Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is a cause not a crime and linking it to multiple posts disputing COI tags on articles (see [1]). Gordonofcartoon (talk
  ) 21:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking him to stop? Or to talk to him? SoWhy 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather somebody external looked at the situation. I've had quite enough of dealings with this editor in preceding discussions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine if he wants to write an essay, but this spamming should to be stopped and reverted. Hopefully just this and a warning would calm the situation. Verbal chat 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Spamming" implies bad-faith indiscriminate placement of the essay. I haven't looked at every single edit he's made, so it's possible that this is an accurate characterization, but do you have a particular diff where he's not taking a good-faith position? THF (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider

prod}}. I'm concerned that this COI thing that was left on the talk page may be a distraction for the editor who has taken on the task of fixing this article. I also found some of the edits to Subnotebook to be a bit disturbing but I'm waiting to see what happens before I begin restoring content that was removed. Tothwolf (talk

) 12:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not quite sure what to think about the Desktop replacement computer AfD that Samj has initiated... Mutual assured destruction? Tothwolf (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, what? The

WP:COI allegations are very serious (especially for those of us who edit with our real names) as they disparage both author and article subject. They're also very difficult to defend against (which is probably why they are so often [ab]used), as evidenced by your admission to unsupported punitive use of the tag. -- samj _in^out

14:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering where this edit came from about a podcast where one of the podcasters had previously edit waring over the removal of some of the article's content, specifically some nominations for awards. Now I see he was just whoring out his essay. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Here's another admission of punitive use of the {{COI}} tag to punish an editor (and article subject) for behaviour that by Farix's own admission is historical. No current violations have been identified in the Anime Pulse article and yet there seems to be no intention to remove the tag or even move it to the talk page. -- samj _in^out 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a pretty

WP:EW policy out the window. --Farix (Talk

) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The template is for identifying articles that "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view". Edit warring is irrelevant unless the article still has residual issues (which should be tagged as such and resolved). By your metric the only way to ever shed the tag would be to completely rewrite articles, which is clearly nonsense. -- samj _in^out 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SamJ is a bit too confrontational for his own good when faced with COI allegations (and I have suggested

WP:POINT comes about when someone accused of violating X then takes Rule X to the extreme on one or more articles. THF (talk

) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the WP:POINT aspect is that it does look like a tit-for-tat reaction. He was rightly warned for COI, and is now off pursuing an agenda to diss the use of COI tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I spot-checked a couple of his edits, and they happened to be on pages where the COI tag was grievously misused to punish editors who had made sound edits, and SamJ would've been well within his rights to simply remove the tag instead of merely questioning it on the talk page. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that that was happenstance and SamJ is being abusive with his edits, but I'm still waiting to see a single diff that shows he is making any of these talk-page comments in bad faith. THF (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok so editor
  point to make here I'd say it's not me you should be talking to. There's over 2,500 articles currently tagged with {{COI}} and of the 50 or so that I checked almost all of them were tagged punitively and [semi-]permanently without identifying any policies or guidelines that had been breached. Thanks to User:THF and User:SoWhy for being reasonalbe when others aren't. -- samj _in^out
  06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• WP:COOL. As Farix says, a COI tag is not punitive; you're getting aerated about a false assumption. It merely tags an article (and associated edit patterns) for scrutiny because of the potential breach of policies/guidelines commonly associated with such a user/article relationship. In many cases you don't even appear to have looked (e.g. for COI questions raised at user pages, or ongoing neutrality violations for SPAs). Mainly, I think you're assuming bad faith over processing backlog; often editors pass by, tag possible COI (e.g. [[Mousterian Widgets]] created by [[User:MousterianWidgets]]) and then, responsibiity being diluted in such a vast project, no-one gets around to tackling in more detail. Gordonofcartoon (talk
  ) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• To many people (myself included) unjustified accusations of conflict of interest are highly offensive and an article tagged as such is seriously undermined. This is not fair to the author, editors, subject and even the readers - thus the tag alone is punitive and can be especially so when misused. Furthermore the onus is not on me to scour user talk pages for historical discussion, rather on the tagging editor to identify other violations that were caused by the conflict. -- samj _in^out 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• We need two separate tags then because we're asking the COI tag to do two separate things, and that's what is causing bad feelings. Like pov and pov-check, perhaps we need coi and coi-check. It is unfair to editors complying with Wikipedia policies to tag a neutrally-written article with coi. THF (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Using Wikipedia as a press release for a cause" certainly looks like a reasonable characterization of that article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that

Ctrl+Alt+Del sometime?), and SamJ was really bashed with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the quality of his edits. THF (talk

) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW there has already been some really good and positive discussion resulting from this action as well as removal of some of the inappropriate tags. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, compared to say, removing the tags without consultation. There was even some positive feedback about

05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, with respect I think you're missing the point. I agree with the crux of your essay, that COI is thrown around wildly and that being associated with something shouldn't stop an editor from making well-sourced, neutral edits. But the problem with your conduct to this point is twofold: first, it appears that most !voters at the AfD think you created an article about yourself that's otherwise not notable enough to have an article. Without passing judgment on whether they're right, I believe there's an important distinction between editing an article about yourself to add accurate information and creating an article about yourself when the subject's notability is dubious. Secondly, going around making wild accusations of sockpuppetry and advertising on random talk pages is not the way to save your page, nor is it the way to affect a change in policy/practice. May i suggest the

village pump? Oren0 (talk

) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't the point of this discussion the essay? Nobody said anything about trying to "save my article" (which was only ever created because the article that should have contained the information was being

personal attacks et al is to always hide behind an alias and never declare conflicts. -- samj _in^out

10:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that Samj did something wrong by posting the essay, and this is turning into a

) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there is still the problem of the spamming of this essay across multiple talk pages that should be addressed. Is this behaviour that we should encourage? In areas such as pseudoscience I'm pretty sure this kind of behaviour would lead to a block and topic ban. Verbal chat 12:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the second time you've repeated the allegation of bad-faith editing, and you still haven't provided a single diff. If you can provide one where the posting of the essay cannot be a legitimate good-faith disputing of the COI tag, I will warn Samj personally, and then we can drop the matter. THF (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The spamming may have been done in good faith, it was still uncalled for and doesn't answer the points raised. I have made no accusations of bad faith. Is this behaviour that we should encourage? Verbal chat 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If the edits are good-faith (and Samj does appear to be distinguishing between pages with problems and pages without problems, as best I can tell from spot-checking), then it's neither spamming, nor a problem for an editor to systematically address a series of pages where a problem exists. It wouldn't be spamming if someone were to go to five hundred pages and add an {{

personal attack that criticizes the editor, rather than the edit. Wikignoming incremental issues is part of the project. Why shouldn't we encourage that? THF (talk

) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Calton is attempting to evade the prohibition on BLP violations on his user page. He is packing the text he wants to keep with identifying information, but leaving names off that page (putting some more information in his insulting edit summaries). Despite criticisms from many editors, including Jimbo Wales [2] [3], he is very nastily editors who have commented unfavorably on his actions. Examples: describes user who agrees with Jimbo about use of real names as "spamming crybaby" [4]; personal attack on talk page of editor whose comments resulted in Jimbo's intervention [5]; personal attack on another editor who expressed similar sentiments [6]. From recent past, personal attack on administrator who wouldn't do what he demanded. [7] Calton has an extensive block log for incivility and personal attacks [8] and his behavior has been the subject of numerous discussions here [9] and here [10] among many examples. As someone who got dragged into this mess over what I thought was a simple BLP issue, and may be targeted in the future, I think that action as suggested in the most recent AN and AN:I discussions and in some of Jimbo Wales's comments is sorely sorely needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Calton about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• So you think it's a BLP violation to note that WR users are often banned trolls and spammers? I offer for your consideration
  talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Perhaps if WR did a little housecleaning there would be less temptation to describe it as a cesspit. I'm all for renaming those accounts of banned users which are easily traceable to a real-world identity, but not to the point that we then forget who they are and pretend that their input is somehow welcome here. Guy (Help!
  ) 07:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  Often, but not always; there are administrators, bureaucrats, and even a checkuser and an arbitrator who regularly contribute to that board... but yes, there are a few crackpots over at WR too. I think the key thing that needs to be emphasised is that WR itself isn't bad; just some of the users are. And Calton really needs to make that distinction. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • • You will not count me as a fan of Calton's interpersonal communication skills, and I have certainly had my run-ins with him in the past. However, nearly all of the information brought up by the OP is stuff that has been dealt with in the past. I can see nothing particularly objectionable at his userpage, and no violations of
      WP:BLP. If this thread contains nothing substantive than past incivility by Calton, I don't see what we are supposed to do here? --Jayron32.talk.contribs
      12:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, would it not be a BLP violation to describe Wikipedia Review as being largely composed of banned trolls and spammers, when frequent contributors there are Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Lar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Alison (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), all of whom may take exception to being smeared as trolls/spammers? Obviously, it does rather spoil your unremitting campaign to denigrate any utterance emanating from that website - but then you never had any problem with any editor referring to a favourite hobby horse... Did I mention that dtobias (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also a member of that particlar BADSITE, too? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC) (WR editor LessHorrid vanU)

• • Two Three points: 1) I don't understand why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz links to Calton's block log, and refers to it as "extensive". I suppose you did notice the "unblock to change length+reblock" types of block in it, HW? Are you aware that those are not actual blocks? Discounting them, Calton was blocked once in 2008 and twice in 2007. Extensive? 2) I'd estimate that there are probably more personal attacks and incivility, by admins yet, on this one page of ANI, than Calton has achieved in his entire wiki-career. To take an example pretty much at random, Jimbo Wales, since you repeatedly mention his input, might want to get a whiff of the real wikiworld by taking a look at the thread Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1 above. Coincidentally, notice the input there from
    Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Calton's 2008 blocker. Is incivility all about who has the power of the buttons? 3) Preemptively to all, not specifically Hullabaloo Wolfowitz: Please use space below for rubberstamping "Two wrongs don't make a right." Bishonen | talk
    14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
• If I remember the rules properly, whenever we see "Guy", "dtobias" and "BADSITES" in the same ANI thread, everyone has to finish their drink  :/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Guy, Dtobias and BADSITES? Isn't that redundant? Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Calton's behaviour seems to have generally improved somewhat, and apart from being a bit soapboxy, I don't see a huge issue with the userpage business. –xeno (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • The userpage is a non-starter for me as well. However, I would not say that his incivility has been entirely mitigated. I warned him recently about this little warm fuzzy hug he gave as a response to this issue: [11]. Certainly, the userpage is not a big deal, but stuff like this comment is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussions regarding Wikipedia Review may be useful. But they have nothing to do with the user page violation I was trying to report. From the Arbcomm decision re Tobias Conradi [12]: While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". Calton is violating this principle and trying to wikilawyer his way around the rule by removing the names but leaving so much other information in (sometimes adding more in edit summaries) that it is clear his comments are directed at individual users and allowing those users to be recognized. His newest revisions actually expand the list and provide additional personal information (location) about the user he has added to the list. It is this defiance of the Arbcom ruling that prompted me to post this notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, say hello to indefinitely banned user named TruthCrusader (talk · contribs) ('aka the long-dormant Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)), whose history includes real-life stalking, obscene e-mails, and attempts to get me fired from my job. So no, I'm not sympathetic regarding his laughably ginned-up complaints or those helping him. I can see why he objects to any reminder of his past activities. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're making some pretty serious, and potentially defamatory, accusations... it's probably time for you to be told to put up or shut up, and either prove or retract. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Calton's something of an expert at recognizing TruthCrusader socks; you might not like how he talks, but he doesn't lie about people or their behavior. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I generally believe Calton on this as Jpgordon does, and I am trying to work with him here. As I explained on Calton's talk page, if this was the first time Calton has been incivil, and if his accusations are true, then they may be excusable. However, given Calton's history of rudeness and incivility towards a multitude of good-faith editors over the past years, it becomes a noise that makes it hard to see the truth through. When I see Calton calling someone names or cussing them out, my brain says

This is just Calton being Calton, and it makes it all too easy to dismiss his complaint. Also that he tends to only behave rudely, and to refuse to use the standard channels to resolve these very serious accusations seems to compound the problem. Its just hard to cull out the "Calton is cussing this guy out because its another sock of the guy that's been harrassing Calton in real life" from the "Calton is cussing this guy out because that's just what Calton does when people disagree with him". It can be really hard to tell the difference. I hope he can start to see the difference, and work in a way that helps us help him with problems like this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You should not believe Calton. Calton has been making his false accusations against me, without any real evidence, for some time. They were disproved by two different Checkuser verifications some time ago. [13] The fact that Calton repeats the disproved accusation again and again should be taken as unfavorable evidence concerning his truthfulness. I cannot tell you whether he is lying or ignoring the truth but in either case it is just another example of malicious behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking, a checkuser report can't actually "disprove" anything, for the same reason that "you can't prove a negative". However, the checkuser has failed to prove the accusations, so Calton should be more careful about asserting them as fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right about that, technically, but they showed me editing from a different continent that the person he claims I am is editing from. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose somebody who wants to go to really heroic lengths to fake their location could arrange for a dialup account on a distant continent and then call in to it at great expense; or at even greater expense, they could actually take a plane, train, or ship to a faraway location to access the net. If they get a job as a flight attendant, they might have plenty of opportunities to log in from a variety of exotic places. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the checkuser that HW shows says nothing about the continent he was editing from. HW himself those claims. The checkuser only stated that the IPs were unrelated, not about the specific nature of their unrelatedness. It would be false to extend a simple statement of the checkusers, which only stated that this account and that single IP were unrelated, to a general statement that they had determined that the user mentioned by Calton and HW are unrelated. It does not prove they are related either, but it neither confirms nor refutes the basic premise of Calton's accusation. I agree with the sentiment that Calton needs provide evidence; which is why I have advised him to do so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Various histrionics by various people aside, as long as Calton leaves any slagging of usernames off of
  T
  ) 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Ada Kataki has come off a week long block for edit warring on musical genres and patently hasn't learned anything. Unilateral edits, ignoring attempts by myself to guide him into more collegial editing practices and a sequence of four pretty horrible edits ([15],[16],[17],[18]), the second a pretty vicious personal attack makes me believe he's not going to get it and it's time to show him the door. Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked.

Tan | 39

22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - obviously not willing to play well with others. Marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Several IP addresses from within the pools allocated to Hughes Network Systems have been adding and restoring the same incorrect information, despite warnings, to 2009 Kids' Choice Awards. Most of these appear to be persistent vandals and have been warned numerous times. I suspect that the same user(s), using dynamic IP addresses, is/are responsible. Since 29 January 2009 there had been 43 edits by users all with IP addresses originating from Hughes Network Systems pools so I requested semi-protection for the page, since this seemed the easiest way to resolve the matter, but this was denied, with a recommendation to list the matter here.[19] A range block would require blocks of both 68.19.14.xx and 66.82.9.xx.

During compilation of my RPP I discovered an

onto somebody else but that's where we're at.

Vandalism by addresses from the 68.19.14.xx pool: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

Vandalism by addresses from the 66.82.9.xx pool: :[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page in question. I suggest a rangeblock if these users from these IP ranges start causing similar problems elsewhere. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As a note, this is Hughes the ISP (I think), not Hughes the company (as in, those aren't corporate addresses). From a look at the contributions for the two /24 ranges which would need to be blocked, the collateral damage would be high, even for softblocks. I recommend against a rangeblock. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

User:阮明珠 ... the same old deleting a citation in the Peter Nguyen [66] and Vietnamese people in Taiwan [67] articles because he doesn't like the newspaper in question (the United Daily News; he accuses them of lacking "Taiwan spirit"). Articles are currently semi-protected, but it seems he's now figured out how to work around that (make a few minor edits, wait a few days). cab (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that he has been blocked through a

WP:AIV report, he has immediately created another sock 阮公政 (talk · contribs) with the exact same user page, and started the same strategy of making minor edits (e.g. creating useless redirects from foreign language titles like オーストラリア to Australia) so that five days later he can vandalise again. cab (talk

) 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And another one, 阮明惠 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And even more, 阮正義 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi cab, I've blocked them. If this happens again, I suggest you file a

sock puppet report. PhilKnight (talk

) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This user:

1) Persists in reverting expired notices on my discussion page after I have deleted them, despite my request to stop, which was left on user's page.[68] [69] [70]

2) This user failed to

, my actions are expressly NOT vandalism.

3) This user then, in an obvious attempt to intimidate me, threatened me with permanent

4) This user has already repeatedly been warned in the recent past that their actions do not conform with policy, and has demonstrated no interest in conforming to either policy or guidelines. [72] [73]

This user deserves to be sanctioned for each of these 3 violations of policy, and the right of this user to use the

) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• We don't generally remove block and warning notices from IP pages. Oh, and [74], [75] ... hardly constructive. Black Kite 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Understood. However the edits you referenced were in response to both [76] and [77]. Neither of which received a constructive or even communicative response, if any response at all. And that per

CAT:RECALL, any admin is subject to recall, if he/she fails to display the proper temperament for the responsibilities, or acts in a capricious or unnecessarily draconian manner. As for removing expired notices, especially from IP pages, it's my understanding from reading guidelines and policy, that it is reasonable. 68.183.246.93 (talk

) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Recall only applies to those Admins who have opted in to it. What you need is first a

Request for Comment. --Rodhullandemu

02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW the complaining IP left this warning to me after I removed this from his talk page as not being a forum. Tom 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can stop it from removing them, however this rule is in the standard pywikipedia bot code. So its nothing I have decided to do on my own. I have interpreted it to mean that its a standard rule that disambig pages don't link to non-disambig pages. Perhaps the actual issue is that those pages should be marked disambig? -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion, but I did not find any answer. Improper removal of links where a disambiguation was involved was reported on meta on 23 July, 2008. There seems to have been no response or follow-up in that thread from anyone who knows about interwiki.py. I recommend that Djsasso not continue *removing* any links until he can get an answer from someone who knows about interwiki.py and can explain why this is considered to be correct. If it is a bug, then removals should wait until it is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I already plan to stop removing them until its fixed or whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, could an admin please indef all accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre. CheckUser shows they're all the same user...again. Thank you, §hep^Talk 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• On my way. Only be a moment.--
  talk
  ) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Seems everything has been taken care of. Thanks, §hep^Talk 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a new suggestion, but maybe it's time to make a policy re. the Pee-Wee Herman vandal.

I've had a few comments for Pee-Wee since he seems to have it in for me to which I say, great. I'm getting under his skin. Since he clearly is craving attention based on the fact that he wants to be noticed based on his naming variations of the same tired Pee-Wee theme, say we simply block him on sight, protect the talk page and leave it at that? Just like we're doing with the little Grawpies. Just revert, block on sight, lock out the talk page and boom. Done. Perhaps we can go so far as to delete the user and talk pages of the blocked socks as well. Why enshrine this punk kid? It's attention he's craving. --

) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be the default? Any other approach is probably wrong.

Tan | 39

03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping. No "blockedsockpuppet" template on the userpage and therefore no list of blocked socks for the little dingaling to point out with pride to his friends. BTW, he just hit my talk page again with a painfully obvious username. It might be the Grawpies with a copycat attack. Just a thought. --

talk

) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just happened again. The edit summary tears it for me; we're dealing with different people a la Grawp. I need to log off, so I'll lock down my talk page for the time being so that the RC patrollers don't have to tear their hair out. --

talk

) 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Might want to remove the recognition from your talk page header now, too.

Tan | 39

03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought of that...will do. Thanks for pointing that out. --

talk

) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've busted a few imps and have requested their renames at

WP:CHU so as to remove the attackiness of them or to annihilate any chance of confusion. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori}

) 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probable not here, but where? – technical(?)

When I pushed the ‘History’ tab here, I got something unfamiliar. Specifically, I got ‘Database error’, which stated: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list' (10.0.6.32)".

Where should this go? It takes too long to find the correct pigeon hole. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think these go to the developers through

a/c

) 06:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

database errors may mean nothing more than a server hiccup. unless it's happening repeatably and/or regularly, I wouldn't worry about it. remember Wikipedia servers get hit with god knows how many millions of queries a day. even if the odds of totally random fubars are miniscule, they're still going to happen fairly frequently. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest sock of The Hollabck Girl is Hollaback Editor is Back (talk · contribs) returning for regular disruption and taunting. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• An admin already blocked this user, and marked it sock. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • It's nice when socks have names similar enough to the originals that they're easily identifiable. Such courtesy should be rewarded. Perhaps by reducing the length of the puppetmaster's indefinite block by a day or two. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • So having it expire a couple days before the heat death of the universe, then? I don't know we can actually calculate that correctly right now, but I'll do that when the opportunity arises. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Could we just add Hollaback (and variants) to the blacklist? Is there some way of doing that but still allowing someone with the ACC flag to create the account on their behalf if it's in good faith?

Please calm

) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely calm so I do not understand that statement. In May 2008, I posted a notice of intent to move the article title per

the articles talk page

. After FIVE MONTHS without objection I replied saying I was going to move it and the following month I moved it.

Five days later User:Pjahr moved it back without any discussion with the edit summary "Polish!".

I then politely asked the user

why he had done this and he replied because he is Pole. He then refused to reply to my further comments after I pointed out the reasons why it should be Andrew Golota and he then (on 11 November) deleted my comments

saying "tnx" and added nothing further. So on the 13 of November I changed it back.

Then today he moved it back - again without any discussion and when challenged as to why he said he didnt have time to discuss it.

Now I dont think I could have been more patient or polite in the way I handled it and if we look at the facts there are alomost zero non-Polish language google hits for Andrzej Gołota and thousands for Andrew Golota. I rest my case.

(e/c) Have you made any attempt to discuss this with Vintagekits beyond the cryptic "because he is Pole" on his talkpage? How about on the article talkpage? I notice that

| 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's a section at

Talk:Andrzej_Gołota#Article_name_II. Start Article name III and go discuss it. The move was in October so why should we be concerned about a move made months ago that you weren't involved in? I have reverted it. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There does not appear to be any role for admins here. I have marked the thread as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

) has seen a concerted effort in the last few days to add a block of rather defamatory-sounding, uncited text to the article by "two" users:

• DrDanDare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DerekDawes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The similarity of edits and the fact that DerekDawes took over for DrDanDare upon the latter's accumulating all four levels of warning template show evidence of sock puppeting to game the system. Both accounts should be blocked. The content of the edits and the tenacity with which they are being added seems to call for at least temporary semi-protection for the page. --Dynaflow babble 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be done now. --GedUK  13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would semi-protection be appropriate here? I noticed in the page logs that this article has been the subject of an OTRS ticket for

WP:BLP issues in the past. Can someone with access to OTRS look to see whether this new incident is similar to the one that last caused the article to be protected? --Dynaflow babble

14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They were different. Leave any protecting to us, thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Got a rangeblock going, if they get through that then feel free to sprotect. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reporting: Baseball Bugs (the main player in all of this). A team of two editors have been removing cited information on this page. They complain (on the talk page) that "execution by means of murder" is POV pushing, despite it being sourced.They also say that the positions of historias and ths the cited data is "irrelevant". One editor said Hitler was legally elected, and the people that tried to murder him were executed. That some historians don't like it is irrelevant. "Executed" is the proper way to say it - which is a complete falsehood. Any and every prominent historian I know of rejects this. The bottom line is: 1) It was sourced 2) Hitler was not elected, thus.. 3) The Nazi State was not legal, thus.. 4) Its laws were not legal either.

Yet these individuals reject ithe position of A. J. P. Taylor as propaganda. Am I dealing with Neo-Nazis here? Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is also being discussed here.

Bugs, a neo-Nazi? I don't think so. Bugs is a Marxist.

Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a Marxist of the Groucho variety. And a liberal in general. The complaint by Dapi89 here is frivolous, and is part of his ongoing POV-pushing as being discussed at the NPOV page, as noted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Been there, done that, still want the t-shirt though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer, I have to point out the incivility by the complaining party in this edit here as I believe it is relevant. I also don't know why a content dispute should be reported to ANI. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't. It's a content dispute being discussed at the NPOV page. I'm not by any stretch the "main player", I'm just trying to help keep the POV-pushing out, as others have already tried to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are. You have no grounds for accusing me of "POV pushing", a term you don't understand. As far as incivility goes, it is not so. I was pointing out the overwhelming ignorance and lack of knowledge in this case, which I am entitled to do given this editor thinks he knows better than the academics - laughable when you consider he believes Hitler was elected by the German people! Dapi89 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would second his assessment that you are POV pushing. And forum shopping over a content dispute that does not require any admin intervention. Work to form a consensus, and accept it, regardless of which side you end up on. I would also point out that regardless of your opinion of the legality of Hitler's ascension to power, his government was recognized by world leaders of the time, thus was as legitimate as any other government formed via power takeover in world history. Your argument is without merit, as is this complaint. Resolute 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Hitler was appointed by the ChancellorPresident, and the NSDAP were subsequently elected by a popular vote, so it's a reasonable, and frequent, misconception, and one that seems to have very little bearing on this matter.

False, Hitler, like all German Chancellors until 1949, was appointed by the Reichspräsident, which was Paul von Hindenburg Beneckendorf, at the time. During the 1933 elections the NSDAP received round about 30% of the votes, making them the strongest party. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Correct - obviously the Chancellor couldn't be appointed by the Chancellor. I've struck-through "Chancellor" and added "President". My point was that Hitler was appointed, not elected, but that many people get confused about this due to the election shortly afterwards, which the NSDAP won. Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, how is this not a content dispute? What admin action is required? Where is the apparent urgency to address this "incident"?

Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

16:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would also have to agree that this looks like POV pushing. But as mentioned there is nothing here to warrant admin action. -Djsasso (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So, I am being told sourced information from a leading historian can be removed at will because a group of amateurs don't agree? As I keep saying this is a justified complaint, and in the process of arguing against it, you have all managed to contradict a number of basic wikipedia principles this forum is supposed to protect, namely verifiability. Not one of you here has been able to present a proper factual argument against it, and when there has been an attempt is has served to highlight a distinct lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. I hope that none of you have aspirations in the historical field. Dapi89 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's being disingenuous, and, no, that's not what you're being told. A J P Taylor was a controversial historian; his views on Germany and Nazism were controversial; his tenure at Oxford wasn't renewed as a result. Be very careful of giving

propaganda_deeds

16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. On the other hand, if there are not interested or don't have particular knowledge of historical articles they shouldn't be editing them or arguing about very complicated issues. I'm no expert on Cats, so I would think more than twice about engaging with you in a debate about their daily habbits! As it happens Taylor was the books editor, the section written about the July plot was written by a Gunther Kurtz. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, "I know more than you" is a ridiculous argument that is not going to get you anywhere. How to deal with this content dispute is being hashed out at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not an admin issue, so I suggest returning to the appropriate forum and working to help form a consensus. Resolute 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. Besides, a source was given, a group of people who didn't like it got it removed. So I was talking about "knowing more than the historians", not "me knowing more than you". Anyway I'm done here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Historians have no jurisdiction in determining whether murder was committed. That's strictly an opinion on their part, not a fact. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Many articles, relating to different nation relationships, are being created (mostly by User:Plumoyr). I feel that these articles are completely unneeded, as they simply state the date the countries recognized each other. Here is an incomplete list:

• Canada-Norway relations
• Canada-Moldova relations
• Canada-Lithuania relations
• Canada-Latvia relations
• Canada-Vietnamrelations
• Canada-Singapore relations

et cetera. The main issue is not so much with the editor (whom I have never met before) as with the articles. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So nominate them for deletion if you feel that way. There's nothing to be done here.

11

18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are a ton, and images too.

11

18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The point is that unless some notable incident occurred, I see no reason to include all those articles/images. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A

) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh...It seems to me that the editor in question is ignoring the previous discussion. I doubt he'll listen to this one, either. Should more drastic action be taken (Such as a warning)? Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm going to start prodding some of the lesser known ones. Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again? Block him to end the disruption and unblock when he agrees to stop doing this. //roux   18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking him right now MAY be a tad premature. I have notified him of this new thread, and have informed him that if he persists he will be blocked. Near as I can tell, this was the first time that someone has told him that blocking was on the table. IF he creates one more of these, he should be blocked. But lets give him at least a little chance to stop of his own accord. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(So far) I've prodded about 75 articles dating back a couple of weeks, still more to sort through. These are all rather non-notable, (Bulgaria-Nigeria?).

11

22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I had some suspicions of sockpuppetry (Groubani and Plumoyr – I thought Koov was the sockmaster), so I ran a CU.  Confirmed Groubani (talk · contribs) = Plumoyr (talk · contribs). I have blocked Groubani indefinitely and Plumoyr for 72 hours. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw that he was creating some articles, some of which looked good, so I had created a few international relations stubs myself. I did not know that he had been warned before and I will no longer create stubs if the said entries are systematically refused/deleted from Wikipedia. I am a conservationist however and I would probably not mind keeping them. ADM (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Last time this came up the articles got sent to AFD, where we were able to show almost every single one was encyclopaedic and noteable. While sockpuppetry is a problem, why are we re-enforcing abusive blocks? WilyD 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations

• Note: WilyD has removed the prod tags. I have taken one article,
  Aecis·(away) ^talk
  00:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Allow me to point out that Peru–Romania relations and Bilateral relations of Ireland both resulted in deletion, so WilyD's claim that Argentina-Singapore settled the question in favour of presuming notability for bilateral relations stubs is not quite accurate. Argentina-Singapore was a flawed nomination (by me) in that it involved a grab-bag of different countries (although consensus was rapidly moving toward deletion until WilyD started hyperventilating), but by no means is it our sole precedent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• See also this, the original discussion of the sockpuppet creations.
  11
  03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: The general AfD was closed as "no consensus". Cheers. Imperat§ r^(Talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I hate when I've dropped a final warning on someone's talk page, and subsequent conversation makes it clear to me that someone just isn't getting the message. What I need here is just a friendly drive-by from someone else to make it clear that constantly inserting data from known bad charts and attempting to evade AFD results by creating shadow copies of articles isn't just a problem to one cranky editor.

. I'm really not sure what that last one was, because he implies that I gave him some kind of idea.

As I said at the beginning, what I think is necessary is just for someone to step in and make it clear to him that AFDs, XlinkBot, and

) 18:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice is be cool and wait for the AfD to run its course. Assuming the result is Delete, any fork of the article can then be speedied. The important thing is to get community input on whether the article should be part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Innapropriate use of user pages at User:Robinhwang/Books/Jollan Zheng. I think this page should be deleted but don't know where else to list it. SpinningSpark 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, please visit

WP:MFD next time. //roux  

21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WBOC-DT2

Resolved

 – See note.

• February 27, 2009 @ 21:01

No admin assistance needed, user worked with me and I will be adding sources, references, and information to the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 27, 2009 @ 21:43

This

) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're spelling it that way in articles, then he's over the line. Rather than complaining about it and getting bent out of shape over it, he should merely ridicule you for it and be done with it. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

69.243.191.241 is being a bit inappropriate here, and your warning on their talk page was correct. I've left a further explanation on their talk page. Unless they keep at it, I don't think any further action needs to be taken. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrist Instability (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user above has removed sourced content from the article Faceparty and has replaced it with unsourced biased comment. When confronted with this, he, like many users who get blocked for such, argues that truth is on his side, in more or less words. Either way, we have an obvious SPA here, and I don't really think there will be anything constructive happening once his 3RR block runs out. Any opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He was originally indef-blocked a week ago, and someone removed the block. Maybe the one who removed the block should be asked to re-assess the SPA's alleged "sincerity". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Which I did, but he has not yet responded. To clarify my point, the one who unblocked showed good faith, and the SPA stomped on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Even though this is marked as resolved, I'm adding a bit of info in case this comes up again, which it probably will after the block expires.

SPA, as they've also edited several other articles not related to Faceparty. There are some clue-level issues with this user, and mentoring might be appropriate. (See multiple very long postings at my talk page starting here and going on for several sections.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me

21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

After coming off his block, this IP took offense to my removing trolling from his userpage comparing Wikipedians to Nazis, and, after his attempted restorations were reverted, has started marking them with a :L2 header as "Censored" ([89], [90], [91]). I've been reverting him on the grounds it's disruptive, but he insists on keeping at it and has called my removing it censorship. Could we give this user a bit more clue? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Comment: not sure if it has any bearing here, but the IP is editing another IP's talk page; though I have little doubt that the "new" editor is the same editor with the IP that was originally blocked. Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

09:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

I noticed that right after I posted here and came here to amend, but he posted on my talk page before I came back here. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On

) 16:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Other party advised of this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR does not apply to

WP:BLP. They can and should be removed immediately without discussion. It really is as simple as that. Harry the Dog WOOF

17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The talk page comments Harry is deleting are indeed BLP violations and speculative junk that have no place in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion offered in the IP's comment, but the appropriate way to voice such disagreement is via discussion, not reverting. Because the information is sourced, it does not blatantly violate BLP. Because it is arguably sensationalist, it arguably contravenes the BLP cause, "it is not our job to be sensationalist." The key word is "arguably," but there can be no argumentation when comments are removed rather than refuted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The sources might not meet your standards, but that doesn't mean others will agree with you. As the AN3 discussion demonstrates, the fact that you have an opinion does not guarantee that everyone else will share it. I have read BLP, and am aware of no prohibition against "sourced speculation." The fact that something is sourced makes it a plausible topic of discussion on talk pages. Opinions about the merits of the source may be discussed on the talk page, but they are not a justification for going on a rogue mission to censor good-faith edits on the talk page in the name of BLP. You have absolutely no consensus in favour of such a mission, and appear to have garnered a fair amount against it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you reading what others are saying? Another editor has backed me here and on the article TP. You don't need to form consensus for removing

WP:BLP violations. They must be removed immediately, without discussion. The discussion should revolve around if and how the information could be included. If consensus evolves around an acceptable version, it can then be added. But speculation remains speculation, even if backed up by sources (and I maintain that the sources you included aren't reliable in any case) and we must err on the side of caution when including such things in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF

18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing talk page comments may be questionable especially if the aforementioned speculation about state of mind goes no further. Asking a question does not necessarily mean that the topic being discussed would ever make it to the main article. I think if the question of speculation was approached on the talk page, it would allow for editors to comment on the appropriateness of adding the material to the article. There is a parallel "string" on this and a similar issue on this noticeboard. FWiW The issues seemed to be coming to a resolution and this new incident report is an escalation of the rhetoric. However, I can see both editors' viewpoints and neither is acting in anything but the best interests of the project/community. This still may be a classic case of a lack of communication. Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

• Please continue this at the Edit warring noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bzuk and there is a huge difference between an editor commenting on the TP "I wonder what Fritzl thinks about that?" and saying, "Fritzl is said to be thinking X". The latter is what was on the TP (among other comments by the editor on his reaction to the news). That is why I removed it, although as I have said on the TP if the consensus is to let the edit stand that's fine by me. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm city. I can't believe someone seriously asserted that this addition was anything but an egregious violation of WP:BLP principles:

(click blue button at right to see text)

"It's now very likely that Mr. Fritzl will end up in a mental institution with Robert Ackermann, who is famous for killing and eating a pedophile. Mr. Ackermann went into a bit of a rage when told of Mr. Fritzl's crimes. Mr. Fritzl is supposedly terrified to be moving in with Mr. Ackermann. The mental institution is supposed to be secure, but doesn't do a good job at security and is facing budget cuts. Fellow prisoners now taunt Mr. Fritzl about this, telling him that Mr. Ackermann is going to eat his brain."

To be explicit, yes this was an entirely proper deletion of inflammatory speculation, and no this doesn't belong at AN/I. arimareiji (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I concur, the topic is already under discussion in an edit warring noticeboard still the removal of talk page commentary troubles me?!

WP:BLP is almost an sacrosanct dictum, so I can appreciate Harry's concern if the supposition made it into the main article. FWiW Bzuk (talk

) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

There is no Wikipedia article for Robert Ackermann or even a deleted one. Googling the name tells the person's story. Nothing actually says Robert Ackermann killed a pedophile and it even says Robert Ackermann was 19 when he did the crime. Googling "Robert Ackermann" and then the word pedophile only finds one news link, this http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9632 and it purely talks about the Fritzl and basically all the stuff that the BLP issue centered around. It is a newspaper, though, and a reliable source. Well whatever this means for BLP, you be the judge. Though I must mention google isn't that reliable if you google "Austrian pedophile", well see where it says "Did you mean".

In addition, is this BLP issue to protect Fritzl? Or is it to protect Ackerman? This must be clarified. As the reason for blanking is unclear. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm being called a vandal because I added a cite to the Atlantic Monthly and five books to the article

) 19:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have warned 94.192.38.247 on my talkpage regarding their edits and summaries following THF and they coming there to complain about each other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have now blocked the ip for 12 hours following this comment on my talkpage. Please review along with THF's "vandalism". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And I didn't even notice *this* edit. My oh my. I hope that's not par for the course on that page. THF (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I'm thinking that IP

Plaxicoed pretty badly there. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 00:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of you may have heard of User:Marcellusb, a very disruptive user. He's been known to create non-notable pages about children's shows (take a look at the list of pages he created). Add incorrect info into pages ([109]). Make personal attacks at other editors when they revert his edits ([110], [111]). And upload numerous templates without licenses and FU templates ([112]). Most of hispages have been redirected, and most of his images have been deleted, but this is a growing problem. What do you suggest fellow Wikipedians? The Cool Kat (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Growing problem indeed. At first look this appears to be a child with a sincere interest and enthusiasm for improving the encyclopedia. So maybe some patient adult guidance? Wikidemon (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This recent block of User:BigDunc here needs some explanation. This is the second time that User:Deacon of Pndapetzim has blocked this editor. The first one here a block extension for a week which had to be overturned. Only after a lengthy discussion.

In my opinion this was a case of jumping in with both feet before even looking. I say this because of the order of blocks, Dunc gets blocked first, it is then commented upon before the other editor is blocked.

Now what did Dunc get blocked for? Was it for this edit on his own talk. Or maybe this one here again on his own talk page. I know it could not have been for this one here, but it was after this one that they got blocked.

What prompted Dunc’s edits in the first place? Well a quick look at the page history would give some indication. This was User:NewIreland2009 first edit on Dunc’s talk page in January. Since then they have made 127 edits, of them only nine on articles. The rest were talk pages. The majority of them on Dunc’s. They used their User page to launch attacks at Dunc, and eventually had to be blocked with a very clear warning. They again used their User page for attacks two days ago but nothing was done. Dunc reported his conduct to an Admin, and I tried to calm things down and also went to an Admin to help cool things. Jehochman told NewIreland2009 to stop and Black Kite warned them and suggested they probably should have been blocked already. Despite all the warnings, they were allowed to go on attacking in comments and edit summaries.

So we have an editor with thousands of edits, who is productive, constructive and an asset to the project, getting blocked by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim because of an editor who has trolled his talk page and done nothing productive at all. There is something rotten in the kitchen, and its starting to stink. This block was bang out of order, and if Admin’s had of intervened this would never of happened. Therefore it should be overturned in my opinion.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider raising your concerns directly with the blocking admin? (Note left for DP) –xeno (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Given the amount of trolling that has occurred on BigDunc's talkpage, a block for a couple of intemperate edit summaries would appear to be overkill IMHO. I would support an unblock here with a mild warning similar to the one I gave NewIreland2009 (which he ignored and has now been blocked by Deacon as well). Black Kite 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, that's one way of putting it. Another way would be: this editor was blocked for incivility, and two diffs were provided in the block notice. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for why it should be overturned. The subtext seems to be that BugDunc isn't responsible for his own conduct, and requires admins to step in to prevent anyone provoking him, otherwise he's just going to be uncivil. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone else having déjà vu here ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the energy and mental fortitude to get into this any more than I already have, but I do want to say this. Dunc is an editor worth keeping around, who gets into a lot of trouble because of a bad temper - this seems to quickly be becoming the norm of editor conduct in this area. Looking at the bigger picture, blocking Dunc does not address the larger problem, and may in fact be exacerbating it - admins are becoming the unwitting tools in partisan warfare. The horrible truth is of course, that this is all being done with good faith - just total incompetence at all levels. "By the book" blocking here will not cut it, because of the loss of trust between the admin corps as a whole and the Irish conflict editors. Do it smarter, not harder.--Tznkai (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I know the initial block was hasty. He was blocked one minute after that edit, with no effort made to investigate what was going on. It was only after I pointed out the other editor had said far worse was any action taken against him. The other editor has done little except troll for days, even having the audacity to say an article has too many references when no sentence I can see is over-cited. O Fenian (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

As one of the few admins that actually bothers to keep an eye on this dispute, would you like to expand on this "incompetence", Tznkai? Black Kite 20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I made various comments at the AE RFC about entrenched disputes, and the Troubles and related fora was model. The short of it is you have a small group of editors who actually write about these articles. They are in general very stubborn and opinionated, and tend to come into conflict. Those who aren't usually find a new hobby quickly. Of those who are left, they tend to gravitate towards two "sides" of any conflict, generally roughly corresponding to Protestant Catholic, pro-treaty anti-treaty, nationalist or republican, or whatever the issue happens to be. Trust between these two groups is low - and generally speaking, the editors do not see themselves as biased, but as neutrally representing obvious facts. Admin intervention is generally limited to trying to break up conflicts that have already descended into serious bickering, and thats that. In addition, admins are usually unwilling, or more often, unable to establish trust between themselves and the sanctioned users. Admins become quickly exacerbated, frustrated and short tempered (this area has an incredibly high burnout rate) and then deal with only the worst problems when they have the energy, or leave the dispute area entirely. Those who remain may end up gravitating to one of the sides above, or appear to do so. At no point is consensus between warring sides ever achieved with no ill intentions from any party - but overall the there was failure.--Tznkai (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Additionally, admin intervention tends to lag behind, especially when users who have been in trouble need our collective help. The impression is given we're omniscient when they screw up, but too inattentive or unwilling when they actually need our assistance.--Tznkai (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In reply to User:SheffieldSteel could the diff’s I provided on Dunc’s comments not be considered accetable since they were both used here on ANI above in addition to being used here and here and were not deemed to have breeched civility? Can were use these terms on ANI but not on User pages. What I’m saying here, is this should have been dealt with before now, there was plenty of opportunities. What I’m saying here is yes Admin’s should have stepped in.

Kralizec! in what was your comment ment to be helpful?--Domer48_'fenian' 20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to unblock if there's consensus among admins here to do so, but really I don't think it'd do anything but undermine wikipedia's discipline policies. The matter here between Ireland and BigDunc had been going for a while, and should have been sorted before I had to deal with it. The block of BigDunc was a fair electric fence block for foul-mouthed abuse that can't reasonably be regarded as controversial. There is a line you can't cross, and that BidDunc certainly can't given his recent record. BlackKite, both sides were clearly at it, though do note BigDunc's outburst came in response to an apparent attempt to reconcile. [113] BigDunc is not a child and is responsible for his own conduct on wikipedia, and is aware of what is across the line. The only message an unblock would send is "look, BigDunc, whenever you feel someone is annoying you can do and say what you like". It's a message many admins in this area -- in contrast to other AE areas -- have often favoured sending, and it has never done anything but what one'd expect it to do, encourage. That's why I don't favour it. Bottom line, the comments made merit at least a 24 hour block; by the book I should have given him 72, but I considered the context, and I also btw blocked the other party for 48.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If he's not a child, he was certainly acting like one. This was a reasonable block- I don't see any reason to unblock. Friday (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with block. I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. [114] --Kbdank71 21:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Just a comment question, sorry to barge in. I am I understanding that blocks are suppose to be preventive(whatever that means) as oppossed to punishment? I am not saying that is the case here, but watching this board, it seems that alot of blocking is done to punish folks, not that it doesn't prevent them from further harm, so it serves the purpose, but I am always wonder how you tell or what the real difference is between the two. Anyways, I am sure this belongs elsewhere, so carry on :). --Tom 21:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess in response to that I'd say that there's little more preventative than knowing rules will be enforced. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

"Undermine wikipedia's discipline policies," what discipline policies? What about this attack on me here and the accusations here the very one they were warned about here and given final warnings. I have ignored being called a liar twice in recent days. The first time I tried to be reasonable and the second time I just ignored it and moved on. Has the snipping stopped? The hell it has.

"The matter here between Ireland and BigDunc had been going for a while, and should have been sorted before I had to deal with it." Why the hell wasn’t it? As to Dunc's record, well that's one that could come strigh from your essay. Remember also your block was over turned. Don't try use their record here, because as far as productive editing goes, they are way ahead of you, me and the rest of us.

"The only message an unblock would send is "'look, BigDunc, whenever you feel someone is annoying you can do and say what you like'". Would that be like all the final warnings that are given and never acted upon. Tznkai is right, there is a loss of trust between the admin corps as a whole and the Irish conflict editors and this is a good example. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

General Comment — People need to keep reminding themselves that editing on Wikipedia is a volunteer activity for all of us, and that it is conducted within a community of peers. If you volunteered your time at a church or community center on the weekend, you would probably be asked to leave if you frequently called co-workers "gobshite" or similar. Why should Wikipedia be more lenient than that? Each and every editor here is a real person, not some faceless entity hidden behind a keyboard. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thats a kind of ridiculous comment. Obviously this aint a church - and a lot of people around here act like "gobshites". I wouldnt even consider that a swear word.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not ridiculous. If people behave in a such a way as to make working here unpleasant for others, that's generally a problem. Wikipedia requires that editors are able to behave like reasonable adults. If you can't do that, this isn't the place for you- it's quite simple. Friday (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In the end, NewIreland2009 has been blocked for incivility, and so has BigDunc. It is a shame that admins didn't act in time to prevent NewIreland2009 from provoking BigDunc into incivility, but every editor is responsible for their own conduct. Now, if editors make a case that NewIreland2009 was acting in bad faith and gaming the system to get an opponent blocked, then we should be willing to consider further measures (e.g. a conduct RfC), but what I've seeing here looks more like blaming the police for gang violence, at the same time as accusing them of brutality. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc is a long time editor of good standing who has made an immense contribution to the project - NewIreland on the other hand hasnt.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The value of an editor's contribution history would certainly become a factor if and when any long-term blocks or bans were to be suggested, which happily is not the case here and now. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User:SheffieldSteel your comment here was the most reasonable and clear cut advice I’ve seen in a long time. Did it have an effect, a minor one but an effect all the same. Did it address the problem, well no, because these edits were not addressed here and here. Now I was blocked and page banned for calling an editor the same thing, despite the fact that I had provided multiple diff’s to support it, the block was all done of wiki. Now my point above has not been addressed, Dunc responded using the same terms as Ireland had used. Ireland used these same terms on ANI after they had been warned, and nothing was said. It was only after they were used on ANI with no action taken did Dunc respond in kind. It seems to me like a double standard is being applied. Long term bans and blocks were suggested if Irelands conduct did not improve, likewise with the editor I’m having problems with, after been told directly to drop the tag-team BS. Now I’ve asked for editors I’m in dispute with not to be blocked and have asked for admin’s to step in and just have a word. I’ve had enough BS blocks to know what it feels like, with a record to go along with it. The last was out and out wrong for both Dunc and myself and now Deacon has raised Dunc’s block log in this discussion, and as far as I’m concerned that is gaming plain and simple. You judge each incident on it’s merits, and at the very least check the background. It took an editor to point this out to Deacon before Ireland got blocked and that says something.--Domer48_'fenian' 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Each and every editor here is a real person, not some faceless entity hidden behind a keyboard.". Oddly, I tend to extend a lot more leash to long-standing editors here (BigDunc etc. are quite aware of the issues that I and other admins have with their editing patterns), and I probably should've fixed the problem here more quickly - I tried to assume AGF and only warned User:NewIreland2009 (an editor whose very first edit - which I didn't notice at the time - was this) for his incivility, when I should've blocked. Yeah, AGF and all that, but it's clearly not working in this case. I still think a couple of incivil editsums wasn't enough for a block, but meh. Black Kite 00:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've run into this guy a couple of times before and found his behaviour to be a bit aggressive (most notably on an SSP case that will take me forever to find) and looking at the edit summaries the block was a good one. "Big" Dunc: Just because you're Irish doesn't mean you're allowed to use colloquial Irish profanities. Domer: For future reference, when you come to ANI reporting something; try to report the whole issue, and not just your side. It just seems incredibly biased. And you're quite entitled to your opinion, Friday, but somehow whenever behaviour is being questioned, you always seem to blame young people, or a variation thereof, and from now on, I'm going to blame poor behaviour on being old, grumpy, and too socially conservative. We'll have a nice contrast in discussions then :-) - And maybe it'll stop them from getting too boring, whenever you bring up the same topic.

11:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of retitling this section, since the claim that it's a bad block is by no means established. The block of the user in question will be over in a couple of hours from now. Not such a big slice out of one's life. The user's built-in confrontational attitude, with the "extreme prejudice" banner, doesn't help - it only encourages baiting. The user needs to learn to take a more practical and less blood-stirring approach. First, by deleting unwanted comments from his own talk page, with no accompanying edit summary at all, which is perfectly within the rules. Second, by following appropriate channels in dealing with true trolls, such as turning them in here, or at

WP:AIV. In short, "don't get mad, get even". When you then see an admin slap an indef-block on one of these mosquitoes, it may not feel as good as swatting them yourself, but it's close - and a lot easier on the ol' blood pressure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

11:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A couple of points I would like to raise regarding this block. IMO it was a bad block due to the way it was handled and by who blocked. This admin had a week long block of me overturned recently and as soon as he seen my edit summary he blocked without looking at the bigger picture. The block I suppose is valid as I did breach civility guidelines, and if the truth be known I made the comments to see would any admin act against me. And I wasn't wrong. @Baseball Buggs I did go threw the proper channels I reported the trolling to Black Kite who gave a warning but they continued and I then posted here but nothing was forth comming. This post was then made by NewIreland2009 here on ANI in a section that had nothing to do with my complaint you deserved to be called a lot worse than a gobshite again no action by admins. So I use the exact same phrase that NewIreland2009 posted on an admin Blak Kite's page and here on ANI with NO block and a minute later I am blocked. Deacon only blocked NewIreland2009 when it was brought to his attention. @ Scarian you say that my behaviour to be a bit aggressive (most notably on an SSP case that will take me forever to find) well could you please find it as this sort of unfounded accusations are what causes backs to be raised. BigDunc^Talk 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since O Fenian, Domer and BigDunc are all repeating it, I'd like to point out that it is untrue that I blocked NewIreland because O Fenian brought his misdemeanors to my attention. It's a case here of post hoc ergo propter hoc. I didn't actually see his message until after I'd blocked him, and in fact if I had seen his message might have been more reluctant to do so, honestly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Gladly. Give me 5 minutes.

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. BigDunc^Talk 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. The constant reopening of the case despite judgment's by two separate admins (Alison and I, - note that my decision was delivered by E-man), and the refusal "to just let it go", was what I found to be aggressive. Whilst this cannot be viewed as "brute force aggressiveness", I did find it to be a bit too much. But regardless of the SSP case, the edit summaries were rather strong. Dunc, with the block behind you, would say that calling someone a "gobshite" is a bit too much? I know it can be used as a friendly expletive in Eire, but on Wikipedia where you can't detect a person's tone of voice it can be construed as negative. Wouldn't you agree?

Scarian^{Call me Pat!}

16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Scarian for the diff but I reopened that case as it was closed by a non admin I wasn't aware that you had even seen the case as you had not made any comments on the matter and I didn't know that he was doing it under your instruction as I found no correspondence between the two of you to suggest that he was doing it under your instruction. BigDunc^Talk 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Also sorry I didn't reply as regards the use of the term gobshite yes I feel it is wrong to call any editor here by this term that is why I brought the original case here. But as admins didn't feel it warrented a block I used it to see would I get blocked and I did. That shows to me double standards. BigDunc^Talk 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is a comment from admin Barneca who didn't want to post on ANI but gave permission for me to link it were I felt. This admin was aware of the situation before this drama started. BigDunc^Talk 17:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would the intervening admins please read

Talk:Dunmanway_Massacre, and User talk:Newireland2009 and make their own conclusions on the conduct of the other party in this matter.--Tznkai (talk

) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tznkai, it would also help to read the comments they insisted on keeping in on the talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

They just keep pushing, and I coming to the view that this is not going to stop any time soon. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The inaction of the admin community here speaks volumes for my block, again I am personally attacked and not a word is said here. Oh poor old NewIreland2009 playing the victim and using his talk page to attack another editor while blocked. So is it one rule for one and another rule for everyone else? BigDunc^Talk 09:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head! --Domer48_'fenian' 10:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought I might as well post her to let you know you don't need to waste any more time on this. I've had enough, and I've seen enough blatant manipulation of the rules here to possibly continue editing. Everyone who has been quick to condemn me as a troll and worse seems to be ignoring the fact that I made countless attempts to try to get him to communicate with me. I'm sorry, but that stinks. I had hoped the block would have cleared it up, we would have kept out of each others way but this person is obsessed with getting me blocked indef. and winding me up. Enough is enough. I commend the admins though who aren't talking him seriously, he's a semi literate dick who loves manipulating people like this so as to draw attention away from the real trouble area - his Republican propaganda which him and his buddy's want to have inserted on any Irish article. Wikipedia doesn't work. NewIreland2009 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to all parties concerned, from a completely disinterested spectator, this is a conflab that has escalated beyond a content issue due to a lack of decorum at times and a lamentable lack of good grace. What we have here is a failure to communicate: Strother Martin as the Prison Warden in Cool Hand Luke. FWiW, take a breather, step away from the computer, go enjoy life and deal with the issues again with a more collegial or collaborative approach; you will find it works wonders. More of the honey, less of the vinegar. Bzuk (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

NewIreland's gone too far, and I've given him a week. My brain — the part of it that believed he might be a genuinely new user — had some sympathy for his predicament, a new user with little of experience editing articles without incurring hostility. Entering wikipedia in the The Troubles area is a bit of a baptism of fire, one I seriously doubt many people, even some who are admins now, could (have) survive(d). But it's too much to use your first moment back to call another user what he called another user above. Please indicate if you feel I've been too harsh. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, a week away is probably the right remedy, as continuing to be involved in an inflammatory discourse only elevates the rhetoric and invective. Let's see what happens. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Good block. Given this diatribe [115] it's clear NewIreland2009 is not new to wikipedia. He also claims to be finished, presumably because he can't get his way. In a week (or less) you'll likely know if he's "really" finished, or if an admin needs to "help" in that retirement process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This

talk

) 21:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked The exiled genius returns, the latest member of the series. Since these are newly-created accounts, semiprotection of his favorite articles would slow him down. (He'd have to wait for each account to be autoconfirmed). I semied one article, and we can wait and see about the others. Background for this case is at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Manhattan Samurai. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone using several different anon IP addresses has been trying to add www.medical.theconferencewebsite.com as an external link to

) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Page has been semiprotected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Closing. Daedalus, if we see a performance like this from you again, you're likely to find yourself topic-banned from ANI. Bishonen, 12:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Note: I've removed the archive templates on this. I request that people please stop that nonsensical practice of "archiving" threads that are still active. None of us gets to tell everybody else to stop talking. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Well, not resolved as such, more that there is nothing to resolve. Silly spat, go out for a beer and come back tomorrow, it will all seem trivial. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC) - (unstriking) Maybe I did happen to see a breezy kerfuffle fluttering by on my talk page, I guess it's been shooed off to another meadow now. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)}}And I'm striking this through because it isn't resolved, this thread was created to have other eyes look in upon the disruptive editing, and incivility, by the two aforementioned users. Just because the thread on Gwen's page is closed does not make the issue resolved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

All involved parties have been notified, please give them the chance to comment on this issue.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tony1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Although I would just love to try and summerize events.. Well, I don't exactly trust my fingers with such at thing at this very moment, so instead, I'm going to ask for the extreme patience of several admins and users to just look over this thread at the admin Gwen Gale's talk page.

Besides that page, I would also like to point out these last two diffs, which first show Ohconfucius changing his name to Osomething, clearly making fun of me when I couldn't remember his name during a thread creation, as seen here. Secondly, please look at the following diff, which shows Ohconfucius responding to another user in a mocking manner: Oh, quelle surprise to find you here. In need of friends perhaps?.

This is all I have to say for the moment, I'm going to go take a break from anything in regards to this thread, so I can force myself to calm down.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you upset that Ohconfucius posted the Wikiquette alert? You need to brush that off. People were clearly in your camp; you should have read it and laughed it off. Posting this to yet another forum is simply giving Ohconfucius and Tony - trolls, as far as I'm concerned - more loudspeaker time.

Tan | 39

23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And you want us to do... what? seicer | talk | contribs 23:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I am sliglight miffed at that, that is not the reason for this thread, but, as stated, their behavior at Gwen Gale's talk page. Apparently they seem to have the idea that on wikipedia, a user is guilty until proven innocent, and they don't have to provide any evidence at all to back up their claims.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

To Seicer, I would at least like to see some comments on the matter, at most, a short block for the obvious disruptions on Gwen's talk page. Either way, I want some outside opinions on what transpired, and if anything should be done about it. In my opinion, this behavior is outright disruptive, and shouldn't be allowed to take place again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally went to Gwen Gale's page this morning to ask a question, and saw the exchange - it reminded me of 2 coyotes and a deer I saw yesterday. Gwen's patience is incredible. The actions/interactions on Gwen's page and their continued actions on the WQA are truly not the type of actions we want to see on Wikipedia. Oh, and someone should teach them what "Plaxico" means - they seemed to think that was a serious warning of some type. Gwen Gale's comments on this are vital. (

) 00:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• No comment. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW is it your position that user disagreements and complaints are disruptive? If so, WP might need to find a way to replace human editors with computers. ("2 coyotes and a deer"? Could spell out your meaning? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a waaaayyy big stretch there. There is a significant difference in "could you please explain what happened here" and "you fucked up (even though you have proven you didn't) and I expect you to resign NOW!!", followed by a pile on by others with the same misunderstanding (or possibly an axe to grind). One is a disagreement/complaint. The other is a pure, unadulterated multi-prong attack. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 14:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

BMW, I understand that you have worded your position strongly because you are sure that you and Gwen Gale are completely in the right. In fact, I admit that I do not actually understand the issues involved in this particular dispute. I am not taking sides on that. What worries me is the attitude the anyone who disagrees with BMW, or with Gwen Gale, or with just about any administrator, can go shit in his hat. More over, even if you actually are completely right and Ohconfucius and Tony1 are completely wrong (which I doubt), I still do not see why the very occurrence of talk page argument over an administrator's actions was brought to AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually Malcolm, I really don't care who's right in the entire situation because my point was to let others decide right/wrong. I accidentally stumbled upon an absolute mugging - it was pretty vicious and vindictive. It was not a discussion, it was pure attack. I rather loudly stated that based on the type of "discussion", the place for it was NOT on a talkpage as it had progressed well past bloodshed, and if they had actual concerns, they belonged in a place like here. In fact, I challenged them to have the same discussion in view of admins, make their point, and let admins deal with it by consensus, rather than the coyote²-deer event that was going on. I had no dog of my own in the fight. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"absolute mugging"? Give me a break. Gwen Gale is an experienced administrator and knows how to take care of herself in an argument. Moreover, she had at least two other users defending her, and throwing plenty of their own accusations. I think that her defenders were actually rather personally abusive, while her accusers seemed to stay focused on the issues. What I see in this thread is administrators putting down a revolt by a few the wiki-peons, who should have been out in the wiki-fields editing instead of complaining about the whippings handed out by the overseers. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at your own posts here, Malcolm. Instead of doing something constructive, you thought it necessary to add yet another "give me a break" opinion to the mix. The argument was/is dying down, people are going about their business now. Try not to re-flame the forest fire, okay?

Tan | 39

15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Tanthalas. Did you really write your edit just to let me know that you have nothing to say? (I see above that you called some other users "trolls"....and that now you are worried about me igniting a fire.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Admins closing ranks?

Please note that the convo on Gwen Gale's page which is referred to above is now in her talkpage history: here it is. So what's going on there—administrators closing ranks? Tony1 is admittedly a little long-winded, which is caused by his quoting

(apparently an offense in itself) but he's a very hard-working and respectable editor, and it's completely weird for GG to blow him off with statements unsupported by a single diff and without mentioning a single name, and altogether making it nightmarishly difficult to check up on anything that she says. Instead we get from her "another admin"; "a member of arbcom" (let's all hold our breaths in veneration); "three admins"; a blank refusal to reveal where and when she warned the user; and a claim, hanging out there without evidence of any kind, that "All your points have already been thoroughly addressed, whatever you might assert otherwise."

Admins are supposed to set an example. The most important principle to come out of RFAR/InShaneee, which reminds me to a quite spooky extent of this argument, and this self-righteousness on the part of an admin, is that

"Administrators must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their administrative actions in a timely manner."[117]

Please discuss in a timely manner, Gwen. Don't blow off users. Not even if you think they should have requested info in a meeker and humbler fashion, as you complain here:

"Had the editor begun this thread in a civil, polite, AGF way, asking for diffs of warnings and blockable behaviour (along with why the behaviour was taken to be blockable by at least three admins), I would've been happy to give them and talk about it but this kind of wanton incivility and lack of any assumption as to good faith throws off strong hints of wikilawyering, with the whole thing spinning off into a disruptive waste of time."

The accusation of "wikilawyering" presumably refers to Tony's quotes from

; I honestly don't see what else it could be.) Compare another RFAR/InShaneee principle:

"All Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Administrators are expected to lead by example in this area rather than criticizing inappropriate behavior. Further, administrators are expected to keep their cool even when dealing with editors who disregard policy and community norms. While personal attacks are prohibited by policy, administrators are expected to endure them without retaliating. Any response to a personal attack should come from a member of the community who was not a target of the attack."[118].

Not that I see any PA in Tony's posts. GG is being excessively touchy in speaking of wikilawyering and disruption.
Epithets such as "troll" (from Tan), flung at Tony in the course of the dialogue, are shameful IMO. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

Your opinion here does not change my thoughts, just for the record. As far as I am concerned, both these editors in question were trolling. Ergo, trolls. It's a pretty good thing I couldn't care less if you think this is "shameful".

Tan | 39

17:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be interested in helping to drive the drama that surrounds these two editors. seicer | talk | contribs 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

He began that thread with the section title Breach of admin policy without a shred of AGF. The blocked editor had already been warned twice, had rm'd the warnings from his talk page (acknowledged), was blocked for edit warring with the arbcom clerk and coming out of that block, uploaded a cropped joke image of the clerk with a caption meant as a personal attack. I blocked the editor three days for a long pattern of incivility. The editor knew he had been warned twice and was fresh out of a block for edit warring in the same arbcom project space. Nevertheless, the editor went on the attack as he had before (I could care less about that) and was then blocked for a week by a member of arbcom who also shut down his email and talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, it is possible that I misunderstood, but it seems to me that what Bishonen requested was diffs and names. What you have given above is just a repetition of what is already on your talk page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Malcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Gale, you are very welcome. Does your reply mean that you do not intend to supply the names and diffs to support you statement above? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, along with my best wishes. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Malcom, since you seem to have the idea, that the diffs and names do not exist. Why don't you try a bit of hunting. It shouldn't take long. I found the diffs already. The reason, in case you may not have gleamed it, that Gwen is not responding to you, it is because you are asking for the diffs in a rude manner, a manner that assumes bad faith, and to respond to an incivil question like that would be to feed the trolls. You don't give a user what he or she wants because he or she is being rude to you. You deny the request until he or she can learn to keep the incivility to his or her self.

• Here is the first diff, and here is Greg removing it with an insult in his edit summery

• Here is the second diff, and here is Greg removing it, acknowledging that he read it

As I have stated so many times before, if you're going to accuse someone of doing someing, back it up with diffs. The burden of evidence to the contrary is on the accuser. If you're going to accuse someone of abusing their admin status/powers, then you need to make sure that you are right, and search for a lack of warning, if you are arguing about warnings. You need to make sure that you are not wrong in your accusation, and assuming you don't, and someone else does, you need to admit that you were wrong and/or drop the discussion.

Besides the two warnings presented above, there is simply the incivility in the edit summery of the first warning, obviously showing the user didn't really care to stop the incivility he was warned against, or should I note the picture? It was a cropped image of an arbcom clerk drunk, with the caption of Notwithstanding the caption on his userpage, this Wikipedia Administrator was clearly not at work when this picture was taken. There is no way you can argue that that was civil.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969 you misunderstand my question. I know nothing about the incident that started this argument, and I am not particularly interested that incident either. What does interest me is administrators who, when asked to explain their actions, do not; who say there were other administrators involved (including a member of the arbitration committee), but decline to name the other administrators who were involved; and who likewise decline the requests to supply diffs. The fact that you have give some of the requested information (not requested by me, but by others), and that Gwen Gale has not, still leaves me with the impression of an imperial administration that, despite all claims to the contrary, is very separate from WP editors and not very accountable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem comes from trying to prove a negative. It is simply much easier for the offended to present, clearly, what they are offended by. This allows the offender a solid accusation to reply to rather than having to "swing in the dark" and hope they are defending the appropriate action. Also, the approach taken was apparently hostile from the get go. It has been offered by Gwen that if the editor had simply asked for clarification on what Gwen was doing she would have had little to no problem responding. It's the "coming out of left-field with accusations" part that make others shut down and stop communicating. Padillah (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible misuse of administrative power

There has been a related discussion on Wikiquette alerts [119], in which

) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm aware this thread exists; no need to notify me. Anyone who actually looks over the issue - starting on Gwen's talk page, hopping over to Witiquette, and ending here - can see that I am not "highly involved", nor did I even use any "administrator power" at any time in the proceedings. Both contentions, shot to hell. As far as I'm concerned, this entire issue is one big farce.

Tan | 39

19:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. This entire thread, including anywhere else this discussion may pop up, is nothing more than a huge waste of time. Seal the vault, and everyone go about their regularly scheduled business. Dayewalker (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Tanthalas39 was involved from the beginning, as can be seen in the discussion on Gwen Gale's talk pagehere
2. When an administrator closes a discussion it is not likely to be thought of as anything but an administrative action, and that reverting it could lead to a block. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I WAS THE EDITOR THAT CLOSED THE DISCUSSION. Apparently telling you this in the discussion page wasn't enough. I closed the thread, not once, but twice. I asked the editor point blank why they wanted to keep the thread open and there response was an unacceptable because some users might want to talk about it. Well, that is unacceptable so I closed the thread and asked the user to please stop posting, the issue has been dealt with. In my opinion this is a simple ploy to keep the drama flowing. After having ignored the numerous pleadings I have issued, both on the WQA page and my talk page, they continue to stir the pot. I don't imagine they will stop short of blocking. Padillah (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No. I removed the template you added and Tanthalas39 restored it. I gave a diff, above.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Stop with the juvenile caps, m'kay? Both of you, it's not helping. — 

neuro^(talk)

19:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The capital "O" in my "NO" was a typing error, when I did not take my finger off the cap key in time. Sorry about that. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not a surprise, nothing seems to help when communicating with Malleus. Padillah (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to make such unhelpful personal remarks? Particularly when you don't even take the trouble to address them to the right editor? --

Fatuorum

20:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that was uncalled for. My apologies. Padillah (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Better not to have said it in the first place than be shamed into reluctantly apologising for it later. Think before you post again. --

Fatuorum

20:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Who are "they" that you'd like to see blocked Padillah, and why? Because they don't agree with your assessment of the situation? --

Fatuorum

19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I use "they" in an effort to remain gender neutral. I mean you. You have been asked as plainly as possible what you want and still did not answer (but did manage to attack "the system"). You have shown no signs of stopping this tirade and have not expressed what you expect to get out of it other than a continuation of being allowed to be on a tirade. Padillah (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you want to see me blocked because I don't agree with you, and because you believe that I have attacked a system that you apparently believe to be perfect? I'd suggest thinking very carefully before you persist with that line of reasoning, and make more of a fool of yourself than is absolutely necessary. --

Fatuorum

20:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I want to see you blocked for the express reasons I gave above. You show no signs of stopping this tirade and have given no reasons for wanting to continue this other than being allowed to have a tirade. As I said below, the evidence of your

horse beating is perfectly valid. I have no issue with people that disagree with me I take issue with someone arguing for the sake of arguing. Padillah (talk

) 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe Malcolm a huge apology. I am very sorry. I got you confused with the editor

) 20:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be still confused. --

Fatuorum

20:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

And with statements like this I will continue to be. What do you think I am confused about? Specify something. Padillah (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This series of edits has me more confused the the whole rest of the long story combined. For instance, I am not sure what Padillah has apologized to me for; but, whatever it is, the apology itself is remarkable. I have been called things on AN/I that might make anyone, who does not actually know me, assume that I am a total weirdo, and wiki-criminal too boot. And, previous to now, with never an apology. So, Padillah, I want you to know that I have respect you as one of those rare individuals actually willing to say, "sorry". Bravo. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The apology was for calling for "your blocking" under the misconception that you were a different user. I had a recent exchange with

User:Malleus Fatuorum and conflated the two names thus confusing you with them. Padillah (talk

) 21:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me just restate my original point, so that it will not get lost. There was, parallel to this thread, a discussion on Wikiquette concerning some very uncivil remarks made by Daedalus969 against Ohconfucius and Tony. Tanthalas39, who is an administrator, who was also highly involved in the dispute, closed the discussion over protests. It appears to me that, under those circumstances, it was a possible misuse of his administrative authority for Tanthalas39 to close the thread. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable if a different editor closed the thread? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I would not have been happy about it in any case. The users who brought the complaint consider the issue unresolved, and I think rationally so. But, if it was done by an uninvolved administrator, I would not now be complaining about it here on AN/I. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that WQA has done all that in can do in this case: the issue has been raised and discussed. That's why I have re-archived that WQA thread. Remember that WQA is a non-binding / informal discussion venue. Any outstanding requests for sanctions should be made here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Tell me

What is wrong with being frustrated with two users who act like the whole of wikipedia answers to them; so they take a particular a comment as a threat, a particular comment, mind you, that told a user to stop refactoring my comments. Did I miss a meeting where such was allowed? Are we to stop warning users who are obviously violating policy? Last I checked, that is what we are supposed to do. Tony1 acted as if I were to answer to him, for warning Ohconfucious against refactoring my comments. Given that he had previously refactored my comments, twice, I was a bit frustrated. Now, given the manner in which he spoke to me, I was close to losing the restraints I had on my anger.

As far as I can tell, Tony1 and Ohconfucious started the WQE, and the thread on Admin Gwen Gale's talk page with a single goal in mind: To get her to step down from being an admin, or somehow get her, and myself, blocked. Tony already made a call for Ryan, the Arbcom Clerk, to step down. Please, bug him for the diff, I'm pretty sure he has it locked away somewhere. Well, if I were him, I would. I hope he does, because searching for it, simply, would be a pain in the ass. But as I was saying, Tony and Oh and out of line. They are doing nothing here, and the WQE but disrupt to try and achieve their own ends.

They have been warned against such behavior -constantly-, and due to their obvious goals, I do not see it stopping any time soon.

Would any of you uninvolved admins mind giving them a cool-down block perhaps? Tell you what: Assuming that you do, I can bet you that their unblock requests will not address the issues why they were blocked, but instead attack the admins that blocked them, like they have been doing to every user that joins in on this conflict.

Yes, I realize I lost my temper, and I also realize there is no exuse for losing it. Now, that aside, I have to ask the goal in mind of the WQE. I'm obviously, if you look over my contributions, usually cool headed. I don't have long patterns of incivility. So what, I blew my top once. In my opinion, the WQE was nothing but disruptive and a waste of everyone's time.

Now, I'm going to hit return after I push r in the edit summery, and sit back, and watch. There is nothing more I could really say in regards to this matter.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Wow! Our intention was explicit, whereas
  you implied a hidden agenda which I can debunk straight off. You certainly credit me with too much power, because I am a mere minnow - I am not even an admin, nor do I have any friends. Secondly, the "refactoring" was innocent (one correction of grammar and of one of a factual nature), and I swiftly apologised when I realised your objection. FYI, your warnings did not show up until I had posted the second amendment to your post. I would have let it ride had you simply apologised for losing your temper when you wrote those remarks, but now you launch this ANI case against me, which renders me less inclined to be forgiving. Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 05:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 and Ohconfucius are clearly trying to exact revenge on Gwen Gale for having blocked

(❝?!❞)

04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Reply - I am hardly going to apologize to a user who is obviously pushing for a reaction that will get me blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I am forced to raise the matter here, as per Sheffield's invitation. I would state for the record that I do not feel the issue of
  User:Hex) were angry at Gwen's block, we made certain accusations which I feel did not cross the boundary of incivility, but were treated to this torrent of abuse from Daedalus and this comment from BMWilkins. Let;s not forget how he referred to me as "the other user who's username starts with an O", and then appears affronted when I replied using that same name he used on me, and starts bringing this vexatious case against me. Please... Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Get over yourself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reply - I don't believe you. The three comments I left, which you have problem with, are hardly uncivil, neither are they the most uncivil. I have seen far worse, and I doubt you haven't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Secondly, I am offended because you were obviously mocking me there, and I referred to you as such because I could not remember the spelling of your name.

The only thing you are doing is looking to find fault in anything I do. This is disruptive behavior, and I honestly think wikipedia would be better off without you, Tony, or Greg.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Even if those three remarks were not uncivil (and that is a pretty big 'if'), the above comment certainly is. In your place, I would certainly engage in some stress-reduction before posting more of same. Has it ever occurred to you that I would find it offensive to be referred to as "Osomething"? Honestly... Ohconfucius (talk) 05:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's called

assuming good faith, a policy you should try familiarizing yourself with.— Dædαlus ^Contribs

05:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Somebody you're having an argument with comes along an refers to you as "the user who's (sic) name begins with a 'D'" or "Dsomething", would you be able to, hand on heart, drop your hostility and assume good faith? BTW, nice abusive edit summary for for this entry. You've received plenty of helpful advice to
  bring the temperature down, I suggest it would be a good idea to heed it. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 05:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing more to discuss. I suggest you give up on whatever goal you have, because you aren't getting it. I refuse to discuss this any further with you because, as said, there is nothing to discuss. Any further comments below this post, in regards to me, or even above it, are disruptive. You aren't getting your way, and in fact, due to your behavior in this thread and others, the only thing that you might get isn't going to be something you want. Or haven't you noticed that you don't have any support outside your little circle? Either way, everyone disagrees with you but you and yours, so unless you want to dig your hole deeper, mayhap reach the other side of the globe, I suggest you keep talking, but I am no longer going to reply to trolls. I've been warned against feeding the trolls before, I'm going to take that advice now, because this discussion is going nowhere fast.

Your first argument was that Gwen abused her admin rights. I proved you wrong. Your second was that I was grossly uncivil. You were proved wrong by multiple users. Drop it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Again, that torrent above ("the other side of the globe") was not called for. I already told you above that I don't have any friends, so on that point we are agreed. Ohconfucius (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, it is time for you to leave this discussion behind. Your comments have been uncivil and unhelpful, and if you intended for this thread to accomplish anything you are distracting from it by your increasingly intemperate participation.

15:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus969, I agree with Avruch. I and many others know you want only to help, but you've been uncivil in going about it and this has done much more harm than help. There is no way anyone can helpfully talk about anything on a wiki unless these kinds of stirred up feelings have settled down altogether. Please try to learn from this.

Now, seeing the words reach the other side of the globe made me think of Gravity_trains, I don't know why I've always found this such a fun notion to daydream about :) Dig a hole through the earth at any angle (good luck), take away any friction (good luck), drop something into it and about 42 minutes later it'll show up on the other side at a very brief standstill, ready to be plucked away. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Call for Daedalus969 to be blocked for a week, and for Gale to undertake not to breach the admin rules

Clearly the agressive abuse meted out to me on Gale's talk page requires a block—of up to a week, I'd say:

Incivility by the above on the talk page of Gwen_Gale. Diffs of aggressive and hostile comments follow:

1. Accusations against Tony1 (talk · contribs) and Ohconfucius (talk · contribs) of baiting.
2. "back the hell off, try reading WP:DICK yourself, as you really are being one"
3. "Please just shut up now, I'm sick of this disruptive trolling of yours on this talk page"

It is in the high end of incivility, and the perpetrator apparently shows no remorse. It is appropriate for the community to teach him that this is unacceptable behaviour.

Gwen Gale has clearly breached the admin rules and I believe she needs to provide a written undertaking to adhere to

15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Accusations = not blockable
• Dick comment = uncivil, warning already applied, not blockable
• Shut up/troll comment = uncivil, nothing to block over

This needs to stop now. Do not try to pull any wool over anyone's eyes in order to avoid your own block. No further action needs to occur, unless Tony1 or Ohconfucious decide to continue this disruptive train of action. Let's all stop playing blame games, and ensure we're acting according the adult status I am sure we all have. The drahma has truly gone on long enough - there are articles to be written. (

talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track

) 15:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Do not try to pull any wool over anyone's eyes in order to avoid your own block." A stunning comment in its nastiness. If someone is calling for a thread to be closed, that is not the time for this kind of personal attack. I know I'm repeating myself, but that is not the BMW I used to know. And I am at a loss to come up with a plausible explanation.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, as I've mentioned to others before, the solution to being uncivil is making the user stop being uncivil. Daedalus has stopped (I hope for good this time), so please consider this over. If an editor continues being uncivil and they will not listen to reason then they would be blocked as a means of forcing them to stop, not as punishment. Blocking is not supposed to be used as a form of punishment, but as a means to an end (forcing the editor to stop). Padillah (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable advice from Padillah and sounds sensible to me.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Move on already.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Tony, if it's any help heres a list of Admins always keen to block for even the slightest suggestion of incivility [121]. I;m sure at least one of then will be thrilled to block for some real incivility. Probably nest to start alphabetically, that way you won't show favouritism because I'm sure some of them are on commission. Hope this helps.
  talk
  ) 17:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is another admin who likes to block for incivility Giano User:Deacon of Pndapetzim, maybe we should draw up alist of admins who don't like breaches of civility because at the moment it just depends who you get and your previous interactions with them BigDunc^Talk 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Dunc, but where are all our beloved Admins, normally if they see my name here within a hundred kilometres of the word "incivility" we normally have at least 50 opining on the horror of it. Perhaps they are all quarrelling on IRC over which one of them gets the prize for blocking first.
  talk
  ) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For curiosity's sake, does anyone intend to answer the initial charges? It seems like a simple answer from Gwen at the start could have avoided this entire episode, and even now those answers would appear diffuse this situation. As an uninvolved editor, I am once again shocked an appalled by the cabal which does not exist. I note there is a good deal of silence from the usuals here at ANI. Why? Charles Edward (Talk) 19:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you selectively reading? Gwen doesn't need to respond to uncivil demands which are just looking for reason to cry admin abuse. The answers you are looking for in the thread, I'm pretty sure I'ved posted them several times now. She isn't in breach of anything. I am not posting the links again, they are not far up, please take the time to find them yourself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I read both the threads here and the talk page in their entirety. That is why I posted this. The original questions were never answered. I don't see the original questions as uncivil, just quite frank. Although it is certainly reached an uncivil stage at this point. Just because a question is not civil (I am not saying it was uncivil) does not make it invalid. Would not answering them clear the air? Thats all I am saying. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The question has already been answered, by me, multiple times. It doesn't really matter, at this moment, whether the question was valid or not. Users are taught to not give into demands that, nor are they taught to give into demands just because a user is broadly calling for admin abuse. Tony was proved wrong, by me, multpile times, but now we still see he's on the same track of mind, despite the evidence to the contrary. Gwen didn't do anything wrong. She warned Greg as many times as she said she did, then, following a cropped picture that was uploaded to make fun of an ArbCom Clerk the users in question were edit warring with, she blocked him for a long pattern of incivililty. Tony and Oh came to Gwen's page demanding she explain her actions, even though she clearly did in the block notice, and on Greg's page, several times. The question you're looking to be answered has, please read through the thread, it is there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Happy editing. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you request a block of Daedalus for incivility, while he hasn't been warned, it's apparently the first time he shows signs of incivility, and he stopped when advised. But in the same time, you claim admin abuse from Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L for a pattern of incivility while given several warnings. This appears incoherent to me, could you clarify this ? I'm not commenting on the validity of the block or its extension but blocks are supposed to be preventive, Gwen Gale blocked because she felt it would stop recurring incivilities (again, deliberately not commenting on whether it was justified or not, but rather on how Gwen Gale thought she applied policy). But blocking Daedalus here would achieve nothing and would indeed be in clear violation of the blocking policy (being rather a punishment). Cenarium (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • • "you claim admin abuse from Gwen Gale for having blocked Greg L for a pattern of incivility while given several warnings." Nope, please read what I said: it's her breach of at least one admin policy requirement—that concerning communication before and after the block, that was the subject of my complaint. Greg really has nothing directly to do with that. Tony (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Communication prior and after blocking with the user in question is indeed vital (essentially to avoid blocking, then explain and justify it), this has happened as visible in the talk history (warnings prior to block, and also a post-block discussion that has then be prevented from continuing when another admin protected the page). It seems that you initially said she had breached admin policy for failing to "provide the appropriate user(s) (so the blocked user) with suitable prior warnings and explanations of their administrative actions". She then replied that she had done so and diffs were later given by another user. You also questioned the preventive/last resort nature of the block, which triggered my question above. I have the impression that your initial comments were made lacking information and based solely on the thread and the block rationale (and I agree that at first sight, it looked confusing, although the blocked user was aware of the background). If her explanations do no satisfy you and you feel she failed to communicate on this occasion (and to provide relevant diffs), then you are free to start a RFC (although I would advise to wait a little before continuing on this path if you are resolved), but ANI isn't the place for dispute resolution/user conduct RFC, and users are given leeway to close discussions on their talk pages (and are not held, even admins, to continue to respond to inquiries when explanations have been given, which I think was the case, even though you may consider them insufficient). (See also my comment below, but I have no intention to continue discussing in this thread.) Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• I reckon this one here (07:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)) would suffice as a civility warning. As to incivility after the warning, I was wondering how "I honestly think wikipedia would be better off without you, Tony, or Greg" or "You obviously have a superiority complex" in an edit summary (both yesterday and on this page) would be defined? These seem to be quite a bit more powerful than "troll", which many wikipedians would draw the line at, but perhaps not quite as strong as "fuck off". Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• This still seems week grounds for a one-week civility block to me, and the warning was not from an admin. No doubt Daedalus needs a break, but this is due to a very localized issue (defending someone he knows against accusations) and I don't see it reflecting a pattern of incivility. A block at this stage appears unwarranted since if Daedalus withdraws from this issue or it dies down, it is very likely that incivilities will cease. It is very unlikely that an admin will block Daedalus on such grounds at this stage so this matter is virtually closed. Cenarium (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting take on the situation: I am unaware of any requirement for civility warnings to be the exclusive purview of admins, although admittedly many throw these around like confetti. Giano is right - 'where are all those trigger-happy admins when you need one?' ;-) Furthermore, I wonder how many more instances of incivility one needs to see to warrant a block? there were at 3 on Gwen Gale's talk page and two here right before everyone's eyes. He remains totally repentant for his actions, for all I can tell. I agree that this thread is getting tired, and it is my considered opinion that it should never have been started. I only added some comments after my thread in WQA was closed down as if no 'unpleasantries' had ever been muttered, and discussion forced here. It also seems that I am the only one to apologise so far. The one who opened this threat continues to participate in this lame accusation of
  disruption against Tony and myself, despite advice from all quarters, including myself on tow occasions. I can't help but feel there has been a very liberal application of soft soap here in regards Daedalus. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 04:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Tony

This is the last time I am saying this. You keep saying Gwen violated admin policy. Now, in less than 500 words, why don't you tell us specifically what she violated. If your argument is that she didn't warn Greg, like she said she did. You are wrong. In fact, I have proved you wrong several times now. Now, besides that, tell me where on

20:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • e/c Daedalus, this is the last time I'm saying this; I said it above. Please read the arbcom principles from RFAR/InShaneee. You don't have to dig the case out or anything; just please read, and try to take on board, the principles I quote. Alternatively, please try to show with quotes these demands that Gwen immediately "cave", and this supposed "disruptiveness". Without evidence, diffs, or illustrations, your ample repetitons of your anger and resentment remains... hmm... remains... [casting about for civil description here...] well, it remains, that's all. Remains up in the air. Remains pointless. And apologizing to everybody except Tony and Ohconfucious for your discourtesy is ... [casts about again].. is very bad behaviour. Bishonen | talk 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

You have not addressed my points. Where exactly did you warn him twice, and when? The diffs are a necessary part of an "explanation", and are critical to judging which block is the "prior" one (MZMcBride's is the obvious one, but you seem to be referring to others), and thus whether your block was within the policy in this respect. You have not addressed my query as why the title of the image "Clerk.jpg" was at all worthy of a block. I see another admin below your entry claiming that the title was "harrassment". This needs to be explained.

Sorry, but using diffs is how I roll; nowhere in that above diatribe is there any hint of a polite question, which Gwen would have answered. I also don't feel that "I do hope that you feel able to cooperate." Is a polite request to supply the diffs either.

Now, besides the demands above to supply diffs and cooperate, as can be seen above in this thread, Tony is calling for Gwen to be desysopped. I have to ask the reasoning, and I do mean specifics. If he wants what he does, he should provide specific diffs explaining where she breached policy; that is of course assuming, she did at all, as I already personally crushed his original argument that she didn't warn him.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Daedalus, may I politely suggest that you completely disengage from this? You are doing yourself no favours. If there are valid concerns about the behaviour of others (I am not commenting on that one way or the other), they will be overshadowed by your increasingly aggressive posts. I suggest you turn off the computer, have a cup of tea or a martini, watch a movie, play a game, something. Just leave for a little while and let others look everything over. //roux   21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Tony, I agree that BMW's notion that you're trying to "avoid your own block" is wild and weird; but there's no point in calling for de-sysopping or similar on WP:ANI. As for requesting some kind of undertaking from Gwen Gale, since her attitude to those kinds of requests is made sufficiently clear above, and on her talkpage (=consisting of blowing them off), yours can be considered made and ignored. Dispute resolution is what remains, and RfC would be your next port of call for that. Though I would point out that you'd need more substantial grievances than one outbreak of personal attacks from Daedalus (however egregious), and one instance of administrator nonchalance from Gwen Gale (however persistent); in fact, for RfCs to be meaningful, you'd need to show patterns. I don't know if there have been such. Bishonen | talk 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

To Gwen, Avruch(sorry if I got that wrong), and others

I realize I have been uncivil, and I realize it isn't the way to go. I've been dealing with off-wiki stress as well, so I'm sure many of you know this isn't how I normally am. I am not using off wiki stress as a way to exuse my behavior, I'm just saying, that all this stress at this one time, well, it's hard to keep my cool. At the moment of typing this, I have a level head; personally, I don't think the 'globe' note to be uncivil, it was, in case it was not gleamed, an analogy depicting that Oh and Tony were digging their hole very, very deep by keeping this thread at the top so to speak(traditional forums if you didn't know(active threads are bumped to the top of the page)), rather than letting the issue drop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

... right. You show no intention of apologizing to the people you've actually been insulting, and in your opinion, Tony and Ohconfucious have kept this thread at the top by keeping it "active", rather than letting the issue drop? Have I got it right? OK... not sure I've counted the mess right (please check, people) but this is what I make it: Ohconfucious has posted five times in this thread. Tony1 has posted once. Daedalus has posted 18 times. Now, Tony, shame on you, when are you ever going to let the issue drop?? Daedalus, do get that cup or gallon of tea. Right now. Please. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

What is your goal here?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What does it matter what Bish's goal is? Your general hostility isn't helping at all... Can't you still see you are excessively wound up. I would reiterate the advice that I, and several others here, have already given to you to go and fool off somewhere quiet. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It matters, because his behavior isn't all that civil either. And Bish, to answer your question no, I will not ever, ever, did I meniton ever? Apologize to people like Tony and Oh, especially after this: "Before anyone misquotes me, it doesn't mean I won't forgive, but that you just have to grovel that little bit harder."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Heard you the first time, which is why I never –did I meniton (sic) never?– reiterated my slightly tongue in cheek mention of you grovelling. Apology implies sincerity, and you have made it clear AGAIN that you have no intention of apologising, it can be read that you were deliberate in insulting me and Tony in the past, and you still mean it. Fine. Also, what's "not all that civil" - I don't see any mention of WP:DICK, or superiority complex, or stupid? I'm not going to refactor your comment for the possible errors above since the last time you bit my head off for so doing, but presumably by "he", you mean "he/she"? Oh (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But, as to letting it drop, I'm sorry, but you're wrong in this issue: Number of replies means nothing in this, because Oh and Tony are -still- accusing Gwen of admin abuse despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. That is the issue that they are not dropping. I guess I wasn't very clear when I tried to get that message across. As said, and I do know I repeat myself; The matter of issue was Gwen's admin behavior. They have been proved wrong, in that Gwen did not abuse her powers, and they have been asked over and over to let the issue drop, so yes, they are the ones who will not let it drop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

But Daedalus, this can be argued without your involvement, and don't worry, Gwen Gale won't have her admin bit removed for that. It may be frustrating but the best thing to do for you now, and in the interest of finding a resolution or at least settle down the dispute, is to let other editors deal with it. Focusing too much on this kind of things doesn't help and there are more satisfying things to be done on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Please, let it go. Cenarium (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Would somebody please close this thread? This is accomplishing nothing. We're talking about edits that are three days old in this thread of bad faith. The original argument on Gwen's page is dead, the WQA is dead, and this one should be. I won't start to detail the things that are wrong in this report because I don't want to continue this mess, but suffice to say this one isn't going anywhere. Can we be done with it yet? Dayewalker (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) My apologies for taking so long to strike the comment about a certain product of sheep that is often used in sweaters, as I have been packing for an assignment out-of-country. The comment was, indeed, inappropriate while attempting to call for a close in a discussion that truly is going nowhere. After days of dicussion, my original statement on Gwen Gale's page stands: I said that the Talkpage of an admin was no place to discuss removal (voluntary or not) of admin status, and if Tony1 and Ohconfucious had a real gripe, then I invited them to take it to ANI where a bunch of admins will see it, and take (or suggest) action as necessary.

At this point, dozens of admins have now seen the entire situation - both the supposed "misuse of admin" by Gwen Gale, the discussion by Tony1 and Ohconfucious, plus the increased anger of Daedulus. A few other editors (such as myself) under

to assist have been drawn into an increasing spiral.

That said - what I recommended in the first place has happened - it came here to ANI. As expected, no additional action has been taken, and I expect that none will be.

Can we close this now? It's run its course. (

) 11:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Daedalus, if we see a performance like this from you again, you're likely to find yourself topic-banned from ANI. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Preformance like what? I realize I was at fault, but I am not the -only- one at fault, and since you have an obvious bias in regards to this situation, you shouldn't be warning me of anything; you're obvious in support of the above users; you shouldn't have blosed this either, some uninvolved admin should have, in fact, I'd be thankful if Guy of all people closed this, but you, you who are personally involved, should not be issuing threats, or closes.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Petition To re-open, then have the thread re-closed by an uninvolved party, who has no clear bias to the situation at hand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Although this is a fairly minor issue, I amended the close with a neutral statement regarding this entire thread. There is

nothing left to argue now. Cenarium (talk

) 03:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Need some outside help with a WP:SOAPBOX user

See

02:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since he's new I left him a note, rather similar to yours. I think a lot of newcomers don't quite get what the "talk" pages are for when they first arrive. (For example, hold your breath and look at the talk page for conservatism.) Antandrus (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

(3-O observation) I'm seeing this also, having read the entire diatribe posted by the user. It was almost

WP:SOAP. Edit Centric (talk

) 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hosur article blocked

Article about Hosur has been blocked by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ohnoitsjamie and the discussion that happened before the article blocked was deleted by Ohnoitsjamie. I request Ohnoitsjamie be desysopped immediately. I was owning the username Asprakash before. Hosuronline (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with Hosur... but I do see a problem with someone creating a sock just to request that an admin be "desysopped immediately"... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the assorted histories, it appears that you were removing content and eternal links from the article, claiming that all the content was stolen from your website. Do you have any proof for these claims? And how were the other external links stolen from your site? Instead of using multiple accounts to edit war, why not discuss the problem, show where the content was stolen from, and work it out civily... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user.

At the moment I made my first edit to that article I was aware that some edit war was going on, but didn't pay attention to include the source preferred by Harout72. After he reverted my edit, I wrote him on his talk page that he shouldn't be deleting sourced material. We have continued the discussion a little. Today I proposed a compromise on the talk page of the article. Not between me and him, because I do not see myself as an involved party and have not changed the article after that first time, but between Harout72 and the anonymous user. Harout72's reaction to my proposal warrants an official warning, I feel.

1. He is not responsive to my appeals for compromise. In stead he continues the edit war.
2. He is implicating me personally of having ulterior motives.
3. He is completely convinced that he is 100% right in all his arguments, and does not give any merit whatsoever to counter-arguments.
4. He is using belittling language to me (in my perception at least), by stressing his experience on Wikipedia as opposed to mine.

In short: he is being confrontational in that conflict and uncivil to me.

After placing {{

.

First, User:Debresser, please remember to sign your comments. This took an unbelievably long time to figure out. Second, looking at Talk:Luis_Miguel#Sales_figures, I see that Harout72 wants to keep the current 50 million sales figure based on Warner Music's Germany division while an anonymous user has been edit-warring for 90 million based on a single press release at the University of Texas at Austin's performing arts department. Is the issue that he here questioned why you are questioning him removing those sources and not the anonymous users? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, as to your trespassing comments, Debresser, could you point out diffs of exactly what you are talking about? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I am really sorry about forgetting to sign. That doesn't happen to me usually, and if it happens I almost always remember it right away. I raised 4 points above. Let me try and find the relevant diffs.

1. Here I put up a notice right in the middle of the contested information reading "Please wait a minute before editing here, and read my proposal for a compromise on the talk page (section Sales figures). Try to solve the issue between you on the talk page, and not in live editing." In spite of that Harout72 28 minutes later continues the edit war.
2. Here Harout72 is questioning my motives at the end of his edit. I can't even understand what motives he might be referring to. They for sure can't be of a personal nature, because I don't even remember having crossed one of his edits before (our interests are in different subjects).
3. This answer to me on his talk page just completely ignores any of my arguments. Here he addresses the subject of reliable sources, but does not pay attention that his doubts as to the accuracy of the source do not diminish its reliability, at least not any more than it diminishes the reliability of the other source, or at least not per definition. (Although I agree that in this case I would tend to believe Warner Music more than the University of Texas myself, I still think we have to consider the University of Texas a reliable source.)
4. In this edit Harout72 says "You seem quite new to wikipedia". On what basis? Apart from disagreeing with him, all I have done is call upon him to not delete sourced information and to seek compromise. And all of that I have done in the most respectful of words (see e.g. this edit). And again here he calls my comment about deleting sourced information "a ludicrous rebuke of this kind" and stresses that "I am not new to wikipedia, so please invest your time in giving lessons to people who may need it". Debresser (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What I find interesting is the fact, that a third party reliable source (published in German) was removed twice by anonymous IPs and replaced by less reliable sources while you only left messages for me. First removal by anonymous IP [122], and here is you noticing and fixing the citations but at no time deciding to leave a message for the anon. (like the one you later left for me. Here another or maybe the same anon. IP removes the same German-language source which I had placed back (to make it as it was originally) and again you chose to leave no explanatory messages of any kind for the anonymous IP, but, instead, you chose to bring the issue here after I changed it back the second time. You claim above "I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user", such; however, wasn't the case as you were there fixing citations almost 15 hours after the anon. IP had replaced the German Language source with the artist's official site [123]. Judging from your movements, your involvement suggests that your intentions were other than to prevent editors from removing sourced statements. --Harout72 (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, (1) I'm having a hard time calling it an edit war when one side consists of a number of random IP addresses constantly removing legitimate sources without an attempt at explanation. That looks more like vandalism to me. I don't think of it as a simple edit war between two people compromising and discussion their views. (3) Your responses are the same: somehow we should be keeping a source that claims a sales figure almost twice the other ones and removing it somehow is equally as concerning to you (or greater I guess since you don't seem the others) as the attempts to remove the other sources. I don't see what the point of that either. As for (2) and (4), Harout, how about

assume good faith and move on? Discuss it at the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Even now Harout72 doubts my words, saying "You claim above 'I accidentely ran into an edit war on Luis Miguel between Harout72 and an anonymous user', such; however, wasn't the case". Have a look at my contributions! I was fixing broken citations from Category:Articles with broken citations which I do all the time when I ran into this case.

This kind of behaviour from his side is why I want Harout72 to receive an official warning about being confrontational and uncivil. He should know he can't go on like that in a civil place like Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been on the talk page and have no problem with your last changes to the article. Don't forget, I'm here to discuss the behaviour of Harout72, and do not consider myself a party in the discussion about the article at all. Debresser (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

As to the question why I didn't post a warning on the page of that anonymous user as well. Apart from the fact that he after all was the one to revert my one and only edit in this article. Frankly speaking, I'd seen a lot of vandalism andother dubious edits from anonymous user that day and posted warnings on most of them. But to see a registered and experienced user (if I remember correctly 4 years on Wikipedia) who maintains an edit war made me decide to write him in this case. He should have known better. In stead he till this moment maintains his position stubbornly, that he is right in everything he did in this case. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't care. You start to get into an argument about someone else's edits, want them warned for some reason, and then when asked about your actual opinion on the content, you claim you're not a party and don't have an opinion. I'm sorry, but until the actual party to the incident stops playing games by removing content and starts real discussions, I'm not interested either. As I noted at

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is some of appropriate but this was what two days ago? -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 05:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Let's bury it. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to call it that, be my guest. I wouldn't mind an outside admin's (or anyone else's) opinion though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither would I. It is I who raised the subject after all. It is upon your urging that I am willing to let it pass. Debresser (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

At

06:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, these are opinion pieces, and as such shouldn't be added to articles (especially contentious ones). I am just going through now and removing all such links, except where the relevant pieces are actually in the article of the author concerned. Also will log the templating. Black Kite 11:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Note: I've left a few others in that I thought were neutral pieces - a complete list of where the links still exist is at this page. Black Kite 11:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

User's SPAM edit was reverted by Katr67, and user (see their contributions) began blanket reverting Katr67's edits, such as this random one[124]. Has even now taunted, and vandalized Katr's user page. Needs blocking. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please. Reported at AIV, but it seems slow tonight.

talk

) 08:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Seemingly only purpose here to harass others and spam. Cirt (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I have a bad feeling they will be back under a new account/anon. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a sleeper account with 3 edits last May and nothing again until late Feb. At least his M.O. is clear as a bell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Anytime. And please do keep us posted. ;) Cirt (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing incidents on Ion Antonescu. Dahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly removing sources and sourced information from the article 1, 2, 3. While he stated several times on the talk page that one of the sources would not be reliable, he did not provide reliable sources which would support his claims, per

) 12:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I will just use this venue to note two things: Eurocopter is editing against consensus. His inflammatory statements, his questionable interpretation of wikipedia policies, and his persistence in re-adding dubious sources where he believes they are not questionable are the subject of two ongoing debates: one, redirected from this very page, on the

WP:CITE. Also, and for a last time, contrary to his claim that I "did not provide reliable sources which would support [my] claims", you may read plenty of direct quotes dealing with exactly that on both the Antonescu talk page and the fringe theories noticeboard. Dahn (talk

) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As a minor point, since Eurocopter made his appeal for discussion, he went on to insert some of the material being discussed again and engaged in the edit war, without contribuing more to the talk page. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. Both parties could do with giving this a go on the article talk page more thoroughly, rather than invoking ANI. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't. As stated above, due to ongoing discussion on talk page, I assumed good faith and stopped citing Stoenescu in Holocaust-related issues. I considered Dahn's removal of sources and sourced facts without consensus inacceptable, therefore I reverted him. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:BRD. It is not WP:BRDRD or BRRD. Your additions were the bold edit, judging from what I can tell from the article history. --Narson ~ Talk

• 16:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, user:Bogdangiusca (a close friend of user:Dahn) just appeared and is removing a number of 6 sources (Romalo, Turlea, Lepadatu, Hudita, Barbul, Giurescu) without any basic explanation or consensus reached on the talk page. As this is clearly a form of vandalism and admin abuse, I request input from uninvolved administrators. --Eurocopter (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I suspect it was a blanket reversion back to the last edit not by you. I'd suggest adding back the non-Stoenescu refs? Or asking Bogdangiusca if they were the problem or whether they were caught up in annother revert. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this would not happen, as they really have the absolute control of these articles and everything they dislike/disapprove is immediately removed, as they eagerly promote their POV, sometimes in an abusive way also. It is really a waste of time and energy to try argue with them or counter their POV, so I will step out and this would be my last comment on this issue. Best regards, --Eurocopter (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a comment on this specific article, but on this sort of problem in general. Having references is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for adding information to an article. References are not a club you weild to beat people over the head with to force them to accept whatever you wish to have in an article. There are many, many, many good reasons to remove referenced information from an article; such as information which may be referenced but irrelevent, or information where the neutrality or reliability of the source is in question. However, it should also be noted that it is not up to administrators to decide between two versions of an article. We can block one or both parties of a dispute if they behave badly (for example, if they

WP:MEDCAB perhaps. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Qchristina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made legal threat at [[125]]. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Borderline. The user is not threatening to sue wikipedia, they are pointing out that the person's agents will sue wikipedia if the name is not corrected (which seems a rather spurious idea). Exxolon (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This all seems to be about the recently created article Sanaz Shirazi. Exxolon (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• It appears that what the editor is actually saying is that xe is editing in the belief that xe xyrself is subject to legal threat, from the subject of the article. Whilst this is actually true, a more important point is that we're not following the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, nor handling verifiability challenges to content correctly, here.

  Wuhwuzdat, someone has challenged a biography of a living person for containing erroneous content (to whit: the wrong name of the person). We don't just revert that as vandalism and blithely continue. If material is challenged for being wrong, we don't just reinstate it whilst ignoring the requirement for verifiability. If someone challenges material as unverifiable, and removes it, there is an onus to show that that the material is verifiable (or to provide alternative, verifiable, material, correcting the article).

  Indeed, one of the things that we sometimes do is replace bad content entirely with a sourced stub, to show the right way to start articles, and to give a proper foundation for expanding them in the same manner. Uncle G (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• 123undertaker123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User was recently blocked for changing birth date on a lot of BLP articles. He's just come off a block and has continued to do it. I think a block indef is needed here. D.M.N. (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please block me permanently and protect my talkpage. I no longer see any merit in the project. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but we don't block to enforce wiki-breaks, permanent or otherwise. You may want to look at

right to vanish--Tznkai (talk

) 05:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to try WikiBreak Enforcer and set it to let you log-in in 2050 or similar. §hep^Talk 05:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly rabbit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This looks like a case of storming off in a huff because of not getting one's way. (If that's too soon, try a minute and a huff.) I went through something like that a couple of years ago. Getting priorities in order is important. You're not always going to win, even when you're right. There are a brazillion articles here, so there are plenty of areas where contributions are possible. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You could always scramble your password. — 

neuro^(talk)

02:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Two accounts, 77.42.179.51 (talk · contribs) (stable ip) and brand new account Qiswi (talk · contribs), have been edit-warring over days to insert a conspiracy theory into the article, without good sources and against consensus. I bring this here because experience says that reports to SSP don't get action and a report to AIV is likely to be declined because there aren't three reverts by the same account in the same 24 hours. I will notify these two accounts of this thread. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a related 3RR report here with relevant diffs. Phil153 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both for quacking loudly. Toddst1 (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

New sock shows up and is indefed; block expires on Qiswi (talk · contribs) and edit warring resumes immediately. Looie496 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These users, suspected sockpuppets of User:台灣共和國萬歲！, have been making various changes to articles about Vietnamese people, adding irrelevant Chinese characters (see Joseph Cao). This user had been doing the same thing in vi.wiki and creating sock accounts every other hour. Please block these accounts or semi-protect the article Joseph Cao until they go away. DHN (talk) 11:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Joseph Cao sprotected for one week, autoconfirmed edit warring editors can be reported to WP:AN3 and further protection can be requested at WP:RFPP. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This person had created at least 4 sockpuppet accounts today (User:林元曌, User:PBC0623, User:Peopledom of Vietnam, and User:丁玉環), all with the single purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox. These sockpuppet accounts need to be blocked. DHN (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I note that the named editors have been tagged as suspected sockpuppets. I presume that there is an ongoing WP:SSP case? All further socks should be reported there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

These are all socks (including the sockmaster) of Nipponese Dog Calvero. I've done some digging and blocked some sleepers. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I’ve been accused of gaming [126] [127] [128] on

.

On the report I filed it should be noted that I did not ask for any sanctions to be imposed. When I drew Black Kite attention to this they were decent enough to strike their comments and accepted that I was being reasonable. However, despite this acknowledgement of my being reasonable, Deacon of Pndapetzim decided to engage in a personal attack and suggested I be blocked. Both Black Kite and Deacon of Pndapetzim accept I did not breech the 1RR restriction but both still advocated blocks none the less, possibly based on the accusation of me gaming an editor.

So on the gaming accusation, it has already been noted that I was in fact being reasonable, and never requested sanctions. In addition, in response to the accusation by Deacon of Pndapetzim I pointed out that I had in fact informed the editor before they ever reverted and having been informed, they reverted anyway. In addition to this, we have my report and what I’d like to happen which was “ Colin4C self revert, that Admin’s tell Colin4C that the article does fall under the AE sanctions and they breeched them, and that if they want to add a Chronology they get consensus on the article talk page.”

As a result of my report Deacon of Pndapetzim did inform the editor they breeched the sanctions and Black Kite unfortunately reverted the edit on the article and correctly reconsidered their revert and included again this accusation of gaming in the edit summary.

What I’d like from ANI is to have the accusations struck out or substantiated which I consider reasonable. In this I am supported by a respected Admin who it must be said has on occasion been a right thorn in my side. Deacon of Pndapetzim has raised an indef probation and indef block as mitigating against me, despite both being overturned not to mention “([dare I say]

16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• When there's a 1RR/24h notice on an article and you revert twice in 25h, you leave yourself open to such accusations, and really you should know this by now. In the same way that
  WP:3RR isn't a bright line and editors do not always have to make four reverts to be blocked, nor is 1RR/24h - the intention behind it is to prevent revert warring on Troubles articles, and regular editors of those articles should be well aware that they risk blocking if they do so, even if they haven't technically breached the temporal limits. Black Kite
  17:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• When I let someone off for a 3RR vio, which is fairly common, I will revert the violating revert for the sake of fairness. Black Kite doing so was fine and good practice even for 1RRs. On Black Kite's self-reversion, I have no opinion, but Black Kite was right in the summary, as Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage, and this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern. Posting more outrage in another forum doesn't ameliorate that. What would ameliorate that is if Domer would use his extra experience on wikipedia to encourage good-faith collaboration, even with those whose ideologies are at odds with his. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

There are only two options with accusations, 1) withdraw/strike or 2) substantiate. You have done neither. Not asking for sanctions against an editor who has breeched 1RR despite being given notice is to encourage good-faith collaboration. Making accusations against an editor, who gave notification of sanctions before any were breeched, and regardless of them being breeched request no action be taken to be then accused of gaming is not supportable. “Domer was clearly gaming the system for his own advantage.” Where is the advantage? Where is the

assumption of good faith? “this is in line with his normal editing "Revert, warn, forum-shop" pattern.” You have your chronology wrong here Deacon, it runs like this, notify, revert and report if there is a breech. That’s just like every other editor here is it not. I made a straight forward report and you managed to turn it into a drama. Neither of you can support your accusations, so I’ll ask you to strike them. Neither of you used diff’s either to support your comments either, which is also common could you not do so now? --Domer48_'fenian'

17:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to "substantiate" something which is clearly my opinion on the issue, as stated in the AE thread and also in my reply above. If you think I am wrong, that is your prerogative. I certainly won't be striking anything though, that would be hypocritical. As I said, there was nothing wrong with your report, but reporting a user for two reverts when you have effectively done the same yourself is inviting examination of your actions. Black Kite 19:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

When you say "I think you're being reasonable, I just don't believe there's much to do here. If an edit-war develops or a single user is breaching 1RR repeatedly then I'd be more inclined to take action" striking your comments and then accuse me of gaming is hypocritical! So I'm correct, unsubstantiated accusations, the only problem is it is also your prerogative to block editors based on just your opinion and that is what you and Decon were suggesting. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're missing the point. Personally, I believe that this is akin to gaming the system (and clearly Deacon does as well). Others may disagree. However, I usually try to sort out these issues without blocking anyone, and you'll therefore note that I haven't blocked anyone, though I wouldn't have disagreed if someone else had done so. And yes, sometimes admins need to make value judgements on blocking. Regardless, I don't see any admin action required here, so I'd suggest this thread be marked resolved.Black Kite 20:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the bird's observations and comments in the first three diffs above.. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong other than they were wrong about me requesting sanctions and had to strike it and wrong that the article should not fall under the Troubles purview and evidenced by the notice placed on the editors talk page. In my opinion they were also wrong about me gaming the system evidenced by the fact I pacifically asked for no sanctions, and informed the editor of 1RR sanctions before they breeched them twice. --Domer48_'fenian' 21:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

) 02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zonly made some useful contributions to

²

03:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He's had several warnings (including a final warning) and many requests to discuss his page moves. It's his absolute refusal to discuss moves before he makes them or to discuss concerns expressed by other editors (and not just me) that is problematic. Not understanding that's he's making mistakes is one thing; refusal to discuss or pay attention to messages is more serious. If he does not understand English well enough to comprehend the warnings and messages he receives, then he needs to be adopted by someone who can help him. But he has to want to cooperate for that to happen, and I see no evidence that he intends to listen to anyone. Maybe some of his edits are good, but his inappropriate edits need to be addressed, and he needs to respond. If you have interacted with him, maybe it would help if you sent him a message about this discussion and try to get him to respond. I have no interest in "punishing" him if he will stop his pattern of moving pages inappropriately and without discussion, but if he stays on the same path he may need to be blocked to get his attention. Ward3001 (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have made only one, relatively harmless page move ( [139] moving

G.G. Allin

) after the warnings. And only one other disruptive act (a page blanking) since then, which on first impression was probably just an editorial mistake.

Please read

WP:BITE

policy - we are supposed to make a good effort to talk to and educate new users. That includes new users who are blundering around a bit and need to slow down and get into the groove to avoid disruption by accident. He's only had the account for three months, and there doesn't seem to have been all that much constructive feedback left on his talk page so far other than that set of warnings, which clearly slowed him down somewhat.

ANI is for hard cases where someone is either seriously disruptive in the short term, or corrosively so in the long term. This is not evidently someone out to break the encyclopedia - yeah, he's done some damage, but he needs and deserves more friendly mentoring before we start to consider him a menace or anything.

I left him another notice explaining what issues he's gotten into. If more people try to talk to him constructively it would also help. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Correction: He made two inappropriate page moves after I gave him a final warning. Look at my message above.) He got a standard welcome and several polite requests. If that's biting the newcomer, then let me clear the air a bit. With all due respect Georgewilliamherbert, no wonder Wikipedia is the laughing stock of the world. When I had been registered only a couple of weeks a few years ago, I got a block for a 3RR violation, and with almost no prior warnings. But I didn't complain about biting the newcomer. It was a justified block, and it had its desired effect of teaching me a lesson and making me a better editor. But over the years I have become an embittered editor because of incidents like this. I won't belabor this point because this is not the appropriate venue. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, is there maybe anyone who's capable to talk to him in Spanish/Portuguese? I've got problems enough with English, not to talk about German or French and do not want to try out some sort of online

²

09:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to find a user from Portuguese Wikipedia, that might be possible. But I honestly doubt that would help. I think he realizes he is receiving warnings. If I got a standard warning in any other western language, I probably would recognize it as a message that there is a problem even if I didn't understand many of the words, simply because of the standard images contained in them and the bold font. I suspect he simply doesn't wish to go to the trouble of figuring out the problem so he can continue doing things his way. But I think explaining things in Portuguese is a good idea as a last resort if that could be arranged. Ward3001 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there nobody here who can speak both languages? Where's all the illegal aliens? ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-

²

17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors who participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal probably know the language, if anyone is interested in trying to contact someone. I, myself, will not do so because I don't think it will change anything, but I would like to be wrong about this. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I have not much hope left: see [140]... --Avant-garde a clue-

²

18:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, and I agree it does not look good. I don't think he wishes to change his editing pattern. If he continues the page moves and an admin will do so, it may take a block just to get his attention. But I would like to hear from another admin or two. If he is blocked, I hope it can be explained in both English and Portuguese, just to be sure all the bases are covered. Ward3001 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a high chance he'll be pretty fluent in Spanish as well. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've contacted WPs Brazil and Portugal, that should be enough. Meanwhile I've lost all hope anyway...--Avant-garde a clue-

²

19:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw the notice in WikiProject Brazil talk page and I'm interested in helping. I'm not perfectly fluent in English, but I've got enough skills to communicate, I suppose. Just tell me exactly what you guys need me do do. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think the most important thing is to convey to Zonly is the seriousness of the above discussion and ask him to respond here. He needs to explain whether he understands the many warnings he has been given, understands why some of his page moves are inappropriate, and whether he intends to stop making page moves without discussing on the article's talk page first. If you could also explain that if he does not respond here and continues his same pattern of editing (especially page moves) that he almost certainly will be blocked. Then we can see whether he responds and figure out what to do. It might be easier for him to respond in his native language, and, if so, we might need your help. Many thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll contact him. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GeorgeWilliamHerbert has a point. We should do everything possible to ensure a valuable contributor such as Zonly remains. Think of all the wonderful work he could do, adding malformed pidgin-English to

) 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• ²
  22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• I've left a Portuguese language note at his talk page, giving a brief panorama of the situation and asking what Ward3001 suggested me to ask. Victor Lopes (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that.--Avant-garde a clue-
    ²
    22:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• George William Herbert does have a point, indeed. "Pull up the ladder, Jack. I'm on board!" is not an attitude that we foster, and new people who contribute badly in good faith can, and often do, improve once they learn from those people who have been here longer. Drawing a parallel between simply not knowing the ropes well and having a crippling disease is both absurd and highly muddy thinking. Uncle G (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, I must ask: are you really as intellectually impotent as the last half of your statement makes you out to be, or are you just trying for some sort of vague, unwritten, "So There" points? In terms of contributing content to an encyclopedia (an encyclopedia, for those of us unaware, being a collection of knowledge in written form), written in the English language, I would daresay that an inability to communicate in English is, in fact, a crippling attribute - just the same as blindness would cause one to be rather ill-suited for the act of driving a truck, or Parkinson's rendering one at a disadvantage when seeking a job as an engraver. I'd even flat-out call it a "crippling disease", inasmuch as it pertains to creating an English-language encyclopedia, but unfortuantely I'm not so sure we're yet emotionally or intellectually equipped to handle such levels of intense metaphoric imagery. Cheers - Badger Drink (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Preceding "are you stupid?" with "With all due respect" doesn't transform the insult into a civil statement. Neither is "your thinking is absurd and highly muddy" anything more than a dressed-up "you're being stupid". I suggest you both follow
      WP:CIVIL or disengage. -kotra (talk
      ) 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It was perfectly civil. I have no idea whether Badger Drink is stupid, and if I'd intended to say that, I'd have written it. Of course I wrote no such thing. What I actually wrote, quite clearly, was that that parallel was muddy thinking — i.e. that it was a very badly thought-out argument. It's the argument that's being addressed here, not the editor, and the point stands that the argument is poor in the extreme, and ill-conceived. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, we don't know how good his English really is. But if he's ignoring a warning in his own language we certainly know that he's unwilling to play by the rules - which would be very similiar to your behaviour here...--Avant-garde a clue-
      ²
      04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • And actually, he's still doing useful edit, see [141].--Avant-garde a clue-
      ²
      14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Interesting. He knows that Wikipedia punctuation rules are different than many other writing styles, but he doesn't know (or appears not to know) punctuation rules in moving articles. Oh well ... if he'll stop moving pages he'll probably be fine. Only time will tell. Ward3001 (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, the rules for whether a full-stop goes inside or outside of quotation marks are things that one could learn without coming anywhere near Wikipedia. Indeed, the preference for "logical" punctuation is not exactly uncommon on the World Wide Web. Uncle G (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Ignoring the ad hominems and addressing the remaining substance: There are plenty of people here whose communication skills in English are less than a native speaker, it being their second (or third, or Nth) language. See
      we don't bite the newcomers. Uncle G (talk
      ) 16:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I made the comments about punctuation. I did not make the inappropriate comments about a crippling disease. And you're right, we don't know his English skills. But please remember that he has received messages in both English and Portuguese, and he has yet to respond to either. And that's fine as long as he'll stop his problematic page moves, as I stated above. I agree with you and Georgewilliamherbert that we should not bite the newcomer, and I don't think we have in this case. In fact, I think we've gone out of our way to accommodate this newcomer. I can't say that the long-time regulars haven't been bitten in the process, however. And that's why, even though Wikipedia might acquire some good editors out of its crop of newcomers, it loses that many experienced and skilled editors. Ward3001 (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

And just to clarify from my side: I didn't guess anything. I pointed out that he's from Brazil (see his userpage at pt.wp, linked above). I also pointed out that we only have real evidence for him being a vandal if he ignores a warning in his own language. No need to attack me, and no need to attack Zonly at his talkpage (see [142]).--Avant-garde a clue-

²

19:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, I agree you were inappropriately attacked. Some people only see things in black and white. If we don't ignore Zonly's bad edits, we're attacking a newcomer. If one of us makes an inappropriate comment, we're all guilty. If we wonder about his level of English skills because he's from Brazil, we are "guessing" too much. Yet another reason we lose a good, experienced editor every time we gain a newcomer with good potential. Ward3001 (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G, I would appreciate it if you took this question in the spirit in which it is presented - said spirit being nothing more, nothing less than friendly, open exchange of ideas. Do you find yourself debating at the television every time the newsanchors refer to the recent "financial meltdown? If not, why is it that my statement (that bending over backwards to keep people with very limited proficency in English writing an English encyclopedia makes about as much sense as people with uncontrollable muscle spasms working as engravers for the U.S. Mint) causes you such grave offense? If you do, does the television debate back? Badger Drink (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Badger Drink, I would appreciate it if you didn't compare foreign people to disabled people.--Avant-garde a clue-

²

21:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Badger Drink, your comparison between the US Mint and Wikipedia would certainly make sense, if Wikipedia was a for-profit organization with schedules to follow and employees to pay. However, we have virtually all the time in the world to improve any good faith edit that is not in accordance with the policies. We are not paying people to contribute here, so every helpful edit is welcome. Of course there's a need to instruct the newcomers, I mean, they need to be aware that Wikipedia is not a translator or something, but there are indeed nice articles that came out of half-translated, Google-translated or even untranslated material. I can't really give you an example now, but do try to consider what I just said. Victor Lopes (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User is engaged in edit-warring, not appropriate for

00:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Editor seems to have desisted (although it is a bit hard to determine their intent) so I suggest a watching brief should suffice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dredging this up from dormancy. Gonna file an SPI on him, as

Yngvarr (t) (c)

23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A sock-puppeteer has been repeatedly trying to push a conspiracy theory on this page. Several ip addresses and accounts have already been blocked [143][144][145][146][147] and the page is semi-protected but the editor is back with an account that was created over a week ago but only used today [148]. I would request blocking of this new account, and, as the editor seems to have prepared in advance for coping with blocking and semi-protection by creating sock-puppet accounts, maybe a period of full protection would be in order for this article.

) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If it is protection you are after, you might want to look at starting a section at

neuro^(talk)

01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user continues editing

Blocked user (probably) Boost3000 is continuing to edit as an IP 170.140.183.4 in this edit

He has done this previously as IP 170.140.110.179, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/User:Boost3000/Archive

Marek.69 ^talk 22:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just confirming Boost is blocked, since Marek seemed unsure. — 

neuro^(talk)

01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Persistent trolling

Could someone please levy a serious block - preferably a hard-block - against 67.55.70.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's apparently the same as Michaelccc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).[149] It appears to be a static IP and is now following up blatant vandalism with a trolling campaign.[150][151][152] A lot of time is being wasted. Thank you.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That IP has a long history of bad edits and past blocks, including the recent blatant vandalism/trolling, and appears to be statically-allocated. I've given it an extended block. -- The Anome (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello....there seems to be a bit of a backlog in

• March 2, 2009 @ 01:05

I'll go and take a look, see what can be dealt with through tagging. — 

neuro^(talk)

01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Turns out not much. — 

neuro^(talk)

01:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Looked like a backlog to me...sorry about that. Carry on :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 2, 2009 @ 01:28

Two pages Marquis Cooper and Corey Smith, may need temporary protecting due to a recent incident involving the two players. Anon editors keep placing date of death or changing career to past tense, without referances to any death. A temp protect may help please.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

neuro^(talk)

02:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

threats/jokes about committing physical violence against editors

) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a formal warning to this Koalorka. Lets see if he heeds it, or perists in such personal attacks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the controversial comment from the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. Durova^Charge! 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you had blocked this user for a good week, it would have been a decent block. This guy's behavior is very very far from being acceptable. You were very lenient Jayron, and I think in light of that leniency a long block should be awaiting Koalorka if he continues. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I would have no problem with that if he continue. I think that in most cases, with established users, I am uneasy with blocking someone unless they have been told "you will be blocked if you continue". I think that

the blocking policy makes clear that we should at least try other avenues before blocking someone, and the "stop or you will be blocked" message should at least be tried once. If he continues, by all means, block away! In fact, if he continues, and I am the first to notice, I myself would issue the block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

19:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Threats of violence are obviously unacceptable. Even granting that such a comment is sometimes intended metaphorically or quasi-humorously, insisting on it or restoring it after the other editor has complained is certainly beyond the pale.

On the other hand, on IRC, I have been stabbed many times, including by several well-respected administrators. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between banter between two people who have a good working relationship, and aggression that tries to hide behind a claim of humor. The edit summary when Koalorka restored the 'joke' was not a friendly statement. Durova^Charge! 19:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka needs to read

WP:DICK. Exxolon (talk

) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the statements of Newyorkbrad and Durova. Because I had the same sentiments as you two, I informed him that further incivility would result in a block. I agree 50% with Exxolon. Remember that the key of WP:DICK is that you cannot refer other editors who are being WP:DICK, lest ye be thought a WP:DICK yourself. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've worked with him and I'm afraid Kaolorka is a bit of an ass, but at least he has the interests of encyclopedia at heart.--Patton^t/c 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• People need trepanation like they need a hole in the head.

... ... ... Oh, wait. 00:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A review of the relevant talk page material quickly shows two things: (1) there's no threat here, and (2) Serialcomma is behaving disruptively and obnoxiously, and ought not to be rewarded for it. Looie496 (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey! When we want your opinion we'll beat it out of you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the editor has been blocked for 48 hours by Jayron for further comments. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's too bad an experienced editor chose to push the envelope on his first edit after the warning. Regardless of anyone else's behavior, steering an article talk discussion away from content and toward personality conflicts with a snark is not the way to go. I had noticed that edit last night, wondered whether to mention it here, and decided not to. But can't disagree with the block. Here's hoping a couple of days' break cools things down. The editor has an odd reaction to the block announcement, though.[154] Durova^Charge! 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I may have chosen 1 week, but still good. Threats of violence, even joking ones, especially when re added after removal, do not need warning and probably should not have warnings. People already know this is unacceptable they don't need to be told "Saying your going to hurt someone isn't allowed".

Chillum

17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Saying that is like telling a judge how long to sentence someone. You're preaching to the converted here...--Patton^t/c 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Block length vary considerably depending on circumstances and the admin. I may have chosen a different length, but the length chosen was well within reason. I would have done differently, but I do not disagree.

Chillum

20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree completely, and wouldn't have objected if a longer and/or earlier block had been implemented. Perhaps there's an advantage, though, to the course this has taken: Koalorka is probably reading this thread and seeing unanimous agreement--and that if anything he's been given lenient treatment. That doesn't leave a blocked editor any leeway for complaint and may motivate him to improve his conduct. If problematic behavior resumes there will probably also be swift agreement for a longer block. Durova^Charge! 21:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have a serious procedural concern here. Theserialcomma and I have a 'history' where he reports me, doesn't get me banned, reports me for the same thing, doesn't get me banned, then badgers and baits till he gets somebody to listen to him. He's been badgering and baiting Koalorka for a while now. He also jumped to the admin's talk page rather than posting it here because he didn't get his way here. Isn't there a sanction for

asking mommy after daddy said no? Are we going to continue to reward Theserialcomma for disruptive behavior and skirting on the edge of stalking, baiting, badgering, forum shopping, etc to muscle his opinion through? This is really sick. It was mentioned earlier that you are rewarding Theserialcomma for his disruptive behavior because he's driven others to the point that he can forum shop and get a supportive admin to take action against him? Really not cool. --Nukes4Tots (talk

) 02:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's a case to be made regarding Serialcomma, please start it separately and back it up with diffs, etc. Durova^Charge! 03:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Durova, if you have a case, make it. Otherwise, throwing out unsourced accusations won't make your point with anyone. As for Koalorka, the current discussion on his talk page [155], the leniency in his block hasn't sunk in to him yet. Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though it may be little more than some face-saving bravado, that conversation is a bad sign. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma's editing on some of the military and firearms pages has been less than optimal from a consensus point of view at times in the past. Mildly disruptive at times without approaching the blockable level at all. However, he's been amenable to discussion, and I've kept monitoring both sides on and off. There's a lack of collegial behavior on both sides of the debate but it had stayed civil enough and consenusly cooperative. I haven't caught up on the last few days worth of changes and the particulars of the incident that led to this ANI report, but through last week didn't see anything suggesting or requiring action.

However, perhaps fresh eyes will see a problem where I didn't - I was ok with where it settled down, but perhaps I was too close to see the longer term pattern evolve. Someone else taking a look may suggest a better balance point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

) 21:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the last report to

WP:ANI there seem to be two (arguably one) further incidents here and here

. I see two possible options:

1. Report the user at
   WP:WQA
   .
2. Ignore them, and try to remember to spell it "does" in future ;-)

I'd probably go for option 2: it's pretty sad being obsessed with another editor's spelling. Pity them, ignore them, move on.

Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

21:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, after the last report here I watchlisted your talk page. If they revert your deletions in future I'll revert and warn. Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

21:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ill go with the second one for now but if it get to extreme i will have to take the other route.

talk

) 22:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just let it be. If getting yelled at for bad spelling is the worst thing that happens to you all day, it really wasn't that bad a day, was it? PhGustaf (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Its not getting yelled at i care about this person has been harassing me since i disagreed with him/her on something and now they just keep it up i don't plan on doing anything endless it gets a lot worse.

talk

) 23:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The anon IP has been tolded that it ain't so much beter with teh wurdz than the rest of us ;-) Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

23:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence giving the IP a does of its own medicine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pieter Kuiper (talk · contribs) has been a lingering problem on both Swedish and English Wikipedia. On Swedish WP he has been blocked both for insulting administrators and for edit warring[159]. Over here, he has been warned twice about WP:STALK, see [160] and [161]. He has been warned about disruptive behavior[162] and editors have expressed concerns over his incivility [163] and I have myself cautioned him about this[164]. I know of at least one great editor that he has pushed away from WP. Now he is again incivil and lashes out with spurious allegations about some kind of "Nordic gang" on WP[165]. Considering all his warnings, I think the best thing to do would be to give him a punitive block, but I hesitate to do so since I have been involved in the discussion. Are there any opinions about what should be done?--Berig (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a "Punitive block" is unlikely to meet much enthusiasm here. Beyond the Nordic gang diff, you'll need to produce more diffs illustrating offences ... rather than warnings issued by yourself and a few others, two of which are from 2007 and all of which could be part of content disputes. This is needed if you want to increase the likelihood of intervention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

On Commons, I have found that Pieter Kuiper exudes a great deal of hostility without actually breaking the letter of policy, so at the moment I do not see much that admins can do. Some cases are better handled by editors collectively deciding to ignore someone who is consistently hostile.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this the dung heap were people are at liberty to dig up dirt about people from their contributions on other wikipedias? I was not even notified, and see this only by chance. Probably the only interaction that I had with "Goodmorningworld" is commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Witt and Hitler.jpg; he wanted to have an image deleted, I think it can be kept. So we disagreed, but I do not think that I was very hostile there. My relation with Berig, however, can be considered as consistently hostile, see Talk:Ongentheow#Linking to Swedish WP for an example. There she is repeatedly removing an interwiki link that he/she does not like. And to clarify for non-Swedish speakers: Berig's link to my block log on Swedish wikipedia does not show four blocks. It shows two blocks that were rescinded by the blocking admin himself and by another administrator. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha this guy is funny --

talk

) 19:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC).

- reverted

07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here are some highlights:

[166],[167]- (-Replaced content with 'nigga you gay?')[168] [169] [170] [171][172], and [173]

I don't see this person as a productive editor, rather simply disruptive- and suggest a block might be in order.

) 04:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, edits include changing the definition of Anti-semitism to say that Anti-semitism "is a term used to describe aversion to the idea of Jews being shown special or privileged treatment." This is not a sign of a productive editor. He even has his apologetics mixed up between racial groups. However, the IP address does have at least minor productive edit.. Still, the edits about Stormfront and Anti-semitism really don't make this look like someone we are going to want to keep around. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably should be given escalating warnings and given a chance to reform, even though that does not look likely; reverts and block are cheap, potentially productive contributors are not. They at least appear to recognise that talkpages are not a forum for discussion. On a technical note, is it likely that the juvenile video game vandalism and the content dispute edits are the same individual? Skomorokh 04:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• not entirely clear that the ame person has used the ip for all edits but this was distasteful enough for me to just revert the comment. No point blocking buut definitely worth ignoring
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  07:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz, I'm not at all sure that this is the same person, the subject areas and more tellingly the edit styles are quite wildly different. Is this a static IP or one that could be used by numerous unconnected people? I don't know who to check (something to do with whois, the rest is a bit grey!) --GedUK  09:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

- speedy deleted because there was a clear consensus and the article author was attempting to out the nominator. We don't allow that.

14:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

At

WP:SPI

until yet two new accounts appeared to start editing the article. But if anyone else believes I have a COI, I will withdraw the AFD nomination and let someone else make it.

Frankly, I believe that this is the same campaign of

) 12:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not comment on the rest of the dispute, but I deleted at the AfD (and at two other locations) an attempt to

Fram (talk

) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner

) 04:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The allegations here seem to be going off in several different directions, so I'm not sure what, if any of this, is worth responding to. I'll just respond to the last point about "all edits on the encyclopedia." I am the primary author of

Vietcong, although I haven't submitted these for recognition. Kauffner (talk

) 05:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your other contribs are not what is being disputed here. So let's go one by one (I agree, it can be a bit tough reading a whole paragraph with a bunch of diffs in). Wikidemon has said that you:

1. Are edit-warring over inserting the section Although Obama had been in the U.S. Senate for less than two years when the book was published, he portrays himself as veteran, using such phrases as "the longer I served in Washington" and "the more time I spent on the Senate floor." into a variety of Obama-related articles.[182][183][184][185]. Wikidemon further notes that you have been warned; the diffs are: [186], the warning noted again by Wikidemon here, warned again by Wikidemon here.
2. You have been warned by an admin for edit-warring[187], followed by blanking the warning from your talkpage (which is allowed) with an edit summary of "Troll elsewhere" (which isn't, really)[188].
3. You were told here that quote sections are not allowed per
   WP:QUOTE, and have continued to editwar to keep them in[189][190][191]
   .

In short, that you have been editing in a non-collegial manner, and

point of view

, while ignoring all warnings you have been given and indulging in some incivility to an admin who warned you.

Under the

tendentious

editing is at an end.

In order to avoid being placed under sanctions, the article probation page suggests:

• Do not
  edit-war
  ;
• Interact
  civilly
  with other editors;
• Avoid making repeated comments unrelated to bettering the article;
• Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
• Avoid repeatedly discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
• Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian;
• We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
• Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.

Further, when someone is brought to AN/I, it behooves them to carefully read what has been said about their editing, and address it accordingly, not simply dismiss it and defend themselves with completely unrelated contributions. You may wish to read through the list above and address each thing individually. I would urge you to do so. //roux   07:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's see if I can present this issue in way that allows people to make some sense out of it. Back sometime around Feb. 6, I read the Barack Obama article and noticed that it did not make any mention of Obama's "present" voting as an Illinois state senator. I thought this omission hard to justify in view of the fact that it was a rather prominent issue during the election campaign. I sought to remedy this situation by adding material from various sources and in various formats, but was each time reverted. The only explanation given was that this was "trivia." I gather that a group of editors were so incensed by my activity that they followed me to other articles where they would revert me and engage in personal attacks. This seems to be how the frivolous complaints about quotes and Obama's status as a "veteran politician" arose. Kauffner (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

After you were reverted, did you go to the talk page to discuss your proposal further? Did you attempt to discuss any of your changes? From my calculations, you only edited Talk:Barack Obama once in the last 3 months. Was there consensus for your edits? Was there any attempt to raise consensus for your edits? Were you aware of the article probation on this topic? To me, it seems like there is absolutely no excuse for edit warring under these circumstances. It was blatantly obvious that multiple editors had concerns regarding your edits, and instead of trying to discuss your differences, you waited a couple days and then tried to force your edits again and again.... do you not understand how edit warring is harmful (and forbidden)? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's such behavior is nothing new to me. His cut-and-paste renaming (he claims "merging") of highly controversial article without informing to involved communities is disruptive as well. --Caspian blue 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – indef block Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not yet. See below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

.

Casts spurious AfD opinions here and here. Always wipes talk page clean, so that other editors don't see past history of misbehavior.

Was previously running a sockpuppet per Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Adamc714, my guess is Adamc714 is itself a sock of some more experienced user, whose purpose here is just to annoy. Whatever the game this, this editor does more harm than good. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Very strange. Seems to be mixing minor corrections, subtle errors, nonsensical !votes and outright vandalism. I don't see why editors should waste their time keeping an eye on him 24/7 to revert silly edits of the sort. Does anyone think we shouldn't indef? yandman 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate disruption. (compromised account?) Already blocked once. Indef this time. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Adamc714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Note his common interest in certain IP addresses apparently emanating from Truman State University. Perhaps he has given us a clue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This audit trail in particular [192] looks kind of fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

notice boards.

QuackGuru's comments on the Talk page are difficult to interpret as anything other than complaints, and his edits are wholesale changes to the page without discussion and without consensus: [193][194][195][196]. Other editors have repeatedly warned this editor that such edits are tantamount to vandalism.

The whole effort could be interpreted as an attempt to push a particular POV about the differences between Wikipedia and Citizendium: text which quotes Sanger's opinions is repeatedly replaced with "facts" about the differences between the two projects.

Rvcx (talk) 03:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has clearly made four reverts[197][198][199][200] and has violated 3RR.[201] QuackGuru (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered the repeated wholesale rewriting to be blatant vandalism. There's not a single issue raised by QuackGuru on the talk page which has achieved consensus. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've left several comments about this behavior on User_talk:QuackGuru (including warning templates) but they were immediately deleted. Tried raising the problem in initiating discussion as a wikiquette issue but was referred (back) to RfC. Rvcx (talk) 03:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not vandalize the Larry Sanger bio as suggested by Rccx. For example, improving the lead to comply with Wikipedia's

WP:LEAD is good editing. The lead has been drastically shortened by Rvcx. The lead is supposed to summarize the article. I articulated this at the talk page. QuackGuru (talk

) 03:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The productive changes to the lead were restored after reverting the complete rewrite of the article. Rvcx (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The counter-productive changes to the lead were made by Rvcx in a revert. The article suffers from several problems as explained at the discussion page including a drastically shortened lead. QuackGuru (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has repeatedly accused me of vandalism[202]. These allegations by Rvcx are false. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The "other editors" cited in the three diffs by Rvcx are

04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Rvcx has bought himself a short-term "Plaxico". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

editor whose only activity is adding links to arxiv.org categories

This spammer needs to be blocked and reverted. Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Those links actually seem kind of useful. --Dynaflow babble 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I left the "spammer" :) a message about linking to pages with specific content instead of linking to categories listing lots of papers, and a linky to

WP:AGF) --Enric Naval (talk

) 19:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

None of the three that I checked were appropriate. It looks to me like the work of a bot rather than links a person actually looked at. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I blocked him indef--this looks like some kind of weird spambot. Anyone else agree?

96

20:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like a bot to me; not nearly enough edits to suggest a bot and bots don't usually make secondary edits. HalfShadow 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I see a physics student with access to some sort of database he or she wants to share, but who who obviously doesn't "get" EL policy (nor got a chance to -- first warning after last edit, then blocked). For all intents and purposes, it looks like something I'd generate in PsycINFO through CSA Illumina. --Dynaflow babble 20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I might have been inclined for a shorter block, but in almost two years, his only edits have been to add the same link. That's why I suspected a spam-only account.

96

21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not to say it isn't a spam-only account, just that there's definitely someone doing it as opposed to a pure bot account. HalfShadow 21:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)No one's made any attempt to communicate with him or her until now, either. Hell, I would presume my contributions had been accepted by a grateful community if they'd been allowed to stand in peace for that long. Plus, I really don't think this is blatant self-promotion on the part of the Russian Academy of Sciences. --Dynaflow babble 21:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look Wireader is doing the exact same edits as this editor. compare [204] with [205], oh, and also Baxxterr [206] and 82.142.132.74 [207]. They are all updating links from the old version of the website to the new one. The IP was asked about one of the additions on its user talk page[208] and on the article's talk page[209], but he never answered, and two years later it updated the link from the old version to the new one with no comment[210].

Their only contribs are changing or adding links to xstructure.inr.ac.ru, which seems to be a search engine to arxiv.org, and not arxiv.org itself. It's hosted by the Institute for Nuclear Research from the Russian Academy of Sciences [211] so I suspect a misguided attempt at "improving" wikipedia with a link-adding bot with someone with too much time on their hands, as HalfShadow points out, bots don't make random typos and go back to correct them.

Linking to a category in arxiv.org is useless, specially, since a) it's not even arxiv.org b) the target page does not list any actual paper and is confusing. The spamming was already noted at the Physiscs wikiproject back in 2006. Time to indef-block the appartent socks and ask for a blacklist? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.D.: There are 149 external links to that website,[212] and I think that every single one of them was added by either these accounts, or by people complaining about the additions. The links also appear on other language wikis, but I can see no spam at all, it seems to be almost in its enterity caused by whole lists of links being copy/pasted when translating articles from the english wikipedia.

P.D.D.: Asked for someo advice in the Physics wikiproject here --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

P.D.D.D.: 82.142.132.74 is registered to a Russian company, and the website is hosted by a Russian research institute, circumstancial evidence points out that they are adding links to their own website. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While

) 22:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

We've no policy against it even if it is.

iridescent

22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a G4 even if it had been through AfD - the previous article was about the organization mentioned in the current article, and was deleted G11 as advertising. This is a clear PROD though (and I dare say a number of admins would kill it as an IAR speedy, because it's clearly not going to survive). Black Kite 22:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for guidance. I'd not noticed the subtlety that only AfD'd items couldn't be re-created. Will now watch this one with interest. PamD (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) Ludwigs2 has been blocked on five occasions for incivility, some of which after I requested administrative intervention. Apparently, as a revenge, he has begun harassing me on my user page here and here. He's been trying to change basic Wikipedia policy at

22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

if you follow the links I left on OM's talk page (links reproduced for convenience: [213], [214], [215]), you'll see that both these notices were regarding comments OM left on policy talk pages in which he did little more than criticize or insult me. there was no need for these comments on policy talk since they added nothing to the discussion (he could have left them on my talk page, if he'd desired), and I thought that the notices I left on his talk page were a polite and appropriate response. the charges of harassment are unfounded: this is what user talk pages are for, no? --Ludwigs2 23:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the userright. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

76.252.224.121 (talk · contribs) seems to have found his niche on Wikipedia in fixing spelling and has not heeded requests to cease. At which point does this warrant a block? --Swift (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it does. Show some diffs where it is wildly appropriate and the user has been given warnings.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/76.252.224.121. All of his edits; appears to be a static IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Only two warnings. Suggest escalation of warnings and report to the proper noticeboard if continues. Non-admin suggestion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are talking about

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)#English spelling comparison chart, both organisation and organization are valid. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage

12:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see

WP:ENGVAR. In an article which is not clearly associated with the U.K., if the spelling followed U.S. conventions from the earliest disambiguating edit in 2004, the spelling should not be changed to conform to U.K. practice. How many times do we have to go through this pointless wheelspinning rather than working to build an encyclopedia? "Color," "catalog" and other U.S. spellings should be the only ones used in the article except for usages where it is the name of a British organization. Edison (talk

) 03:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

List of television stations in India

At least one anonymous user has been reverting

) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked at the reverts and it's not clear who is reverting whom and why. If the article had sources, we could tell whether sourced useful information was being added/deleted. Absent sources, people tend to suspect that the person removing stuff (even if it's crap) is more at fault. I suggest that you source what you think should be kept in the article and when the anon's add unsourced crap, you can remove it as being unsourced and be more in the right. But essentially, this is a content dispute that the admins here cannot/will not resolve. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Except that nothing was removed, it was simply split and sorted by language in different pages. And even if this user didn't agree with this, and was answering me back, there wouldn't have been any problem from the beginning. And no offence, but you didn't solve anything. If this really was a content dispute, there would be a dispute, that is, some kind of communication on both sides, even an unproductive one. That's not the case.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
• Differing choices of organizing a list article is a quintiscential content dispute. I take no offense, as I know I haven't solved anything, but there is nothing here that requires an admin's attention: i.e., to protect, block, or warn someone etc. Again, sources will help decide which position, yours or the anon's is the better structure/content for the article - and that is for the community, not for an admin or a coven of us. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

On 27 December 2008, I and User:EqualRights warned this user that their game of putting non-NPOV categories on politically sensitive articles was not acceptable and needed to be stopped. The user was also warned by User:Andrew c for similar conduct on 14 March 2008. He was warned by User:Escape Orbit on 9 January 2009 for similar conduct.

Today he added Murder, and the non-existant Total Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life category to the Abortion article again ([219]).

Here are his prior "neutralizing" edits - [220], [221], [222], [223], [224].

I cannot speak to the "Roman" controversy he is rapidly revert warring about in here.

Should people be playing sillybuggers with the encyclopedia like this? Hipocrite (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Short answer - no. Some pretty horrible edits recently including [225] - however they do deserve to be notified about this thread which I will now do. Exxolon (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user in question when I made the thread -> [226]. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies - somehow completely failed to see that. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Almost a year since my first warning, and still doing the exact same thing? Jee wiz. Almost every edit has not been productive. I'd support an indefinite block.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, not "almost every edit" -- there are a few non-POV ones in there. But I agree: if he doesn't pay attention to the latest warnings, indef block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user is now actively encouraging other users to vandalize I'm not sure why we should bother waiting. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. He's obviously not interested in contributing in a way that doesn't involve pov-pushing; give him a nudge with the banhammer. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, you are a sad loser. --

talk

) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The indef-blocked sockmaster appears to be editing under an IP address, 71.120.14.192. He got a short block for personal attacks, but a longer block is probably called for.

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

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And given the diatribe here [227] the IP is of the same mindset as his suspected sockmaster, as well as essentially threatening to continue disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nother IP sock showed up:

WP:DENY the talk pages of the user accounts were deleted and redirected to the user page before protection. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, the two IPs come from different ISPs, but they both seem to originate in the Washington DC area, according to WHOIS data. See for 71.120.14.192 and for 4.249.78.161. The second's corporate headquarters indicate Colorado, but the specific IP seems assigned to a pool to Washington. That info may be helpful when nailing down other IPs from this user. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As did another (or maybe the same?) right-wing sockpuppeteer, KingsOfHearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), aka Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.. Maybe that connection would be worth looking into. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

continued from #Build the web above

Please can someone with time to look at the issue in some detail come and sort this out (

) 09:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once again Kotniski is telling his version of the events. What is ridiculous is that a couple of users can claim a "consensus" between them to dismantle a seven-year-old guideline, and keep maintaining this claim despite numerous parties disagreeing with them, clearly demonstrating that there is no consensus. If anything, his continual reversions of the article are what bear investigating. —

(❝?!❞)

09:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Once agin, Hex is simply lying, I don't know how else to describe it. It is not a "couple of users" and it is not "dismantling" a guideline, it was merged with others to make a much better one. Hex and the others are simply craeting noise to distract people's attention from the fact that consensus was reached, and recently confirmed, in detailed and reasoned discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. To quote an edit summary, "you can't just get rid of a seven year old guideline after 40 hours of discussion on an unrelated talk page with no community notification". You proposed the merge on January 9th, and did it on January 11th. That's not enough time to qualify as "detailed and reasoned discussion" on a guideline of this age. And now a number of editors have found out about your merger after the fact, and are unhappy. That is not "creating noise". The "couple of users" are you and Tony1, who can be seen in the edit history of BTW repeatedly demoting it despite having it pointed out to you numerous times that until a dispute over a guideline is resolved, it retains its status with the addition of a "disputed" tag. —

(❝?!❞)

09:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The merge was done after many weeks/months of discussion, and everyone was very happy about it until someone decided that it would suit his immediate purposes (no doubt from somewhere in the Kafka-esque workings of the ArbCom date linking case) to undo part of what had been universally agreed. And to say it's just me and Tony is simply untrue and you know it - you were part of the discussion where the decision to merge the pages was confirmed, and you know that there were far more than just two people, and you might also have the integrity to admit that our arguments were far stronger (instead of just leaving the discussion when you can't answer them, only to return later with nothing new to say). Really, I've never seen anything like this before from experienced editors and admins - when something's been decided, we accept it and move on. OK you can try to develop a new consensus based on rational argument, but it's totally disruptive to simply deny all knowledge about the consensus that has been reached. This is the same attitude, as far as I can tell, that has led to the date linking issue still not being settled. Whatever people decide, just refuse to accept the consensus. Make noise; admins won't look at the details, they'll just assume each side is being as bad as each other and you stand a good chance of getting what you want. This isn't how WP should be working. --Kotniski (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Here's a thought: you two stop sniping at each other and start providing diffs. //roux   16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• What diffs would you like? That there was unanimous support for the merger can be seen from the discussion at
  WP:BTW. That they are not even attempting to discuss or provide counter-arguments any more (except the traditional "no consensus" nonsense) can be seen by the absence of such. It's not a case of one or two diffs. If you want to sort it out, you'll need to spend a bit of time investigating and discussing.--Kotniski (talk
  ) 16:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please provide specific links to those discussions. A past revision of the page would be fine as opposed to just a diff--something that shows the discussion specifically. What you're saying is like saying "There was a discussion on ANI, go spend some time investigating." To put it more bluntly: support your position with specifics or walk away. Thanks. //roux   16:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• See link to the discussion from October in my comment below. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• There was "unanimous" support because many believed you (myself included) when you said a poll had already been conducted on the merger itself. What you failed to mention was that the
  WT:BTW (meaning people who watchlisted that page weren't even aware of the straw poll!). That's not consensus, that's a hijacking. —Locke Cole • t • c
  16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, I ask how many places are you going to have this discussion going at one time? You've brought it up at

16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one discussion is about the general principle, specifically not about this incident. One discussion is pretty well complete and (IMHO) demonstrates clear consensus. I had to come here because that consensus was ignored/disputed. The higher discussion on this page is closed and linked to this one. So this is really the only ongoing discussion at the moment (apart from attempts to reach agreement with various people). Will provide diffs when I get time. --Kotniski (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts. One is that many of the disputants here are the same folks involved in a current ArbCom case. (And yes, so am I, although I haven't heard of this dispute until now.) It does seem that this flame war is growing into a forest fire. Second, at the top of the Talk page of this policy are links to the user pages of a number of Wikipedians who stated that they endorse this policy: I'm one of them, & I haven't heard of this "consensus" until now, probably because no one involved bothered to drop a note to ask me to participate in the discussion. I wonder how many of the other Wikipedians in this list were asked to participate; had this been done it would support an assumption that a Good Faith effort had been made to find a consensus based in the larger community, & not just in one faction of an ongoing, er, feud. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The consensus brought together both factions of the feud; it's just that one faction has suddenly decided the status quo doesn't suit them. And the question is not whether anyone endorses this policy; it was merged, not demoted. The question is whether there should be two or three separate guidelines on the same topic, telling different sides of the story, or just one comprehensive one with all the information. If you want to argue for separation, please do at the appropriate place. But here is the evidence asked for:

1. That consensus for the merge properly formed after long, detailed discussion:
   WT:Linking
   (all threads down to - and don't be misled by this title, it was about a temporary problem that was soon settled - "Please reverse the merger")
2. That the merge proposal was advertised at BTW for months: this sample diff (note merge pointer at top of page), and the actual merge was announced there: WT:Build the web#Specific merge proposal, and attracted no opposition from anyone at that page (this redirecting edit remained stable for over a month)
3. That the recent discussion on the topic (advertised at
   Template:Cent and well known to all involved parties) confirmed, or certainly by no stretch of the imagination tended to overturn, the previous consensus: [228]
   (the thread "Resurrect this guideline?") - this was substantially how it was when the edits referred to below were made
4. That several editors, being aware of the above consensus (since they had participated in the discussion), continued to edit the page against that consensus by restoring the very {{guideline}} tag that the discussion had concluded was inappropriate: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234] (I admit my previous edit may have been wrong there, but still no justification is given for restoring the guideline tag as well as the disputed tag), [235], [236], [237], [238].

That's me done, I could go into more detail, but I'm not going to waste any more time or nerves on this. I'm on Wikipedia to discuss constructively and act positively, not to fight. I get angry when those with no interest in such cooperative action are allowed to get away with destroying others' constructive efforts. Decide which group you want to support. Support the fighters and the cooperators will become disillusioned and leave. (Which I think may already be happening.)--Kotniski (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

67.202.78.10 (talk · contribs)
Anna Quist (talk · contribs)

Background

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive456#Anna_Quist.C2.A0.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs_.E2.80.A2_logs.29_and_The_Anarchist_International
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist International (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive161#User:Anna_Quist
• Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anna Quist

The revolution is at hand, once again.[239][240] Ochlarchists beware! [241][242][243][244][245] I'm in two minds whether the editor ought to be blocked for disruptive editing, hoaxing, abusive sockpuppeting, legal threats and soapboxing or kept around for entertainment value. Skomorokh 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the AI/IAF/AFI has renewed interest in wikipedia. Surely they deserve our eternal gratitude for renewing interest in what is, surely, a minor and largely unknown website? Indeed, if it wasn't for the AL/PHA/BET/SOUP I would never have heard about Wikipedia.

Seriously, my view is treat them exactly the same we'd treat any other editor who socks, makes legal threats, posts hoaxes or is disruptive. Plenty of trolls are entertaining; tolerating them just makes them bolder and ultimately harder to deal with. Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at his/her short history and userpage incl. his/her "real-time conversation" with user:TheMatty today (which makes me believe they are the same or at least very close buddies. I have no intention to put more input in that but rather thought to point it out so admins and editors are aware of this and can take a closer look if necessary. That's all. Thanks.--

) 21:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts have very short histories, too short to tell perhaps. User:My President is Black user page, with "the negros take office" linking to Obama at the top (I removed it), is not too encouraging. Could be taken as slightly offensive. Not sure if I'm that happy either with the file he uploaded, File:Jew_emoticon.gif, as I can't see any great future for it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I am simply editing my userpage and you keep vandalizing it. I'll remove the header, but don't take everything as offensive next time, sheesh. My President is black 00:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your use of wikipedia to attack groups of people [246] [247] suggests we should not take your assurances at face value. I'm sorry that you cannot see there is a problem here, but be clear that you are now under the closest scrutiny. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This user is now proceeding to troll - would someone please do the honours? — 

neuro^(talk)

01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your baaaawwing is a terrible showing on Wikipedia. My President is black 01:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Clearly not here for any positive reason. Black Kite 01:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block. (Who's "baaaawwing" now?) Although the user page has been cleared, his talk page is fairly offensive, and someone might consider clearing it and protecting it, or at least clearing it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed that section, if that's what you mean. — 

neuro^(talk)

01:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That was the main offensive part, yes. The rest of his talk page is not overtly offensive, it's just pretty much of a train wreck, which shows how much someone can "accomplish" in just 10 days on wikipedia. Thanks for fixing. P.S. You've got one of the calmer demeanors among the editors here, so if he got you riled, he was destined to quickly be toast. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's only Wikipedia, getting riled over something as silly as this would be a fruitless idea. As for having a 'calm demeanor', I would beg to differ :P — 

neuro^(talk)

01:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I take it back. You're a ruthless tyrant who takes no prisoners. You may quote me. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He was hinting at making an unblock request so I saved everyone time by declining it before he made it. --Deskana (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. A pre-emptive strike. An inspired move if ever I've seen one. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

*Slides into the room from the other, still tapdancing madly; exits, stage right* HalfShadow 02:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Given the blocked user's main theme, that's kind of an ironic metaphor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't...stopdancing. Call...911! HalfShadow 04:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Should we call the producers of Riverdance instead? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dance, dance, wherever you may be. Meanwhile, ironically, MPIB's screen has gone dark. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user had a WQA raised about him/her here. This user's response to this WQA was this edit. Being warned/advised by non-admin users obviously has no positive influence on this user's behavior, so I believe admin intervention is warrented. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Premature to transfer this to AN/I, in my opinion. I refer to my comments at WQA. TungstenCarbide went nuts and insulted editors. I do not condone his outbursts but they are psychologically understandable as the other editors were obstructing his good faith, useful efforts at improvements and even today as we speak the first sentence of the article is a horrible mess due to their obstructionism. If TungstenCarbide is punished for making insults then his opponents should be punished for actively preventing much-needed improvement of a WP article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree in prinicple, and I am not out necessarily to get anyone blocked, but due to the response of this individual to non-admin advice on altering his behavior, an admin at least should talk to this editor. The WQA demonstrates how he responds when non-admins advise him about civility. The Seeker 4 Talk 17:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted this to

WP:AIV also. The guy is a newbie with apparently no clue about the concept of civility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

17:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Being

WP:CIVIL. If the policy is to mean anything, this edit (on WQA!) should result in an immediate block. THF (talk

) 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The comment "we are here to write an encyclopedia" doesn't sound so much like something a newbie would say. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was one of the editors he responded to. I tried to be civil with him and gave him a stern warning, but perhaps what he did warrants a block regardless. He seems to dislike overly long sentences, and anybody who disagrees with him is a "moron" or worse. that being said, I don't think he should be indef blocked as he means well for the encyclopedia, even if its hard for him to communicate that. Themfromspace (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

That edit requires some serious admin action. In my opinion, a block is in order. We're not children, at least most of us aren't, and we shouldn't act like children when something doesn't go our way. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 17:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Then there's this gem, one of several in this one article: [248] As far as coddling this guy, there needs to be a policy, if there isn't already, about wikipedia not being a nursery school. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 3 days. [249] He could use that time to review

WP:CIVIL and discover that his assertion "we're not here to be polite to each other" is not altogether correct. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to explain civility to people

I don't think that TungstenCarbide got much of an adequate explanation of our civility policy in the leadup to this. There were no good warnings or explanations to him.

I left this note on his talk page to try and lay it out to him.

I urge others who are responding to civility problems from new editors to make similar explanations (not templates, but actual personalized communications) with the problem editor before escalating. Without explaining and putting it in context, we're not giving people enough warning about what they're doing wrong and why it's wrong to act that way. This violates

among other things....

That said, no objection to the block, the user here escalated very badly once people started to complain to them... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My first, uncivil, thought on reading the above was "for {insert expletive here} sake - if TC doesn't understand what the word "civility" means he should be editing the Moron English version of WP. Then I wandered off and actually read what Georgewilliamherbert had said. Kudos to you, Georgewilliamherbert. A fine explanation not just of "what"

WP:CIV. Let's hope TC reads it and it sinks in. Tonywalton ^Talk

23:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Tonywalton, One thing that needs to be taken into account is the offended users culture and outlook. In other words, just because you don't find it uncivil doesn't mean it's actually uncivil. I've got a pretty think skin (you can't look like I do and not have a thick skin) but there are weird little things that will bother me more than flat out insulting me (mental acuity for one). It's all relative. Padillah (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well said George. -- Darth Mike  (join the dark side) 00:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

His response was an extremely bad sign. Ah well. He'll either calm down or this will be quick. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Now indefinitely blocked. With some light-hearted humor by Baseball Bugs I see. Mark as resolved? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I will, just for fun. And Mr. Rickles says, "Thanks, Dummy!" :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This deal of someone extending a calm and even-handed comment and the respondent starting calm and even-handed and devolving into almost a parody of insults, reminds me of a movie scene, but I can't place it. I'll let that work in my background processor for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't usually do this, but this one has me a bit stumped. I just archived a WQA that was brought to us by

...you get the picture.
So I did a little poking around in the logs, which I would now like an admin to follow me on. I don't quite get how this account was resurrected after an indef block, if that's what I'm seeing here. Given the current disruption(s), I think that this one bears looking in to a bit deeper. Again, could I get some input on this one? Edit Centric (talk) 08:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for my unblock is on this talk page Raul654 (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"...on the assumption that he is being honest in what he says." That was a year ago. So, has he been honest? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that provides a bit more enlightenment than was available before, and it may or may not be related to what we're here for this time. From what I'm seeing, this user is apparently using the account as

Natasha Engel article. Over the past year and few months, this is, by far, the focus article of his contributions. Edit Centric (talk

) 09:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(WQA Moderator Comments) - Now that I have WQA "under control" somewhat, I can address the loose issues. On this one, I'm again scratching my head. I'm not so sure it's a question of whether he's "been honest", like Baseball Bugs asks, although IYAM, I would say that the reasons for editing are less than such. It's more a question of the nature of the current disruptions, and the "

soapboxing" going along with it. It's got me in that "well...huh." head scratching mode. At any rate, this user was given a gigundous second chance a while ago, and what they're doing with it is extremely impeachable, IMHO. Edit Centric (talk

) 18:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Chesdovi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandalises articles relating to Judaism and Islam or Jews and Arabs: littered amongst regular non-malicious edits, he continues to either remove Islamic or Arabic references from articles completely, or replaces them with references pertaining to Judaism. Check his edits, but check these most notable ones done recently to see what I'm talking about: [250], [251], [252], [253], [254], [255], [256], [257]. He also recently attempted to classify the indigenous Arab population in and around Jerusalem as 'settlers': [258], [259], [260], [261] and created a new category for it . He has been warned about vandalism in the past (see his talk page). 82.17.236.83 (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and doesn't belong here; there's no need for admin intervention, and none of the difs you gave are blatant

dispute resolution; ANI is not the place for content disputes. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs

15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I was told to come here from

WP:AIV, so I did just that. Did you actually understand my problem with his edits and look at all the links? Let me explain some of them. The Well of Souls relates to the Dome of the Rock, but he removed the image of the Dome of the Rock [262] and the Islamic Architecture category [263]. The Muslim Quarter in Jerusalem is the largest and most populated part of the old city, and hosts the third holiest site in Islam, the Al-Aqsa Mosque/Dome of the Rock. Chesdovi decided to delete the links to the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock from the Muslim Quarter article, and replaced them with two links to the Shomrei ha-Chomos Synagogue and Birket Israel [264]. Do you see the problem yet? If that's not clear cut vandalism, then I dunno what is. Here he deleted the figure for Palestinian deaths in the recent Israel/Gaza conflict, and replacing it with his own biased statement [265]. How is it not vandalism? I'm particularly surprised that you didn't pick up on the "Israeli-Arab settlement" issue, regarding the attempt at categorising the indigenous Arab population as 'settlers'. First he made this change [266], which is a blatant act of working his own bias into the article - under international law, all Jewish settlements in the West Bank are acknowledged as being illegal, and those who live there are referred to as settlers. Then he went ahead and made the changes to Arab neighbourhoods in Jerusalem to make them out to be settlements ([267], [268], [269], [270]), which they are not considered to be at all, by any law, including Israel's own. How is that not vandalism? I think you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject and understand the problem before you can make a judgement regarding the topic at hand. 82.17.236.83 (talk

) 17:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say his edits were right; I said they're not vandalism. Not every form of bad editing qualifies as bona fide

What is not vandalism

. This is a content dispute and needs to be worked out someone else, not at ANI.

Also, by the way, please don't insult my intelligence ("you need to brush up on your knowledge of the subject") just because I don't agree with you. rʨanaɢ talk/_contribs 17:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an awkward accusation; please don't take offense. I just meant it was important to have more than cursory knowledge of the situation since it's such a complex issue. A person can still be intelligent and not have knowledge of a particular subject; I wasn't questioning your intelligence at all. Anyway, the vandalism is clear - I wouldn't say it's a subjective opinion; it's either vandalism or it isn't. I've explained his edits and shown that what he did was malicious, so what else would you call it? It's not just 'bad editing', and I don't think it falls under

WP:VAND#NOT

; which part of it should I be looking at? I've spelt it out as best I can. I've also just found another dishonest edit, also on a contentious subject, which will take some explaining.

Before bringing this topic to light, I reverted Chesdovi's edit on the Muslim Quarter article [271]. He just undid my edit, and gave the reason "these places are not in the Muslim Quarter". I disagree with that, and so would a lot of other people, hence the 'contentious subject'. But forget about my stance on the matter for a second. If you look at the map on that page, you'll see the Muslim Quarter appears to be outlined in a green border, and the Temple Mount area is separate, which would indeed give weight to his argument that the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock are not in the Muslim Quarter. Notice the smaller map showing the boundaries of the quarters at the bottom-left corner of the main image. It's split into 5, but it should be split into 4 - the old city is made up of the four quarters, not five fifths. Take a look at the upload log, and you'll notice Chesdovi uploaded the image. Now compare it with the other maps of the Jewish, Armenian and Christian Quarters. You'll notice the Jewish Quarter map also has the inset map split into 5, and again, the map was uploaded by Chesdovi. Look at the Christian and Armenian maps, which Chesdovi did not upload, and you'll see that the boundaries are split into 4. I looked for the source of the original Muslim Quarter map, and found David Bjorgen. Take a look at his talk page, and you'll find a discussion from a while ago where Chesdovi requests an image. The source images are provided to him, and if you take a look at them, you'll see that neither of the original maps of the Jewish or Muslim Quarters have the same boundaries as the ones uploaded by

Chesdovi here on Wikipedia. This obviously means Chesdovi edited them himself to separate the Temple Mount in order to provide backbone to his case that the Temple Mount is not in the Muslim Quarter, and which therefore stops me or anyone else from arguing, among other things, for the inclusion of the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque links in the Muslim Quarter article. His whole argument is based on material which he fabricated himself. Do you still maintain that his actions are not malicious? 82.17.236.83 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I think more people ought to see this. The admin failed to return, and it remains unresolved, but it's glaringly obvious that CAMERA's cohorts and the like are still manipulating Wikipedia entries. I'm sure this is only the tip of the iceberg. 82.17.236.83 (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)