articlespace awhile ago (December I think), and he recently asked for someone to be blocked here. He certainly doesn't understand the concept up escalating his warnings (or indeed, he isn't that great at warnings at all). I don't perceive him to be a sock ...merely "misguided". (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 14:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

(note: I have advised the user of this discussion) (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 14:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

We are clearly dealing with competence issues with Eugene. I do think he's a good faith editor. Turning down a mentorship offer was clearly a bad move on his part, because I think it would have helped. I've been friendly, and tried to point out why his missteps were missteps, but never quite gotten the feeling that he understood my explanations ([108] for example).—Kww(talk) 15:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a competence issue--this is simply a threat. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• He certainly gets snippy when cornered, I'll grant that. I could find a half-dozen such examples in his edit history. I don't see that so much as making threats in the classic
  WP:NPA sense of the word so much as a sign of just not understanding what's expected of him. That's why I wish he had taken Elbutler up on the mentorship offer.—Kww(talk
  ) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hey Kww, I'm not saying it's a serious threat or that I'm scared or something. It's just really irritating. And if it's really a half dozen you can find, perhaps we should ensure that it doesn't become a full dozen. Drmies (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not arguing. The word "competence" in my original comment linked to WP:Competence is required, which specifically advocates blocking good-faith editors when they simply can't live up to our expectations of an editor. I'd just like to hear someone come up with an idea that will help. He doesn't seem to want mentorship, but I think we are very near the stage of blocking him until he accepts mentorship.—Kww(talk) 03:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the distinct possibility that we are being subtly trolled, perhaps that is precisely what needs to be said to EK: "You need a mentor, or you will be blocked from editing as you refuse to learn from your mistakes and when people try to help you." //roux   03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just realized something, Eugene is high school student (and judging by the attitude i'd guess male high school student); students think they don't need help and have a short attention span...that explains everything! We just have to get Eugene to listen to reason; if he doesn't....block time.

talk

) 15:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He's provided us with another example of his responsiveness to corrections from other editors.—Kww(talk) 18:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: I gave Eugene a firm (may-be a bit harsh) warning. I sincerely hope he follows, if not yo can block him for trollings. If he does follow it; i assume responsibility for this user.

talk

) 19:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I think that's a horrible block warning. I suggest you adjust that to be a bit less patronizing. I also don't think we should force mentorship on him at all. That's not going to work.--Atlan (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been block for 24 hours by Future Perfect at Sunrise, apparently independently of this discussion.—Kww(talk) 12:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion unfold. I may seem like an odd choice, but I would be willing to mentor him. I think that I can help him be a productive contributor if he allows so. I have a desire to mentor troublesome users and help them contribute positively, as I was once. Sam ^Blab 00:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sort of kind of a legal threat

Posted on a talk page i watch (good chance the editor in question is logged of for the day) by

talk

) 23:39, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely seems to be a legal threat. Judging from the other contribs by the IP things do not bode well as they reek of

sock of a previously-blocked user, but definitely is bucking for a block on the contribs alone. MuZemike

00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh ya, that is blockable. And blocked. 3 days should give the IP time to find a new owner.

Chillum

00:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The IP's history shows nothing but editorializing, to put it charitably. However, the banner on his page says "indefinite", but it's only a 3-day block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The person is blocked indef(in spirit), the IP is blocked 3 days.

Chillum

14:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha. So not an indef-block all at once; more of a "renewable" block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser abuse

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. MER-C 08:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies if this is in the wrong place, but I've got a bit of a serious problem that I need resolved quickly. Recently, I was accused of being a sockpuppet. I've only just joined, and I've made only a few edits. She has opened a Checkuser on me, but since I'm innocent, I figured it was just a mistake. The person accusing me has gotten quite a lot of people banned in a very small timeframe, accusing them all of being sockpuppets of the same person she's accusing me of being one of, so I'm naturally worried. However, after looking into it and checking out the talk pages of the many people she claims I am, I fear that there is foul play going on, and that I will be blocked regardless. There are claims that the reason these users have been getting blocked, is actually because this person is friends with several admins, and the talk pages of the person most recently blocked-a user name

talk

) 05:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

She has opened a Checkuser on me

I'm still a man. It's funny how all those obviously different people I've accused of being one and the same just happen to assume I'm female. Uncanny, even.

Here's the SPI. Erigu (talk) 05:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And this comment is relevant to my post here how? You're just spamming. Stop trying to antagonize me. And for the record, I've seen the quite a few of them have referred to you as a man. You cling to whatever you can find when you make your accusations. Since you have no proof because you are lying, you're choosing to cling to the fact that I mistook you for a woman based on your username. Don't keep making snide comments everywhere I go, and don't continue to spam my talk page.

talk

) 05:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I find it a little odd that Erigu's very first edit was to open a sockpuppet case. DuncanHill (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, Eirgu's been here 7 months and made over a thousand edits, 58% of which have been article edits. +20 EXP, on the other hand, has been here a few days, and made 16 edits, none of them to articles. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was editing as 88.161.129.43 and didn't want to create an account initially (basically, I can't say I'm a strong believer in the Wikipedia project... I just know the site is popular and would rather try and improve some articles for those who consult it), but this is how it went... Erigu (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Erigu is a user who really needs to be banned, but I've no idea where to request that kind of thing. He has a bunch of pages staked out, and if anyone disagrees with him or makes and edit he dislikes, they are automatically a sockpuppet. He opens a Checkuser, then goes to the page of an admin friend and requests they handle it. And until the user is banned, Erigu will, as you've just seen here, stalk the editor around Wiki, quoting their posts on talk pages and making snide comments. Several of his victims pointed it out before they were blocked. He antagonizes people until they get fed up and fight back or defend themselves, which he uses to make them look guilty. He'll also go to pages they edit and undo their edits, making up whatever reaon he wants. And with all the rules Wiki has, it's easy to make it look legit. You can contest any edit if you claim it is unsourced or that the source is not legit. And also, Erigu constantly accuses someone named "SyberiaWinx" of being in charge of these accounts, but there's no user here by that name. That makes me believe this is all just some massive personal attack from some troll. Just take a look at his recent contributions. I feel bad for all those other users...

talk

) 05:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A user who's been on here for less than 3 hours, calling for another editor to be banned. That's a good one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Been on here less than 3 hours, yet went and opposed Luna's arb com election claiming he is lying about the check user results to help his "friend" Erigu.[110] Interesting indeed that he feels such a strong need to defend the banned socks to the point of slandering a long standing and respected administrator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What's your point? I know harassment when I see it. And to the person who said I've been here for three hours and haven't edited any articles, there are reasons for that. I intended to edit the page for a game called "Umineko no Naku Koro ni", but I checked out the talk page first and got into a discussion. That has been taking up my time, and then, out of the blue, there's that sockpuppet accusation meant to discredit me in said discussion. After that, I was too busy reading a bunch of stuff in relation to the accusation. When I learned Erigu's habit for following people he accused to other articles and harassing them/undoing their edits, I figured it would be best to wait until the accusation was settled at least, though I doubt that would stop him...I'm not interested in one of his edit wars.

talk

) 06:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, long-standing and respected people do bad things all the time. It's terrible, but it happens. If I hadn't been accused of sockpuppetry, I wouldn't have even know this was going on. But I was. And naturally, I read the talk pages of the users I was accused of being. I read the accusations against Luna, found the evidence backing it up quite well, and then saw Erigu doing what he often does and asking a specific admin to handle it-in this case, Luna. And when I saw that there was a vote going on, I posted the situation there too. If it's true, then she is abusing her Checkuser powers, and a lot of undeserving people have been banned as a result.

talk

) 06:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're an actual newbie here, then I'm the Man in the Moon. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please leave. You are not contributing anything to this conversation-you're just making rude comments with nothing to back them up. I am a new user, and like many other new users who have encountered Erigu, I'm being harassed by him and his friends.

talk

) 06:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You know way too much about wikipedia for a guy who's been on here just a few hours. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable assumption. +20, you've been here long enough you should know you can't just tell another editor to leave. Dayewalker (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's just see what checkuser says. I can believe in good faith that many users edit as anons until they decide to create a username... whcih may explain greater wikiknowledge than total newcomers have, if this was the case. Its the checkuser that will find if there is anything to assertions of puppetry and it would be prudent to wait until this is done. No need to create an environment of negativity... any of us. Yes? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Striking and running. Yikes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I've been on Wikipedia since 2006, and I have never seen Luna Santin abuse any of the processes here. Yes, I've sat in the shadows, quietly perusing massive amounts of posts, arbitrations, checkuser investigations, mediations, etceteras over the past few years, in addition to my normal editing. (Learning the political side of Wikipedia.) In every instance of these that I have seen where Luna Santin has been involved, I've seen nothing but integrity, dedication and follow-through. In those instances where there was a possible conflict of interests, Luna Santin did the honest thing, and recused.

I find it extremely far-fetched that Luna Santin did anything in this instance that could even be conceived as impropriety. Edit Centric (talk) 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my experience also, I have found Luna Santin to be a good and fair-minded admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be a prude, but the quote The person accusing me has gotten quite a lot of people banned in a very small timeframe, accusing them all of being sockpuppets of the same person she's accusing me of being one of leads me to believe that this is yet another sock of

right here and will comment there appropriately). If that is the issue then there is not much there ANI can accomplish. If everyone can excuse me, MuZemike

07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I "know too much" about Wikipedia? And you are getting this from where? And someone says I've been here long enough to know I can't tell someone to leave? I've been here for a couple of days, if even that! And said user is just being disruptive. To Edit Centric, the evidence speaks for itself. It clearly shows how she lied just to get a person Erigu accused banned. Schmidt, while what you say sounds reasonable, it's not that simple. That's why I posted this. I want someone unrelated to Erigu or her friends to do the checkuser, so they won't lie about the IPs being the same. And Mu, you say that, but you haven't actually stated WHY you are saying that.

talk

) 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well..... Let's see here: You know about the terms sockpuppet and checkuser. You know the meaning of wikipedia jargon that only someone who's been here awhile would know. You know about Arbcom, and the arbcom elections. You voted oppose on an arbcom election, despite the fact that this account has run into that admin zero times in the mainspace. As I've seen, this account has edited in the mainspace almost zero times.

You know about this noticeboard, not something a new account would find so fast. Do I need to go on? I mean, everyone here can see that you're a

quacking sock. Just give it a rest, the only one you're fooling is yourself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

07:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why, because he's my friend, obviously. Erigu (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is apparent, as noted in the recent SPI, that the account was created in retaliation aimed towards current checkuser

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/67.163.193.239/Archive. MuZemike

07:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That was a nice attempt Dae, but lacking. Yes, I know about "sockpuppet" and "Checkuser"...because after I made about five edits, Erigu came to tell me and the people in the discussion I was part of that I was a sockpuppet and that he had opened a Checkuser. He also posted that same message on my talk page twice. I have no idea what the heck abcrom is. I found Luna's election when I looked at her contributions after Erigu went to her page to get her to take care of the Checkuser, and I spoke out against her because, as I said above, I've seen evidence that points to her abusing her powers. No idea what mainspace is either. And I found this noticeboard through Luna's contributions as well. Need you go on? Yes. You're making a serious accusation, and there is not even a shred of proof. All I did was join a discussion. That doesn't make me a sockpuppet. I don't know all this stuff about Wiki that you claim I do, and even if I did, that still wouldn't make me a sockpuppet. You're just as bad as Erigu, going around clinging to whatever you can in an attempt to get someone banned and making snide comments. There's no good faith here, and there's no one enforcing the rules either. Harassment against new users should not be tolerated. And Mu, you are wrong. I never even knew who Luna was until Erigu stepped in. But now that I know, I'm determined to ensure I'm not falsely punished. And, at the very least, I want to make sure Luna's abuse of power is known, even if no one listens. No one has yet to even comment on it, even though there is evidence.

talk

) 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll comment on Luna's abuse of power. I see no evidence of it. Meeting adjourned. Dayewalker (talk) 08:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not spam. If you have no intention of actually looking at the evidence and responding seriously, then there is no point in responding at all. This is a very serious matter.

talk

) 08:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2)I suggest you retcon that, as his response is not spam. I suggest you read

WP:SPAM

, in case your master account hasn't already. But besides that, as far as I can see, you have posted zero evidence of your claims. To finding this noticeboard, you say that you were following Luna's contribs. I find it funny there isn't a single link on Luna's userpage to her contributions, so that does leave the question as to how a new user found her contributions in the first place.

Secondly, a block log cannot prove someone lied.

Lastly, I know I stated it before, but here it is again, you have given us zero evidence of your claims, but of your claims, you've revealed that you're stalking Luna.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is, and that's why I looked at your evidence and commented. Dayewalker (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you just said there wasn't any. That block log proves beyond a doubt that Luna lied when she claimed that that IP she just blocked was the same IP belonging to at least two other accounts. The Checkuser didn't say that, because it was impossible. The block log just further proves that she was lying.

talk

) 08:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, a very poor attempt. Did you read the first post or following posts at all? The evidence is given and completely explained to show how Luna lied. Also, I am not stalking Luna. I looked at her contributions after Erigu told her to handle the Checkuser, to see if she had done so, so I would know what had happened. Please, stop with the baseless accusations.

talk

) 08:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And how about you (and Erigu, to be fair) stop edit-warring on Haunting Ground? That would be nice. HalfShadow 08:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You just -told- us how you stalked her edits to find this noticeboard. Secondly, checkuser logs do not show up in contributions, they show up in their own logs which only higher up users can use. Yes, I did read your edits, stop implying that I didn't, however, I'm going to imply that you aren't listening, and are only reading selectively. You have provided no evidence to speak of. You have provided links to not a single diff, or screen shot, or anything that could prove through hard evidence that what you say is true. All that text in your above paragraphs that you keep calling evidence is not even close. It's your own testimony, and you cannot use that in place of evidence. We're still waiting.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales myself! (Trust me on this one, I am no stranger to raising a stink when I see something hinky.) Edit Centric (talk

) 08:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dae, you are lying as well. For the third time, I did not stalk her. I didn't even know her. I looked at her contributions after Erigu asked her to handle the Checkuser, and that is where I saw the link to this noticeboard and eventually checked it out. The evidence is the block log. It shows the lie. The IP both Akari and BrokenSky were allegedly using was blocked indefinitely, though Luna denied that. However, even she admits the IP was at least blocked for a period of time, twice. Claiming that it was proof those two users and WhiteKnightLeo were the same, she blocked what she said was that shared IP. However, what she really blocked was Leo's IP, which had not been used by anyone but him. Had the IP she blocked been the same as Akari or BrokenSky, then the log would have shown past blocks on it-at least two of them. But hers was the only one.

talk

) 08:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha, that's funny. Me lie on wikipedia. No, I'm not, and I realize everyone else knows this, but I feel the need to vent here.

You stalked her, period. There was not a single link to her contributions on either her talk page or user page, so there is no way you could have found them being a new user such as you claim to be. I don't know if you will view this noticeboard after your block, but I'm pretty sure your unblock request will be a comedy in itself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Future Perfect at Sunrise. MER-C 08:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* ...and to think I more than once defended FoJ's potential for being a valuable editor on Wikipedia. Of course, by saying that, now I've opened myself up for being called a pedophile again by one of the many socks. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 12:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Chalk up another one to the "Plaxico" syndrome. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my. I did notice this account was created on the same range as some other FoJ socks, shortly after WhiteKnightLeo stopped editing, but figured I should assume good faith and wait for the account to start editing before doing/saying anything. Hadn't realized such a big stink could potentially result. It's good to see meatball:DefendEachOther in action. The accusations being tossed my way would be very grave, if they were true, so I'd be happy to explain my views in more detail, or recuse from further action, if users acting in good faith are concerned; it does look like users are comfortable with what I'm doing, thus far, so for now I'll keep going like so unless I hear differently. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Your voting results so far may not be an acclamation, but it's certainly filibuster-proof. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Scribe711/Wired for Books

On January 27, 2009

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wrote a note on Scribe's talk page, explaining why his additions were spam. In spite of this, Scribe replaced the link, which I again reverted

.

This began a discussion over the next several days between Scribe, Anthony.bradbury, and me. Instead of spending time detailing this conversation, I direct you to Anthony's talk page: [111] and [112] and mine. As you'll notice from these discussions, Scribe was rude and condescending. You'll also notice that Scribe711, on several occasions,[113] [114] [115] deleted content from all three talk pages. It certainly is his right to delete content from his own talk page, but certainly not the talk pages of other editors. After some warnings, he ceased deleting Anthony's and my talk pages, but he continued to delete any kind of communication from either of us on his. This in spite of the fact that I offered to listen to the Maya Angelou interview and determine if its content was suitable for any Angelou-related article. (In the meantime, I placed the link on Talk:Maya Angelou, as per WP policy.)

It's obvious from Scribe711's behavior that he's not at all interested in contributing to Wikipedia. He has an agenda and as Anthony.bradbury states, he's arguing from a conflict of interest. (Scribe711 is David Kurz, the creator of Wired for Books.) He has accused me of eliciting other editors (meaning, I suppose, Anthony.bradbury) to label his additions as spam and vandalism, but Anthony, someone I've never had any kind of contact with in the past, joined the controversy on his own. Anthony and I both believe that adding a link to the end of an article, and doing that to dozens of them, constitutes

spam. Scribe711 disagrees, and instead of negotiating a compromise with either of us, has chosen to reinsert the link with no conversation about it, or to delete content from talk pages. I believe this behavior warrants a block, at least a temporary one. Thank you for your consideration. --Figureskatingfan (talk

) 05:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Warned one last time, will keep an eye on him. yandman 10:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see he's been banned for multiple accounts. Apparently someone recognised him... Figure, would you mind removing some of the links he inserted? I doubt I'll have time this afternoon. yandman 10:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Be happy to. I'll probably have time to do it tonight. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the socks, and yes, we have been here before:

• wiredforbooks.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• Bono06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
  • Bono06 was blocked a long time ago for persistent spamming
• Dkurz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Scribe711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

I will add the link to XLinkBot, so new socks will come up pretty quick, and do some cleanup on external links added by these three accounts (and see if there are other spammers as well). I should note, I think that the link has been used in a proper way as well, and it may be of use to the project here and there (as long as the links obey

WP:EL). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Rex User (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) too. He's been creating articles with the WiredForBooks link in the external links section, with the link in the same format used by the Bono06 sock brigade. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Michael Blohm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

Another user who added the links, I have cleaned a lot of the link additions by the SPA-edits, and I see that Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth has done the edits by Rex User. The rest seems to be added by non-involved editors for as far as I can see. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:31, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• 132.235.75.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

An (old) IP adding the same links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, once someone demonstrably associated with a site starts spamming links here, the consideration of NOT#DIR and EL go out the window. The site is spam, links should be deleted, the url should go on the spam blacklist, and future additions should be reverted on sight. That's probably a minority opinion. :) Protonk (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I found exactly one reasonable use of the site while I was looking over the contribution lists for these socks, and that one was used as an actual reference. (Wow! A real use for it!) I made sure the reference had the correct title and let it be.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I saw 2 of these links being removed via my watchlist, and have a few queries. I'm fully aware of the problems we have with being spammed (and serial-spammed, as in this case), but I'm distressed by Protonk's attitude above. I've listened to a few of these interviews, and found them informative, and have now added the link as a ref to Isaac Asimov, and would like to continue examining, and replacing where warranted, the links to these interviews. Is there going to be a further future problem with this, or can non-COI editors add/replace these links where appropriate? Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If there's good information in the interviews, then they should be used as references for specific facts in the article, in which case there's no question that the links should stay. Just as plain links in the External links section, though, the interviews wind up looking an awful lot like linkspam. That's my take on it, at least, from reading the policies. But I'm not an admin, just some guy or other.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well FM&C, at least you reviewed the links. From reading only this thread, I am very tempted to suggest that the site be added to the blacklist, so that this person can't keep coming back & adding his spam. However, if there is useful content at this website, then the best solution would be to work with this person to have him add the content to the body of the article -- per Quiddity's comment. -- llywrch (talk) 00:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

He's been socking for at least two years. It also, from the comments made by another editor who was from Wired for Books (named something like WiredBooksEditor), looks like the people at Wired for Books were having interns add links to their site to Wikipedia as well. I found one good link out of a couple hundred, and that one link had - I believe - been added as a reference by someone other than the spammer *after* the spamlink was added. Therefore, I honestly think it's best to leave this sockfarm blocked and let other editors link up any interviews that have references they need. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

After following this discussion, I've changed my mind about using the content of the WFB interview in the Angelou article. I believe in compromise and assuming the best of people, but it's simply not worth my time. I'm sure that the information can be gained in other places. Let the guy's interns do it. At least I know what to look for if and/or when he strikes again. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

FM&C, in response to last comment I formally suggest we list this site on the spam blacklist with the understanding that any established Wikipedia editor can whitelist individual URLs -- unless people here enjoy playing whack-a-mole with spammers. The tool is available & intended for situations like this -- so use it. -- llywrch (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Question though: When trying to add a blacklisted link, is there a link on the 'you can't do that' screen to the whitelist talk page and a 'If you are trying to add a citation or firmly believed in link relevant to the article, please leave a message here to request and exception for this page.' note? ThuranX (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that putting this on a blacklist would be a problem. There are cases where these interviews could have information that's useful for referencing an article, and therefore the site must be available as a resource. Replying to a comment made below, the problem isn't that an editor was creating articles, it's that the created articles had eternal links that were in violation of WP:EL. The links were removed and the articles were left otherwise completely untouched. If someone has a problem with me doing this, then I'm very, very confused.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to object to that blacklist proposal. This isn't someone trying to promote a commercial product - this is a former library director and grandfather (yes, I'm playing the age card) who seems to be a bit baffled by people deleting links to thoroughly relevant information ("Wired for Books was chosen in 2006 by the National Endowment for the Humanities as one of the best online sites for education in the humanities."). The repeated removal of all wiredforbooks links is following the letter of WP:SPAM, but I don't think it is following the spirit. 35 articles is not a gargantuan cleanup problem!

I suspect that he is simply one of the many academics who find our methods and manner of communication to be slightly-hostile and slightly-overwhelming (talkpage warning templates, referrals to large pages of instructions and simplified-legalese, being "talked about" by many people at many pages at once, etc).

Also, it was stated above that User:Rex User has "... been creating articles ...". [Say that 3 times]. I'm really confused as to why this is seen as a bad thing.... Isn't that what we're trying to do here? Did anyone explain to Rex User that it is preferable for references to be directly cited, or placed in a ==References== section, rather than in the EL section?

In the spirit of AGF, I'd like to propose that I make an attempt to contact Mr Kurtz via email, and convince him to stop adding links to the EL sections of articles (and to explain the preferred methods of adding citations/content to articles). Would that be acceptable, until/if such time as further mass-link-additions are made? Thanks.

[disclaimers: I have only skimmed through some of the many usertalkpage history linked above (deletions, arguments, confusion, etc) and realize that attempts were made already - but I'd still like to try again myself. I'm also not familiar with how the blacklist works - MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist admin-instruction#3 seems to suggest that the remaining citations pointing to wiredforbooks would need to be deleted - how easy would it be for an anon or autoconfirmed editor to add wiredforbooks-citations back in afterwards (eg a captcha or similar?) ?]

Thanks for considering the other points of views. Sorry if I've missed any critical details - more coffee required. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Quiddity for this view. I must say I am already past my

GF on this one (I wrote a rant here yesterday, but I did not save it). But I am not yet inclined to put it on the blacklist. I have gone forward and indef blocked the current users, and put it on XLinkBot

. That should revert the new users (socks) and IPs that add the link, while established users can use it without noticing. If this still results in more and more socks who don't (want to?) get it, then we can consider blacklisting.

I left a note on the talkpage of the major user, I hope to get a response on that.

As a note, these links in the external links sections fail

not a repository for external links. It is however useable as a reference, as they are more for verifyability (the link does not need to be followed to understand the document, while external links invite to follow as the information is probably not incorporated in the document). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

21:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I do realize that the links were being "spammed" in batches (over the course of 2 years), and that some of our articles have very large EL sections (to their detriment, from some perspectives). I have written an email to Mr Kurz, which will hopefully explain some of (what I think were) the earlier miscommunications. I have (gently) repeated the advice that he reads WP:COI, and re-suggested the change in behavior of adding content/refs in the future, instead of plain ELs.

I am still a bit distressed that the site and the contributors who have linked to it are being vilified for what could be seen as a trivial detail (this might never have been an issue if the contributors had instead been adding the links to the References sections all along - everyone seems to agree that it is a good site, just badly placed in EL sections, and too many COI additions at once). There's more (like starting off with level-4im template warnings instead of level-1), but I'm trying not to belabor the

point

. Patience, above all!

Hopefully this can all be resolved amicably, as the resource appears to be unique and interesting. I will try to keep an eye on all the relevant userpages, and a few of the relevant articles. Thanks again for your help and understanding. -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I gave the 4im template warning on one of the accounts, it may seem Bitey, indeed, though I do think that other accounts were appropriately warned before. I want to say, I'd prefer them to be used as proper references, putting them in a 'references' section instead of the external links section does in my opinion not make much of a difference. I would stress here more '.. If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. .. ' (

intro of the external links guideline). If there is nothing more that the link adds to the article, then putting them in the references section is similar to putting them in the external links section. I will keep an eye on it as well, as I have been involved in this case for quite some time now, hoping that we can get the (involved) editor(s) to expand their points on talkpages more, and maybe join appropriate wikiprojects. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

14:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: It was Figureskatingfan as the second message on Scribe711's talkpage (I can kind of see how the multiple links added in Scribe's usercontribs would lead Figure to use the harsh template, but the content of the links (a relevant resource) should perhaps have been given more weight and hence only a low warning template (or even a manually typed helpful message). But that's a sideissue). I just get frustrated when I see University departments being alienated by simple miscommunication (on both sides. but we should be trying harder (in some cases)). Context clarity calm requested.

Anyway, back to the trenches. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, sir! It was me that placed the 4th-level warning template on Scribe's talk page. I looked at his most recent edit history, as well as some of the warnings he had received in the past, and figured that his behavior warranted it. It looks like from this discussion, I was at least partially correct. I tend to be somewhat protective of Maya Angelou, which is protected due to the terrible vandalism it's experienced in the past. If I acted in haste, I apologize, although I stand by my previous comments about not wanting to defer to him. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Big Dunc, blocked

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

 – Block extension reversed

[116] Punishing this long term content editor editor (with an exemplory block log) in this fashion for an outburst of frustration is plainly ridiculous. Could someone please unblock, while things are still reasonably calm.

talk

) 23:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• I see, so insulting the dignity of the Admins is now a capital offence. Even to long standing content editors, in a moments of rare frustration, with unblemished block logs. The new rule is "Insult us and you will be banned for a week and forbidden to edit your own page" That appears to be the new diktat to Arb's clerks. I had hoped we had a new regime here, it seems I was mistaken, it's worse than ever it was.
  talk
  ) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The arbitration enforcement function is not part of the clerking function, although the two are often performed by the same administrators. No "diktats" have been given by the committee to the clerks or the admins active in enforcement or anyone else, beyond those contained in motions that have been openly posted on the site. I would appreciate input from other administrators on both the initial block here and the extension. Giano, please provide notice of this thread to the blocking and extending admins if you have not already done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have better things to do with my time than inform Admins who have performed bad blocks that their conduct is being discussed. I am going to bed - I am not the blocking Admin - one asumes they have not already done so!

talk

) 23:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your having brought this forwards here, Giano, but intentionally not notifying the blocking admins in a case like this is assuming bad faith on their part, and a gross insult to them. It's an expected part of the usage and policy of this page, which you are aware of, to notify admins on review of their actions here. Please make it more of a priority in future reports. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the additional extended block violates the longstanding policy that we let blocked people vent a bit on their user talk page. While I am opposed to incivility, and this clearly was some grossly abusive incivility on BigDunc's part, blockees are not expected to be perfectly gracious about being blocked. The incivility was restricted to BigDunc's talk page and talk page edit summaries.

I'm going to leave an intent to unblock note on Tnzaki and Deacon's talk pages along with a pointer here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't reviewed the original block but I agree with GWH on reducing it to the 48 hrs. Being blocked is stressful. –xeno (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  So is editing in an environment where people constantly chew at each other. You're frustrated go do something else. No one is forcing you to stay on wikipedia and vent your frustration here.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

  Both of these views hold some merit.

"Im have better things to do with my time than notify admins of ANI posts" - Giano. It bears repeating, every time. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Admims are supposed to post such blocks here. They did not - explain?

talk

) 09:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

...I think the complaint is that you come here, stir up a hornets nest and then depart, claiming that you don't have time to come here and stir up a hornets nest. Protonk (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Giano's narrative of the events is inaccurate. BigDunc was blocked by me, for 48 hours for violating a Arbitration enforcement related revert restriction. I was honestly not particularly pleased with the block, and would not have objected to another admin stepping up and coming up with a better idea - but no one did. BigDunc's unblock request was denied, I believe twice without my knowledge or involvement or even notification. After that his block was extended to a week for gross incivility by Deacon, and his talk page access was removed after a rather nasty message from BigDunc. This popped up on my watch list this morning and I restored BigDunc's access to his talk page, shortly afterwards BigDunc posted this which begins "Probably better if the page remains protected Tznkai." (I reverted this message, an action I now think was ill advised) This, as far as I am concerned was an invitation to restore Deacon's block extension and the remainder of the message confirmed that Dunc intended to continue cursing and railing and so on. I'm not sure when this longstanding policy of allowing venting started - I certainly havn't seen it written anywhere, but I'm not particularly worked up about this, I don't object to BigDunc's block being modified, shortened, lengthened or even overturned. For the record, Domer48 was also blocked for 48 hours, Mooretwin for 2 weeks, resulting from the same AE thread, and someone else is welcome to handle those blocks, modifying them, and otherwise handling the situation.

Giano has mentioned something important, BigDunc( and Domer48 ) are longstanding content editors, and they've created a decent amount of material - but they don't get in trouble for "insulting admins" - they get into trouble for edit warring, and POV problems related to the Troubles. My sincerest encouragement and thanks to anyone whos got the balls, creativity, and political capital to genuinely solve the situation. I'm unable to do it myself--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR summary of above: read the history, but unblock away.--Tznkai (talk) 05:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, for all good will in the world, BigDunc continued such language even after the block was extended. He also sent me a nasty foul-mouthed email, which he subsequently apologised for in a mature way in another email an hour or so later. I agree with Giano that people might need to be given breaks in such circumstances. But it is situational and now isn't the time to review, esp. in the shadow of BigDunc's hot-headedness and the context of this AN/I thread. This would be bad for the respectability of rule enforcement if nothing else, and probably wouldn't do BigDunc any favors. The block was merited, and if a review is to happen it should be in a day or so. The AE block should definitely not be overturned (the other party got two weeks anyway); i.e. the original block by Tznkai should run its course. The additional 5 days can be looked at only after that ... if everyone's happy doing so. So leave it another day at least. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

This is rather depressing to read and review. I think that the original block was justified, and a 24 to 48 hour duration was appropriate in the circumstances (note: if the original block was any greater than 48 hours, I would not have considered it appropriate). As for the block extension, while there is no longstanding policy on venting, I think insufficient consideration has been given to the fact that he was responding to a block that he felt was unjustified (although in reality, it was justified - despite his assertions). A block extension may have been appropriate (to echo in no uncertain terms that such incivility will not be tolerated), but the duration of the overall block was manifestly excessive. Either increasing it to 72 or 96 hours was enough; increasing it to 1 week is more of a punitive measure of bad faith. Had the conduct still gone out of control after this time, then you can always reblock.

Nevertheless, the block log now has an annotation of 1 week, so I propose the following way forward from here. If there's clearly signs that such misconduct will continue, leave the block as it is. If he makes an unblock request that is convincing and makes the right sort of assurances (with regards to civility), then unblock around the time the original block was set to expire (AGF; lapse in judgement). If there are no such assurances, but at the same time, no clear signs that the misconduct will continue, then unblock after 72 or 96 hours as time served; excessive extension. My view anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The AE thread launched by BigDunc resulted in the block of three users. The one whom BigDunc reported, who had committed exactly the same offense as BigDunc, got two weeks. Afterwards BigDunc went ballistic with abuse[, and sent a nasty email]. It's papably absurd to declare then a five day extension "a punitive measure of bad faith". I don't even think that borders on reasonable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've been hanging low here due to my break, but Deacon, you're WAY off track here. Actually, Mooretwin got off QUITE easily with two weeks. He was told previously his next block would be for a MONTH, mininum. When you add in the fact he basically swore he'd keep doing it, if I had a say in it, it would be indefinite. Dunc.. Well, I guess I'm going to send him an email telling that swearing isn't going to make things better. I would support limiting it to the two days IF he made assurances that he wouldn't continue. SirFozzie (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I commented elsewhere, but to reinforce SirFozzie's point, we have a longstanding policy that it's unfair piling on and escalation by the administrators to punitively block after mild to moderate venting on talk pages after blocking.

While I agree that what BigDunc did is improper and antisocial, we have had users who did this sort of stuff for days and days and were allowed to wind themselves down into being reasonable again without further intervention or provocation, because everyone was pretty sure that they would be ok if left alone to vent for a bit and were not in fact basically bad guys / girls.

Admins have a lot of power. We also have to have a sufficiently thick skin that we can turn the other cheek and accept some abuse sometimes. What we have to do makes us a focus of some abuse. It's part of the job. If you aren't thick skinned enough to accept that then you're not doing the job right.

We don't expect admins to be perfect, and lord knows you were provoked, but it's situations where you're provoked where it's most important not to respond in kind.

I am going to reduce the block length now, to expire when the original 48 hrs would have. Deacon - I appreciate that he frustrated you. But you didn't give him enough patience here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Even 48 hours for affronting an Admin is ridiculous. I hope though Tzkai has learn that he cannot impose these Draconian sentences at a whim (even if he is the Arb's clerk) it does not make him a one instant justice dispenser. Furthermore why was this block not posted here, properly - rather than kept buried away?

talk

) 09:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

As I understand, BigDunc was not blocked for 48 hours for affronting an admin, but was blocked for violating a 1RR-remedy. Last year, a few editors were blocked for between 24 and 48 hours for the same type of violation in the same area. As such, Tznkai's action has received the support of those administrators who declined the unblock requests of BigDunc, as well as the support of other administrators and editors here. Finally, are you asking about the original block, or the block extension in the final line of your comment? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the original block is really being discussed, but more the block extension. Blocks are intended to be preventative rather than punitive. While BigDunc seems to have vastly overreacted to his block, Deacon notes above that he "subsequently apologised for in a mature way in another email an hour or so later". I don't see what is being "prevented" - my personal belief is rule the original block valid, rule the extension invalid, and get an assurance from BigDunc that this is the end of the matter and that such outbursts are unacceptable, even if understandable. Orderinchaos 09:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Deacon

My review covered the AE thread - yes, I'm aware that 3 users were blocked. You're wrong on the second point though; Domer was blocked for the same length as BigDunc for doing the same thing. But BigDunc reported Mooretwin, and Mooretwin was the one blocked for longer. I think the rationale for a longer block on Mooretwin was other circumstances; a greater number of reverts than other parties who violated revert-remedy, a block log that shows a clear, recent, and outstanding history of edit-warring, etc. This was worthy of a 2 week block.

And I don't think my characterisation is absurd or unreasonable. In fact, I think BigDunc's reaction was quite predictable to some extent. No experienced editor is incapable of criticizing without abuse; for some reason, he was unable to control his reaction and it was more abusive than anything else. I considered that this was the only evidence you had to justify 'block + unable to edit talk page'. However, that is not enough to justify the length of your block. Can you provide other diffs of him going "ballistic with abuse" in between the original block and your block? I can't find any. A reasonable person who assumes good faith would not expect him to send such an email to you.

I thought the email, like this, came after your block? And that he apologised (and hopefully made the assurance that it won't happen again)? If the answer to both questions is yes, then unless he sends such emails again in the future, he should not be prevented any further or it would end up being a punitive measure. As an administrator, a trusted member of the community, it is implicit in your duty to give due consideration for the personal hardship that may be caused by your actions, warranted or unwarranted. If you are unable to do so, then you shouldn't be adminning in that area, if at all. A decision to block isn't what I'm faulting; it's the length of the block where you were definitely wrong.

To conclude, I support Georgewilliamherbert's action to reverse your action, more-so in the light of BigDunc's wise decision. This was what I was getting at in my proposal. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

this thread illustrates one of the problems with AE. As is usually the case with AE AN/I threads, the blocking admins (me and Tznkai) could have handled this easily on our/their own, and this talk shop overkill was quite superfluous. Almost nothing said here was necessary or useful (except for SirFozzie's comment) to resolving this matter, and most of what has occurred from it is damaging to the process. Another reason for reform. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sakes. Lets make it clear, AN/I is for controversial blocks or blocks one assumes would result in drama (or for people to create drama - that does happen time to time). There was no reason to believe that blocking Dunc for 48 hours for violating an arbitration related remedy that specifies up to a week long block for the first offense. It was a naked violation of a revert restriction (read the AE thread). Civility was never a part of the equation (for that matter, neither was clerking) for the original block. It was as simple as that.

My reasons for first re-allowing Dunc's talk page access, and then re-disallowing them are stated above. Those are separate issues, and none of it has to do with insults to me or affronting capital-'a'-Admins.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, no admin was affronted. I find it difficult to belief anyone would think any seasoned admin would be personally bothered by such language, even if it was directed at them. And the block extension was for blatant incivility cumulatively added to previous block reason. Georgewilliamherbert's claim in the log when he rushed to revert the block that it was against long-standing policy just underlies the amateurishness of how this was conducted. I really hope I don't have to see this again. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It is against longstanding policy to pile on recently blocked users. The original block was arguably not a mistake and hasn't been challenged other than by BigDunc and possibly Giano, though I'd have to reread the details of what he said everywhere again.

Turning off someone's talk page access is EXTREMELY UNUSUAL in a block. It's normally reserved for the worst repeat offenders or the worst threats or abusive behavior.

Again - I've been here for many years, I've been dealing with editor abuse issues for many years, and BigDunc's reaction was only moderate at worst. The response from you two was disproportionate and inappropriate. There are numerous RFC and Arbcom findings / statements that we let people vent without further punishing them.

Giano is not particularly my friend here, but his bringing this to ANI was appropriate, and the responses here have been pretty uniform. The two of you who blocked went too far. Please don't do it again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The disputed action is primarily yours Deacon, and let me put it bluntly; there is no consensus for your position or your rationale. It's problematic that you were not familiar with the relevant facts and circumstances (this is evidenced from your reply to me, and your subsequent lack of reply - alternatively, it's clear from here). However, what's more troubling is your apparent failure to appreciate, even now [117], how your action was problematic enough that it needed to be overturned. I echo what SirFozzie said earlier; you're way off track. I suggest your first priority is to reform your approach above anything else, if you value your tools/status anyway. There was no issue with Tznkai's original block, or giving BigDunc a chance to give a civil reply, so I'm not sure why you're addressing Tznkai in your reply, Georgewilliamherbert. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

George, link me please to the proof of "longstanding policy", and then tell me why it was necessary to shorten a block so long before it was an issue, despite the opposition? While you're obviously entitled to your own philosophy on leniency, it looks to me that you're tripping yourself misrepresenting your own "administrative philosophy" as some kind of truth or policy. It's not. I have a slightly different view also based on experience and it would not be influenced much by memetic assertion as you seem to think, but by reasoning, and certainly not when the person asserting genuinely believes some of things you've stated. Incidentally, the block of talkpage access, though theoretically justifiable based on the offence and its context, was not intended by me and was an accident when altering the default ticking of the boxes; by the time I looked again at wikipedia Tznkai had lifted then reimposed it (very wisely at that point I think). @ Ncmvocalist, none of the things you say concern me and most of what you probably think should is based on misunderstandings on your part; e.g. the new info in SirFozzie's comment though relevant to one matter, the length of Mooretwin's block, were not otherwise [or at all] relevant to matter being discussed. And since we are apparently being frank in our opinions, Nc, I don't think your comments have brought much to the conversation. Anyway, neither I nor Tznkai have a crystal ball for Giano interventions, and I redirect both of you to my comments above which really are the pertinent ones to the issues at hand. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Very disappointing Deacon; you're the only one here that thinks I may be missing the pertinant comments - by stark contrast, several users have told you that you're way off track. Your comments are not pertinant as they do nothing but evade the issue - problems with your judgement. And this is the final time I'll remind you that you're the one that has things to lose if you repeatedly act and respond in this manner. It's interesting (even convenient) that you only thought of mentioning that "accident" now. On the other hand, I think it's a pity you fail to take responsibility for your actions. Also, it is utterly unbecoming of administrators to insist on intervening without familiarising themselves with all relevant facts and circumstances in a matter - you're the one who brought up Mooretwin in this discussion, and in effect, demonstrated that you did not familiarise yourself with this incident. Mooretwin's block is relevant in ensuring remedies are not enforced inconsistently to the detriment of this project (or its contributors) - something you were clearly willing to disregard. To conclude, the manner in which you handled this incident (and the criticisms thereafter) show more reasons why you shouldn't retain your tools than anything else. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You're wasting your time Nc. Your comments (and some of your other edits here e.g.) seem to show why you are not and likely never will be trusted by the community to be an sysop, despite your famous devotion to acting [unhelpfully] in so many mop-related places.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 07:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's hypocritical to block someone over etiquette problems, and then engage in similar problems yourself: please don't refactor the comments of uninvolved users [118]. This is especially because you're directly involved (and the entire cause of this thread). If you persistently refuse to understand the consensus that there was nothing preventative about your action and that your rationale was not acceptable, that's your problem - not mine, nor the community's. Attempting to attack uninvolved users achieves nothing except further reinforce my previous comment. Neither I, nor my actions, are the cause of this thread, and my actions aren't being overturned by the community as "poorly considered". Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The slinging about of recriminations and snark provides zero benefit to the project. The issue has been dealt with, and I am flagging this issue as archived. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Problem users

Moved discussion to

WP:SPI#Problem users. --MZMcBride (talk

) 03:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Policy Change regarding Blocking policy

Please view this thread. It is a discussion regarding the blocking policy, and the interpretation of said policy. I for one believe it is in completely the wrong place. The Village Pump is not the place to discuss policy changes, especially policy changes that affect WP on such a broad scale. Since admins are the ones that follow this policy, it is obviously something they should know about. So far, ten users, including myself, have commented, before the start of this thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually,

WP:VPP is designed to be a place where people bring up policy and other proposals. On this board here, it is somewhat offtopic (like 80% of the threads here). Kusma (talk

) 06:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, since the discussion is now at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) instead of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), Daedalus is kind of right in saying it's in the wrong place.--Atlan (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, here: [119] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-Promotion on the Wikipedia Logo Image page

The Wikipedia Logo's file information page had some self-promotion added to it in this edit. I removed it by blanking the page, but the file history looks like the advertiser created the page a few days ago. I don't know, therefore, whether simply blanking the page is the correct action. Ycdkwm (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the correct method of reverting this type of

WP:SPAM is to simply undo the edit, or if you have rollbacker privileges, roll it back. It looks like whatever you did to remove the content was adequate though, just checked it out and it looks ok. Edit Centric (talk

) 08:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nope, noticed one more URL link in the summary section of that page, removed it. The tricky thing with manual rvert of vandalism is that you have to read through the entire page, line by line, and look for the extraneous data to be removed. With undo, all you have to do is verify that the change is correct before committing it (ideally with an edit descriptor!) with the save button. With rollbacker, you have to be a bit more careful, and make sure that the rollback doesn't do more harm than good! Edit Centric (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threat in 9 Feb DRV

Resolved

 – indef block by Seicer. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The

WP:LEGAL. Usrnme h8er (talk

) 12:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this guy serious? If he continues making nonsensical threats, I'll WP:SNOW the review (as well as the author). yandman 14:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

His contributions have largely been to add himself to articles, including this attack concerning Alan Greenspan, which he added to three different articles. It reminds me of

Gastroturfing. I propose a ban. --B (talk

) 14:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone should have a look at

biography of a living person. --B (talk

) 17:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

When the person who said that is the finance minister for a major European nation I think it deserves mentioning. This is still a content dispute and should be handled on the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If he was Counsel to the Senate committee, it is possible he is notable after all, depending on his exact position. It might be better to write a brief article and protect it. DGG (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Note: If anyone has any questions for me pls post on my talk page. I followed the mess from there thru Drv to here, and it appears resolved but I wished to assure the community I will be available (not promptly) if there are any concerns. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to note that I just saw all of this on User talk:KillerChihuahua talk page and followed the links that ended up here. None of this was brought to my attention and since I am mentioned here and at the Drv I will comment if needed. This looks like it is taken care of so I won't say anymore, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can certainly make a strong case that Greenspan is among the best scapegoats for having screwed the U.S. economy, both by his recession-triggering actions prior to 9/11/01 and by his naive libertarian view that the boys on Wall Street wouldn't behave in a self-centered way. However, the legal posturing on that DRV is so outrageous that it overwhelms whatever mysterious point he was specifically trying to make. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin please review

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

Please review the block log, Talk history and contribs. This user has been warned and blocked a couple of times for incivility. If this were just directed at me, I'd let it go, but they're referring to the contributions of

User:CadenS as "shit". Since it's been a while since their last outburst, a warning may be appropriate. Please use your best judgment. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

22:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Due to continued abuse of the edit summaries, and continued blanking of the talk page, I've protected the page from editing. seicer | talk | contribs 22:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I was about to do much the same, but Seicer beat me to it; it's not just the talk-page blanking, but the edit summary which is the issue, and I concur. --Rodhullandemu 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the block, but I am not sure the talk page editing ban was called for yet. This is a persistent but not particularly vicious or focused rude/incivil user. I would like to engage them on their talk page to try to see if they can see reason on this and reform themselves, or if they're ultimately going to need to walk away (or end up permanently blocked). I have asked Seicer to undo the talk page restriction. Block duration is fine though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If it continues post-unlock, then any administrator reserves the right to re-enact the talk page protection via reblocking. seicer | talk | contribs 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since it's in the immediate aftermath that the user is likely to continue such behaviour, I doubt rushing to revert Seicer's considered talk page block is the safest thing. But I wouldn't oppose removing it given Seicer's reservation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The strange part about this is that CadenS was essentially coming to his defense as regards Sheffield's list. I contradicted it immediately after, but there is no logical reason for the user to make that comment in reference to CadenS' post. Maybe a month with no editing at all will produce an attitude adjustment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Good block, nobody deserves to be talked to abusively, it is poison to our project.

Chillum

02:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'm curious if there's some reason why the block was 1 month as opposed to a fortnight? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a forced March. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

OOH ouch, I remember those, hope the person has a good supply of moleskin pads! (Bit of ex-military there...) Edit Centric (talk) 10:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

May year August self please stop with the week puns?!

propaganda_deeds

10:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As the sun sets slowly on the prairie (which is why it's so flat), the cavalry bids adieu to the fortday, and welcomes the fortnight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat/report from blocked user

Resolved

 –

WP:RBI. –xeno (talk

) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be totally without merit, but since the consensus here seems to be that we forward meritless threats and reports to the authorities, I'm posting this report of a suicide attempt made after an unblock request was denied. It is likely someone reading this thread will be willing to contact a checkuser and get a hold of local law enforcement to make sure he hasn't actually killed himself. But I'm not going to. Protonk (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems ignorable to me. John Reaves 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's the same user who posted these unblock requests:[120][121]. —Snigbrook 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just do it. If it is serious then you've done a good thing. If it isn't - then the local law enforcement will have strong words with them about wasting their time. DuncanHill (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And if worse comes to worse, he'll cease to be an issue. It's a win-win situation. HalfShadow 17:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That is a disgusting comment. DuncanHill (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't refute the logic though :) --WebHamster 15:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is banned User:Hamish Ross. Just ignore. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Duncan, that's the point. I have at most 0 interest in doing it. Hell, I probably have a strong disinterest in doing it. If you are interested in doing it, you may. That's why I posted it here. I didn't, in fact, post it here so that someone else could tell me to do it. If I had, I would have said "Here is thing XYZ that I am on the fence about, please tell me whether or not to do thing XYZ." If you feel it is important, you can contact a checkuser and convince them to locate the IP, you can find the number for the police in that area and tell them the IP address, time, and originating ISP. My philosophy on this stuff is simple: the internet is not your friend and the internet is not your mom. If there is some serious, credible threat (suicide or TOV), then I don't have a problem forwarding the information. If it is anything less than serious and credible, I can't be bothered and I feel strongly that others should avoid panic as well. However, I have seen that past discussions on this noticeboard and AN usually result in the rough consensus (misguided in my view, but w/e) that the correct answer is to post the threat here before removing it. That means that my first instinct--roll back the edit and protect the page--could have caused displeasure among those who see any threat as sufficient cause for action. Rather than engage in that debate post hoc, where I would have to endure moralizing hypotheticals and bizarre statements about culpability, I just posted it here. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide notes wrapped in <big><big> tags hardly seem credible. I don't think anyone would've faulted you for

runs batted in here. –xeno (talk

) 15:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Lex Luthor redux

Resolved

 – Sock blocked

talk

) 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This editor

talk

) 14:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew MS was lying when he said he wanted forgivness, i think we've found another Bambifan101.

talk

) 14:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Occcws

Resolved

 – Warned.

Subject user has a clear grudge against the Orange County, California Sheriff's Department and its sheriff. He/she has vandalized

WP:SOAP on both. These are his/her only contributions. Requesting block or ban. KuyaBriBri^Talk

16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism? I'd advise that you take it to AIV. I don't see this as something which needs the attention of the ANI community as a whole.Ironholds (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Welllll.....user has been warned, I see, so I would let this one sit for a while. If Occcws comes back and starts the same shenanigans, then I'd post to AIV. (May I mark this one resolved?)Edit Centric (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Please leave more verbose warnings to explain what policies are being violated and why. Templating for simple vandalism is one thing, but this case requires notifying them of

WP:BATTLE and other policies. I have left a more detailed explanation now. Next time please do so yourselves... Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk

) 00:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronic problems with overzealous reverts, BITEing

Moved to

WP:WQA#Chronic problems with overzealous reverts, BITEing. --MZMcBride (talk

) 18:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

user:Jienum

Moved discussion to

WP:NORN#user:Jienum. --MZMcBride (talk

) 23:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Future albums/singles/movie sequels

Moved discussion to

WP:SPI#Future albums/singles/movie sequels. --MZMcBride (talk

) 22:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem

Moved discussion to

WP:AN/EW#Disruptive editing at talk:Monty Hall problem (proposed result: SeP?). --MZMcBride (talk

) 22:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparent sockpuppetry, multiple voting at AFDs - Gmatsuda

Moved discussion to

WP:SPI#Apparent sockpuppetry, multiple voting at AFDs - Gmatsuda. --MZMcBride (talk

) 23:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, MZMcBride, I appreciate the effort you're putting into moving all these threads to more appropriate specialized fora. I think it's making this board a lot easier to digest. So, thanks! —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Hoang (2nd nomination)

We got some major problems over at

meatpuppetry at the least (I am not sure about socking, as the IPs are in separate locations after looking at their WHOIS information). We also have said users trying to improperly tag the article for speedy (see [123], [124], [125] as well as make inappropriate closures on the AFD itself [126] and [127] and [128], in which Ofew19 (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for doing both. MuZemike

00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility: ThuranX

Resolved

 – Blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Despite having this block log, with a recent block for incivility just last month, it seems there's still a problem. Administrators need to step in.

First he suggests that some editors at Obama are mentally unstable ("Can't these people just stay on their pills?"), then he specifically attacks someone as "illiterate", then his edit summary quite clearly specifies that he was trying to be insulting [129], then refers to another specific editor as "an asshole" in an edit summary [130], then goes to that editor's talk page and leaves this message "DO NOT FUCK WITH OTHERS COMMENTS WITHOUT GOOD FUCKING REASON.", then blames someone else for his incivility in his edit summary "nonsense. if one hadn't done what the other accused me of doing, none of this would've happened.", and then finally, makes assumptions of bad faith that filing a Wikiquette alert are "intimidation tactics". Then specifically referring to someone as a "coward" isn't civil either.

Something more needs to be done, because WQA cannot do enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked prior to this thread. Tiptoety ^talk 05:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh...resolved then. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: Given the past block log of this user, IMHO it would be prudent to make note of this instance, and in the event of continued violations of this type, refer this up the line to the RFC -> ARB levels. Edit Centric (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing for the other involved editor who likes to say Obama is not a legal president, and sparked off the behavior? Oh wait, that's content. My bad. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 10:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There are better ways of handling those characters. Don't get mad. Get even. Follow the example of Hedy Lamarr in Blazing Saddles: "Maybe there's a legal president... Haley vs. United States... Haley 7, United States nothing." You see, it can be done! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know ... that's what I preach over in WQA LOL. Provocation can be just as bad as retaliation, but we (just like in basketball) punish the retaliatory action first. Sure, maybe ThuranX suffers from "short fuse syndrome", and takes very little provocation. But is passion a bad thing? When what might be an SPA continues to insist that Obama is not a legal president, and is harming an encyclopedic entry, and someone is trying to fix it (and becomes exasperated)...is there no second look at the provocateur? People have been insisting that George W. was not a legal president (at least his first term) - how was that dealt with that then, or were we even around? (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 11:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That kind of thing is why I have kind of backed off from the Obama pages. But the conspiracy theorists can be handled civilly. Speak softly and carry a big block. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You helped make my point. From what I can see, we blocked the retaliation, and left the provocation untouched. You rock! LOL (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 11:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Bwilkins asked if passion was a bad thing. I would humbly submit that passion unbridled has the potential to be that. OTOH, passion that's tempered with tact and civility is much more palatable when attempting to accomplish anything in-Wiki. Edit Centric (talk) 11:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, I could not agree more. As noted, this is what I preach in WQA. I'm looking more at what action are we taking with the provocation? If none, then that's rather uneven. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 11:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I kinda agree with this block, i sent some friendly advice to Thuran's talk page, hopefully he'll read it this time.

talk

) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I doubt he'll be happy with that unwanted lecture. He's well aware he's crossed the line, which is why he hasn't contested his block. Striking, as apparently he was just asleep.--Atlan (talk) 12:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats too bad, Thuran needs to learn this lesson before he gets forcibly shown the door. His outburts tend to be disruptive and unhelpful in collaborating to build an encyclopedia. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. ThuranX know that gross incivility will not be tolerated. If I do see a WQA on ThuranX, I'd like it to be nothing more than frivolous. If it's valid, then he'll be greeted with nothing but the response that he should've expected - as was the case here. This project cannot function on bare content alone; it requires, at the very least, a minimum standard of civility and conduct too. He needs to display that standard if he truly wants to better this project. My impatience with problem editors is notorious, but it doesn't mean I engage in such rhetoric - the same goes for many others. If there was provocation in the sense that it violated one of our policies or at least one of our guidelines, diffs would certainly be helpful. Otherwise, this is done and dusted, and he (or someone else) will have to rid the problem editors like everyone else - using our dispute resolution mechanisms, admin noticeboards, and any other available remedies (like Obama probation). NOT through incivility. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but this is the response to the unblock template and my advice, it's swear central. Maybe Thuran will never change, i think we need to make it so Thuran so can't edit his talk page.

talk

) 13:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pity; until he can control his anger and civility, he may need to stay blocked. I would go so far as saying he needs a mentor before he can return to editing. If, after this much time, ThuranX is incapable of ridding a problem editor without resorting to incivility, then I'm not sure why he's here. I'm living proof that you can rid problem editors without resorting to incivility, but he'll never accept that. He'll refuse to use what everyone else, inc. myself, has to use; article RFCs, RFC/U's, admin noticeboards, and even the new arbcom (that pledged to handle problem editors). Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. While he has legitimate points, his gross incivility and personal attacks is causing a severe rift in the project, and extended blocks -- if this continues, will be in order. seicer | talk | contribs 14:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What content in the Obama article needs correcting, if any, at the moment? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As I am the editor to whom Thuranx is refering, It seems that most everyone has taken what he has said about me at face value. I keep being unfairly refered to as a problem editor on this thread, yet I challenge anyone to show proof that Thuranx is correct in his misrepresentation of my editing. None of what he has said about me is true. I only now come forward to defend myself because one editor feels I need to be blocked as well. I chose not to challenge the statement here [131]. It was my choice not to comment on his accusations at that time, but it seems now that I am being villified now, based solely on that ealier accusation. Thank you for your time a patience, I just wanted to help set the record straight.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we do have the problem of blocking the person who flares up rather than the person who quietly provokes the issue, but this isn't really the best test case. Right or wrong, Thuran needs to remove the vitriol. The right answer to someone pushing the laughable (and it is laughable) notion that Obama is some secret muslin/Kenyan/whatever is to dismiss it out of hand, over and over again. Not get angry, not point fingers or call names (although both of those will feel good, temporarily), but do just say "None of those theories are remotely credible and wikipedia should cover them only insofar as reputable news sources do and only

in proportion to their significance in a biography of a president. But Thuran was over the line and he knew it--being "right" is no defense. Protonk (talk

) 15:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok now, which one of you has suggested that Jojhutton be blocked? I know that my point has been that we overall continue "punishment" of any retaliator, with little repercussion for a provocateur. I have acknowledged that provocation is not an excuse for action, but it is a reason for it, and therefore often needs further investigation. Using terms like "villified" and "defending myself" are more

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 16:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for replying.. I must have been mistaken when you said, on at least four occasions, that the provocation was not punished. I interpreted that as a block for me, but it seems that I was mistaken. Yet you did comment that you think that I was pushing that Obama was not president [132] and that I was harming the encyclopedia in some way. It seems that you may have read this [133], and took at face value, without determining if it was true or not.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Arrgh! I never said that you were the one pushing the statement about Obama. I was speaking generally about whoever pushed ThuranX to a point where he struck out with vitriol at the closest and/or most recent target. I do think it's time I look back at exactly why he chose you now. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 17:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Some things won't change. He needs a mentor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

1. ^ Vandalizing and blanking the page while blaming on others as being sockpopets
2. ^ Using edit summaries for nonsense comments and discussion
3. ^ Alienating new users
4. ^ Claims ownership and push his version