Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive548

The administrator

AGF,

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, which led me to restore the version I reverted to as it appeared approximate to the version mentioned in the case which Moreschi put in place. Hiberniantears (talk

) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article. It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here.

talk

) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous response, quite honestly. What you would have seen at

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is clear evidence that Dbachmann is an over-opinionated editor who has been sanctioned previously for making disruptive edits, including to this very article. Moreschi has not been involved in this article for a long time, and if you had read the Moreschi version you would have seen that it is seriously incomplete and in fact contains numerous tags calling for more info - which your protection now blocks us from adding. If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding Dbachmann's damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. Wdford (talk

) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is any claim of consensus. You seem to misinterpret a bad case of

WP:SYN and not so subtle POV-pushing. Good action. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good action, because you know very well that protection is just temporary. There were no problems on the article until Dbachmann showed up. Of course

talk

) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well,

WP:SYN. It does contain very few sources about the controversy, but is a collection of otherwise unrelated facts that support one side or the other in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I felt the article was quite comprehensive. I didn't agree with everything, but that is the essence of compromise. If anyone wanted to know anything about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, it was found in that version. The current version is just a topic on Afrocentrism. A topic on which many contributors have little interest in. Furthermore, many reliable sources deal with the topic of the race of the Ancient Egyptians, in the same manner as the consensus version. The facts remain that there is a content dispute and there are ways to deal with content disputes, discussion and consensus building. Going behind the backs of other editors to get a particular version protected is somewhat disingenuous.

talk

) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is weird here is that an administrator reverts then protects a page! What kind of neutrality is that? I can understand if the administrator wants to protect (I may disagree, but I understand). But I fail to understand why the administrator reverts! --Lanternix (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, I'll accept your justification for your actions however what your actions resulted in was fulfilling a deliberate attempt by Dbachmann to sabotage months of work by other editors on this page. I recommend that the user Dbachmann be permanently banned from the article and that it be unlocked so that we can continue to build on and refine an article that was showing alot of progress. AncientObserver (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the action by Hiberniantears to prevent this article being hijacked by POV-pushers. --

Hiberniantears action itself hijacked the article in favor of a biased POV. How do you justify reverting months of work on which the current editors have reached consensus in favor of an older version of the article which does an inferior job of addressing the topic? This is censorship. So far there has been no attempt at a civil discussion about the credibility of the material in the recent versions. Dbachmann came to the article started making disruptive edits without attempting to reach consensus with the other editors and has now sought the aid of Admins to do his dirty work once he realized that he could not have his way. AncientObserver (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time, back in Wiki pre-history, this article was a section on the Afrocentrism article. It became obvious that it was uncontrollable, and it was spun off by an Afrocentrist editor (user:deeceevoice) to became a separate article. There Afrocentrists and White Supremacists, Arab-Egyptians, and anyone else with a racial axe to grind, battled incessantly over how white or black the Egyptians were - usually projecting modern Euro-American categories onto ancient peoples. The article became a complete and utter mess, with quotations from Herodotus intermingled with genetic studies, and with no sense of the changing contexts in which ideas about race developed and how this applies to the various modellings of 'race' in Egypt over history. The minimal version preferred by dab is one solution. The other (which was preferred by User:Zara1709) is to contextualise the debates clearly by showing how they emerge from race-politics and 'science' at various times. Unfortunately the "true believers" will not have either of these arguments, and the article invariably sinks into a morass of claims and counter-claims, competing pictures of "white looking" and "black looking" pharaohs etc. Paul B (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, alot of progress have been made on this article. Attempts have been made to address all aspects of the history of this debate. There has been very little edit warring and a consensus was made on the direction the article would take. The latest action has set the page back not just in terms of material progress but intellectual maturity. The content of the article can be disputed in a civil manner on the discussion page. There is no justification for reverting months of progress because of the complaints of a certain editor who is clearly threatened by the material that has been presented. I agree with Wapondaponda, this action was uncalled for and needs to be corrected. AncientObserver (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article has become gibberish. Let's look at just the opening sentences:

"The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and the broader society. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different appearance to the other nations around them. The modern mainstream opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, being neither black nor white as per current terminology."

Being neither black nor white does not make you a "mixed race"! What is "the broader society"? The is virtually no useful meaning to this phrase. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those things where there's a request for comment which does not get anything solved which is followed by a request for comment after another month or so which results in several users being banned from editing anything involving ancient Egypt. Is there a way we can cut out the middlemen here and simply allow the community to dole these things out, thereby preserving the content of Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from point of view editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that an article was created with the title in reverse, and redirected to another page where editing can proceed, my guess is that we can't control the problem at the admin level. See:

Controversy surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians vs Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Forking seems to be one of the issues surrounding the problem. Hiberniantears (talk

) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong's assessment. Let the editors police the article, only if there is excessive edit warring should middlemen intervene.

talk

) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I'm suggesting that we put topic bans in place for everyone who can't agree to disagree.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection Policy break

From WP:Protection policy:-

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version [ ... ] Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

Speaking as someone who has experience in this field, I think that the administrative actions of Hiberniantears were clearly a

No such clear point exists. The version protected by Hibernantears is just as equally controversial.

talk

) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar had previously reverted to the same version with a similar intent, so it's easy to see why Hiberniantears chose it. Wapondaponda, when you find yourself arguing that the

wrong version of an article has have been protected, you are probably directing your energies in the wrong direction. You'd be better off spending your time on the article talk page, discussing what improvements should be made, with reference to reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. My aim was not to reward any one group of editors with the correct version of the page. Instead, I looked at the ArbCom case, as well as the edit history to see which version, or relative example of a version, was being reverted to, and thus chose the February version because it does predate the sudden growth in the article which a casual reading revealed had very wide variance in subject matter from the February version. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, the majority of people who regularly edit the article are in general agreement on the preferred version. Blueboar is not a regular editor to the article. His revert was based solely on the posting at the fringe theories noticeboard, the posting to which none of us regular editors were notified, ie Dbachmann did not post on talk page of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, that he had a thread on fringe theories noticeboard. He went behind our backs. We already have five pages of talk page archives on content, we don't need to re-discuss this. When the article was placed on probation there was a blocking spree of users and Moreshi took advantage to institute his "preferred version".These threats of blocks and other draconian measures basically scared away all editors to the article. In February a bunch of us editors who were not involved in that probation dispute started working on the article. We looked at what Moreshi had termed the "Afrocentrism meme" and we concluded that it was original research because we had clear evidence that scientists and scholars have been interested in the racial and ethnic origins of the Ancient Egyptians and a lot of this controversy had nothing to do with Afrocentrism. If you read the

talk

) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed

Immediate attention is needed at Population history of Egypt and User:AncientObserver, who is reverting this article which is not about Afrocentrism or controversies to the preferred (massive, filled with fringy OR and SYNTH) version of Ancient Egyptian race controversy - he had previously moved the article to a new title, where he placed a draft of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which was, again, the massive, fringy OR an SYNTH version. Weren't admins empowered to ban people who were disruptive from this entire topic area? Why are SPA's allowed to run roughshod? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As per

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, User:AncientObserver has been blocked for 24 hours. Hiberniantears (talk

) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The block is not punitive, but merely a means to temporarily stop disruptive editing. In this case, I protected a page in line with an ArbCom case, and when an editor created an alternative page in order to get around the page protection, then I blocked that editor for disrupting the page protection. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did what you had do. But this was after the horse had left the barn. My point is that these editors put a lot of work into researching these articles and trying to reach a consensus. If you simply revert four months of work, its not surprising that someone makes a mistake. In other words you may actually be causing editors to break the rules.

talk

) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why some admins have a problem with this article at all? One disruptive editor (with a long history of disruptive editing) should not be allowed to undo months of genuine good faith edits - why then is this bad behavioiur being rewarded like this? A succession of admins have exercised their own POV here to censor valid and referenced information purely because they don't agree with the content - why is this allowed? This topic is of much general interest - Google it and see how much interest you find - so why should there not be an article which discusses the actual content itself? If certain admins think a particular sentence is SYNTH then point it out and let's fix it, but a general statement that the "whole article is full of SYNTH" is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst. If there is any merit at all to the suggestion that this article "needs" to be about merely the history of the controversy rather than the substance thereof (and I see no such merit, but whatever) then why can there not be a complementary article that does focus on the substance of the controversy? It seems that whichever way we turn there stands some admin with an array of WP:WHATEVER-THE-HELL to block that avenue, all seemingly aimed at preventing the substance of the debate from being aired. Scientology has an article that dicusses in detail the substance of the viewpoint, as does Timewave Zero and many others. Why should this particular controversy be so ruthlessly suppressed? Wdford (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re protected

Whilst I'm quite happy with HT's protect, others seem to be using it as an excuse to complain. So I've reprotected it in my name [2]. All happy now? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What difference does that make? The problem the majority of editors have is that the article has been reverted 4 months back and locked in the first place. We are very unhappy with the protection regardless of whose name it is under. AncientObserver (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

William, so now that you have protected the article, what are your plans and how long is it protected for. Are you the go to guy now.

talk

) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

@AO: the difference is, you now have no case to make at ANI. Please go back to the article talk page and discuss substance rather than process. @W: I plan to watch the article talk page and see how you get along. The protection period is as before. Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is unbelievable! What "substance" should we discuss on the talk page? This perfectly good article was reverted and then blocked without any discussion on substance, based on the disruptive editing of a known disruptive editor. Apart from that one editor, who refused to discuss anything before making his disruptive edits, the other editors were working constructively on the substance of the article. Surely the correct approach would be to restore the article, and then challenge Dbachmann (and any others) to validate his proposed changes to the article on a case by case basis? Does Dbachmann have veto power over this article now? If not, then why is he being rewarded for breaking policy and accusing constructive editors of being trolls, despite several formal warnings on this very issue? Please could you clarify what "substance" you think we should discuss, and who we should be discussing it with? Wdford (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the one "disruptive" user is the only one not an

SPA? Hmmmm.... Auntie E (talk

) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears

The aforementioned administrator recently reverted to a four month old version of Ancient Egyptian race controversy and protected the article. It appears that the administrator has gotten too personally involved in the controversy to be impartial and objective. He is recently quoted as saying[3].

"Likewise, maybe RfC isn't exactly the thing, but we need something that allows us to enforce the ArbCom sanctions, while also having the authority to say "we won't say what the correct version of this article is, but we are saying that the current version is plainly wrong". As you note, no matter how many people we block or ban, new socks or meat puppets will always be hovering around waiting for us to take our eye off the ball, or to engage us to the point that we could be viewed by ArbCom as "involved". Unfortunately, it looks like those of us admins who feel this way are becoming an increasingly rare breed around here lately (Moreschie, Fut. Perf., ChrisO, etc)."

It's very telling that the administrator thinks in terms of "us" and "them". The administrator seems so willing to pull the trigger and block or ban users. Hiberniantears also seems to think that he has the knowledge and expertise to determine what "is plainly wrong". Unless he is an Egyptologist anthropologist or archeologist, he doesn't have the authority to determine what is plainly wrong. That is not for him to do, it is the community's role to determine content and the community has agreed to follow wikipedia's policies and guidelines when doing so. Finally the admin appears to disparage other administrators believing that only him and a select few (Moreschie, Fut. Perf., ChrisO, etc) know what they are doing.

It is clear that Hiberniantears has become personally involved.

I think you've misinterpreted the above post in every major respect. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I second SheffieldSteel. The evidence presented here so far is of an administrator using good judgement within policy, not anything abusive. Wapondaponda - please take this to the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this already being discussed? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have misinterpreted the post, there are his own words.

talk

) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound to me like he is using good judgment. It sounds like he has become personally involved, doesn't appear to show good faith in his fellow Admins and is branding the other editors on the article as troublemakers without just cause. He's not being objective at all. AncientObserver (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would urge anyone reviewing this matter to read the entire post. This is an admin discussing how best to enforce NPOV policy while avoiding giving the appearance of being involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The best way to enforce NPOV policy is to point out specific instances of POV, and either reword them correctly yourself or else tag them and then challenge whoever to fix it up. Reverting four months of work back to a crippled version and then blocking it, is not going to fix anything. How could this be considered appropriate? Wdford (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Based simply on the page history of the article, HiberianTears should not have reverted, according to our normal rules of page protection, but should have blocked it as found. I think we are quite unequivocal on that. I do not necessarily think our rule makes much sense, as what one would logically want to revert to is the version before the edit warring began--the difficulty with an article like this is finding such a time. HT I think in good faith attempted another way, which also makes a certain degree of sense--reverting to a relatively neutral short version with a minimal amount of disputed content. The advantage of having a flexible rule, is we can do what is best in the situation, but several good non-dogmatic editors here seem to disagree on just what is best in the situation. so perhaps there is some advantage in the plain rule that the protecting admin, after removing only absolutely clear vandalism and copyvio and blp--none of which apply here--, must protect the article as xe finds it. So Wapondaponda's revsion should be reverted to, pending dispute resolution. But I certainly have wished many times i could have done as HT intended to do here, and protect what I thought the best version in an article about which I had no particular interest. DGG (talk) 03:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was previously under the same impression, but as I understand it, an uninvolved administrator can revert to a less controversial version, or one which predates a conflict dispute. In this case, I chose a version which appeared to be almost identical to a version hashed out last year and cited in the ArbCom case I based my actions on. Had that version not been mentioned in the ArbCom case, than I would have protected it at Wapondaponda's version. The important thing to keep in mind is that I don't have a preferred version of this article. I only reverted to a version that was identified in an ArbCom case. As for my comments cited above, they accurately reflect my view of the situation, but both the comments and my view were formed after I took administrative action. Likewise, I have never edited the article in question, nor do I have any intention of doing so in the future. Having views on policy, and recognizing that an article has issues with skilled POV-pushers does not make me an involved administrator. The article clearly has an ongoing conflict, and when the protection is removed, that conflict will continue, and the ArbCom case only has guidance that will allow us (or bind us) to continuously apply blocks and page protection. Since the problem is really centered on the article actually be redefined in a back and forth cycle, the ArbCom ruling needs an additional device along side it which firmly establishes what the actual topic of the article is. I floated the idea of an RfC, but in thinking about it, that only becomes a vote and a drama-fest. Neither of which is an intellectual way to go about building an encyclopedia. What this article needs is an actual certification on what it is about. To be honest, I am somewhat at a loss on how to go about that. Perhaps some sort of committee of experts who can make content rulings. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Follow up. Sheffield Steel was a few steps ahead of me and already posted the relevant protection policy wording on an earlier thread for this same discussion. You can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Protection_Policy_break. Hiberniantears (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it as an on-going conflict, there have been no edit wars, no blocks and no protection for 4 months. Not all the editors agree on the content, but we have agreed to disagree.

talk

) 04:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I see it, at

WP:PREFER. It was changed back and forth in a series of edits , to include or not include the sentence "Administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists" There was discussion on the talk page for [WT:PROTECT]], but I do not think consensus was achieved there; it remains an open question. It remains an open question in my mind as well, because i can see the arguments on either side. I've reopened the discussion there [5], because it should be divorced from this particular case. DGG (talk

) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding

Wapondaponda, see the confirmed CU results below concerning sockpuppetry. Hiberniantears (talk

) 12:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wapondaponda

Resolved

 – User:Wapondaponda has been indef blocked by an amazing admin.

Hmm, I'd just sent an email to WMC saying that they had the same editing habits. Mathsci (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please file a SPI report. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, looks like a case of

talk

) 04:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a look with CheckUser, and it appears likely that Wapondaponda, Shashamula, and Muntuwandi are all the same person. Dominic·t 07:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary origin of religions is what tipped me off back then. Apparently one of Wap's POV sparring partners has had a similar intuition. Someone else will have to file the SPI. Regards.PelleSmith (talk

) 11:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Realizing this isn't a formal SPI report, but since Dominic did run the CU, does this count? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we need an SPI report to block sockpuppets? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't. I just wanted to confirm that this is in fact confirmed. Just crossing the T's and dotting the I's. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting to watch the process unfold. While you are dotting things etc, please review the Policy - using various user names is actually allowed (although I can't understand why) as long as the various accounts are not used in concert for destructive purposes. Per Dominic's CheckUser review, seemingly Wapondaponda has not broken the rules on this article - even assuming they are indeed all the same person. "Similar editing habits" doesn't automatically make them the same person - for instance we have a few admins on this very article who are showing very similar preferences in suppressing material - is that allowed, or should we block them too? Per the CU policy you need to follow a fair amount of red tape before doing a CU review - were those rules all followed, or do those rules not count when the subject of the review has been pointing out errors committed by admins? Wdford (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence means that there is technical data involving Wapondaponda and Muntuwandi's accounts that make them the same person. As Muntuwandi is a banned user, he is not allowed to edit under any name, including Wapondaponda and Shashamula. In reality, I had been investigating this and requested that a check be made because I recall Muntuwandi's activities. PelleSmith's comment about the accounts possibly being the same led me to ask Dominic to perform the checkuser. Users are banned because they cannot work amicably with other users. There has been no evidence to connect anyone else with this banned user yet. And the following accounts will be blocked for it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Muntuwandi (talk · contribs)
• Shashamula (talk · contribs)
• talk · contribs
  )

—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you stating that I cannot work amicably with other users. I've been editing for the last 8 months and nobody seems to have a problem. In fact there is a group of us editors who are in general agreement, and we have amicably agreed to disagree on content related to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This is somewhat of a sideshow, and it unnecessarily distracts from the main controversy. As Wdford has pointed out, I have not broken any rules in this particular article. It seems that

Checkuser evidence proves that you are indeed

assumption of good faith that has stalled this action on your Wapondaponda and whatever other accounts you have made.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 16:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical evidence is ambiguous, and only indicates likelihood not certainty. Muntuwandi has been indefinitely blocked from my understanding.

talk

) 16:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see m:CheckUser policy. Technical evidence and behavioral evidence are used to determine information in checkusers and other sockpuppet investigations. This was the case for you. And an indefinite block on a user is not an indefinite block on anything else regarding that user. The underlying IP address is not affected beyond a specific period of time. And this IP address was used to link you with Muntuwandi, who, according to all we know, you are (at least with my knowledge of how the checkuser tool works). Muntuwandi under any name is not allowed to edit the English Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

There is also the possibility that you (Muntuwandi) run Wikichimba (talk · contribs), but only behavioral evidence can prove this at the time being.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda, you seem to be trying to argue semantics. Once an editor is permanently banned, they may not return to editing Wikipedia, barring a successful unblock request through appropriate channels. Note, I use the term "editor" to refer to a person, not a userid. Based on CU, you will have trouble convincing anyone what you are not the original banned user. By trying to do so, you are harming your own cause, as now you are someone who is willing to try to avoid bans. If you wish to edit Wikipedia again, you will need to login to your original account, apologize profusely, and ask for reinstatement. I would suggest genuflecting with a great deal of humility. If your unblock is declined, then that means the Wikipedia community does not trust you to edit yet, under any userid. (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I have. I've indef'd you as a sock William M. Connolley (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• As Bugs (or was it Porky Pig?) would've said it... I believe, I believe that's all folks! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe the show must go onWapondawandi (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Was that really necessary? I am disturbed by the level of viciousness the Admins have against the editors defending the more recent version of this article. If Wapondaponda was a sockpuppet of another user then banning him is justifiable but mocking him after he's left is immature. I give Wapondaponda credit for demanding that we get a fair shake on this matter. He was a constructive editor while I knew him. AncientObserver (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Because of your lack of indents, I cannot tell which post you're complaining about. He was NOT being mocked, "that's all folks" is a fairly common phrase, used in closing something. Often it's "that's all folks ... nothing to see". If the editor is indeed constructive, then let him come back properly and prove it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

He was clearly being mocked. Saying "That's all folks" (like Porky Pig) is like singing the "Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye" song. I just get the impression that the Admins are strongly against the existence of this article. AncientObserver (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• ALL I can say is: "Nothing has meaning except for the meaning I give it"; so stop putting words into my mouth. Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments AncientObserver. It's one of the greatest absurdities that I have been "indefinitely blocked" specifically since I have not committed any malevolent acts towards anybody or on any article. Of course I have been quite anti-establishment which has what has gotten me in to trouble. I have frequently disregarded the administrative class. But that's in the past it's time to move on. I've been editing wikipedia for four years now. I've been editing or reading articles literally every day since I started. So it is a little bit unrealistic to for me to simply disappear because a few editors think so. In other words, I am still around in some shape or form, thanks to the current technological limitations. Most likely I'll be around "indefinitely". I will lay low for couple days until things cool down, but I am still here, if one looks hard enough one could easily find me. Wapondawandi (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wapondawandi is now indef blocked. Just to make sure: AncientObserver and Wdford are unconnected to these accounts, right? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I assure you that I am not a sockpuppet. The Admins can go ahead and check me if they haven't already. This is starting to look like a witch hunt. I hope that this situation with Wapondaponda does not delay the decision on whether or not to unlock the article. AncientObserver (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Few scientists lend any credence at all to "race theories". This article is a disgrace. It should be deleted or reworded into "Ancient Egyptian skin color controversy". CABlankenship (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a number of genuine scientists have been quoted in this article. And while you are correct that the concept of "race" is generally discounted as a scientific concept, (which was clearly stated in the article as well), there are nonetheless millions of people who still take the concept seriously - hence the controversy. You are entitled to your own opinion, but please don't call for censorship on articles about issues that you personally happen to dislike. Wdford (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Since Wapondawandi was a sock of a banned user, all his edits to articles can be deleted. --

Folantin (talk

) 10:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be an unhelpful and

egyptologists

, e.g. this book

• ISBN 0801878144

which give a completely different view of ethnic groups in Ancient Egypt. It is worrying that this book has been used neither in this fork nor the main article

Race of Ancient Egyptians. (Both articles share the same quirky set of references.) Mathsci (talk

) 12:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with that book is [cut]

Hello folks. This is resolved: anyone who wishes to discuss the substance of the article is very welcome at Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs) for repeatedly changing an IP editor's signature to include a nickname instead of an address. An anon earlier showed up on my talkpage complaining about the block -- extend block for evasion?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, and the IP blocked as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Goodness, this guy is persistent... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page "tweaked" (read: eviscerated) by CMLITC

Would an experienced admin please check out the user page of AlexandruOfficial (talk · contribs)? I can't make up my mind whether this is an end run round a CSD notice or whether it's a wiki version of a MySpace page. Either way it feels not quite right, but not enough for me to start an MfD. The editor only has 27 edits, 24 of which are to his user page. This may be a chance to head off something further down the road. But hey, what do I know, I'm not an admin? :) I'd just like someone with more experienced eyes to check it out. Thanks. --WebHamster 10:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say that it is violation of both

WP:SOAP, under which violations I have redacted the content of another editors talkpage already today. LessHeard vanU (talk

) 12:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The user is blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bihar 2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have been advised to take this here from AIV. This user has repeatedly created articles with no content - 8 in the last two weeks. They are generally about future cricket tournaments and he creates the page with only a template. Several people have warned him, besides the multiple speedy deletion notifications, and nothing has changed. I would suggest a block might bring the issue to his attention but I'll leave it up to you on what action to take. Thanks, |→ 

Looking in more detail at his edit history I note he has contributed quite a bit of good information and that he seems to be learning. I still feel it would benefit from admin input however, so please do take a look. |→ 

GMT

)

I've blocked Bihar2010 for 1 week for disruptive editing. The user has disrupted WP by creating inappropriate pages. He was warned by multiple editors to not to do so. AdjustShift (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you consider dialling the length of that block back, given that this is apparently a good-faith contributor and this is his first-ever block? Either that, or explain the terms on his talk page under which you might shorten or lift the block? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, do you know why this is his first block? Last time, I was generous enough to give him a chance. On 22 May 2009 he created the bios of Priyanka Rehan and Delwar Rehan. Who is Priyanka Rehan? Priyanka Rehan = Priyanka Chopra. And who is Delwar Rehan? The spouse of Priyanka Chopra!

Priyanka Chopra is a famous bollywood actress, and of course, she is unmarried.

Despite such disruptive activity, I didn't block Bihar2010, and warned him.[8] One week block is not the end of the world. He can come back after one week, and contribute positively to WP. AdjustShift (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This user can't seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. On numerous occasions, he has failed to provide reliable sources for his edits (later telling me, when confronted, to "look it up"), performed drastic actions such as article splits when not even discussing with other users first (although he did post to the talk page asking "I'm bringing back the syndie split. Anyone who rejects, may them speak now or forever hold their peace." Five minutes later, he split the article, not even giving any other editor a chance). He seems to have difficulty interacting with other users (as can be seen here under all of his edits). I have warned him twice for various things, but he continues to violate those warnings and seems to do whatever he pleases. Oh, and he never adds his signature to articles.

My argument is that the

This is absolute nonsense. I am trying to get a consensus across the project wrt the usage of the label 'terrorist'. I have had snide remarks made against me and continuous edits deleted for trivial reasons. Is the talk page not the place to discuss these issues. Are we to be censored when the subject gets too close to the bone? --De Unionist (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not nonsense at all. Take a look at his talk's talk page and you'll see he's edit warring in a couple different area's and has already been blocked once for his edits. Why do we put up with this? RxS (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What Tarage and RxS are saying is correct. De Unionist is disrupting the 9/11 talk page by making inappropriate and needless comments. A neutral admin should look into this, and ask De Unionist to stop his disruptive activities. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly welcome a

WP:GF but without reciprocation. --De Unionist (talk

) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one can bring up a subject for discussion. But your idea of discussion is edit warring [9] [10], personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a forum [11] [12] [13] [14] and pointy behaviour [15] [16]. You've already been blocked twice [17]. You're being disruptive in two areas, both of which are under Arbcom sanctions. RxS (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist's activities are totally disruptive. He has continued to push his POV despite repeated warnings. He was blocked before, but he hasn't learned anything. I'm involved, so I can't take actions against him. I think a neutral admin should decide whether to block him or warn him. AdjustShift (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a userbox from this editors page that was deleted per this MfD but I am fairly certain that it will be reverted. BigDunc^Talk 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

3 month blocked IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 is back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.107.144 and doing the same blanking

block log showing how he's blocked for 3 months for this behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A86.11.100.50

here he is, evading the block and blanking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darren_M._Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=293366993

It should also be noted that this banned IP user is User:Diamonddannyboy. There are previous ANI discussions about this issue, but he sort of disappears for a bit then comes back with the same old behavior.Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Noted also on your talkpage, in case you wish to pursue the SPI matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I am me i think created the page Matt Whitehead. That article has been speedy tagged, but I thought maybe this merited response as a potential suicide threat. I've not come across a situation like this before; perhaps someone knowledgeable can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I found Template:Suicide response and have added a note based on that to the user's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed speedy deletion tag to {{

db-attack}} and blanked article, since it is clearly an attack page / negative unsourced BLP. decltype (talk

) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been speedily deleted by User:PhilKnight. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: is there anything else we need to do here? Did I misread the situation? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look too credible, but the response you gave was ok. Most of the time we just

RBI... at least in the last few cases I've seen come up. –xeno^talk

21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it was more a list of 'bad things' the author had made up about someone else, rather than a credible threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. It was fine to bring it up. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now there's something Britannica never had to deal with... Gonzonoir (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

3 month blocked IP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.100.50 is back as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.11.107.144 and doing the same blanking

block log showing how he's blocked for 3 months for this behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A86.11.100.50

here he is, evading the block and blanking: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Darren_M._Jackson&diff=prev&oldid=293366993

It should also be noted that this banned IP user is User:Diamonddannyboy. There are previous ANI discussions about this issue, but he sort of disappears for a bit then comes back with the same old behavior.Theserialcomma (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. Noted also on your talkpage, in case you wish to pursue the SPI matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Category:Thracian tribes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was renamed to
• Category:Ancient tribes in the Balkans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) via
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_28#Balkan tribes

1. recreated Thracian tribes.
2. posted profanity on my Talk
3. reverted {{db-g4}} for Thracian tribes, with an edit summary of ‎(your rationale is flawed cocksucer, do something constructive).
4. continues to revert renaming of the old category, with an edit summary of ‎‎(I did not agree to your stupid ass decision, cocksucker bitch that you are).
5. has been warned
6. continues his profanity
7. is now in an edit war with 2 editors

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Notice given. Note that profanity continues on his Talk with 3 editors.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days, but I think that might have been too lenient. Second opinion? (Ok, where the heck did my section edit links go?)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The section edit links disappeared when somebody added __NOEDITSECTION__ to {{

Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}. --auburnpilot talk

20:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's blocked, why isn't there a block notice on his talk? Exxolon (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While it's generally good practice to leave a block notice/explanation, it isn't a requirement (as far as I know). When a blocked user attempts to edit a page, they are greeted with a block notice and the explanation given in the block log. I leave a block notice following the vast majority of the blocks I place, but only because I use a script to block users and it automatically tags the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I spaced. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:I am me i think created the page Matt Whitehead. That article has been speedy tagged, but I thought maybe this merited response as a potential suicide threat. I've not come across a situation like this before; perhaps someone knowledgeable can help. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I found Template:Suicide response and have added a note based on that to the user's talk page. Gonzonoir (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed speedy deletion tag to {{

db-attack}} and blanked article, since it is clearly an attack page / negative unsourced BLP. decltype (talk

) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Has been speedily deleted by User:PhilKnight. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: is there anything else we need to do here? Did I misread the situation? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look too credible, but the response you gave was ok. Most of the time we just

RBI... at least in the last few cases I've seen come up. –xeno^talk

21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it was more a list of 'bad things' the author had made up about someone else, rather than a credible threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. It was fine to bring it up. Ale_Jrb^talk 21:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Now there's something Britannica never had to deal with... Gonzonoir (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin take a look at the placement of disputed tags on this manual of style. I removed them a month ago since the discussion was stale, but was reverted. I removed them again couple of days ago but was again reverted by User:Oicumayberight who seems to think that if only one editor thinks there is a dispute, there is a dispute. See also this unresolved discussion. Garion96 (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that there has been no discussion in more than two months (since the beginning of April), so I removed the tag. I didn't do it as an administrative action, so please don't consider it an endorsement of anything or as an indication that I intend to take any admin action. I left Oicumayberight a note advising him/her to start a request for comment or take some other steps to resolve the issue before simply restoring the tag. --auburnpilot talk 22:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. An RFC already took place, that was closed at 30 April. See here. Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bolongala. Could someone who hasn't made substantive comments on the article or talk page do the honors, please? (Check the section on Ancient Egyptian race controversy above for context.) --Akhilleus (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And now, User:Kobolola. These are fantastically easy to spot, but he seems to have built up a bunch of throwaway accounts: this one was started in October 2008.

Perhaps people could keep an eye on Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy, since he seems to head there immediately? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If anybody gets a chance, User:Juliancolton/Open AfDs needs to be scanned for any overdue discussions. Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Cognex Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cogvoid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm growing gravely concerned about

Exemplary diffs

• Edit warring and
  WP:POINT: [18] [19] [20]
• Violating
  WP:NPA: [21], [22], [23], [24]
• General
  WP:TEND: [25]
• General disruption: massive talk page redaction, false edit summary (compare this)

Further, consider the user's edit history, which is exclusively or almost-exclusively related to Cognex Corporation. Even consider the username; Cogvoid, like Cog(nex)void. This user has had it explained to him/her repeatedly why the content is problematic, to the point that his/her continued refusal or inability to comprehend it has become disruptive per

At first glance, this would look like a content dispute. But looking at Cogvoid's history, I have to agree--we're definitely looking at an

96

18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the diff above labeled "restore material" is incorrect; it should have been this one instead. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how this process works. But I have been accused of exactly what this editor has done. There is a pattern here that borders on bullying. The issue is the way that this editor applies the standards set by wiki unevenly.

There is a court case I want to post on this page. It is a sexual harrasment case in which a legal precedent was set.

the harrsment case had as evidence court transcripts of the appeal in question and was linked to by a university for educational purnpose, it had multiple reference to court cases citing this as a precedent in law. This is relevant to the page because accusations this company made in a rebuttel and actions it took caused the definition of abuse in law to be expanded. This is far more reliable than posting a "landmark case" with no proof of it being landmark other than a headline that contained the word "landmark" also i am unable to find wiki's policies on legal documents.

The lemelson case that has been allowed by this editor, passes the editing because he sais it was covered in many newspaper. I asked for for a proper arbitor to apply some judgement to this dispute.

He sites my user name as evidence of bad faith. I am asking for a ruling. Who i am does not matter. Further suggesting my identity with no proof and when I have clearly opted for anonimity can not possibly be acceptable. IP addresses prove nothing. Threats similar to this one have been made when I have clearly asked for explanation.

I told him to just bring this to the attention of a proper arbitor. I am new and having trouble doing this. If the ruling is in his favor i told him I wont touch that page again.

ah.. shit just remove my account. I have pissed away enough time. This editor has clearly shown poor judgement. I dont remember how i got into it with him.

--Cogvoid (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[User talk:cogvoid|talk]])

It should be noted that there are two matters here: the content and the behavior. I would argue that the content dispute is in fact resolved (per multiple uninvolved editors agreeing against Cogvoid; see

SPA status implies to me a preventive block would be in order. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 19:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Note that cogvoid keeps suggesting that I have a hidden relationship with Cognex ([26] and [27]), despite the fact that I previously stated my past relationship (back in 2002) on the talk page [28] and in

WP:EAR#court documents. [29]. --agr (talk

) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

Cogvoid, you realize that you are editing with a

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC).

May I remind you that we are looking for verifiability, not truth (cf. the first sentence in Wikipedia's

verifiability policy). MuZemike

23:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And hey, Cogvoid, add a fourth tilde to your signature, so you don't have to have the bot adding a date after every one of your posts. Thanks!

Tan | 39

23:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

--Cogvoid —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

You know it just occured to me. I am sitting getting upset feeling that I am being unfairly treated. Upset about all the attacks, obfuscation, intentionally skewed judgement and lack of respect toward me. Some of these arguments have been infuraitingly assinine. The hypocracy of this editor harassing me and then having the nerve to report me here. I am filled with respect for the courage that woman showed to allow herself to be treated this way rather than let these people walk all over her. How humiliated she must have been. SHe managed to set a precedent.to hell with this. --Cogvoid (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Cogvoid

I blocked Cogvoid for 72 hours due to disruptive editing.

Tan | 39

00:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to give them indefinite. All their editing appears related to the one article, and it is pure disruption. They seem to have some sort of heavy conflict of interest. Jehochman ^Talk 00:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By all means, don't let me stop you. Seriously, go ahead and change it if you think it's appropriate.

Tan | 39

00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to influence the choice in any particular direction, but of note to elucidating such a COI might be the long past contribs of contributions, which has certainly been used by Cogvoid. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to stick with the original 72 hours. It's easy enough to extend it, or ban editing of the Cognex article, if disruptive behavior persists.--agr (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How about that IP? Should that block be hardened to include the IP? MuZemike 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with agr- if Cogvoid can't act within our rules following the release of the block, then for sure make this a more permanent solution. As to the IP... It has been used to edit war on

AGF that it was an accidental edit while logged out. However I do think some of the contents of that other userpage which the IP edited, possibly coupled with the contents of a deleted article which the other user created may show the nature of Cogvoid's overall COI a bit more clearly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's

/ 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone deal with this fellow please? Nothing but an extremist SPA devoted to hyping up

03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Undue POV move please

Resolved

Could someone look at reverting this move? Thank you!

I've moved it back. Aside from the new title seeming to thwart a reader who might try to type his name into the search box, it shouldn't have been moved whilst an AfD was still on. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

-- Banjeboi

04:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

IP user

A fair amount of warnings and no talk page edits, I say block just to get the IP to discuss. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 05:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a block, and following block-evasion a rangeblock. 24 hours. --

dab (𒁳)

07:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Misspelling

Resolved

Done.

talk

) 08:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned user.

Tan | 39

19:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Powergate over here is not listening to reason, while i see the need for guidelines. I follow how FA are written and all them share on thing in common. Plot or overview section are not referenced, while i know this goes against the guidelines. It seems to me that this particurlar one is not followed. I've asked powergate92 to start a discussion about this many times, but he denies and rejects and wants to continue edit warring instead. My reason for doing this, is that most of those rules when referencing guidelines and list of episode articles are that the majority of them are refernced the same way i reference them. See FA

List of Doctor Who episodes

. All those FA and FL and more are referenced the same way i reference them, but he is bent on following these guidelines which no one follows, at least the majority as i've noticed.

Just a note, i'm note the only one that disagrees with this guys edits, an example is this. I would love to discuss this, so we can get to a conclusion about this guidelines which is not being followed. So any comments? --TIAYN (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

These are not guidelines these are

Wikipedia policys. Powergate92Talk

19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are not followed by the majority of wikipedia community! --TIAYN (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I did start a discussion a week ago at

WT:WikiProject Stargate#Refimprove tag at List of Stargate Infinity episodes. Powergate92Talk

20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You should start this discussion at the guideline page, that discussion over their does not discuss what i'm talking about. I wanted you to start a discussion about if that rule was valid, sine it is not used by the majority of the wikipedia community which can see on the FA's and FL's. You are following a rule the majority is not following. If the majority don't follow the rule, what gives you the right to push it on others? --TIAYN (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of users disagree with your reftagging, see this ongoing discussion. --TIAYN (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That discussion is not about the refimprove tag. That discussion is about a user who thinks references on that article should be removed. Powergate92Talk 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This behaviour is disruptive and has to stop. The articles that I spot checked all need the help that the tags point out and removing them from many articles in this fashion is very

pointy. ThemFromSpace

20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)e

Are you saying Lost (TV series) needs more refs? Cause that what he means, he wants plot overview to have references. But no articles references plot overview or sections... They just never do it... --TIAYN (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, every single fact on Wikipedia should have a reference. That's the whole point. It doesn't matter if

every article should, no matter what it's about. //roux  

21:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that may be true. But i don't see the reason for adding the reftag if a dusing of articles, even FA and FL which represent wikipedia's best work don't even reference plot overviews. Tell me, have you ever seen a film section referecing the plot? No You haven't, because its not normal. But Roux, if you are right, we should start demoting alot of futured content bent around TV, film and literature among others because they don't reference the plot overview. You know why they don't reference the plot overview? Its because the series and the episode does itself. We don't need to use the Template:Cite episode template on the "Rising (Stargate Atlantis)" article, because the article is referenced by itself. It would not make any sence to use a cite web template, saying i referenced the plot from the episode Rising, when the article itself is Rising. The same problem is on the show pages, the show references itself. --TIAYN (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that plots, in my opinion, should not be referenced directly from the show, as that is a form of

original research. Plots should be attributed to secondary writings about each episode. People need to be able to look up a newspaper clipping or a website or a magazine article to verify the details, not have to somehow hunt down a specific episode of a specific TV show. //roux  

21:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You won't find the entire story of

Days Of Our Lives, Doctor Who, General Hospital or any other show. Yeah they will tell about it in short form, but its not the newspapers, magazines or any others job to write the entire story arc for a series in a article. This is one of the reasons we don't reference plots, since you only need to watch the film/episode/read the book or listen to a audiobook of some kind. Its redundant. --TIAYN (talk

) 21:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm closing the discussion on how to referencing plots with this,

Wikipedia:Plot summaries#How to cite. --TIAYN (talk

) 21:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I see this editor is still at it after being warned (check the summary). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What, i'm keeping him updated in the discussion, whats wrong with that? --TIAYN (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See also,

this. I did not find this link another user did trying to give an answear in a neutral point of view. --TIAYN (talk

) 22:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/How_to_write_an_episode_article is the Style guidelines for WikiProject Television so they are not officially Wikipedia rules and need to be changed per WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research as WP:Verifiability says "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed" and WP:No original research says "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research". As Roux said plots should not be referenced directly from the show, as that is a form of original research. Powergate92Talk

00:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No its not, you can reference the show plot overview with the show itself--TIAYN (talk) 09:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick question, are you going to read anything anyone else says or are you just going to keep

repeating the same thing over and over

? Let's be blunt here:

1. All facts on Wikipedia must be
   other types of sources are used
   , reliable secondary sources are always better. We must report what other people have said, not what we think ourselves based on what we have seen.
2. See 1.

Is that clear yet? //roux   09:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(

dispute resolution venues - use them. This noticeboard is not really the right place to sort such a dispute. Regards SoWhy

09:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

-

See Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." See also Wikipedia:Consensus, "Policies and guidelines document communal consensus" --TIAYN (talk) 09:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, motion pictues and television programmes can be used to reference articles, that means the show can reference itself. :D --TIAYN (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how not using the best sources we can find, free of OR, improves the encyclopedia. //roux   17:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I just started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Is a TV show a reliable source for its own plot summary and characters section. Powergate92Talk 17:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ResearchEditor socks?

I'm having network problems, or I would have done a more elaborate report. There are serial SPAs adding similar material to his to

Satanic ritual abuse

-related articles. Following is a list of my most recent relevant edits.

• 16:09, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted edits by Acredf (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
• 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m McMartin preschool trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Hmstot (talk) to last version by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )) (top) [rollback]
• 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Indictment: The McMartin Trial ‎ (Reverted edits by Cpd822 (talk) to last version by Polbot) (top) [rollback]
• 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Lost in the mall technique ‎ (Reverted edits by Goocom7 (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
• 15:35, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Michelle Remembers ‎ (Reverted edits by Creyell (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
• 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Day care sex abuse hysteria ‎ (Reverted edits by Starpitx (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
• 15:34, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Elizabeth Loftus ‎ (Reverted edits by Iflgot (talk) to last version by Arthur Rubin) (top) [rollback]
• 13:19, June 21, 2009 (hist) (diff) m Satanic ritual abuse ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Boimaa identified as vandalism to last revision by JGabbard.

Any ideas? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed, see my block log. Thatcher 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, here are some more, on Sybil (book). All throwaway accounts apparently.

• Upsmil14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Peasman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Croony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bustahr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--Slp1 (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

173.81.182.46

Resolved

 – Ip has been blocked for a month Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:173.81.182.46 has been removing sections of television station pages after several warnings. The user has been blocked numerous times for his/her behavior yet still makes the same edits over and over. Last block was for 1 week and 3 days and the editor was back to the same edits over and over. I am requesting a longer block or some form of assistance to get this user to stop his disruptive editing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is more a case for

WP:AIAV; The administrators there take into account previous blocks and the recency of those. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also taken it to AIV, but since this has been going on for awhile, I thought some admin input from ANI might be necessary as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Move

There were many versions of Neda Soltani's name, finally BBC Persian has made it clear that her correct name was Neda Agha Soltan (ندا آقا سلطان). The page has been locked, so please one of the admins, move the title, to her correct name, which is: Neda Agha Soltan. --Kaaveh (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see

WP:RM for instructions on how to request a page move that you cannot perform yourself. Shereth

15:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Network of Excellence

A copyright notice was added on the term

Network of Excellence. I have removed it after adding some argumentation in the talk page. Can you please check if what I have done is correct, advise if something has to be done (decide whether or not there is indeed a copywrite problem, and if it is the case how to address it). Thanks --Nabeth (talk

) 15:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the first paragraph (including the bulleted list of two items) are a verbatim copy from this site and, in my opinion, certainly need to be rewritten. Also, the second and third items under "References" should be deleted, since Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles. Deor (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Someone appears to have done the changes in the mean time. Concerning the verbatim copy, this is true, but these were just a couple of lines and properly referenced. Besides, the [30] is an information site from the European commission which content is aimed is to be largely disseminated, and which does not content 'original' material. Anyway, the new page appears ok for me, and at least does not prevent people to understand what a NoE is about. Thanks again. --Nabeth (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but they can be used as "See Also"s -- if they hadn't already been used in the article text above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:De Unionist

point on the September 11th Talk Pages. He has made personal attacks, attempted to derail discussion into attacks on other users, and clearly has no interest in the article's talk page he is currently assaulting. I am requesting intervention. --Tarage (talk

) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. I am trying to get a consensus across the project wrt the usage of the label 'terrorist'. I have had snide remarks made against me and continuous edits deleted for trivial reasons. Is the talk page not the place to discuss these issues. Are we to be censored when the subject gets too close to the bone? --De Unionist (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not nonsense at all. Take a look at his talk's talk page and you'll see he's edit warring in a couple different area's and has already been blocked once for his edits. Why do we put up with this? RxS (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What Tarage and RxS are saying is correct. De Unionist is disrupting the 9/11 talk page by making inappropriate and needless comments. A neutral admin should look into this, and ask De Unionist to stop his disruptive activities. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly welcome a

WP:GF but without reciprocation. --De Unionist (talk

) 14:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, one can bring up a subject for discussion. But your idea of discussion is edit warring [31] [32], personal attacks and using Wikipedia as a forum [33] [34] [35] [36] and pointy behaviour [37] [38]. You've already been blocked twice [39]. You're being disruptive in two areas, both of which are under Arbcom sanctions. RxS (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

De Unionist's activities are totally disruptive. He has continued to push his POV despite repeated warnings. He was blocked before, but he hasn't learned anything. I'm involved, so I can't take actions against him. I think a neutral admin should decide whether to block him or warn him. AdjustShift (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a userbox from this editors page that was deleted per this MfD but I am fairly certain that it will be reverted. BigDunc^Talk 19:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A consensus currently exists: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. (For example, one could argue that the

Declaration of Independence is a document rationalizing terrorist acts.) Contributors are urged to consider their words carefully against that guideline. -- llywrch (talk

) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Afd for Quayside

Resolved

 – AFD speedy closed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User Melonite has Afd'd the article Quayside, having failed to get it moved a while ago (see talk page), however, the reason for nomination doesn't resemble a valid reason for deletion in the slightest, and is basically a move request. A number of new users have mysteriously flooded to the Afd, and Melonite is challenging anybody to prove socking is not occuring. So can someone please close it as an invalid nomination before it descends into chaos and Melonite has to be given a lesson about why a ducks quack never echos. MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Closed. Shereth 15:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I Dispute this. It was closed before any one had a chance to discuss the matter. The general consensus was that the article should be moved. MickMacNee has no valid reason to request this. //Melonite (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Plenty of your sock/meatpuppets were there to discuss it; claiming no one did is disingenuous. Also, AfDs are not venues to discuss if an article should or should not be moved. Valid close.

Tan | 39

15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tan beat me to it. Shereth 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Somebody should also look into the relationship between Meolnite, and user BigDaveo (talk · contribs), who has made a total of under 50 edits since registering in April 2007, was welcomed by Melonite before having even made an edit, and whose little activity seems to be to make minor edits, participate in the above Afd, support Melonite in a tag war at PimpMyNumber in May 2009, and to give Melonite a barnstar for neutrality 2 days ago. MickMacNee (talk) 15:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What sock/meatpuppets? I suggest you either prove statement this or withdraw it. I have one user account and one only. All of the others are genuine people nothing what so ever to do with me, if a user chooese to place a barnstar on my talkpage that is upto that user, or a user decides to follow me on WP nothing what so ever I can do to prevent it. Just as if someone did the same to anyone else. MickMacNee clearly has an axe to grind about the matter spouting this utter rubbish. //Melonite (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps a Checkuser can confirm what seems to be
  pretty obvious? Unitanode
  15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it can, but it won't. //Melonite (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No need for a checkuser. It's pretty obvious what has happened here. No-one needs to prove or withdraw anything at the moment, the AFD is a clear speedy close. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry Would you care to share with others what is so obvious as to what has happened here. Generally speaking (and I mean generally in the loosest form) when someone is suggesting something about another a reason is usually given, no reason what so ever has ever been stated. //Melonite (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Melonite, rather than continuing a useless argument, why not try this:

• write a proper article about the global meaning of Quayside in your personal sandbox
• once it's nicely referenced and ready to survive any AFD

• move the current Quayside article to Quayside (Newcastle)
• copy your ready-to-go article to Quayside
• add a dab to the original article

'Tis not rocket science here. (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Melonite was already open before this noticeboard discussion started. Observe more silliness by this account at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kbrose, where DGG, of all people, is accused of being a sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quayside moved to Quayside, Newcastle

Drawn Some (talk · contribs) has ignored the fact that Melonite had finally figured out how to request a move without deleting the article, and opened a Move Request. User Drawn Some has simply moved it himself anyway, apparently assuming someone (not him by all accounts) would then create a db page at Quayside, but now obviously Quayside simply redirects to Quayside, Newcastle, and that page has a seemingly nonsense Move request on it asking to move it to a more geographically accurate title. As far as I knew, we don't have articles at more specific titles if the more accurate title is vacant. I myself am not going to be busting a gut to create a db page for Quayside when I can't think of more than three articles to put on it, or create a generic article that doesn't read as anything more than a dicdef. But thanks to Drawn Some, only an admin can undo this now (if it needs to be undone). MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, unless Drawn Some is going to create a dab page or otherwise change Quayside, and if he is not going to bother fixing all the redirects from other articles that he has now created, it should be moved back to the status quo. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You moved it to Quayside, Newcastle, not me. I'm not getting involved in all of your hanky-panky, count me out. Drawn Some (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, actually, he didn't. And I've made note of this move at the suspected sockpuppet investigation. Unitanode 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• To be fair to Drawn he did. You've got the wrong move. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arriva436 is correct. I explained the move on the talk page. This sort of thing, and the nasty message on my talk page, is exactly why I'm not getting sucked into this hanky panky. Again, count me out. Drawn Some (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• • And to be fair to Mick, the second move was in response to the first, out-of-process, move. The second move wouldn't have been made without the first. This is quite a complicated situation, but it's not a great idea to make a controversial move, while discussion is ongoing about whether the move should be made. Unitanode 20:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I was only pointing out that you had made a slight error in an effort to clear things up. I agree, making a move while a discussion was in place wasn't too great. Arriva436^{talk/contribs}

You were right about Mick making the move referenced, which I hadn't noticed, so thanks for that. I had just searched Drawn Some's logs, and noticed he had moved Quayside. I actually think his pointing out that Mick made the second move makes DS look WORSE, not better, as it seems as if he was trying to distract from the disruptive -- in my view -- move he made in the first place. Unitanode 20:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User: ThuranX

I was hoping this editor could be spoken to regarding his

Abomination. He seems to be less interested in discussing the issues and more about personal attacks (also see a contribution on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=297465438&oldid=297465312

On a side note, two editors with moderating rights participated and yet no one was interested in speaking with

Abomination & http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Greb&diff=297282868&oldid=297274369

I'd like him to

assume good faith

, as many of my own edits are intended to improve the article, and while I have even given ground on some issues, the article, like all others needs to be encyclopedia standard. Asgardian (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've taken the liberty of informing ThuranX of this discussion. From above, it seems like this is the protocol for people who post notices here, but it wasn't done in this case. Unitanode 05:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just about time we have an RfC (maybe even immediate RFAR) on ThuranX. They have been engaging in constant inexcusable conduct for quite some time now. I've been watching their talk page since January/February and over time have found a lot of abuse. Just recently, Coren admonished ThuranX for their behavior. I think it's a good time to start acting on this behavior upon first notice. While I do wish for an RfC, I will not write the RfC as I do not have nearly as much information about the conduct as others have and would rather someone else write it. An RfC on ThuranX is overdue, period. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit that I don't know much of the "ThuranX history", so perhaps your correct in the RFC suggestion. I do have to say though, that looking at the links above, I'm honestly not seeing any huge "

 ? 

05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The continuation of this conduct after the admonishments I've seen since February 2009 satisfies me to make an RfC, although I'll probably not write it. After this post, maybe I'll file the RfC. I probably should strike out "immediate RFAR" as RFAR is a last resort, and I do mean last resort. Although I know I'm not one of these editors who acts as civil as "if I offended you, I'm sorry", I do keep myself civil enough as to prevent unnecessary drama and keep things cool, which ThuranX isn't doing. From what I see on their talk page, it seems as though an RfC is long overdue, as similarily stated above. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 05:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Asgardian has long held a serious problem with that article. Months ago, he gutted it, and had multiple editors complaining, but he did not listen. Now, a new editor came in, and tried to change things, but was intimidated by Asgardian's comment notes not to do so. I agreed that changes were needed, and helped implement the changes, many of which were called for under the last set of comments about the article. Since then, I've found that at every turn, Asgardian continues to make every effort to ignore any comments, citing some personal version of 'encyclopedia standard', and to turn the article back to his preferred version. He's taken to even blanking sections, and I find that after all that talk page, he is not listening to anyone else. I've repeatedly pointed out that reverting to his preferred version against what multiple other editors agree on is OWNing the page. I've tried to work with the other editors on that page to improve the article, and I've even tried to work with Asgardian, but he has been quite clear to all others that he's not particularly interested in anything but getting his own way, leading to one lock on the page already. This is not about my conduct, it's about Asgardian using my earlier history to leverage others out of an article he is insistent that only he can do justice to. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As to the Coren example - An established user logging out, using shifting IPs to harass and taunt me, went to an admin to try to provoke a problem. Big deal. I explained myself to Coren, who seemed to have no problem with it, as there was no further comment on it. As to my 'force is strong' line, by then, I'd been addressing the problem on abomination for days, and nothing else got through, so I tried some humor. ThuranX (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

In response to the "Coren example", just because there's no further comment doesn't mean they don't still find a problem. You're too told to be told. Please have a look at your talk page and tell me what you think, and please show us links to support your claims against Asgardian. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you guys tried

 ? 

06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC)the article edit history, showing numerous reverts by asgardian, the talk page showing a lack of BRD in his revert pattern,

Talk:Abomination_(comics)#Who's in change? where the new discussion]] takes place, including Emperor and J Greb again noting the problems with the article are largely the same as before ,and wherein Asgardian again continues to insist he's right. ThuranX (talk

) 06:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that in addition to all the recent warnings, ThuranX has already been blocked six times for incivility. The danger in giving an editor this much rope is that he will end up hanging himself permanently -- it doesn't do an editor favors to let abuses build up without sanction until they explode into a permaban. Looie496 (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also that Asgardian has a far longer block history for exactly the sort of edit warring behaviors which precipitated this situation. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Helpful hint: the tl:dr version is in bold text in the 4th paragraph) I have not looked into this specific situation don't you just LOVE it when a comment starts this way?, and likely won't have time to. But it might be useful to comment on a pattern I've noticed with regard to ThuranX. Generally, I think in a content dispute, ThuranX is often right; not 100% of the time, but a decent percentage. Unfortunately, it's also easy to goad him into cursing or rude comments.

Incivility is easy to notice and requires very little effort to evaluate. Disruptive editing is somewhat harder for uninvolved outsiders to notice. This is unfortunate, but understandable; admins and other editors willing to review a situation don't have 24 hours per day to look into things, and (like about 99% of everyone else) will take shortcuts when evaluating a situation. All other things being equal, when someone is cursing and the other isn't, a decent first guess (if you're going to guess) is that the one cursing is being disruptive. It requires substantially more effort to see if this first approximation is correct.

Civil, but otherwise disruptive editors (CODEs) and their ilk have figured this out. Rude, but otherwise correct editors (ROCEs) don't know this, or don't care, or are just incapable of reining in their tempers and do it even when they know it's counterproductive. CODEs know that in a battle with an ROCE, more often than not the ROCE is going to get sanctioned. We can argue about how to fix this, and whose fault this situation is, and how awful the admins are for taking shortcuts, etc. But it is still true.

If we really, truly have to chose between CODEs and ROCEs, I'd choose the ROCE. Others more interested in a happy editing environment might prefer the CODE. Those with less patience might take a "ban 'em both" approach. But we don't have to choose, if the ROCEs can get it through their thick skulls that incivility in defense of the encyclopedia does more harm than good.

If an ROCE makes a supreme effort to remain civil even in the face of clear disruption, then an uninvolved editor reviewing the situation can't take the easy way out and stop looking when they see incivility. They're forced, in a way, to take a look at the underlying issue, and are much more likely to see the disruptive behavior for what it is.

ThuranX needs to understand that when he loses his temper, he is making it much, much harder for uninvolved editors to review a situation and help out. In other words, he is unintentionally helping a CODE to achieve his goal. If his incivility actually causes an admin to block him, then he's completely defeated himself.

Having not looked into this particular situation, I am not saying that Asgardian is a CODE. I'm saying (a) ThuranX should take this advice to heart, and (b) now that he's been warned for incivility (again), it would probably be good for an uninvolved admin or two with some free time to earn their high salary, and look into the underlying issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Floquenbeam, as an involved editor, I'd have to say you paint a fairly good picture of the situation. And the labels all but fit. As for underlying causes... got time to sift through 2+ years worth of edits, chiding, and frustration? (IIRC that should hit the ArbCom case on Asgardian, which covers the nub of the practices that tend to set ThuranX, and a few others, off.) - J Greb (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As an involved editor (named above) I also see this as a reasonable assessment. Thuran X should learn to reply in a calm manner as it is east for people to disagree with his edits to cherrypick comments which often sidelines or misdirects the discussion. I have to admit that when I was passed the link I assumed this was the Asgardian Situation blowing up again, as it has done numerous times over the years, especially as editors like J Greb and myself are currently reverting his sweeping edits (as at

the articles talk page, including this by J Greb, and have been trying to address this content dispute. So, yes perhaps Thuran X's comments may need to be looked at further, but I think, in the interest of balance, so do Asgardian's edits (I am just not sure where we take it as we have been to the Arb Com in the past). (Emperor (talk

) 14:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

I'd have to say that I also agree with Floquenbeam. Having looked through several items, I must admit that for me it appears to be a

 ? 

16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Chicken and egg, for certain. There are times when I like and get along with both ThuranX and Asgardian, and there are times when I can find the behaviors of both to be intolerable. Both have been involved in a number of disputes with a number of different editors, so no surprise then that they'd mix it up together as well. Asgardian recently approached me on my talk page about dispute resolution with another editor; I recommended coming here only in the case of extremely serious behavioral issues, and suggested that a number of less severe alternatives may be more appropriate, and which I will reiterate that interested parties should explore. I've had little contact with Thuran, although I did protect the Abomination page about a week ago for all the edit warring, with little to no improvement from either side since then. BOZ (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(BTW, Ched, welcome aboard! It takes a little while for that raise to kick in, so you'll have to be patient. I'm still waiting for mine!) :) BOZ (talk) 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A new sockpuppet of community banned and indef blocked User:SirIsaacBrock

talk

) 19:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Per

Dog-baiting#Baiting sports

or closely related. Unfortunately he is also enacting these things here.

Wikipedia is not an arena for classicist-baiting; this user has been shown the door permanently in at least two incarnations independently. Let's make it clear that we mean it, even if it should mean that we are not going to get an article on rabbit-baiting or elephant-baiting in the foreseeable future. Hans Adler 19:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What rubbish, you should take a large sample of my edits of all my socks to see I have started, edited and created categories on a wide variety of subjects.

Dougweller are good editors, but they are clearly biased against me. Green Squares (talk

) 23:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For whoever is interested in looking at Green Squares' past contributions, most of his socks are listed in the collapsed table at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SirIsaacBrock. For convenience, here is a list of known socks with at least 3 months activity:

• 2005 WritersCramp (talk · contribs)

• 2005 LaLa (talk · contribs)

• 2006 Battlefield (talk · contribs)

• 2006 SirIsaacBrock (talk · contribs)

• 2007 Headphonos (talk · contribs)

• 2008 Chessy999 (talk · contribs)

• Green Squares (talk · contribs)

Hans Adler 23:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Intention to block

I've moved this back from archive - I meant to post last night to say that although no one else has replied, and I've been involved, I can see no justification to ignore the previous community ban, indefinite block, continued sockpuppetry, and recent editwarring and personal attacks which are a continuation of this editor's behavior. So, unless someone else does it or there is an obvious community consensus to undo the original ban/blocks, I'll be blocking this editor tonight or tomorrow.

talk

) 07:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Two independent bans should be enough. There are also serious problems with this editor's articles. Take

Pugnaces Britanniae it seems clear that this would lead to a protracted dogfight. Hans Adler

11:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

When you make accusations such as edit warring and personal attacks, isn't it generally expected that you provide diffs? 142.176.46.3 (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the redlink in my previous post; I have fixed the misspelling. The talk page and editing history of that article are full of proofs and links to further proofs such as the AfD for a biographical article that Green Squares created to "prove" that a certain dog book author was a reliable source on Latin authors. I did not expect anyone other than Green Squares himself to doubt the truth of what I said once they had looked at the talk page, but of course with a broken link that couldn't work. Now it seems to be moot anyway. The normal way to get unbanned is described in

WP:REHAB. Hans Adler

18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've applied the block. No discussion is required here - banned editors are prohibited from editing until their ban is lifted.  Sandstein  11:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone point me to where this editor was originally community banned? Hans said he was community banned twice, but I don't see a reference to either discussion on this thread or in the SPI case. There is some contradictory discussion here; some say that he has made significant contributions to Wikipedia and that a way should be found to allow him to continue to edit, and others agree that his contributions are significant but that he should remained blocked. Some of the same folks say his edits should be checked for copyright violations (although, if I'm reading it correctly, that would be the fault of the source, and not the editor?). Is there any evidence here of his personal attacks or recent editing problems? Note my comment on User_talk:Green Squares that some more significant explanation for the block was warranted, given the nature of the discussion on the SPI case referenced in the block. Nathan ^T 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I read the

Pugnaces Britanniae talk page to see what Hans was referring to. The discussion started out with everyone accusing GS of perpetrating an obvious hoax, or being so dumb as to fall victim to one so obvious. The basis for concluding the information was a hoax was a name of a cited Roman author, Gratius Falsius. Folks asserted that this was an old and clear hoax, the name meaning "Gratuitous falsehood" in Latin. As it turns out, it was a misspelled reference to Grattius Falsicus

. This didn't change the tenor of the discussion, though; GS was later described as a hominid, as incompetent, and generally treated poorly by folks opposing his editing in a content dispute. He was frustrated at having been called a hoaxer, naturally, but rather than describing his comments as disruptive, personal attacks or examples of bad faith assumptions and ownership... I think he was somewhat restrained compared to what might normally see in such situations.

I doubt further discussion on this board will lead to his unblock, although perhaps he will decide to appeal to the Arbitration Committee or some admin will decide to give him a new chance, but it seems worth it to set the record straight as least as far as the discussion on this talkpage goes. Nathan ^T 23:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

potential IP vandalism by 190.43.34.105 and associated addresses

An anon user working out of this Lima IP and others, probably including 190.232.79.250, 190.232.33.220, and likely several more, is industriously damaging various articles on prominent films and actresses by inserting apparently fictitious, completely unsourced, casting and auditioning histories. I caught on to this when I saw the Kim Basinger article had her auditioning 1n 1976 for films released in 1973 and 1974. [44] It would be helpful if someone shut this down. Other affected articles include The Exorcist, Taxi Driver, Dana Plato, Debra Winger, The Terminator -- the list is probably growing, since the guy is active right now. Some of the edits suggest it's a very badly informed fan inserting content, others are so loopy and contradictory that it's hard not to infer vandalism. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives!

This editor has been making multiple insertions of text at British Isles and related articles, as well as making copious comments at that and other talk pages. He has previously been reported for edit warring here, after having previously been blocked for 2 weeks (20 April 2009) and 1 month (11 May 2009) and (quoting User:Ckatz) "he has a long, long, long list on his previous account (User:ArmchairVexillologistDon), and a long history of disruptive and tendentious editing on the talk pages of British Isles, Canada, and other such pages under his accounts and his IP addresses." The current issue today relates to the inclusion of a small (and in itself relatively unimportant, but unhelpful, ungrammatical and mis-spelled) few words at British Isles. Frankly, many editors have now exhausted their ability to respond appropriately to an editor who is clearly highly eccentric, and totally unwilling to abide by the idea of community consensus whether on process, content, or the formating of his own comments. He is highly disruptive (if not, technically, a "vandal") and a longer block is now (again) required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month. This editor's been taking

I didn't hear that to unreasonable levels. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

16:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say he's avoiding his block: This looks like a DUCK (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we would have to do a checkuser to confirm that; based on first impressions, I'm not certain that the two accounts are the same person. AvD - while certainly annoying - hasn't to my knowledge shown the same tendency toward coarse and aggressive language that Qaziphone has, and Quaziphone has edited a wider range of pages in a shorter period of time than AvD (who typically settles in at one or two talk pages until he gets banished). There are some red flags because of the subject areas and the timing of edits, but the personalities seem different. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that one surprised me. "Qaziphone" might belong to someone else, but I don't think it's the same person as AvD. They're coming at the same issue from opposite sides and the style is quite different. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - AVDL has his own inimitable and unmistakable "style"! Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:PhilthyBear

I would take this to AIV but the story is more complex than that.
PhilthyBear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - This user (past history of disruption) added substandard images to three articles - Ford Taurus, Mercury Sable, and Ford F-Series. He was reverted by IFCAR. He re-reverted and left a rather unpleasant message on IFCAR's talk page. I proceeded to notify PhithyBear that, per community consensus, the lead image does not need to be the newest version of the car, it needs to be the best-quality image. He reverted the articles a second time, and then called my edits "unconstructive" and the quality images "terrible" in a note on my talk page. I once again explained the situation, and he responded by claiming he was going to report me... naturally, he did not. He then immediately logged out to avoid detection and reverted again.

After I gave him a final warning for disruptive behavior, he placed an uncivil message on my talk page, once again with an empty claim to report me and no sign that he made any effort to understand the WikiProject guidelines to which I pointed him. --Sable232 (talk) 16:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note for this user to use the article talk pages instead of edit-warring; hopefully civil discussion will help the user understand the consensus on these articles. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He also attempted to delete this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for the blanking and the misleading edit summary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this guy is persistent. 173.33.42.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which, strangely enough, is entering the same disputes as PhilthyBear, and just happens to be located in Ontario. Note that he's now accusing IFCAR of being my sockpuppet. --Sable232 (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, between the thread below, the messages on my talk page, and the Wikiquette alert, this has turned into harassment, not to mention block-evasion. --Sable232 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24h as well. Black Kite 22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Sable232

(note: relocated from bottom to match with related thread. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) )

The user (User:Sable232) has a past history of disruptions, being overly aggressive towards other users, threatening other users, and making wikipedia an unplesant experience in general.

He engages in "edit-wars" on a regular basis, he is uncourteous towards others, a "Cyber-Bully"and should be dealt with by admins.

Today User:PhilthyBear was trying to better an articles image from a terribly out dated and unflattering picture. His edits were repeatdly undone and then he was verbally attacked several times by User:Sable232 and by his other alias user name user:IFCAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.42.217 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

People are more likely to listen to you if you come back as yourself after your block expires. This approach is only going to lead to an extension of the block. Looie496 (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the behavior you're accusing Sable232 of exhibiting. PhilthyBear was rightfully blocked earlier today for removing a thread an ANI about him with a misleading edit summary. I figured you already knew that, though. Dayewalker (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The sockpuppetry and continued harassment has resulted in me exending the named account's block to 72 hours. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

While Sable232 has made unhelpful comments in the past, the IP complaint seems frivolous. --Rschen7754 (T C) 04:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation was pretty straightforward: User:PhilthyBear didn't agree with the WikiProject Autos convention of using the best car image in an article at the top of its page. This user wanted to use a different picture, and suggested that anyone who disagrees with him or her is a disruptive vandal and probably a sock. IFCAR (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hacking attempt

I received two emails saying I was asking for a password change.

• On June 11th from
  • 84.13.71.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• And June 13th from
  • 89.242.162.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Now coincidentally, they are on the same ranges that a prolific attacker I have been dealing with (

Otterathome (talk

) 17:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, you have a

strong password that gets changed reasonably frequently? – Toon

17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you already know what you need to know about the user involved. Just ignore the rest messages and continue to use your original password. The person requesting the reset does not get any information about you, its just a form of minor harassment. Thatcher 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it minor. But you're handling it appropriately, Otterathome, and I'm not sure what more we can do. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

vandalism by 98.194.124.102 on Stephan Rosti article

Resolved

 – User 98.194.124.102 warned (level 2) and attempt to revive discussion on the talk page. Sancho 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

A while back I asked for help on the Stephan Rosti article. I had a source showing he was Hungarian, 98.194.124.102 said he was Egyptian, user: Sanchom mediated between us and he said that I was right because I had a source and 98, didnt. So he restored the article with my source, now several days later user 98.194.124.102 has suddenly reverted the article to his version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephan_Rosti&action=history without any discussion or source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs/links to the mediation, and especially where User:Sanchom agreed the correct nation of birth. Once a consensus, with references, is established then removing it is vandalism - but if the other party can provide contrary references (even in Arabic, there are editors who are able to verify them) then the matter of nationality of birth (and any later changes in nationality) can be included also. Presently, providing there is good evidence of a consensus on the matter of nationality, removing same may be treated as vandalism (i.e. reverted and the violator warned and reported to AIV if necessary). LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't agree on the correct nation of birth. I did agree that Supreme Deliciousness had provided a source that support the sentence he was introducing. I indicated this support here and here. However, I made the point that this was a tertiary source (another encyclopedia), and that a reliable secondary source that contradicts it would be seen as the better source. Sancho 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First time I asked for help, look at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=297444078

mediation: Last segment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:98.194.124.102&oldid=297459985

I know arabic source is allowed, the problem here is that user 98. didn't bring Arabic source, he used to link to arabic wikipedia. And I pointed this out to him several times. Now he has no source at all. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

SD, again, I see no attempt on your part to initiate contact with the user. You could have used the article's talk page. You could have use the user's talk page. I'd expect you'd get a better response from him/her than you have in the past if you refrain from calling every edit of theirs that you disagree with vandalism, and just try to talk things through. I warned 98, and started a place on the article's talk page that you can use as a starting point for a discussion. Sancho 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sancho, as I have said before, it is impossible to talk to him, he doesn't listen, how do you explain that after you helped us, 2 days later he reverted the article? What does this show?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely impossible to talk to the user when you don't try. There's no need to guess the motivations behind his/her reversions. There are so many explanations... perhaps they're being malicious, perhaps they don't understand how to communicate properly, perhaps they feel that you're equally difficult to communicate with so they're not trying, perhaps they don't realize that their previous arabic sources are acceptable and are frustrated about how to support what they feel is a well-supported statement. I simply dealt with it by issuing a warning and encouraging discussion. Sancho 21:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User Supreme Deliciousness is mis-stating the facts as usual, to put it politely. I initiated a discussion on Stephan's Rosti's Discussion page 4 days ago, invited SD and Sancho to that Discussion page. Sancho seems to have taken a look but did not notice the new material at bottom, and therefore did not respond. SD made no contribution at all to the Discussion page and did not rebutt my sources. Sources have been provided, in Arabic (Al-Ahram newspaper article) and in English, showing Rosti's nationality and detailed biography that agrees a great deal with the biography I had constructed, which SD simply erased without discussion. Sancho: I am not sure where you have warned me, especially that it was you and SD who have either missed or not contributed to the Discussion page at all! I had made my argument there on 4 days earlier and no one challenged it. As you will see, SD's identification of Stephan Rosti as Italian and then as Hungarian (cannot make up their mind) will prove to be bogus. I ask that you please change that "resolution" above as having me warned. --98.194.124.102 (talk) 07:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block on User:Mgillfr

I would block this user but some might consider me an involved administrator -

1. Here are the contributions that warrant the blocking - reverts across several pages [47]
2. This is an example of one of the edits - [48]
3. The problem with that is it violates
   WP:ELG
   , and (probably the better rationale for blocking) the massive reverts are disruptive
4. User has been warned

Could I please get a short-term block? --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems we can't very well block him until he does it again after the warning you posted above...

Tan | 39

01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you check the timestamps on my warning versus his contributions, you will notice that he has done it after the warning. (I suppose I should have made it more clear). --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody? --Rschen7754 (T C) 05:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he's stopped editing and since blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive, there's no sense in blocking him now.

talk

) 13:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)`

User:Tikkuy

This user is continuously reverting the redirect of the page Chillin when the page badly fails to assert notability and has been directed to Wale page. He/She has been warned a number of times not to create such fancruft pages. Me and other users who are regular at the Lady Gaga pages were not able to find any notability for the song "Chillin". Hence the redirect. The user is using a number of IPs to do the job also. I raised the issue here in fear that 3RR might be committed. Please help. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If the user utilizes IP's in order to evade 3RR or to deliberatly abuse wikipedia, you can report him at

WP:ANI discussion regarding them - i notified the user now, but please don't forget this in the future :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 11:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Responce to sockpuppet concerns:
Thanks for letting me know! I do try to remember to log in all the time, but to be honest I'm sort of new at using Wikipedia extensively and I'm still learning. I think a look at my contributions will show that I've never tried to push an agenda with my IP address. Thanks, though! Tikkuy (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A whole section about little old me? My, I do feel popular. I'd just like to address some of the false accusations constantly being made against me by Legolas2186.

- "He/She has been warned a number of times not to create such fancruft pages." Actually, I have only recieved one warning for creating 'inappropriate pages'. The other warning I recieved for adding 'promotional material to Wikipedia', which is obviously not true (you can look through all revisions of the page and can clearly see that there has never been any promotional material on there). When I attempted to speak to Legolas2186 on his

talk page for Chillin and the talk page

for the Lady Gaga template.

- "Me and other users who are regular at the Lady Gaga pages were not able to find any notability for the song "Chillin"." You can see on the page for Chillin that most users were actually agreeing with me about this issue and attempting to help me add to the page. Legolas2186 is the only person who continuosly deleted the page and most people believed it should be there.

- "The user is using a number of IPs to do the job also. You can see that I have only used two accounts on Wikipedia - this account (Tikkuy) and my actual IP address which is only used when I have forgotten to sign in. I would hardly call that multiple accounts and I have only used my second account accidentally.

- Also, I'd just like to point out that a quick look at Legolas2186's talk page will show that they have had several altercations with other Wikipedia members before now. Most of them have occurred because Legolas2186 refuses to allow what he does not see as 'reliable' sources on Wikipedia, even though most people would see them as reliable. These include MTV, YouTube and even BMI which is an official copyrighting database. This is simply another case of Legolas2186 refusing to allow other people's contributions on the wiki. I'm sorry you had to be caught up in it, Excirial! Tikkuy (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:24.169.227.50

24.169.227.50 (talk · contribs) is leaving insults on my talk page after I left a warning for him/her do to their vandalism of Ed McMahon. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked.

Tan | 39

13:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

Resolved

• Queen Padmé Amidala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[49], [50], and [51]. Is RBI necessary, or should other actions be taken? MuZemike 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They are quoting an edit made by another user [52] who hasn't edited since June 2. –xeno^talk 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that was straight vandalism. Blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh, I can't read. Unblocking.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I saw the same initially. The user's edit history is somewhat problematic, but not vandalism. –xeno^talk 20:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? What did I do? Queen Padmé Amidala (talk) 14:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How about:

• failure to use edit summaries
• this MySpace-like post
• this article that has no references, and looks like a hoax
• this edit
• this edit

Does this name just a few for ya? (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Userpage has been protected and Echo's signature was modified most graciously upon request. This is concluded.

type! snype?

16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should go ahead and block this troll and I dare say even run a checkuser. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ 01:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Scjessey has been the target, long-term, of IP and SPA troll(s?) who exhibit a common pattern of junior high school level taunts and insults.[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89] He doesn't seem to be bothered by it - if he is, he can always ask for his pages to be semi-protected. I'll inform him of this discussion. Wikidemon (talk) 01:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Many of these may be related to this individual, who continues to harass me off-wiki as well. That being said, it's all pretty harmless and I'm not losing any sleep over it. I would be grateful if an admin could semi-protect my user page, actually. I would have asked before, but to be honest it had never occurred to me. Sometimes I'm not the sharpest tool in the box. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thang!

type! snype?

02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but could you protect the user page and not the talk page? I wouldn't want to prevent new or anonymous users from asking me for help, etc. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that could be arranged. ;P

type! snype?

03:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome. My thanks. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, CheckUser actions are mostly to check for sockpuppet activity. Not all trolls engage in sockpuppetry. Do you suspect this user of sockpuppetry? Kingturtle (talk) 03:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that was obviously pretty much the reason for requesting CU - here instead of WP:SI to kill 2 birds and multiple trolls with one stone. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} ┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐ 04:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• What's with the sig? Are you flipping someone off? --64.85.216.140 (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, those are buildings. Log in? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Buildings? *ahem* Bullshit. That sig is completely inappropriate for use while editing an encyclopedia. (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

At least he is using a signature, unlike

WP:SIG from a guideline to a policy. Otherwise, ASE's signature isn't enforceable. seicer | talk | contribs

15:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention how obvious it is - one would think anyway looking at my last comment 3 sentences up - that I've removed the buildings from my signature. I may just put it back now just to give people a reason to bitch about buildings in sigs. </sarcasm> - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What Bwilkins said. This is the same disingenuousness you displayed over the 'glory hole' image, and it has rapidly become disruptive. Purposefully so, it would seem. //roux   15:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How is this signature issue enforceable? seicer | talk | contribs 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't, unfortunately; unlike ASE's other boundary-testing, there's not a lot that can be done. He's removed it from his sig though, so presumably whatever point he was trying to make has been made and now he'll be on to the next form of wide-eyed "No no, it couldn't possibly be that" disingenuous disruption. It's either that or he really is completely clueless about a wide variety of things and how things are perceived by other people. I think that is... unlikely. //roux   16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[Insert comment from Allstar containing eyerolling, references to cabals, and internet slang, such as "ohnoez ZOMG"]

Tan | 39

16:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Typical Tan. At least you're consistent. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 16:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And since we're being all technical, I'll note per this diff that I changed my sig almost 5 hours before it was even mentioned in this thread. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 16:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I assumed it was a couple of domed Arabesque buildings on either side of a large skate park or irrigation ditch of some sort.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

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

IP removing fact tags, need admin help

68.48.205.152 (talk · contribs) has been going through and making odd changes to articles- most disturbingly, removing redlinks: 1, 2, 3. I reported this once before and never got traction on it. Can an admin step in here and preferably block the user? Efforts to reach out have been unsuccessful, (see 1, 2) though at least the IP has acknowledged them by blanking the talk page. tedder (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If they continue to remove maintenance templates or anything, issue a final warning, then take it to

WP:AIV if they continue. At least the removal of maintenance templates without explanation or fixing is clear-cut vandalism. Regards SoWhy

12:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, SoWhy, thanks. I didn't know a complex case like that would be something that admins would want to handle on AIV. tedder (talk) 12:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot speak for other admins, but to me removing maintenance templates is vandalism if done this way. Removing intentional redlinks is another matter (see

WP:REDLINK) but at least in cases where the red link is desirable and the user is not willing to discuss it, it can probably be classified as disruption (which should probably be handled here though!). But in this case the problem seems to be rather that the user is unwilling to talk about it rather than any malevolent intentions and they seem to fix a lot of formatting errors along the way. Since they have stopped removing maintenance templates, I think we should keep the issue here for now and see, how it develops. Regards SoWhy

13:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

PS: Since I believe the IP is acting is good faith, I have invited them here to explain their edits. Regards SoWhy 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been given several clear warnings, and I'm watching his contributions. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) Thanks, Quadell and SoWhy. In the past I would roll these back with an edit message, now I'm just marking them vandalism. And I agree- when the only purpose is removing stub templates, fact tags, and redlinks, and there's no edit summary or discussion, it becomes pretty clear. It's exasperating- I've chatted with other similar editors in the past and at least been able to have a two-way conversation, but no dice with this one. tedder (talk) 15:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo, already subject to editing restrictions, keeps on violating rules

wikiality makes sense far superior to versions like the current one" [93]; and suggested the use of a "credentialized linguist" instead of quoting the required references.[94]

.

Stevertigo has persisted to post long-winded assays on the

WP:OR own definitions he inserts in the article.("In biology...") After several demands -over several weeks- for him to quote references,[95], [96]; he finaly explained his inability to produce them was because he would need to use his "credit card" and because "None of which (research papers) particularly interests me".[97]

He uses the Talk:Life page extensively as a forum for his assays, he centers on human life, human psychology[98] and some on his concepts of god, as supposed of addressing life in general - the subject of the article. Once he introduced an assay (100% OR) into the main article:[99]. As a cell & molecular biologist, it is alarming seeing Stevertigo, without any formal education in biology, fabricate statements, terms and definitions, and push them in the talk page and in the article. On one occasion, he introduced one reference, but it does not quote or support the definition (his Original Research) that he introduced.[100], so I also corrected that.

Of outmost importance, 'Stevertigo recently became subject to an editing restriction for one year for edit-warring: "He is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. [...] Non-compliance to the above are grounds for blocking for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling."

Since he has proven to be disruptive in the

talk

) 01:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to report that this user has violated restrictions placed upon them by the Arbitration Committee, the correct venue is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Regards SoWhy 12:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think BatterIncluded is saying that Stevertigo has violated ArbCom restrictions. I see this ANI entry as a new complaint against Stevertigo, and that his restriction under ArbCom is not involved, except to demonstrate that the editor has shown unruly editing behavior in other articles. Binksternet (talk) 15:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The revert that BI complains of [102] appears to be SV quite reasonably removing a PA from BI. I've blocked BI for that William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I approve of this block, I would like to point out that after reviewing the flow of discussion at Talk:Life, Stevertigo's contribution to it appears to me to be very disruptive -- he constantly advocates, in very long-winded passages, for points of view that are not based on sources and do not receive support from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 01:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Steve's "Should I again regard you BI as just another hostile know-it-all professional that I have to take a few inches off of?" line certainly didn't help matters any. Tarc (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veritee 2

Resolved

 – Article deleted and User:Netquantum temporarily blocked for disruption.-- Ed (Edgar181) 22:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This AFD is a possibly sensitive issue. The article Veritee has been the subject of an aggressive cross-wiki marketing campaign. Previous versions of the article (and related) were deleted after prior AFDs. The older AFD discussions were courtesy blanked by Jimbo himself. The current AFD is the subject of likely sockpuppetry with behavior suspiciously similar to the prior AFDs which turned ugly. It would probably be helpful if admin or two could take a look and help out and try to head off the kind of situation that ended up bringing Jimbo into it before. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist but it looks quite normal to me, no high amounts of socks nor any major flaming or other incivility. The two users who seem to take it a bit too personally can be dealt with if needed. The AFD is due in half a day anyway, so I see not much to worry about. Regards SoWhy 12:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the associated history of the prior AFDs that concerned me. Thanks for watchlisting. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Developed country

Resolved

 – page protected Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a significant edit war going on at

reliable source which criticizes the CIA report, and all would be well, but, as it appears that there is no such reliable source, a variety of editors continues to edit the article to prove their point that the CIA is wrong. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 17:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Protected page for 1 week. Left note on talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the Developed country article, the CIA publishes two lists. One lists South Korea and the other list doesn't. There should be a closer look because one list has South Africa and Turkey on it but not on the CIA AE list. Like South Korea, Singapore is listed on the CIA DC list but not the CIA AE list. This seems strange because the GDP of Singapore is about the same as the US and higher than most European countries.

This is listed as "resolved" but, hopefully, it will be truly resolved rather than just page protected and declared resolved. Good luck, editors! User F203 (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen edit wars going on for months, if not longer, on this page and others concerning those CIA lists. I would strongly encourage the editors involved to open an RfC on whether those lists should be included at all. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean the per capita GDP, as the full GDP of the US is nearly 60 times that of Singapore. :) ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested: KojiDude

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

After viewing their recent contributions to

WT:RFA, including edit summaries, I raised concerns at this user's talk page that they were making bad-faith disruptive contributions. Their reply essentially confirmed my view as correct, i.e. they see the whole thing as a joke. Therefore, I've applied a short block. Feedback is welcome. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

20:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Spewing childish remarks like "Because I can" have no place on an RFA. Majorly talk 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm biased, as some of his comments were directed at me. However, while I was attempting to raise a serious concern, he was clearly not interested in having a serious or constructive conversation. Outside of trying to anger me, and show disrespect to other editors, I can't see how he was trying to be anything other than disruptive. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

After foolishly looking at that thread at

WT:RFA

(somebody owes me 3 minutes of my life back), I'm left with a few opinions:

• WT:RFA should be MFD's as a waste of time, WMF computer resources, and electricity.
• We block people for goofing around on the RFA talk page!? Really? I assume because they're disrupting the usually productive work that goes on there?
• If only the RFA candidate in question would emulate the calm, mature, and de-escalating nature exhibited by all the admins in that thread, he'd sail thru RFA. You guys know that non-admins can see you bickering and acting like children, right?

How embarrassing for all of you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, we don't block people for goofing around on the RFA talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DENY. The back and forth, the escalation and the resultant block indeed makes it look like we spend more time bickering over nonsesne and slapping each other on the wrist than getting any work done. How silly. Shereth

20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good grief at that talk page. Truely, we should mark it as {{humor}} and move it to a separate area. On a normal talk page i might say i agreed with a block such as demonstrated above, but seeing the amount of rediculousness already at that page i would say Koji was behaving exactly par the page standards. Statistically taken, what have we won by blocking this user? The page didn't improve, we created quite the soapbox, and we came to the conclusion that

WT:RFA is utter nonsense. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

With respect, you have mis-read this. The one RfA Talk post I cited was confirmation that the

WT:RFA. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

20:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What have we gained? The same thing we always gain by blocking people who are trolling: a temporary stop to the trolling, and if we're very very lucky, they will change their approach and refrain from trolling in the future. It's not wonderfully effective, true, but it's better than doing nothing. Friday (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Well said. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block: I've often observed KojiDude's behavior there to be trolling, so I also agree with what Friday just said, and edit summaries like this and this, followed by this further justify the block. Acalamari 21:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree that KojiDude's contributions have crossed the line, but this is an abnormally short amount of warning and attempt to work with problem user before blocking. You're essentially blocking to get his attention, without having spent much effort on the talk page to do so without blocking first.

I'm going to try to more politely discuss it with the user on his talk page, but I recommend an unblock. 24 hrs is not a sensible block length for this problem - either nothing, with more good faith attempts to discuss, or an indef if there's clearly no change going to come of it, which I clearly think is not appropriate yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I dunno why anyone could be upset about this; Koji dared SheffieldSteel to block him. Said it would make his day, and the edit summary - "fingers crossed!" Don't make him into the martyr he wants to be.

Tan | 39

23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to get too worked up about this block given the attitude expressed by Koji in his statements. But I would have liked to have seen more of an effort at civil discussion before complying with an editor's "dare" to block them.

Showing restraint and leading by example are good things. It's not at all clear to me what Koji meant by their various statements, and their comments are not so blatantly over the top or inappropriate that they warranted an immediate block. Discussion would have been good. A posting here or somewhere similar before blocking might also have been good. This seems like one of those blocks that causes at least as much drama as it addresses. And now another editor will likely be embittered by a permanent stain on their log. There's already enough tension and animosity in the discussion related to that RfA. But again, it's hard to really say that this block was wrong. Maybe just premature and avoidable? I guess we'll never know now... ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with you, but it is his fourth block. I'm pretty sure he's not worried about permanent stains.

Tan | 39

00:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The earlier three blocks were all from 2006. Not particularly relevant here and now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely; but I suppose that's not the first time I've seen you do that. Moving on.

Tan | 39

01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"In The News" Section Update

Resolved

 – Change made. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin update the "In The News" section on the front page under the 2009 Washington Metro train collision story? It says that 7 people had died, sadly according to this story from DC station WUSA-TV, the number has gone up to 9. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This probably should have been at Main Page errors, but I independently confirmed it and made the correction.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about adding this to the wrong place. Thanks for the correction though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Orsahnses

Possibly involved in an edit war/content dispute in the Philippines article. 23prootie (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Benson Verazzano

Resolved

 – User blocked. Move along, nothing to see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Benson Verazzano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor seems to have become disruptive. He edited the now deleted article

Creation according to Genesis here by admin Dougweller. Possibly some kind of block is in order. Mathsci (talk

) 03:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not write anything in the Dunning-Davis article as Mathsci well knows, I reverted to the initially written version. Suggesting I "invented" information myself is laughable. A quick cross check of the earlier version proves it's nonsense. I reverted (which has now been conveniently deleted) so that it said SOMETHING of interest instead of basically that the guy was born and taught at Hull. lol The article was on it's way to being deleted anyway, so what's the point.

2. I had no idea outing was anything evil on Wiki. Regardless it was a joke. His username is Mathsci, and I posted links to two Mathscis - one of them www.mathsci.com just for the heck of it. I have no idea who Mathsci is, so how am I going to out him?

3. I have not been disruptively editing on Genesis, but have been involved in supporting another editors position, and debating a matter on the talk page.

4. These allegations are spurious and disruptive in themselves and serve no purpose other than to drive me off Wikipedia, which I'm sure Mathsci would enjoy.

5. Where is the assumption of good faith?--Benson Verazzano (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BV has been indef blocked by Raul as a sock of Gregory Clegg. Dayewalker (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:ERK

• This user accused me of copyright violations on this page, despite me writing the plot in a different way. I tried my best to avoid copyright violations, but yet this user reverted it as a "copy vio" anyway! Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot also thinks it's a copyright violation; for the record, so do I, and I have removed that material again. I note that your talk page is quite full of warnings about copyright as well, so you cannot claim ignorance as an excuse. Thank you for bringing the matter to people's attention, however. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note also this post on my talkpage. Ryanbstevens, if the original text is a copyright violation (as it was here), merely shifting a few words around does not make it any less so. You want to completely rewrite the section, without any reference to the copyright-violating text, and without copying text from elsewhere. Also, please don't split up discussions; you wanted a discussion here, and now you've got one. Also also, it is good form to let a user know when you are discussing them here, especially when you are accusing them of wrongdoing. I've notified ERK on your behalf, but please don't skip that step if you open such discussions again. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryanbstevens, the content in question was a copyright violation and as per policy I removed it from Wikipedia. The plot you copied only contained minimal changes to wording and syntax; it was on the whole a verbatim quotation from Barnes & Noble's product listing for the book. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's copyright policy, found at

WP:COPY. I planned to respond on your talk page to the message you left me [104] before you removed it from my talk page. Because you removed your message from my talk page I assumed you recanted you remarks and no further action was necessary from me. ERK ^talk

05:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User: J.Delanoy

Resolved

 – Yet another IP sock. Nothing to see here. Enigma^msg 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is user 86.146.156.203, reporting user: J.Delanoy for misconduct.

J.Delanoy reverted my edits to my own talk page requesting an unblock, then stopped me from editing it again. Now, regardless of whether or not the original block was justified, this is totally unacceptable behaviour.

1.) You should never revert another's talk page without very good reason. 2.) You certainly should not remove a simple unblock request. Instead, you should respond to it. Decline it if you wish, but don't just arrogantly remove it as if it never happened. 3.) You also should not just lock a talk page so that the user is unable to protest your previous bad behaviour.

Effectively the user violated my talk page, arrogantly ignored my request for a review of my block, then gagged me to prevent me from reporting his outrageous behaviour.

I'll say again: whatever you think of the original block, this is NOT acceptable. If I am to be punished for stepping out of line, fine. I am not, I repeat, not contesting that. But that does not excuse others doing the same. Fair is fair. I apparently broke rules, I got blocked for it. J. Delanoy has also broken rules, and likewise deserves to be punished for it. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Your block notice details that you have beensocking, genre-trolling, and edit-warring - and your own unblock request seems to provide agreement that you have had other accounts. Please provide details of your other accounts so that we can assess your report here.--VS ^talk 07:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are other ways to request unblocking, so if you do want a review of your block, I suggest using one of those. I am sure j.delanoy will be happy to explain his actions here, if you so desire. So I suggest not evading your block, and requesting an unblock if you wish to edit. You could even do so by emailing me, via the link on my userpage. Prodego ^talk 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I note also that you have not informed J.Delanoy of your ANI post - as is required out of courtesy at the very least. I have done that for you now.--VS ^talk 07:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume J.delanoy protected the talk page par the page protection policy regarding unblock template abuse (unblock requests were incivil, and offered no real indication as to why to unblock). Regardless of Werther the original unblock request was justified, i would say J.Delanoy acted accordingly to the policy. As for responding instead of reverting, what response could he give as you were not requesting to be unblocked, but rather arguing about the block? Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The person behind 86.146.156.203 (and 87.194.171.224) appears to have been editwarring for some months using a dynamic IP, e.g. [105]. --62.25.109.195 (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I will also note that your unblock request is incorrect. Namely, warnings are not necessary if the reviewing administrator thinks that they will serve no purpose. I will admit that at first I thought you were another sockpuppeteer who also frequently complains about "not receiving warnings", as your IP ranges are close to his. However, the point remains. You were socking by taking advantage of a dynamic IP, and I do not feel that I should waste my time and others by 1) requiring warnings before I block you and 2) actually dignifying your unblock requests with replies. You clearly either do not understand why you are being blocked in the first place, or you do understand, and just don't care. I suspect the latter. In any case, your only desire with your unblock requests is to attempt to attempt to

you don't have a leg to stand on. J.delanoy^gabs_adds

16:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

cursing by 82.109.84.9

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al_Qamishli&action=history

Look at the top: "#### All Asyriac Nation" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is blocked. Let's not give them visibility by posting their antics here. I recommend deleting this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 13:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish?

I recently came upon the renamed User456246478845 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was involved with editing Anna Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It appears that extremely shortly after the user was blocked for a week, he requested his right to vanish and was renamed. His old public logs can be seen here. After that, he most definitely returned under various IP addresses in the 75.21.96.0/19 range, being blocked by TruSilver for two weeks, and the other day by Nishkid64 on a different IP address.

My question is as such. How come this user who was not in good standing was allowed to use his right to vanish? Why is he still allowed to edit the English Wikipedia after admitting who he is? And is he still allowed to edit while continuing to be disruptive in the topic that he got blocked for in the first place? He clearly does not know what the right to vanish means and simply used it to get a not-so-clean slate. I doubt that the rename would be undone, but the renamed user should not have been given the benefit of the doubt once he started disrupting "anonymously".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing_username/Archive62#RevAntonio_.E2.86.92_I_don.27t_know --Dweller (talk

) 23:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that he had requested his right to vanish and has not actually vanished. He had just come off of a week long block before he requested it, even if it was through Protonk (and it's clear that the IP commenting in that discussion was the user himself).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The right to make a username vanish is extended to all users regardless of standing or history. Nobody ever actually vanishes because edits can always be traced to IP addresses. Andre (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. As noted below, only users in good standing have the right to vanish. Please see m:Right to vanish. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but vanishing does not mean a fresh start, which is whats actually happening. He should make it clear who he is or was on the new account's userpage. If hes evading a ban or block Ryulong, have an admin take care of it, or post to ANI. Syn 01:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved from BN with this edit. Syn 01:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

But if he hasn't vanished and is still causing problems, why should we still honor his right to vanish when he clearly has not? This is why I put the thread on

WP:ANI.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 02:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though a crat has the technical means of granting a name change via rtv, doesn't mean they are the ones to deal with it. This can be handled by admins, and the community. I understand what you mean, but if actions are needed it doesn't necessarily have to be handled by a crat. Syn 02:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RTV says that only users in good standing have the right to vanish. This user was not in good standing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 05:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Who then was a gentleman? is correct; RtV only applies to users in good standing, and it is a courtesy, not a "right". Please see m:Right to vanish. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Avi. Enigma^msg 05:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think of it as a courtesy we should apply liberally, but where a courtesy is abused I'm not sure if we're wise to keep extending it... – Luna Santin (talk) 06:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What determines "in good standing"? He wasn't under a block anymore when he requested Rtv, correct? Granted, he obviously didn't vanish and that aspect should be dealt with.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. It is indeed a courtesy extended liberally not a guaranteed right, but by

WP:AGF it is correctly extended to nearly everyone. "Good standing" doesn't really play into an RTV request -- if the user was banned or is a known vandal, we would not extend the courtesy, but presumably this user would not be making edits anyway. If the user uses RTV and then edits again, that isn't disallowed either. Andre (talk

) 07:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way, User456246478845 has come back as IP addresses and admitted to his previous account having existed and is being disruptive in the same fashion as he was prior to his decision to request his right to vanish. Why should we continue to grant him the courtesy when he does not follow its general precepts?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I think you are getting hung up on a technicality here. The Right to Vanish only works if the individual in question actually vanishes. In other words, that person goes away & never returns. If one can prove that a troublemaker who has exercised RTV did not actually leave, then their previous history is reattached to the new user name, both the good & the bad. The question of how to handle a person who abuses RTV I'll leave to someone else to answer. -- llywrch (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

But there is no new name to attach it to. Just IP edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove that these IP edits belong to the same person? Then that person's history follows her/him, just like an editor who socks as an anon IP. -- llywrch (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP has admitted to who he is, and he complains when he's been rangeblocked. So you're saying nothing should be done about it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As a policy issue, I've suggested at

Wikipedia talk:Right to vanish that the "right to vanish" should have a delay of a few months associated with it. That would prevent this type of drama. --John Nagle (talk

) 18:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Forbidden Planet disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Semi-protected 1 week --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

64.136.26.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bob53h (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We've got an IP and an apparent sock (a named ID from that IP) causing some trouble at that article: poor English grammar, screwing up the references, trying to remove the ending as a "spoiler" (contrary to policy) and also repeatedly posting an uncited claim that some particular author was the inspiration. He refuses to respond to questions. I ask for a school block (i.e. some healthy stretch) for both user IDs. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

166.205.130.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Another IP has gotten into the act. Maybe semi-protection of the article is called for. A 50-year old movie getting targeted. Go figure. That IP, incidentally, just commented here, about Thuranx, a few minutes before fooling with the FP article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

166.205.131.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yet another one, obviously from the same range as the one just above. Semi-protection along with blocking Bob53h would take care of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected. If Bob53h continues causing trouble, I'll take care of it then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This edit, saying that ThuranX is the Joker, concerns me. MuZemike 00:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DFT. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexandrey

The above-mentioned user refuses to accept that

Jay

14:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User blocked for 72 hours.

Tan | 39

14:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hellboy10

Resolved

 – indeffed by Tan

Editor has been inserting unreferenced information about future Disney releases, or removing sections from some articles (see

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 16:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Death threats. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:JoeLoeb keeps creating nonsense talk pages

This user has this odd habit of creating talk pages for articles that don't exist, or that contain nothing but a repetition of the title of the page. I brought this up with him several weeks ago, and [106] was his less than helpful reply. I took it to

talk

) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours, for both continuing to ignore requests not to edit disruptively and for the snarky responses that such requests seem to provoke. Hopefully they'll use the break to read up on editing policy. EyeSerene^talk 18:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems

Hi just to say there's a bit of a backlog in my humble opinion at Wikipedia:Copyright_problems. All help appreciated. Sticky Parkin 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

USER:Jægermester

Seems to be a single purpose account used to push a Danish nationalist/Anti Greenlandic POV on the articles

Template:Prime Ministers of Greenland - and most seriously he is inserting possibly libelous unsourced material and ethnic slurs into the article on Kuupik Kleist who is protected under the Living Persons Policy. I have used my reverts for today and need an administrator to take a look at the editing pattern of USer:Jægermester and do something about it. There is no purpose of adding difs here his entire edit history is made of this.·Maunus·ƛ·

02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Maunus

Is pushing Greenlandic nationalist POV. He makes personal attacks as well. He is also lying, information from news agencies like the DPA can hardly be considered libelous or "slur". He is also trying to recruit people to support him in his edit-warring[108]. Jægermester (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "greenlandic nationalist POV" I am pushing has been determined by a broad consensus at Talk:Greenland, and is supported by sources.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep these kind of discussions centralized, and don't spead it across several pages. From what i can see this is a content dispute, rather then vandalism. Note that for content disputes, we have

Dispute Resolution. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 05:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Warned both users. Block on next revert. Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is pretty frustrating that there is no support for enforcing the consensus version made by multiple editors on the talk page against tendentious edits from a one purpose account. Instead you come along warning both the problem editor and the one seeking help to do to enforce the consensus - after he has ceased edit warring and sought dispute resolution. And as for "spreding it across several pages" I posted it on one, because I thought that was the most apt, where it was removed and I then reposted it here as I was told to by the one who removed it at the other ANI page. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a silly dispute. The two of you might want to read the constitution and then Lov om Grønlands Selvstyre. It explains this far better than any English language source since they always get it wrong. There was wide agreement about the new law; only

Vyvyan Basterd (talk

) 13:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That reponse is disengenious and unhelpful. I have read the law and I am pretty sure jægermester has too - the issue is how to translate it into english. Jægermester inserted his version repeatedly after being told by a consensus of editors that his version did not concord with their understanding of the law. I reverted him three times, then took it to ANI where I was giving a blockwarning and condescending comments by you. What was I supposed to have done in this situation? How is it that what I have done has constituted "feeding POV pushing" I have merely reinserted the version favoured by 6 editors on the talk page three times then asked for assistance?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Remember

THE TRUTH :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs}

) 16:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We are not debating truth here - we are debating how a group of serious editors should deal with a single purpose pov pushing editor. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all there's no such thing as "my reverts for today". You're being warned for edit warring rather than keeping a cool head and seeking dispute resolution. You lowered yourself to the POV pusher's level by revert warring and only then, when you knew you'd get blocked for making more reverts, did you come here. You kept feeding the troll rather than keeping a cool head. What did you expect?

Vyvyan Basterd (talk

) 17:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. After discussion in the talk page I spent my three reverts in favour of the version decided upon, then I came here for assistance. Six hours later when I had been a sleep for five hours I got a warning. ·Maunus·ƛ· 01:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If a given version is truly supported by consensus, then there is no need for any individual editor to revert multiple times -- other editors will step in. If that doesn't happen, the case that consensus exists is weak. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe a page like Greenlandic prime ministers just don't appear on too many watchlists at that time of night. You guys have a lot of opinions without even having gone to the talk page to see the discussion.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If this is how veteran editors in good standing are treated when seeking assistance in content disputes on ANI then it certainly is the last time I'm going to resort to that.·Maunus·ƛ· 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for further (or really any) criticism of Maunus at this time. It appears that he pretty clearly was editing from the consensus-majority point of view, and if might have reverted once more than might have been optimal, the point has been made. I find the tit-for-tat raising of his name here on ANI in the first place to be unimpressive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Newyorkbrad. A little less edit-warring would have been good and he might have been better off to observe

WP:3RR and should not be overly chastised here. --Richard (talk

) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Myosotis Scorpioides and Raymond Steed

WP:RS (only offers primary sourcing from the authors personal website as a reference), and he refuses to discuss his reasons why he feels this information is so important, except for a few edit summaries claiming that either a *redirect* from a deleted article makes the information necessary, or that "DYK experts" approved it. I could use some more eyes on this page. MikeWazowski (talk

) 03:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think it's important or relevant to the article, particularly if there is no reliable source cited. The redirect is only there because it was mentioned in the article (see

snigbrook (talk

) 13:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I only created/and wrote the Raymond Steed article in response to a suggestion made at the first AFD of Fledgling Jason Steed. It was suggested that a brief mention be made of the book in the memorial section of such an article, which I carried out - in one sentence. However, MikeWazowski is repeatedly removing this information - even though it passed muster with the Did You Know (DYK) Wikipedia editors back in early May - and made it onto the front page without any problems. The information is sourced to a website run by the author - and is non controversial. I feel MikeWazowski is at fault here.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The author's website definitely wouldn't qualify as an independent third party source. I just did a quick Google search for <"Mark A Cooper" "Raymond Steed" memorial> (based on the contested contributions), and came up with only 17 unique returns - not a single one would qualify under the reliable sources guidelines, as they're either Amazon reviews, message boards, other wikis, or the author himself. I agree with MikeWazowski and Snigbrook - this seems like some kind of POV shopping to benefit Cooper or his book, and doesn't belong in the article.

TheRealFennShysa (talk

) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have asked for the whole article to be deleted. Hopefully that will make everyone happy. Back to the playground now boys. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 19:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Prod declined, speedy declined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with what TheRealFeenShysa said. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Asmahan article

The asmahan article is missing a lot of sources. I added a lot of information, with many sources this have now been revert by: 98.195.180.144

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asmahan&diff=298329690&oldid=298328857

I would like to request a lock down on both the Asmahan and Farid al Atrash articles so that only registered members can change them. And also change it back to the sourced version.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track

) 11:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not only about the protection, he removed all my sources and added non-sourced info. Is that ok? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A Google Books search is a

BWilkins ←track

) 13:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you telling me that no source at all is better then these books? Click on the links.

"Asmahan's Secrets":http://books.google.com/books?id=Eca2pXOX-F8C&pg=PA113&dq=asmahan+syria

"The great Syrian revolt and the rise of Arab nationalism": http://books.google.com/books?id=Ej8ZMk1822sC&pg=PA72&dq=sultan+al+atrash

"Let jasmine rain down":http://books.google.com/books?id=pgoFDZeHhF4C&pg=PA109&dq=asmahan "World Music": http://books.google.com/books?id=gyiTOcnb2yYC&pg=PA328&dq=asmahan+born&lr=

How are these not reliable sources? I even posted the pages so everyone can click on it, look it up, and read it directly. These are documented books. What kind of source are you asking for? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A request for 3rd-party ruling has already been launched on those articles, Asmahan and Farid al-Atrash. A discussion has already been started on the respective Talk pages of those articles at the request of several admins, including Graeme Bartlett. Graeme required that opponents submit certain specific evidence (whether Asmahan and Farid were Syrian citizens when adult; they had immigrated to Egypt in childhood) on the Talk pages of those articles for discussion and consensus. None of the google links listed above provides the required evidence, and the articles already state that they were Egyptian of Syrian-Lebanese origin, which is entirely accurate. I have submitted my evidence long ago, while User Supreme Deliciousness has submitted none. He just went ahead and reverted the articles without discussion or consensus. --98.195.180.144 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Page protected for a week. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A question about RfC

Resolved

 – Question answered. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Background: a content issue has arisen at an article, and two sides of the content issue are relatively intractable. One suggested filing an RfC, and the other agreed to let the first user file it. It was filed, noting (in neutral terms) the content of the issue.
My question: is the RfC supposed to elicit outside comment, or is it supposed to be a new area for one of the sides of the dispute to reiterate their position before any outside comment has been made? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. From my limited experience, the "regulars" will often put forth their arguments so that the outside parties will see the sides clearly and succinctly. –xeno^talk 18:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RFCs are supposed to solicit outside comment. I believe it is common for both sides present their arguments (concisely, respectfully) and see what the outside views are. Thatcher 19:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I thought that the outside comments would see the previous discussion and offer a comment. It didn't seem like a new forum to make the same points ad nauseum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, this sort of question would be better at

the village pump – this page is for "reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators" (as in, the technical actions, or the wise discussion). [My emphasis] Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker

─╢ 19:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, persistent attempts at promotion

NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here

.

Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to

quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas

(where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).

Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as

here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C

21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned User_talk:Jayron32#Plagiarism.

I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university

Aristotle_University

? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.

Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.

As far the

here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[109]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas

können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt? (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that "report" at [110] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. can you tell us, which is this 'different' brand? try to respect at least, if you dont respect me cause you dont know me of course, the whole academic society. If something is posted in auth.gr, what you would say? Does it belong to one of its members or not? anyone.

pls, with a simple google search, look what you can find from this domain, something very common in universities all over the world, they use their domain to upload ([111] :

• [112]
• [113]
• [114]
• [115]
• [116]
• [117]
• [118] Every university has the control of its members, can we judge and conclude something different?

please review the WHOLE conv between me and the admin. Take the time. Maybe, have you seen this ? Consider with google search how many times this admin promotes other brand in many forums, consider how insane he became when it proved that he was wrong by Miscellany for deletionof the article, imagine why he tries by all means to take revenge. Why?

Try to find everything and then judge. Review some links i posted here, review the department of electrical engineering (by the way, how you concluded that the university has nothing to do with it?) What you think is better? Knowing nothing, or know the half truth and then judge? Maybe admin is true i dont use my english very well, but this is for or against because i cant defend they way i could? Someone else here though uses bery well the language, and easily could spread the half truth, isnt?

At the time, i marked my article that its under investigation. In the past, i stopped my contribution. This bad admin will not stop, if he could, he would have banned me already. Is this a coincidence that an article restored after deletion and stayed intact more than 2 weeks, that was marked for deletion AGAIN User_talk:Psikxas few minutes after the admin here started this issue? Of course, nothing happened...but this avoid me to offer in wikipedia, and the impression givven is that i only cause troubles. because of one only article, because of infos everyone can find by googling —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

• Oh, just to add..try not to believe anything they say to you. Because someone told "its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it)" ..have you checked both dates? where this admin refers too? cant you see that submission date is different?? a full year! not few days! year! Anyway...ill wait for some serious reply, not from someone so credulous pls...Psikxas (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek editor needed

From section Methods of the original paper [119]:

The HID system employed a Philips DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3. (my bold)

From section Methods of the plagiarised paper [120]:

The HID system employed a DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3.

The plagiarised paper does not show an author but claims to be from "Lighting Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki". (This is strange, because the Lighting Laboratory is at National Technical University of Athens. [121].) It consists of:

• A new abstract replacing the original on. It says:

  An experimental field investigation is described below, based on a study of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001 that compared the off-axis visual performance of HID forward lighting systems with comparable halogen systems to determine the relative visual effects of HID lighting. [...] In this study three high quality current production European headlamp systems, Kärheim HID and two Philips halogen, are compared. (my bold)

• An almost exact copy of the plagiarised paper. The only difference that I have seen is the omission of Philips (see above) in a context where we would expect to read Kärheim if the original study had had the claimed scope of the plagiarised study.
• A sequence of slides added at the end. These are a variant of the conference slides presented by Constantinos A. Bouroussis and Frangiskos V. Topalis at the Balkan Light 2008 conference in Lubljana. [122]

I do not know if Scheinwerfermann got the date stamp of this file [123] wrong, as Psikxas claims. It currently says 13-Jun-2008 00:12, which is 1 year + 22 hours before Psikxas' edit [124] pointing to the document. I do know that it is trivial to change time stamps on Unix-based web servers such as this one. And I do observe that the creation time of the PDF file itself, which would be a bit harder to fake, is 18 June 2008, i.e. 5 days after this document was supposedly put on the web server.

Add to this Psikxas' very first edit [125] and it looks like a case for the relevant research institution's fraud department. Perhaps a Greek editor can contact the admin of of http://users.auth.gr ? The next question is whether we should notify Kärheim, Philips, or both. --Hans Adler 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, incidentally, that the fake report from the alleged (but apparently non-existent) Photometry Lab in Thessaloniki has also stolen the logo of the real Photometry Lab in Athens. The authors of the 2008 conference paper you mention above are apparently well-established researchers at the genuine Athens lab. – Personally, I don't much feel like bothering to mess with the real-life dimension here, fraud department and whatnot; let's just get rid of the disruptive editor, salt the pages and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears the account at AUTH has been suspended, perhaps in response to notification sent to that school's administration regarding the fraud. It also appears Psikxas has blanked his/her user page, blanked his/her user talk page, and blanked the Kärheim subpage, but continues to edit disruptively and complain about administrative correction of his/her disruptive edits. I see/hear more

quacking in Psikxas' apparently keen interest in presenting a particular point of view on a political matter involving Macedonia. Generally matters of this nature are a hot topic in Greece, and nowhere else. Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, but it does wiggle its eyebrows and go "Psst! Psst! Look over there!". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C

18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Psst psst! Scheinwerfermann! Its true that university decided to suspend the account, but perhaps after the investigation(?), they decided to keep it as it is. Of course everything is as before with the PDF, the page etc. What made me delete my pages, was that after what Fut.Perf. told here, once i thought that we should consider maybe that server keeps track of the very first upload (really, Fut.Perf. you that always give examples, can you create for us now an example of how "time stamps on Unix-based web servers" can change? Personally, i think its impossible if you are not the admin, if you can tell us how else, okay then, but i bet you cant, and you wrote it just to create impressions) , but then believed that i cant trust whatever i find in google and maybe i shouldnt insist, maybe im wrong. Now that university decided to keep it, i dont know what to do. I would be silly if i thought that admins can not find how articles were before, eh? If you can find previous revisions through "history", then anyone can do it ! Anyway, if your only interest here and contribution is to keep tracks of what i do, if this doesnt show your vendetta , if my last contribution has anything to do with my article we are discussing here, at least work and correct my articles with my poor english, or else another admin should ask you STOP now from the revenge you are mad to find all this time!Psikxas (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Barefaced alteration of a published paper to support promotion of a company's product. What the university does is its own lookout. What we do is ours. Block and salt. DGG (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OK…what now? I'm not too tickled at the barrage of incivility from psikxas, but I'm not inclined to do anything about it. I'd like to move on to more productive things; can we get that block and salt rolling, please? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If Psikxas can explain how a reference to a fabricated document wound up in his Karheim draft article, I'd allow one more appeal. But the case as it stands looks solid enough to justify an indefinite block of

WP:TALK requires headers to be neutral). EdJohnston (talk

) 03:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston,this admin had accused me in the past that i own these companies, such as German Karheim or Belgium Lazer helmets, but what you think, if i owned these or any other company, i would have time to write here maybe? The most confussing part for me was that i found articles didnt have any references at all like Shoei, but they were on wikipedia. As time passed, i understood what references i need though, i searched for them in Google, i added them in my Lazer helmet article, and it has been restored. Although this admin tried to force Jayron32 block me and delete me from the beginning, Jayron32 restored this article in my userspace instead of deleting it, till i find references. I searched one day in Google too for Karheim and references, found this pdf, and added it, then asked Jayron32 about his opinion. Anyone who needs refference, make a search. What some others accused me also, that i hacked the server?? i changed time..dont know and cant understand why they want to present me us unreliable because im Greek?!? even that im involved in the university or that the university is not notable??...Anyway, the admin told us that he has sent email to auth.gr, and i think he got his response because auth restored the article. Bad, why he doesnt tell us the response he got from the university? This bad admin although, its obvious of what he cares only and how he wants to use his power. Isnt it a matter that because obviously he promotes other brands,- he tried to fool the community in order to hurry this process by adding some lies with some evidence of truth-this section here could be also for talking about misuse of admin powers?- he used his admin power against me because of his vendetta too? Psikxas (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Still unresolved

I have no interest in hounding Psikxas to the ends of the earth (or the ends of Wikipedia), but we have apparent consensus without any follow-through here. Why? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread started on 16 June and is still waiting for a decision. I'm issuing an indefinite block, based on my statement above: If Psikxas can explain how a reference to a fabricated document wound up in his Karheim draft article, I'd allow one more appeal. But the case as it stands looks solid enough to justify an indefinite block of User:Psikxas.

I found Psikxas' response hard to take seriously after reading the other evidence. He just *happened* to come upon an authorless document that helps support the value of Karheim's products that *happens* to be falsified. The document is located in a web hosting directory at the Aristotle University, but Google cannot find a reference to it anywhere on the web except here on Wikipedia, reached through a link in Psikxas' draft article. How do you suppose he knew where to find the document, if he did not create it himself, or unless he knew the creator? Although Psikxas has blanked his talk page, the best exposition of his side of the case is probably found at this link. Here is the beginning of Psikxas' response to a highly specific charge of plagiarism:

*Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned.

Did he understand what he was saying? He is saying there is *nothing wrong* with the document he's using, one that we consider falsified. He is not even going to the bother of denying that he created the document. You may be able to see why I didn't find his answer convincing. Review of my action by other admins is invited. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Endorse the block, without any joy in doing so. I have spent the better part of the past few months mentoring Psikxas, with the intent of introducing him to Wikipedia policy, and helping him to see how his company was not really notable. The excellent analysis presented here of his pushing of the obviously forged document seems beyond help. I am sorry I spent the time mentoring and working with this user, if what they were going to do was to use a forged study to somehow sneak their article in the back door. Not to mention that it was probably futile anyways, after skimming the study in question, it seemed clear that it did not really go towards establishing notability anyways. Ah, c'est la vie... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Help/Suggestions in dealing with a stalker

Resolved

 – Local Authorities have been contacted-03:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Alright, I figure I can ask for some help here, I've been getting a lot of emails from some one (Nishkid told me was some old time vandal here; This is his ((The Vandals)) email and it's stepped to a whole new level and I was wondering if anyone knew some where I could report him, because it's becoming very unnerving and I am not feeling very safe. This is and I know for a fact directly because of my activities here on Wikipedia because he continually refers to Wikipedia in every single email he sends and it's not just emails, even went as far as to register websites in my name (Which I promptly have shot down). I need some help or a suggestion or something. Rgoodermote  17:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If all the emails are through Wikipedia there should be a note in the email with the user's name, could you provide that please? With that it would be possible to block their email. I presume you haven't replied to any of the emails? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose they call you a "Wikipedo" in the emails? I had a run-in with someone who had an axe to grind with Wikipedia and its administrators a while ago and when I did not reply to their demands they started spamming my email from time to time with ridiculous nonsense. There is relatively little that can be done about it except to just ignore it; eventually they get bored and go away. Now, if the emails start to contain something like personal information or implied threats against you in a physical sense, you would probably be best contacting your local authorities for help on how to handle it. Shereth 17:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I wish I got them through Wikipedia, they were sent to an email that I have hidden (And yes I did originally email them back because they started out just asking a simple question and I did originally think they sent it through Wikipedia because the title said from Wikipedia, however I should have noticed something was wrong when they didn't show a username)..which has me shitting my pants. @Shereth: That and a long list of other interesting tidbits and no, not at this point. They seem to be very interested in my sexual preference right now and ranting about how I "rape wikis" and it doesn't make it easier when they do it through various spam related things..so it makes ignoring them hard at times. This is not my first stalker, this is just the most unnerving one. Rgoodermote  17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. You call your local authorities. 2. Your local authorities contact Google. 3. Google shuts down and bans the harasser. See http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29434. Additionally, set up a filter in your mail system to deliver their harassment straight to the trash bin. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm going to Google, however my local authorities do not have a cyber crime division...actually I don't think they even have divisions their so small. Rgoodermote  17:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I found out they do, I'm emailing them, thanks again guys. Rgoodermote 

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

When is it appropriate to pursue this?

I am currently knee-deep with an anonymous user who is displaying a lot of the same behavior that I have seen in another editor. Aside from violations of 3RR,

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (also pointed out by at least one other editor). When pressed, they admit to having edited here in the past, and I cannot prove that the user is a sock of an indef blocked or banned user, and I have the sinking suspicion that they might even be a regular user working out a grudge by editing anonymously. I do not know how to proceed, and I certainly don't want to accuse anyone of something without incontrovertible proof. They are being disruptive (and yes, i know the difference between disagreeing with me and genuine disruption), and wasting a ton of time. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

23:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this is already on the Fringe noticeboard, as well as Talk:Grief porn, which is protected due to the edit warring, and you bringing it here is very probably forum shopping. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/125.237.80.96

Can someone review this chaps contributions? I fear they might be up to no good. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of weird. A lot of their edits seem to check out on Google (Neil Phillips addition to Minder/A Touch of Frost, for example), but then there's that one above, and another I came across and reverted. We'd better keep checking.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look, Sarek. I agree that many of the edits seem to be kosher.  Skomorokh  12:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring and Major Incivility by B'er Rabbit

Can a "fact tag" keep getting reverted? I added a fact tag to Saint George and I do want to avoid an edit war or a e revert situation - I issued a warning. Can someone give an opinion please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I note that you had provided a warning which was removed by B'er. I was in the process of adding that you are both edit-warring, whether or not you reach 3RR, which I have in fact re-added to his talkpage - you're warned as well. B'er was also warned to stick to

BWilkins ←track

) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have advised the

BWilkins ←track

) 13:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully have to say: No, not at all. I have added a fact tag for Heaven's sake and ONLY done 2 reverts. Since when is that an edit war? This is not really a content dispute but a quality issue. If you allow fact tags to be removed Wikipedia starts to get "junk content". I have no issue with correct statements in Wikipedia, but fact tags are absolutely needed to maintain quality. Their removal must be an absolute no-no. Or is quality a secondary issue in Wikipedia now? History2007 (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

B'er Rabbits' responses require action

It may be time for an "enforced retirement". This scathing diatribe, albeit by a logged-out IP editor (that I'm sure someone can confirm is the user) shows someone unwilling to work within Wikipedia's policies. (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since he has now again logged in and edited the IP post[126], I think it is safe to conclude that they are definitely the same. I don't care him or her being pissed off with me, but the posts I linked to on his talk page are personal attacks against two other editors, and one of them on an unrelated page, so it's not an isolated incident.

Fram (talk

) 11:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This editor has also on-[127] and offwiki[128] canvassed for support in an AfD.

Fram (talk

) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would only add that, as someone who has had earlier contact with this extremely pleasant editor :), that the comments on his talk page are way over the top. I'd say it would probably be reasonable to block the account and IP, the latter at least temporarily, because of the comments there. John Carter (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Having said what I did above, the editor hasn't seemed to edit since announcing his retirement. I think we would have to AGF that he meant he would retire until he proves otherwise. Maybe we should let it go until either the IP or the account gets used again by that party? John Carter (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Huge Backlog.

Resolved

 – All gone.

There is a huge backlog at the Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. This may require one or two admins to clean up.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not really a back log per se, but just the most recent dump from our most diligent spam eradicator. –xeno^talk 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he does seem to be on a roll. Call it what you will, there are a lot of reports to be taken care of.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No doubt, I just think giving admins at least an hour to act on it before raising the backlog flag might be a good idea. =) –xeno^talk 18:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. That was a mess. Shereth 17:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just checking - did reporting editors talk to the potentially offending username owning editors before going to UAA? An editor called ABBenson editing ABBenson_Management has a spam username (not allowed?) and a COI, but one sympathetic editor letting them know this, and explaining COI, is better than 3 or 4 people jumping on with various levels of warnings straight away. Of course, the first instance the editor shows of ignoring the gentle approach it should e removed and they can cope with the sticks. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

From my experience, Calton does not typically discuss with users much, just reports them en masse. –xeno^talk 14:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's better than it used to be. At least all of the recent batch were active in the past few weeks. There was a time when he used to report 2- and 3- year old accounts with one edit to UAA to be blocked, even if they had stopped editing for 2 or 3 years. I have no problem with blocking active spammers, but digging out old, inactive accounts for reporting seems like a waste of admins time to me. I reviewed several of these myself, and some were quite borderline, as many had gone past the point of being "active" (two edits three weeks ago is hardly "active") and so likely did not pose the iminent threat required of a preventative block as spelled out at

WP:BLOCK. We can at least say that "his heart is in the right place", but this is not a new development. Admins that patrol UAA are used to this by now. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilateral relations redirect created against double consensus

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

---

Redirect deleted, user warned, nothing left to discuss. The only thing leaving this open would accomplish is more drama. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations/Bilateral_relations_task_force#Merge_and_delete regarding the consensus against such redirects as Estonia–Luxembourg relations. User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) created it knowing full well about the hold on deletion or creation of bilateral relations articles until July 1. I left him a message asking him to take care of having it deleted but he did not reply nor apparently take any action to have it deleted despite having been active since. I am requesting that it be deleted immediately and that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) be warned against violating the hold on bilateral relations articles as well as the consensus against such redirects. Drawn Some (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've deleted it for now. I saw you post the first message to him several hours ago, and figured I shouldn't delete it without at least waiting to see if he objected. Since he has had ample time to do so and have not, I assume the deletion should be uncontroversial since there is currently an injunction against creating these. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we at the point of

WP:SALT for "Estonia–Luxembourg relations" ? This about the 3rd-4th time or so that Lazarus has been raised from the dead here. Tarc (talk

) 01:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the editor, not the particular title. I am particularly offended by the violation of the truce. I didn't appreciate having this pop up on my watch list because we are supposed to have a break from these creations and deletions. Thank you, Rjanag, for deleting the redirect but how can we prevent continued violation of the stand-by status? Drawn Some (talk) 01:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting on Richard in my last post...but yeah, in the few times I've dealt with this editor in the past he has seemed to ignore messages from people until really forced to respond (in my case, he refused to respond to a message I left him about a problematic userpage, until that userpage was taken to MfD). I had been hoping that we could just delete this and be done with it, but if he goes against the injunction again it might be necessary to give him an "official" warning from the community, since messages from individual editors seem to go unheeded. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pages like this one don't speak too well of him, either. --Calton | Talk 02:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to dig that axe up again. The page no longer has a offensive title, and Richard made it clear that he's using it as a workspace to prepare an RFC or some such, not a hate list. There are plenty of other things to worry up without going back over this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the redirect there, yeah, I'd say it's relevant. --Calton | Talk 03:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is left over because the page was moved, and during the deletion discussions the old name was frequently linked. It doesn't mean anything anymore. It's a non-issue and needs to be dropped. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the redirect still there? Why yes it is. Does it still show intent? Why yes it does. Is it still therefore relevant? Why yes it is. Is this another blatantly obvious issue you're unable to see, like you did below. Why yes it is. Any questions? --Calton | Talk 14:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Sanity check

Not to push any panic buttons or such, but I'd like some opinions on the appropriateness of

this user page. --Calton | Talk

01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Where's your

WP:AGF? :D Gwen Gale (talk

) 01:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a joke to me. My first userpage was far dumber than this. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Not just the page: note also the name. As for good faith, my first impulse would be to nuke it til it glows, so this notice IS good faith, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 02:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the username; does it mean something in Japanese? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

<headdesk>. The username consists of three words: notice anything about the second? If not, there are helpful links on the page to guide you. --Calton | Talk 03:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A "loli" or Lolicon is (and this is directly from Wikipedia's own page) "a Japanese portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". In Japan, the term describes an attraction to young girls,[3] or an individual with such an attraction." I can't believe I actually had to spell that out for you people. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked per

site policy, but I don't think it's appropriate to give the impression of advocacy in that area, even in jest. EyeSerene^talk

08:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not playing dumb here, I really don't understand what part of their name violates the guideline in any way - can you please elaborate? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, same here. I know what lolicon is, but Mokoto is not doing anything for me. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we try to not to encourage pedophilia here. If your uname means "have sex with me, I'm underage" then its possible we might not wish to allow it. Does that help a bit? KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see the problem. According to the article itself, Lolicon != pedophilia and raping children; likewise, as far as I know it's not illegal. And besides, as far as I can tell, the username doesn't say "come have sex with me"--it just mentions "loli" and two other words that, AFAIK, are innocuous ("mokoto" looks like just a regular personal name to me). Your message does not really make sense to me, are we supposed to be blocking people for things that their username doesn't mean?

Now, if people would refrain from being condescending (cf Calton and NeutralHomer above) and just answer the question, that would really help. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, different question. I thought you didn't understand the rationale the blocking admin used. My error; I apologize. If I understand correctly, you are sayng you think the name is innocuous enough to let stand, although you do see the Lolican reference, yes? I concur, as it happens. Clearly the blocking admin sees it differently. Has this editor made any good faith contribs to Wikipedia? (I will check also). KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rjanag making even a small effort to understand what was plainly in front of him -- with linked notes on the very same page to help him, even -- would have been much more helpful and would have saved him from his indulging in high dudgeon about having to have it laid out for him in excruciating detail. Even now, your emphasis on irrelevancies ("mokoto"? really? you think that's an issue?) indicates an active unwillingness to understand. Sparing your sensitivities under those circumstances is not anyone else's responsibility. --Calton | Talk 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the editor who asked for the explanation, not Rjanag. Obviously no one wants to put words in the blocking admin's mouth, but I take it that you are saying the word "loli" in the username is short for "lolicon" and that makes the username offensive. Is that right? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you check Google, you'll see that this identity is used on a whole bunch of different sites. Since only about 5 countries worldwide have criminalized lolicon, according to our article, I don't think we should block the username unless he becomes disruptive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I've only blocked the username, not the user. As I wrote above, they are welcome to edit as they see fit as long as they adhere to site policy. Username policy asks us to "avoid names which may be offensive"; user page guidelines state "you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute" (giving the specific example of pro-pedohilia advocacy). I don't intend to get into semantic arguments about the purported distinctions between lolicon and pedophilia, but the fact that portraying pre-pubescent children in drawings in a sexual or erotic manner isn't widely illegal doesn't mean it's something we need to condone either. Serious encyclopedic treatment of the subject in mainspace is one thing; appearing to advocate it in userspace is something else entirely. EyeSerene^talk 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to argue with you, but just to be clear, you're saying that usernames containing "loli" or "lolicon" are offensive and therefore blockable? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I have no problem at all with your questions - quis custodiet and all that. 'Loli' appears to be a widely recognised abbreviation for lolicon and/or a reference to the associated paraphilia; this strikes me as no different to including, for example, 'C18' or some other offensive reference. In this instance, taken together with the user's former userpage content, I believe it adds up to a violation of username policy. However, that may not always be the case (I doubt this user's name is Lolita though). We do allow quite a bit of leeway in usernames, from the humorous to the outright profane, but I remember coming across a userbox quite a while back saying something like "This user identifies as a pedophile". I believe these have long gone, and a username is a far more public means of self-identification. Obviously it's a judgement call and open to debate, but for me it's all wrapped up in the question "does this bring our encyclopedia into disrepute?" If the answer's "yes", I go for the buttons.

TLDR: Probably, but it depends ;) EyeSerene^talk 18:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem - Unrelated to the discussion of usernames, this user is very likely the same editor as User:AnimeXFL, User:Dr. Akemi L. Mokoto, and already blocked User:Saikano. Someone may want to ask for a checkuser. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

After all that... :P OK, thanks for spotting those Delicious carbuncle. No need for a CU; the racket the

ducks are making is deafening. I've taken the appropriate steps. EyeSerene^talk

18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikiloli is another. A checkuser might be helpful to find more. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jameselmo

Lysergic acid diethylamide. Jameselmo has had plenty of chances to reform (see his talk page for details and multiple warnings about his behavior) but it is obvious that he is not going to change, so I ask that an indefinite block be considered at this time, with a provision made to lift it once he agrees in writing to follow the rules. Viriditas (talk

) 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried
  talk
  ) 09:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Nope, but I will consider it. In the meantime, I am requesting an administrative warning on his talk page for this personal attack on TheRingess in his edit summary. ("are you stupid, or what?") Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Standard incivility issues are

BWilkins ←track

) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, the problem is much broader than simple incivility. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Add:he has been warned by

BWilkins ←track

) 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and don't forget the preceding edit. He knows not to do this, but he continues to edit disruptively. And it's been like this for more than a year. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also another previous attack that he made today, harassing TheRingess and insulting her user page description here.("...you also obviously don't have a clue...'I believe in love' what's that vacuous statement supposed to mean?") Viriditas (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I should note that "administrative warnings" do not carry any more weight at Wikipedia than warnings from non-administrators. If a user is behaving outside of behavioral norms, feel free to warn them yourself. You don't need an administrator unless there is an actual administrative action (basically blocking, protection, or deletion) that needs to happen. As has been noted by several administrators, broad civility problems of this level generally need some outside community attempts at resolution, such as

WP:RFC before we block somebody. If you can show diffs of clear evidence that the community has attempted to resolve this in the past, and the user has ignored these attempts at reform, then we may have something to act on. If this is just "hey, I noticed this guy is behaving badly a lot" then, without diffs to show either gross incivility or a past RFC or WQA then we don't have much as admins to do here. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've warned the user on his talk page about inserting unsourced and unverfied material into articles, and he has continued to do it for a year, so the warnings have not worked. The community has continually warned him during this time about making personal attacks as well. The user has ignored all attempts to reform, as he continues to make unsourced additions,[129], [130] vandalize articles,[131], [132], and attack users.[133], [134], [135] Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

I have indefinitely blocked DesGarçon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for personal attacks. Since the attacks were against me, I am bringing this block here for a review. I have also removed access from email and talk page access due to his final statement to my talk page. This whole thing started with Postoak (talk · contribs) coming to my talk page asking for help with an editor who kept reverting his archiving of a talk page. DesGarcon kept stating that Postoak was a sock of User:RJN, and when told to stop, he just continued to do so. I left an only warning a few days ago on the user talk page of DesGarcon, to which he started a tirade on my talk page which I deliberately stayed out of. While I admit I may have been a bit harsh in issuing an indefinite block, it is clear to me that this user does not intend to productively contribute to this encyclopedia and therefore has no place here. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the block except to say that it's never a good idea to block when you're the subject of the attacks (you're never the most objective person when the comments are made against you). But I am a little confused as to why you blocked access to email and his talk page - the comment you linked to is probably block-worthy, but what evidence is there that he would abuse email or his user page? Guettarda (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The blocked access to the talk page was because of the prior behavior that he will still continue to accuse other editors of being socks. The email blocking was because of the comment about the email as well as an unsuccessful attempt at off-wiki harassment. In contrast to the statement that I have no life, I've got a few commitments that I have to take care of an won't be available for a few hours. -MBK₀₀₄ 14:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the block, even though it was made by a semi-involved admin. This user deserved to be blocked, clearly. Its a minor issue as to who actually issued the block. I would have blocked them myself as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, likewise I'd have done the same thing, PAs were way over the top, beyond dodgy civility worries, never mind the other disruptive behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with the block; The editor in question was way out of line, and his comments are downright hostile and unnecessarily harsh. If this behavior would have been limited to one day i could have argued that the user was fuming and therefor acting in a way he or she would normally not do. But seeing this spread out over not only several days, but also over the past few months leaves me unable to assume good faith in this case. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse, editors making PA's are not immune from block just because they make such PA's to the editor most familiar with their shenanigans and best positioned to know when to block them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse and highly appreciative of the outcome since I have been the target of numerous personal attacks from this user. Thank you, Postoak (talk)

Unless it can be proven to be true, the comment on the User's User page should be removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Mcmanus1992 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Would a more experienced administrator please review this block please. I've blocked
   ? 
  16:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Yeah, we don't need that stuff around here. I don't even think a person should be warned for personal attacks like that; warnings imply there is a reason one should not know that they had broken any rules. No person should ever talk to another person like that; being a human being is enough warning... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good block. I'd have a pretty low threshold for making it indefinite if similar issues continue. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) Good block. That kind of vitriol is utterly unacceptable, and we really don't need another POV-pusher on Ireland-related articles. In fact, 24 hours is probably lenient, and I'd support indef if there's a next time. EyeSerene^talk 17:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, over the line. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, good block.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - vandalism; NPA violation; POV-pushing that even a republican (Irish sense) like myself finds offensive. No worries! --Orange Mike | Talk 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you all for the feedback. —
   ? 
  18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• 24 hrs is modest. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Good block, though I'd have blocked them indefinitely if I'd made the block. This edit made after the block leads me to believe that, once the block expires, they'll just go back to vandalizing and they'll end up with an indef-block. Acalamari 20:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• and ... with this little post,
   ? 
  21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the admin corps :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Abuse filter log

Resolved

 – Don't worry, I've got an entry in there too [136] =) I've added a note to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-log-summary that "Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive." –xeno^talk 19:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[137] On my abuse filter log I have two accounts for changing on two separate articles "Republic of Macedonia" to "Macedonia" due to the article been moved. I think this is grossly unfair because I did these two edits because the name of the article was moved, so I changed the links to avoid redirect. Is there anything which can be done?

talk

) 18:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Me too, on the same issue. I was editing the list of sister cities of Jagodina which had false information and removed some city in Macedonia, Slovenia and Czechia but I got on this abuse net which makes no sense. Can this be fixed? --Avala (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On occasion, the abuse filter will trigger on harmless or good-faith edits. This is known, and the reason they are logged is so that administrators can go through and determine the cause of any false alarms so that the filters may be improved. If you made a good-faith edit, there is no need to worry about being logged in the abuse filter - several administrators have tripped filters as well. If you do notice that you've tripped a filter and you believe the filter made a mistake, you can report the false positive at

a/c

) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is why it would be a good idea for use to change the name to something other than "abuse filter", since not everything it will tag is necessarily abuse. Dragons flight (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I did change the wording to simply "filter log" when looking at editor contribs. –xeno^talk 19:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User mass creating unreferenced BLP stubs

Hovhannesk has created many unreferenced BLP stubs in the past day or two. Jared555 (talk) 02:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is probably an instance in which Special:Nuke shall be used.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that, per

WP:BITE and try to work with this guy rather than fighting him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs

04:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done User asked to review

WP:NOTE. It is prefereable to work on one at a time, bringing acceptable sources. When it comes to living people, we need to be extra careful. I'd be happy to undelete them a few at a time for them to be worked upon. -- Avi (talk

) 04:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, the community have rejected many times over the expansion of speedy deletion to include unsourced BLPs that otherwise survive CSD. If the articles were not otherwise speediable—it is not implausible, I guess, that one might read

A7—deletion was inappropriate as explicitly disfavored by policy. 69.210.129.68 (talk

) 19:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that we would be wrong to delete them. However, the mass creation of articles by way of infoboxes alone or otherwise with minimal content has caused great problems before because of the difficult of review them (need in mention (bilateral relations) and we should very strongly advise users that this is not a good way to work, at least without getting prior support from a WikiProject or the like. DGG (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Never-ending disruption by Grundle2600

Resolved

 – User topic-banned by the community from editing articles related to U.S. politics and politicians for 3 months, as determined by Thatcher (talk · contribs) below.  Sandstein  15:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)

Not only do we have to put up with endless disruptive article creations and subsequent AfDs (all closed as delete);

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama

but this user has also developed a disruptive tendency to recreate deleted articles and material in his userspace. While this is of course permitted, and encouraged, to work poor articles back into quality ones, such is not the case here. These have been closed invariably as coatrack attack articles, one today was a snow. Grundle has already had one such subpage deleted;

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama

and now has created more out today's round of deletions at

WP:AGF

is out the window. These are being preserved for no other reason than to thimb one's nose at broad, definitive community consensus.

Admin intervention requested on the grounds that this is growing wearisome to deal with, to send these frequent pointless pages to XfDs every week. And lest Grundle tries to play the "OMG vendetta!" card, note that (as far as I recall), I have only initiated one of these deletion discussions, the Gerald Walpin one.

I'm going to bed so I cannot provide further feedback, if necessary, til tomorrow. Tarc (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

He's already been admonished in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles, but I guess he's trying to work around that and still engage in anti-Obama POV-pushing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm, very weird sequence of articles. The RfAr indicates that this user does seem to have a problem with this topic area. How about a community sanction restricting him from creating pages (in article-, user- or other space) related to Barack Obama, until such time as there is community consensus to remove this restriction?  Sandstein  05:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In essence, the RfAr apparently did not "go far enough" with that user, or perhaps did not anticipate this activity, otherwise a topic ban rather than a mere admonition might have been issued. The case is officially closed, but can the members of that committee be contacted to see if this violates either the letter or the spirit of their decisions? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's well past Sandstein's proposed remedy at this point, unfortunately. My inclination, as an admin who has watched the Obama articles for a couple of months, is to implement a topic ban per the terms of the

Obama article probation

. I have warned this editor about their behavior many times, as have others, and there's no sign of it stopping (it goes well beyond the created articles described above). Quite frankly had there not been a recent ArbCom case about the Obama articles running at the time, I likely would have topic banned this editor several weeks ago (they were not a focus of the case, and I had planned to present some evidence of their problematic behavior toward the end of the case but did not get around to it before it closed, which was my fault).

I'll throw together some diffs here now to justify this proposed topic ban, and if a couple of other admins agree and their are no significant objections I'd like to ban this editor from all Obama related articles for 6 months (I'm willing to be the one to formally implement it). I do think it's come to that point - unfortunately, this comes after a lot of back and forth with this editor - but I'll await some feedback here and gather some info and diffs in the meantime since I'm being a bit vague at the moment. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That editor seems to be in the same category as the others who have been topic banned (or, in more extreme cases, banished altogether) whose sole purpose in being here is to try to criticize Obama for everything they can earthly imagine. An article about Obama swatting a fly? What's next, an article about Obama wearing a mis-matched necktie? These guys have been POV-pushers from the get-go, and they need to be reined in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A look at Grundle2600s extensive deleted contributions would appear to justify a topic ban that is wider than just Obama.

Al Gore III and Carmen L. Robinson (he recreated the latter one three times). Oh, and Category:Fake hate crimes and Category:Corporate welfare recipients. This coupled with the Obama stuff means that he's merely wasting everyone's time - indeed, I had to delete seven redirects to the fly-swatting incident. Creating nonsense articles in userspace is not disruptive - creating them in articlespace is. I'd agree with a topic ban here, and I'd also suggest that if any more articles are created in the meantime, a passing admin merely speedies them under IAR to prevent any more disruption. Black Kite

06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The key issue is whether he edits other topics (as CoM does) or if he's a Johnny-one-note (as Axmann8 was). If it's the former, he could be topic banned and could still happily (?) go edit something else of interest. If it's the latter, a total ban is probably called for. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he does have other areas; my point is that an Obama topic ban would, I suspect, lead to more of the above on non-Obama political topics. Black Kite 07:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support topic ban on Barack Obama all US politics topics related issues. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As suggested above, it needs to be on all politics-related articles in order to be truly effective. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support a topic ban on all US politics topics. This is just the kind of editor we don't need here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless he could demonstrate some fair-and-balanced reporting. Like maybe he could write about that South Carolina Governor who headed for the Appalachian Trail, took a wrong turn, and ended up in Buenos Aires. I don't know if that story is as important as swatting flies or using a teleprompter, but it might be a nice change of pace. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly Bugs, why do you leave these type of comments on ANI and elsewhere? They never help, and I think you know that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is "helpful", I've been told that I'm usually right. A good editor should be able to work on articles objectively, without trying to push a viewpoint. I thought Sarah Palin was a ditz, but at the same time I helped defend her article from left-wing POV-pushers. Someone who comes here with an agenda, like these guys under discussion, have not yet learned what the purpose of wikipedia is. Sometimes they never do, and they have to be sent packing, or at least kept away from topics they shouldn't be editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we agree on the specific remedy in this case, so that's obviously not my point. My point is that bringing in Mark Sanford (you'll notice that, appropos your comment, I've been working on that thing a little bit) does nothing to help matters. It's not a question of being right or wrong, it's just that it has absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, and is clearly just a jokey comment on your part that won't advance the current conversation since it's an in-joke about contemporary American politics. I'm a fan of jokey comments (and my talk page is always open to you for them, in all seriousness!), but in my view this is not the right forum for that kind of thing. Sorry if the preceding comment came off as harsh, but I see a lot of these comments from you and I just don't think they're helpful. I'll leave it at that. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the editor in question apparently likes to skewer any kind of political hypocrisy, I'm guessing he could easily find some scathing comments about Sanford as well as that western Senator who found himself in a similar situation recently, although the latter did not fly to South America as far as we know. It occurs to me that maybe a topic ban is not quite the right answer. It might be instead that he needs to be eddycated about what constitutes appropriate content. As an example, Dan Quayle and his "potatoe" story was widely covered by the media (ad nauseum, frankly) and could be fair game for inclusion in Quayle's article. Going searching for amusing stories from a few obscure sources is likely not appropriate. The story about the fly, while basically a stupid story, did get national coverage - for like one day. So it would be hard to prove that that story belongs either. But if it's a story with legs, that could be different. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a 6 month topic ban above, and two other admins (Toddst1 and Black Kite) seem down with that, though there's the possibility being floated of a general "political articles" topic ban which I think would probably extend beyond the remit of

Obama article probation

but is something we could decide here in a more generalized "community" sense.

I said I'd provide some evidence for a topic ban and thus do so directly below, though this is far from exhaustive and just cobbled together in the last hour or so. Final comment at the end of this, and apologies for not being a genius at formatting stuff.

Conversation threads:

Some of these are extended conversations, but they give a sense of some of the issues

• 1 (my first direct contact with the editor, couple of lengthy notes from me there)
• 2 (warning again about a problematic edit)
• 3 (re: the creation of a jokey, and now deleted, redirect)
• 4 (recent article talk page section, indicative of general complaints against other editors as being biased, and reference to "the editors who keep erasing my entries," as though any information that is added with a source should be kept (see also this along those lines)
• 5 (an entire article talk page archive, but trolling through some of the sections gives a sense that Grundle repeatedly tries to add problematic - generally non-NPOV - material about Barack Obama)

Problematic edits:

Just a few examples:

• [138]
• [139] admin only, but Grundle is removing (per my request, and I'll give him credit for that) content from his "own personal article about Barack Obama" page (now deleted, see below) which said "Obama is a strong supporter of legal marriage for
  Homo sapiens
  . In fact, Obama has never tried to hide from the public the fact that he himself is currently involved in a Homo sapiens marriage."
• [140]
• [141] (complete non-understanding of NPOV, this idea has been expressed repeatedly by Grundle and many editors have tried to explain why it's not accurate, to no avail - again see this recent edit)
• User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama (ultimately deleted, but nothing more than a wildly POV page against Obama - I originally defended Grundle's right to have this page on the good-faith assumption that he would work on content to bring into articles, but it did not go anywhere and the MfD consensus was to delete)

I'd like to give Grundle a chance to weigh in here before imposing a topic ban, and I don't think it hurts to wait awhile to wait for that. If such a topic ban happens only on Obama-related articles, I'm quite willing to be the admin who imposes it per the Obama article probation (which gives admins a bit more power to do that kind of thing) and be the one accountable for that decision. If it's a general ban on political articles it probably needs to be a "community topic ban" which requires a higher level of consensus. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• And who can forget moving Levi Johnston to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter, which I indef-blocked him for? (He was unblocked after a discussion on AN/I.) Grundle doesn't seem to have an off button for political issues (no matter which party is in question); I'd strongly support a topic ban on all politics articles, broadly construed. Horologium (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That distinguishes him from some of the others and certainly suggests a broader-based topic ban could be in order. I say "could be" in order, because I wonder if he could also be drawn into some dialogue on why this kind of editing is not appropriate for wikipedia. It's the kind of funny stuff I get e-mails about, but it doesn't belong in articles unless it's widely covered in the media (I'm thinking of Jimmy Carter and his "killer rabbit" incident as a possible example). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• That was an egregious page move (I'd forgotten about it) and I remember thinking that your block was rather valid Horologium (though it was only for 24 hours, not indef, apparently). I'm seeing a pretty strong consensus so far to topic ban Grundle2600 from political articles, and barring objection I think we should implement that in a community sense. But I also still think Grundle deserves a chance to reply here and propose alternatives. It's the dead of night in most of America (as a grad student my hours are all over the place, but rest assured I still have no business being awake!), so let's give that editor a chance to respond. It might not change the consensus to topic ban, but Grundle2600 has made a lot of article contributions and as such I do think allowing for some reply here before taking action is only fair. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at Talk:Presidency of Barack Obama, you will see that I have been discussing my ideas for edits before putting them in the article. Don't I get any credit for doing that?

If you look at

User:The Magnificent Clean-keeper

gave me credit for that, because he/she wants to help me to be a better editor.

The reason I put stuff in my own userspace as humor is because I have decided to stop creating such "silly" articles in the mainspace, because a consensus of editors had repeatedly decided to delete them. Category:Wikipedia humor contains hundreds of other articles, so I figured it was better for me to do that, than to keep wasting editors' time by having deletion discussions in the mainspace. I thought that was a good move on my part.

The reason that I created Michelle Obama's influence on style and fashion is because during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms, several people specifically suggested that the material be placed into a new article that covered the broader subject of her influence on fashion and style. So now some of you want to punish me for following the suggestion of many other editors? That seems quite odd.

If you look at my userpage, you will see that I have created dozens of articles that were never considered controversial. But I guess that doesn't matter to some of you people.

The reason that I created User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama was to compile sourced examples of things that I wanted to work on and make better to eventually add them to the mainspace. For some reason, when Obama campaigned to let states make their own decisions on medical marijuana, I was allowed to add it to his political positions article, but then when it was later reported that his administration was still conducting DEA raids against medical marijuana, I was not allowed to add that, because people said it was POV and unbalanced. Likewise, I wasn't allowed to add examples of Obama's environmental hypocrisy to any article, such as when he said people shouldn't drive SUVs, but then he rode in one himself, and when he said you shouldn't keep the thermostat too high, but then he kept the White House thermostat very high. When a politician says that he supports one side on a political position, but then he goes and supports the exact opposite side, why should the article only mention his words, but not his actions? Isn't that unbalanced?

I see that Gerald Walpin firing, which I created, has been deleted. However, many of the people who favored the deletion also favored merging the material into Gerald Walpin. But what none of those people have been willing to admit, despite the fact that I mentioned it in the discussion multiple times, is that I am also the person who created Gerald Walpin, and I did so as a redirect to Gerald Walpin firing. The reason that I created the original article as Gerald Walpin firing instead of as Gerald Walpin is because I was following Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, which says that in cases like this, the article should be about the event, not the person. And now you people want to punish me for following the rules? That seems odd.

You people keep talking about the Obama related articles that I created that got deleted. But why don't you also talk about Air Force One photo op incident, which was nominated for deletion, and the consensus was keep?

If you ban me from all political topics, you will be doing a great disservice to wikipedia. For example, before I ever made any edits to the

Americorps

article, 100% of the sources cited in the article were from the Americorps website itself. It was nothing but a giant advertisement. I was the first person to introduce third party sources to that article.

I admit, in fact I am proud of the fact, that I like to Wikipedia:Be bold in my edits. If it wasn't for people like me, wikipedia would be a lot more boring.

Grundle2600 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"If it wasn't for people like me, wikipedia would be a lot more boring." - and probably less disrupted too.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

10:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Grundle, I do very much appreciate what you are saying in your comment above, even if I largely disagree with it. Just a question - how would you feel about a six-month topic ban on Obama related articles, broadly defined (same as ChildofMidnight and Scjessey received in the recent ArbCom case) as opposed to a ban on all political articles? Would that be okay with you? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be OK with me, because as I just said, I have been suggesting changes on the talk page of Obama related articles before making them. That's exactly what the administrators told me to do. Why should I be punished for doing exactly what the administrators told me to do? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be punished for that, nor have you in fact been "doing exactly what the administrators told me to do," nor is that an accurate framing of the issue at hand. I was trying to seek out some compromise with you and that doesn't seem to be something you're interested in at the moment. I'll be offline for a few hours now, but at this point I still endorse a topic ban on politics related articles for Grundle2600. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are some of the political articles that I have created, which have not been deleted. Some of them are Obama related. Why should I be banned from creating articles such as these?

Air Force One photo op incident

Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler

Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009

Ricci v. DeStefano

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus

Wikipedia is better off for me having created those articles.

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that you've often added significant content to Wikipedia, but a number of editors (and admins with their goddamn fancy-pants) are above calling for you to be temporarily banned from political or Obama-related articles. There seems to be consensus for that and you really need to acknowledge/consider it. Do you have an alternative proposal that also addresses those concerns about your editing? I think this is the point which you need to take on board and/or think about right now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 11:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already stopped creating "silly" articles in the mainspace, and started discussing my proposed reversions on the talk page of Obama related articles before making those changes. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My moving Levi Johnston to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter was based on the rule Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• ...and as you can see, we have a whole bunch of articles that begin with "Impregnation of..." Maybe you merge the guy's article into one about Sarah Palin's daughter. Is he really only notable for a 37 second single event? Or, is he notable for that 37 second event because it involved the v-p candidate's daughter, and the related months of backlash that has even extended to
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 11:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps Levi Johnston should be moved to Backlash against the impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter? Grundle2600 (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I really hope that that was just a bit of sarcasm, and not an actual suggestion.
      • It's a suggestion that I now realize I could never get consensus for. Grundle2600 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Even the list of your current articles has issues; 2 are stubs of bills in committee, unlikely to survive if the legislation fails to pass, and could probably be
      prodded now until/unless they do pass, while Indiana vs. Chrysler is rife with POV issues. 2-3 passable articles doesn't outweigh 1-2 dozen other cases of extremely disruptive material. I was for just an Obama-topic ban, but I'd completely forgotten about the Al Gore III, Levi, etc...stuff, so maybe it should be politics in general. We have been coming to the same problems in the same set of articles for several months now. Tarc (talk
      ) 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Indiana v. Chrysler is accurate and factual. It's not my fault that Chrysler doesn't have a legal argument to back up its side. No one had any problem with
        Al Gore III until I after added well sourced information about how he never had to spend one day in jail, despite being arresed for marijuana possesion on two different occasions, for having five different prescriptuon drugs without having prescriptions for any of them, and for driving over 100 mph. Even though his father, former Vice President Al Gore, is a huge supporter of the "war on drugs," the former Vice President helped his son to avoid spending any time in jail. That was very notable. In fact, I'd say that this hypocrisy is the one thing that Al Gore III has gotten the most media coverage for, and thus, is most notable for. But someone didn't want the readers to see it, so the article was deleted. Grundle2600 (talk
        ) 12:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on all political-related articles. This has gone on long enough. seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unfortunately the article probation on Obama-related articles is a community probation rather than Arbcom, so we must apparently have a long community discussion. Support a topic ban, either on Obama-related articles, or on all articles related to US political people (BLPs), or all US politics, or even all politics anywhere (given the edit warring at
  Hugo Chavez. Said topic ban to last 3 months; if and when the review of the Obama article probation is complete, the topic ban may be re-evaluated. Suggest for the time being that the ban be applied to all US-related political articles, with the understanding that it can be extended if he continues to edit war on other articles. Thatcher
  13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Before even looking at the articles, Grundle's answers here had me pretty convinced that they have no business editing in political areas; I certainly hope this approach doesn't extend to other BLPs. Chalk me up in the support column for all (or all US if that's preferable) articles dealing with political topics. Shell ^babelfish 13:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• The fact that you are still thinking like this — with suggestions like
  Iran – United Kingdom relations from Wikipedia, so that Wikinews can have articles like Iran and Britain expel diplomats after Iranian presidential election, Sarkozy says burqa is "not welcome" in France, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks about Iranian presidential election protests at prayers, News services and web companies increase Farsi services in light of Iranian political situation, and U.K. MPs' expenses to be investigated by police that cover specific single events individually, down to the details of specific speeches, placing them in their overall context if necessary. Just as Wikinews editors do, Wikipedia editors view Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia, a reference work, too.

  If you want to rise to the challenge of doing recentism and news story coverage properly, and not in the (frankly) poor way that Wikipedia tends to do it (because, of course, Wikipedia is not a newspaper) and that you yourself have been doing it up until now, you could do worse than start with writing Silvio Berlusconi denies ever having paid women for sex, or getting Obama gives FDA the authority to regulate tobacco industry to publishable status. You could even write South Carolina governor resigns GOP post. Uncle G (talk

  ) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Other than impregnating Sarah Palin's daughter and the backlash that resulted from it, what else it Levi Johnston notable for? Grundle2600 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

All I've ever done is add well sourced information to articles. And you people call that "disruption"? That's horrible.

I call any blocks or bans that get placed against me "censorship."

One thing that I find especially interesting is that none of you have actually pointed out any specific factual errors or untruths that I have added to any of the articles.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about truth. Those of you who want to block or ban me ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since it has been suggested in this discussion that I edit the Mark Sanford article, would it be OK if I added this comment from Neal Boortz? "As one of my Twitter followers (14,000+ strong) pointed out (and I love this): If Mark Sanford had cheated on his taxes instead of his wife, he would have been a cabinet member by now." Grundle2600 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I suggested that you edit Mark Sanford admits affair and resigns post at RGA, not that article at all. It turns out that Wikinews has had South Carolina governor resigns GOP post in the newsroom for 18 hours already, at this point. This, of course, reinforces the point that Wikinews is on the ball with these things. It also reinforces the point that the project whose remit is to be a free content newspaper is the project that does that well, and is the place to be if one wants to write news articles on incidents and events, and if one has a focus on recentism, news stories, newsworthiness, and individual articles on individual events. Uncle G (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I remember after Obama raised the cigarette tax, I added an Associated Press citation about that to one of his articles. The article quoted his campaign promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. The article also said cigarette smokers are disproportionately poor, and that by raising the cigarette tax, Obama was breaking his promise. But when I added that info to the article, including an exact quote of Obama's promise, people said I was being POV and unbalanced, and they erased it. All I did was add the sourced truth. What they did by erasing it was censorship.

Why is it OK for me to quote Obama's campaign promise to stop the DEA raids against medical marijuana, but not OK for me to quote a Democratic member of the House who pointed out to Obama that the drug raids were still going on, and who also asked Obama to clarify his position on the subject?

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since someone else mentioned the

Hugo Chavez articles - apparently, even though land redistribution is one of Chavez's biggest policies, I'm not allowed to mention anything about it in any of his articles, even though my source is the Washington Post. Grundle2600 (talk

) 13:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is such a blatant
  talk
  ) 13:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I will never agree to any kind of block or ban, because I don't believe that they are justified. But the whole point of blocks and bans is that it doesn't require my consent anyway. And I always wondered why such blocks and bans apply to talk pages, given that the administrators keep telling me to discuss things on the talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Disembrangler - it was you, not me, who reverted first. I added sourced info, then you erased all of it. I agree with your claims on the talk pages that certain parts of what I added were cases where I had misinterpeted the sources, such as that quote from Chavez, which you explained to me I had taken out of context. But to remove everything about his land reform was not not justified. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

People keep saying that

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler is unbalanced. But it's not my fault that U.S. bankruptcy law is 100% on the side of the plaintiff, and 100% against the side of the defendant. This is the first time ever in U.S. history that a secured creditor is being treated worse than an unsecured creditor, which is completely contrary to U.S. banktupcy law. That's not my fault. The article reflects the facts. If some people are upset by my citing the facts, that's not my fault. Grundle2600 (talk

) 13:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Grundle, you make some good contributions and you make some silly ones, as I think is generally acknowledged above, even by you. To stave off a topic ban, is there something else you think would work, and would improve the encyclopedia? Would you, for example, agree to get advice from an experienced editor before creating or moving articles? Jonathunder (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I no longer move articles without getting consensus, unless it's an article that I just created and I thought of a better name. I have stopped creating "silly" articles in the mainspace. I don't want to ask for permission to create articles, but I also don't want to get banned or blocked, so I am being much more careful. I even nominated one of my own articles for deletion last night, as I mentioned earlier in this discussion. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You people keep criticizing my renaming of the article on Levi Johnston (who is only notable for one event and the resulting backlash), but none of you have suggested a better name for the event. What do you think the article should be called? Grundle2600 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The talk pages of existing articles would have been a good place to raise that issue.

  Part of the problem, too, is that you are assuming an event must immediately have a stand-alone article. Many times it doesn't (fly-swatting, for example).

  And again, what would you suggest as a remedy, Grundle? Or do you not see any problem here at all? Jonathunder (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not going to engage in a point by point rebuttal. While you may have made some good contributions, and some of your edits may have been judged unfairly, this is outweighed by other clearly problematic editing issues, and your general approach. Just one example: if you felt you were making legitimate edits to
  Hugo Chavez, the answer is to seek outside help through a content RFC, third opinion, or other discussion, rather than edit warring and violating the 3RR. Following discussion, it is now enacted that you are banned from editing any articles related to U.S. politics and politicians, for a period of 3 months. You are permitted to make suggestions and engage in discussion on article talk pages, provided you are civil and respectful of others. The topic ban will be enforced by escalating blocks. If and when the Arbcom review of the Obama article community probation is completed, you can request a review of this topic ban. Thatcher
  14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse topic ban enacted by Thatcher above, on American political articles, broadly construed. The issue for me is his lack of acknowledgement that his actions could be understood to be disruptive, especially of the
    WP:POINT-making variety, considering his rediculous page moves and article creations cited above. --Jayron32.talk.contribs
    14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked some questions about the topic ban on my talk page. Someone please answer them there. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My questions on my talk page have been answered, so there's no need for anyone else to go there to answer them. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. There are other articles/topics on Wikipedia. Take a break from these as it's obvious you need one. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, broadly interpreted. We need an editor with your very considerable writing skills and verbal facility in many other areas. DGG (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOAPboxing at Talk:David Letterman

I removed a 12,000+ character post from the above page, and was reverted] by

WP:SOAP. Unitanode

21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It was clearly inappropriate. It has been undone by another editor. Mantion has been told about this thread. Until and unless Mantion does something further, this issue has been resolved.... but I'm not going to mark it such. We need to keep an eye on it to ensure that Mantion doesn't restore it. If he does, then we need to drop him a warning and proceed from there.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to make certain that I was in the right on the issue, and getting extra eyes on the situation. Unitanode 22:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You were. The next move is up to Mantion. At this point, I am not going to issue a warning. He made a post, it was reverted, he reverted that, and it was subsequently reverted by a second party. If he keeps it up, then we can issue him a formal warning. But right now, I'm of a mind to let the issue die (if possible.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The length was due to me copping and pasting the section from Don Imus's page to show of when he made an insulting remark. It was put on his page not the page of his show. In contrast when David Letterman made what is arguably a more insulting remark, no mention is allowed on his page. If you were upset about the length, I can delete the portion of Don Imus's page and put a link. Would that be better? I reverted because I was under the impression it was improper to delete content from a discussion page. It is nice to know I can simple delete "WP:SOAP".Mantion (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Make a link to the section in question and it should be ok... as long as it isn't a gazillion bytes in size. This is a subject that can be talked about, but Wikipedia isn't a soapbox.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:ChildofMidnight

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

Show's over, folks. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

---

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

This user apparently has no experience in editing articles on French culture or mathematics. Recently he seems to have followed me two new articles I have created in a manner that I can only describe as

WP:BAITing and gaming the system. I am about to create a new article on the last series of paintings "The four seasons" (1660-1664) by Nicolas Poussin. I don't want to see this troublesome editor wikihounding me there as well. There's something very wrong with this disruptive behaviour. I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage. Mathsci (talk

) 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked CoM if he would agree to refrain from editing articles that other users are actively editing, as a matter of courtesy and good form if nothing else. --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am expert in this area, why does that concern me? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's culturally ingrained, stupid and self-defeating knee-jerk antipathy towards experts, I'm guessing. //roux   23:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Self proclaimed experts that is, which I am sure you are one :) --Tom (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No. //roux   23:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate to go immediately for the jugular, but how much more disruption are we going to take from CoM before we say "no more" and issue, even if for 24 hours, a block? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And a 24 hour block would be preventative not punative for exactly what reasons NeutralHomer? CoM has not even had a chance to reply to this thread yet, acknowledge any errors or agree any action. Hold up on the hammer please. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM has only edited

talk

) 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci, can you provide some diffs? If ChildofMidnight is disrupting articles, appropriate action is needed. AdjustShift (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Pedro, I have no banhammer, just making an observation. But I think for disruptive editing, of which has garnered several ANI and AN posts, I think that some form of block may be necessary. If not now than soon. Again, just an observation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The best low-drama solution would be for CoM to agree not to edit either of these articles - or any other articles in the process of being written by MathSci. That would be an excellent demonstration that there's no wikihounding, baiting or whatever going on, and we wouldn't have to argue about it here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks more like it belongs at

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

MathSci has posted here, so let's resolve the issue here. AdjustShift (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather Mathsci's bad faith behavior and threats

Mathsci (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• (ex 6) Question - I've been editing some French subjects and chateau/castle/fortress articles in the past, so am I allowed to comment on Mathsci's absurd allegation and threats to CoM? When Mathsci appeared to complain threaten CoM, I checked on the edits made by CoM but I see no "alleged disruption" from two articles. I only saw that bad faith and threats from the complainer instead.--Caspian blue 21:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked CoM not to edit articles being actively worked on, and I've asked Mathsci to use polite and calm rhetoric. As far as I'm concerned, this can die here if both parties agree. --Laser brain (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• This comment from the complainer is looking for a punishment...I think some kind of block is probably in order at this stage.(
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

• I'm aware of that. I don't think a block is in order based on the information presented. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that Mathsci would come here with a petty dispute over the meaning of the word Bastide. Mathsci used the word in its rarer meaning of

ownership of articles. That rubric If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. applies to Mathsci too. A.K.Nole (talk

) 21:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• At Off2riorob, well, I think if a block should be issued at this time, that has to got to the complainer Mathsci for his intimidation/ incivility and gaming the system and wasting everyone's time. See the below how Mathsci threatened CoM. That is quite disturbing.

you have appeared almost immediately to make not very intelligent changes to the stubbed version[142]
This is a formal warning that if you continue following me around like this, you are likely to be blocked.
Your editing behaviour has been analysed by ArbCom who found it problematic. You now appear to be gaming the system.[143]
Since you seem to have no expertise in mathematics, one more edit to the article will presumably result in a block of a week or more for you, considering your past history.[144]
ou have no idea what the article is going to contain and are purposely being disruptive, like an annoying little child.
You will be reported at WP:ANI if you continue to wikihound a senior mathematics editor and presumably can expect a block.
I have no idea what is going through your head,
Antagonizing editors seems to be a particular specialty of yours. In this particular subject area your edits seem completely clueless.

I want to say "look who's talking? --Caspian blue 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC))

• BTW, what about this edit on Butcher group and this edit on the talk page of Butcher group? C of M doesn't know much about mathematics, so why is he making such edits? Butcher group is a complex mathematical article, and only someone who has mathematics expertise should edit the article. AdjustShift (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Any content issues with that article would best be taken to
    WT:WPM, where there should be plenty of editors competent to do something about it. I agree that CoM doesn't seem to be the right person to work on it. —David Eppstein (talk
    ) 22:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Is Mathsci is a native English speaker? I have an impression that he is not. Whenever I'm expanding a newly created article, editors appears to fix my grammar, and I usually appreciate it. I do not understand the wrath of Mathsci on the petty issue.Caspian blue 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea that only certain folks should edit any article is, er, bullshit, excuse my french. --Tom (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, no - that's why we have topic bans. Some editors are incapable of editing in certain topic areas without being disruptive (that's not a comment on this particular case, just a general point). Black Kite 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the idea above that only "experts" should edit certain articles, not talking about disruptive editors, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think a topic ban of Mathsci is premature at this point. But obviously his behavior was abyssmal and needs to improve. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think am apology by Mathsci to CoM would be in order. His original poast here at ANI describes CoM as some sort of idiot knuckle dragger who doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Incivility at the least.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would assume he knows nothing about Hopf algebras of rooted trees, that's all. No need to edit to edit an article on it therefore. However, this is the second time CoM has behaved this way. From his editing record, he is not a recent changes patroller. He has made tendentious edits on uncontroversial articles, where he seems to have little or no idea about the content. Mathsci (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

His patrol log says he does patrol new pages. I just don't see his edits in regards to these two articles as being tendentious; he was working on grammar and style, especially in the mathematical one. OK, he make an error with the bastide - WP:AGF. Mathsci, you don't get to have a monopoly on articles you create. LadyofShalott 03:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM's most frequent edits are to Bacon mania and Burnt Hair Records and show a pattern of interest in pop culture.[145] Mathsci's edits are dominated by articles on mathematics.[146] To me, it seems more than likely that the intent of the edits to Butcher group was to provoke Mathsci. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[147] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley blocked CoM

William M. Connolley first pushed the wrong button of indef.block to CoM instead of his intended 24 hours block and left no apologizing comment on the log while he fixing his mistake.--Caspian blue 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Could have been worse, though. CoM could have been blocked for this comment with "Seig Hiel" in it. Completely unnecessary. Good block all around. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

BAD block - Unless there are more diffs, both CoM and Mathsci needed minor civility / NPA warnings, none of what I see diff'ed or see in edit histories reaches blockable. Clearly warnable, but not to the level of justifying or requiring a block. The "Sig Heil" was obvious intentional sarcasm, a terribly bad joke but not blockable. Wm- I request and recommend an unblock. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GWH. Both parties were at fault here, but neither horribly so. LadyofShalott 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course bad block. Even WMC is currently not sober? Oh....no...NeutralHomer please do not mislead CoM's joke toward me and Pedro's conversation on German language. I hope Gwen clear this up.--Caspian blue 00:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happened to Fluffy. At the scenes leading up to the wedding, Fluffy seems to be developing well as a character. There is a scene where chaos developes when Tiger is introduced, and then poof she is gone. I never saw as much as a reference to the cat after that. Is there anyone that knows what happened? Not sure if some tragedy struck off set and she had to be written out of the script or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.80.53 (talk • contribs)

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we could reduce his block..or just give him another chance. He's not going to break the wiki is he. In fact I will find some cites to say he is innocent of all charges.(

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I think one needs to take a look at the rantings of CoM on Mathsci to see he doesn't need to be unblocked. If anything, he needs to cool down and this block should do just that because I think and this might not be AGF, if CoM were unblocked, he would cause more problems and get himself indef blocked. He needs to cool down and sleep on it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're now advocating a cool down block? --

Fatuorum

01:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read his talk page? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What has his talk page got to do with anything? Isn't that a place where a little bit of letting off steam is permitted, even by the civility police? --

Fatuorum

02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As Foghorn Leghorn once said "Go away Kid, ya bother me". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I often say, "Who the Hell cares what idiots think?" --

Fatuorum

02:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL....you're funny :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope that CoM is spending his time brushing up on Hopf algebras. Mathsci (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the block of this persistently uncivil and nonconstructive editor. seicer | talk | contribs 02:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose blocks, Support all unblocks, Support discussion to resolve the situation of content dispute. —
   ? 
  02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment What content? Mathsci (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock, as I see no preventative purpose for this block, and according to
  the "rules" we don't punish people with blocks. Like CoM or not -- and apparently several in these threads and sub-threads do not -- I fail to see what this block is preventing. Unitanode
  02:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Obvious unblock. While that comment was incivil, it certainly didn't warrant a block. Mostly, I agree with GWH above. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support as uncivil behaviour has gone on long enough and it is time to acknowledge it and respond to it. Longer blocks should be applied if further incivility persists from anyone involved. I don't see why people rush to defend editors who have made comments like this, its not like CoM is blocked indefinitly. Established editors still have to obey our civility policy. ThemFromSpace 03:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. I see C of M as a problematic editor in general, but I don't think I would have blocked in this situation. However it was not an awful block, maybe just not the best idea. There is a real track-record here in terms of some troubling behavior by C of M—including lashing out at other editors—and there have been warnings proffered for that (including by me, though it had more to do with assumptions of bad faith than blatant incivility). Perhaps the best thing at this point is for WMC to unblock, and there is discussion about that on his talk page, though presumably he's sleeping at the moment. However if there's a strong consensus to unblock here I think it would be fine for another admin to go ahead and do that. A few more comments here will probably show us where we stand. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum. And followup to the above, it's worth looking at a back-and-forth between C of M and User:Georgewilliamherbert on the former editor's talk page (see the following four diffs for the relevant exchange [148] [149] [150] [151]). GWH seems clearly to be trying to help out and calm the situation while saying he disagrees with the block (and some of C of M's behavior), and C of M really unloads on him. Now I know some anger and incivility after a block is to be expected and generally excused, but this stuff is really over the top. A bad block is not an excuse to bandy about phrases like "these assholes" "stay off my fucking page" "fuck off" "baiting by this Frenchman" (!!!) "This block stinks horribly and anyone who defends it or tries to suggest that I've caused it...is either misguided or a moron" and "Mathsci behaved like a jerk" (the last repeating the original infraction). A similar thing happened after the last block, and quite frankly often when ChildofMidnight's editing is criticized—i.e. a series of attacks against other editors (see also this earlier ANI thread for a recent example). It's a long term problem beyond this specific situation and I think it's important to point out that context. Even with that talk page outburst though, I'm still perfectly okay with an unblock if that's the consensus, since I don't think the original block was really necessary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Unblock. CoM may have been uncivil but he was considerably provoked by Mathsci. If CoM is to be blocked, then for balance Mathsci should have been blocked. But aside from that, these two are the sort of established content editors that contribute huge value to Wikipedia, and administrators should not be so casually applying blocks, just because they get silly from time to time. CoM may have lost his temper, but the situation he is in is not really just. --
  talk
  ) 05:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Self-fulfilling block - Yea, despite my previous run-ins with this user, the initial block may have been a bit much. But CoM went into full-blown
  WP:DICK mode defending himself, so in the end it winds up working out ok. Unblock the original and reblock for the tirade on his talk page if you wanna be technical here. Tarc (talk
  ) 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Usual policy is to cut some slack to the blockee, to let him rant and rave for awhile. However, that's usually on an indef block. This one is only 24 hours. So rather than formally requesting an unblock, he's apparently going to continue hurling insults ("circus clowns" and such) for the remaining 2/3 of his block time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment It's only for 24 hours, and it's 1/4 over already. Defending incivility by saying others are doing it, does not cut the mustard. But the civility of other editors in the dispute should be reviewed also. Too much incivility is being tolerated on Wikipedia. I was once blocked 5 days for calling other editors idiots. I've seen much worse here in recent times which gets no block at all. Hard to figure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • also, CoM has yet to formally contest the block, i.e. he has not filed an unblock request. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment'. The root of this incident appears to be Mathsci's
  onwership issues over articles. He clearly does not know what a 'stub' is (it is not a small article written by one person that is then going to be added to 50 times a day over the next 5 days by that same person). If Mathsci cannot handle people editing articles he is developing, he needs to learn how to use sandboxes and properly draft articles, and only release them when he considers them complete, both in grammar and technical content. He also quite outrageously claims that, because CoM is not a maths expert, he is not permitted to edit the article in question. Others have also quite bizarrely supported this position, without anyone pointing out that the edits made CoM were grammatical. Has anyone actully looked at the diffs? I'm no math's genius, but even I know that a detailed knowledge of numerical analysis is not required to be able to spot a run-on sentence. I won't comment on the stalking allegations, as I have no knowledge of any prior interactions between the two users, but if these two incidents are the extent of it (and the French article dispute is again a nothingness on its own, again aggravated by Mathsci's ownership issues and article development methods), Mathsci is utterly in the wrong, and needs to be told as much. MickMacNee (talk
  ) 14:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record, I've taken issue with this on WMC's talk page aswell[152]. We simply do not need admins on the project who are only willing to monitor for and comment on/block incivility. MickMacNee (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Addendum: WMC had nothing to say about my comment bar questioning my probably rather sweeping statement of his interests as an admin. I tried to discuss options for refactoring on his page, as quite clearly I only made that statement in relation to what I have seen in this complaint pending evidence to the contrary, but he's just messing me around over there [153][154], so I'm withdrawing from discussing it further on his page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Just for the record, MicMavNee, I have now finished the first version of the main article, with all the content I wished to have in the article from my sources. The claim of ownership is hard to understand, especially when an {{inuse-section}} template is present during the period of creation. As is normal other mathematical editors have also been helping in a positive way. In particular User:Michael Hardy added an extremely useful wikilink in the lede (related to his own RL work) which has been spelt out in the main article. User:R.e.b., far more expert than me in this particular area, also did some very helpful fine tuning. Please could you tone down your remarks? What is happening at the moment is that the article is being edited in the normal way for a mathematics article, something with which you might not necessarily be familiar. Mathsci (talk) 15:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • (e/c with DG below)I wasn't aware there was an official Mathematics way of developing articles. Unless or until you recognise you have absolutely no legitimate basis to prevent or exclude grammatical edits or 'non-expert' editors from articles you have posted and are still developing, I see no reason to tone down my comments. These are the least problematic of your issues, your general tone in this complaint, and the allegations of stalking, and the use of incivility to counter incivilty, all simply seemingly as a result of another editor making minor changes to articles you are working on, are far more serious. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Please tone down your rhetoric and get back to editing this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I'll edit as a I please thanks. I often edit articles way outside any of my usual on Wiki topic areas, and as such I may indeed not be knowledgable of any unofficial but de-facto specific ways of working understood between regular editors. Based on this ANI complaint and its outcome though, even though I actualy have some Maths background such as rudimentary Runge Kutta etc, I would definitely be wary of going anywhere near any article you were personally involved in, either to edit technical details or make simple grammar edits. Whether you recognise this as an issue or not, it is not rhetoric. MickMacNee (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Yawn. Mathsci (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
              • Noted. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly! Enough of this silliness. It's bad enough that Mathsci didn't read what others have written here. Now you aren't reading, either. Both
    Ched Davis have quite clearly observed that the edits were copyedits and that this very much is a content dispute, over copyedits no less. They beat me to saying that exact thing. I didn't add it, because when I came to save the edit I edit-conflicted with the discussion closure, but I repeat to you a small part of what I would have said to Mathsci, because it applies to you too: Stop! Read! Think! You're going off the deep end.

    I also had a few points to make about Mathsci's apparent poor regard for other editors, from my viewpoint as one who is also an expert and a content writer and an administrator, whose "brilliant prose" has also been mercilessly copyedited by others within the past day. I've withheld them after that edit conflict, in the hopes that the simple passage of time solves matters here. Uncle G (talk

    ) 16:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Mathsci says that The claim of ownership is hard to understand, especially when an {{inuse-section}} template is present during the period of creation. This tends to imply, but does not explicitly state, that CoM ignored the templated request. In fact the article history shows clearly that Mathsci added the template in question to the article shortly after CoM's first edit, and to a different section [155]. Mathsci's assertion is thus somewhat disingenuous. Perhaps the sentence preceding that quoted will help him understand that "claim of ownership": I have now finished the first version of the main article, with all the content I wished to have in the article. A bolder assertion of ownership would be hard to find. In fact, of the Examples of Ownership at
      WP:OWN, I find that Mathsci has clearly demonstrated Actions 1 and 3, and Comments 1, 2 and 3. 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Forgot to sign in. A.K.Nole (talk
      ) 18:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Unblock, and block Mathsci and WMC instead This is obviously a block with no merit. We don't block people for copyedits. Jtrainor (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Better Idea - How about we don't block anyone and we put the
  stick down and stop the WikiDrama? Because, honestly, is this going anywhere? - NeutralHomer • Talk
  • 19:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment With CoM effectively in self-destruct mode, they should be blocked to prevent disruption elsewhere on Wikipedia. Any question of whether the original block was appropriate is now moot. Considering that the block was controversial, CoM should be allowed extra leeway as regards "blowing off steam" on their talk page. I think that about covers it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It does...archive away. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - trout slaps all around. I believe this is just a pathetic little content dispute which has erupted because an over-sensitive editor felt under attack by someone making
  his article not once, but twice. Ohconfucius (talk
  ) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An Admin admitting to drinking at work

There are many other ways to be unsober than drinking, none of which are against Wikipedia policy. Discuss the block on its merits. –xenotalk 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Off2riorob (talk ) 00:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) I don't think he means he was literally sauced, but it is written somewhere that you have to be sober to edit Wikipedia? I think it would be wise to be sober, but not necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC) This admin, in my interactions with him, does a very good job, so if you wouldn't mind, Offriorob, finding out what brand he drinks, I intend to send a barrel or two to other admins. (Thanks, Abe).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC Irish name..Irish drink//I am drinking fermented fruit juice apple, pear and grapes of course...this is the diff between drink and drunk..( Off2riorob (talk ) 00:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) I am drinking high caffeinated soda. Does that mean I am wacked out on caffeine and my edits should be thrown out while I am drinking it? I doubt it. Unless we have proof that WMC is drunk or drinking, we shouldn't pass judgement. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) I agree that it was a poor decision to use the tools while "under the influence". LadyofShalott 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC) A block which is already well disputed should not be done by an admin who admits to drinking.. Sorry.. it is not funny.. the editor should be unblocked. ( Off2riorob (talk ) 00:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) Can you, right now, prove that WMC is loaded? I can say I am high off my ass...I'm not. People can say that are loaded and not be loaded. To some, it is a figure of speech. Unless you can prove WMC was drinking, you can not pass judgement. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) <edit conflict> Yes. Could we not have acusations of impaired administrator actions and racial / national stereotypes about alcohol use here? Even though I disagree with the block, this line of reasoning is absurd and inappropriate. Please drop it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Or, just possibly, this was an off-the-cuff, self-deprecating remark made by an individual who happens to have a sense of humour. Doesn't anyone have anything useful to do? (Please, please, please tell me that Wikipedia:Prohibition is a still redlink....) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with you Ten, it was a figure of speech by someone who hit a button too quickly, made a joke, moved on. No more, no less. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Off2riorob, the mention you made on Connolley's talk page was the correct action to take. I don't think it needs to be brought to ANI unless it becomes a recurring matter. Kingturtle (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Is that what this is supposed to be..a joke? ( Off2riorob (talk ) 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) Is the guy still blocked? ( Off2riorob (talk ) 00:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) Would you like it if you got arrested by a drunk policeman? no you wouldn't ...( Off2riorob (talk ) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)) I think if we responded to everybody who drinks while working on WP, we would have a much much smaller user community. I routinely drink while working on WP... this is a hobby, I'm at home, and guess what I can. If there is a pattern of bad decisions, incivility, etc, you can bring those up... but I don't think it is a major problem. It might not have been the best wisdom to admit it, but many adults drink and can handle it.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical trolling

No admin action needed here. LadyofShalott 03:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as Butcher group is concerned, this is the only conclusion that can be drawn from the recent editing behaviour of User:ChildofMidnight. I believe it is known by quite a few administrators and arbitrators that I am an expert editor in mathematics, particularly in this particular subject area. That might be painful for young wikipedians to read, but it is alas true. CoM seems to have regressed into very negative editing patterns since the recent ArbCom decision. On the other hand, as I've written before, he is sadly lacking intellectually in the subject area in which he has probably unwisely chosen to edit. That seems to have been his major error. Mathsci (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) CoM is currently under a 24 hr block for being uncivil to you, so this is perhaps not the best time to be raising such a minor issue. Looie496 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I think Mathsci really needs a "cool-down" break to prevent from making further dramas. You've kept referring to the Obama Arbitration that has nothing to do with CoM's two edits to WP:OWNERSHIP. I remember that you defended for your editing buddy on his arbitration who has been much harshly restricted by the committee. Here are his edits to Butcher group. 1) CoM (tweaks) 2) Mathsci rv senseless edit to stub 3) CoM tagging for cleanup. long run-on sentences. poor wording and grammar. needs work. Now, please tell me where is "Mathematical trolling" that you're persistently arguing? --Caspian blue 01:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) I haven't really edited this page much lately, unlike others, so I'm not particularly receptive to calls for a cool down period. Personally, I'm not quite sure why I should devote any more of my time to adding extra content to Butcher group, which is at the moment is HOPELESSLY INCOMPLETE because I haven't finished writing it yet. (There is no question of ownership here. Some of this material has been absent from wikipedia for a few years, even if it has been referred to.) But of course I will, because I've already prepared the material quite carefully, even if it was quite tricky. I have no idea why editors like User:Caspian blue are suggesting topic bans from mathematics. In promoting CoM, they seem to have a somewhat upside down view of both wikipedia and the real academic world. If editors think the content of the article is inappropriate for wikipedia, they can of course put the article up for deletion instead of soapboxing. The problem is with CoM, not with an expert editor in mathematics like me. From his edits, he seems to be clueless mathematically at this particular level; that is why his edits seem to be trolling. Mathsci (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Some editors are referring to this as a content dispute. Perhaps as a reality check for these editors, they should spend a few minutes examining the mathematical content of the references. They should quietly ponder whether, in spite of no past interest in mathematics or quantum field theory. CoM has suddenly developed a new and surprising expertise in this quite hard subject. Mathsci (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC) MathSci, CoM has not claimed any expertise in the subject. He has repeatedly said he came upon it while doing new page patrolling. As he made exactly two edits to the page and is currently under a block, I do not think there is any point in continuing this. Please drop it now. LadyofShalott 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Yep. I have no comment on the bigger dispute here and on the rest of the editing, but CoM's two edits to Butler group were clearly simple copyedits, no substantive changes, and in fact I think they were an improvement. In any case, this non-issue is not worth arguing over, it's nothing more than a distraction. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) MathSci, as you asked directly under my post above about "content dispute", I will offer my viewpoints. First, I greatly appreciate that you are willing to contribute such expertise to our site. I would also mention that while we appreciate such efforts, we are an encyclopedic effort - as such, the general "lead" of an article should address the "lay person" when possible. I believe that CoMs edits were an attempt to do just that. The clarification that you can offer is greatly appreciated, but I believe that those items are best expressed in bulk of the article. I see no diffs that CoM contributed as a breech of  ?  02:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) @LoS. No this is the second time he has done this. The first time he did this with Chateau of Vauvenargues. I'm sorry, although you may be a huge fan of his, he is a troublemaker. His edits to the talk page of Butcher group had nothing to do with mathematics or content. Your claim that he was new page patrolling alas does not match in any way his editing record. I've had a quite a long experience editing namespace articles with serious content and this was not patrolling. I have never seen anybody edit advanced graduate-level mathematics articles unless they have some prior expertise. CoM seems to be an editor with rather serious problems, that's all. I'm not asking for anything more to be done about this at the moment. It's 5 in the morning here in France, so I hope you'll excuse me. Bonne nuit. [[User:Mathsci|Mathssi] (talk ) 02:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC) @Ched Davis. There are clear tags on the article indicating that it's still being written. C'mon, Ched Davis, that is not ownership. It simply means that it takes me some time to write hard articles. I didn't start editing here yesterday. Mathsci (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack

What personal attack?

Resolved  – Personal attacks people find funny are OK on Wikipedia ...is that a personal attack, too??? Sheesh. Drop the self-righteousness. Keeper | 76 06:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) asked Malleus Fatuorum to refactor or redact the personal attack and was met with strong defensiveness and rudeness. An admin should deal with this attack as, as of this posting, it's still present. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC) meh... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) mountain =/= molehill. This is silly. This does not need to be blown out of proportion. Move along, Allstar, my advice. IMHO, this isn't anything worth boo-hooing. Keeper | 76 05:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. We've fully milked the drama out of this incident. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Since when did personal attacks become silly? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Gawd. I didn't say personal attacks were silly. I said that you thinking that that was a personal attack was silly. There's a difference. I wonder, is this a personal attack in your mind? Perhaps a break. Go to bed. Keeper | 76 05:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Referring to another user as a "drunk" is not a "personal attack in my mind", it's a personal attack posted to a user talk page on Wikipedia. It should be removed immediately. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Connolley says he is not sober and someone calls him drunk? Where's the attack? It's more like restating something. type! snype? 05:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Enough stirring the pot please. Kthxbai. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC) long before this. (Or that.) ThuranX (talk ) 05:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I'm just appalled at the nonchalant attitude towards an obvious personal attack. Since people are fine with it, I'll just bookmark this thread for future reference when and if I ever get called out for attacking someone. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 05:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not exactly at an all-time high for enforcing civility. I was once blocked for 5 days for calling people idiots. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Allstarecho has not told the whole truth. Malleus comment was a response at User talk:ChildofMidnight to an indef block by William M. Connolley, who later said, "I should slow down, and possibly only edit when sober. Thanks for pointing that out; I've corrected it. Indef was just a touch harsh". The additional information raises the following issues: Why was Allstarecho making threats about a conversation on another User's Talk page and in which Allstarecho was not involved? I was under the impression that comment on User Talk pages was less constrained by WP:NPA than comments on "public" Talk pages (articles, projects, WP policies, noticeboards, etc.). William M. Connolley's conduct was very far short of what should be expected of an admin, especially where a block is concerned. IMO this incident shows he is unfit to be an admin. Allstarecho raised this ANI after I had drawn attention to the backstory - which is also published at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_User:ChildofMidnight. I think Allstarecho should explain why he pursued Malleus when Malleus' comment was brief and, as far as the evidence indicates, accurate. --Philcha (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe others should have been blocked in addition to CoM? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC) And now I'm a liar for not rehashing the history of CoM's block? Love how you, Philcha, have turned this around on me. The fact is, I noticed via my watchlist that CoM had been blocked. I went to CoM's talk page to see what it was all about. I noticed the personal attack by Malleus. As a courtesy, I went to Malleus' talk page and politely asked the user to refactor or redact the attack lest I bring it up for discussion elsewhere - a courtesy in so much as asking the user directly and first. The user responded defensively and rudely. End of history. And to clarify to Philcha, a user's talk page does not lax personal attack rules. No matter how much you want to spin it - and you did a good job of it here and here - referring to another user as a "drunk" is a personal attack. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) It's interesting how often Connolley's name shows up in complaints here. Now someone is calling for him to be de-sysopped. Ironically, Connolley himself called for Docu to be de-sysopped. Over allegedly bad blocks? No, over his refusal to kiss up on the signature guideline. [156] Maybe it would be best for all concerned to back off the de-sysop bandwagon. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight again

no lengthening of block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Resolved  – no lengthening of block. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Based on this new edit, I think his block for incivility should be extended before it expires. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Hm.. Allstarecho again...--Caspian blue 17:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC) And that's supposed to mean what? Just because of who I am, I'm not allowed to comment? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Second the suggestion, but I've had run-ins with CoM before, so I'd rather someone uninvolved make the call.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC) First, Caspian, just because ASE brings something to this board doesn't mean you have to post about it with snide little comments. Second, I have to agree with ASE. CoM is going off on a tagent about something that doesn't even involve him and the incivility in his statement (the one linked by ASE) is horrible. An extended block for that statement and the unloading by CoM on Georgewilliamherbert last night should be necessary. Incivility is NOT and never is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Read my comment below Xeno.--Caspian blue 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Could you guys stop edit warring over the location of this section? It's hard to hit a moving target. I believe it belongs here, under its parent. –xenotalk 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Indeed, Allstarcho, you're making another new tread to attract more admin's eye just after your failed attempt to Mall. That is what I meant for mentioning "again". The issue is ongoing, so your "new thread" belongs here. Besides, think about your recent block. Don't you rash out various insults toward admins and editors who advised you? You've also been there, but why are you making more dramas?--Caspian blue 18:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "assholes" and "monkeys" are all I see there (and not specifically directed), that would warrant a WQA at most - doubt it would result in a block for incivility. Wasn't the original block contentious itself? So you want to extend a contentious block with an extension that will be equally or even more contentious? –xenotalk 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec)It was only contentious because he was the only one blocked. Technically, the block was good but the other editor he was having issues with should have been blocked too - for the same reason, incivility. That said, the latest rant calling other editors "assholes" and "monkeys" only shows he doesn't care about being civil. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Really? I've taken worse than that and didn't come to AN/I over it. Maybe a little backbone is in order. Seriously though, is this really that big of a breach of civility? Soxwon (talk ) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) That diff should go to WP:WQA at most. Gwen Gale (talk ) 18:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC) WQA is a waste of time, in my opinion. The only thing that WQA does is essentially slap you on the wrist and tell you "now, don't do that again". For incivility and mark my words, there will be MUCH more once CoM is unblocked, needs a stern answer, not a slap on the wrist. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The block of CoM was a cool down block which didn't. Yes, he was over-reacting to reverts of his copyedits, and he has certainly not been helping his case since, as I have told him on his talk page. The solution is not more over-reaction or extending the cool down block. Please, everyone, just stop poking at this editor. There's been far too much drama already. Jonathunder (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Then a strong consensus here would be the only way to lengthen the block, short of CoM aiming a stinging, straightfoward PA at a named editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Support stinging, straightforward personal attack at a named editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Comment I redacted some words that possibly sounds uncivil to some editors, and CoM agreed on it. So I hope the matter that Allstarcho has raised can be tied down. Yes, everyone should stop poking on CoM.--Caspian blue 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (ec) I'm presumably one of the "assholes" and/or "monkeys" to whom he refers (C of M does not care for me in the slightest because I've warned that editor about editing behavior on the Obama articles in the past), but I don't think this warrants a block. The initial block was at best questionable and that fact should be taken into consideration. C of M has responded to it quite poorly, but that editor has in the past felt Grundle2600 has gotten a raw deal (I utterly disagree with that, for what it's worth) so the most recent comment is not all that surprising. I think it would be best to let this go, though it would be terrific if ChildofMidnight would let off on attacking other editors with whom he or she disagrees. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Can we all just drop the stick already, please? There's no point in continuing this drama. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC) We should let the fire die, not dump more gasoline on it. A block extension won't serve any useful purpose.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Seriously, the abuse of good faith editors needs to stop

I am closing this, as much for CoM's protection as anything else. ANI is for thing that need immediate admin attention. If you continue lashing out here, nothing good can come of it, CoM. Unitanode 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

I don't really care that much about the harassment I'm receiving. But this wp:ani#Never-ending disruption by Grundle2600 monstrous attack by pov pushing editors like Tarc, Allstarecho and Bigtimepeace targeting those whose politics they disagree with is totally unacceptable. Allastrecho and others have been trolling here on ANI making accusation after accusation against any editor they disagree with. This behavior was learned from Wikidemon's whose abuse of ANI in order to win content disputes is well established. It needs to stop NOW! Using ANI reports and harassment to get the upper hand in content disputes is totally wrong and inappropriate. The admins who've gone along with it need to shape up. Grundle has an interesting approach to be sure, and he's not perfect, but he's one of the most collegial and patient editors on here. He's created numerous good articles on many subjects including political topics like these: Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009 Air Force One photo op incident Ricci v. DeStefano Students for Concealed Carry on Campus That he'd be banned from creating new articles of this kind by editors misrepresenting his work here is outrageous. The evidence they cite includes perfectly legitimate article subjects like Gerald Walpin firing that was censored and deleted at AfD. And now they're going after the Gerald Walpin article too, even though a simple google news search shows he's been notable for a long career of interesting legal work. Incompetence, dishonesty, and abuse appears to rule the day here on Wikipedia. The editors going after Grundle can't hold a candle to his article creation talents or good nature. Shame on them and all of you reading this for not stepping up to his defense. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Hello pot, meet kettle. You accuse others of trolling and you're here doing the same thing? And you include my name in POV pushing? I'm not the one banned from Obama articles for their POV pushing... you are. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Just a quick note, read through the thread carefully C of M. I think literally everyone who weighed in (and there were a number of people) came down on the side of a topic ban. This included a number of people who have little or nothing to do with Obama-related articles. When you have that kind of overwhelming consensus to take a particular action, including from people who are completely uninvolved in the situation, there is a strong possibility that said action was not "outrageous." You're welcome to disagree, but the comments from some of editors and admins in that thread should give you some pause. Also coming off a block for civility—which I think was ill-advised as I've said on this page—it's just not a good idea to casually refer to other editors as "pov pushing" without any evidence of that. Obviously we've had this conversation five times before, but I really wish you could assume a bit more good faith and be a bit less cavalier about casting aspersions on other editors. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Editors are getting hounded because of their political views. I understand that most editors here are to the left of center and that's fine, but it takes all kinds. Grundle has created numerous good articles on political topics, I've also created a few of my own. I'd be very interested to see the list of political articles created by Bigtimepeace, Tarc, and Baseball Bugs. This is about censorship and intimidation pure and simple. Wikidemon and Allstarecho have taken me to ANI 7 or so times, and have canvassed admins. When they didn't get the response from GTBacchus they wanted (he suggested focusing on content) they moved on until they found Bigtimepeace who proudly announced on the Obama talk page that he's to the left of Obama. ANI IS NOT FOR CONTENT DISPUTES. Grundle's article on Michelle's arms had problems, but we're all editors here, and we could have trimmed it and added sources about her fashion and its influence. Instead all we have are attacks and censorship by the same characters time and again. STOP THIS ABUSE!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC) The cry of "Censorship!" is part of the Credo of POV Pushing. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Ooh! Do they get credo cards? HalfShadow 02:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC) I don't know, but they do write ridiculous essays: [157] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC) That's right, Wikipedia was a media focus after the POV pushers stripped out any mention of Rev. Wright, who was close with Obama for many years and certainly notable in relation (his book is dedicated to him) and it was a campaign issue, the subject of speeches, and a renunciation of the Rev. and a switching of churches). And when many good faith editors tried to fix it (and there were some fringe edits attempted also) the worst kind of personal attacks and ganging up happened. I'm still waiting for the articles you Tarc and Allstarecho have created on political subject. This game of going after any editor that's conservative and trying to harass and intimidate them, and to hound them off the articles and delete anything they create needs to stop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Neutral Homer is even now abusively trying to close this discussion even though he's involved and one of the problem editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I am being "abusive", when you are starting a thread looking to pick a fight with anyone and everyone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC) What are you even trying to accomplish with this thread? If it's to just lash out at everyone, this thread should be archived. J.delanoygabsadds 02:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Support for archiving the thread. CoM...please take a wikibreak and have a good glass of wine or beer and then come back later with your cool head. As I said, follow DR.--Caspian blue 03:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Support get a coffee, or whatever your poison is. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcool35 still falsifying album ratings

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked. — Σxplicit 04:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Rcool35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Once again, User:Rcool35 is deliberately changing album ratings again by increasing them by .5 stars in Nas related articles. He was previously warned, blocked and had his blocked extended for block evasion, and his edits continue despite another warning given by myself. I'd appreciate it if an administrator looked into this. — Σxplicit 02:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Rcool35's editing permissions are sleeping with the fishes. He failed to see the light, and saw Cod instead.

Please feel free to clean up any of his recent edits that others haven't already deleted. Everything I saw that he'd done today qualifies as vandalism., but most had already been repaired. I'd rather let people more familiar with those articles do the final fixes though. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll clean up anything else that needs it. Regards. — Σxplicit 04:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kruško Mortale

I don't know what to do with this guy... he reverts because of completely imagined POV, he just clicks undo and reverts everything because he doesn't agree with a few parts of an edit (even paragraph organization edits), and he reverts "out of principle" if he happens to think the other person is somehow promoting a "POV". All this and he barely discusses the issues, if he even lists his objections. The articles are

TALK

) 23:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

DIREKTOR, with all of the MJ issues today some things got missed. Can you provide some links to specific examples of reversions so the matter can be examined more closely? Manning (talk

) 06:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked for 24 hours for 3RR; sanctions recorded at
  WP:ARBMAC. Apologies, but I saw this via my watchlist and didn't realise there was an ANI thread. EyeSerene^talk
  09:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Old CFDs which have not yet been closed

To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that the following CFDs (originated between 7 June and 10 June) have yet to be closed, including:

• Category:Atheist and agnostic politicians (Caveat: I nominated this one; 10 June)

• Category:Musical forms (10 June)

• Category:Polygamy and the Latter Day Saint movement (10 June)

• Category:People associated with e-mail controversies (8 June)

• Category:University of Missouri–Kansas City (7 June)

Thanks, [email protected] (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism account User:Tombar22

Tombar22 (talk · contribs) is a vandalism-only new account ([158], [159], etc.) - all contribs need rollback. 62.147.38.254 (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I've listed the account on

WP:AIV, where such notifications should be made in the future.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 09:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Blacklist

I would like that my address http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Zhoroscop is unblocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhoroscop (talk • contribs)

That's not going to happen, you're a spammer. And you have no reason to unblock your meta account, you never use it. Finally, if you want it unblocked, you need to make a request at meta, not here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 10:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Joseph_A._Spadaro

• Joseph A. Spadaro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've blocked User:Joseph_A._Spadaro based on this edit and this reply to my BLP warning, in addition to some other minor BLP content issues discussed on Talk:Murder of Robert Eric Wone. Aside from the user's bad attitude, he clearly doesn't believe he's done anything wrong by accusing three living people of homicide. He's probably not going to respond favorably to anything I say from this point forward, so... would anyone be willing to be a mentor/coach for him, assuming he's going to agree to our BLP policies? Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Jclemens, you are heavily involved in this article (having edited it dozens of times in recent months) and heavily involved in a content dispute with User:Joseph_A._Spadaro on the article's talk page. You are not an uninvolved administrator. It would have been much better had you reported the matter on WP:BLP/N and let one of the 1660 other Wikipedia administrators address the matter. 87.115.17.119 (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If you'll look at the article's recent history, you'll find that 1) I haven't been editing the article actively in a while, and 2) the BLP issue was the only "content dispute" at issue in the time. I'm the one who posted here for full transparency, knowing full well both that someone would have this sort of comment, and that
    WP:BLP supported the objective reasonableness of my actions. Jclemens (talk
    ) 00:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - The edit cited above as evidence is on an Article talk page; I regard it as not fully justifying a block. Article talk pages are not biographies, the BLP policy pertains to biographies, articles on Wikipedia. The editor may state his opinion on a talk page, even without sources to back it up, so long as he doesn't post it to the article or represent it as a WP endorsed point of view, and he's not posting outright libelious content (without violating BLP), although it should not be encouraged unless the discussion is relevant to developing the article: I didn't notice any glaring issue in that particular entry into the discussion. --Mysidia (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wrong. BLP applies across the entire project. //roux   23:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • While it does indeed, it is worth noting that discussions must include content at times which is then later determined to not be admissible in the article proper - in the very discussions which occur to make that determination. Just worth keeping in mind... In this instance, "involvement" has zero bearing on enforcing BLP. That's just a strawman argument. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:BLP#Non-article_space. There are different, specific rules mentioned about discussions of biographies on Talk Pages; only information that is poorly sourced and not related to making article content choices, or that is particularly dangerous. If the rules were the same for talk pages, the policy would not list different rules. --Mysidia (talk
      ) 00:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think the concept of using BLP to censor talk pages is very harmful, and I think this block in particular is just awful, there is simply nothing blockable here. Looie496 (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • BLP is about times when people's right to be not defamed outweighs our default freedom to say whatever we think about a subject on a talk page. In this particular case, three men who are preparing to go on trial for obstruciton of justice and conspiracy were accused of sexual assault and manslaughter (negligent homicide) by this editor on the talk page of the article on the murder. If there's any time when people's right to not be accused of a crime on Wikipedia should be most heightened, it is when they have been indicted, but not yet tried, for such a crime. Failure to do so makes a mockery of "innocent until proven guilty". Based on what I know of the case, a conviction wouldn't surprise me, but it's no Wikipedian's place to state an unconvicted living subject's guilt as fact. Jclemens (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
        • The phrase used in the diff: "My understanding is that ..." does not sound like "stated as a fact". People do have a right not to be accused of a crime maliciously or negligently; however, if an indictment has been made with certain charges and evidence, a reasonable person may be of the opinion, "understanding", or personal belief that indictment and claims by the prosecution and other sources are accurate, without any malice or negligence involved.. The mere expression of honest opinion is not defamation under those circumstances. Though it would be inappropriate on an article page, unless a number of reliable sources expressed the same opinion, in which case, all notable opinions should be given fair treatment, as per
          WP:NPOV, (not just opinions that presume innocence as a foregone conclusion). But the "accusation" on the talk page, from what I can see, appears a mild expression of opinion at worst... --Mysidia (talk
          ) 06:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of posting a notice at

Wikipedia:BLP#Non-article_space? I think this would be more urgent than blocking the editor. ---Sluzzelin talk

06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That article has been a BLP nightmare for months now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It has? I've been watching it pretty closely and we've gone to lengths to include the roomates names minimally. Could you explain how - besides Joseph_A._Spadaro's additions - the article violates BLP in any way? We should fix it if it does.

-- Banjeboi

11:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. After the AfD, a good amount of scrutiny was focused, things were hashed out into a compromise format, and the minimal RS updates were added to the article were handled carefully within BLP. It CAN be handled in a BLP-appropriate manner. The recent excursions have been the work of the blocked editor in question. Jclemens (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT support block I see no BLP violation in what he was saying. He was discussing the article in the article talk page. I looked at his post and his reply to you. His reply to you was angry, and yes, a bit incivil, but I see no BLP. Lift the block _{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that another editor has since redacted the controversial comments throughout the discussion. You'll have to go back into the history to see them. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban from Murder of Robert Eric Wone

Note: boldy moving this from article space to admin board

I'm proposing that Joseph A. Spadaro be topic banned from editing this article directly, based on his BLP violations to date and his refusal to acknowledge them as at odds with BLP policy. This is a separate matter from the fact that I've just blocked him for the same issue. Fact is, the article had survived a contentious AfD and been scrupulously kept clean of BLP issues since that time. I contend that his recent participation in this article has been a disruptive and negative influence. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Jclemens (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Not sure if this is the best way to do this but yes, I'm afraid. BLP is among the most serious issues we face and accusing others of COI and generalized snarkiness don't seem to help. WP:AN or BLP noticeboard may get more eyes.
  -- Banjeboi
  01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A good suggestion. There's a separate AN/I thread on my block of him. It'll point anyone who cares to read it to this page. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Moved to admin board. I'm afraid this editor seems really interested in arguing and accusing. That this is coupled with an open murder investiagtion and they seem eager to apply blame on Wikipedia in violation of numerous policies suggests we should nip this as unneeded drama. Both Jclemens and I have been watching the article and up unti lthis recent flurry it has been a rather decent and NPOV article. Even where we've disagreed we've tried to find teh answers based in traditional consensus and sussing out policy issues.
      -- Banjeboi
      11:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - it appears unwarranted and hasty. Is there an example of the user introducing content into the article in violation of
  WP:BLP after being asked to stop, or the user reverting a removal or change of content that was performed for compliance with policy? --Mysidia (talk
  ) 12:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • They seemed to be introducing new BLP violations on the talkpage coupled with bad faith galore. I think a topic-ban of a few months may help here.
    -- Banjeboi
    02:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Do Not Support The block is bad , no BLP in the first place. He was disussing the article on the article's talk page.Naluboutes, Nalubotes ^{Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris} 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The comments they made that violated BLP have been removed from the talkpage.
    -- Banjeboi
    02:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban based on this evidence. It might or might not be warranted, but this is not sufficient evidence. The BLP issue on the talk page (which I redacted) appears to have been good faith, so I place no weight on that. What policy violations (diffs?) merit a topic ban? Rd232/
  talk
  ) 13:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • We'll have to agree to disagree. Jclemens and I don't agree on a few points on the article but we've refrained from accusing each other of COI and other allegations. Perhaps we should wait until they strike again but I'd rather just let Jclemens keep improving the article with any new sources brought forth.
    -- Banjeboi
    02:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, from what I've seen here (I haven't read the entire talk page just yet), a topic ban is unwarranted. He was discussing the article, and though it wasn't the most knowledgeable way to act towards a warning from an administrator, the topic ban is overkill. Blurpeace (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• He's only got about 5 hours left on the block now. It didn't cool down his rants against "censorship" here (his term for removal of right-wing POV-pushing), but the lengthy topic ban should do so. Let him rant and rave all he wants, as long as he doesn't infect the articles any further. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Which block are you looking at? The user in question is indef blocked. --Stephen 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, never mind. I was in the wrong section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

PJHaseldine's community sanction review

I blocked PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) for two weeks after he recreated Alan Feraday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in violation of his community sanction. The article was originally created by a sockpuppet of his Phase1 (talk · contribs) in 2005. It was then deleted in 2008 by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for BLP violation in response to a OTRS ticket. PJHaseldine then recreated the article in May of this year.

There is now

Talk

14:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a good block. The community sanction was enacted in good faith; there is no evidence it was ever revoked. The main issue may be the length, but even if I may have blocked him for a shorter time period, if he wants to edit sooner, he can request an unblock and explain himself, so for that reason I see no real problem with the block. I would rather see him explain to all of us via unblock request about his violation of his community sanction rather than simply letting this sort of blatant disregard for said sanction go unnoticed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion that did find consensus among a few neutral editors that a temporary ban was warranted. In that discussion, Ncmvocalist closed with a broad and indef ban declaration, when a narrow, single-article ban was the original suggestion, but I did not notice until now that Ncmvocalist was not an administrator, and that, even if this editor were an admin, he'd have been prohibited from making a close of that nature because he'd suggested the ban himself. The ban discussion should have been closed by a neutral admin, who then becomes the go-to person to administer it, decide when it's not needed any more, etc. Since Bjweeks was the first admin to enforce this ban, with a harsh two-week block for an editor with no recent blocks, I suggested that Bjweeks review the original case and decide whether or not to effectively become the maintaining admin. I can understand why he might not wish to do that.

I do agree that the recreation of a BLP deleted article is a serious matter. I do not recommend that the ban be nulled as much as for some neutral administrator to take responsibility for it, so that issues around it can be addressed with minimal disruption. Whether or not to lift the ban is a complex question, and AN/I isn't particularly good at this. So, please, we should have a neutral admin to review the cause of the ban and its nature, from the original discussion, and not duplicate debate over the ban itself here. That admin can then, at leisure, review subsequent behavior and decide appropriate action, including advising PJH as to future behavior. PJH has not challenged the ban, nor the block, apparently, was clearly and actively cooperating with it, and may not have considered the creation of the deleted article, a month ago, to be covered by it, I do not know yet. My opinion is that Bjweeks bought this here prematurely, but, if we get a neutral admin, no harm. I'll come back with diffs. or links to the original discussion. --

talk

) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For convenience, permanent link to the discussion I began with Bjweeks, which contains links to the original ban discussion. --

talk

) 15:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good block and the community sanction had the communities support at the time and is valid. I don't see any evidence of abuse by an "involved" or biased editor. The length is indeed long, but that's up to the blocking admin. Perhaps it can be reduced if PJ discusses this with BJw. Verbal chat 15:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 15:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worth looking at the date stamps? EdJohnson proposed the ban on the 6th of March, discussion occured, with the last support vote being Abd's on the 9th, although some related comments were made on the 10th. Ncmvocalist took no part in the discussion. On the 10th, Ncmvocalist proposed a wording for the ban, it was supported, and Ncmvocalist closed the discussion. There is no involvement here. I suspect you misread the discussion, as Ncmvocalist's suggested wording was placed just after EdJohnson's request for the ban, even though it came much later chronologically. - Bilby (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A temporary ban, possibly a narrow, single-article ban, had a small community's support. Not an indef, "construed broadly" ban, with a non-admin closing it and taking no continued resposibility. The block has been questioned as possibly over-harsh, but that remains to be seen. Both issues were quite premature for AN/I. All that had happened was that discussion had begun with Bjweeks, suggesting review. No challenge, no disruptive behavior, no unblock template, no nothing but some discussion on talk pages. --

talk

) 15:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, admins have special tools with regard to blocking, deletion, and protection of articles, but they are not specifically endowed with the right to enact community bans like this. Such bans can be enacted by a consensus of any editors; admins are not special with regard to this. Secondly, the ban discussion was not begun by the person who closed it; it was started by EdJohnston and closed by Ncmvocalist, who are seperate people as far as I can tell. Thirdly, the text of the community ban does not include a single article, it clearly states "any articles related to Pan Am 103" and looking at the editors that supported the ban, see [160], I do not see any evidence that they objected to or modified this initial wording. Fourthly, Alan Feraday is clearly related to the Lockerbie disaster, which would violate the terms of the ban. Fifthly, while you yourself used the word temporary in your support of the ban, no one else did, AND you yourself did not set terms on the temporary nature of your support. The ban was enacted in March. It's only 3 1/2 months later. This seems to meet the spirit of "temporary", even if left open ended as to when the temporary would last. So, I see no reasonable objections to this block based on the nature of the community ban. If the ban itself needs to be ammended or revisted, that may be a discussion for another day (or even today; feel free to start such discussion), however this block seems to be clearly within the purview of that ban. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, nobody has directly challenged either the ban or the block, so you are beating a dead horse. See above. You are correct, anyone can close, but it's irregular to participate in a discussion, suggest a sanction, then close, choosing that sanction over other suggestions, and when enforcing a close may involve admin tools, it's tricky and deprecated for a non-admin to close. Not impossible, though. What's been done on

talk

) 16:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If a block is questioned then it is quite normal for the blocking admin to bring it here to solicit the opinions of others. This is normal procedure. You initiated the process that lead to this discussion, by complaining. It isn't premature, it is dealing with your complaint quickly. Verbal chat 15:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Quickly, perhaps, but not with minimal disruption. I was planning on waiting for bjweeks to respond, and was surprised that he brought this here. There was no rush. If the matter wasn't resolved with bjweeks, then there would be a solicitation of a neutral admin by PJHaseldine, presumably, with an unblock template. I don't know why it seems to be so difficult for some to understand what avoiding disruption means. Look at all the time wasted here! --

talk

) 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I just provided that review above. Isn't that exactly what you were looking for? I wouldn't call it wasted time; you had legitimate concerns, and asked for others to review it. Others have done just that. No waste of time at all! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The sequence of events:

1. Bjweeks blocked PJH for violating the ban
2. Abd responded on Bjweeks' talk, questioning the validity of the ban
3. Bjweeks brought the question here of ban validity here

We are now responding to BJWeeks on the validity of the ban, and we are discussing whether two weeks was too long. We are also seeing some general comment by Abd about the nature of community bans, who owns them, who maintains them, which I do not wish to address here. I suggest he raise those questions at the Village Pump.

Since the closer of the ban discussion, User:Ncmvocalist, has not been very active lately, and since I'm the editor who originally proposed the topic ban on User:PJHaseldine, I'm willing to speak up to answer any questions about the original ban rationale. I did vote in the ban discussion. The nature of community bans is that they are collectively owned, so I don't agree with Abd that there has to be such as role as the'maintaining admin'. If the ban needs to be revised or rethought, let's discuss that. PJH's improper actions go way back and I don't think there will be too much controversy about those facts, nor about the policies and guidelines that he violated. Over time, many editors at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard became very familiar with Haseldine issues. I don't believe that Haseldine sees any problem at all with his actions, and am not sure he ever admitted that he had a conflict of interest.

At present, the only difference of opinion I can see (except for Abd's general questions about bans) is whether the two week block was too long. Any admin who wants to pursue an unblock discussion with PJH on his talk page is welcome to do so, but I will predict you will not get any admission at all of improper behavior. In the past, he has been 100% convinced he is right about all these matters. Abd has requested that PJH apologize for unintended disruption; if he acknowledges that, then a shortening of the block should be considered. I take note of the fact that PJH has not even opened an unblock request template, perhaps because a person who is 100% right shouldn't have to do those things. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of worrying aspects to this which would certainly militate towards a lengthy block. The fact that Alan Fereday is very much covered by

Conflict of Interest involved. Sam Blacketer (talk

) 21:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related issue, can we have some review of User:Ncmvocalist's actions here?

I take no position on whether PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) should be banned or not. I do, however, object to how this was carried out procedurally. Ncmvocalist appears to make a habit of interjecting himself into matters for which he has no particular authority.

By way of full disclosure and to provide a second example I am familiar with, I first became aware of Ncmvocalist in the discussion that led to my own topic ban, see [161] for where he began to interject himself. Had this been the limits of his involvement that would have been fine, but after Wizardman closed the discuss and declared community consensus for my topic ban Ncmvocalist took it upon himself to close an RfC on me that was completely unrelated to the ban discussion. I still contend that his closing summary is misleading and biased, something that he refused to let me address on the record. He then altered the voted on language while creating a Community Sanction page in my user space, something that Wizardman had to correct after the fact. I take no position on whether this was intentional, or not.

Subsequent to all of this, we basically went on about our respective business. I only recently became aware of this case through my interactions with Abd.

In this current case we see Ncmvocalist again changing the wording in such a way that it expands the scope of what was actually !voted on (again I take not position on whether such change was intentional, or not). He did this at 10:54, 10 March 2009, and then took it upon himself to close the discussion at 03:46, 11 March 2009 which is only 15 hours later. Note that ALL of the !votes were made prior to his having even crafted the wording that he used in the close and when he added the notation at WP:RESTRICT.

Have we come to the point where ordinary users (i.e. non-admins) such as Ncmvocalist can take it upon themselves to assess community consensus, unilaterally close discussions, and impose community sanctions using their own wording without regard to what was actually !voted upon? Is this really how things are supposed to be operating here? --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

When I went to his talk page to inform him of this discussion topic, I found this at the top of his page. So it seems that I am not the only one to have complained of such behavior, and that this has been going on for quite some time.

Look, I have no doubt that he actually means well. Honestly. But I find his behavior unacceptable as, apparently, do others. --GoRight (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Review, as requested. Looking at the PJHaseldine ban discussion as a whole, rather than individual diffs, I see several things that need to be made clear:-

• The "alterations" made by Ncmvocalist look to me like a good faith neutral summary of the proposal, which was supported by amost everyone who contributed to the discussion. The only user who wanted an alteration was Abd.
• Ncmvocalist did not vote in the discussion.
• Ncmvocalist was asked to close the discussion and notify PJH ("do the honors") by admin Georgewilliamherbert.

In other words, this discussion was closed fairly, by an uninvolved editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look into it. But with all due respect, "prohibited from editing articles relating to Pan Am Flight 103, broadly construed" is not a fair summarization of what was actually !voted on. The original text enumerates 5 specific pages and requests a topic ban to "include articles about people who died in the Flight 103 crash", and "people who have written about the Lockerbie bombing, such as Hugh Miles (journalist)."

The summarization may have been made in good faith, as I said I take no position on intent, but it clearly expands the scope of the original wording. In addition, I question the propriety have having non-administrators injecting themselves in this manner, especially when they seem to be doing an inaccurate job. --GoRight (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins aren't anything special, so the fact it was done by a "normal" editor doesn't seem relevant, especially as an admin instructed them to. Those 5 articles covered Flight 103, broadly, and the wording, inadvertently or not, stops the banned editor from introducing new articles on the topic or adding the topic to other articles. Seems fair and in line with common practice. Verbal chat 19:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"Admins aren't anything special ..." - I can certainly accept that they aren't special in that they are human, but they are special in that they have been given a vote of confidence by the community at large when they received their adminship. That is clearly a distinction from "normal" editors who have received no such vote of confidence.

"Those 5 articles covered Flight 103, broadly, and the wording, inadvertently or not, stops the banned editor from introducing new articles on the topic or adding the topic to other articles." - As I said above, I am not debating the validity of the PJHaseldine (talk · contribs) case either way. But the fact remains that his wording did, in fact, expand the scope of what was voted on. I merely want some sort of statement regarding what constitutes acceptable procedure when banning users. --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The ban language which was most specifically proposed (by Ncmvocalist) was widely discussed, everyone participating was aware that was what we were proposing to specifically implement, and it had wide discussion and overwhelming, near unanimous support (other than PJ). There's no issue here. There's no requirement that an admin be the person to close one of these or put the community ban notice in the edit restrictions page. Most of the commenters were admins, and I was the person who "called it" and recommended NCM close and enact, so if you feel there had to be admins involved there clearly were.

This was an attempt to see if PJ Hasseldine could contribute in other ways without the clearly disruptive involvement he's had in Pan Am 103 issues. There's widespread visibility of the problem among the admins and senior users communities. There's obvious near unanimity that his contributions on that topic have been disruptive. And he apparently is failing to stop involving himself with it.

Challenging the topic ban is not an appropriate response here and now. The question is, whether this needs to be escalated to a complete community ban or not. His responses to the block seem to indicate that he really does not "get it". He is a single-purpose account focused on a topic which the community has come to a consensus he cannot edit here without causing problems.

Is there any belief that he can contribute positively going forwards, in other areas, without continuing to find himself drawn back to the area we have prohibited him from editing in? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As I thought I had made clear above, I am not challenging the outcome related to PJ Hasseldine nor your involvement in that matter. My point was purely procedural as it pertained to Ncmvocalist's repeated attempts to intervene in a variety of cases, apparently including ArbCom cases, and not just PJ Hasseldine's.

Given the lack of concern among the community here today over the matter, I shall agree to let it drop. Thanks for your time. --GoRight (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I think one thing you are misinformed about, GoRight, is the place that admins hold in the Wikipedia community. Admins are given special priviliges only as far as their tools allow them. That is, admins are given the privilege to block users because they have the technical ability to do so; however admins are expressly NOT given any special weight in discussions of the community. Community-based sanctions are just that, community based. Admins can comment on those discussions, but when they do so their position as an administrator bears no special weight. If editors in an informal way hold admins in a certain regard that is one thing, but in a very formal way, admins expressly do not hold special weight in community based discussion. See

fearless leader on this matter... --Jayron32.talk.contribs

14:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI on cleanup of a block-evading serial deprodding sock

We've been having problems with banned sockpuppeting User:Azviz (probably more correctly referred to as User:Esasus as that's an earlier account) coming back with more socks to deprod whole long lists of articles without any real rationale and otherwise disrupting the deletion process. Today I've been going through and reverting the invalid deprods his latest sockpuppets added. My method was to see if there had been any edits post the deprod. If so, if it was minor (adding a tag which logically supported the prod, such as singlesource, notability, etc.) I just added to the article with the restored prod. If it was anything beyond minor I either left it or nominated for AFD (or participated in the AFD, as most had progressed to that point, generally with unanimous votes to delete). Note that with restored prods I tried to calculate how much time was left on the prod at the time it was inappropriately deprodded and then changed the start date of the prod to take that into account (so if it was inappropriately deprodded yesterday it had a day or deprodding where nobody could have been aware of the prod notice, so I added a day to the start date of the prod to get the full run). This took me several hours to go through and cleanup, and I'm sure I didn't get all of them. This is mainly a heads up so if any admins see articles like this that they know what happened. DreamGuy (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the socks created the following articles:

• Seniehun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, Kenya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bahal, Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )
• talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
  )

Should these be deleted per

WP:BAN or should be IAR on this? MuZemike

22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BAN is not a suicide pact. If those places exist (which it appears they do, and settlements are inherently notable) then there is no reason to delete them. Black Kite
  22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, I forgot. Per this. MuZemike 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Three Seven A buttload more IPs have come out of the blue to revert DreamGuy's un-deprodding. Have reported all three to SPI again as they are all Albertan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz again. MuZemike 02:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, the editor who created the Bahals above was not confirmed in the sockpuppet investigation, merely as a possible sock, which someone took as a confirmation apparently and indef'd the editor. Since that editor has not requested an unblock, it wouldn't be appropriate to discuss whether or not that was correct, but since we cannot be sure that
  WP:CSD#G5 even applies, who gets the last laugh were we to delete them? Carlossuarez46 (talk
  ) 18:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not accurate. The part you are referring to said only that checkuser evidence could not confirm, and that "Behavioral and stylistic evidence could be helpful in confirming or denying any relationship between these accounts." The rest of the evidence was looked at and confirmed, hence the block. DreamGuy (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, the editor who created the Bahals above was not confirmed in the checkuser case. Any way, deletion of these serves no purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly not an article for speedy deletion

The article

James P. Barker is an established years old article. It has been submitted to AfD but was speedy deleted just hours later and the article, history and discussion has been blanked. This is by no means an article for speedy deletion. The Afd process needs to be continued and the page should be restored until the Afd has been finished. Iqinn (talk

) 16:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Deletion review is
  thataway. Feel free to start a discussion there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs
  16:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

  For deletion review i need access to the article so i can get the information to argue against A7. It has been a long time article. There was not even a warning time with a speedy deletion tag on the article page before it was blanked. How can i get access to the necessary information? Iqinn (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not the project page to talk about this. However, email me (or drop me a note on my talk page) and I'll email the text to you. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not do this by email. Could an administrator please restore at least the history of the article. That should be enough for me to get the information to start the deletion review. Iqinn (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know what the problem with email is. Is there a specific reason that Gwen emailing you the content is insufficient? Ale_Jrb^talk 20:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the history, and I'd advise you

WP:BLP1E policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 20:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember redirecting this article to the killings article a couple weeks ago. Can an admin confirm or deny this? Was the redirect undone or something? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Iqinn reversed the redirect and contested the PROD at the same time. It was then taken to AfD, and speedily deleted per the rationale there. Ale_Jrb^talk 20:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this article would have survived AFD or not, Iqinn is correct that the article was incorrectly speedy deleted. A7 cannot be applied to an article that clearly covers someone who has sources and notability. BLP1E is after all for people that are notable "for one thing" - but BLP1E is not a reason for speedy deletion nor should it be and admins should not delete articles for these reasons. It's not really encouraging to see admins ignore policy without any pressing need to do so. The article existed for 3 years - we should allow the community 7 days to decide the issue, not some admin for reasons unsupported by current policy. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not entirely obvious that you are correct. See for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Summary_deletion_of_BLPs,

“

Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

”

Then see

Wikipedia:BLP#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event

,

“

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options...The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

”

Speedy deletion is not obviously wrong in this case. Thatcher 20:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• And, since the relevant info is at
  James P. Barker at deletion review without restoring the article itself, and I suggest that it should not be restored, or emailed, or userfied in any way, until the deletion review is finished. Thatcher
  20:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thatcher here. I will say though that it's a bit odd for us to keep

Jesse Spielman). But BLP1E arguably applies as much to Green as it does to the other soldiers, and notability guidelines to the side it's difficult to explain in the real world why we keep one article simply because the man went to trial and plead not-guilty. This can probably be debated at the AfD, but it also might be worthy of a larger conversation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

21:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I (obviously) don't think the article should exist, but I do think it is wrong for an admin to speedy delete it as failing BLP1E. That is not a valid speedy deletion criteria and there was no compelling reason to

ignore all rules and delete the page without community discussion. --ThaddeusB (talk

) 23:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I am the offending admin in this case. For starters this was done very late at night and may not have been my "best decision ever". Having said that I will stand behind my reasoning to an extent. The article I deleted contained three lines which were largely identical to the three lines in the

Mahmudiyah killings article and gave no information beyond the involvement in the crime and plea bargain. A search found no information for the individual beyond what was at the latter article. Hence we had a case of what I regarded as A7 - a person who is not demonstrably notable. The debate here could be stated as "is BLP1E related to A7?", and there is precedent to agree with this notion. Does participation in a notable event make a person notable?. I have always thought not and I of the opinion that BLP1E supports me. BLP1E says being involved in a single event is not enough to achieve notability, so this is effectively a subcategory of A7. And to quote Arbcom

: "The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy."

Had I been less tired I might have considered

Mahmudiyah killings

will never pass AFD. Alternatively a redirect could have been used.

As far as

Mahmudiyah killings article. It is more difficult to interpret a "crime plus an associated lengthy trial" as only a single event (or 1E). Not impossible, just more difficult. Hence I did not apply the same A7 reasoning, even though it could possibly still apply. But debate seemed far more warranted. Manning (talk

) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion invoking BLP as the reason forces the issue into deletion review. It is probably not a good idea to invoke this drastic solution when reasonable people can disagree, especially when there is no real possibility of doing additional harm. It would have been better to try to establish consensus in the regular way. DGG (talk) 00:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG: Just to clarify - the deletion was done invoking A7, with a reference to BLP1E. I did not delete using BLP1E as my sole reasoning. Manning (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You would have been on stronger footing, IMO, if you stuck with BLP as your basis. As an A7, this is clearly not an A7. In order to avoid an A7 deletion, the article merely needed to make a claim of importance/significance, this one did. The claim does not have to be substantiated by sources. The article doesn't have to meet the requirements for BIO/N to be kept. There was no violation of BLP, and BLP1E is not the foundation that arbcom was discussing above. This article should not have been speedily deleted. (Now should it be kept? In the current form no, a redirect is preferable, unless more can be found/added to the subject. I'm not a big fan of BLP1E, but this is explicitly the type of circumstance where it is applicable.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution. Reverse deletion and create a redirect to

WP:SNOW, and I concede my summary closure under A7 may have been too hasty. Manning (talk

) 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• No. You could create a new redirect without a history, although I would expect it to be taken to RFD. (I express no opinion on the appropriateness of a redirect at this time.) But the history of the article should not be restored except following deletion review, if that is the consensus. Thatcher 14:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why? The deletion was clearly incorrect, your citing an arbcom case that deals with BLP does not pertain to this case (as this is not a violation of BLP. BLP <> BLP1E.) The deleting admin concedes he acted hastily. The history should be kept.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Presumably the idea of restoring the content under the redirect would be that it would still be available in the event the guys becomes more notable at a later date (which is doubtful, but possible). In the event people kept undoing the redirect, the page could always be protected. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm looking at keeping it more from this historical archive purposes. There is nothing in the article that violates BLP, so the history should be preserved.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Read the Arbcom case and the section on BLP1E. Deleted content should not be restored until after DRV. The redirect does not need a "historical archive" if it turns out that the deletion is endorsed. Nor am I moved by arguments about process. Process exists to increase the chances of getting the right result; if the right result was achieved with the wrong process, it's counterproductive to start over with the right process for the sake of process. But, we can have a test if you like. You undelete and I'll re-delete, and then we'll find out whose side Arbcom takes. Funny thing, no one has even bothered to list it at DRV yet. Maybe people like complaining more than they like doing. Thatcher 16:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I may be reading this totally incorrectly (and please disregard, if that is the case), but are you really threatening to
            wheel war if Balloonman IARs this and undeletes? I don't know much about Arbcom, but I don't think they would look very kindly on that. (For the record, I take no position regarding the underlying issue, but am just troubled by what it appears Thatcher is threatening to do here.) Unitanode
            16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The first item on the DRV criteria is: "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look." In this case, the admin has agreed to restore it to a redirect which is an acceptable solution, IMO. Why force this to DRV if it can be resolved without it? --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, but am still troubled by my understanding of Thatcher's note above. He seems to clearly state that he will re-delete it if it's undeleted. Unitanode 17:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Following on from this discussion, I note that the article has been recreated as a redirect and the deleted history not restored. I am leaving it as that for the moment and that *appears* to be the consensus viewpoint. I am withdrawing from involvement in this case and will leave further actions to a review, if needs be. Manning (talk) 01:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ban J.delanoy for Vote Rigging

Resolved

 – No wrongdoing on J.Delanoy's (or other involved parties) part. Recommend that reporting user abide by consensus (no SPA !voting) and avoid future disruption. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My votes and comments in the Macedonia debate were erased by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:J.delanoy in an attempt to vote rig. He should be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/Greece-related

Vote D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/international_organizations

Vote C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/other_articles

Vote E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/other_page_titles

Vote C with reservations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia/main_articles

Vote D with reservations

My Comments on all the above which were erased are as follows:

"All other proposals seek to steal the identity of Greek Macedonia and Macedonian history and are racist, politically motivated, violate Wikipedia's rules on accuracy and neutrality and is insulting to Greeks and academics who know that the only Macedonia is the province of Greece and the FYROM is the result of Titos bid to lay claim to Greek territory by renaming the Yugoslav province of Vardarska Banovinia with the name of the Greek province to which it has no historical or geographic connection to whatsoever. At no time in history did the Slavs of Vardarska Banovinia ever refer to themselves as Macedonians or the region in which they lived as Macedonians. Only the Greeks used the terms Macedonia and Macedonians to refer to themseselves and the land they inhabited in northern Greece and the term was never used to refer to a wider fixed geographic region. The term Macedonia only pertained to Greece and Greeks. The only acceptable way to refer to the entity know as the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia is the name by which it entered the United Nations, FYROM. This is the name by which it is recognised by all the international organisation it is a member over and the only name which stands to reason."

Please ban J.delanoy for life. Vote rigging cannot be tolerated.--Odin5000 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I find it literally impossible to believe that J.delanoy did anything wrong in this case. Wikipedia is taking a hard line against any nationalist POV-pushing, see the recent

previous one. //roux  

17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Odin5000's "votes" (it is not a vote, but simply a request for endorsements and comments) were reverted by no fewer than four editors in addition to J.delanoy--Taivo, ChrisO, Future Perfect at Sunrise, and man with one red shoe. It was agreed well in advance of the request for comment that no Single Purpose Accounts (SPA) would be allowed to participate. Odin5000 is a classic SPA. (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

Prove it. My account was created in March 2009, long before this vote. Taivo, ChrisO, Future Perfect should also be banned for life for promoting Fyromian nationalist views against Greece in Wikipedia and taking sides by erasig all opposition.--Odin5000 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this[162] proof enough? Because if it isn't these difs [163][164] show that your two (sic!) edits to mainspace also consist in introducing the same POV. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For those who are uninitiated in the wonderful world of extreme Greek nationalism, "Fyromian" is a derogatory term for Macedonians, like some people use "wop" for Italians or "dago" for Mexicans. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonians are Greeks. Refering to Fyromians as Macedonians is offensive and insulting to Greeks. You are clearly expressing anti-Greek nationalist views of your own.--Odin5000 (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inserting the same block comment five times in a discussion doesn't do a lot for the credibility of his editorship. Clearly disruptive.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It saves typing. The same comment applies to all cases as is clearly evident, so there is no justifiable reason why I should not have changed it.--Odin5000 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean there is no justifiable reason that you should have repeated it instead of merely stating it once and referring to it.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)Also, note that J.delanoy has now banned Odin5000 from Macedonia-related articles pursuant to this diff. While appealing here isn't a violation of the ban, pasting the complete text of his argument, including votes, is treading awfully close to the line, if not actually leaping across it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000's actions have been significantly disruptive - despite the clear instructions of the referees in the ongoing Macedonia naming discussions, he has been spamming ultranationalist rants to multiple pages ([165], posted to several pages) as well as re-adding proposals [166] that had been discarded at an earlier stage by the referees, in accordance with their instructions from the Arbitration Committee. Given his continued disruption, I suggest that a block would now be appropriate. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000, perhaps you should take a step back and disengage. You have been found to be disruptive by a number of very highly regarded people here, and rather than tryng to learn from their advice and correct the behavior which has been found to be problematic, you are lashing out and escalaing. Please reconsider, this cannot be a Good Idea. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not been dissruptive in any way. --Odin5000 (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Many would contend that this very thread is disruptive, in addition to your participation at the RfC. Unitanode 17:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The people who have been disruptive are those who have taken sides and tried to erase my votes and comments, and alternative proposals.--Odin5000 (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Odin5000, you have been disruptive, I am sorry to say. It is possible you don't understand what we consider disruptive, in which case you may ask for clarification, but your contention that you have not been disruptive is not helpful, it is defensive. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's disheartening to see a thread like this without at least one mention of the word "abuse." --MZMcBride (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I get your point? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a custom in these 'ere parts to always accuse an admin of "abusing the bit" when calling for them to be "banned for life". To remedy the situation I formally accuse -

propaganda_deeds

17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the custom, I just don't get what MZM is getting at. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Could we just close this? I'm sure that J.delanoy and the other referees (myself included) will have a difficult enough time without drawn-out threads by obviously disruptive editors. This is not going to be an easy dispute to handle, so anything we can do to minimize the need to defend the mandate in multiple forums would be incredibly helpful. Shell ^babelfish

I want my votes reinstated and those who erased them banned. Fyromian is not a Greek nationalist or derogatory term. Refering to Fyrominas as Macedonians is both offensive and insulting to Greeks. The Greek term for Fyrominas is Skopjians which is neither derogatory or nationalist either. Fyromian is the English equivalent based on the UN name.--Odin5000 (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to be blunt, Odin5000: No. You cannot stomp in here and demand something. It does not work that way. Either learn to get along here and follow the rules, listen to and respect and learn from the critical feedback and advice you recieve, or you'll end up with sanctions. Feel free to contact me on my talk page if I am being unclear in any way. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I want me votes put back and to be unbanned. This matter is not resolved untill this is done. J.Delanoy has failed to prove that my account was created for a single purpose which was his reason for erasing my votes and banning me.--Odin5000 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call by Ohnoitsjamie — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Unacceptable image substitution

Resolved

 – per Arcayne's 22:17 comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Note: this was closed prematurely by a non-neutral admin. I'd appreciate some actual input from neutral editors) Erikeltic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor with whom I've had some difficulty with recently (mostly over Star Trek fan film production info in Trek-related articles) this morning replaced an image I uploaded of Ben Stacey portraying Spock with one of Ben Tolpin portraying the same character, offering a rather un-Spocklike Vulcan salute (1). The edit summary? "uploaded a new version of "File:Spock-B Stacey.jpg": This version shows Spock's face better and since STPII is getting a nod within the article, this modified Vulcan salute definitely shows off a new interpretation of Spock" I'd point out that this particular user has voiced at every point possible point in the past an irreconcilable dislike of any fan-film content; this is him voicing his displeasure by vandalizing by substitution the Spock. Add that to the fact that he replaced an image that I uploaded, he is likely thinking that the 'fuck you' depicted in the image is rather meant for me/ Lest someone think I am being paranoid, this user has a rather long and tendentious history of using images to insult folk he is in dispute with, and was in fact the source of a prior AN/I discussion. This image on his user page was to inform us that assholes "were everwhere". Then, the user changed it to barely clever edits that called his detractors ass-holes, some odd enhancement of the aforementioned edit, and this one, wherin the user invited those he was in dispute to Ben Franklin: History - One of Philadelphia's finest! Dover: Geography - The capital of Delaware. Hand: Science - More bones than any other part of the body, amazing. Kiss: Music - Who's that calling Dr. Love? Maya Angelou: Poetry and literature - Words are what make humans different as a species. Ash - essentially, "bend over and kiss my ass". After it was pointed out that this was an unacceptable use of a user page, he blanked the images out (2). We all thought the user had turned a corner in tehir behavior. As is indicated clearly by this image, such is clearly not the case. When asked fr the reasoning for the substitution, Erikeltic replied (3) "that it is one of the Phase II people portraying Spock & other than the "salute," it's no different than what you had uploaded", and acknowledges that it is "borderline WP:POINT " That the image is in fact not of the actor listed further disrupts the article I don't know how to undo the image vandalism, and I think I need an admin to do so. Additionally, I am thinking that this sort of tendentious editing nd lashing out at his detractors needs to be addressed and discouraged in the strongest possible terms, and the Trek articles need some protection from this person's behavior. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 14:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC) This didn't need to go to ANI and we certainly don't need to rehash things from months ago. If we were to review all of your issues over the past few months, we'd be here for a year & a half. It's uncessary and not worthy of discussion. Furthermore, I have bent over backwards since April to accommodate you. I have tried many times to build peace between us and find some common ground. Personally, I think your disruptive behavior and the way you ignore consensus to promote fan films should earn you a topic ban from Star Trek for a while, but I have not once filed the complaint. I have even asked other editors to take an easy approach with you, for fear of conversation degenerating into a flame war. It's a bummer that you took a tongue-in-cheek edit and turned it into this complaint. I hope that the progress we have made to work together hasn't been lost over it. For the record, here was my exact response to you, Arcayne: For starters, the modified Vulcan salute was pretty funny. C'mon, you know it was.  :) Second, it is one of the Phase II people portraying Spock & other than the "salute," it's no different than what you had uploaded. The Wired article you keep referencing features the "salute" picture... so I have to wonder if the article warrants inclusion, then what is wrong with the picture? I concede that this is borderline WP:Point, but it does further demonstrate the difference between studio work and fan films. Please don't pick and choose portions to further your complaint. That's not very honest and it's not very fair. I will restore the picture, but your reaction is very interesting. The picture of Spock flipping the bird is featured on the very Wired article you keep using to defend your position. I can see that you want to pick & choose which is appropriate from the Wired article, but the very existence of Spock giving the one-fingered Vulcan salute further demonstrates why fan films and fiction should not be given the same weight as studio productions. Erikeltic (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC) "Lest someone think I am being paranoid"... Well, between this and the above section ( WP:AGF. DreamGuy (talk ) 15:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Let me see if I am understanding this right. Two different users come to the defense of unacceptable behavior by claiming that its all my fault. And KC - who has been somewhat less than pleasant in the past, (calling me a liar, yet unable to prove it when pressed) - preemptively closes it with no further discussion, except to call it spam on my talk page? Come on now, that's not even int he zip code of neutral. This is not a content dispute. If it had been, anything other than a 'fuck you' to me, I'd have just simply uploaded the image yet again. And there isn't the slightest confusion that it was indeed a fuck you, as evidenced by the exact same pattern before with this user. And then DreamGuy makes an appearance? Yeah, neutral input it wasn't. The image was indeed reverted, but only - as the last time- when this image nonsense was brought to AN/I. KC acknowledges in Erikeltic's page that it was bullshit, and asked if Erikeltic was done, who acknowledged it for the nonsense it was. If I were to call anyone an asshole or say fuck you to anyone here, i'd be blocked, and deservedly so. Why on earth does Erikeltic get a pass because KC doesn't want to play nicely? Additionally, why does Erikeltic get to sub a picture that he acknowledges was a pointy behavior? I'[ve reopened the premature closure of this AN/I, seeking better, neutral input. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I have stated my case to you and the admins. It was not a fuck you, despite what you may believe. Trust me when I tell you with all due respect that if I was to actually say fuck you, I would be as explicit as possible and leave it on your talk page or just redirect your page to douche. I suggest you calm down, get some tea, and read this page. We are talking about Star Trek, not the Holocaust. Erikeltic (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, of course. It's all my fault for misinterpreting your self-admitted POINTy behavior, especially since you've never, ever done anything like that before. I am calm, thanks. And please, do not pretend tht you did it for any other reason than to get my hackles up; you've clearly expressed less than good faith. Allow me to illustrate what I saw happening. Erikeltic alters the picture to something that clearly wouldn't be allowed in the article, or in Wikipedia (I think inflammatory was word that R. Baley used). The image gets speedily deleted by someone else (likley not even knowing what was occurring), making reinstating the image a lot more difficult, and gives you time, via DRV, to argue against its reinstatement. Now, lest I be called paranoid again, note that immediately after this complaint was filed, Erikeltic admitted trying to revert the image back and instead quickly it for deletion. I don't mind content disputes, as those are at least honest disagreements. This was underhanded crap. When one method didn't work, he went the plainer route of nominating the image himself.Granted, I am not the most polite feller in the world, and I do sometimes assume less than good faith, but this stream of piss is clearly unacceptable. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I say this with no offense intended, but you are being paranoid. The picture was a tongue-in-cheek edit to a picture that is featured on the citation you keep using to support your position. If you find the picture offensive, then you should use another citation because both originate from the same Wired article. As for nominating the other picture to FFD, I did that to tie it to the discussion on the CawleyasKirk picture. You see, we already went through all of this sort of thing in March when the consensus was that fan portrayals do not get the same weight that studio portrayals. But because everyone involved was not explicit down to the last period, comma, colon, and semicolon (leaving it to common sense), we knew then that we were going to have to go through the process over and over again. This happens repeatedly because you're either unsatisfied and unwilling to work with the community unless your will is met, as shown here when you write, "Anything that removes or marginalizes Cawley is a non-starter for me." That is not a neutral position. I don't mean any of this as an insult, it's just how you deal with others from where I'm sitting. It's why I told Mike that the key to dealing with you is to "never disagree." I hope that explains why I nominated the file, following EEMIV's lead in nominating CawleyasKirk. Erikeltic (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) It appears that Erikeltic acted disruptively yesterday by uploading an inappropriate image over an existing one, then nominating for deletion. In the context of recent disruption, a pattern of previous disruptive behavior may be discussed. Although Arcayne does not present the matter clearly or well (commentary such as "this stream of piss" is distracting and unbecoming), Arcayne's underlying message appears to be meritorious. Erikeltic, "it's just how you deal with others from where I'm sitting" is not an acceptable response. Editors who make a habit of dealing with others in that manner do find themselves sitting on timeouts if the behavior continues. One hopes that dialog makes further action unnecessary: let's raise the level of discourse and interaction. DurovaCharge! 21:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC) The previous stuff he is mentioning was on my talk page. I invite you to review the entire situation before you condemn me as "disruptive." Also, my comments to Arcayne were based on discussions that did not talk place here and were well within context. I don't believe pointing out Arcayne's eccentricities, when it comes to the best way to approach him, is an unacceptable response when I've been accused of being part of some grand conspiracy. I hope as you contemplate timeouts you are thinking about everyone that repeatedly makes inappropriate remarks. Erikeltic (talk ) 22:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Of course I've reviewed the full situation. It would be more productive to raise one's standards than to engage in what gives the impression of a creative endeavor to snark at the margins of WP:CIVIL. Eventually, as the pattern turns habitual, blocks do fallow. And Wikipedians who review the entire situation surely know those blocks will not originate from me. Please accept this as a friendly caution, so the matter can wrap up and (with a little patience and luck) need not return to this board. DurovaCharge! 22:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC) I agree that I have a temper like everyone else, and I've felt a little pushed over the past several days (its one of the reasons I was away most of the day, seeking to blow off some steam instead of getting more uncivil that I readily admit I was). I pointed out behavior that was perceptibly unsuitable, and complained about it, as the editor in question had proven unwilling to accept my say-so that it was unacceptable, When DR fails - as it had - this is the next step in resolving the problem. Maybe a warning instead of a block is called for - I've cooled down considerably since discovering the image substitution this morning. I am not encouraged by the responses from Erikeltic, but as you said, Durova, if a pattern continues to emerge, then appropriate action will take place whether I point it out or not. Thank you for taking the time to fully evaluate the situation, Durova; I will take your criticisms to heart. Seriously. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for that response, Arcayne. It's tough advice (have been in similar positions many times). Usually matters straighten themselves sooner and better when one takes the high road: editors who are willing to respond reasonably find it easier to do so, and the few who aren't show themselves by the contrast. Either way, resolution is swifter and simpler. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 15:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Comment This was corrected some time ago; Erikaltic has stated he is done with such nonsense[167] and the only thing left is the back-and-forth insulting. Why, precisely, was this unclosed and the drama allowed to continue? I'm missing where anything productive is left to do here. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Reply Respectfully, let's not rewrite history, please; this was not corrected until after the AN/I complaint was filed here, and after you asked him if the "inappropriate" nonsense was done. Recall that the usertalk pages were seen to be just as inappropriate, and were only reverted after repeated attempts inter-talk failed to accomplish that task; AN/I was required then, As this was more than just little witticisms at one's page but actual disruption of the article, I felt less than willing to wait the several days to file the same complaint I did this morning. I'm upset over the underhanded method by which a discussion was forced, and the jab it appeared to be. No drama was intended. Had you not been so quick to close it after a proven unfriendly editor and the respondent , it would never have had to be reopened. As you and I have gone round and round, you weren't the best person to be evaluating the complaint, calling it spam or a content dispute - both of which were just plain inaccurate. I hope that answers your question, KC. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC) He stated he was done before you re-opened this[168] in order to continue your personal attacks and drama.[169][170][171][172] and oddly, [[173]] which includes both a very civil post to Durova, and an accusation (with no rationale) that I'm rewriting history. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Well, according to you, everything I write is a personal attack. How does one respond to that? Stating the obvious might be a WP:SPADE argument, but it isn't inherently uncivil. I wasn't paying as much attention to what Erikeltic was saying, I was paying attention to the premature closure - though I did note the friendly commiseration and offer of help in the future. As I noted before, calling an argument a stream of piss wasn't my finest moment, but consider I felt pretty provoked by that point. It's not an cop-out, it's the background. In point of fact, you simply weren't neutral, and shouldn't have closed the complaint before someone who didn't have an ax to grind weighed in. You clearly do. DreamGuy obviously does. Fact: Erikeltic wasn't acting appropriately, and he's been told as such by someone he will likely listen to. Hopefully it won't recur. Problem solved. Frankly, the only one offering drama at this point is you. If there is no further issue to discuss, I don't mind if the conversation is archived now. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC) There never was any actual issue to discuss, but that didn't stop you. Apparently you unarchived this section just to try to get some more pointless jabs in against additional targets. That now makes four editors in about a day that you've decided to complain about on ANI for no sensible reason and nobody endorsing your peculiar interpretations of events. Maybe you should take the hint. DreamGuy (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Actually--and I mean this very respectfully, DreamGuy--I almost reached the same conclusion. Originally read this thread wondering whether my Commons mop might help clean things up (which happens sometimes at media threads on ANI, but not this one). What I can affirm is that one of the things a good Commons admin checks for in deletion nominations is whether a different image was uploaded over the original filename. If it had, and if there appeared to be an underlying dispute, then I'd talk to the editors pretty much like here. Ideally Arcayne would have focused principally upon this issue at the start of the thread. Not everyone has a knack for presenting evidence, though, and one of the things that mentoring various editors has really brought home is how easily that can be mistaken for intentional disruption. DurovaCharge! 16:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Can someone please archive this again before it degenerates further? I think the issue has been solved. Erikeltic (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Since the mistake was indeed pointed out by someone else, resulting in the disruption ending, and the image being removed, the purpose of the complaint has been fulfilled. While I still have no idea what DreamGuy is complaining about (and have to admit that I largely don't care), I think the matter can archived at this point. Thanks to additional folk who came here neutrally. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 22:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Little Boots Talk Page

Numerous accusations by several editors of homophobia against my self in The Little Boots Talk Page, My Personal talk page and the Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Little_Boots. Accusations of homophobia against another editor. In addition an accusation of collusion against me and another editor. Edkollin (talk) 06:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What action are you asking for? If you're concerned about the IP editors, I suggest that having explained yourself, you now simply ignore them. If they contine to attack, something more serious can be done. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand that emotions get the better part of humans and we say things we regret later. This was the exact opposite of that. It was a continuous systematic slandering that occurred on several forums and in some ways is still continuing. It continued despite requests to stop by several editors. On general principle editors that engage in this type of behavior need to be held accountable and need to have some sort of disincentive from behaving that way in the future. I am putting my trust in those that deal with these sort of things on a daily basis to find the correct way to do this Edkollin (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Browy sockpuppet of User talk:TDTH

Resolved

 – Blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The user is back and is again creating fancruft pages, the reason for which he/she was blocked indefinitely last time. Again created the Lady Gaga song page on Brown Eyes (Gaga Song). --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

IP removal of images

68.43.19.251 (talk · contribs) seems to be on a quiet nudity image removal stroll through Wikipedia.

1. Today - [174] at Fluffer
2. June 19 - [175] at Nudity
3. June 5 - [176] at Erotica
4. May 6 - [177] at Pubic hair
5. February 25 - [178] at Body shape

Based on those diffs and this one, it would appear the user has some sort of aversion to penises.

The user also seems to have had the same IP address since June 27, 2008 based on the many edits to airport articles way back then and a recent such airport article edit on June 8, 2009. I mention this to say it doesn't appear a long term block would affect another user who happens upon this IP address. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that edit summary, "unnecessary pornography". Let that be a lesson. Wikipedia should restrict itself to only necessary pornography. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't all pornography, necessary? Even as a gay man, I can see the necessity for even straight porn - the admins need something to keep them occupied around here. :P - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the definition of "necessary". The kind that a Ted Bundy might like, for example, is probably not "necessary" except maybe for helping to get a conviction. On the other hand, some of the nudism photos suggest the reason we invented clothing. I must admit to liking the PETA illustration, though. Of course, I've always been partial to bunnies. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The one IP address only edits sporadically and has stopped (maybe coincidentally) after you warned him. There are other censoring editors, but maybe they're not related. However, you might need to start keeping track to see if a pattern emerges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok this is clearly resolved, but I want to ask one q - does anyone else think it odd that Michaelangelo's David was removed? I have to agree with Allstarecho, it has to be the pensises, however, if that is the case, then his/her lack of concern about the Voyager image indicates his little loop is not clearly a penis at all. This could add fuel to the longstanding debate about that image on Human. *sigh* KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Some past editors here have called themselves "masculists", whatever that might be. The one attacking these images must then be an "e-masculist". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this puzzling. What is the purpose of this discussion? No one has come out and said it outright, but the lurking implication is that

WP:LAW

} 21:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that readers could understand the concept of Nudity without the thirteen images used there? Or that Pubic hair does not need all ten images? Or that Fluffer could be understood without an image? Or that this image seems curiously over-used, appearing in Erotica, Pubic hair, nudity and sexuality, and Nude photography? You must be the same kind of prudish homophobe as the IP editor! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, I think fluffer does need an image for clarity, not being a generally known subject at least in the past. The lack of reason in the removals is highlighted by one of them being Michaelangelo's "David"! -- and used in context. NOT CENSORED is a core policy. BTW, I assume the last sentence of the prior paragraph was ironic. DGG (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive editor on Benzodiazepine page

Editor Literaturegeek | T@1k? has shown a consistent pattern of abusive behavior attacking everyone who dare to disagree with him. See the following diffs.

Stop intentionally faking data [179], which you grossly worsened by adding fake facts which you grossly worsened by adding fake facts [180], refs being faked [181], someone who does not understand the medical literature has formed an opinion using original research and are fighting systemic reviews with weak reviews and taking refs out of context [182], faking refs [183], falsifying of the refs [184], Faking refs, making them say the opposite of what they say or distorting them [185], fake data [186], he got caught faking refs... He really is a carbon copy of Mwalla and scuro.

WP:DISRUPT is what is going on [187], totally hypocritical [188], bought into your nonsense...Mattisse was bombarding me with original research ...This disruption must stop [189] you got your education in addiction medicine from the newspapers [190], I am under attack by medically illiterate people... Mattissa is attacking me with her original research...this gibberish [191], These disruptive editors engage in character assassination [192], There is NO DEFENSE for your disruptive trolling on talk pages and vandalism [193],SEVERE trolling from Sceptical Chymist...OWNERSHIP trolling Sceptical Chymist...his VANDALISING editing [194], obsessive distorting the evidence [195], Sceptical ... an obsessive guy [196], Sceptical abuses policies like NPOV [197], got trolled ... original research by Sceptical Chymist [198], weeks of trolling by Sceptical Chymist [199], smears of this troll...a battle with a troll [200], fighting faked references [201], Matisse ... faking refs [202], faking [203], faking refs [204], he was trolling, intentionally faking refs [205], faking of refs [206], mattissee ...seemed to buy into medical nonsense sceptical was saying [207], it was absolute hypocracy [208], faked refs...disruptive with the intent on wrecking the FA...sceptical's fake refs...he who was faking refs...I got totally trolled for no reason other than I think kicks [209], this trolling [210], trolled [211], this is all more trolling what sceptical is claiming [212], disruptive editor who was faking or misrepresenting [213]. Mattissee's ... original research which was attacking my edits...the disruption she caused was temporary [214], you were trying to sabotage the FA from the start... for kicks perhaps [215]

The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To whom are you referring? "Stop faking..." "You did XYZ..." ?? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

These are excerpts from the posts by LiteratureGeek referring, mostly, to me and Matisse. The Sceptical Chymist (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• The two of you are Cruisin' for a bruisin', and you are not the only one with a
  informal mediation by a third party, and use the other mechanisms of dispute resolution (content RFC, third opinion) as needed. If you both don't alter your present behavior, it will not end well. Thatcher
  18:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• (e/c, I type slowly) Looking thru LiteratureGeek's recent contributions, I note that User:MastCell has, on his talk page, said he would look into the underlying conflict between these two editors in the next few days. Probably the best thing at this stage is to ask both users to dial things back a notch, to make it easier for MastCell, and others reviewing the situation, to try to put out the fire without being blinded by all the smoke. I'll leave such a reminder on LiteratureGeek's talk page, and notify him of this thread while I'm there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There are currently admins reviewing this case. I have updated evidence for admin "MastCell" to review. Sceptical is trying to escalate this by drawing other admins into this, admins who aren't familar with the background. Those quotes are all recent quotes, quoted in such a way that it is essentially propaganda, totally taking those quotes out of their context. I have updated my evidence on this page.User:Literaturegeek/Sceptical_Chymist_evidence I would prefer if this matter was left to the admins already dealing with it rather than Sceptical trying to find an admin to side with him on what he did.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'd welcome additional eyes, because I get tired of these sorts of disputes very quickly these days. I protected the page temporarily to help get the content issue sorted out. I don't really want to be a one-person arbitrator of this dispute, but I did promise to look into any egregiously abusive behavior. Parallel dialogues with Literaturegeek and The Sceptical Chymist are here and here, for the curious, and I'd welcome any additional input. MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been watching the interaction between these two for a while. As far as I can tell, TSC has torn apart various sections of the article and audited the sources rather extensively. LG gets frustrated with this and sees it as an attempt to sink his nomination. He uses rather strong language at times regarding TSC, as evidenced above. LG is also frustrated by TSC's communication style. For his part, TSC seems to be acting in good faith but unwilling or unable to communicate in the way LG is requesting. They're not seeing eye-to-eye on anything, really, and as a result, nothing constructive is getting done. I think it would be best for both of them to stop editing the article until they can agree on a communication method to work out dispute on content and sourcing. The page protection was a good move, and I would even be inclined to leave it locked until they agree on said communication method. --Laser brain (talk) 20:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As some background on this, there has been a long-term problem with several of the benzodiazepine articles of editors misusing sources, misquoting sources and twisting facts. I think those responsible for most of the disruption have now left, but this has left a very tense and antagonistic atmosphere. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As a longtime lurker and occasional contributor to psychiatric articles, I can confirm Tim's impression of the situation, but I think the problems with editing are still ongoing. In particular, LG has engaged in long-term and subtle POV pushing across a range of articles with the intent of minimizing and denigrating mainstream psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. I have not once seen him argue for anything other than the most negative interpretation of sources, and I have observed that he often cherry-picks and misinterprets medical references. I think Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance is a close parallel in the area of source misrepresentation. I invite anyone to review Talk:Benzodiazepine and especially the featured article review for benzos, where this behavior is on full display. Additionally, LG has become increasingly incivil when challenged on these grounds, characterizing his opponents as sockpuppets, vandals, or outright liars, and is prone to edit war. He is involved in the ADHD arbitration which mirrors much of this thread. This does not excuse TSC's edit warring, but hopefully provides some context. More eyes are certainly needed, especially from editors with the means to access and review medical sources. Skinwalker (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I work in addictions and my knowledge is based in addictions primarily with a special interest in sedative-hypnotics. I am not opposed to psychiatry and support the use of evidence-based psychiatric drugs in the treatment of the mentally ill. The only articles I have edited extensively are alcohol related articles, long-term effects of alcohol, alcohol withdrawal syndrome and prescription sedative hypnotics. I did spend a few weeks reading pubmed secondary sources on amphetamines and ADHD and contributed to the article, I have finished these contributions. The use of amphetamines in children is controversial even in mainstream academia and don't feel editing this controversy makes me opposed to psychiatry. I use reliable sources for my edits. Most of the benzo articles were start class until I worked on them. I don't feel skinwalker's criticisms is accurate. I have nothing against Skinwalker and know he is a constructive contributer to wikipedia but I feel he has the wrong impression of me. I can when I feel wronged be uncivil and I agree with skinwalker on this. It is a fault which I need to work on.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One other point is that Skinwalker is an email contact of Sceptical Chymist, if you look on his talk page they exchanged emails.User_talk:The_Sceptical_Chymist I feel it is important to put this into context so just mentioning it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Per User_talk:The_Sceptical_Chymist#E-mail, I have had no email or other offline contact with Chymist. I attempted to initiate contact to discuss sensitive material, but TSC did not have email enabled and did not wish to enable it. I'm sure he/she can confirm this if it's an issue. Skinwalker (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

without going into details, and not as an expert, I think it's probably that LG's edits are generally sound. However sound they may be, it is not good practice to insult other editors. The wording you have been using in reverting them is not conducive to discussion. An expert should be able to have their correct view of thing prevail by the quality of their arguments. Even when one think one's opponent ignorant, it is rarely helpful to say so. Even when they misquote, it is better to just quote correctly. If the argument makes sense, others will support it. For most of these subjects, there are however expert views on any possible side of the question. In fact, the various relevant specialties tend to have expert consensus positions that are not identical with each other. Certainly the matter of amphetamine use in children is one that has previously here provoked extremely heated discussions between people both of whom could find perfectly reliable sources. NPOV requires fair statement of all positions, but we do not attempt to reach a conclusion about which one is right. DGG (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Extremely well-put, DGG. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Suspicion of sock puppetry pertaining to the Anderson Cooper article

Back in early August of 2008, a banned user under the pseudonym Mr. Kruzkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (which is a sockpuppet of banned user JIM ME BOY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) made vandalizing edits to Anderson Cooper’s article, exploiting Cooper’s sexuality, and saying that a man named Julio Cesar Recio was his boyfriend. This banned user’s ridicilous claims on Cooper did not stopped immediately after a permenent block was placed on his Mr. Kruzkin’s account. Moment’s after, he created a sockpuppet appropriately named Mr. Kruzkin Returns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade the block on his first account. Ultimately that account was blocked as well shortly after.

Jumping forward to today, a user by the named The Great Big Guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is putting the exact same egregious edits that Mr. Kruzkin put around this time last year with associating edits on Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, and showing the same agression that Mr. Kruzkin showed whenever an administrator tries to tame him by reverting the information on Cooper’s article back to same controversial edits. Call me crazy. But if I have to venture a guest, it’s déjà vu all over again. Mr. Kruzkin, JIM ME BOY or whoever this obxious editor is has return to cause more unwanted drama to Anderson Cooper’s article under this freshly made sockpuppet, The Great Big Guy. I request that an administrator please take a look and investigate this matter, and come to a consenus on any appropriate action to this re-occuring banned Wikipedian KeltieMartinFan (talk) 06:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is down the hall, second door on the left. //roux  

06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry is one thing, egregious BLP violations should be dealt with immediately. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky

Resolved

 – Indef block, vandalism-only account --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here}

20:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Blanked his talk page as of a couple moments ago (20:03 UTC) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This can stay resolved but I think the indef was a bit hasty. The account seemed to have made some legitimate contributions, and I was in the process of writing a final warning when I saw that the account had been blocked. Sometimes users like this can be turned into legitimate contributors, and I think a final warning from an admin would have been worthwhile (maybe we would have blocked in the end anyway, but the wait would not have been a problem in my view). But I'm clearly not going to reverse Jayron32 here, just wanted to make this point. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I had already left the user a final warning of which the user blanked. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The user had actually received countless warnings, including at least one final warning. In several of these cases he vandalized-deleted warning-vandalized again in quick succession, which shows complete disregard for the warning which he plainly received. If he wants to edit again, he can request an unblock just like anyone else, and defend himself. As always, if anyone feels that, after reviewing the totality of this users editing history, that I have acted poorly in blocking him, I open myself for review. I can only say that I checked a half-dozen or so edits, and every one that I checked was vandalism. If I had to check every single edit he ever made to find an occasional edit which wasn't vandalism, I am not sure that is enough to mitigate my feelings towards this editors future potential, but if others disagree, feel free to let me know how bad of an admin I am... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

To AllStar, right, but they can do that (blank warnings), and I was going to word mine a bit differently, plus it may have had a different effect coming directly from an admin (or maybe not). And to Jayron, I really am not criticizing you as the block was certainly legitimate, and I certainly don't think this was bad admin behavior. I was in the midst of taking a slightly different approach than you and was just articulating the rationale for that here. Neither of us is right or wrong, it's just a slight difference of opinion, and I think something that was worth pointing out for when future cases like this arise (for what it's worth I think my, relatively lenient, attitude is the minority position around here, and as such you were very much on solid ground with that block). Anyhow I've said my piece. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor is permitted to deleted comments or warnings from his talk page. We just take that as an indication he has read them. When you post a warning, use an informative edit summary, so it is easy to find what previous warnings have been issued by looking at the history. Do not assume that if you don't see previous warnings, none have been issued. That said, if I find a vandal has removed a series of warnings, I may restore them with mine added at the end, since it makes viewing them easier for the next vandal fighter. Each time the vandal removes or changes a series of warnings, the next can be appended to the restored collection for convenience of reading. Edison (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I should note that I never said he could not delete the warnings. I have personally stated twice in the past 48 hours on this very noticeboard which advocate for other users to leave people alone for deleting warnings. If you read through my history, I am always the most vocal critic of people who try to claim that deleting warnings should be restored. It is perfectly fine that he delete his warnings. What is not OK is for him to read his warnings (evidenced by his deletions) and then immediately vandalize again. That throws out the "he didn't know what the orange bar meant" defense, or the "he just didn't get the warning yet" defense. He obviously got the warnings, and then vandalized again. That blatant disregard for the warnings is patent evidence of having no desire to stop vandalizing for anything short of an indefinite block... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What is not OK is for him to read his warnings (evidenced by his deletions) and then immediately vandalize again. Which was my point for bringing it here - not about the actual warnings being blanked. Sorry for the confusion. Although I do think warnings shouldn't be blanked so that other "warners" know which warn level to use, it is currently allowed by policy so I don't question that. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

William M. Connolley

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

---

I'm not a mysterious IP, and this thread does not require admin attention (nor could it). Allegations of admin misconduct need to be brought to an RFC/U or, failing that, to ArbCom. A dispute like that needs a drama thread on AN/I like a fish needs a library card. — Coren ^(talk) 15:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{unresolved}} Actually some mysterious anon 71.67.120.31 (talk · contribs) archived the thread, see this[216] --Caspian blue 02:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Unarchieved by anther editor again.--Caspian blue 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's drunk again, but William Connelly is back at it. See [217]. This follows his recent drunken (self-admitted) actions unilaterally blocking against consensus. I hope we can stage an intervention to help this troubled individual. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called

humor, try looking it up. Until then, is there anything here that requires an admin or are you just blowing off more steam (not to mention the personal attack) and misusing ANI? - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 22:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight, sorry for my another redacting the title, but I could not help it since it is too provocative and BLP user violation. CoM, you really need to follow WP:DR, file a RFC/U on WMC if you really must resolve the issue with WMC. Why are you ruining yourself? -_-;; --Caspian blue 23:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. His edit summary "this is a f*ck*ng wiki. it allows links. which work best if you spell things properly" showed up on my watchlist. I'm sure he would have blocked me for similar, but so it goes. If others determined he was joking, I'll take their word for it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Be glad you were blocked for the continued abuse of ANI (this is your second "blowing off steam" post in 24 hours) and personal attacks. You need to take Caspian's advice and take a short Wikibreak before you get yourself in more trouble. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, do not poke on him and please de-escalate the situation. You also have to reminded of the yesterday warning that you received from admins.--Caspian blue 23:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, I assume you mean "weren't" blocked. My reports have been appropriate and accurate. I don't think it's appropraite to use that kind of language and description in an edit summary, even if he was joking, which I haven't investigated. I think action should be taken. I also think the ongoing harassment and stalking of me by you and others should be put to a stop.ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

CoM, I can't help you. You are spiraling and you don't know it. People are trying to help you, me for one, and you aren't taking our advice. Please consider a wikibreak. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@ChildofMidnight: What exact “action” do you expect us to take? — Aitias // discussion 23:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

That edit summary is ostensibly WMC responding to a user coming top his talk page for help. I would definitely say at the very least an Rfc is in order, if WMC has no explanation for it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, not really an appropriate edit summary. I also think that CoM should remove William's talk page from his watchlist, considering the bad blood between them. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see the humour in the edit summary, perhaps Neutralhomer would care to explain for a bear of little brain.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

@MMN: Yes. Someone came to me for help with a possible sock. I linked to the account, investigated, and have indef'd the sock. This was exactly the help required. Meanwhile... how exactly are *you* helping wiki? [ps: I hate ANI, you can't post a thing without e/c] William M. Connolley (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is one of those comments you make to yourself. Like you forget to type something in, and it seems he did, you say "it helps to type in words" or whatever. I take it as self-deprecating humor. Now, I have been asked by Caspian and WMC to not comment on this thread to not POKE CoM anymore, so if you have anymore questions, please direct them to my talk page and I will be glad to answer. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was his own comment that WMC edited then I'd agree, but it wasn't.

Nev1 (talk

) 23:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Two separate issues:

1. Inappropriate edit summary from WMC that, in light of recent events, should be taken more seriously than as a blip in an otherwise normal record. This does need admin attention, as no non-admin user would be able to get away with that sort of thing.
2. CoM needs to get over it, and walk away from the dusty remains of what was once a fine, fine horse. CoM, I agree with Allstarecho: you should remove William's tpage from your watchlist and avoid interaction with him; you are doing yourself no favours and slowly starting to cross into
   hounding territory. Your current trajectory looks like it's going to end in an indef block by some admin who gets fed up, and/or a community ban by the members of the community who are fed up. Only one person has the ability to prevent that from happening. It would be best for you to do so, or find a hobby that causes you less stress. //roux  
   23:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but an inebriated admin unilaterally blocked me against consensus. If someone wants to have that block oversighted and Connelly apologizes, then we're all good. But as this seems to be a pattern of inappropriate and possibly drunken behavior by this admin it was completely appropriate for me to bring the latest issue to the attention of the community. This has, as usual, provided an opportunity for Neutralhomer and Allstarecho to stalk, harass, and cast aspersions at me, but I don't want any editors to be affected by Connelly's abuse the way I was, so I won't be intimidated into ingnoring the problem. I trust the community will resolve the situation appropriately, it doesn't have much to do with me other than my also being at the receiving end of his abuse, so please stop attacking me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again another cheapshop at me for something I've had no involvement in. At least you're consistent. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has acknowledged the idea for a short wikibreak.--

Sky Attacker

23:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged and put up a banner too :) If anyone has any questions, please see my talk page and the banner at the top. It has a link to the email template there. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, I think that neither editor's conduct is really all that far from where it needs to be. WMC, I think you realised when you typed asterisks that part of your comment was inappropriate. The next step is to edit out the swear word altogether. CoM, it's good that you brought matters here that concerned you, and it is also good that you did so with the attitude that you're willing to accept if your opinion might not be 100% correct. As it happens, that seems to be the case where WMC is concerned, and I join those urging you to remove his page from your watchlist, if only for the benefit of your stress levels. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As this is under the title of WMC could I ask an admin to please review this block of an IP for edit warring which I feel is unfair.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

Possibly inappropiate edit summary of Off2riorob considering the recent "drunk" accusations. "sorry I forget the link i've had a couple of drinks"--

Sky Attacker

00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• ChildofMidnight, the next time you make a reference to WMC being "inebriated", I will block you myself. Remove WMC's talk page from your watchlist, and stop interacting with him. If you bring another complaint against him to AN/I, I think that the whole community ban might make another appearance. You are way out of line here. Horologium (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

After all this nonsense I'd be surprised if he doesn't start drinking.

talk

) 00:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, if he drinks, I want to know what brand, so, per Lincoln, I can send a barrel or two to some admins who don't do as good a job as he does. But if I see CoM refer to him as "drunk" again, I'll do a block.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Recommendation by uninvolved admin

I recommend that this little feud not be brought back to ANI again. If it continues, the right place for it is unfortunately ArbComm. This noticeboard is not structured to resolve complex disputes like this. Arbcomm is. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a feud with anyone, I don't stalk anyone, and I try to avoid my many harassers in so far as is possible. I brought a report about Connely's refactoring another user's comment with the edit summary "this is a f*ck*ng wiki. it allows links, which work best if you spell things properly" (which follows his abusive block of me a short time ago). His behaviors don't seem appropriate to me, and apparently others agree. I wouldn't have posted further in this discussion except that the usual stalkers and attackers showed up trying to smear me. If it's not appropriate to discuss an admin's abusive behavior in relation to a possible alcohol abuse problem, I won't do so. But I think the threats against me are wholly inappropriate and outrageous. I obviously can't control the actions of others, but I'm not going to apologize for bringing this issue to the community's attention in light of this admin's pattern of abusive and disruptive behavior. If other admins want to defend these behaviors and attack me for bringing them to light, then that's their choice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved member of the third party myself, I would like to point out that Arbcomm probably won't do well for conflict as severe as this.--

Sky Attacker

00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I disaprove of my edit being reverted but never mind I will replace the comment as it is still relevent here under the WMC title and I am requesting an admin to review this block of an IP by WMC that I consider to be unfair. I have brought it to WMC on his talk and he stated that he was ok with a review. here is the link ..

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

I'm fairly sure that Off2riorob spelt "dissaprove" wrong.--

Sky Attacker

01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

C of M you're perhaps not the best person to be putting this forward (really for your own sake), but there is a longstanding pattern (at least in my view) of problematic admin behavior by WMC. A user conduct RFC would not necessarily be a bad idea at this point. I do think that little or nothing will be solved here on ANI—this calls for actual dispute resolution if things cannot be worked out.

One thing that needs to stop is the constant reference to alcohol use. WMC made one remark about needing to edit while sober which was quite possibly a joke. Regardless, it is unbelievably inappropriate to make reference, as ChildofMidnight does above, to "a possible alcohol abuse problem" with respect to another editor. Horologium is right in his comment above where he says continued remarks along those lines are worthy of a block. C of M and others bringing that up need to knock it off, and focus on the edits you see as problematic. As I said, consider opening a user conduct RFC. It would give us a sense as to whether the community views Connelly's admin work as problematic or not. That's all he should be judged on here, not whether he had a few pints, or just joked about doing so. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll drink to that.

talk

) 01:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've already agreed not to mention it again. In my experience covering up that kind of thing can serve to enable the behavior. I brought it up as I think it's a legitimate concern related to erratic and totally unacceptable behavior. Again, I will not mention it in future per the request made by you and others.

I would also request that you ask Allstarecho to stop stalking and hounding me at ANI and elsewhere. He has no need to interact with me and has a history of seeking out conflict with me. His behavior is especially troubling as it comes after his copyvio, COI, vicious attacks on numerous editors (including putting up a large middle finger to Wikipedia on his talk page), as well as other problem behaviors. I'd like to have as little to do with him as possible, and I don't see any reason why he needs to involve himself in my affairs other than to harass me. Surely you don't think that behavior is acceptable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, if you believe that WMC has a longstanding pattern of problematic admin behavior, the best thing to do is get that admin desysoped.--

Sky Attacker

01:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct time?

In terms of the correct time, it really depends on where you are. There are probably other parts of the internet where this is being discussed thoroughly—and in different time zones.

To Sky Attacker, unfortunately we don't have an easy way to do that, which I think is a serious problem. I'm suggesting a

request for comment as a reasonable first step, since there have been a number of concerns about WMC on the noticeboards the past few weeks (though probably not all are legitimate). I'm not really inclined to set up an RFC myself or put a lot of work into it—it's just not a major concern of mine right now—but I would consider signing on to it in some way, or at the least commenting there. The other possibility is going straight to ArbCom (which is where a desysopping could happen), but I don't think that's appropriate at this point. A lot of people have complained about WMC over the last year or so, and an RFC can be a good way to gauge community sentiment. I believe one was attempted over a year ago but was not certified, and I'm not sure if anything has happened since. In any case while I have concerns, I'm not going to be leading the charge here. Honestly, if WMC was just more responsive to, and respectful of, criticism of his admin actions I think most of the issues would go away. But in the past I have not found that to be the case. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs

01:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think if WMC would do less of the thankless job of handling

WP:AN3 complaints quickly and correctly, there would be fewer whiners here... --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 01:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Another reason to desysop him.--

Sky Attacker

02:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What it appears to be is a bit of wikistalking by CoM of Connolley, honestly. Connolley blocked CoM, he thiks it was unfair, and now runs to AN/I every time there's a perceived misstep by him? Jesus CoM, the "fucking wiki" comment wasn't even directed at you, so why are you running here to tattle-tale? This eDrama can be alleviated simply by separating these two parties.

Full disclosure; I've had a few drinks tonight too. Please don't bring me to AN/I too! Tarc (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you should know that drinking-related comments are the last thing that is needed in this discussion. As members of a third party we must try to work together to resolve this problem.--

Sky Attacker

02:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, given your multiple appearances only CoM related threads (your buddies have made many ANI files for many things in the meantime), you love CoM so much? You're officially admonished for your incivility by the ArbCom, so be reminded of your conduct. Your snide comments and attacks against CoM do not make yourself holier, but rather paint your image very badly so far. How come you have the idea of CoM's witness on WMC's uncivil edit as "wikistalking"? The admin blocked CoM the day before yesterday without consensus and which was so controversial since he said he was not sober when blocking CoM, so CoM naturally visited WMC to protest the block today (just few hours before the reporting) and automatically happened to watch the inappropriate conduct of WMC. I saw the edit summary too because I visited the admin's page. Perhaps, you're the one having been wikistaking CoM for your and his unsolved past feuds on Obama cases. Since you said you're drinking alcohol, please enjoy it for Friday night and not make personal attacks like above. If you're continuing so, well, anyone who thinks your improper behavior necessary for some sanction, he/she could request for an amendment to the ArbCom case to ban you from contacting him any more.--Caspian blue 02:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, Caspian Blue, how many different lies can you pack into a single post? That was rather impressive. As I just posted over on the Clarification page, there has never been any real level of acrimony or contention between myself and ChildofMidnight, certainly not to the level of of him vs. Scjessey and him vs. Wikidemon (hrm, what/who is the intersection of those two relationships, I wonder?). We've certainly argued different positions in the political subject areas, but other than that, there's really nothing. You are here making a grandstanding, disingenuous call to disengage, but in reality there isn't anything to disengage from. Hell, the only reason I saw this thread at all last night was because I have AN/I on the watchlist from editing here before, and one of CoM's responses here happened to be the most recent. An editor feels he was blocked unjustly...the oldest song in the Wikipedia...and I commented on it.

So please, chill, step back, and take a breath. You are hardly in a position to threaten anyone with bans and sanctions. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Wow, how many different lies", Tarc, such false allegation is really harmful. Right above your false allegations of wikistaking and threatening, and mocking are all noted. From my observation, you're making personal attacks to CoM at ANI and other places and "enjoy them". This is not a first appearance of you to CoM related threads just making noises. Your bad taste comments are written well above. I have no interest in US politic drama feast and you so I do not want to waste my time talking with you. Please behave yourself.--Caspian blue 12:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your "personal observations" are flawed, without merit, and rather biased given your obvious friendship with CoM. You are not exactly a neutral party here. As long as ChildofMidnight continues to act like the wronged martyr, then the drama will continue. There has never been a single personal attack that I have leveled at this or any other user in these proceedings. If you claim otherwise, back it up, bud. Tarc (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that your view is seriously flawed with no merit. Your personal attacks are shown in the thread. Think again about yourself, truly. No more response necessary since we could agree that we could not agree with each other's view.--Caspian blue 13:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920)

This edit has been made on User talk:YellowMonkey, User talk:Piotrus and User talk:Witekjl by Witekjl (talk · contribs) who claims to be (and most likely is) Witold J. Ławrynowicz, the author of one of the sources used on Battle of Warsaw (1920). He has a grievance about comments made at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Warsaw (1920). The editor has not made legal threats at this stage but is demanding an apology and withdrawal. Yellow Monkey's sole comments on the FAR were to open the FARC and then to close it and remove FA status. Others with more understanding of these matters may wish to follow this up. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, it appears Witold J. Ławrynowicz misunderstood the discussion linked above. The comment regarding plagiarism, posted by Novickas (talk · contribs), seems to question whether text was lifted from Ławrynowicz's article and inserted into Wikipedia's article (thus plagiarism on our part). At least that's how I'm reading it. --auburnpilot talk 04:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, WP editors copying from both Ławrynowicz's website and electronic.ca website was the issue. Should I clarify this at the FA review page? (It's archived). Mr. L also perceives my assessment of his FA-source-worthiness as slanderous. No idea whether, how, or where to address that. Advice welcome. Novickas (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

­