Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569

I'm not sure if this account is here to improve the encyclopedia. 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs)

I'd say not. Roux has been dealing with this case. Mjroots (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again

^^^ User has been discussed at least thrice at ANI. –xeno^talk 20:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GHC has asked Master of Puppets to export his user page into the personal Wiki that Roux created for him. Mjroots (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

GHC's most recent edit was to move a page fom his user space to mainspace with the edit summary "I Am Now An Administartor."[sic] The page in question is what looks like a tribute page to an ex-editor (the same user whose account GHC previously claimed to have access to, as discussed in ANI here) - not sure what to make of that, at all. There is no denying that GHC puts a lot of effort into Wikipedia. A pity it is mostly utterly misdirected. --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The user clearly has no interest in contributing to an encyclopedia and does not respond in a remotely intelligent manner when others are encouraging him to do so. All he wants to do is manage a blog that frankly no one should waste their time, in addition to playing games. A quick look at his contributions shows 90% of his edits are on others' talk pages. This user needs to be permanently blocked. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Enough of this now. He can still export pages if he's blocked, and frankly having his own Wiki is the only real solution now. As well intentioned as he might be, he has made almost zero appropriate contributions and it doesn't look like that situation is going to improve anytime soon. ninety:one 21:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

He's definitely not a useful contributor to Wikipedia, but I wouldn't suggest anyone spend any time trying to straighten him out. Unless he actually hurts something, why not just ignore it? Friday (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm with friday. Leave it be unless he actively starts disrupting things. I will note that he's not long for the wiki-world if he does start disrupting things, because it seems like he isn't a terribly good fit for en.wp. But it falls into the category of 'if it bothers you, remove it from your watchlist'. Protonk (talk) 22:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well,

WP:MYSPACE is a part of a policy page, I don't really see this as something optional. If that's all he's doing here, then block em if he refuses to change. And that godawful userpage should be deleted. Tarc (talk

) 22:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Dito--

Expert

23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I kinda feel sorry for GHC. I wish he got the message :( He could be a very good aditor if he made usefull edits more often than he does now......--

Expert

23:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but its a stupid part of the policy page. If I could become a benign (YMMV) dictator for a day I would deep six most of our 'userspace' rules which seem to add a lot of discussions like this without actually impacting disruptive behavior. And of course

it is optional. Send the pages to MfD if you really think it is worth your while but I don't see any reason to indef a user unless they are actively disrupting others. Protonk (talk

) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True, I too agree but to be honest, some of GHC's edits are reverted on

Expert

00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy, guys. I'll export his userpage and everything will be O.K. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 16:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This administrator briefly blocked me regarding a dispute regarding his personal edits and as such, was abuse of his authority.

After blocking me, he seemed to back off the dispute, which factually and via many citations, favored my view.

If there was actual reason to block me, this administrator ought to have referred question to a different admin.

In the event, he abused his admin status and resorted to various coarse and inappropriate language

This concerns article Dunderberg Mountain.

Calamitybrook (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Four months ago? --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Very cool heads can now prevail.

Kafziel abused his blocking authority.

Perhaps feels quite free to do this again.

Calamitybrook (talk)

Will this all be in haiku? Crafty (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I suppose it's possible he should have asked someone else to block you for harassing him on his talk page, just to avoid this thread. Slap him with a 4 month old trout. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a clear & non-trivial guideline.

Why is "four months" an issue?

Calamitybrook (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Very Stale; no action needed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

On October 5, 2009, User:Fram thoughtlessly removed within 10 minutes, about 70 articles written by me, without knowing the source material. Despite pay attention to him, did it again. Only later in the discussion on the removal of one of the articles, wrote that he is aware of one of the sources on this one article. Not according to the article topic, such mindless behavior is harmful to Wikipedia and unacceptable. I understand that the average user can do so, but the person holding the status of Administrator requirements are much higher, I demand the withdrawal of this user status of the Administrator immediately and prohibit him up editing until you clarify this issue. Sincerely,--

) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify which articles, I don't see 70 artices in your deleted contributions, and as far as I can see, only one was in mainspace? And you say "..without knowing the source material..", do you mean that the articles were unsourced? Thanks for the answers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look; Fram did not delete any articles, he nominated them for deletion. Any user can do this, and you have disputed the deletion nominations accordingly. No vandalism or otherwise incorrect actions have taken place. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I now found the same, indeed. You might want to find some

notability. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

08:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to comment on a closed thread, but please be careful about calling things "vandalism" - that's reserved for deliberate attempts to harm the encyclopedia. Something you disagree with, however wrong it may be, is not vandalism if the person believed they were doing the right thing. It looks like your complaint might be called "improper deletion of articles" or something a little less of an accusation. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry for misunderstanding and using improper name. As a newbie, I did the same, as User:Fram, a month ago and I was accused for Vandalism. So, I tried to complied with the explanation I got and file complain using the same name (vandalism). Therefore, I change mu complain to improper behavior.

All articles are listed in Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in New England.

My complains are not about "notability" but about thoughtlessly marked for deletion within 10 minutes, about 70 articles.

What about one of the oldest Polish parish in east cost of USA St. Stanislaus Bishop & Martyr's Parish, Chicopee?

If User remove post from Project discussion instead of adding comment or discussion such action with the Project Administrator, is it proper behavior? Sincerely,--

talk

) 09:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WlaKom, I don't think it is thoughtlessly, he could just have deleted them all. Instead, he considered, and decided to propose them for deletion, as they do not give their notability. This should be an incentive to you to provide e.g. references to establish their notability, otherwise they still may just be deleted, as for me it is (for a couple) not clear at all why they are notable.

It may be 10 minutes after their creation that they were tagged, but we are now 2 days later.... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

About 70 articles in 10 minutes? Sounds like

BWilkins ←track

) 12:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not notified of this conversation, but anyway... I noticed WlaKom creating many pages on parishes through new page patrolling. I left him a message, asking to temporarily stop the creation of such pages, since they appeared to be about non notable entities.[1]. WlaKom did not reply to this message, but continued his article creation. I then proposed 56 pages for deletion (not 70) in 30 minutes (12.06 - 12.36, so not the claimed 10 minutes at all). I looked at all pages I nominated, and deliberately skipped

) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

a) well said b) the situaton is as expected and c) sorry to not let you know (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

) 13:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've granted the IP a week's holiday. Mjroots (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User continues to vandalize wikipedia pages. Has been warned multiple times, continues to edit the page child labour.--

14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's been reported to

talk

) 15:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cody Judy

I came across this article on the BLP boards. It appears that a) the subject is editing it and b) keeps reverting to an incoherent poorly sourced version. I have no real understanding of LDS politics and some more eyes are requested to look over the article and also someone who can engage with the subject of the article as I lack the medical training needed to do so. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

yeah a bit beyond me... --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick look at the article brought up a connection with Orly Taitz and that appears to be a "third rail" situation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC).

A dormant conflict at Equality Mississippi seems to have been restarted and has potential to get ugly, judging from the previous round. It would be nice if an admin or two could keep an eye on it and step in if it becomes necessary. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia, and has been warned multiple times to stop, and still has not. --NemesisofReason 15:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're looking for

Tan | 39

15:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User was not sufficiently warned anyway - only one warning in October; last warning was in March.

talk

) 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This ip user made legal threats at the AfD for

) 15:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Where?

Tan | 39

15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the same editor as User talk: 75.169.98.203 who made a legal threat on WQA last week. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for two weeks.

Tan | 39

16:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:205.122.11.165

This user has been vandalizing Wikipedia and has already been warned with the level 4 im warning. Please consider blocking this user.--NemesisofReason 15:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You should report this at

WP:AIV. 99.166.95.142 (talk

) 16:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

When did we start using 4im level warnings for garden-variety vandalism?

talk

) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Might want to address this on NoR's talk page, Tim.

Tan | 39

16:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he figures that since he has a report on him at the top of the page, now it's his turn? (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, he has continued the behaviour he was given a last chance about in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive568#User:DreamGuy.

Main report is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DreamGuy_reported_by_User:Shoemaker.27s_Holiday_.28Result:_.29. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 16:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User was blocked 1 week by Juliancolton (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) –xeno^talk 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Walaa adel (talk · contribs) is copying and pasting articles from article space into his User space. I've asked for an explanation, as he doesn't seem to be editing the articles he's copying over, and besides, why not copy one, edit and move back, instead of wholesale copying? I'm removing the interwiki lilnks and article space categories from each of his pages, but it started out looking he was copying all of Wikipedia there, starting with article starting with the letter "A". 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There may also be a problem with fair use images. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, well, he's ignoring his Talk page and continuing to copy images to his User space. I see no point in my trying to clean up after him, so could somebody please deal with this when they have a moment? Thanks. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm deleting them all as quick as I can as G12's (as he's not preserving the edit history, a requirement for any CC license involving the Attribution component.) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also blocked the user to try and stem the tide; he was adding on faster than I could delete them. I'd watch his talk page and see if he provides an explanation as to why he's doing this. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The page

) 23:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks NuclearWarfare, you're awesome!

talk

) 23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am here reluctantly, to ask for intervention of some kind in the case of user TJ Spyke. TJ is an editor for Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling, and I have nothing against him. However, as of late there has been an ongoing discussion about his editing habits, which has caused disruption to the project, and by default the encyclopedia. A small matter has caused a long and drawn out issue. I ask that anyone commenting read the thread at the project talk page which has examples and an explanation which I can only partially recount here. See: [9]

At some point in the past there was a consensus reached on a content issue, that stated the names of two wrestling relate programs on the encyclopedia. Some users decided to change links to link to the new pages, some changed the links to look like they pointed to the new articles and some changed them to point to the redirects. Due to the sheer size of the discussion, it is difficult to judge who did what and so on. In any case, that isn't the issue.

An editor found fault with TJ's edits and brought a discussion to the project. It appears that the majority believe that TJ's editing of the articles is disruptive, against consensus and should be stopped. Most were against bringing this here, but some users fear that this is the only hope for TJ. It should be noted that TJ did show a willingness to compromise, but his proposal was unacceptable. I would leave this before you, to hopefully resolve the issue of whether TJ acted wrongly, so we can proceed with improving the encyclopedia. Sephiroth storm (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay as a somewhat vet of WP:PW, not sure if I classify as one though, I'll fill in the matter. A while back the articles

WWE Friday Night SmackDown" in all types of pages: Archives, talk, user, etc. He has continued this, and has caused a disruption as such. We've asked him to stop, but won't.--WillC

22:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I have made my point several times, but I will summarize here. First, I would change MAYBE 1 article per day on average (how 1 article per day is disruptive is beyond me). Second, the names I was putting in are the primary names of the shows and ARE official (it would be like writing

George Walker Bush instead of George W. Bush). Third, the user who wanted to bring this discussion to here (which is not the above user) seems to think they are free to violate the guideline against "fixing" redirects by changing the primary names of these shows to their international names. Even if the consensus is to use the international names for the articles names over the primary names used by the company, that doesn't give the editors (who from what i've seen is being done by 2 or 3 editors) free reign to go around changing the links. I would also like to point out that I stopped changing the links several days ago, but when I pointed out that they would have to stop too I was accused of harassing one editor (by leaving a polite message on his talkpage remindind him of the guideline against changing redirects) and accused of being disruptive. TJ Spyke

22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted TJ Spyke has a history of not getting along with others, as well as edit warring. If anyone looks at that discussion (linked to in the first post), he made several rude remarks just because people disagree with him. He acts like he is right and everyone else is wrong, which is a poor attitude to have. Disagreements can happen, but it doesn't justify his behavior towards others. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To get action at ANI, generally you need to state clearly which Wikipedia policies were violated, and point to specific edits that violated them. Your complaint is so fuzzy on details that an admin would have to read massive amounts of material just to figure out what the problem actually is. Looking over the talk page, it is clear that numerous editors are unhappy with TJ's actions, but it isn't so clear exactly what they are unhappy about. (I am not an admin, just to be clear.) Looie496 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Read my above message to get more of an idea of the situation. We want him to quit changing correct links to redirects to prove a

22:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I will admit to the fact TJ has stated that he would stop the disruptive editing of the links however he's continued and since then to break

Talkie Talk

- Afkatk 22:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Concise summary: Ultimately, this is a fight over invisible redirect coding. One editor is changing wikilinks to a [[redirect page|target article]] format because he doesn't like the current article titles, while others are changing them back to [[target article]]. The user who added the redirect links believes that the guideline against "fixing" redirects refers only to people changing them to a direct link rather than to people adding redirects. He is therefore accusing the others of violating guidelines while claiming that he has not violated a guideline. Commentary: Why anyone cares one way or the other and why anyone would think that administrators don't have anything to do is beyond me. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is dumb. But we've delt with dumber things in the past. I take it as moving forward.--WillC 23:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Those 3 edit summaries that Afro posted are a great example of TJ's behavior. He reverted vandalism with misleading edit summaries. ECW and Smackdown has NOTHING to do with reverting any of that vandalism. --RobJ1981 (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

A few months ago,

-- 23:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan doesn't have it 100% right. Users like bulletproof are going around changing existing links, not just reverting my edits. They are going around changing links that have existed for a long time. I have not ignored anyone (despite some users claiming otherwise). Since I have stopped changing the links several days ago, not the users who disagree with me have nothing and are grasping for straws by claiming I am disrupting Wikipedia by including links in my edit summaries (even though I do add my normal edit summary as well). I have checked and don't see any guideline or policy I have violated, although the people who those who disagree with me have violated some. I have already stopped, they haven't. If anything, bulletproof is the one who should be reported. TJ Spyke 00:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Now TJ, Just so we're clear... why exactly should I be reported? --

Truth

-- 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[26] [27] [28] [29] I would just like to bring this to the attention of the Admins, I feel these are links which didn't need fixing to begin with.

- Afkatk 01:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

^^^Wait a minute... TJ, you're accusing me of fixing links which you intentionally broke... and you think there's something wrong with that? TJ, as

Truth

-- 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixing links I broke? Several of the links you "fixed" today had been like that since before the articles were moved, I did not change them at all. As for me fixing links every day, yesterday was the first time in several days I had fixed any links and even before that I didn't do it every day. And again, I haven't changed any ECW/SmackDown links in several days and I agreed to stop (but want people like you to stop trying to "fix" existing ones). TJ Spyke 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring this edit to everyone's attention, where he keeps the correct link in the article but changes what it says to "Friday Night SmackDown", the name not agreed upon. This is one of the main problems, his constant violation of a consensus. Plus the match types he added back into the article were agreed on the talk page to not be on significance. So two violations in one edit.--WillC 02:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I swear Will, sometimes you make me want to hit my head against a wall. First you say I "constantly" violate consensus. I did not change the link (although I was well within my right to do so if I wanted too). Second, that was the first time in several days that I made any kind of change and I did not even change the link. Second, how is putting notable info (and yes the info I put in IS notable to the title history) a violation? TJ Spyke 02:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't use Friday Night SmackDown at all unless referring to the US names only. The consensus was to use the common names. The links is only part of the problem. It was agreeed on

02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to jump in here, but, TJ, the point is, you should not have changed the appearance of the link, it was unnecessary, and I believe you knew it would cause a problem. I do suggest that discussions from involved editors go back to

WP:PW, unless you are presenting information to the Admins. Sephiroth storm (talk

) 03:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Will, FNS is just as correct and accurate as SD and both are acceptable. You are basically saying "it doesn't matter what the primary name is or what WWE considers the main name, I think we should only use the secondary name used for international markets". It's one think to want all the links to be for those names, but apparently you have a problem with Friday Night SmackDown and ECW on Syfy to even appear on Wikipedia other than when talking specifically about US airings. That is a joke and is not helping anyone take our project seriously. You don't see people going around and changing every mention of "Famicom" to "NES" even though the only country to use the Famicom name was Japan. TJ Spyke 03:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. What you are doing is turning this [[WWE SmackDown]] into this [[WWE Friday Night SmackDown|WWE SmackDown]] (intentionally changing links to redirects) and not this [[WWE SmackDown]] into [[WWE SmackDown|WWE Friday Night SmackDown]]. Do you see the difference here?--

Truth

-- 04:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote for

) 04:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and would be happy to provide trouts for all. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Statement Ok, based on UnquestionableTruth's diffs, this is what is before the admins. TJSkype has created double redirects in contrast to

WP:CONS

, but indeed broken it by not bringing his actions before the community when he saw they were controversial. He is in conflict with our editing policy, making minor changes to create a more "complete" or "accurate" encyclopedia.

I bring your attention to

which states: "Disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress toward improving an article, or disrupting progress toward the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia." Whether of not TJ is right, or within the rules is inconsequential. His editing is disruptive, and this body should take action.

I believe this is necessary. Look at the reasons for not taking action. "It wont help." "This is a waste of time" Are these the indicators of the attitude we want on wikipedia? "He's causing trouble but hes not breaking the rules." "It doesn't matter." I encourage you all to vote now and to take action swiftly. I will not recommend a sentence, but whatever the outcome, act, and do so quickly. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I already stopped the so-called "disruption" (although I don't agree with the accusation of it being disruptive) several days ago and agreed not to change the links to "ECW (WWE)" and "WWE SmackDown". As for my past, almost every incident has ended with me being right. People get upset because I am honest and don't sugarcoat anything. TJ Spyke 20:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't have links say [[WWE SmackDown|Friday Night SmackDown]] [[ECW (WWE)|ECW on Syfy]] either. That is apart of the problem. Not you changing links to redirects, but using the US names. We must use the common names to be correct.--WillC 00:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Using an official name (which the company considers the primary name of the show) IS correct. I should point out to admins that I have not done that recently either (even though I can, it's ridiculous that certain users want to erase any mention of the primary name of the shows). TJ Spyke 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No you can't per the agreement. It is the primary US name. But we are going by common name. Your opinion on the name does not stand up against the consensus. So you CAN'T do either, otherwise we'll be right back here again.--WillC 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

How long does this sort of thing take? This argument has been going on for days now. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Technically it is finished, as long as TJ doesn't break the consensus again.--WillC 23:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh... well. I just thought an admin would come in and make a big bold ruling one way or the other. The whole thing seemed very... anticlimactic. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Again Will, the consensus was for the article name. The US name is just as valid and is the primary name of the show according to WWE. It is OK for anybody to write "ECW on Syfy", it does not have to be written as just "ECW". hurricane, the fact that I was not doing anything wrong plus the fact that I had stopped doing any changes several days before this report was filed may be why. TJ Spyke 17:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Liar liar liar liar, what do you call this made today? The agreement was not only for the article name, but what to call it on the link. So writing ECW on Syfy when it does not direct totally to the US only, is against the consensus.--WillC 22:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Then there is this change, made today as well. You know the correct link, but yet you linked to a redirect to further your point.--WillC 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

TJ, the consensus here and on PW is clear, people don't like you changing the link or what they look like. Stop. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, I found the IP address of a vandal, and found he has a huge history of vandalizing pages. He even writes details of the bad things he's done. Can you block him, and stop his run? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/168.170.197.210 Good luck! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycombs (talk • contribs) 16:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are looking for

Tan | 39

16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing another User's page

User:Gregbard created User:TheMathPeople/Sandbox. While I cannot put my finger to a precise WP policy forbidding users from editing in another User's _User_ page, I know in my heart that this is not cricket. I've blanked the page but would ask an admin to delete it. Gregbard can restore the material from the page history into *his own* user space. 166.205.134.10 (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

TheMathPeople just needs to request the deletion, and then

WP:CSD#U1 applies. Singularity42 (talk

) 21:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Gregbard has also made a sockpuppet allegation against TheMathPeople. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering TheMathPeople was indef-blocked over a year ago as a sock, I don't think it's an "accusation". This also, of course, means he can't add CSD tags to pages. Also note that Gregbard's edit to the userpage was in May of 2008. --Smashville^talk 21:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it seems too early to call resolved. But I'm not an administrator, so it's your call. Consider the chronology though:

• TheMathPeople account is created on May 12, 2008.
• Only contribution (other than add one character to his own user page and talk page) is to make a comment on Gregbard's talk page in response to another editor's comment (which is made the day after TheMathPeople account is created).
• Within 30 minutes, Gregbard accuses TheMathPeople as being a sockpuppet (with what seems to be no basis).
• On May 30th, 2008, TheMathPeople is blocked as a sockpuppet, probably after a proper SPI (of who, I'm not sure - need to look that up).
• Nothing until September 30, 2009, where Gregbard creates a subpage of TheMathPeople and begins editing it until October 5th.

This seems very odd behaviour by Gregbard. Any administrator want to follow it up? Singularity42 (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's odd behavior that occurred over a year ago. What would you expect an administrator to do? -- Atama頭 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the stuff over the last few days are odd. If someone accidentially creates a subpage in someone else's user space, I would say

good faith would cause us to look at it as an innocent mistake. Repeatedly editing that subpage over a number of days is a bit stranger, but still, possibly, an accident. When you add the history between the two accounts from a year ago, though, it does look odd. I just think it would be useful if some sort of explanation was offered, because it just seems that when you add it all together, it looks... odd. I can't say more than that. It appears more than a mistake. But I'm not going to cry "sockpuppet" or "vandalism", because I don't think there's really anything to justify that. I just think an explanation would be appreciated. Singularity42 (talk

) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A while ago some jerk opened up this account to attack me. I have, on occasion, used the space for my own sandbox. Basically I prefer not to be closely monitored by very presumptuous people when I work on content in a sandbox. No it does not appear that I am violating any policy. This is a formal request for an explicit statement by an administrator that I have not violated any policy. Thank you. Be well. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I take back what I said, that is weird. But since there's no policy violation I guess there's not much to do, though it doesn't seem right to me. I mean, if someone opened a sandbox as a subpage of my user page, I would take offense because it might mislead others into thinking I created. Then again, I'm also not a blocked sockmaster. :) -- Atama頭 23:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the sandbox is in your userspace or someone elses it can be just as easily "monitored" you're not hiding by doing it somewhere else. People can find out where you're editing from your public contrib history. We generally don't edit in other people's userspace unless we've been invited to do so.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

True but it's almost like if I decided to change my signature to say "Crossmr". Someone could see from the edit history that it wasn't you, but on a casual glance it looks like you were the one who left the comment. I almost think there should be something about this in

WP:UP. -- Atama頭

00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean it sounded like Greg was trying to hide his page by putting it in another person's use space. My point was, it wouldn't hide it at all. In your example you'd be attempting to impersonate a user which is against the rules. I don't think Greg should be editing another person's userspace for the record.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This "incident" was reported by an anonymous user. I would like to know who it was. I have had on-going problems with harassment. Let the record show that a report of a phony "incident" is consistent with this. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspected that the IP was a sock of TheMathPeople after Smashville's initial comment, so I understand what you mean. But since the IP hasn't done anything else I'd let it drop, I think it's pretty clear that nobody is taking this notice seriously. -- Atama頭 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if there continue to pile up phony "incidents" it could confuse a group of editors voting to sanction me on some future phony charge. I'm quite fed up with it. There are editors out there who are bullies' plain and simple. They have no qualms about abusing policies and the political nature of WP. Be well Atama. Stay cool. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I moved the page to

) 01:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Legal threat against other editors and Wikipedia on

talk

) 02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the only edit he's made in the last few hours. Nonetheless, he needs to be indef'd conditionally, i.e. if he retracts he has the chance of reinstatement. That's as blatant a legal threat as you can get. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed.

Tan | 39

02:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

67.197.6.122 and 208.104.139.77

Long history of repeated bad edits to Mexico, South Carolina. At first it was just a matter of informing a user about practices and policies used at Wikipedia, but all messages and warning have been completely ignored, repeatedly. These claims are provably incorrect, without any citations or explanations. Since user continues to repeatedly ignore all messages and warnings and ignores a variety of WP editing policies, this should be considered vandalism because he either reads the messages and knowingly keeps making disruptive edits, or never read the messages but he's still making continued disruptive edits. Either way user should be blocked from making further disruptive edits.

Mexico, South Carolina

1) Blanked entire article. Caught by Lightbot [31]

- 1st case of adding that Mexico is an unincorporated area within the city of Rock Hill, SC

- Next edit is first time this "fact" is removed. It is clearly explained that "It is not possible to have an unincorporated area within an incorporated city."[32]

2) 1st re-reversion, re-adding the incorrect, uncited claim back in without explanation, despite previous explanation as to why it was removed in the first place.[33]

- Reverted again.

Assumed Good Faith. Explained kindly for a 2nd time why this claim was not possible. Provided link to proof of this impossibility: that the very first sentence in the article he was linking to, Unincorporated area, clearly states that "an unincorporated area is a region of land that is not a part of any municipality", making it impossible for an unincorporated Mexico to be within the incorporated municipality of Rock Hill.[34]

3) 2nd re-reversion, re-adding the incorrect, uncited claim back in without explanation, despite previous two explanations as to why it was removed.[35]

- Reverted for the 3rd time, this time as vandalism since previous two messages were ignored.[36]

- Explained impossibility of claim in more detail on user's talk page and warned of repeated vandalism.[37]

4) 3rd re-reversion, re-adding the incorrect, uncited claim back in without explanation, despite previous three explanations as to why it was removed.[38]

- Reverted for the 4th time.[39]--User:Fife Club (talk) 02:58, 8 October 2009

• • I think that it is possible that there never was, or no longer is, a place called Mexico, South Carolina. It might have been annexed by Rock Hill long ago. The article was created on the basis of the poorly maintained government database
    GNIS, but searching for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL finds nothing to indicate that this place isn't a mistake in a database. Abductive (reasoning
    ) 06:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yep, the area is within Rock Hill city limits now. You can check with this or maybe this if it lasts.Abductive (reasoning) 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This account,

) 19:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified of user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 19:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user of vandalism --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 20:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So what happens now, maby someone else was the father of the trouble causing. Article is protected.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk

) 06:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I restored this discussion from the archive, because it was still being commented on and has not been resolved. Enigma^msg 07:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The Help Desk indicated that ANI is the board most likely to be able to help me with this, so I'm bringing it here.

I'm not sure what to do with an editor who is adding un-encyclopedic walls o'text to an article and not responding to talk page requests to stop, but does not overtly appear to be operating in bad faith. The article in question is

does not appear to have a whole lot of regular watchers), and I'm not willing to carry on in that manner, so I need some sort of help.

Given the article subject and the editor's additions, I tend to think this is something more along the lines of an overenthusiastic kid than a POV or COI warrior, but given that they are not responding to edit summaries or talk page warnings, I don't know what else to do to convince them to stop.

) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: For my future reference, is there a venue that deals with situations like this? This is not the first time I've run into editors who, while not vandalizing or operating in bad faith exactly, do not respond to requests or explanations.

talk

) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you (and Bencherlite) are handling the situation correctly and admirably with your notes on the user's talk page. If the issue continues, drop a note back here.

Tan | 39

15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

S/he's back at it: [40].

talk

) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And again and again. Other editors have made efforts to engage the user on their talk page and in edit summaries, to no avail.

talk

) 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

to see his rationale as explained to admins asking that the block length be reduced.

Epycwin's account is about three months old. He has never been warned about edit-warring. The only other talk page comment left on his page previous was left by an editor who was edit-warring with him who warned him against inserting

20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

An SPA dedicated to conspiracy theory pushing, especially antisemitic hoaxes about organ stealing, warrants a nice block. Any good reason for your strong interest in an unblock?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, it would be good if when commenting to uphold a block, you disclose your prior involvement with the editor (eg. having warned Epycwin about OR after reverting his edits to the introduction of Organ donation in Jewish law). Though you didn't bother discussing your edits at the article talk page there, I notice Epycwin tried to. Unfortunately, no one bothered to bring specific citations and sources to the discussion or the article that would have perhaps help quell the blind reverting and disagreements. But why don't we let other uninvolved editors comment? Or instead comment on your experiences with the editor, providing diffs and specific instances or behaviours that you believe justify a block. Tiamut^talk 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I resent the implications you are trying to make about my motives here. This came to my attention because Epycwin started an article on Yehuda Hiss. (I had started one in my user space and added mine to his after I saw his go up.) When I went to check out his user page, I discovered he was blocked. After looking into it, I was shocked by the lack of prior warnings and the jumping to conclusions made by the blocking admin. I would hope you wouldn't repeat that same mistake. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Yehuda Hiss do you refer to? This

Operation Big Rig?--brewcrewer (yada, yada)

21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, I've never edited the articles being discussed, never had any run-in with Epycwin or Brewcrewer or anyone else in this dispute. I have to say that I concur with the block, reviewing Epycwin's recent contributions all I see is removal or reverting of content that is sourced with false (or at least arguable) edit summaries saying that the information reverted is "original research" or "rumor" (again, the info reverted has a source). A legitimate edit-war warning was removed from their talk page calling it a "threat". I don't see any evidence that this is a "reasonable editor" and I don't see that they "responded quite graciously" to the block (though they didn't exactly rant and curse either). I can understand the anti-semitism claims, since the majority of edits might indicate a bias against the Jewish people, though I myself would be cautious in labeling them that way without seeing anything more overt. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The warning was not for edit-warring, nor did it link to there so that Epycwin could be made aware of what that is. The warning was about OR. Again, a primary reason I find this block to be extremely harsh is that the editor was never approached about edit-warring before the block was made. Tiamut^talk 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, yes. OR and not edit-warring. But this block isn't about edit-warring. The block is for being disruptive and tendentious. If a person is blocked for an edit war it is to stop the edit war, people generally aren't indefinitely blocked for that. The editor's contributions to the encyclopedia are a net negative by far. I'll give a summary of recent diffs I've glanced through and their glaring problems:

• Organ donation in Jewish law - Removed info talking about rabbis supporting organ donation that was sourced, under the claim of "original research", and replaced it with (ironically) original research.
• Simon Cowell - Removed the "English Jews" category from his article, claiming that it was an "erroneous rumor" despite Cowell's own words (which were earlier referenced in the article).
• Israel–Russia relations - Insertion of a "controversy" regarding an Israeli diplomat being charged with espionage that even the source said wasn't notable.
• 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy - Removed sourced opinion of Israelis who were defending themselves against charges of racism, with the spurious claim that "random people's opinions are not notable".
• Naomi Klein - Removed criticism against her published by the
  Jerusalem Post
  , claiming that it was "not notable".

That's just a handful of recent contributions showing disruption promoting an anti-Jewish bias. This is repeated time and again. This editor clearly is not here to improve Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How is removing polemical criticism of alleged statements by

Organ donation in Israel and Yehuda Hiss. Yes he was a bit agressive, he admits as much himself. Yes he was edit-warring and admits that too and pledged not to do it in the future. But this block should be reduced to time served, having functioned as a warning. I think he got the message. Are we punishing him for showing an interest in topics that we think he should not be interested in? Tiamut^talk

23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a random sample, I started with his most recent content contributions and worked my way back. We're not "punishing" him at all. We don't punish by blocking, we do so to protect Wikipedia. I don't think the positive contributions he has done outweigh the negative contributions. You don't have to be "thought police" when every edit is done with an anti-semitic slant (I feel confident enough to make this statement now after further review of contributions). Even the articles he started that you use as evidence of good are anti-Jewish. But I've given my opinion, and I think I've explained it well enough, and you're free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If

Organ donation in Israel are "anti-Jewish", please come to those pages and point out what needs to be removed or changed so that they are not racist. I'm deeply concerned, as I've edited them too, and if I missing racist content, I want to be made aware of that. Tiamut^talk

00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles themselves are okay (at least at a cursory glance). What I meant was that creating those articles certainly does nothing to diminish the accusations of anti-semitism, since their presence in Wikipedia, while appropriate, do act to cast Israel (and by extension Jews) in a negative light. Again, I don't have any complaints about the articles themselves or their presence in Wikipedia, but their creation fits into a larger pattern of behavior that led to the indefinite block. I hope that explains it better (I didn't explain it very well before). -- Atama頭 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that I'm relieved to know the content in those articles is not a problem. I think your conclusions that because these articles deal with subject matter that portray Israel in a negative light, that an editor's interest in them is evidence of anti-Semitism is serious assumption of bad faith and a rather large logical leap (given that anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism). I deal with editors all the time who spend an inordinate amount of time editing articles like

WP:AGF might lead me to make similar accusations of anti-Arab bias. But that would lead to chaos I think, which is the reason AGF exists in the first place. Tiamut^talk

13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion focused on Epicwyn and civil, please.

I am open to other admins further reviewing, and if they decide to AGF under the circumstances unblock. I believe I have enough evidence to stop assuming that, but that's my personal opinion. Anyone who reviews and believes that the situation is recoverable and that Epicwyn can become a productive user moving forwards is welcome to work on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small note: though Epycwin had his/her first edits in July, s/he has only made a grand total of 87 edits so far (according to wikichecker). That is not much to give an impression of the larger pattern of behavior. Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was willing to unblock him--granted, his long-term edit warring and ownership issues on an article he created were certainly blockable--worth a 72-hour block, in my mind. But unless I've missed something, I haven't seen the egregious anti-Semitism that would merit an indefblock. The only reason I didn't unblock was because the issue of anti-Semitism is a thorny issue, and I didn't want to create the appearance of a wheel war.

96

13:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Guildenrich appeared in wiki on August 24. On the first weeks of his contribution he made a few good edits in Arvanites and in Arvanite folklore in general. The pattern was quite ok. However, after his contact with a typical spa&sockpuppeter User:Sarandioti ([[42]] [[43]] Sept. 30), his last week contribution has an extreme pov nationalistic taste:

• Creation of pov fork articles: Suliots [[44]], The Albanians in Medieval Epirus [[45]], [[46]]
• Unexplained move: Moscopole to Voskopoja: [[47]]
• Massive deletion of the word 'Turco-albanian' in several articles: [[48]], [[49]], [[50]], [[51]], [[52]]
• The explanation he gives for these initiatives are far from respecting basic rules wp:civility, wp:npa: [[53]], [[54]]
• The most annoying is the fact that he turned his userpage, on Oct. 7, into a nationalistic brochure with clear political, pov meaning [[55]]: giving unreliable (outdated unverified wwi&Interwar period pro-Albanian) bibliography on 'Greek atrocities against Albanians during/after WWi'. He was warned to remove this propaganda material but he insisted to keep it.

Administrators have also raised concerns about that kind of activity [[56]].Alexikoua (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Background, in chronological order:

• Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#User:WriteINGWell
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#User:WriteINGWell
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Escalation_from_WP:WQA_-_serial_copyright_image_violations

After a hiatus, WriteINGWell is back at it, uploading a very nice but clearly unfree image with no source information, no license, and no fair use tags. His/her edits are not bad, per se, but it seems the wake-up call had no effect. -- Powers ^T 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame, but I feel we've got little choice at this point other than to block indefinitely. I've done so, and would suggest that any unblock request needs to demonstrate that they clearly understand why copyvios are so problematic. EyeSerene^talk 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please delete this

02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What for? There is nothing wrong with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see

WP:BLP, our policy on biographies of living persons. All information needs to be referenced. This isn't. Nor, indeed, are any of these people notable for anything other than being arrested--hundreds of thousands of people are arrested every day, many at political protests. → ROUX ₪

 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally do CSD, but since this is a bit necessary I went ahead and deleted it. Sorry if I have messed up anywhere. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was (deleted now) a clear copy of this file from this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. Nothing but a recreation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah but this one is sortable, and includes the additional arrests not in that article. I am not suggesting creating an article about them. In fact I don't even care what their names are other than, if I can, to identify duplicate arrests. There are three of them, which is not obvious unless the list is sorted. I am more interested in the times and locations where they were arrested, which is why I sorted the list. The fact that I am interested in sorting it proves that someone else is going to be interested in the same information. I understand that there are other places this can be posted, but I see no reason for not making it available here. All of the information is referenced, which you would see if you took the time to look at the references. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There were two cites for one person, in an article talking about 192. Besides the fact that the article is inappropriate per

WP:BLP1E, this is hardly adequate for an article focusing entirely on a negative aspect of a bunch of living persons. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The two citations are because not all of the information was available in one place. One reference was for the time of the arrest, the other for the names etc. No where was I able to find the race of the two individuals. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now the editor has added the list to

03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block the copyright- and BLP-violating

editor? → ROUX ₪

 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given 2ndamendment links to the relevant policies and a final warning against reposting the list anywhere on Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might as well point out that giving someone such a heavy handed "final notice" is stifling to the development of Wikipedia and highly questionable behavior for an admin. Remind me not to vote for you. I see that 67 others agreed with me in your RFA. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The information was already deleted with a very clear explanation why. You then recreated it somewhere else, apparently in the belief that made it okay. It wasn't. Any editor may issue warnings to another who is engaging in disruptive behaviour. That's how it works here. My RFA has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and it was a cheap and nasty little shot. → ROUX ₪ 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't link to it, I'm just saying that it is hard enough to find people who have the time to add to the encyclopedia, and why would I help at all with this kind of reception? 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reception was incredibly mild. And since you have been here for over 18 months, you should have some notion of how the place functions. Instead, you reposted information which had been deleted with a clear explanation why it was deleted--that is why you received a final warning, as it seemed likely you would simply repost it elsewhere when it was removed again. Beyond that, your nasty sniping is completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. I created something for my own use that I thought others would find helpful. I will leave it to others to make that assessment, as it has no affect on me. If anyone thinks the information should be added to the article, any admin can easily undelete the article. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line, as you have been told twice already: wikipedia is

not your webhost for personal projects. → ROUX ₪

 04:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly bottomed out. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That list has no business being on Wikipedia, but you're free to keep it on your own PC if you want. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please! I created it on my own computer, and for my own personal use. I realized, however that many others would be just as interested in the information as I and therefor added it to the article, and my sole reason for adding it was to save them the trouble of duplicating the work that I had done. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless a celebrity was among those arrested, no arrestees' names belong on wikipedia. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not People's Magazine online! Being a celebrity has nothing to do with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Being notable has a lot to do with it. Unless an arrestee is notable, e.g. if they're a celebrity showing up at a demonstration, then we don't put their names here. Being arrested there does not confer notability upon them. It is not wikipedia's place to allow users to build "hit lists" of ordinary citizens. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right - and people are also innocent until proven guilty. However, listing their names is pretty sad because they are otherwise non-interesting - see

) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The G20 protests are encyclopedic and should be covered in Wikipedia, due to the notability established by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This is not to say that directory-type listings of every arrestee are encyclopedic, because directory listings are contrary to

WP:NOT. Innovative "law enforcement" techniques of arresting someone for "tweeting" about the locations and movements of police officers got coverage] in the Post Gazette and on CNN and should be included somewhere. It was also covered by AFP. Communication via cellphone or Twitter now can make one an "enemy of the state." CNN said "They were charged with hindering apprehension, criminal use of a communication facility and possessing criminal instruments." The ACLU protested the arrests. Newspapers reported their reporters and innocent bystanders swept up and arrested. The Philadelphia Inquirer said "For G-20, Pittsburgh became a police state. Massive force routed cherished constitutional values." See also a law school journal which called it "a police state." There should be an encyclopedic summary of the number of arrestees and the way they were arrested, based on the numerous reliable sources. Edison (talk

) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And that would be appropriate for the G20 article itself. The overall notability of the arrests is still in question. It's still a bit

soon to declare that this has any lasting impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue is

2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit#Protests. The coverage of the security measures and arrests can be expanded there. It represented the first use against U.S. civilians of a "sound cannon" designed to deafen with 150 db high frequency sound, and previously used to repel pirates, as well as the first prosecution for Twittering. If the protest section becomes too large in proportion to the article, and if it has enduring effects, it could eventually be spun off. Edison (talk

) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dreams from my Father

WP:WEIGHT

concerns.

I won't describe the content beyond that because this report concerns edit warring, not content. Please note that this article is under Article probation, which should mean a low tolerance for edit warring and other tendentious behavior.

• Most recent edit warring:[57][58] - only at 2RR, but this comes after a "final warning" a couple weeks ago[59] (where he violated 3RR), and a follow up warning I gave a short while ago that I would report him if he continued.[60][61]

• Edit warring from two weeks ago:[62][63][64]

• Older edit warring on the subject[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74]

• Notices of Obama article probation[75][76][77]

• Prior AN/I report I filed here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please help enforce the Obama article probation here? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's replies are laced with editor commentary such as saying responses sound like "shilling for the Whitehouse"[78] accomplish nothing but add drama. Reverting[79] the allegation that Obama has basically lied about who wrote his autobiography into the lead paragraph, while claiming consensus that clearly does not exist, is disruptive. Plenty of responses have been provided in discussing the matter, but Kauffner's behavior in the face of the good faith desire of others to discuss the content issues that he is advocating makes the discussion battle-like unnecessarily. --guyzero | talk 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This material I added is sourced to recently published book,

) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with content objections on the talk page. I bring this here now as a last resort because talk page discussion and repeated warnings have brought no end to edit warring on an Obama article. That the material is poorly sourced / unourced, fringe, SYNTH, BLP-vio, etc., only frames the issue. Can we please get some help? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a brand new

WP:SPA, Here4now2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only edits to date are edit warring this content and crying censorship on the article talk page. Pending administrative action (which I hope we can get soon), correct me if I'm wrong but I trust it is okay to revert this as a BLP violation. I've brought it here quickly to avoid a revert war, but we really can't let this kind of content stand in the encyclopedia, it's pretty embarrassing to the project. Wikidemon (talk

) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a clear throwaway account. I don't know specifically if that text reverted was unique to one editor or if it has just been repeated across a few different guys, so I don't want to air speculation as to the master account. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The sock's odd writing style seems familiar but I can't place it, there have been so many Obama article socks. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor is at it yet again.[83] Please, admins, tell me it is okay to edit war on Obama articles and I'll handle this one myself. Or tell me it is not okay, and deal with the disruption. I'll give it an hour or so but if nobody will handle this I'll just start reverting the editor. Either way Wikipedia shouldn't be the mouthpiece for fringe anti-Obama nonsense. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, just chillax. It's been reverted. It's obviously not ok to edit war, but we don't live in a world of Manichean distinctions. I'm not about to block someone who seems to otherwise be a productive editor over this nonsense. If they continue to disrupt the page I'll either protect it or block them, but at this point they appear to be moving through the editing process. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition, and explained my reasons on the article talk page. Wikidemon, thanks for raising the issue, but threats to edit-war are not really productive. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what is productive? The editor has spent a year edit warring this issue. It's not a threat as such. Either we have an administrative mechanism to handle long-term edit warring or we don't. If we do, it should be applied. I personally avoid edit warring and try to use the forums and procedures available. But if that's not the right standard I should edit aggressively in turn. I was just giving notice in case nobody did anything and I had to revert. As I said, we should not let fringe nonsense remain in high profile articles. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be learning the wrong lesson from this. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So admins are willing to help with the Obama articles? Sign me up for those lessons! (incidentally, edit warring still continues - the latest spree now at 4 reverts[84][85][86][87] in 48 hours) Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent non-minor "minor" edits

A heads up that SF1SHER07 (talk · contribs) is again marking non-minor edits as minor (two of his five today are errantly tagged as such). Seems it's a lot of, "Oh, I can't hear you." I previously brought a heads-up about here, but the matter was archived without any follow-up action. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 72 hours, with no prejudice towards unblocking if concerns are addressed. We need a response.

Tan | 39

15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on his talk-page to see if he engages. Much obliged. --EEMIV (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Schoolblock needed

Resolved

 – Renewed the year schoolblock. –xeno^talk 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

194.83.16.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing frequently enough that the talk page is a wall of final warnings. No useful contributions that I can find.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Backlog

Resolved

AIV has an almost 2 hour backlog. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP Violation, unfounded allegation, presented ref does not support claim

This edit[88] contains an unsupported claim - not found in the ref - which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim.

Further: The editor has plagerized this text[89], word for word, as well as these edits[90][91], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's[92] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. Full Wiki talk page section is here:[93] Editor has been notified.[94]...-99.142.5.86 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aldbourne's pro-statutory rape comments on their Talk page are rather disturbing, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be good enough to refer to the comment I have just posted on my talk page. It should clarify matters.

talk

) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted reply to user's Talk page. I suggest against reposting comments from another forum, as there's little chance the user can prove they wrote the text and satisfy copyright claims. Further, the IP is correct in pointing out that Talk pages are not a forum, so personal speculation (especially about a sensitive BLP matter) is off-topic and can be removed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above does not address the disgusting comment, by you, that do you all prefer to get on your moral high horses and bay for the man's blood while ignoring the possibility that he may be guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex once with a 13-year-old girl who by her own admission was already sexually experienced but by Californian law was under age?. Sounds like you are in favor of statutory rape. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At my wits end

I previously brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Problem edits on three different IP ranges last month.

For the past half year I have been dealing with a user who continually adds

WP:AIV

.

I'm not going to bother listing all of the IPs. Just go to

User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Color/species vandal

and take a look. The most recent are on top.

Even after I requested that several of the articles be semi-protected for months on end, this user just finds unprotected articles to add the garbage to. I need a more permanent solution.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What about an edit filter disallowing these three ranges to edit any page which has 'power ranger' (and some other terms) in the title/category/article body? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think something like that was technically possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"IP_in_range" is one of the features of the edit filter. Is there a common feature of the titles of the pages, or a common category they all belong to? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

About 95% have "Power Rangers" in the title. Outliers are the classical elements page above, probably the

Shinkengers which he hit in the past (until an edit notice was implimented).—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 07:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/252. At the moment, it's only looking for the Power Rangers vandalism, and it's in log only mode to see how well it works. It may be tweaked in the future. It could also be inactivated if it's not catching much. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Block + block up review

After some confusion of an outing which apparently was not an outing (in which I deleted and undeleted revisions of Talk:Parapsychology, I noticed that the IP performing the 'outing' seems to be blocked Rodgarton (talk · contribs). After blocking the first IP (120.18.100.48 (talk · contribs)) for two weeks for block evasion, a second IP (120.16.90.253 (talk · contribs)) took over. I have subsequently blocked the second IP for two weeks as well, as well as that I upped Rodgarton's block of 2 weeks to one month. Please review my actions in this. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus 120.17.190.35 (talk · contribs). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Rodgarton, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#User:Nemonoman. He seems to be angling for a ban. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Four: 120.16.44.251 (talk · contribs) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved I guess, but the language crosses the line, I feel. (retarded, using intentionally incorrect gender, etc). Verbal chat 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

His harassment and seemingly unhinged personal attacks (now with an anti-semitic tint- classy!) are continuing via 120.16.239.63 (talk · contribs). See Talk:Parapsychology and User:Rodgarton. Thanks admins for attending to this. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra has now increased Rodgarton's block to indefinite for continued block evasion etc., which looks like a good idea to me in view of that latest IP's edits.  Sandstein  16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe my real name is fairly easy to find. I don't want it being connected with the nick I use here in websearches, though. Wikipedia is a drama magnet.

By the way, let me just mention I'm impressed at how incredibly little he knows about me. In one of his posts he calls me anti-evolution. I'm a biology major. And male. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, he thinks I'm a sock puppet of you. Do we even live in the same country? Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not even the same continent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sock puppets... my work IP is still blocked because of vandalism perpetrated by an employee who has since left the company. I can still edit using my account but it's sometimes inconvenient if I open more than one window and forget to log into the second. How would I request having my work IP unblocked? Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton and his IP Socks

WP:ANI

[95] [96] [97]

He is now breaking

WP:OUTING

with regards to Shoemakers Holliday through sock puppets and is claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Shoemakers Holliday in his edit summaries. Can we do something to block these IP socks?

120.18.100.48 - IP Sock [_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}]

120.16.239.63 - IP Sock [_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}]

10:26 - 8 October - block increased to 1 month [98]

120.16.239.63 - Continued IP Socking after block increase [_{diffs removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}] Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The account is now indef blocked, user and usertalkpage protected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that but need to do something about IP Socks as some edits not confined to userpage:

[_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}] Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but the IPs seem to be in several /16 ranges, and used by a lot of other users. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the above diffs for privacy. They are currently still in the history for anybody who would like to review the block. I have notified Shoemaker's Holiday of this discussion, and will leave it up to them whether to request oversight. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, it is probably time for a little

WP:DENY unless they decide to start contributing productively. - 2/0 (cont.

) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just keep it from the actual visible page, and it's fine. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bannination is correct in this case, at least until he shows he's going to accept consensus. I would be inclined to request oversight for any outing. Most people who go in for this kind of thing tire of the game of whack-a-mole after a while if we oversight the edits. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP Policy question at Mark Levin

I've recently taken on the role of "user conduct referee" at Mark Levin. As a result I don't want to get into content discussions (it just muddies the water).

However I got a policy question from an IP user there which deserves an answer, and I'd like another admin to handle it.

"Manning, if you have the time, I have a question regarding policy, and the enforcement thereof. The issue comes up with reference to the Mark Levin page, but would be applicable in a variety of instances. The WP:BLP calls for questionable content to be 'deleted immediately,without discussion'; and that reposting or reverting is allowed only after gaining a consensus. That is how I read it, but the opposite seems to be true on that page: disputed content is reposted immediately, and without regard for consensus. Am I misunderstanding the policy?"

Although there is a LOT of POV gaming going on at that page, the question still had merit and deserves an

WP:AGF answer. If one or more other admins would care to provide input, I'd appreciate it. Manning (talk

) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between disputed and questionable. The section being most edit warred over - the controversies and criticism section - is well sourced. BLP material to be deleted immediately and talked about afterwards is questionable or negative un or poorly sourced materials. Negative material with good sourcing needs some more depth of discussion - one cannot merely insist on whitewashing negative material that is well supported.

The question of how well supported those references are and whether they in total represent an unbalanced view of Levin is an open one - which needs deep review, and may end up removing them. But the current edit warring over them is not appropriate review or discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Racially biased posts

Hello. I'm having problems with IPs in articles

Afro-Brazilian. The IP is posting his personal theories about race and posting false sources that do not support their claims. He is also not following the guides of Wikipedia, and is posting entire texts of other people on the top of the article. Can anybody protect the pages or do something else about it? Opinoso (talk

) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the editor has created a new account Brasileiro1500 (talk · contribs) to continue the edit war. Both blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How are quotes from Sergio Pena "false sources"?

Rather, the article itself is a concoction of Opinoso's personal theories, complete with quoting Simon Schwartzamann as supporting a position that he is merely explaining to consequently criticise, stating the exactly opposite position! Ninguém (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor with questionable use of the Twinkle vandlism tool. Possible compromised account.

Recent edits by

talk

) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As Basket of Puppies has presumably gone to bed, I have taken the liberty of notifying the other user. Note, this is required. I observe that you have not made any attempt to discuss this with the user before coming here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to report abusive edits by this account when I found this existing complaint. I have reverted more recent edits by this editor which have used Twinkle to roll articles back to versions that were more than three months old. I don't see earlier abuse by this account. As suggested, the account looks like it may be compromised and these edits are not being done by the person who created the username.

talk

) 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to revert edits done by a specific IP user who was going through and inappropriately changing band genres...But I guess I took the wrong approach by mistake. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. rzrscm (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

request BLP related block

I'm requesting a three-month block of Urban XII (

Front national). This user has also been causing BLP problems at Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently, and appears to be trying to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX for his opposition to these public figures, rather than attempting to describe controversies from a NPOV. Physchim62 (talk)

11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From the warnings placed on my talk (some removed), reaction on their talk, and on the article talk page, I feel this issue will continue when page is unlocked, as the editor views the removal of their problematic edits (and even the fixing of their comments) as vandalism. I removed the material as I didn't feel the sources justified the editorial slant of the piece, and deferred then to

WP:BLPN. Verbal chat

11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have offered

dispute resolution on a related dispute at Roman Polanski: offer wasn't taken up. Physchim62 (talk)

12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The text added to Frédéric Mitterrand by Urban XII was sourced to today's Times and Daily Telegraph, and the same story is on the BBC News here - confessions in book, defence of Polanski, accusations of paedophilia, quote from Benoit Hamon - it's all in the sources. I am not defending the edit warring, but I don't see what is wrong with adding sourced material from a major news story. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The libellous section "In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand." is not sourced at all. Whether he decides to sue the Daily Telegraph and/or the The Times is up to him. The Front national, not usually the most discrete of French political parties, only accused him of "promoting sexual tourism". Urban XII has once again jumped on a bandwagon with his desire to see Wikipedia as a modern day witch hunt, but he's jumped far too far this time. Wikipedia needs to be protected from this type of editor while they cure themselves of their obsession concerning sex with minors, either real or imaginary. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference linked in the edit ([100]) appears to source clearly the section to which you refer, so I am not sure what you are getting at. I think it is false to claim that the edit was "highly libelous." Christopher Parham (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The text added and the emphasis added the the article was Urban's position on the story, it is a step too far to accuse the subject of peodofilia. This is seemingly a thread running through all of Urbans edits.

Off2riorob (talk

) 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where UrbanXII accuses Frédéric Mitterrand of anything - he simply reports a factual news story. UrbanXII's text said :"In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand". The BBC News link that I gave above says: "In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: "I got into the habit of paying for boys," saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing "the sordid details of this traffic" ... Mr Mitterrand, 62, has denied being a paedophile, saying the term "boys" was used loosely". Could change UrbanXII's sub-head from "Pedophilia controversy" to "Sex tourism controversy", but the rest seems well sourced to me ... unless maybe we are now saying that BBC News is not a reputable source ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The cite given is fairly clear. If you want to quibble over the definition of "young boys" (depending on how old Mitterand was at the time, 20 could be "young"), changing the heading to "sex tourism" seems like a reasonable change. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pedophilia controversy" referred to the broader controversy involving Polanski who is convicted of sexual intercourse with a child. It was not intended as an accusation against Mitterrand, but as a summary of the main topic of the controversy during the last couple of weeks. I don't have a problem with changing the heading. Every sentence in the section was based upon articles in The Times or The Daily Telegraph. Urban XII (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Urban XII seems to have a problem in general with BLP policy. He was edit warring contentious material into Roman Polanski until that page became protected at my request specifically for edit warring and BLP concerns. When I removed the disputed content, clearly citing the exact section of BLP policy in my edit summary, he reverted claiming a non-existent consensus (as if consensus overrides BLP policy anyway). I further clarified the relevance of BLP policy to his edit, but he chose to ignore it and continue to edit war BLPvio into the article. He then referred to my BLPvio warning as vandalism (didn't I see that he did the same to someone else, maybe two or three editors?). He just doesn't seem to understand that if everyone else holds a different view of policy than his own, his interpretation just might not be the more correct one. He also seems to think it's okay to encourage others to ignore policy. But that's just been my experience with this editor in the past few days. Other than that, he might make tons of fantastic edits. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case as well, the source appears to support the edit made by Urban, so I think the problem is the edit warring rather than the content itself. I would characterize your dispute as one in which sensitivity to the interests of a living person is an issue, but I don't believe BLP provides a particular mandate for either side given that the edit was factual and did not overly sensationalize the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in several other places, I agree that the initial edit was arguable, but rather than argue the case, Urban chose to simply edit war the contested material back into the article again and again without supporting it. That is where the clear violation of BLP policy occurred. So, I concur with your assessment, but I still see a clear BLP violation here, in the refusal to support his edits in a BLP light. It does not suffice to claim "consensus" over BLP policy, whether there is any such consensus or not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that reverting rather than taking it to the talk page was a problem, but I think that applies to both parties. I disagree that BLP bears meaningfully on the edits in question, so I do not believe your reversions were privileged in that sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who have used the talk page, where my version is supported by others. My main opponent has not defended his removal of content at the talk page in an adequate way. If anyone needs to be reported over this incident, it's him, not me. Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tons of fantastic edits"? I doubt it! First edit was 17 July 2009, but let's not let that confuse people, the vast bulk of his edits (all except three) are within the last month. Physchim62 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And nearly all have been devoted to shouting down other editors at Roman Polanski and the associated talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest blocking Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three months for disruption. Every sentence i added to Frederic Mitterrand was sourced and from either The Daily Telegraph or The Times, btw – if the Telegraph or Times articles "[go] far beyond what Mitterrand's political opponents are accusing him of", I can't help it (but it seems more likely to be another false claim by {vandal|Physchim62}}). The suggestion that The Times is part of some French right-wing concpiracy is, frankly, ridiculous. Please show us some evidence that the world press is wrong, then. This thread is another example of disruptive behaviour from Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Notorious edit-warrior Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who both started the Roman Polanski edit war and has been engaged in numerous other disruptive edit wars against half a a dozen other editors during the last week, should be blocked as well. The abuse of this page to attack an opponent is simply unacceptable. Urban XII (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, this discussion appears to be in retaliation for my support of a 24-hour block of Wilhelm meis for 3RR violation after one of his many edit wars recently (i was not involved in that edit war btw)[101]. Urban XII (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal and a (notorious!) edit warrior doesn't make me one, and leveling false accusations against two established editors does not help your case. Your inability to Assume Good Faith is showing through again. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To an outside observer, you do seem to be here solely to Right Great Wrongs. Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Urban XII (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A quite unhelpful suggestion. On the other hand, note how this subject is dealt with in a fairly balanced way in the corresponding french wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not block for posting the "inconvenient". BLP is crystal clear on the subject:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: the same users who attack me here have now spammed at least 2 or 3 other pages with identical false accusations which have already been refuted at this page. Clearly, when they don't have it their way here, they try elsewhere. Such disruption is simply not acceptable at Wikipedia. I'm really not inclined to repeat the same discussion over and over again. Urban XII (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've raised a separate issue asking for this editor to be given advice by a neutral party over at

WP:DR. This has to do with unfounded accusations of vandalism directed at me, and possibly other editors. Verbal chat

16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the user who started this discussion (User:Physchim62) who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me by using the vandal template on several talk pages when referring to me despite being told not to do so, which may have provoked me when dealing with him and his associates. He also spammed a different page with false accusations (the same as here) as part of his disruptive vendetta. Urban XII (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious when you look at the edits made by

talk

) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL.

User:DD2K, who has made 42 edits, who has never contributed with any content to Wikipedia, and who has already been previously banned, attacks me, when it is User:DD2K who is clearly using Wikipedia as a soapbox ("There is no debate"). This account has so far only been involved in disruptive and excessive edit-warring (including at Larry C. Johnson) which already led to him being blocked infinitely once because "User has stated that they will continue to violate WP:BLP despite warnings"[102]. Maybe it was not a good idea to unblock User:DD2K? Urban XII (talk

) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Can anyone tell me why Admin

Law's talk page is being redirected to another user's talk page? The strange thing is: There is a file for deletion on the page with Law sitting on a couch in the picture. Ponderous? 70.177.189.205 (talk

) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they're the same guy. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see

WP:AC/N. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!}

) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hounding/Gaming by admin SarekOfVulcan

Resolved

 – another Plaxico moment in time

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

I have been in conflict with Admin

WP:BATTLE

. The following is a list of evidence from this month only.

1. Never edited Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me twice after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
2. Never edited Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me once after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
3. Never edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:KoshVorlon (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) until I edited them. Downplayed my comment[104].
4. Never edited File:Tubefilter.png but rolled back my first legitimate edit to it.[105]
5. Never edited User_talk:Milowent but got involved when this user attacked me[106][107]
6. Never edited
   full protection
   would have been far more appropriate. Note this is not a dispute of my block.
7. Full list of the same pages edited here to see the full extent of it.

I honestly couldn't care less if users follow my edits to fix up articles I tag with problems and get involved with discussions I'm in. And can accept that users with similar interest in articles will unavoidably end up editing the same pages and get in to disagreements. But when it becomes this persistent and the editor is clearly only doing it to cause an annoyance and is doing it across articles, deletion discussions, essays and user talk pages, it gets to the point where it clearly violates

WP:HOUND

.

He even decided to gloat about it when I was blocked because of him ""loldom", "your first revert on the article BZZZZZT! But thank you for playing". The fact this user is an admin means they should have some basic knowledge on how to defuse a conflict, not continously fuel it by harrasing and trolling the user in which they are in a conflict with, which makes this all the more shameful.--

Otterathome (talk

) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying an admin should not get involved in trying to resolve an edit war unless they've edited the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified SarekOfVulcan of this thread? That is usually the desired courtesy when you post something like this. —

 ? 

18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been following my edits for weeks, I don't see any reason why he would suddenly stop now. So no.--

Otterathome (talk

) 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. When you list a complain at AN/I you are must notify all relevant parties. This is written in bold letters at the top of this page. Manning (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gloat" is not the word I'd use. The text of the "loldom" diff above is 'I am mightily amused at the concept that you reverted 5 times because I was "monitoring" you', and the "BZZZT" links to a list of my contributions on that page, showing that the revert he claimed was my first was not. Re "downplaying" -- he claimed that the discussion had been "stinted" for 3 days, and the AfD should run an extra 2, even though the AfD had only been improperly closed for less than a day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed about half of the listed items.

(1) You claim Sarek "accidentally violated the admin policy" and you called him out. I see no evidence of that in your diff. You simply made a claim which was refuted by Admin Sandstein.

(2) You placed a CSD tag on File:Tubefilter.png. Sarek removed the CSD tag presumably because he disagreed with the basis (which also seemed fair enough). You then reverted this and wrote "no edit summary with rollback = abuse" in the ES. You seem to not be aware that one of the jobs of admins is to deal with CSD tags, and we are not actually required to have edited an article before making an admin decision. While ES's are always preferred, failing to provide one is not "abuse".

(3) As administrators we are REQUIRED to intervene in edit wars. Also it is preferred that we intervene in edit wars on articles we have not otherwise edited, so that we can remain "uninvolved".

(4) Re this diff and "only here for the conduct issues"... um, with respect - that's our job. Sarek was doing what admins are specifically tasked to do - ensure editors engage in proper conduct.

(5) Your comment of LOLdom has no basis. You were not blocked "beacuase of Sarek", you were blocked for 3RR violation. Unless Sarek held a gun to your head and forced you to press "submit" then that statement has no basis. Sarek was not mocking you, he was merely noting that your claim was unfounded.

In summary, so far I do not see any substance to this claim. Otter - you are for the most part a very good editor, but it is my observation you do not like being corrected and seem to take it very personally. So far a number of independent admins have reviewed a variety of the disputes you have with Sarek and all have sided with Sarek. This is not because we are "an evil band who always support each other" but because Sarek was basically correct in his enforcement of the rules.

Regardless, to keep you happy I will recommend that Sarek refrain from taking administrative action against you in the future. However if you persist in the same style of editing actions, and take the same level of offence when corrected, then I suspect you will be claiming further "admin hounding" in future, except with someone else. Manning (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are speaking about the edits individually, it doesn't matter who was in the right or wrong in any case, it doesn't explain the hounding. And I don't know what sandstein comment you are talking about.--

Otterathome (talk

) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Manning means Zoeydahling, not Sandstein. -- Atama頭 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks, Atama. Manning (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And to follow up, Manning is pointing out how the entire basis for your claim is unfounded by picking apart each of your claims. I'm sure you're aware that

WP:HOUND states, "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Manning has shown that each of the diffs you provided that are supposed to prove that Sarek was hounding you weren't done without an "overriding reason". -- Atama頭

19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, to put it another way, the user is following me around and simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance. All above points are debatable. And if you must know Sarek threatened to block me over deletion disputes, in which he

Otterathome (talk

) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sarek is "simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance". From where I stand he is simply doing his administrator's job. From a quick scan of his edit log, you are far from his only interest on Wikipedia. Ditto to your baseless claim of Sarek violating

WP:UNINVOLVED. I have offered to recommend to Sarek that he refrain from interacting with you. You are unlikely to obtain anything beyond that. It is starting to look like that you are simply badgering us in the hope of getting a result negative to Sarek, and as multiple admins have already pointed out, that is not likely. It is probably time to move along. Manning (talk

) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, the evidence above are all debatable cases. And I have shown an obvious motive for it.--

Otterathome (talk

) 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "obvious motive" is that you "called him out" on "violating admin policy". I hope you realize what a ridiculous and dangerous precedent you're trying to set. You're saying that because you participated in an administrator review (which Sarek of Vulcan initiated himself) that he can no longer take administrative action against you. It sounds like you're the one gaming the system. -- Atama頭 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining about administrative abuse, this is hounding/user conduct spurred by a previous disagreements over deletions of pages, see

Otterathome (talk

) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Otter - let me make this very clear. You made a complaint. The complaint has been dismissed as having no basis. An offer was made of a possible compromise, which you have thus far ignored. Now you are badgering us and repeating your accusations against an admin. This is disruption. So let me make this very clear - we have been very patient thus far, but any more disruptive behaviour on ANI is going to earn you a block. It's over - move along. Manning (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to show it has basis, so I don't know what you're talking about.--

Otterathome (talk

) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't get to decide the validity of your complaint. The admins who have reviewed this have decided your complaint has no basis. That's how ANI works. Now, due to your persistent refusal to let this go I am recommending that you be blocked for disruptive behaviour. I will let another admin decide if my recommendation has merit. Manning (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment saying my

Otterathome (talk

) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome. It has been made clear in this thread that there is nothing actionable here. You're refusal to drop the
   ? 
  20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not the the following the other user around.--

Otterathome (talk

) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is engaging in conduct which he maybe shouldn't be making, it isn't unreasonble to "follow him around". I've reverted vandalism by IPs and others multiple times by checking their edit histories after having one of their acts of vandalism appear on my watchlist. If anyone does find that there has been such multiple errors, it is reasonable to check to see if they are continued. I don't know how much vandalism I've reverted in such a way. You have given no proof to date of malicious intent, and, frankly, based on the evidence you have presented, there is no good reason to assume any. As such, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to drop this discussion now. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about vandalism, I have shown this user to disagree with me across multiple pages they have never edited before for a variety of debatable reasons and have given a clear motive for it.--

Otterathome (talk

) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with John Carter; for me, if I see someone is adding advertorial links, it's practically standard procedure for me to check up on their contributions for a while and see if they start doing it again; there have been multiple instances where I was able to find linkspam spreading across over 40 pages by doing this. This isn't limited to vandalism as you might claim; I've also done it for people who repeatedly add advertorial copy to articles, or add bad sources. The next time you persist in this discussion by accusing Sarek of stalking you and trying to start fights, I will block you for 24 hours for harassing him and persisting with this claim. Let it go.

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User is still continuing to hound me;

Otterathome (talk

) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're actively editing an AN/I thread about me, and you expect me not to see what else you're up to?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you continue to do the thing that you are accused of doing?--

Otterathome (talk

) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

points 4 paragraphs up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved administrator, I have to say that I don't see any fault Sarek's part. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked

Veinor ^{(talk to me)}

21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice ... Otter was all over these pages less than a month ago in one of the largest threads. His activity drew the attention of many an admin then - there should be no surprise that actions were taken, or that his edits were being watched. Bah. (

BWilkins ←track

) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Horrifically poorly handled matter and bad block

Discussing a problem in good faith on a noticeboard is not harassment. What an atrocious block. And Sarek cannot make statements like this one to an editor calling Otter a turd ":::Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it. And if you're any more explicit than the above, I'll need to block you. Yes, some of his edits are highly annoying, but that isn't license to attack him." and portray himself as an uninvolved and impartial admin.

The edits from Otter that I looked at were properly reverted, but Sarek actively siding with an editor making a vicious personal attack is inexcusable given the circumstances. He has no business stalking Otter's edits any further, and he isn't uninvolved. Sarek should have asked for other admin to help long ago. He excercised extraordinarily poor judgment, and it's unfortunate so many others in positions of authority are encouraging his behavior with an utter lack of empathy for a good faith editor feeling stalked and harassed. This is deeply troubling. Ched, how could you! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Keep it up and I'll block you" is siding with him???? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You also said: "Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it." And this is in response to Milo calling Otter a turd. You're taking sides. You're not acting with appropriate restraint or impartiality. Otter may well need assistance and supervision, but if he feels hounded and stlalked you need to listen. You're not the only admin so you should've asked for help in keeping an eye on the situation and tried to defuse it instead of aggravating it to this extent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*looks askance at the edit history* CoM, sorry, didn't mean to stomp on your edits there. Feel free to restore, I was only trying to adjust the heading level.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've been known to unintentionally remove comments all together somehow. I think it has to do with having multiple windows open, but I'm not sure... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM Seeing as how you address me specifically - I ask you to refactor your statement. I consider it highly offensive, smiley face or not. I reviewed what was going on here - looked at the users talk page, reviewed the users block log, and offered what I considered to be constructive advice. Disruption comes in many forms, one of which is continuing to engage in

 ? 

21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If someone perceives harassment an admin should have the good judgment and common sense and decency to try to resolve the situation in a collegial and collaborative fashion. That's not what happened here. We saw aggressive unilateral policing which has only exacerbated the problem. And that another admin blocked Otter for discussing the matter is disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, I'm often on Otter's side on Wikipedia, at least where the AfDs are concerned (and I know that much of the time controversy pops up about Otter it's about AfD). On a few occasions I was the only one siding with Otter to delete articles (where I still believe we were drowned out by a bunch of

WP:ILIKEIT votes from fans, but now I'm going off-topic). So please take what I say with that in mind, that if I have a bias at all it's pro-Otter. Having said that, Otter's "discussion" had basically devolved to repeating that he has shown that the hounding is true, without offering any more support than the original claims, repeating himself and not really responding to discussion from other editors. He even complained that someone actually addressed the diffs that he provided. It's pretty obvious that in this case he had no intention in having a real discussion. I see the current block merely as a way to get Otter to drop this issue and get on with his Wikilife. -- Atama頭

23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Only since my name came up, I will add a note. Yes, I called Otter a turd last week (long story, lets keep my comment to a reasonable length and not rehash it all -- but "turd" really isn't vicious though is it? Puerile? surely.), and I felt that Sarek's response to me was a true warning, done in the darn persuasive but civil tone that good admins do. I took a break, calmed down, apologized to Otter on the ANI he started on it, and life went on. Otter and I have been on the opposite side of a number of AfDs in the past few months, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing today. He did the same type of thing which ended up in his userpage being indefinitely protected and blanked a few months ago. I think the conclusion of Atama that the block is simply a way to get Otter to drop the issue seems about right.--Milowent (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight - as I handled the bulk of the complaint, I appear to be the target of your allegation of "Horrifically poorly handled matter". What precisely do you feel was "horrifically poorly handled"?

To recap: I do not know Sarek apart from seeing him/her on the admin noticeboards and occasionally seeing their name on the admin IRC channel, so I have no particular loyalty to that admin. In an earlier conflict between Otter and Sarek I actually defended Otter's conduct to some extent.

Regardless, no matter the circumstance I am quite capable of impartial review. I reviewed most of the edits and saw no improper admin behaviour. At least one other admin also assessed it as having no basis. Thus far no other admin has disagreed to my knowledge. Hence I advised Otter that no action would ensue and the matter was over. Otter then became persistent and as a result received numerous warnings (from multiple admins) to stop posting his allegations or a block for disruption would occur. These warnings were repeatedly ignored, and hence a block ensued.

As a result, I am interested in finding out what aspect of the above you regard as "horrifically poorly handled". I do not wish to infer that you regard any decision that you disagree with as "horrific", although I confess that it could be interpreted that way based on your comments above. Manning (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys told Otter not to comment more and to move on. He did. And Sarek stalked him to a new totally unrelated area of the encyclopedia and commented against Otter's position in a thread Otter started. It's totally inappropriate and totally unacceptable. If Sarek continues to bully and intimidate editors with his tools when he's involved in disputes with them he will find himself the subject of an Arbcom proceeding. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions on wikipedia, I have found, and frequently state their opinions as if they are the view of all Wikipedians, but that doesn't mean anyone will actually agree with them. Otter knew exactly what he was doing; I simply cannot believe he did not because he's quite an intelligent guy. Its like an episode of Law & Order where an attorney purposefully violates a judge's demand and gets thrown in jail for contempt, ostensibly to make some kind of point. Whether any point is made or not is debatable, but there's no question the attorney intentionally brought about the result intended.--Milowent (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{quote} "You guys told Otter not to comment more and to move on. He did."{/quote}. Sadly this is not the case. I believe there were four or five occasions when Otter was asked to move on and he steadfastly refused to do so. This is what led to his block. I reviewed the edits at Village Pump and I did not regard them as "stalking" either. Regardless I have requested Sarek to not interact with Otter in future and he has agreed, which is probably for the greater good. Manning (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's stalking AFTER the ANI discussion was resolved

Why did he follow Otter to a discussion that Otter initiated AFTER the above discussion was resolved in his favor[108] and Otter was advised to disengage? This seems highly abusive. The matter being discussed on that page had absolutely nothing to do with Sarek, it was about a template. It's a big encyclopedia and I would like to hear an explanation on why Sarek found it necessary to continue to pursue an editor working in good faith AFTER this ANI discussion was already resolved against Otter and he was told not to comment further? This looks like the worst kind of baiting, taunting and admin abuse. I'm shocked that a block followed Otter's pointing out Sarek's wildly inappropriate behavior and unnecessary provocation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a direct followup to his disruptive AfDs on which we had engaged before -- it encapsulates his arguments against Tubefilter and other similar pages. And I utterly reject that expressing an opinion ON THE VILLAGE BLOODY PUMP can constitute "admin abuse" when the poster is actively soliciting opinions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it's the same discussion. If every time an admin expresses an opinion on a topic s/he disqualifies hirself from further discussion, we're going to have to add a LOT more admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had engaged him before in an editing dispute you were not uninvolved and certainly shouldn't have been the one to monitor his editing. That's not how an admin should be handling a dispute. You need to disengage from Otter. If there's an issue, ask someone else to have a look and to keep an eye on the situation. I'm shocked, truly, that you would think your hounding and pursuit appropriate even after an ANI report accusing you of stalking and harassment. LEAVE HIM ALONE. Got it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4 admins said it wasn't

WP:HOUNDing, none said it was. Funny how you show up every time someone accuses me of wikistalking -- are you wikistalking me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're obviously not

WP:UNINVOLVED, and should therefore disengage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm thinking there's a really good chance I'm going to block someone if this discussion continues. There is no just cause for this discussion to continue, and I have to say that it would probably qualify as

WP:HARASS if it does. The matter is resolved, drop it. John Carter (talk

) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The matter is resolved if Sarek disengages from Otter as he should have done long ago. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As an outside party, I have to say that you're sounding like a petulant child, CoM, stomping his feet because he's not getting his way. Admins have made their decision here. Let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

← The editing over the last 24 hours of CoM (currently blocked for 12 hours by John Carter) has been extremely problematic and tendentious. He wrecked the namespace article Honey: his rearrangements added hopeless inaccuracies and absurd wikilinks to a shortened lede, which he essentially turned into a D-grade high school essay. I have restored the pre-CoM version (WMC already noticed a howler there). It's very hard to explain the extremely poor quality of his edits (it could be lack of sleep). Equally well he restored this recently deleted political article George W. Bush pretzel choking incident. What was he up to? He has in addition made several outspoken comments on arbitrators'/arbitration talk pages; FayssalF made an explicit comment about the nature of his contributions [109]. Mathsci (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What is he up to? Being disruptive, plainly. --217.44.187.212 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The above looks to be a harassment-only account, and obviously a sock since his first edit was to Wales' page. I turned him in to AIV, but someone else can do the honors here if they're of a mind to. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Thank you, User:Cirt. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner

As a followup to the recent concerns on this noticeboard regarding the article at Sarah Palin, it has become clear that Scribner (talk • contribs • logs) is not willing to work with others to resolve content conflicts, and has removed attempts at discussion from his user talk page. I had pressed for his unblock in hopes of resolving the issue with discussion and editing restrictions, but they did not seem to change anything other than to slow the speed of his actions in edit warring. I'm placing a warning on his talk page that any continuation of those editing tactics may result in a block, and I just wanted to post here because the issue had been here already. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, admin NuclearWarfare placed Scribner on a 0RR restriction on Sarah Palin earlier tonight, as a last resort before blocking him. The warning is here [110], although Scribner quickly removed it from his page (as is his right). Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly feel that my attempted contributions to the Palin article were in bad faith then by all means ban me from the article. I find it humorous that the article is being nested and protected from the simple fact that Palin didn't complete a first term as governor. All of this was started over the attempted inclusion of three words that were triple cited: "an incomplete term". Scribner (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It already says she resigned. Maybe it should read, "she resigned, had an incomplete term, left before the four years was up, and decided not to continue as Governor." That would clarify it for those who don't know what "resigned" means. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Resigned" was just added as a haggled, bartered down version of "incomplete term." Last week the article merely gave the years of service. Scribner (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, for weeks, the lede has included: "Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009..." Supported by consensus, no less. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute should be discussed on Talk:Sarah Palin, not here on ANI. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote we remove all references to resignation, list the dates in roman numerals and use tiny flags in place of periods. Scribner (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What color would the flags be?--Buster7 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed removal of rollback

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.

---

Heading changed by Jehochman ^Talk

I have been a longtime Wikipedia editor and a responsible rollback user since shortly after it was made available to non-administrators. [111] Yesterday, administrator Alison revoked rollback on my account. I had used the rollback in reverting ethnic boosterism of two editors on the John Vincent Atanasoff article. [112] [113] I won't lengthily defend these edits here—another place, another time—suffice it to say that when I made the reversions I had no doubt that I was expeditiously reverting edits made to intentionally compromise the encyclopedia in a case that had a long history and a well-established consensus position. Even so, once Alison issued me a warning not to use rollback in the way I had, I disengaged from the article and haven't edited it since then. Some time later, however, I did post a frustrated message of disagreement with Alison on my talk page. [114] It was then that Alison revoked the rollback, [115] after repeated threats on her part [116] [117] [118] but no escalation in edit activity on my part. By all other appearances, Alison is a dedicated and involved administrator, but I think she showed repeated bad judgment in this case, and the timing of the record makes it clear that the credential revoke was motivated by spite rather than by edits on my part. I attempted to resolve this with her privately, [119] but she stopped responding and asked that I take the dispute here. [120] Thanks for listening. Robert K S (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While I may not have done the same, I can see no glaring error of judgement in Alison's actions. Your use of rollback on that page was edit-warring, and violates

WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback should only be used for blatant vandalism and if there was contention, then the use was not appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk

) 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rollback is to be used for clearly unproductive edits. Vandalism is one type of clearly unproductive edit. This was not a content dispute, but I can appreciate that it might take some examining to understand why, as this is a case with a considerable history. As I noted, I'll defend the edits later, in a different space, arguendo. However, the fact that administrators are not even receptive to understanding why the edits were valid is what is chilling. My point here is that I was not dinged for the edits themselves. If that were the case, Alison would have revoked the rollback when the edits came to light. Alison revoked the rollback because I dared to pose disagreement with her on my talk page. Robert K S (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after being warned is pretty good reason for removal of rollback. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Moreschi (talk
  ) 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That link deals with tendentious editing after being warned. This was not the case here. I ceased editing the article. (Refer to my remarks above and below.) Robert K S (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with Alison's actions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I realise that. However, you did manage to prove that you didn't understand that your original actions were inappropriate, hence showing that you could be no longer trust with the tool, as there is/was no guarantee you wouldn't do it again. Pefectly logical. Moreschi (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The page

WP:RFPP (I've been watching the page after this request as well). Robert K S has been actively involved in this dispute. Considering that, I too agree this is a misuse of the rollback tool. In fact, Alison has been lenient enough to issue a warning before removing rollback, which I don't think many other admins would have done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of "pissing off" a long-term editor, I do have to agree that the use of rollback in this specific situation - what became an edit-war - was not appropriate. Absolute kudos to Alison for warning before taking it away: that was a great time to re-think it's use. It was not removed because of the arguement, it was removed because the continued (comment inserted) intent to use it that way(end of insert) (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sequence was not (1) I used rollback, (2) Alison warned, (3) I used rollback again, (4) Alison revoked. The sequence was, (1) I used rollback, (2) Alison warned, (3) I disengaged, (4) Alison revoked. Robert K S (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert's version of events outlined above are correct; those who say the permission was "removed because of continued use [after a warning]" need to reexamine the issue. That said, @Robert: do you understand why our policies prohibit the use of advanced permissions in a content dispute? Do you see that, regardless of the merit of your actual edit, it was advancing a content dispute? HiDrNick! 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dr Nick. Robert did not in fact continue to use Rollback after he was warned and Allison still removed the rollback rights seemingly because he disagreed with her interpretation of what was vandalism. He did not threaten to, nor continued to, use the tools to advance the content dispute beyond that. Here [121] Allison claims there were multiple examples of its misuse, but she fails to provide any diffs to back that up and instead insists that he take it up with other admins. Unless she provide the other instances where he misused the tools, it looks very much like she removed his rights in response to his disagreeing with her interpretation of what is vandalism.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with previous two editors. If there is no evidence that Robert continued to use the tool in error, then access should be granted, with the agreement that it will be used in accordance with policy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alison here. Rollback is typically easy-come, easy-go and I see no evidence that Robert K S acknowledged Alison's warning or indicated a willingness to proceed with caution. After a couple weeks, barring any further issues, I see nothing wrong with reinstating the rights. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a good call on Alison's part, as Robert appears – by his comments above – to still not understand why his edits certainly appeared to be driven by some sort of content dispute. The edit is not, to the casual observer, a 'clearly unproductive edit' deserving of reversion without further comment or edit summary. Looking at the article's talk page, Robert seems to have been in a very long-running dispute (nearly two years!) over the inclusion of this particular content and variations thereon. Further, the dispute was already before WP:RFPP.

Based on Robert's own comments, he wasn't prepared to accept that his misuse of rollback actually was misuse unless and until the bit was actually removed: "Just as a point of procedure, I've already said that I disagree with your assessment that my rollback use constituted abuse, and I'll ask that you refrain from making that judgment unless and until there is an administrative decision to strip me of rollback. If I engaged in abuse, then my rollback should have been removed." Alison didn't pull his bit until after Robert pretty much asked her to — and, more importantly, after he demonstrated that he clearly didn't understand what was wrong with his use of rollback in the first place. Until Robert demonstrates that understanding – something which he has failed to do here, as well, and which he suggests he will continue to fail to do in an extended argument in his userspace – there's absolutely no chance he should be given rollback. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, TenOfAllTrades' interpretation is based on a cursory review of the talk page record, and it's not an accurate portrayal of the circumstances; I'll address the allegations of rollback abuse in their own space. If Alison's whole action pattern is dependent solely on whether or not the rollbacks were an abuse, then that discussion can support this one. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the place for that discussion – if it absolutely must occur, and if there's anything important that's been left unsaid so far – is here. If you misused rollback, and perhaps significantly more importantly, if you don't understand how your use of rollback in this circumstance was misuse, then Alison was entirely correct to remove your rollback rights until such time as you demonstrate that you understand the correct way to use the tool. Everyone who has commented so far has observed that your use of the tool was inappropriate in this case. That you seem unwilling to take that on board is actually far more concern to us than the bare fact that you misused the tool a couple of times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line of a point being made here, IMO. No, this user didn't have the rights removed because they rollbacked inappropriately after a warning. The rights seem to have been removed because the user didn't think what he did was wrong, and showed every intention of using them again in the same manner if a similar situation arose. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the "assume good faith" of editing policy afforded the bad-faith actors in this scenario, and the "presume trouble" administrative policy afforded to someone with an overall exemplary editing record. Robert K S (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that when Robert made that statement where he seemed to be "asking for it", I don't think he understood that Alison had the ability to remove his rollback privilege. It sounds to me like he expected that some other authority would have removed it if he were truly in the wrong. He was certainly not challenging Alison to do it. At least that's my take. Even if he were making such a challenge, I think Alison acted emotionally in answering it the way she did. After issuing a warning, she should have waited to see if Robert continued to abuse rollback. His answer of not believing he was in the wrong might just have been pride talking, not necessarily a statement of intent. Equazcion (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• My suggestion is wait a month, don't edit war, and then go back to Alison and ask her to restore rollback. If she does not respond within a day or two, come to me with the same request and I will try to help you. I edited here for 2.5 years without rollback and managed to get by. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...sounds pretty much like the advice I gave when he challenged my comments on my talkpage. Logically, nobody needs to warn about the removal of rollback. Someone did, and it was argued - that showed that there was no longer an understanding of what the tool was to be used for. Granting rollback is a method of

BWilkins ←track

) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...inspired me an essay: Wikipedia:Editors have pride. Equazcion (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Much too often this is forgotten. HiDrNick! 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with most commentators above. The edits at issue were not the "blatantly unproductive edits", emphasis in original, that rollback is designed for, so removing the tool was correct. Jehochman's advice on how to proceed is also sound.  Sandstein  16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits I reverted using rollback were blatantly unproductive. They were edits that reverted a long-stable consensus position by a editors whose aim is to bias the article toward ethnic propaganda, and who had already been reverted by others (not just me) in a 24-hour period, after a near two-year quiescence. These weren't innocent AGF actions. These guys know what they're doing and they're open about it. Nor was this interaction an edit war. This was one user reverting vandalism. I'll present all the facts off-thread. Thanks, all. Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"reverting ethnic boosterism" is a content dispute, not vandalism. You should have used a normal revert process instead of rollback. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. I'm not the only one who thinks so, [122] though I don't think "style dispute" is quite the right term for it either. I agree it's not what is traditionally thought of as vandalism, or what I call "juvenile vandalism", which probably accounts for the disconnect between myself and all the other weighers-in here. It's a more stealth and insidious form of vandalism; it's an intentional corruption of encyclopedic content that is against the guideline which specifically addresses the problem. These guys showed up two years later to install the edits again, despite the consensus against them, and despite the guideline and all of the facts. This isn't a "well, we disagree" issue. Robert K S (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's anything other than random blanking, random gibberish, or idiotic "Hi, Mom!" kind of stuff, you should use a normal revert rather than the rollback. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I basically disagree with this assessment, but I'll cover that in depth later. What you just said isn't rooted in policy as it's currently framed. It may be rooted in a community interpretation. Robert K S (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"...blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." That's what it says, and squares with what I described above. The stuff you rolled back does not fall under that umbrella. Content you don't happen to agree with does not qualify. You say you don't agree. Well, to be blunt, until you do agree, you won't get your rollback back, because you abused the privilege. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying, and I disagree the interpretation you present. It's inconsistent with what is written, and in several ways is logically flawed. Use of rollback, like any edit, ultimately resolves to good judgment—not merely the ability to identify obscenities or all-caps edits, which I think bots have been (or could be) written to handle. Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm just getting on-line here, sorry about the delay! I revoked Robert K S' rollback rights as a result of his persistent misuse of rollback in areas in which he was already in dispute, and for reverting good-faith edits by other editors. Using rollback on an edit is the ultimate repudiation of another editor's work and should only be used in cases of blatant vandalism. After I repeatedly warned Robert K S about his repeated misuse of it, he let it be known - repeatedly - that not only that he did not see an issue with what he'd done, but that he fully intended to continue this behaviour. It was only then that I revoked his rollback bit. As others have pointed out above, it's just as easy to re-instate as revoke and I have no problem with its granting again once he is aware of its purpose and once he agrees to use it for blatant vandalism only and never in a content dispute. Furthermore, I note that he has repeatedly misused it in the past ^12345678910 and had been warned by User:RJaguar3 (another rollbacker) for doing so. The message is still on his talk page, yet he chose to ignore it and not address the message at all. It's clear that misuse of rollback is not a new phenomenon to him. Furthermore, the ongoing dispute on the John Vincent Atanasoff article is delicate enough without User:Robert K S exacerbating the situation by using rollback inappropriately against an editor he's in clear conflict with - Alison ^❤ 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the kind of edit rollback is intended for: [123] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, the next step should be a well-placed "caution" note on the editor's talk page. I know it's a chore to do it, but it's essential in building the case against a persistent vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He's already been "cautioned". My approach depends on the situation. If he does it again, he gets warned. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S's comments indicate that he still doesn't understand what rollback should be used for. A rollbacker should be able to identify what is blatant vandalism and what is not. Anybody can get a pretty good idea on these things from

WP:ROLL. In a content dispute, one party will consider edits by the other party as unproductive. That's why there is a dispute in the first place. That does not allow them to label those edits as vandalism and use rollback, which will only escalate the situation. I don't think he should be using the rollback tool until these issues are resolved. Bzuk, I don't understand what you're talking about – we are not dealing with a vandal here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Bzuk is talking about the example I cited, which is real vandalism, since Robert does not seem to grasp the concept. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but are all of those uses of rollback? Only the first edit actually has the hotlink on Reverted, which is part of the automatic summary.Is there something else that tags those reversions as rollback? It seems his most recent edit also contains the hotlink. But none of the ones in the middle do. Is there anyway he could have simply entered those edit summaries?--

Crossmr (talk

) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the rollback MediaWiki markup has morphed and changed quite a bit over the last year or so - Alison ^❤ 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, remarks like "yet he chose to ignore it and not address the message at all" indicate the kind of assumption of bad faith and negligence of investigation you've put into your work since I first requested protection for the Atanasoff page. Robert K S (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Robert, what's stopping you from assuming good faith on the part of the editor(s) you reverted? You say they intended to deface the article by deliberately introducing content they knew to be false? What's your evidence of that? Making edits against consensus alone doesn't indicate vandalism, so there must be more. Equazcion (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, somebody's asked the right question. Thanks. The complete reply to this is going to take a while. Stay tuned. Robert K S (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to get your rollback back is not likely to work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear (as BB just stated), stating your case won't necessarily clear you, though it might help everyone at least sympathize. I think what everyone's not saying so far is that the vandalism has to be obvious even to onlookers, not just to those privy to the history of the situation. That might not be explained in the policy (or maybe it is, I haven't read it in a while), but that's just what the practice is. Equazcion (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, it has to be clearly vandalism to anyone looking at it. Hence the term "blatant". The example I cited was blatant vandalism, or what I call "stupid stuff". Looking at what he reverted, it is not at all obvious to me that there's anything wrong with it. In fact, if I saw just his reversion with explanaton, which deleted stuff, I might be inclined to conclude that Robert was the vandal - I might have reverted it the normal way, with an edit summary saying, "No reason given for deletion", or "Take this to the talk page." An edit summary could have cleared that up. But guess what - you can't do an edit summary when you rollback. Hence, rollback was not appropriate. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's silly in light of the edit history and the talk history. You're suggesting a memoryless system, and Wikipedia is quite the opposite of memoryless. It remembers everything. Robert K S (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not memory-less, and no one suggested otherwise. In a content dispute, article histories play a very important role. But they don't generally in the judgment of vandalism. You may disagree with that, but that's how it works here, and trying to get that to change might be futile -- at least in this venue. Perhaps starting a discussion at the policy talk page might be something to consider. Equazcion (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, prior to making that remark, I checked all your edits two weeks either side of your rollback misuse and User:RJaguar3's subsequent warning, and nowhere on-wiki did you either acknowledge their warning on your talk page, nor did you reply to it in any way. That in itself is pretty dismissive, and indicative of the problem here. Later on, it would become evident that the warning had no effect, as you went on to repeat misusing rollback. Anyone can review your edit history and draw their own conclusions - Alison ^❤ 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"nowhere on-wiki did you either acknowledge their warning on your talk page, nor did you reply to it in any way" Want to give it one more whack, Alison? Robert K S (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful, Robert. If you have information that refutes something Alison said, then present it, sans sarcasm. Discussions that deteriorate into drama tend to get closed here. Equazcion (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He needs to provide a diff supporting his snippy-worded claim that she overlooked something. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense Robert, but accusing Alison of "assumption of bad faith and negligence of investigation" is a bit rich considering the way you have acted. What you have to understand is that if you have to go into a lengthy and detailed analysis to prove that the edit was indeed vandalism, then it is not "blatant vandalism" and therefore not suitable for rollback. Plain and simple, it should be considered unproductive by anybody who sees it. The edit in question may not be appropriate, but that is part of the content dispute. Labeling it as vandalism and using rollback to revert it is a misuse of the rollback tool (as you would understand if you go through

WP:RBK) and can even be considered disruptive and edit warring. Anyway, I'd like to hear your promised explanation. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

05:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

She overlooked quite a bit, but it gets tiring playing tit for tat with an admin, someone who's supposed to have more patience and understanding than the average user. Please excuse me if I have the feeling that Alison "has it in for me", which is to say, she's happy to impugn me with a careless check of the record. If I keep arguing these little points I'll never get around to the big ones. I'm off to bed and I intend on spending at least through the weekend on RL. Cheers, guys, and thanks for listening. Robert K S (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert K S, I don't "have it in for you". Not at all. Seriously. In fact, I just spent hours going back and forth with User:Monshuai regarding his personal attacks on you (see here). If I have overlooked something, and it's certainly possible, then do point it out to me so I can address it and, if necessarily, apologize if I'm wrong in some way - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This can be closed then. This discussion will be archived anyway if no one replies during the weekend, and it wasn't exactly getting anywhere anyway. Robert can always request rollback again at a later date. Equazcion (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Close it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:04, 9 October 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.

Disruptive editing by User:Sincereofficial

Resolved. User blocked for 3 months for continually ignoring warnings

For quite some time now,

reliable sources and replacing it with deliberate misinformation, content that is unsourced or poorly sourced ([127], [128]) and seems to be using 157.130.223.166 (talk) for further disruptive edits outside of this article (see the history of superstar). This user has warned several times in the past and Sincereofficial refuses to change his/her behavior or even both discussing matters. I'm honestly tired of dealing with this user and need administrative action to take place. — ξ^xplicit

22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved topic down for more eyes to see. — ξ^xplicit 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving them a final warning, and also a recommendation to stop editing that page. While blocking would probably be easier, I feel that there's no harm in giving the user a last chance. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Will bring back here ASAP if user continues their behavior. — ξ^xplicit 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue watching for further activity, but that would be appreciated in case I have to leave to tend to real-life matters. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, we're on to image problems. Uploading unlicensed images, adding album covers to the article in violation of

WP:NFCC and the usual deliberate misinformation, even after a final warning. I think it's time for some action. — ξ^xplicit

03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked after the user outright ignored my final warning. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

I am posting here b/c

t

04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is best taken to

WP:AN3. However, I'll take a look at it here. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D}

04:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Kelly A. Siebecke

User:Regisfugit has been continuously undoing edits by the owner of the talk page, despite clear messages to stop doing so. See history. User threatens with bans and adds messages such as Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your continued postings on JoyDiamond's talk page are in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy but the user does not seem to have a clear understanding himself. Thanks! Netalarmtalk 06:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Regisfugit about the discussion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IP POV and falsification

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the IP of a banned user, most likely

talk · contribs) or Khampalak (talk · contribs). I have reverted his POV once (he is removing scholarly sources, for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is replacing them with un-scholastic and unreliable references), but now he has restored his POV. Could you please take a look at it. I have explained my reverts on the respective talkpages. Tajik (talk

) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuing his disruptive behavior. It is also very clear that he has no idea of the subject, but simply removes authoritative scholarly sources and replaces them with unreliable tertiary internet-sources. Tajik (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see here where 2 reliable sources are given (

Ghurids were Turks/Turkish so how is that POV? I'm not disruptive, take a look at Tajiks' blocking history which will amaze you.[129] Tajik claims Ghurids were Tajiks (refers to non-Turks) but NO WHERE is this supported.--119.73.5.39 (talk

) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Tajik is always involved in pushing Tajik/Iranian ethnic POV material in Wikipedia. He has to realize that Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica are not the only 2 sources available in this world. (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

This is classic Perso-Turkic flaming again, see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. Moreschi (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia merge discussion

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Alfred de Grazia. Is this discussion ready to close? If so, would someone care to do so? thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ?

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nurbandma may be a new sockpuppet of User:Hazaraboys and User:Hazaraboyz who is trying to evade his block. Admin help is needed. Tajik (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213

Resolved

 – My problem has been solved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This filter needs to be reactivated as the vandal it is meant to stop (see

User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Saban troll) has come back under the last IP he used: 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have also left a message on King of Hearts's talk page to request this same action.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

filter re-enabled --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make sure that it will still work, because the vandal appears to be changing some words he uses. I believe a certain string is blocked, but I am not sure if the string is affected by the following two diffs: [130] [131].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The filter wouldn't specifically catch those diffs, but he also wouldn't be making those minor changes to his rant if his initial edit had been blocked. The blocked phrase was in the initial edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris (yes, again)

The large-scale disruption and edit-warring caused by the Croatian nationalist account User:Imbris has been the topic of maybe a dozen AN/I reports alone [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140]. Almost every time the account is reported, intervention is promised but has so far failed to materialize. The user is WP:STALKing me and undoing my edits, this is why I'm so persistent in reporting him. I'm forced to constantly undo the disruption and risk getting blocked myself for repairing the damage.

The most attention this annoying matter has received was when

Maltese (dog), where he's engaged in another talkpage argument (take a gander at this

for example, one day after the warning about his talkpage "comments" had been issued).

In addition to

TALK

) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• 72 hours + revert parole. If this guy has nothing more productive to do than change "Serbo-Croat" to "Croato-Serbian"...oh please. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, imagine how it felt to write entire talkpages on such stupid issues because of this guy's edits and you'll get an idea about why I insist on bringing him to your attention. imho, a person that edit-wars for five months about "Serbo-Croat" and "Croato-Serbian" will not stop because of a 72-hour block. No way. His

TALK

) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but the revert parole will slow him down some, and if he violates that, as I'm sure he will, well, he gets his backside banninated pretty quickly. Believe me, I'd like to boot him out right now, but I'd have people moaning out me that indef was too much for a first block and there'd be the usual "Moreschi is crazy rouge" threads, with calls to desysop, yada yada yada, from people who have no idea what it's like to have been doing ARBMAC and other nationalist-related work for nigh on 2 years now. Best start off with this. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly the kind of thing a crazy rogue would say... -- Atama頭 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Direktor isn't exactly pure here; there's been at least one instance where you've provoked Imbris. Make sure you don't do it again, OK? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exasperation with someone who's changing "Serbo-Croat" to "Croato-Serbian" is, I think, forgivable this once. On a different note, see the real meaning of crazy rouge. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re to MoP: I'm sorry if I provoked him someplace, but I'm not a robot - how's a person supposed to keep his cool when this guy reveals my personal information, harasses me, and follows me around for the past sixty days reverting everything I do because he thinks I'm "anti-Croatian"? All this with little or no admin attention? And anyway, the guy seemed to be doing just fine the last six months or so without my provocation.

Re to Moreschi: Heh those so-called civilized people with their "punctuality" and "personal hygiene", sipping champagne all cozy-like in their "civilized countries", they have no idea how it is down in the trenches. :P He's pretty smart, he'll probably start bothering people on all levels of

TALK

) 23:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris is getting really too disruptive lately. His invite on Croatian Wikipedia to recruit helpers that would help him "expose" the alleged sock-puppet of DIREKTOR (and also here, in a completely unrelated discussion) shows that he is much more obsessed of getting rid of certain individuals that he finds himself in dispute with, rather than being focused on the dispute itself. The discussion on Hey Slavs talkpage was more or less waste of time, running in circles all the way, reiterating the same arguments and "arguments" ad nauseam. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue

Resolved. Legal-Threat Man, Legal-Threat Man, does whatever...um...a Legal Threat can. Or something. HalfShadow (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It concerns User talk:Esoteriqa and article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Boys_Blue we are really sorry that you don't believe in facts which we, the official representatives of Mr. John McInerney are delivering. In such case Wikipedia will get aan official document from our lawyers and Mr. John McInerney himself and you will have two options - write the true history and keep true facts or delete article dedicated to Bad Boys Blue at all becaue at the moment when you're keeping it the way it is you're breaking the law and supporting imposters who never been real members of the group. And what's the most funny - you have even rewinded wrong birthdates and places of birth of former members and this also proves that you have no idea about Bad Boys Blue. Who do you think you are? You want Mr. John McInerney to call you himself? Allright, send your phone to [email protected] and you'll be told the truth by him. It's inadmissible that people like you are allowed to edit articles concerning things you have no idea about. We're reporting it to Wikipedia crew as well as we've said it's the highest time to correct gossip stories and fake facts. Beyond dispute you constantly perver the real history and facts and how can you dare to call our edits a vandalismact? You wanna official documents, you'll get 'em from our lawyers, from Mr. John McInerney himself as well as from our labels - Coconut Music and Modern Romantics Productions. We have the right to deliver the truth, not pure lies like you're constantly doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BADBOYS BLUE (talk • contribs)

Oh my...The talk about lawyers really striked me as coming dangerously close to

WP:NLT. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies

20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal-threat sense...tingling... HalfShadow (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the user has just been indef blocked for legal threats. Basket of Puppies 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. I'm leaving for work, so someone else may want to check into this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will place the user's talk page on my watchlist and check for any unblock request or if they retract the legal threat. If I see it then I will try to transclude the message here for admin action (such as unblock, etc). Basket of Puppies 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Puppies, that would be much appreciated. I'm watching the page purely for the entertainment value (who'd have known that lawyers are so hip these days). Who wants to bet that we'll see a round of IP vandals on the Bad Boys Blue page next? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Undoing legal threats now being posted on user's page. It's so cute when they get angry... HalfShadow (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  No taunting the newbies, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Oh darn. If I can't at least poke fun at the lawyers, why did I even get out of bed today? HalfShadow (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia was in the business of making known

verifiability. MuZemike

21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought we couldn't handle the truth? HalfShadow (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked with talk disabled, as they failed to take the hint. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

we see you trollin' No way a Lawyer has that bad of spelling and grammar.--

^Speak.

21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if certain examples are anything to go by, a fair number of them appear to be psychotic... HalfShadow (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it inadmissable. --Smashville^talk 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no way in hell the paragraph above was written by a lawyer. More likely it is a PR person, someone from a record company or some such person. That said, has anyone given them Mike Godwin's contact info? Seems like that would be the quickest resolution to this.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone but me find it hilarious that your law guy is named 'Godwin'? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hilarious how? Have you read Mike Godwin? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh he is that Godwin? HalfShadow (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes. Mike, and his infamous sense of humor, get around. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I did find it hilarious that the blocked account claimed Wikipedia is promoting "codswallop". I've never heard that term before but now I will use it at every possible opportunity.
    <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk
    ) 22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I thought we walloped people with trout. HalfShadow (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The most widely propounded (albeit without evidence) etymology for "codswallop" has nothing whatsoever to do either with fish or even with hitting people. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: the above mentioned poster who is throwing legal threats to the left and to the right is merely a webmaster from Poland who runs badboysblue.eu website (his name is available upon request). Apparently, the formation that he is paid to represent may have achieved some sort of a legal action which prevented the other contenders to stop their respective activities, presumably, under the laws of Russian Federation (sic) - something I reflected in my newest revision. My edits clearly stated that the article needed further revisions, and all I did was to remove some of the no longer appropriate name referrals/links - that's all, but I do have a problem when some paid characters decide to rewrite the history retroactively as they wish, while throwing vicious insults and threats as if Wikipedia is some kind of an ethnic bazaar. Esoteriqa (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Wikipedia is not subject to Russian law or jurisprudence, but to the law of the United States (as the Foundation is headquartered in the US). I doubt that ruling will affect us in the least. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. The legal actions achieved by the above individuals bears no relevance to the wiki content: when I say it was reflected in my revision - all it means that I deleted the info about concurrent contender's aspirations, for there's no longer a contest for the brand name - that's all. That's why I think that the article should be returned to the form it's been in prior to October 6, after which many NPOV-violating alterations were made, full of vile epithets, provided there will be more appropriate revisions reflecting the current state of the group - without rewriting the history per se. But just to reiterate my point: I absolutely do not support the form of the article it is presently in. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In Russia, info always deletes YOU! MuZemike 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know a discussion is over when people start invoking

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good! It is even possible that there will be an internet meme entitled Multi-Xfer-ism started, just as soon as someone works out how to pronounce it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IP POV and falsification

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the IP of a banned user, most likely

talk · contribs) or Khampalak (talk · contribs). I have reverted his POV once (he is removing scholarly sources, for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is replacing them with un-scholastic and unreliable references), but now he has restored his POV. Could you please take a look at it. I have explained my reverts on the respective talkpages. Tajik (talk

) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuing his disruptive behavior. It is also very clear that he has no idea of the subject, but simply removes authoritative scholarly sources and replaces them with unreliable tertiary internet-sources. Tajik (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see here where 2 reliable sources are given (

Ghurids were Turks/Turkish so how is that POV? I'm not disruptive, take a look at Tajiks' blocking history which will amaze you.[151] Tajik claims Ghurids were Tajiks (refers to non-Turks) but NO WHERE is this supported.--119.73.5.39 (talk

) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Tajik is always involved in pushing Tajik/Iranian ethnic POV material in Wikipedia. He has to realize that Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica are not the only 2 sources available in this world. (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

This is classic Perso-Turkic flaming again, see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. Moreschi (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia merge discussion

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Alfred de Grazia. Is this discussion ready to close? If so, would someone care to do so? thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ?

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nurbandma may be a new sockpuppet of User:Hazaraboys and User:Hazaraboyz who is trying to evade his block. Admin help is needed. Tajik (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213

Resolved

 – My problem has been solved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from

barbarian 

10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This filter needs to be reactivated as the vandal it is meant to stop (see

User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Saban troll) has come back under the last IP he used: 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have also left a message on King of Hearts's talk page to request this same action.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

filter re-enabled --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make sure that it will still work, because the vandal appears to be changing some words he uses. I believe a certain string is blocked, but I am not sure if the string is affected by the following two diffs: [152] [153].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The filter wouldn't specifically catch those diffs, but he also wouldn't be making those minor changes to his rant if his initial edit had been blocked. The blocked phrase was in the initial edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at userpage

Resolved

 – Protected, Zacbb blocked, stupid edits

boldly deleted. Wknight94 ^talk

13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Expert

10:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Zacbb just created a page that is the link to the vandalizing message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

cp you can rfpp this page or if the user is active notify him of the attempts to vandalisd his page NotedGrant Talk 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins take a look at this... (imported from

WP:BLP/N

)

Resolved

 – If needed, any further issues will be dealt with at the BLP and edit warring noticeboards

I am importing this from WP:BLP/N as I think it should be looked at. An experienced admin might want to give editor

WP:SPA

race-based-trollishness.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton

Would somebody, or several somebodies, review the recent blanking by Needpics (talk · contribs)? They've taken out huge portions claiming the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I just looked at that, somebody versed in BLP policy really needs to step in there. Editor is one by one removing every source saying the sources "aren't notable" (which I guess he thinks implies they aren't reliable?). He's going a little hog wild....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Looking at the user's contribs, an admin might want to look into this; it appears to be a single purpose account for highly trollish-tendentious editing of anything to do with race. User has already blown

WP:3RR

with respect to one today, and otherwise just looks to be not acting in good faith.

Knowing nothing of the subject, some of those edits look sound to me. What are we doing with this sentence in the thing anyway :

VDARE's Steve Sailer refers to it as "Rushton's Rule of Three" ^{[citation needed]}saying that Rushton's comparisons are more informative than many traditional comparisons because they analyze characteristics across three races instead of two. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has described VDARE as a hate group. (cite from Southern Poverty Law Center) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be an agenda at work, but that article was a BLP mess before. (More work on the article might be needed though to ensure that it stays

proper weight to ideas. --Bfigura ^(talk

) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can just see it being a BLP nightmare from the stuff this editor has removed. This is one where insisting on ultra high quality sources does not seem unreasonable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I moved it here was after I looked at the other edits in combination with the ones on this article. Take a look at them, for example the hierarchical additions of pictures to the race/intelligence page and then prompt edit warring (with clear knowledge of Wikipolicies; threatening WP:3RR on someone, though it's a "new" account). While I have no particular opinion on the BLP "content" issue above, I thought the situation as a whole might be of interest (I thought he might be a returning "pattern-vandal" that the admins had previous experience with).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article quotes the SPLC talking about VDARE. but most of the rest of the material is well sourced. Several of the items removed by Needpics are sourced to books published by university presses. In other words, "ultra high quality sources". As I wrote on the BLPN board, there is a possibility that Needpics is Ruston, so we should avoid making any derisive remarks. However I don't see what this is doing on ANI. It can be handled through BLPN and the edit warring noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of these edits is that this editor supports the controversial minority theories of Rushton and

Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#Criticism (part of which I added a while back) and - surprise, surprise - Needpics has recently been edting this article. This type of editing pattern has been seen before. User:MoritzB, User:Fourdee and User:Jagzwere all contributors to Race and intelligence and were subsequently banned from wikipedia, either by Jimbo or the community. Mathsci (talk

) 08:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The views of Rushton, and to a lesser extent Lynn, are controversial and non-mainstream. For example, the only mentions of Ruston in the regular press in 2009 report protests (by both students and faculty) of an invitation to speak on race and evolution at a WV university' "DarwinFest" conference. That doesn't mean we should censor Rushton, but we should neither give his views excess weight nor hide the considerable criticism that his methods and conclusions have generated. Editors who've promoted those views have tended to be troublesome SPAs.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There are large numbers of the more ... conservative ... side of the spectrum which would love nothing more than to have SPLC declared not a reliable source. This is not the first time. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 166.205.130.250

Please, check contribs. Herta Müller is listed under current events (it was announced yesterday, she will receive the 2009 Nobel Prize for literature). Such versions, especially when repeated 4 times (!) and signed "Rush was here" are not helpful at all. How many needed to issue a block? Dc76\^talk 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now noticed, a 48-hour block was issued after the 4th. I stand behind the admin who issued it. Consider the issue solved, pls. Dc76\^talk 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NW blocked the IP just as I was about to report it to

WP:AIV, after it vandalized this very board![154] -- Atama頭

16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA not the right method?

I filed this WQA here: [155], and it was just closed. I asked for outside help on my talk page of admins, and got some responses saying that the matter was being looked into. It looks like despite all of the evidence I gathered, and the many agreements of other users that there was inappropriate behavior going on, nothing will happen. If this was an oversight, and there really are some concerned admins out there, I ask that they do something about this, as I'm going to leave wikipedia due to disillusionment (by lack of concern for the actions here), as well as fears of further attempts at

WP:OUTING. If nothing is done, that will stand also as a reflection on wikipedia's irregular enforcement/practice of it's own policies. I have put enough effort into trying to help improve wikipedia, and its perception by newcomers, but after this, it seems like it really may be all in vain. Thanks. Luminifer (talk

) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with you, honestly I do, please remember that we're all volunteers here. With real-life obligations. 99% of the work done here is done by everyday joes taking a few minutes off from their job, or their families, or their free time, to try to make this a better encyclopedia. Not all problems are handled correctly, unfortunately. When you have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", mistakes like this happen when your workforce is unpaid volunteers who can come and go as they please, do any job they feel like doing, and don't always necessarily feel like wading through a quagmire of evidence, diffs, and claims. That all said, try to look with a fresh eye. There are a million (plus!) articles you can edit, hundreds of new projects you can join, and countless tasks where you can essentially just leave all that in the past.

Tan | 39

02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Visiting your userpage, it seems you probably won't take the above advice very well - it will either come across as condescending, patronizing or simply bromidic, when it was intended to be good-natured. Tomorrow I will take ten or fifteen minutes to visit your problem and see if a solution can be made, maybe someone else will do it first.

Tan | 39

02:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I would disagree there - but your statement _there_ certainly seemed condescending. Regardless, as I've said, I'm leaving wikipedia - I do not want to be stalked by this user any more. I still have hopes for wikipedia, but when I'm trying to educate people on how to use it, I get a lot of reactions about how new users are treated badly - I even cite published articles in my WQA about this very problem. I thought I would try and help stop this from happening - but either way, it's not worth my time nor risking my identity further, so I'm just throwing it out here for whoever cares (if anyone). This did not arise from a single edit conflict - this is a much more pervasive problem. I don't doubt I can contribute to wikipedia if I wanted to - and have the contributions stick. I've been on here for many years. However, when a user tries to determine my personal identity and post it on and AfD, and then, when I report the user, absolutely nothing happens, I can't feel safe on this site. Likewise, when a user is consistently discouraging newcomers and treating them disrespectfully, and I report THAT, and nothing happens, it seems like the project will indeed stagnate. To summarize, it's not a response to the individual actions involved, it's what those actions and reactions say about the project as a whole.Luminifer (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's how it usually is with admins.

talk

) 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know! We're all self-absorbed assholes who don't spend a minute of our time to help you poor editors out. And the perks for adminship are so awesome, too! Gosh, someone should break up this cabal, it's just bullshit.

Tan | 39

03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a joke, btw. Too much Arrested Development episodes tonight ;-)

Tan | 39

03:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to state, for the record, that there is no such thing as too much Arrested Development. -- Atama頭 16:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive vandalism by Grey Furb !!

Could some Admin please delete the article about Taijiro Aoki, the commander of the Japanese Aircraft Carrier Akagi? Everything written there is completely completely false, somebody just made up a huge load of total crap. Loosmark (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok i checked the talk page of the editor who created the article and it seems that he was already blocked for a week in July for "repeatedly creating hoax articles". I guess he's back at it. Loosmark (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark - you can fix much of this. I did a quick search and found this which does indeed contradict much of what is in the article. Therefore I have added a hoax tag. If you have

WP:RS about the subject then you can start to fix the article by updating the info and citing the sources. If not, it should probably get a {{db-hoax}} tag.  7 

03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another total garbage article he created Jisaku Okada! Loosmark (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet another Takeo Manjome. This guy needs to be immediately banned from wikipedia and somebody needs to check other articles he edited (i'm not familiar with most other topics he created). Loosmark (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Grey_Furb's page indicates a) a return account b) they're aware of their dubious history of editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to refer to CSD(Hoax)/ AFD Grey_Furb created: Charles Preston Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest for another editor to check for existence Rikichi Tsukada which failed external links on a tertiary and no page cites to two out of date reference works difficult to locate (uncertain). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking through this editor's edits, and I'm finding that they're a mix of bollocks and actual information, so it's rather challenging. For example, Takeo Manjome was, according to references I've looked at, a general who did serve in some of the areas referred to in the article - but not others. Jisaku Okada is, surprisingly, real. Again, I found a Google Books ref and a number of other references to indicate he was the captain of the ship described; whether the situation was as noted in the article is another matter. Basically, we've got a lot of sorting out to do here. Having said that, I'm going to block the editor until we get an explanation of what the hell they're doing, and keep working on cleanup. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh but Okada is well known, he was indeed the commander of the Kaga at Midway. Only that he did not participate in the Battle of the Coral sea, the Battle of Midway was NOT an "oncoming invasion of the Hawaiian Islands", his ship has not shot down many bombers etc etc. Loosmark (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. We've got a mix of good edits and make-believe here. I stubbed Takeo Manjome and sourced the stub, and I've confirmed that some of the information in Charles Preston is partially correct - it's a matter of finding the good information amongst the bad here. Other admins would be greatly appreciated on this one... I haven't the slightest idea how best to handle these. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran a check on this account and based on the old CU logs, this is a sock of Adelhoch/Washingblack. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the big problem here is that the Wikipedia "safety mechanisms" completely failed. The Taijiro Aoki article for example, which was totally full falsifications and nonsense, was created on 11th September and went undetected for a month. And it was a big luck that today i clicked on it by pure chance and that I have interest in the Japanese Imperial Navy, a casual reader might have missed it. It is quite damaging for the project to have such articles for a lengthy period of time. Given that this editor was caught repeatingly creating hoax articles in July i wonder how it is possible that nobody kept an eye on him? I mean IMO for a certain period of time he should have been prevented to create new articles without Admin approval. Another concern that I have, and I might be very paranoid here, how can we know that he doesn't have some other sock and created more nonsense article? Loosmark (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• You misunderstand Wikipedia. You are that safety mechanism. As such, the mechanism worked. You spotted the hoax, you drew it to other people's attentions, and as a consequence several editors jumped on the articles and a CheckUser checked the account. Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a bit debatable how well the mechanism worked, I mean I've discovered it yes, but by pure chance, and the nonsense article did exist for a whole month. What I propose is that in future if sb is caught repeatedly creating hoax article than instead of just a week block as was done in July, he also gets some sort of restriction on creation of new articles at least for 6 months. Loosmark (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea, really, though I'm not sure if it's possible to make an autoconfirmed account not be autoconfirmed any longer, or if it is how difficult it is. But even if that happens, what's to stop the editor from adding hoax information to existing articles? -- Atama頭 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing stops him from adding hoax information to existing articles of course, however there is a good chance that an existing article is already on somebody's watch list so detection of hoax is much easier. Loosmark (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Can a few more editors/admins add this Barack Obama related article to their watchlist ? It is already seeing vandalism a few minutes after being created, and that is likely to increase as the day progresses. Abecedare (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, is this even necessary? I do not see other individual articles on the awarding of Nobel Prizes. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be. Let's see what happens here besides the right-wing vandalism before deleting it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Necessary ? No. Inevitable ? Yes. At a minimum, the article will help keep unnecessary details out of Barack Obama. After the dust settles, it may be usefully be merged back (although that's unlikely in practice). Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn recentism.. this can all just go in Obama's article. Wizardman 13:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Or into an article like Barack Obama's political career. (If we don't have more articles like this, splitting the political aspects of a national figure from the general article, we should.) Nevertheless, from my brief involvement at that article, the possibility of edit wars, incivility, & vandalism there is high. -- llywrch (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment from Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs)

I've crossed pathes with

The Miracle of the Sun

and became incensed over my talk page commentary that the Miracle of the Sun was likely just a Sundog accompanied by credulous, highly religious, villagers and imaginative children.

[156] [157] [158] [159] [160]

Over the days in which this activity occured talk page consensus favored the redirect. This is clearly evident here:

[161].

After the failure of the RfC to prevent the redirect he stopped being an issue and I did not have further contact. Though he was invited to add

The Miracle of the Sun

he has yet to do so.

Then, just recently, I came across a page linking to

WP:RS

standard. I PRODded the article and the prod was contested without comment: [162]

I put the article up for AfD and the same IP user who contested my PROD removed the AfD tag [163] I want to state I have no reason to believe that Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) had anything to do with that. I am including these facts only to be thorough.

Anyway another user restored the AfD tag and discussion has progressed on the AfD page since: you can see it here.

Now this is where Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs) re-enters the story. He posted on the AfD discussion at 16:50 on Oct. 8 [164]

At 18:49 on October 8 he posts this on the rational skepticism project page:

[165]

Another editor asks him to rephrase this in a way that isn't a personal attack and I also make a comment about his actions. I also make an (admittedly

WP:POINTy

) change to the subject header as it was a personal attack on me.

I also leave a warning on his talk page: [166]

His response is to say this:

[167]

I reply on the project page, changing the subject header to something that notes it was previoulsy an attack header, and say:

[168]

and I say this on his talk page:

[169]

His response is to say this:

[170]

and this:

[171]

I am sorry but I have told this editor repeatedly that I find his labeling of me as a "pseudo skeptic" to be insulting, rude, dismissive and inaccurate. He is simply harassing me because I have, in my efforts to improve Wikipedia, according to the procedures of Wikipedia made changes he does not personally approve of. I have asked him four times (twice at WikiProject Rational Skepticism and twice at his user page) to cease and desist and he will not do so. Now I am asking for some sort of intervention as I feel this is the only way to end this harassment. Please note that I have invited this user on multiple occassions to contribute constructively and am not asking him to be prevented from contributing in this manner. I just don't want him to use Wikipedia to insult me, my opinions or my beliefs. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you check your work more and complain less. I have no doubt that a close look at the subject will indicate you are over eager. This isn't good for the reputation of wikipedia. I may not respond much if at all to this untill next week. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I have suggested you spend less time concerning yourself with my edits and more time contributing to improved articles. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Range block on image replacing vandal

A vandal keeps replacing pictures of Barack Obama with pictures of monkeys.[172][173][174][175] Because the vandal is constantly changing IPs and because of the number of pages affected, a range block is in order. Can an admin deal w/ this? The range appears to be 166.205.0.0/16. Rami R 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not blocking a /16 for this, especially since it appears that multiple ISPs are involved. I semiprotected two of the target articles. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Much smaller range blocked for this. Will probably not stop too many attempts but has a much lower possible collateral damage than a /16 or /18. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Revert, block, ignore. Ask for page protection but otherwise, the less said, the better, in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk
  ) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is probably a good case for using the AbuseFilter to prevent the addition or removal of images from this particular page by non-autoconfirmed users. -- The Anome (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back.[176] I reported him at AIV, but I don't really see much point as he'll be back tomorrow w/ a new IP. Also it appears that he does more than just change pictures, therefor I don't think an abuse filter would really be a viable solution either. Rami R 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued P.A. Incivility by User talk:Calton

I see he has allready been blocked for P.a. and he he is unblocked he goes andx attacks the admin that blocked him. [[177]] Thinking someone should go have a talk with him.

talk

) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(

attack his person? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary

─╢ 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Let's be blunt: it's not just that I think your simplistic equivalency is because you don't understand the situation, it's that it's apparent to me that you're actively protecting those you've explicitly claimed as your political cohorts and, frankly cannot and should not be trusted as an honest broker concerning them. So no, your words cut no ice with me. Reality check for your false equivalency: he not only started it, he persisted despite multiple, escalating requests to stop doing so. I realize that pointing out the obvious will make no difference here, as you've already chosen who and what you're going to line up with, but a word of warning that if you continue to push the envelope regarding the use of your admin authority to support the disruptive and the POV pushers, other people WILL notice."

Basically what this boils down to, You are not an intelligent person, you are clearly not neutral and protecting your cronies in a cabal. It's rather verbose but a core policy in wiki is AGF. In this case an univolved admin might go and explain to him why what he is doing is innapropriate. I am not suggesting a block but if he is saying these things about one admin we can get one not invovled to reinforce that we don't question good faith or motives etc. There are cases when that is appropriate but there are those when it's not too.

talk

) 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't need to paste it here, I had read it, that was how I was able to comment on it above. There is no doubt that it is a little

personal attack (placing it on a par with, "You Nazi," "You're a paedophile," "Go f*** yourself, nigger," and other such remarks which have happened in the past, or at least similar ones, since I made all those up...) is a bit extreme. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate

─╢ 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket not only doesn't understand the context, it appears he doesn't even fully understand the CONTENT. You are not an intelligent person is his rather bizarre misinterpretation of something that says nothing of the sort, unless he's claiming that "you don't understand the situation" is the same as "you are an idiot". He also fails to understand AGF: quoted fully, it says to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary: I don't trust Ched Davis here because I've seen evidence that that renders him untrustworthy to me, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Admins are not immune to any and all criticism of their actions AND their motives. That's not even close to being true.

But let's look at Ched's own words, as seen in the message in the edit window of his User Talk page:

Just a heads-up to all: I don't mind you being blunt with me, if your emotions limit your ability to find more civil wording than would normally be expected, I'll not be offended. A word of caution however: My talk page is open to all, and I'll have 0-tolerance for any incivility directed toward any of my fellow wikipedians. Feel free to chastise me, but any incivility directed toward any other editor will be met with harsh reaction. Cheers: Ched

He doesn't seem to have a problem with strongly worded criticism. Why does Hell in a Bucket? --Calton | Talk 15:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

People are allowed to disagree with admins and sometimes you'll be able to tell from what they wrote that they're not happy with them. It's strongly worded, but I don't see any serious lines being crossed.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If only that were true in fact as well as principle (particularly when it comes to disagreeing with admins). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm addressing the behavior as a pattern of behaviour as he has been counseled on P.a/Incivility in the past. [[178]], We all make mistakes but even in strongly worded situations it's extremely important that especially veteran editors set the example to the new editors. If you think that Chedd's behavior was innapropriate fine, request an uninvolved comment by a different admin. That didn't happen here Calton went there to explicitly question his motives and say he is untrustworthy. Also saying you don't think it's just a simplistic equivalancy that prohibits him from understanding the situation and because he was cabal protecting his friends? I know that the words are strongly written but it's also passive aggressive attacks/ incivilities. And I would also ask the question because the fact that the Germans as a people allowed the Holocaust to happen should we have turned a blind eye? No it should be called on the carpet and culled. A bit dramatic yes but it helps illustrate the point.

talk

) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those previous diffs IMHO were inappropriate. If what he wrote in the current diff was similar, I'd agree with you. As it is not, I do not.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From my personal observation with this user, I believe he's had some significant issues with others in the past, such as:

• Telling User:JohnHistory to stop trolling in all caps and large font, along with another threat.
• Provoking JohnHistory with a congratulatory statement regarding Barack Obama's recent Nobel Peace Prize award
• Same provocative statement to
  User:Ched Davis [179]

I gave a stern warning to Calton for his attack against JohnHistory here, which included issuing a block if continued. Five days later (probably as a result of this ANI post, I'm sure), he replies on my talk page [180], saying that I "give moral support to trolling". I really don't know what's going on here, but my only objectives were to get Calton and JohnHistory to cease their attacks against each other. However, it backfired miserably, and I got chided by both sides for trying to do so. MuZemike 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that it stems from a block I issued a while back for his attack on another user in which he referred to them (John) as mentally deficient. I did post a notice about it for community review. (link). It appears that Calton has a history of such behavior. Since I am involved here I'll abstain from any administrative action, and hope that the community can find a proper solution. Thank you, and best to all. —

 ? 

18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A thread title of "You're not trustworthy" is at the very least uncivil. I admire Ched's restraint and I hope he understands that editors sometimes get frustrated and lash out (he seems to, but sometimes it takes a toll). I encourage Calton to refactor that bit. He is certainly allowed to express himself, although he's pushing it a bit, and seems to come off as a bully. Still, I think he should be given the opportunity to let the matter drop. Dispute resolution can be sought by requesting outside input on content disputes at the appropriate boards (3O, Content noticeboard, RfC etc.) so feuding doesn't become personal. Given the diffs and history I think fair warning has been given that the focus should be kept on content and article improvements rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I'm not urging we block Calton or descrete his user page, just an uninvovled admin to reaffirm the actions are inappropriate. If that doesn't work then yes further escalation would be required

talk

) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Offensive username

Resolved

 – There aren't the droids we are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along. MuZemike 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, folks.

Resolved  – Very blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Can someone please block this user per thier contributions and their username?-- Expert 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, CPE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Dont mention it, im trying to fight vandals to get rollback.-- Expert 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) At least you're honest I suppose.  GARDEN  21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) What does that mean???-- Expert 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It means you should be fighting vandalism to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, not to gain extra user "rights". Crafty (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I am, the only reason I want rollback is to revert vandals even faster!-- Expert 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.160.127.184

Resolved

 – Coldplay Expert instructed to make vandalism reports to

AIV. –Katerenka (talk • contribs)

22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block this IP, his edits are vandalism and he has been told about four times in the past hour to stop. He even blanked his own talk page to get rid of the comments.--

Expert

21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Best place / the correct place to report vandalism is

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh opps sorry--

Expert

21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Range block on image replacing vandal

A vandal keeps replacing pictures of Barack Obama with pictures of monkeys.[181][182][183][184] Because the vandal is constantly changing IPs and because of the number of pages affected, a range block is in order. Can an admin deal w/ this? The range appears to be 166.205.0.0/16. Rami R 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not blocking a /16 for this, especially since it appears that multiple ISPs are involved. I semiprotected two of the target articles. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Much smaller range blocked for this. Will probably not stop too many attempts but has a much lower possible collateral damage than a /16 or /18. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Revert, block, ignore. Ask for page protection but otherwise, the less said, the better, in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk
  ) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is probably a good case for using the AbuseFilter to prevent the addition or removal of images from this particular page by non-autoconfirmed users. -- The Anome (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

He's back.[185] I reported him at AIV, but I don't really see much point as he'll be back tomorrow w/ a new IP. Also it appears that he does more than just change pictures, therefor I don't think an abuse filter would really be a viable solution either. Rami R 20:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued P.A. Incivility by User talk:Calton

I see he has allready been blocked for P.a. and he he is unblocked he goes andx attacks the admin that blocked him. [[186]] Thinking someone should go have a talk with him.

talk

) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(

attack his person? ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary

─╢ 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Let's be blunt: it's not just that I think your simplistic equivalency is because you don't understand the situation, it's that it's apparent to me that you're actively protecting those you've explicitly claimed as your political cohorts and, frankly cannot and should not be trusted as an honest broker concerning them. So no, your words cut no ice with me. Reality check for your false equivalency: he not only started it, he persisted despite multiple, escalating requests to stop doing so. I realize that pointing out the obvious will make no difference here, as you've already chosen who and what you're going to line up with, but a word of warning that if you continue to push the envelope regarding the use of your admin authority to support the disruptive and the POV pushers, other people WILL notice."

Basically what this boils down to, You are not an intelligent person, you are clearly not neutral and protecting your cronies in a cabal. It's rather verbose but a core policy in wiki is AGF. In this case an univolved admin might go and explain to him why what he is doing is innapropriate. I am not suggesting a block but if he is saying these things about one admin we can get one not invovled to reinforce that we don't question good faith or motives etc. There are cases when that is appropriate but there are those when it's not too.

talk

) 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You didn't need to paste it here, I had read it, that was how I was able to comment on it above. There is no doubt that it is a little

personal attack (placing it on a par with, "You Nazi," "You're a paedophile," "Go f*** yourself, nigger," and other such remarks which have happened in the past, or at least similar ones, since I made all those up...) is a bit extreme. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate

─╢ 15:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket not only doesn't understand the context, it appears he doesn't even fully understand the CONTENT. You are not an intelligent person is his rather bizarre misinterpretation of something that says nothing of the sort, unless he's claiming that "you don't understand the situation" is the same as "you are an idiot". He also fails to understand AGF: quoted fully, it says to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary: I don't trust Ched Davis here because I've seen evidence that that renders him untrustworthy to me, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Admins are not immune to any and all criticism of their actions AND their motives. That's not even close to being true.

But let's look at Ched's own words, as seen in the message in the edit window of his User Talk page:

Just a heads-up to all: I don't mind you being blunt with me, if your emotions limit your ability to find more civil wording than would normally be expected, I'll not be offended. A word of caution however: My talk page is open to all, and I'll have 0-tolerance for any incivility directed toward any of my fellow wikipedians. Feel free to chastise me, but any incivility directed toward any other editor will be met with harsh reaction. Cheers: Ched

He doesn't seem to have a problem with strongly worded criticism. Why does Hell in a Bucket? --Calton | Talk 15:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

People are allowed to disagree with admins and sometimes you'll be able to tell from what they wrote that they're not happy with them. It's strongly worded, but I don't see any serious lines being crossed.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If only that were true in fact as well as principle (particularly when it comes to disagreeing with admins). ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm addressing the behavior as a pattern of behaviour as he has been counseled on P.a/Incivility in the past. [[187]], We all make mistakes but even in strongly worded situations it's extremely important that especially veteran editors set the example to the new editors. If you think that Chedd's behavior was innapropriate fine, request an uninvolved comment by a different admin. That didn't happen here Calton went there to explicitly question his motives and say he is untrustworthy. Also saying you don't think it's just a simplistic equivalancy that prohibits him from understanding the situation and because he was cabal protecting his friends? I know that the words are strongly written but it's also passive aggressive attacks/ incivilities. And I would also ask the question because the fact that the Germans as a people allowed the Holocaust to happen should we have turned a blind eye? No it should be called on the carpet and culled. A bit dramatic yes but it helps illustrate the point.

talk

) 16:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those previous diffs IMHO were inappropriate. If what he wrote in the current diff was similar, I'd agree with you. As it is not, I do not.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

From my personal observation with this user, I believe he's had some significant issues with others in the past, such as:

• Telling User:JohnHistory to stop trolling in all caps and large font, along with another threat.
• Provoking JohnHistory with a congratulatory statement regarding Barack Obama's recent Nobel Peace Prize award
• Same provocative statement to
  User:Ched Davis [188]

I gave a stern warning to Calton for his attack against JohnHistory here, which included issuing a block if continued. Five days later (probably as a result of this ANI post, I'm sure), he replies on my talk page [189], saying that I "give moral support to trolling". I really don't know what's going on here, but my only objectives were to get Calton and JohnHistory to cease their attacks against each other. However, it backfired miserably, and I got chided by both sides for trying to do so. MuZemike 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine that it stems from a block I issued a while back for his attack on another user in which he referred to them (John) as mentally deficient. I did post a notice about it for community review. (link). It appears that Calton has a history of such behavior. Since I am involved here I'll abstain from any administrative action, and hope that the community can find a proper solution. Thank you, and best to all. —

 ? 

18:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A thread title of "You're not trustworthy" is at the very least uncivil. I admire Ched's restraint and I hope he understands that editors sometimes get frustrated and lash out (he seems to, but sometimes it takes a toll). I encourage Calton to refactor that bit. He is certainly allowed to express himself, although he's pushing it a bit, and seems to come off as a bully. Still, I think he should be given the opportunity to let the matter drop. Dispute resolution can be sought by requesting outside input on content disputes at the appropriate boards (3O, Content noticeboard, RfC etc.) so feuding doesn't become personal. Given the diffs and history I think fair warning has been given that the focus should be kept on content and article improvements rather than other editors. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I'm not urging we block Calton or descrete his user page, just an uninvovled admin to reaffirm the actions are inappropriate. If that doesn't work then yes further escalation would be required

talk

) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Offensive username

Resolved

 – There aren't the droids we are looking for. You can go about your business. Move along. MuZemike 22:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to see here, folks.

Resolved  – Very blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Can someone please block this user per thier contributions and their username?-- Expert 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks, CPE.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Dont mention it, im trying to fight vandals to get rollback.-- Expert 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC) At least you're honest I suppose.  GARDEN  21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) What does that mean???-- Expert 21:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC) It means you should be fighting vandalism to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia, not to gain extra user "rights". Crafty (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC) I am, the only reason I want rollback is to revert vandals even faster!-- Expert 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NeoCube

I don't know how to handle this because I have not been using Wikipedia for very long.

Anonomyous IP addresses keep editing the page at NeoCube without citing sources, which I have gone to great lengths to do...I think. They keep editing the page, especially the parts about the cube being an original idea. Most recently at: [190] I emailed Reda about the issue and after ~10 days he said his was the original. I can post the email here if need be. Every article I have read while researching has stated that Reda did in fact invent it and has a patent pending. When I asked in WP:IRC they said that starting a talk page would help...but it hasn't. I don't know what else to do. D: XRDoDRX (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your sources aren't actually very good either. They establish that Chris Reda sells the NeoCube, but they don't establish that he is in the process of getting a patent, only that he told a TV reporter that he is. An email from Reda is unfortunately not helpful for this purpose. Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if both sides are shown...I'm not trying to push a POV. I just want the edits to be included with sources. Also, I didn't notice that thing about the TV reporter...lol. I also have been searching for a patent but I cannot find one anywhere...maybe there's more to this than meets the eye...XRDoDRX (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes a lack of proof is the proof of a lack. It could be that the patent isn't pending after all. My understanding is that it's not a simple process, maybe he intended to do it and it never happened. -- Atama頭 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.160.127.184

Resolved

 – Coldplay Expert instructed to make vandalism reports to

AIV. –Katerenka (talk • contribs)

22:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please block this IP, his edits are vandalism and he has been told about four times in the past hour to stop. He even blanked his own talk page to get rid of the comments.--

Expert

21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Best place / the correct place to report vandalism is

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh opps sorry--

Expert

21:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – User:WolfJack45 blocked indefinitely. Ecoman24 (talk page) 00:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here, I just noticed

talk

) 23:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything mentioned about legal action.

Tan | 39

23:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That diff is not a legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops - check the edit summary, Gwen.

Tan | 39

23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think they might be referring to the edit summary: "The article's authors is considering pressing charges". Still not very explicit though. ninety:one 23:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Argh. Yes. Were they maybe so muddled in vocabulary as to be thinking about "pressing charges" on en.Wikipedia? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3)Indef legal block. "Considering pressing charges" is pretty much a cut-and-dry threat. Other problematic issues with this user as well.

Tan | 39

23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) OK, sorry to bother you. Obviously threatening to "press charges" is different than threatening to get a lawyer. Sorry, I figured folks read the edit summaries. I had meant to point out the offending phrase was in the edit summary.

talk

) 23:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block Tan. Concur with indef -- Samir 23:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The block's ok pending further understanding as to what they may have had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Point?

What is the policy on this, which is a comment made in regard to this? It doesn't seem constructive to make such edits just to make a

point, in my opinion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk)

15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note on the users talk page mentioning this discussion. There's no provision that allows you to be a most-time productive editor and part time

vandal. If this user has been making these edits they need to stop, plain and simple.--Cube lurker (talk

) 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Only very rarely, when I'm bored, or feel that something or some one really deserves it. 99% of my edits are legitimate, I promise.--

talk

) 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I’m a little confused. With this edit, the wikieditor in question admits that he vandalized the article and behaves thusly on other occasions. Why, then, does he not draw a block, however brief? Should this be taken to

WP:AIV? I ask this only because, for doing recent changes patrol, the answer would provide future, general guidance to me and other recent changes patrollers. Thanks! — SpikeToronto (talk

) 19:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You have almost 12K edits. If your number is correct that means you're responsible for about 120 vandal edits. Hopefully it's less than that. But how many are acceptable? There's only one correct answer and it's zero from now on. There's enough vandalism from IP's and throwaway accounts that there's no reason with your experience that we should have to follow around all your edits to see if this is the 1% of your edits that damages articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm very tempted to indef...but I think we need more discussion here. An editor who has been around that long should know better. The fact that they don't...well, it's a little scary. --Smashville^talk 20:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, no more joke edits from me for now on. I swear, I havn't made 120 vandal edits, so that less than 1% in a career of what, Three or four years? And this was the only one which wasn't taken off within seconds -- a fact which made me point it out to the admins. So am I being punished for pointing out that the admins were slow in deleting my own vandelism? --

talk

) 20:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, any likely sanction would be because of your vandalism. And yes I agree with Smashville, the fact that you do not realise that as a veteran editor is quite disturbing. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an explicit warning on the talk page (for record keeping sake) and then an indefinite block if vandalism like that again. If his purpose here isn't to help the encyclopedia, but to make some sort of

point, he can do that somewhere else. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 05:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Help fixing vandalism on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foley,_Minnesota

Resolved

 – Vandalism undone. Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

When I try to 'undo' the vandalism, I receive a message that the edit must be done manually due to conflicting edits. FYI, this is at least the second time that this page was vandalized.

I'm new, so if this is not the correct place to post this, please let me know.

Thanks, MNJon (talk) 18:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I see what you mean!! Dunno! --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

K, someone fixed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the intermediate edits came about because someone vandalized the article pretty thoroughly, eliminating the interwiki links, and then the interwiki linking bot came by and added those links again. Sometimes you have to check through the edit history to see what's really going on, but this looks like it's fixed now. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Hardouin

I'm publishing this anonymously as I am being dogged through my contributions list, and I would like this dealt with in a quiet a manner as possible.

I'd been editing Paris-based articles fairly extensively until around two years ago as ThePromenader, but stopped because of other projects (work!) and my wish to give others a go on making improvements. During my time editing, I often found myself in head-to-head conflict with a certain User:Hardouin, an editor rather bent on pushing his own theories ('studies') in the same and protecting any editing that was his own. This would often end in revert warring, incivility, and endless reverts to any edits not 'his'.

After about a ten-month period of absence, I returned to continue editing some of the articles (after noting almost no changes were made at all) - I made relatively minor edits to two - Paris and Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture - and what should I see, not hours after I had edited the articles, but User:Hardouin reverting/tagging the very two articles I had edited - and no other article at all. (To his credit, he did correct one error I had made - a date). Also, these edits were his first as Hardouin since... nine months.

This user is obviously editing here under another name, otherwise he could not be able to track my movements so quickly. He is known for his sockpuppetry.

In all, this user ruins any pleasure there is in editing Wikipedia - finding fact should be the challenge here, not the behavior of other users. I strongly suggest looking into this user's background (different editing names, etc) and history of civility towards others.

I will avoid editing any 'sensitive' (major Paris-based) articles until all this is over. Cheers.

81.65.149.65 (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not very convincing. Your edits were not "relatively minor", they were pretty extensive, and the only way he could have known about them was to have at least one of the articles on his watchlist -- editing in another name wouldn't have made that any easier for him. Your complaint would only be legitimate if his alterations to your edits were incorrect, and you haven't made any case that they are at this point. As far as I can see he could legitimately have done a lot more, since much of the material you added is questionably worded and lacking sources. (However, looking at his talk page, Hardouin has been quite busy recently uploading a whole bunch of images that have all been deleted due to copyright issues.) In any case, I have notified him of this ANI section -- I know you don't want to but it is mandatory when somebody is being discussed at ANI. Looie496 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I left off editing the Ceinture article in mid-section, and planned to continue this weekend - and most of the article content comes from the same source already cited. As for the Paris article, I do have issues with fact there, but I won't get into that here (for an idea look at Hardouin's talk page). The Hardouin username has been dormant since almost nine months now - those (ignorned) message are about images were uploaded sometimes years ago; look rather at the same user's contributions page.

If you should retain anything in all this: a) two users don't edit for almost a year b) one editor returns to make edits after months and c) the second returns just hours later to revert/re-edit the first users edits, and edits only the articles the first user was working on. Is that what one could call civil?

Cheers. THEPROMENADER 05:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This user Lisa uses personal attacks and insults on other user! I am very offended.... Please block this user

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from

 GARDEN 

21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This user uses personal attacks and insults other user! I am very offended....

Take it elsewhere, kids. -Lisa (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You're both a couple of assholes. -Lisa (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your time! Ptrwatson418 (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for this edit, especially in light of recent borderline stuff.

Tan | 39

21:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What about this move? I'm not suggesting a block extension but still suspect.

 GARDEN 

21:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is clearly disruptive, but since the user is already blocked it doesn't require any further action for now. Lets hope the user is more productive once the current block expires. Abecedare (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Again Backlogged

Resolved

AIV is again backlogged. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged.

T • C

03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We need some more admins  :) Equazcion (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not more admins, just admins taking a look in at AIV more often. It seems AIV is getting backed up twice or more daily. I know admins can't be everywhere at once, but I think it would be a good idea for admins to, once in hour as they have time, to look in at AIV and clear off what they can. That would lessen the frequency of these backlogs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer; have you looked at the New Pages backlog recently? :P Backlogs really aren't a concern; just like server loads, you don't really have to worry about them. CSD is backed up almost every hour, for example. It's really not a big deal; an admin will get to it when they've got a second (for example, myself right now while I'm waiting for my pizza to cook). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A backlog at AIV is a bigger deal than, say, CSD. It means vandals can keep vandalizing, and while they're not being blocked, everyone has to keep on top of reverting them. Equazcion (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As a recent non-admin, let me attest that backlogs at AIV, RFPP and AN3 are particularly frustrating to regular editors, since the reported problem is ongoing and the editors are helpless to do anything about it except follow the vandals around and continually reverting them. After one has given the fourth level warning saying specifically that the vandal will be blocked if they continue, it is disheartening to see them continue with impunity. So it would be really helpful if few more admins could devote some minutes/day on these boards. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not a shortage of admins from counting them, there's only a shortage that actually do admin work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what mathematical calculation you're performing to determine how many admins it should take to cover the amount of work out there... but it seems to me that whatever amount each one is handling, having more of them would help, as long as they all pitch in at least a little. It's also much easier to talk when you're not an admin. If I were an admin I really can't see being thrilled with spending my time refreshing AIV. Equazcion (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There was discussion not long ago about how a large percentage of the admins are inactive, and what to do, if anything, about it (apparently, nothing). I'm sure tending AIV is boring, but it's one of those things admins are expected to do. There must be a solution, but since it's all volunteer work, it's hard to know what that solution is - beyond simply having more active admins around. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 53#Dealing with frequent AIV backlogs Equazcion (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The many Wikikings

Resolved

 – No admin action required. Abecedare (talk) 02:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've recently noticed we seem to have many conflicting claims to the throne of WP. So far there are WikiKing1 (talk · contribs), Wikiking10 (talk · contribs), Wikiking15 (talk · contribs), Wikiking12345 (talk · contribs), wikikingyou5 (talk · contribs), WikiKing2012 (talk · contribs), Wikiking3030 (talk · contribs), Wikiking69 (talk · contribs), Wikiking41 (talk · contribs), Wikiking757 (talk · contribs), and WikiKingOfMishawaka (talk · contribs). Those are just the ones with talk pages - there may be more lurking out there. Many of them have no visible edits and I'm not sure it means anything, but I thought I'd share for amusement and edification (and in case we have a spate of regicide as they battle for the crown). 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Now, now! Wikipedia:Verifiability applies. Reliable sources tell us that Simon Pulsifer is king of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

We could use some admin intervention. There is one user, Felix Natalo (talk · contribs), introducing attack web pages as sources and playing tit-for-tat of "You remove something I want, I'll remove something you want". I have no vested interest in this article, however it is becoming too dangerous for me now. --4twenty42o (talk) 08:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Before you say anything, I do monitor this page as well since it is included in my long watchlist and I've taken the liberty of informing Felix properly, for you. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers keep blocking me

Right, here's my problem; every time I make an account and start to edit, within a few weeks some checkuser comes along and blocks me, usually with the reason "abusing multiple accounts". I've been on IRC and talked to several admins and checkusers, and they've told me that these blocks are intended for a time wasting user, and that they simply do not believe me when I say I am not this person. WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? I can't make an account and edit because they'll just come along and block it AGAIN. Tell me please there must be a system in place for dealing with something like this. I swear I am not whoever the hell these blocks are meant for. I just want an account to edit with. Please, any advice is welcome at this point because I'm pulling my fucking hair out in frustration over this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.154 (talk • contribs)

I note that the IP that posted this complaint was blocked for 24 hours by Jehochman, for abusing multiple accounts. Someone should copy any advice to the IP's talk page, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What are some of the account names in question? Thatcher 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has stated on their talk page that User:Avrillyria is one of theirs. I suggest that User:Light current is probably the "main" account, but I'm not the checkuser who knows. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a reference desk troll. Could be Light current or someone else. J.delanoy and Brandon are active on this case. Thatcher 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One has to wonder why the User name "Avrillyria" was chosen. There was a time not too long ago where a Reference Desk troll kept posting silly questions about Avril Lavigne. And now this User comes along with an Avril user name and goes direct to the Reference Desk... 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the Avril person. Please talk to admin User:KnightLago who knows the situation. It has been over a year ago since then, and all blocks on my ips are over. I have not done ANY vandalism since last September. Look through User:Avrillyria contributions, every single edit is helpful and constructive. I am NOT User:Light current, but apparently he is on the same ranges as me. Please speak to User:KightLago who can confirm what I am saying is true. I have NOT done any vandalism or trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed KnightLago and asked him to comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago is going to have to interface with Brandon and J.delanoy. It's possible that the checkusers don't know you've been given a new start, or that there is another vandal on the same range, or that you are vandalizing and KL doesn't know about it. Thatcher 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor never contributes outside the reference desk, many of the edits are unhelpful, and none of them are ever signed. If he didn't cause problems, nobody would ever bother running a CU. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so unsigned comments are now a reason for blocking are they? Jeni ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there has been no agreement. I would support giving her a fresh start with strict conditions. I spoke with J.delanoy earlier today and he is understandably hesitant to do so. I am going to ask him to weigh in here and voice his opinion on the idea. KnightLago (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no question that this user is the refdesk vandal. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what everyone keeps saying. I've went on IRC after I was blocked because I couldn't edit my own talk page, and I spoke to several checkusers and admins and they've all said the same, but I am telling you, I'm giving you my word I am not. This is why I started this thread in the first place, to ask for help and figure out a solution. All I want is an account without it being blocked for things I have NOT done. I am willing to have a fresh start as KnightLago suggested above and accept conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When what you say is contradictory or doesn't make sense it makes it pretty hard to believe you. On the first IP you used here you said: "every time I make an account..." on the talk page of that IP you say "This is my only account". You say "my ip address just changes on it's own every day" you seem to have gone through at least 3 ip addresses yesterday alone, ISPs don't do that and they certainly don't do it such that it'd frequenly change whilst you are using the net. Looking at the IP addresses indicates you are connected through

Blueyonder who are the effectively the same as the ISP I use (Virgin Media) where the IP hasn't changed in 6+ months. Googling and indeed people indicate on blueyonder that their IP simply doesn't change and asking how it's possible to force it to change, which is indeed possible. --82.7.40.7 (talk

) 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have had other accounts in the past. Thatcher and KnightLago know about that, I am not trying to hide anything. What I meant by "This is my only account" was that User:Avrillyria was the only account I had at this time. I didn't feel it necessary to bring up account from over a year ago which I don't use and cannot even remember the names to. As for the ips, my ip seems to change whenever I turn the computer off. I don't leave my computer on 24/7, so it usually changes daily or sooner depending on how much I use my computer on a particular day. If you have more questions I am happy to answer them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble believing that a DHCP server would change your IP address multiple times a day. No ISP would do that. It's difficult to take you at your word when you are making claims that seem at the least very improbable. -- Atama頭 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<--I don't object to allowing you to have one unblocked account to contribute with, however, the technical evidence does not support your claims about your IP, and you were using creating multiple accounts at a time when user:Avrillyria was not yet blocked. If you want to stop playing games and edit productively, the first step that is required is to stop playing games. Thatcher 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. May I have User:Avrillyria back as my account to edit productively with, as it already has lots of productive edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.124 (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Bishonen, and Risker

Unresolved

 – Split 89 kb section to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ottava Rima Bishonen and Risker slakr^\ talk /

Ah yes, subpages, where problematic threads go to die. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If a discussion is so long that it needs a subpage, it seems like there is no possibility of a result and that the discussion isn't fit for ANI.

talk

) 12:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Convention is that threads longer than 50kb can/will be split onto a subpage—especially if it looks like they're gonna keep going. Editors need to be able to tend to the other things on ANI without

the AN talkpage. --slakr^\ talk

 / 12:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying the longer the discussion, the farthest away from concensus.

talk

) 12:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Madden NFL 21's disruptive editing

Resolved

 – Madden NFL 21 is a sock of MC10. All now blocked. either way (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've lately been seeing

talk page, but continues to revert. Admins, could you block him for his reverting? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM

) 01:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• No edits since Crossmr's post. No permanent harm done. I'll block him if he continues, but would prefer not to. Protonk (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Be aware that this user claims multiple accounts, including

talk · contribs), at least two of which have been indef blocked for vandalism. Sockpuppet much? 98.248.33.198 (talk

) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Madden NFL 21 reverted

talk

) 03:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Block the lot of them and run a checkuser to weed out any leftovers.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Negative ghostrider, that pattern is full. Checkuser the lot of them and block them if there is any truth to the assertions. Protonk (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See
    Crossmr (talk
    ) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
    • And see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MC10 which spawned out of that. Apparently a case of good hand, bad hand going on here with MC10 reporting his own sock for disruption. either way (talk) 11:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You

I don't think that this issue fits on any of the more specific pages, and I'm not sure what to do:

User:Die4Dixie contains a not-so-veiled statement that the editor is glad that a Cuban politician died a couple of weeks ago, and hopes that more will die.

This seems like it falls under

WP:UP#NOT #9 ("Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons..."), but I haven't seen anything like this before, so I don't really know how the community usually interprets this line, or how (if necessary) these incidents are commonly handled. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Removed it. Clearly polemical, not to mention gratuitous and unpleasant. Black Kite 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review

And, after persisting in re-inserting the offensive material, despite being reverted by myself and another editor, and having had both of us explain why on their talk page, I have blocked User:Die4Dixie for 24 hours. Their previous block log gives me no indication that they would be stopping their disruptiveness any time soon. I don't think this counts as "involvement" by the blocking admin, but review welcome. Black Kite 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict, may be mitigated by Black Kite comments} More action may be necessary with

this essay as apparently "calling a spade a spade" is a racist expression where he comes from. Ok, whatever, but the point is that this compliant is not the first regarding this user. I am not fast to file actions against other users and don't know what the appropriate venue to proceed would be should his actions persist in this vein after coming off block. RfC? Simonm223 (talk

) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

from the ANI archives This isn't the first time Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has got in trouble for hinting that he wished another editor person dead. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable on first blush. Someone uninvolved might have suggested they take a break. But the behaviors do seem to have been problematic of late. It's unfortunate that the blocked editor can't post here in the discussion which is also problematic. Making the accused voiceless is unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this before looking into it more. Bad block. I don't think the comment was collegial or appropriate, but we give latitude to editor's in their userspace. If Black Kite insisted on pushing forward he should have taken it to a neutral forum instead of acting unilaterally. D4D has been a bit too caught up in that are of the encyclopedia and may need a break, but one enforced by block instead of requested by a friend doesn't help anyone. Poor effort of dispute resolution.

And Sarek so rapidly reviewing and dismissing the appeal is also a bad look. Treating D4D with more respect, despite a comment on their userpage that isn't helpful, would have been preferable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Both myself an Veinor tried "dispute resolution". We were told to "go play somewhere else". But, as I said below, I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness. Black Kite 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "go play elsewhere" is just as dismissive as saying "I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness." Show some maturity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The content on his page was a bit too gray-area-ish to block without getting a neutral opinion. I'd recommend lifting it pending further discussion here and by other observers on his talk. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. He placed an offensive item on his userpage, it was removed with a note to read the relevant guidelines, he replaced it (with a rv vandalism) editsum, had the information regarding soapboxing re-stated to him by another editor, and carried on replacing it. This isn't a content dispute, it doesn't require dispute resolution, it just needed that user to stop doing it, which he couldn't. It wasn't a grey area, if he'd placed "I'd be glad if {insert famous person) was dead" on his page we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it was effectively the same thing. Frankly, if anyone feels an unblock is warranted, I couldn't really care less, I think I was doing the right thing. Black Kite 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You were involved in the edit warring on a user's page. You needed to step back, exercise some restraint and good judgment and assist in alleviating the dispute and resolving the issue collegially without disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, removing offensive material doesn't come under the edit-warring guidelines. And seriously, if you're going to accuse me of double standards on the user's page, you'd better have your diffs ready. Oh, and [192]. Black Kite 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a userpage and the material is offensive to you. It's a gray area and once disputed you should have stepped back instead of using your powers unilaterally to enforce your will. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed that comment. Bad blocks often inflame situations. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but I can attest to the double standards and rogue enforcement. I emphasize again that an admin should excercise restraint and lead by example as far as civility, collegiality, and good judgment go. There was no urgent issue here that a block was desperately needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "I'm glad X is dead" (where X is a random famous person) is offensive full stop, not to me. Call me dim, but I'd never heard of the person. Seriously, if it had been "I'm glad Ted Kennedy is dead" soon after his death, would we even be having this conversation? Black Kite 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're posing that question to someone who once argued that it was OK to keep Nazi imagery on his user page, in reference to other editors. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BK, you made a bad block in a situation where you were involved and now you're lying about what was said on the userpage. The actual statement was "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of

Juan Almeida

."

You're involved. You acted rashly and with poor judgment. I suggest unblocking and letting others who are more neutral and reasonable handle it, so we can restore some semblance of collegial cooperation. I think you may be letting pride and arrogance get in the way of clear thinking. (post-ec) And now I see other POV pushers are using the situation to push their own agenda. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please inform yourself of the facts before spouting off. The original version was This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!. Dixie reverting the change as "vandalism" didn't help matters any either. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism, just as removing something inappropriate can be justified by other policies. There was a difference of opinion and rather than resolving it appropriately an admin took unilateral action to win the argument. That's not how we do things. I agree it's inappropriate as I've said repeatedly, but there's a right way and a wrong way to work through a dispute. And per your comment we see that Dix was willing to alter to the comment to make it less problematic, so it seems entirely likely that this could have been worked out through collegial discussion and compromise rather than an aggressive admin forcing their argument by using their tools. That cause ill will and resentment and doesn't help build the encyclopedia. Instead of having it reviewed after the fact, it should have been resolved in an appropriate fashion. Maybe our admins need a refresher course in dispute resolution? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism no it isn't. It depends on the changes made.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, CoM, an admin enforcing widely accepted guidelines per

WP:USER is not vandalism. Your anti admin/ArbCom/wiki-authority figure crusade is beginning to get a bit tiring, especially when you try to make martyrs out of every blocked user you come across. Just...stop already. Tarc (talk

) 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Look at what wikipedia has become: stupid arguments over stupid comments somebody put on their userpage. Maybe we wouldn't have a problem if there weren't any userpages? Or maybe we wouldn't have a problem if we just edited articles instead of paying excessive attention to what others are doing on their userpages? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT for advocating or gloating over the deaths of others. It should not have been been necessary for me to articulate this principle. Support block. Cardamon (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, no editor so far has agreed with you. Rather than continuing to argue it, why don't you take a break from this argument for a couple of hours, and see whether any other editor shares your opinion?

If the only support your view gets is the empty sound of crickets in the night, then you'll know that the consensus is on the other side, and while it may not be pleasant, at least you'll know. On the other hand, if there is support for your view, then people will be unable to dismiss it as merely the view of a single editor with a reputation for endless arguing -- which would be trivial for them to do right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So far I count two other editors who think it's silly to handle a dispute over a userpage this way. Including me, that's three. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any other editors saying that removing offensive material from a userpage is vandalism. Perhaps you'll name the people who supposedly support this view.

I do see an editor bemoaning the time wasted in this discussion, and another editor thinking that the involvement of three admins instead of only two would be preferable, but that's not quite the same as saying that BlackKite vandalized the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't call removal of the obnoxious remark vandalism, but I don't consider it a no-brainer either. As a leftist, I may have been intended under Dixie's original polemic; but schadenfreude and general bad taste are not blocking offenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think that finding the right line is a trivial exercise, either. That's why I asked for information and help. The edit warring was admittedly stupid (can it possibly matter if your offensive comments are off the user page for an hour while you figure out what's going on?), but it's possible that what's "too offensive" to one person might be "just barely not offensive enough" to the next, especially after the editor removed the line about living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good block; clearly inappropriate materiel regardless of who may have died, especially given the trailing (... to go) wishes for others deaths; Black Kite not even remotely involved - those who are saying he is do not understand "involved" as it relates to blocks, I am sorry to note - D4D was not acting in good faith to respect anyone's concerns about his offensive comment, which had absolutely nothing to do with building a better encyclopeida. WP is not MySpace. All drama since pointless. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChildofMidnight you've been a fantasitc defender of user Die4Dixie, but considering his long history of trouble in the realm of civility, I would advise you to please reconsider that role. Likeminas (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been my experience that civility is met with civility. When a gun slinging admin rolls in and bullies, that is (not surprisingly) met with frustration and anger. This is supposed to be a collaborative encyclopedia building effort and I don't think it's unreasonable to expect admins to use dispute resolution just liek the rest of us, as opposed to abusing their tools to enforce their personal opinions. I would have been happy to respond to a discussion on the userbox that I didn't think it was helpful. That is how this should have been handed rather than with Black Kite's abuse of his tools to win a dispute and Black Kite's edit warring on another editor's user page. Dredging up other issues an editor may have to deflect attention away from Black Kite's admin abuse just isn't fair. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your first statement, but defending a guy who has wished several people dead (including a user's mother) is not a role I'd personally embrace. But, if you want to do so, that's your call and I support you're right to express any concerns.

In regards to Die4Dixie's latest block. I fully support it.

And if I'm not mistaken it has been supported by several other people, including three different administrators. Having said that, Black kite seems to have acted within what's expected of an administrator, and that is, to avoid further disruption and unnecessary offensive content within Wikipedia. Likeminas (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

$0.02

If I may offer some advice, if the purpose here is to keep order and edit the encyclopedia rather than punish, I urge administrators' friendly engagement of Die4Dixie rather than Wiki-sanction. He is a good, intelligent editor who listens, and like most of us is a lot more responsive to cordial overtures than being punished. His last two user page reversions[193] merely express satisfaction that a founder and leader of the Cuban dictatorship has died, and in response to the initial removal omit the imprecatory hope for more deaths[194]. Sure, it's still wrong for a user page even if the vast majority of the English-speaking world surely agree with the sentiment. But there's no emergency here. Nobody's going to die, sue Wikipedia, or become personally hurt because D4D expresses this. The rare reader who actually wishes the Cuban leaders to live indefinitely has heard worse. I understand and sympathize with the PC reaction, and the block looks technically correct, within administrator discretion. But drawing a line in the sand then blocking D4D for crossing it escalates a situation that could be handled far more calmly. First we double-check policy to make sure one may not express satisfaction here at the death of anyone, though to be consistent that would have to include terrorists, assassins, financial fraudsters, and child abductors and other unsavory characters. Next we can politely inform D4D that although we too are happy that Cuba may be one step closer to freedom, we can't have this kind of stuff on a user page so will he please humor us. Conversation is the best way I think. Same content result hopefully but far less fuss, and better feelings all around. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are my observations on the matter:

• I don't think this quite falls within the spirit of the userpage policy in that the statement was not explicitly making any attack on editors. However, that's upon my interpretation that "or persons" pertains to those involved with Wikipedia.
• I do not consider the changes made by others to Die4Dixie's user page vandalism as I see the back and forth warring as good faith interpretations by other editors that the material in question violated the userpage policy.
• I've seen worse placed on userpages that should probably be removed upon my interpretation of the userpage policy.

With all that said, I would support an unblock, provided that either one of the two things occur: that either Die4Dixie agrees to keep the said content off his userpage, or that Die4Dixie and all editors involved in the userpage editing, the block, and this ANI thread agree to

disengage from the situation. MuZemike

02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that

WP:NPOV. When warned about these violations his response is invariably hostile in the extreme, saying anything in order to derail the conversation up to and including accusing other editors of racism and telling other editors that he wishes their parents had been disappeared by notorious death squads. Saying he is happy that Bosque died for the crime of being a leftist may seem minor in comparison but, really, how much of these sorts of morbid antics can the wikipedia community be expected to tolerate? Simonm223 (talk

) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

reviewed an unblock request

I declined an unblock request. Here is a timeline of events:

• Black Kite and Veinor independently point out that the content appears to violate
  WP:UP#NOT
  .
• Black Kite also warns Die4Dixie to stop edit warring.
• Die4Dixie responds to these with this edit and then immediately begins edit warring again [195]
• Black Kite reverts again. When Die4Dixie reverts yet again, Black Kite blocked Die4Dixie

The block log message was "Repeated re-insertion of offensive material on userpage" and, according to the timeline, that is an accurate summary of events. Die4Dixie had ample opportunity to initiate a broader discussion of the content, which at least has the strong appearance of violating

CBM · talk

) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Carl. I too endorse the block. --John (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that CBM left out the fact that numerous editors have suggested that a better approach should have been taken and that this is not a clear cut case. CBM's summary also left out that Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to. But I'm sure that was just an oversight and that CBM was trying to be fair to all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be fair to all parties. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've declined the third unblock request for the same reasons as my colleagues before me.  Sandstein  06:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should have taken a more light-hearted approach. For example, when Jesse Helms died last year, I considered posting his photo next to, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead!" But I settled for, "So Long! Farewell! Auf Wiedersehen! Goodbye!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's twue! It's twue! It's twue! MuZemike 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"¡Señorita, por favor! ¡Yo no vivo en la Habana!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. Durova³²² 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)The Wiki Witch of the West

• And I would point out that when ChildofMidnight notes "Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to", what this is referring to is the dropping of "...and several leftists to go!", leaving the rest. I believe the common phrase for that is "distinction without a difference". Tarc (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't recognize a difference between "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of

Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!" you are probably unfit to edit on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk

) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you can come respond to this after your latest, and deserved, 12h time-out. But I must ask, do you really think expressing a sentiment of "I cheer this person's death and can't wait for more like him to die" is substantially different from "I cheer this person's death" ? Do either really jibe with

WP:USER? Tarc (talk

) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the edited version is slightly better -- at least it couldn't be (mis)interpreted as a wish for currently living people to be killed -- but "slightly better" is not always "sufficiently better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

Black Kite had made three reverts in span of 20 minutes ([196], [197], [198]) on Die4Dixie's user page and then she blocked him. Policy Wikipedia:Administrators states that Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party. In my opinion Black Kite misused her position as an admin. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of comments on his/her user page were unacceptable. Black Kite was doing his/her job as an admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite arrived at that page because of this very ANI thread. So the block was part of the same sequence of admnistrative actions as the reverts were. This is not the same as a situation where two editors are both frequent contributors to a page, and then one of them decides to block the other. Black Kite was only editing that page as an administrator responding to an ANI thread. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 14:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Administrative enforcement of policy, such as

WP:UNINVOLVED: "An administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice or opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them." No abuse of administrative tools occurred.  Sandstein 

14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

LMAO So if I quote a policy I can edit war? That is a very interesting take on our policies. Please don't ignore the numerous comments above suggesting the userpage comment is in a gray area. Admins should not act as bullies and abuse their tools to win disputes. They certainly aren't exempt from edit warring and other policies. This discussion is troubling and the pattern of Sandstein's involvement in these abusive blocks after his recent fiascos indicates he may not have learned much. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This situation was not a "dispute"; it was an administrator response to the post by Whatamidoing at the top of this thread. Users cannot ignore things such as WP:USER by merely claiming that the content in question is "disputed". The plain language of WP:USER#NOT point 9 applies to the content in question, as Black Kite indicated above when he responded to Whatamidoing. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's a dispute. Just because soemone is an admin doesn't mean they get to decide the outcome of discussions. Once the edit was reverted, and especially after several editors commented that it is a gray area, consensus should have been sought through the appropriate dispute resolution discussion as opposed to unilateral enforcement and an abusive block. It's not one rule for admins and another set of rules for everyone else. We are all expected to resolve disputes in a collegial and collaborative fashion. Is there some reason you and Black Kite are incapable or unwilling to seek consensus on whether a statement of that type is acceptable? Have you even tried discussing the matter and seeking a compromise with D4D? Try showing a little respect and working with people instead of trying to enforce your will on others. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If you review the user talk page history, you will see that two editors (Black Kite and Veinor) did attempt to discuss the situation, but the response from Die4Dixie was "go play somewhere else". Actually no other editors had commented that this was a "gray area" before the block, but even if it was a gray area (which it does not appear to be), that would only be another reason for Die4Dixie not to reinstate the content before investigating why it was removed. The issue here was entirely that Die4dixe decided to ignore the comments on his talk page. That, not the content itself, is what led to the block. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 19:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When as many admins and users have disagreed with the tree of you, then it is a gray area. Using the tools to abitraily decide that your personal interpretation of a policy is the only one and even more so , when several admins in the best of standing and with years of experience voice concerns, then the capriciousness rises to arrogance.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ADie4Dixie&action=historysubmit&diff=318564364&oldid=318538234]] didn´t cause any comment or threatening behavour from you three. It is the exact same edit I maade that you blocked me for. Nothing was said because the material was not a policy violation, or this is some twisted roll playing game where some users have the +10 vorpal blocker and the rest just have to cower.--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That edit was reverted soon enough. The content does violate the literal text of WP:USER#NOT part 9, but that was not the reason for the block. The block was for repeatedly inserting the material without taking the time to figure out whether it was a policy violation. Even if you get consensus later that allows you include the material, you were still not in the right to revert its removal without getting that consensus first. If you want this to be a genuine, human environment, rather than a role playing game, you need to treat other's comments and edits in the same way you would want your own edits to be treated. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 22:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, I wonder why I was the only one who was supposed to do what you suggest. Why didn´t he have to figureout if he had concesus to keep removing in userspace? It is done, but there is nothing like supporting consensus that I couldnt have it, only someone who had tools making right mightily.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

CBM · talk

) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He was calling for the death of leftists on political grounds.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As for you. You should either ask for a RFC to ascertain if I canvassed or drop the whole meme. It really is time for you to move on. I said something to a user who has now (ironicaly enough given my tasteless statement for which I have recognized as unfortunate) hs decided to "disappear" rather than reveal his disruptive and verily, I say, destructively manifested COI. Rather than disclose or face arbcom, he left. Given the nature of the COI, it is understandable that I became upset with him. I served my block, and its over. Coming here dragging up an old, and moot issue again and again when few have been inclined to act on it or validate your canvass "concern" should tell you you are wrong. In fact, more people have supported my right to have that on my userpage than have found your accusation credible. At this point, barring a RFC, I would ask you to drop it, as repeated saying this is now a mendacious attack. Just stop and eit something. As far as calling for the death, although I deny that it was an active call to their death, I had removed that before I was bocked, so it doesn´t seem germane to the block--Die4Dixie (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I will be launching an RfC when I get back from vacation. I leave in 10 minutes which isn't enough time and I thought it would be gauche to start an RfC before you were off your block as you wouldn't be able to participate in the discussion. I am very concerned by the tone of your discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gauche, your word, was sitting over here making the claimwith up supporting it. I have been unblocked for a day.Your sensibilitis prevented you form requesting one, but didnt require that you provide one diff. Srains credibility.--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is. If it was towards regular people, the editor would have been blocked without any complaints.

talk

) 12:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone can defend the comment "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!". I think that everyone would agree with me that if it was towards an average person, it wouldn't be acceptable.

talk

) 13:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1) Fact that another admin, Orangemike, reverted Black Kite [199] shows that this was not such a straightforward issue for everyone.

2) Black Kite was not enforcing policy because

WP:UP

is not a policy but a guideline.

3) Even if we leave first two issues aside, block was not an appropriate action because user page protection would have achieve the same result and Die4Dixie would have been able to normally edit other articles and to defend himself here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

people knew d4d was a bad faith account when it was created. you ould have blocked it then (account creation disabled) and saved yourselves kilobytes of discussion. And it's pointless asking COM to back off the discussion - why do people bother responding to COM when it's clearly not achieving anything? COM could have one short line on the whole page, instead there's a whole slew of stuff that'll only serve to make other people look bad. Cool, I'm going to wait for some Jew to die and then I'll gloat about it, and say "only 6 million to go!!". But don't worry, it'll be ON A USERPAGE. 87.115.68.252 (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay use of

WP:IAR

?

Resolved

 – Not really the best use of IAR. Re-opened by SoWhy, no harm done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I closed

talk

) 11:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, not really OK, in my opinion. You should never close a deletion discussion in which you participated; why would you ever need to, anyway? There will always be thousands of uninvolved users. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 11:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I just don't like the idea of an article sitting in AFD for possibility a week longer when it doesn't need to. I'll undo the closure.

talk

) 11:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)>

(edit conflict) No, it's incorrect. You should not close an AFD you have participated it, especially not when an admin decided to relist it. I have reverted the close. Regards SoWhy 11:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that

talk

) 11:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it should exist. However, what you did didn't help Wikipedia, it helped you assert your side of the AfD, and was thus not an appropriate reason to ignore the rule. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 11:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) Joe Chill, you should have at least consulted admin User:JForget who relisted the AFD just an hour before you overrode his decision and closed it. That combined with your being a participant in the discussion, makes your closing a recipe for needless drama and meta-debate. Could you please undo the close and let an uninvolved user evaluate the AFD instead ? Abecedare (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There are situations when IAR is useful, but this is not one of them since you do have a conflict of interest here from your participation in the discussion and also because it could lead to bigger dispute. IAR should be used only when it clearly helps to improve wikipedia. Thanks for notifying about this though. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 11:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to, but SoWhy already did. Even without this, there is still plenty of wiki-drama (like every section on ANI, mostly with no conclusion).

talk

) 11:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There maybe a good argument that someone should close this anyway it since the nominator was blocked a few days ago as an abusive sock. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As per this:[200] Joe maybe should have brought that up in his first sentence here, as it would lend credence to his argument. However, any article is subject to review, even if it's from a bad-faith nomination. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for of this, but I think now it is a clear consensus now (I though of closing it before but just in case wanted a couple of more contributions there to be sure if the discussion wouldn't swing the other way as it happened in other AFDs in the past), so no need to wait another full week to close it as it is not required to wait that much after a relist, just until the consensus is clear. Also, the nominator appears to be blocked indefinitely as well for various disruption. So I'm closing the AFD as keep now.JForget 15:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

NewYorkCity101

Resolved

 – NewYorkCity101 blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor has been tenuously making pagemoves that are disruptive and unnecessary for the last few weeks, especially regarding subjects involving Nickelodeon networks, The Simpsons, and PBS Kids, including changing Simpsons articles wholesale, changing long-established fair-use images without any discussion on the talk pages besides "I want to do this", waiting a couple of days, and doing it anyways despite users asking them not to. User has been warned multiple times and is now moving on to uploading unsourced images to articles which add nothing to articles. NewYorkCity101 is also on an odd campaign to bring up

chatter

) 16:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

evidence

• Account labeled sockpuppert -
  User_talk:NewYorkCity101#Sockpuppetry case
• user received several warnings, which he did not contest or provide any good defense to his disruptive editing style
• user warned against making unnecessary or disruptive page moves, even received a final warning, yet he has done it again on [201]

I propose he gets blocked, 72 hours minimum unless he can defend himself, or promise to cease his disruptive editing style. Ecoman24 (talk page) 18:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing the edits of NewYorkCity101, my conclusion is that his edits are disruptive. He was warned multiple times by different editors, but he/she didn't listen. I've blocked NewYorkCity101 for 1 week for disruptive editing. AdjustShift (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the action. I took it here due to the case being too complicated for ANI, so I'm glad someone took a second look at these edits.
    chatter
    ) 19:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

User:GorfelMing

Resolved

 – Account indefinitely blocked by

talk · contribs) –Katerenka (talk • contribs)

20:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting this user because he apperars to be the IP address that keep on vandalising a usertalk page, his first edit was vandalism--

Expert

20:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks for blocking him.--

Expert

20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

UserBox

Resolved

 – Nothing more to discuss; see Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's post. NW (Talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the criteria for userboxes I came across one on the page of User:The C of E claiming he is Homophobic, seems a little divisive. BigDunc 16:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fairly straight-forward

WP:UP#NOT #9, IMO. Tarc (talk

) 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 17:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And what about their page's statement that they do not like homosexuality? Can that be removed? ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

othercrap. It's happened more than a few times before with regard to userboxes. Equazcion (talk

) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been

bold and put the page up for MfD. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick

─╢ 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Homophobia.jpg is now not used on any WP page. It was used in the "this user is a homophobe" userbox which User:The C of E has now removed from his userpage. The change to the userpage will likely make the MfD moot - though kudos for the nomination - so I suggest the file be deleted as well. It's offensive. Would someone please point me to where it should be put up for deletion (MfD ?) or nominate it themselves or get rid of it in some other way? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's on commons, so it doesn't matter if it's used here or not. You'll have to go over to commons to request deletion; their policies are not necessarily congruent with ours. Horologium (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In my honest opinion, what people put on their userpage is their business. This discussion is a storm in a teacup if you ask me.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but for the wrong reason. The users don't own their user pages, the wikipedia community does, and they can set standards. However, something blatantly offensive on a user page gives a pretty good insight and is useful as ammunition in case the editor appears to be editing based on a personal agenda, such as a political point of view. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then the question I ask is, why are people looking at that user's page in the first place? People do not have to look at others userpages. And furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. As in real life, you view what you view at your own discretion. If you don't like what is on the userpage, leave. Just like in real life, when you don't like what is on your television, change the channel or turn it off. No need to get hyped up over this one.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If people want

This user is homophobic

on their userpage, I don't see why they should stop them doing so. There is nothing wrong here, as it is no worse than an athiest userbox, which plenty of users have.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)This thread really is a waste of time. Yes, it has alarmed a few people, but seriously, grow up. We are adults coming to edit an encyclopedia that self-acknowledges(

WP:NOTCENSORED) that some content may offend some viewers,--AtlanticDeep (talk

) 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw man argument there. Atheism does not advocate removing the rights of those who wish to be religious. Having an 'atheist' userbox lets people know that you are able to edit articles related to atheism, nontheism, and biology and other sciences. However, having a userbox which states that you have an irrational fear of homosexuals, or even that you actively discriminate against them, does not let people know that you're an expert in the field. Furthermore, "Wikipedia is not censored" quite obviously applies to article space only - the applicable policies here are the Userbox & userpage policies:

1. Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive.
2. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise, opinion pieces on current affairs or politics, self-promotion, or advertising.
3. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia... attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons...

I appreciate that editors want to share things about themselves - I myself feel quite strongly about several divisive issues - but advertising the divisive issues does not help the project. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record,

WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to articles, not userpages. Userpages are really quite censored. Equazcion (talk

) 22:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We're adults. If we choose to look at the userpages of other editors, we do so at our own risk.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The risk is not to us, it's to the user. The risk in posting something like that is that it can lead other editors to believe that the user edits prejudicially, and those editors may be looking for bias from that user where it might not necessarily be intentional. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I repeat what I said before. When you watch television and you don't like the show, change the channel or turn the television off. If you don't like what you see on someone's userpage, exit. --AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And if the user wants to take that risk by making people think they edit with a POV, it is at their discretion.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Well, some of us are adults, yes. "Do what you want at your own risk" might be a good policy, in certain situations. It's just not ours. You're arguing against years of consensus here, so like you said, it's a waste of your time. The place to affect change would perhaps be

WP:VPP. Equazcion (talk

) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh and TV is also rather censored. That's a terrible example. Equazcion (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. When there are no programmes on containing sexual references, hard violence, offensive language and so forth. But when they are on, you have the power to turn the darn thing off.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Users do not own their user pages. They can abide by the rules or not edit. That's their choice. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The amount and degree of sex and violence allowed on TV is regulated by the government and/or the network, though. We're doing the same thing. Our standards are just higher. Equazcion (talk) 23:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Drawing a line

At the end of the day, this discussion is irrelevant. Policy is clear, the userbox is divisive and should either be MFDed or deleted on sight. Let's move on, mark this as resolved, and continue any discussion away from ANI. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And what exactly, may I ask, have we resolved?--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has removed the content in question. A discussion involving the policy in general should either go to

WP:VPP. Equazcion (talk

) 23:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That specific userbox features a gay pride flag splattered with blood. I can only speak for myself, but when I, a gay person, look at that userbox, I don't see a statement of political opinion, I see a threat of physical harm. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Maybe, I should quickly download the image to my computer before it gets deleted.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Troll much? I don't see any other reason to say that. Equazcion (talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't mean it to come out like that. I just was wondering if I would be able to get a copy before it got deleted. That's all. It IS getting deleted , right?--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You could download it to your PC right now. Ain't nothin' stoppin' ya. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. If anyone wanted to archive this to remove AD's soapbox, I wouldn't object. Equazcion (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean?--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See

WP:SOAP. Equazcion (talk

) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks more like mud to me. Maybe I should post a picture of Jesus with mud in his face. I'm sure AD would have no problem with that. Actually, this thread should be closed, as it's rapidly becoming pointless. AD has been told what the standards are, and he doesn't like them. But there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Homophobia.jpg, for those interested. I didn't see blood either myself. I thought of it as general defacing of a flag, like with a paint splatter or something. Still inflammatory though. Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by User:Exucmember

WP:BATTLE to Exucmember [203]

. Exucmember has not redacted the statements in question.

I am requesting that another administrator take action with regard to this matter.

---

• 08:00, 2 October 2009 - Exucmember removes sourced material from the article
  Moonie (Unification Church), with edit summary: nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source; rm
• 13:18, 2 October 2009 - I restored the sourced material [204]
• 06:56, 5 October 2009 - Exucmember makes inflammatory comments and strong claims about my use of sourcing, in a post to the article's talk page. He accuses me of adding a "false reference" to the article. Example: It's astounding to me that CIRT would admonish me for removing a false reference when I stated clearly in the edit summary "nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source." He cites the diff, but does not answer the objection I raised! I did a search of that paper, and finding none of the keywords from the quotation, I then read the entire paper (quickly); not only does the quotation not appear in the cited reference, but no discussion about anything related to the topic is present. Perhaps he cited the wrong source, but it makes me wonder how many other sources don't really contain the stated claim.
• 13:08, 5 October 2009 - I added further information to the cite (not needed for
  verifiability, but extra information) to make it explicitly clear that I had not added a "false reference". [205]
• 13:14, 5 October 2009 - In posts to Exucmember's talk page, I made it clear that he was incorrect, I had not used a "false reference". Here [206] I pointed out that the information is actually in Footnote 16 of the cited source. Here [207] I responded to his strong allegation that I inserted "factually incorrect" information into the article. And here [208] I noted the inappropriateness of his posts to the article's talk page.
• 17:24, 5 October 2009 - A second user posts to the talk page of Exucmember about his inappropriate behavior. DigitalC commented: Exucmember, you may also want to read WP:BATTLE if you have not already done so.
• 03:34, 7 October 2009 - Exucmember has not removed or redacted his inappropriate attacks and claims about my editing, nor the allegations that I used "false references". Instead, he has chosen to continue to make further inflammatory posts about me at the article's talk page: [209], [210], [211], [212].

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue that seems to be the primary emphasis by Cirt seems to be not that big a deal since it was a statement that was incorrect about the sources and has since been resolved. An apology would be nice but it isn't required by any policy. I'm more concerned about some of the difs that Cirt gives at the end. Especially troubling are comments like this onewhere after Cirt asks for sources Exu says "'Ive seen this before from Cirt. When he either doesn't have an answer or doesn't understand the issue raised (I have no idea which), he presents this mantra, an obvious and complete non-sequitur in this case. Perhaps his meaningless comment is an example of "wasting" talk page space (which he is so fond of arrogantly pointing out)." That seems to be pushign CIV and NPA issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Joshua said above. I'm not sure that Exucmember realizes that his actions are wrong. In any case, if there's any further aggressive comments like what s/he has said, I think a block is in order. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the above - it took a while to find it, but the cited quote is definitely in the source (Exucmember, footnote on page 21). I left a note on Exucmember's talk page asking him to comment here and pointing out the page number, but if these comments continue a block would be in order for a short period of time.

a/c

) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that was before I noticed he's been here since 2006. An editor with a three year tenure should know better than to make comments like that.

a/c

) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: After being notified of this ANI thread and then indicating he was aware of it with a rather inappropriate response [213], Exucmember received comments at his talk page from admins Killiondude [214], and Hersfold [215]. Exucmember subsequently posted this inflammatory language to the article's talk page [216]. I fear he is choosing not to listen to the messages posted by these admins to his talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Exucmember posted another inappropriate comment about me to the talk page of the article, saying: he seems to be adopting as factual the arguments of people who in some cases are bigoted. I have repeatedly asked for Exucmember to back up his claims with independent reliable secondary sources - he has instead chosen to engage in this sort of talkpage diatribe - despite warnings from multiple admins and editors. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to think this is block worthy, primarily per

WP:BATTLE. JoshuaZ (talk

) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above is somewhat bewildering. Cirt picked a fight with me. I feel I have been quite restrained under the circumstances, but he has gone out of his way to provoke me. I do not have unlimited time, so I am not going to spend hours trying to accuse him by selectively placing difs here and characterize them (as he has toward me) selectively, in a biased way, and out of context. I feel I am being bullied by Cirt. Even now, in his latest comment, Cirt is continuing his aggression toward me by exaggeration, claiming that I have received "warnings from multiple admins and editors." Two people responded to this ANI with very reasonable and helpful comments (not warnings). I responded to their comments by saying that I didn't disagree. The only one who has issued a warning was Cirt, who did so while involved in a minor content dispute with me (one might see this as a conflict of interest and judge that it would be more seemly to invite another editor to issue an admonishment, but no one has taken this approach to my knowledge). In my view this warning from Cirt about not removing sourced material (one sentence with one source) was done inappropriately after my good faith edit which stated clearly in the edit summary that I concluded the quotation was not in the source provided. He chose to high-handedly lecture me on my talk page instead of simply informing me on the relevant talk page where the hard-to-find quotation was (it was a passing comment in a footnote in a very long paper which I spent a half hour reading and in which I was not able to find any content anywhere at all related to the topic cited). I thought a mistake had been made.

I would invite anyone who thinks they need to discipline me to read the whole exchange on the article's talk page (and on my talk page), noting the timeline and what edits I made to the article when. I have refrained from making any edits that could be considered by any reasonable person to be controversial since 03:39, 5 October 2009, as soon as it became clear that Cirt was going after me in an aggressive way. There were quite a few edits that I felt would improve the article, but I didn't make any of them because of Cirt's accusations and to protect myself against the charge of edit warring. Better to let others make the edits. I raised the issues very directly and poignantly on the talk page (Cirt has tended to ignore points I raised in the past, or responded with repeating the phrase "please cite sources to back up your claims" even when I was making no claims and citing sources would have been completely inappropriate or even in principle impossible, as though he didn't even read what I wrote).

I believe the article has some major problems at present. Some of these have to do with issues other than sources, but this seems to be Cirt's only concern. A good article needs more than just sources, however. One point of frustration is that Cirt seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article, something which I mentioned recently and Steve Dufour agreed with. This is in spite of the fact that Steve and I have some expertise in this area, but several of Cirt's statements show he doesn't have much background knowledge of the topic of the article. But Cirt seems to be unwilling to allow any edits he doesn't agree with.

I am an occasional editor (less than 3000 total edits I think - not even sure how to find out), so there are a lot of things I don't know about the system. But I do know that people shouldn't be treated the way I've been treated. Again, I feel I've been targeted, bullied, harassed, and repeatedly falsely accused by Cirt. Frankly, I find it disheartening that on Wikipedia an admin would be allowed to game the system and bully and provoke an editor and not even be asked to back off. -Exucmember (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to focus talkpage discussion to suggestion of

on the contributor, as opposed to content discussion. I fear this pattern of inappropriate behavior by Exucmember will continue – as he has not gotten the message in comments in the above thread and at his talk page from myself, DigitalC, JoshuaZ, Hersfold and Killiondude. Cirt (talk

) 11:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Cirt's

WP:Ownership issues with the article also should be considered. There is no rule that primary sources can not be used in an article, only that notability can not be based on them. (I also have disagreed with Exucmember at times. He is mostly a very sincere and positive contributor to WP, although he does have strong personal feelings on Unification Church issues which sometimes (I think) get him too worked up emotionally. Somewhat ironically his feelings sometimes seem to be stronger than mine, a current UC member. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk

) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also made what I hope are some constructive comments on Exuc's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I am noticing Exucmember throwing a fair amount of snarky comments at Cirt on

Talk:Moonie (Unification Church). The "If you are not familiar with the basic background of this article's topic, perhaps you should not be the one to take on trying to write the article largely by yourself" comment is not particularly beneficial to a collaborative environment. Granted, that might be a bit of bias on my part (given that I talk to Cirt on a fairly regular basis), but I do think that comment sets a bad tone for an editor. EVula // talk // ☯

// 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there has been a conduct problem on Cirt's part, please provide specific diffs in substantiation. What this thread contains so far is an organized presentation of evidence from Cirt and unsubstantiated claims from Exucmember and Steve Dufour. Fair disclosure: I used to mentor Cirt. But the community is pretty good at evaluating diffs when they are forthcoming. Durova³²² 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't care to make any charges against anyone. That's just not my kind of thing. I was just trying to show Exuc a little sympathy. He is a good and well-meaning WP editor, although we have had our disagrements, including on the article being discussed. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Will see if an uninvolved admin will take a look. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view:

• Exucmember, you made what was an understandable and good faith error in removing content that you thought was unsupported by the cited sources. However, your subsequent insistence and accusations that Cirt was adding false information, instead of double checking your work, was less excusable. Worst of all, even when the footnote was explicitly pointed out to you, instead of admitting fault and graciously apologizing, you chose to blame Cirt for "provoking annoyance". Honestly, your comments here and on the article talk page seem to reflect a
  I didn't hear that
  attitude in as much that you refuse to admit when you make (good faith) errors, and instead choose to disparage other editors for their supposed lack of knowledge of the subject. This is really not helpful in a collaborative environment.
• Cirt, while Exucmembers conduct has been non-ideal (as I state above) I don't think compelling him to apologize or rescind his remarks will serve any purpose. In my experience, most editors involved in talk page discussions on wikipedia are pretty intelligent and when an editor makes hyperbolic or false accusations, it only hurts their own credibility since others can see through the bluster.
• Steve and Exucmember, if you think Cirt has ownership issues with the article, please do raise the issue with supporting diffs and we can address that concern. As Durova has said, it's really impossible for outside editors to evaluate such claims without any supporting evidence, and in any case, it is not useful to muddy one issue with tu quoque or "he too" arguments.

I don't think we need to apply NPA or civility blocks at present, since I am hopeful that editors will take the feedback from this thread to heart anyways. Disclosure: I came to this thread following this message on my talk page, but I have not had any involvement with the article or even the related subject; nor have I had any editing or talkpage collaboration with Cirt (besides possible overlaps at AFDs, RFCs, RSN etc). Abecedare (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Abecedare (talk · contribs), I agree with this assessment. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Following this post on my talk page I've come here a bit late, but perhaps I can say a few things which could help.

I've found that on en.Wikipedia, when one sees bristly claims of "false information," it's most often because some mistake has been made, which might be sloppy sourcing, a misreading or a wantonly PoV, feelings-driven take on an otherwise good faith edit. Hence, this kind of claim tends to show more bluster than good faith. As for "provoking annoyance," lots of good faith edits one sees here do that, it's a slice of the noise thrown off by the back and forth of "merciless" open editing, like the rustling of leaves in the wind. There is nothing untowards about it, the pith is how editors

Undue weight

will drive readers off the text either way, as will most any narrowly polemic PoV.

Some of Exucmember's comments were rash, too eager for a fight, an outlook which never spins up helpfully here. Meanwhile, perhaps aside from helping children learn how to get along with others, only apologies unbidden have much worth and if they don't come, speak louder than, so there's no pith in asking someone to say they're sorry, it only stirs up more kerfluffle. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), I can agree with this as well. :) Cirt (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Issue at Selena article

Can I request some assistance over at Selena? Newly registered user Alwaysshawn (talk · contribs) recently downgraded this featured article—a lot—and is using an IP to revert back to his version. I was about to make my way to bed when I saw it and would like others to look over the situation. Thanks in advance. — ξ^xplicit 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP for a week. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alwaysshawn advised to discuss the issue on article's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Alwaysshawn went on to revert your edit without discussion. — ξ^xplicit 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24h for 3RR using IP addresses. Reverted his last changes. Continue giving him the benefit of the doubt for a bit more, but unilaterally changing an FA against consensus and without providing sourcing is not collaboratively improving the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ivankinsman systemic copyright vio

Resolved

 – user blocked for 24 hrs. Ecoman24 (talk page) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally posted on Copyright violations talk page. Posted here due to extent of problem.

I don't know where to report this but

talk

) 17:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He's also

talk

) 21:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given the extent of this problem I think I'll take this to ANI.

talk

) 22:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I ve notified Ivankinsman of this discussion. I am sure he will listen to the counsel, looking at his communication with others. He has done some good works though. may i encourage administrators and others to give him good advise. I hope to see his input. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Per
  Wikipedia:Copyright violation, I have blocked the account for 24 hours. The editor indicated no understanding that all pages are available on the licenses used by Wikipedia, and that Copyright issues are very important. Since guidance has failed in the past I considered that sanctions were the only option for this editor - if they were not prepared to AGF what they were told by other editors, then they are already failing to understand how WP works anyway. That said, if they wish to request unblock on the basis that they realise their error then the reviewing admin need not contact me for my agreement; they can be unblocked immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue page - requesting assistance

Please see my talk page, as well as my recent contributions to the article. A certain host of individuals interferes with the revision process of the above mentioned page - something that has begun following the incident that took place on the page 2 days ago. I am in the process of making changes to it, when I get counter-inputs where all my edits are just reversed unappealingly. I am willing to compromise, as I've done thus far, but I do not appreciate my effort to be obliterated. Requesting intervention on the page. Thank you. Esoteriqa (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• • User:BADBOYS BLUE already blocked indefinately on October 8th. There is no further evidence of the user been active, see [217]. Please, feel free to removal any offending content from your talk page by User:BADBOYS BLUE. you may also achieve it. 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

They were indef blocked two days ago by Hunster. What are you on about? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no hang on a mo. Rees has pointed out on Talk:Bad Boys Blue that it's not correct just to revert all of the banned editor's edits, as some of them were correcting errors in the article. Is that what you mean?? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the resolved tag as this doesn't appear to have anything to do with User:BADBOYS BLUEs current editing status. Other editors have taken an interest after BADBOYS BLUE's legal threats brought the article to their attention and are trying to clean up the mess that is the current Bad Boys Blue article. Their efforts are being reverted by Esoteriqa. --Onorem♠Dil 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The banned user's edits were not entirely vandalism, and I did already incorporate a few of his inputs in the article. If he placed a valid point in it - there' s no reason why it shouldn't stay. All of my most recent edits show a transition of the article to the form that it will assume eventually, edit by edit, including incorporation BADBOYSBLUE's edits, as well as those of other contributors - all valid inputs will be incorporated, I only ask that the October 6 version is not used as a template for revisions and users who are keen on reverting to it are mindful of a simple fact - that the article was more or less in a balanced form prior to the above date... while other editors appear to overlook this notion. Please rest assured, the article will not stay in its present form, just allow some time for the process to take place, and it will be balanced again... as opposed to consuming futile energy and effort on edit war. Esoteriqa (talk) 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Harassment + and possible Ban avoidance via sockpuppet by User_talk:218.186.12.243 / User_talk:218.186.12.250

Resolved

 – Protections and blocks doled out. Wknight94 ^talk 01:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Previously my talk page was vandalized[218] by User_talk:218.186.12.250 who was subsequently blocked.

It has since been attacked [219] yet again by User_talk:218.186.12.243.

Other than the offense of harrasement and the similar way it is carried out (i.e. wordings used), I strongly suspect that these 2 accounts are related, as both also have the tendancy to sign off their posts with "http://twitter.com/phoenixreporter" as seen from [[220]] and [[221]].

I may have stepped on a few toes when I was reverting some unconstructive changes in a few articles, but that did not nessecitate these attacks. I hope this is the correct venue to address this attacks and hope someone can look into this. Thanks in advance! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly seems like the same person to me. Either way a block is in order, even based on the latest incident taken on its own. Equazcion (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected Zhanzhao's user and talk pages and blocked the range for a couple weeks. Wknight94 ^talk 01:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the attack was from IP:218.186.12.243 and 128.186.12.250, not the 224-247, was this a result of Checkuser? I don't want anyone innocent to get blocked because of this. Zhanzhao (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild rebound

Yesterday's IPs keep on vandalizing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we're getting plenty of proxies blocked, but I don't see how there's any more vandalism since the protection on the 9th (including deleted edits). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant they've moved on to User talk:Pathoschild. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia domain typosquatter

Resolved

 – No admin action possible.  Sandstein  07:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up to the wikimedia foundation

I found this, http://en.wikipedai.org, which is definitely a typosquat of wikipedia.

I'm concerned that a future owner of this domain may attempt a phishing attack.

Thanks, but admins can do nothing about this. You can bring it to the attention of the~Wikimedia Foundation, though, per e-mail at [email protected].  Sandstein  07:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Druid.raul IP sock?

This edit by 203.76.181.22 (talk · contribs) to Etihad Airways has reverted the fleet from a September 30 date to an August date. Druid.raul has edited the article in the past. I'm not comfortable with reverting the edit myself (involvement issue) but feel that it should at least be reviewed by others. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that this is a matter of FACT edit - what does the source say? There should be no issue with POV over how many aircraft an airline has. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not investigated that, but what disturbs me is that a referenced entry dated Sep 30 is being replaced by an August dated entry. The edit was reverted but another IP has reverted the reversion. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's him; user is definitely editing again - as an unregistered IP this time. Several recent changes to articles he used to edit point to my conclusion (see: here and here).

To top it off, I've just got an email that my Wikipedia password was reset because IP 203.76.185.83 asked for the reset. I'm dead sure it is Druid.raul/rhp26. Anyone else got such an email? Any suggestions on what can be done? Thanks. Jasepl (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• This user continues to edit as several IP socks. See: 203.115.93.155 and 203.115.93.206 and 203.115.93.222 and 203.115.93.227 and 203.115.93.241 and 203.115.93.83 and 203.76.181.12 and 203.76.181.124 and 203.76.181.15 and 203.76.181.18 and 203.76.181.21 and 203.76.181.22 and 203.76.181.4 and 203.76.181.59 and 203.76.181.77 and 203.76.185.101 and 203.76.185.83 and 203.76.185.96. Jasepl (talk) 10:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• There we go - he's just added a comment below! What can we do about him? Jasepl (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Etihad has 10 777-300ERs NOT 11, here is the proof - http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/displaystandardreport.cfm?cboCurrentModel=777&optReportType=AllModels&cboAllModel=777&ViewReportF=View+Report
Etihad's 2 A319-100s and 10 A320-200s are leased and the 20 new A320-200s are yet to be delivered, here is the proof - http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/backstage/documents/od/orders_deliveries_Sept09.xls
User talk:GS350 says Etihad has 11 777-300ERs and 23 A320-200s on Order, i have said to him a million times to provide a reference but he simply changes the details.(203.76.181.12 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

Regardless if you are correct or not,

proxy sock to get around it. --Sb617 (talk · contribs

) 10:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Listen, i wont't be there on Wikipedia forever, someday i have to leave. I know i am banned , but atleast my edits regarding the Airline fleets are correct and always from reliable sources. i showed u both proofs. (203.76.181.12 (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC))

• Right or wrong, the point is that banned users should not be editing at all. Jasepl (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Temporary semi-protection asked for at

WP:RFPP. Mjroots (talk

) 10:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note

Hi all~! Just thought you guys should know this... I did an IP trace of all the above and noted that is coming from a pool of dynamic IPs for use by Wi-Fi users of Broadband Pacenet Pvt. Ltd's services based in Mumbai, India. --Dave1185 (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dave. Not surprising - since that's where the user had said he lives. And, looking back, he's been editing using one of those IPs even before being banned for a second time. Jasepl (talk) 11:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a coincidence. Druid.raul hails from India too. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Duh~! *facepalm* --Dave1185 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked 203.76.181.12 (talk · contribs) for 3RR violations at Etihad Airways and Qatar Airways. Let me know if he returns on a different IP and I'll semi-protect the pages (else it's not required). That said, it would be good for someone to check the sources independently to make sure that the articles have correct and up-to-date information. Abecedare (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Back vandalising as 203.76.181.111. Jasepl (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare!

IP blocked. Pages semi'd. Outing oversighted. Let me know if/when he hits other pages. Abecedare (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Despited repeated threats of "I am leaving" - user hasn't gone anywhere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Air_India&curid=76913&oldid=319180563 What to do? Jasepl (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't leave unless Jasepl's stops reverting the edits which i had made before being blocked. If he stops ,then i stop, if not, then be prepared for MY OFFENSIVE
Druid.raul (talk) 06:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.185.125 (talk)

Is it possible to attempt a IP range block of the addresses he uses? The downside is that it may block out those that may edit from his ISP via a IP (IMO, they should be registering anyway), but it seems that RHP/Druid.raul knows what he's doing in regard to changing IP addresses. --Sb617 (talk · contribs) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree about the downside of blocking the range. However, if you take a look, all edits from that range (see above) have been made by the same person. So it might be worth looking into. Jasepl (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked latest sock and protected pages pages he trolled. Abecedare (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: WHOIS lookups suggest that the two relevant covering netblocks for all of the IP addresses mentioned above are 203.76.176.0/20 and 203.115.80.0/20. Blocking them both will only block a total of 8192 IP addresses, so it looks like a reasonable risk/benefit tradeoff. I'll temporarily range-block both. -- The Anome (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding RFCs and dispute templates

Is it proper to unilaterally remove dispute templates and/or RFC templates from articles or talk pages if another editor placed them there?

Suppose that I find something I don't agree with, and after a discussion with another editor, I compromise by putting a dispute tag on the article while I do research. Barely 10 seconds after tagging the article as disputed, the other editor unilaterally removes the dispute tag. Ditto for an rfctag placed on the article's discussion page.

My current belief is that the existence of a dispute makes it proper to add such tags to an article, and inappropriate to remove them unilaterally.

At the moment this is a hypothetical question, and presently I don't know if any actual cases of the above would warrant specific attention here, which is why I have omitted any specifics.

I'm almost certain I'm correct but I did wish to check and see if I am mistaken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shentino (talk • contribs) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Shentino (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify a bit more?--

Here comes the bird!

21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in a dispute with another editor at the moment over article X. It began when I corrected an apparent error. I was promptly confronted with the allegation that the source I followed was wrong, and my edits were reverted. I attempted to clarify with another interpretation, and was reverted again. At that point, I placed a dispute tag on the section in question, which was promptly deleted. I then attempted to start an rfc by placing the rfc tag on the discussion page...and the RFC request was promptly deleted with a "3 against one. Dispute ended." before the RFC even had a chance to be logged and created, which I found to be a bit uncivil considering it's abruptness and how it prevented other editors from potentially weighing in on the matter.

What I am sure of is that two different sources referenced in the article are either contradictory, or are being misinterpreted.

Update: I incorrectly questioned the relevance of one of his sources, which had wider scope than I believed at first. After reading the source again, I found I was incorrect and was more than happy to strikethrough my error. Unfortunately, in the meantime he had pointed out my error at the same time I noticed it myself, and then threatened to report me here for trolling.

My main concerns here are possible incivility, first by unilaterally removing the dispute and rfc templates, and now for accusing me of trolling and threatening to report me here. Shentino (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The debate Shentino is referring to is

Talk:Pizzo (extortion). If the evidence is overwhelmingly against one editor, and the other editor provides additional sources, he can remove the RFC tag. - DonCalo (talk

) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DonCalo is correct in identifying the editor and article in question. My current actions are doing research of my own, as I'm curious where the BBC got its information and if other sources are found that agree with the BBC, then the scales become more level. DonCalo: My apologies for not notifying you of this entry in ANI. I wasn't sure if a specific complaint would have been warranted, so I preserved your anonymity so as to avoid making an accusation against you specifically. Shentino (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I have found at least one source which sides with the BBC and doesn't on its face appear to use the BBC itself as a source of its own. The existence of apparently contradictory sources was in my opinion good cause for tagging the section as disputed. Shentino (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway to summarize...I was more than happy to work out the "battle of the sources" on the talk page of the article. The tersely summarized removal of the dispute tag and rfc tags, as well as a threat to report me a troll if I continued discussing the issue, alarmed me enough to bring it up here. (posted out of order due to edit conflict with Elen) Shentino (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don Calo is incorrect in saying that the other editor can remove an RfC tag. Placing an RfC tag on an article starts an entire process that runs for a set period. The other editor could however remove the dispute tag if they feel that the dispute has been settled, but not just because they do not agree there is a dispute to be had. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured as much...but to avoid a battle I wished to confirm this by asking on ANI. Regarding the dispute tag, I have uncovered another source that likely invalidates wp:snow Shentino (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The dispute has been settled, the evidence is overwhelmingly against Shentino, six reliable sources against one, and I have not even started yet collecting sources. This guy is just

trolling. - DonCalo (talk

) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Don Calo, please

third opinion may be a better option. Elen of the Roads (talk

) 22:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

He now comes up with a German site on holiday houses (see User talk:Shentino). Please, Elen, you are being misused by a troll. - DonCalo (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop referring to other editors as trolls. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

For now I'll leave the article alone so as to avoid drama, as well as to not exceed my 3 revert quota for today. My current plan of action is to do a "source audit" section of the talk page so that ALL sources, no matter who they support, can be evaluated for reliability. I don't consider "being outvoted" a reliable enough indication that a source is invalid, especially if the "vote" changes later due to a new discovery. Shentino (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a "devil's advocate", most of DonCalo's references were italian language, and I unfortunately do not understand anything but english. If I'm guilty of being biased towards english language references then I happily apologize. Shentino (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia - although it is perfectly acceptable to use foreign language sources, particularly if the reliable sources are more likely to be in a foreign language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rude language and POV Pushing

Resolved

 – user blocked by admin for 31hrs for common vandalism. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

69.159.84.182 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) blanked a section of from Rick Santorum saying "well yes, of course "paleoconservatives" and "paleolibertarians" have said that, they say that about everyone, but they're irrelevant and nobody cares," which I reverted because that's not a good reason to delete a whole referenced section without consensus.

Then this user left a message on my talk page calling me, among saying other rude things, an "incompetent hack". Then this user removed that section again, saying "they're irrelevant and nobody cares" and that section again and blanked and redirected Homesteading because it was "libertarian propaganda." This user is giving me some nasty vibes, and I can feel an edit war coming on, so can someone deal with this?--Blargh29 (talk) 07:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• This user at it again. Lots of potty mouth at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zero History. [222]--Blargh29 (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for common vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Another sock suspect of User:Hans Langschwanz

User:Denmiss is in line with the recent vandals on Helmut Kohl who have been blocked as socks. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. I will put the article on my watchlist and play whack-a-troll if I notice any more. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket at University of Miami, again

Previous threads can be found at Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Racepacket at UMiami article

This is the third time that I've felt the need to bring the actions of Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this board. Now he is constantly reverting changes made to the "History" section of the article because of what I feel are semantic word choices or paragraph structuring based on what he has told me. In the past 48 hours he has done so many reverts to this section that it is now impossible for me to improve upon the wording and structuring that I have tried to change because it is back to his preferred version.

• "Not a valid measure or a relevant basis of comparision. See "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" on talk page"
• "History: going back to prior version that gives national benchmark and does not attribute fundraising strongly to Shalala"
• "see discussion page under "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami""
• "hearing no objections, we are returning to the last consensus version except for Ryulong's "During Shalala's leadership""
• "History: moved consensus version back to main article"
• "History: added hospital acquisiton. Please work off the consensus version"
• "fix date of acquisition of UM hospital" (misleading)

In the last diff he is even hiding his change to what he considers the "consensus version" (a revision he put on a subpage at User:Racepacket/UMhistory). In his arguments he seems to be throwing in non sequiturs and it is becoming impossible to work with him or even understand him through his verbosity. He is obfuscating too much at this point, and I want something done because he obviously doesn't blame the edit warring for the failed GA nomination he put through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I deeply respect Ryulong's devotion to Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Miami, however a sense of ownership, incivilty and even profanity, [223] [224] makes working through editorial disputes very difficult. He dismisses my attempts to be polite to him and to try to discuss our differences as "verbosity." He is in such a hurry to make changes that he misreads his sources and takes logical leaps that cause the assertions he makes in the article to go beyond what his references say. Hence, we have had several differences of opinion that took time to work out.

For a long time, the history section was written in short, easy to read paragraphs covering separate ideas, most of which had 3 or 4 sentences. Ryulong, without first discussing it, decided to reorganize the history into paragraphs organized around each UM President, and I reverted that change. From Sept 2 - 5, there was also a debate over how to report UM's 2003 fundraising campaign in the history section. I thought that consensus was reached on Sept. 5. But since last week, Ryulong has been edit warring over trying to make comparisons between the size of UM's fundraising campaign and those of other schools in the State of Florida. I feel that his comparisons are not objective and have tried to draw in more views from WP:UNI.

In order to avoid confusing the main article while we worked out our differences, yesterday morning, I created a draft of the history section on User:Racepacket/UMhistory and posted a {{caution}} template on the history section of the article inviting editors to work out a consensus there. I also left a message on Ryulong's talk page and that of another user. Instead of contributing to the effort, he deleted the caution template. After incorporating one change from another user, this morning, I reposted the draft as the history section of the main article preserving the long-standing paragraph structure that had existed before Ryulong's reorganization this week. Now that he has made clear that I misinterpreted his removal of the caution template, I have offered to return to working on a new consensus draft with him, but he has posted the above complaint. One problem is that we are both making extensive edits to the history section at the same time, resulting in "edit conflicts" as we both try to save our changes. This results in his (I assume accidental) deletion of various additions that I have tried to make. I have proposed third party mediation before, but Ryulong did not agree.

Ryulong is coming within 20 minutes of violating 3RR:

• Revision as of 04:50, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:38, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 03:57, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009

I think if we put aside "ownership" and "control" issues, we could make the article at least a Good one. Racepacket (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This extensive text is one of the issues I can't stand. This four paragraph reply is ridiculous. This is why I can't work with you, Racepacket. I cannot sit down and read all of this to understand your issues. I don't know why you oppose the minor changes to paragraph structure or order because I can't tease it out of your essays. And I would like someone else's input before you say anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I have to say that what he has said makes perfect sense to me, and characterising it as 'ridiculous' is unhelpful. This should not be at ANI, this is a content dispute, and content disputes often require lengthy discussion to hash out versions of the text that are agreeable to all. The idea of working on a draft may be a good one - I've certainly seen it done before. And you do need to agree whether the history should be done by topic or by President (which is perfectly clearly set out as the basis for the disagreement in Racepacket's statement) - either would work but they can't both be used at the same time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The four paragraphs are ridiculous. Not their content. It is nigh impossible for me to meet every single one of his needs when he keeps undoing the edits I've done in good faith by only referring to the version he is replacing them with as the "consensus version" in his eyes, when he is merely going off of a version that has sat on the article for over a year until he began editing. He's done several reverts to his preferred version since he decided whichever instance of the article was the "consensus version". And this is not a content dispute. This is a behavioral issue on Racepacket's part, coming about as the content issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, his characterizations of my behavior (ownership, incivility, source misreading, etc.) are wrong. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. My blunt statements and use of profanity are not incivility. And I certainly have not been misinterpreting the sources. I don't know why the current state of the history section is such a contentious issue that it requires Racepacket to continually replace it with his preferred version, even after myself and other editors have been working on the section live.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this has not become personal, but I find it very odd that in the diffs you cite above I repeatedly removed your incorrect claim that Coral Gables was a part of the "City of Miami." However only after a third editor, User:Do go be man raises the issue that you start to take the matter seriously. If a version of the history sat for a year with a given organizational structure, then it is "consensus." Ryulong's reorganization of the history section into Presidential paragraphs starting last week has been very unilateral and disregards my stated concerns. Again, what I propose going forward is that 1) we set up a separate draft of the history section. 2) we each take turns revising it. 3) When one person is through with his turn, he lets the other have free reign without overlapping edits. 4) We share thoughts about the other's proposals 5) We work toward a consensus. 6) When we get consensus we move the draft to the main article page. Racepacket (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer part of the content dispute. It is your behavior in regards to the content that I have issues with. You have been obstinate in any change to occur. When I removed a handful of items that I didn't feel fit with the flow of the article, you reverted me because the content was there for a year and was therefore "consensus". When I reorganized the short single sentence paragraphs together into larger paragraphs, you began to revert me and because of this "consensus" that you think existed. Consensus can change and forcing an article to be static is not going to help the project in the long run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryulong, who else agrees with you? Also,

WP:BRD applies here. You made some changes to an article that had been static. You were reverted. Now you have to DISCUSS the matter. Elen of the Roads (talk

) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo and MiamiDolphins3 seem to be in some sort of agreement with my edits and disagree with Racepacket's. BRD is fine, but it doesn't seem to hold when it's Racepacket being reverted for his proposed changes (not my reverts from his "consensus" version) as was the case with the previous "commonly/locally"/"the U" dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, nothing requiring admin action.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How are multiple reverts and misguiding edit summaries not requiring of admin action?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again he uses misleading edit summaries. Here he claims to change the paragraph structure, while at the same time removing content he disagrees with: the fact that something was the first of a series of things, the name "Momentum", the fact that something was the most within Florida, and the reference that supports the last claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit summaries must be short, which is why I spell things out on the talk pages. (Hence "verbose.") By the edit summary in the above diff, I meant that I was proposing a change in the context of a paragraph structure I still think is wrong and was trying to be concise with the matters changed. I have also responded to Ryulong's specific concerns on his talk page and on the UM talk page. Since he has been blocked for 24 hours, the conversation really can't continue here, but i regret an inconvenience this has caused. Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Momentum" removal

Every single time the same sentence has been changed in his edits, and he flat out ignores mentioning it in the edit summary and has yet to provide a reason as to why this particular aspect of the article has to keep getting changed: [225], [226], [227], [228], [229], [230], [231]. This has been going on for a week now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Lamer than a lame thing. It's crufty but I don't see why it needs excluding either. The obsessive reinsertion is also incredibly lame. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware this dialog was continuing here. I have left a detailed discussion under
  WP:UNI, so I don't understand the claim that i have "yet to provide a reason." We all know that Miami is not Harvard University, so why can't we find a way to present it in Wikipedia without claiming "bragging rights" on the fundraising front? Racepacket (talk
  ) 19:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Have you checked
  WP:PEACOCK lately? Just asking. Guy (Help!
  ) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Macgyver-bd 896

The user Macgyver-bd 896 has been disruptively editing firearms articles for several months, even after repeated warnings[232][233][234]. He continues to add unsourced, dubious range data to articles (examples: [235][236][237]), and he admits he only "thinks" this is the correct data[238]. He has not made any particularly constructive edits, and almost all of them were reverted within hours. He has also been editing under numerous IPs registered to Turk-Telecom (Macgyver's edit: [239], IP: [240][241]). I have also been informed that he is doing this internationally as well. — DanMP5 03:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not supporting his edits, most firearms articles seem to have unsourced range data (

Lee-Enfield editing but otherwise, I don't why his edits are so "dubious" (short of your personal knowledge to the contrary). -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 05:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, most of his edits aren't really dubious by themselves, its the fact that he keeps on changing the range on multiple articles by a few meters up or down, after being warned and reverted by multiple users, that makes the edits bad faith. He is also very inconsistent[242][243], further adding to the proof he is just making this up as he goes (still not convinced? look at these diffs[244][245][246]). I consider this to be, at the very least, a sneaky form of vandalism. Also, I do consider a 164 yard effective range for a handgun[247], and a very low fixed range of 25 meters for a shotgun that can fire multiple types of ammunition[248] pretty dubious. — DanMP5 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, there aren't sources for any of that, him or otherwise. I'd rather remove every unsourced range suggestion across the board to be honest, but I don't feel like going through another round of "you're a horrible, nasty, evil deletionist and don't support the encyclopedia" with people. Yes, he's making it up clearly, but so was everybody else from what I can tell. Message me if he again continues but honestly the only difference between him and most of the other editors seems to be that he seems to be doing it for quite a while. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation

Resolved

 – Content dispute moved to relevant talkpage. Please remember to make use of the venue of first resort when discussing improvements to articles. Page protection is

RS/N for independent comments on sourcing. - 2/0 (cont.

) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR. I'm really not sure how to respond from now on, so please is there any administrator to help me out? --bender235 (talk

) 10:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, but it does not belong here either. It is a content dispute. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• both are may be breaking
  WP:3RR
  . They have all made valid edits to the concerned article. they have failed to agree on editing, I suggest you one of them should STOP editing articles the other is editing. Please read wp;3rr below.

The three-revert rule

WP:3RR

The "three-revert rule" ("3RR") is a bright-line rule concerning blatant overuse of reverting, a common kind of edit war behavior. It states that a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring, and blocked appropriately, usually for a 24-hour period for a first incident. 3RR draws a line where edit warring via reverts is clearly beyond a reasonable level and action will be taken if it has not already been.. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, which should follow

WP:BRD (it is very bold to assume that 3 will follow 1 and 2, I don't even want to guess error margins on that, even when sourced!). When it got challenged, no-one of the two brought it to the talkpage. Bender235, you did 'revert' 4 times now, WMC is at three. May I strongly suggest that you do revert yourself, and do bring it to the talkpage? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C}

11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the content dispute (which does belong to the talk page indeed), and found at least two obvious disagreements between Bender's formulation and his sources. WMC is an bona-fide expert on this topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I added it to the

article's talk page now, and I'm curious to see what "obvious disagreements" there a between my formulation and the sources. --bender235 (talk

) 11:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now in appropriate venue, move to close. Verbal chat 12:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Rockwick spammer is back.

The Rockwick spammer [249] is back and trying again at

Medium Term Note with another one of their randomly named accounts, Asdubiasudfa (talk · contribs). [250]

. They're also now using the name "Cohen & Cohen", where they previously used "Cohen and Stein". Supposedly an edit filter was put in place to reject Rockwick, but it looks like it didn't work. Please check that. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave the filter thing for those who might understand it. I blocked the named account, but if the filter will not stop them then we will need to consider whether a sprotection will stop these accounts. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland / Northern Irish

The standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland is 'Northern Irish'; it quite clearly says so on that country's article. However, Vintagekits (talk · contribs) insists on reverting my edits on Shea Campbell to say 'from Northern Ireland' as opposed to the correct 'Northern Irish' - can we have some neutral input please? Regards, GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The ignorance of this is at this stage becoming predictable. 'Northern Irish' is not standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland - it is a politically loaded POV term that should be avoided - multiple discussion back this up.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence to support 'Northern Irish'. Not POV, fact. GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If your arguement is correct Vintagekits, then we wouldn't be able to use English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British, Spanish, Turkish... Eddie6705 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is a subjective identity, and would need to be properly referenced. It's like saying he's British or Irish. Please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#British_or_English?. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also down the hall, second on the left. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anybody from Northern Ireland is 'British'. Having said that, using 'Northern Irish' is a powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean a powder keg? Maybe to some, but there are good ways and bad ways to resolve these matters. I just came by to point out this (recent AN/I thread where we failed to reach consensus for a ban "The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project?") and this for which he is currently blocked for 1 week. Worth continuing to keep an eye on Vintagekits I think. --John (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

VK has a long record of

WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT type behaviour in regards to any and all opposition to his view of what 'Northern Irish' means. MickMacNee (talk

) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. "Northern Irish" is a perfectly acceptable term used by people all over the world. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are the Republicanists in Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that

Jay

17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really so few Wikipedian's aware of the incendiary effect of such loaded terms as calling all the residents Irish in one degree or another and not British? You need look no further than here:[251] "A 1999 survey showed that 51% of Protestants felt "Not at all Irish" and 41% only "weakly Irish" where 77% of Catholics polled said they felt "strongly Irish"." Calling a Campbell that played for Linfield, Armagh and Ballymena an Irishman would have done you no favors when I was in Belfast.

This is a content dispute, one in which a distinct political battle is being played out. And it's ugly, you either support a British peoples right to self-identify with the state - or you choose, as here, to forcibly label a people against their will. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the people of Northern Ireland feel particularly Irish or not is pretty irrelevant here. Demonyms refer to a person's nationality, not their ethnicity. In this case, I don't actually see the difference between referring to someone as "Northern Irish" and saying that they are "from Northern Ireland". –

Jay

09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The very contentiousness of the issue and the sectarian response above in this section dramatically underscore how loaded a term it is. Much of the world has quite similar points of political hyper-sensitivity. Its bias as an exceptionally loaded POV term is self-evident. We either recognize that - or we take sides. It's a big deal and astonishingly complex - we even record it as notable[252], "Therefore, it should not be assumed that everyone in Northern Ireland considers themselves to be "Irish", as is often mistakenly assumed by outsiders." 99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would avoid the term "Northern Irish". People born in NE are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of NE, although the Republic of Ireland long refused to recognize the partition of the island. Most residents of NE do not consider themselves ethnically Irish. Notice that the name Campbell is a Scottish name. BTW the term Ulster (except when referring to the 9 county province) should also be avoided. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying we can't refer to people from Northern Ireland as "Northern Irish" because that term contains the word "Irish"? That is a completely ludicrous statement, and is a corollary to saying that we shouldn't refer to people from South Korea as "Korean" because they don't want to be associated with North Korea. "Northern Irish" simply means that the person is from Northern Ireland. If you see any implications of ethnicity there, that's only because you want to see them. Take off your rose-tinted spectacles and see the words for what they really mean. –

Jay

02:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's just not the way it is, no matter how easy your rhetorical trap makes it appear. -99.142.5.86 (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Northern Irish" is a demonym, not a nationality, although some people seem to confuse these two concepts. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We should respect the names that people call themselves. We do not call Canadians Americans although they inhabit the American continent and we do not call Israelis Palestinians although they live in Palestine. BTW the two Korean countries are not called N. Korea and S. Korea. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) this is a pretty good example of a person who does not identify himself as "British", and considers himself "Irish" as opposed to "Northern Irish". "Northern Irish" is a reasonable default term to label someone from the country, but I think the Good Friday Agreement should be taken into account:

"Recognition of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose."

As a default, I don't see the issue with refering to people as Northern Irish. But that if there is evidence that they consider themselves "British" or "Irish", we should recognise this in line with the aforementioned quote, with a phrase such as an Irish footballer from Northern Ireland.^<citation> WFCforLife (talk) 04:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The default setting is "from Northern Ireland" unless the person themselves identify himself/herself as "British" or Irish. This does not mean however that we cite a third party making the description for them.--Domer48_'fenian' 08:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How did we let this ANI report develope into a content discussion? GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "Northern Irish". A group of editors has recently taken to trying to erase the term from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 21:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, it is not neutral, from Northern Ireland is the only neutral term that can be used unless it is proved that the person identifies as such. BigDunc 21:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We have ample verifiable references as to it's divisiveness and political use - we even, as noted above, discuss it within article sections in the encyclopedia.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'from Northern Ireland' is not the default position, it is the POV position maintained by edit warring by two or three republican editors. Whenever it is discussed properly, such as here, there is at best a no consensus outcome. Even when it is discussed on the Ireland Wikiproject, it is no consensus, which gives the lie to the idea that it is the 'neutral' position. I find it very dubious that it is argued at the same time that a) Northern Irish is not a nationality, and then b) that we expect people to self-identify as 'Northern Irish'. Sourcing for self-identification is only relevant when Northern Irish people declare they are British or Irish in addition or in preference. Labelling them as 'non-persons' by default is not neutral, or anything respecting BLP. MickMacNee (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@MickMacNee, So someone form Northern Ireland is a non person? BigDunc 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee is saying by just putting "From Northern Ireland" is treating them like a non person (thats how i understood it anyway). They are either British, Northern Irish, or Irish. Infact they can be all 3. Northern Irish should be the default, with just Irish or British being used based on reliable sources about how they describe themselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That is rubbish to use a provocative term should never be the default, so what you are saying is impose a term on all the people who identify as Irish unless we have a source that says they are Irish complete BS. We should always use the NPOV ...from Northern Ireland. BigDunc 18:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Who said anything about imposing it on people who identify as Irish? 'From Northern Ireland' is not NPOV, it is just your POV, just like the opinion that it is 'provocative' to describe someone 'from Northern Ireland' as 'Northern Irish'. It carries as much weight as an argument for NPOV as suggesting the 9/11 hijackers were not 'terrorists'. I.e. none. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this stuff covered by arbcom sanctions on The Troubles? It's clear to me that WP might get a weak consensus for a standard phrase, but it's like the never-ending wars over gas/petrol, or aluminum/aluminium. (But with the added fun of people shooting each other over it.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's covered. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Offensive username HonestJew

Resolved

 – Indef blocked, the deleted page was telling, and all the edits are antisemitic trolling. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The username User:HonestJew is offensive due to the implied claim that Jews are generally dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.19.5.251 (talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice the user was blocked 72 hours for "reverting too much", and his user page was deleted as it was considered "vandalism". If someone can look at the deleted content, it might offer clues as to what this user intended with this username. I've also notified the user of this thread. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is question may or may not be a productive contributor (and if not

will certainly be blocked), but I find the assertion that the username is automatically offensive to be ridiculous. The far more likely meaning of such a phrase in general is a user describing him/herself. Would "OldJew" imply most Jews are young? Of course not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I can't really agree with that logic. People like to poke fun with their version of oxymoronic titles. In this case, there would be no reason to describe oneself an an honest jew, unless the assumption is that jews are not normally honest. I'm not well-versed in username policy but I have a suspicion here regarding the intent. I could be wrong. Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The username as such is borderline. It looked offensive to me first also, but Thaddeus makes a good point. Looking at his contributions would likely give a clue as to what his intent was. Which apparently someone did. Username issues can be taken to

WP:UAA →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

23:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My point wasn't that this user in particular was describing himself (he wasn't), but that there shouldn't be a blanket ban on such descriptions. Certainly my first assumption based on the name alone would be someone who was proud of being 1) honest and 2) Jewish. Does the user name "HonestPerson" imply most people aren't honest, or does it simply describe the user who registered it? If a user named "HonestXYZ" is making disruptive edits they can be blocked for making disruptive edits - no need to rely on username policy for the block. If not, than there is no reason to try and read implied racism into their user name. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a blanket ban either. It was just a suspicion -- and a well-deserved one in the end, it would seem. Equazcion (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with
  we cannot judge further without looking at contribs- as we have done, and come to an apparently correct decision. End of. Rodhullandemu
  00:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for people with borderline names to edit is useful. "give him enough rope". I'd ask for people who send names like this to various boards to watch them first. This saves biting newbies, helps to quickly block disruptive editors, and helps with cleaning up bad edits. Sending them to UAA first slows the process down. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Drive By Editing - Willful Ignoring of Lengthy Discussion - 3RR Gaming

After lengthy and thorough discussion a category tag for the Roman Polanski article achieved a semblance of consensus as one of its more articulate opponents begrudgingly reported that a great deal of community discussion had gone into the appropriateness and general application of the child molester tag (several nation specific exist in addition to the generic tag). Now editors in opposition to the tag have taken to simple reverts, editors that have never chosen to engage in the talk page discussion and refuse to defend their reverts via discussion. The goal is clear - tag team 3RR.

Can anyone enforce the requirement to discuss, especially as a great deal of thorough debate has been devoted to this tag in the Polanski article[253] as well as in a number of other articles and areas of Wikipedia. Basic argument for cat was:

CAT is entirely consistent as to members of the class being convicted of sex crimes with minors of all types, true for country specific cat and general cat. There are reams of prior consensus on this as seen through the cats and their members.

Yes, the cat is real and yes he clearly fits in with it. None of our cats are legally defined, we have 50 states each one having literally dozens of various sex crimes on the books. As with our one member Debra Lafave, "pled guilty to statutory rape charges stemming from her having sex with a 14-year-old" another member of the cat for example, "...he was convicted of unlawful fornication ...".

The defining thread seems to be sex crimes with minors ~ what we colloquially refer to every day as "child molestation" no matter the specific act with which convicted. And what of Mel Hall, "aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with a child" Clearly a sex crime with a minor ... but not child molestation? Polanski was convicted of molesting a child, the specific type of molestation being the rape charge he pled guilty to. He fits with the members of the category to a T - LeFave and him are interchangeable.

The cat is proper, use this thought experiment to see why: What if a person had been above the age of consent in their country of citizenship, but below in their country of arrest? What if a person, and there are literally millions like this, was convicted in one country but was a citizen of another country - in which they had never lived? Look also at those members of the location neutral cat as child molesters. It's members also include one convicted [254] and , "sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for having sexual relationships with teenagers."

Thank you.99.142.8.221 (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding additional Info: User:Cenarium, an editor that quite literally engaged me for a week here[255] by seeking to ban me for edits that recorded Polanski in the encyclopedia as "convicted" and a "fugitive" as well as seeking to ban me for disruptive edit warring at Anjelica Huston for this text[256] has begun a new "case" against me here[257] related to this very subject.

Is this all just a WikiGame where Talk is for the suckers and rational discussion means nothing when trumped by a ban?99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from my contribs, I wasn't concerned with that article nor you for several days (and hoped it would remain that way). As it happens, I still have the page on my watchlist and noted the recent activity. It would be difficult to follow edits of someone changing of IP every now and then. Consensus was quite clearly against the inclusion of this category, as can be seen at Talk:Roman_Polanski#Categories, yet you continued to edit-war to restore it, with more than 4 reverts in 24 hours. Cenarium (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC):::::Contrary to your protest above about not being concerned - you hit me up within moments of a technical reading of 3RR when I reverted arguably vandalistic removal of a well discussed consensus edit.

You also choose to remove the edit without even so much as a peep on the discussion page in the section that reached consensus on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon becoming aware of the edit-war due to the unusual activity on that page, several minutes before my revert, I looked at the relevant discussions and found that consensus was against inclusion, which I stated in the edit summary for my revert. A quick analysis of the history showed you had broken 3RR, and had been warned of this coming, thus I reported to AN3. Cenarium (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC-OD) I looked at that section on the Talk page, and there doesn't appear to be a clear consensus for adding that category, especially to a BLP. Generally speaking, when you're reverted by multiple editors, that means consensus is against you. Dayewalker (talk) 03:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Not one of those editors reverting offered so much as a word on the subject.99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would they need to? Consensus is against your edit, and it's a controversial edit on a BLP. If you disagree, please continue to make your case on the talk page, that's where the discussion should take place. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I did and the leading voice in opposition begrudgingly conceded that consensus on the cat existed but suggested a second look at the cat name itself. I pointed out the consensus, "Second look or not, we do have ample precedent and community consensus for the use of the cat here - as admittedly disagreeable as it may be to some - our intellectual honesty can no longer deny its current applicability." There was no voice in opposition to the declaration of consensus on the Talk page then - or now. _ 99.142.8.221 (talk) 03:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you made that statement, however, not much is accomplished by just saying there is consensus in the middle of a discussion where most editors disagree with you. Dayewalker (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Copy of relevant supplementary data and comments (also posted as comment at AN3)

Adding of category (without consensus) since the unlocking of Roman Polanski (Most recent first) NOTE: (dynamic ip?) All adds by same ip user (lower pair of numbers shift - user gave notice of shifting ip - took a few edits to complete) DEL 02:45, 11 October 2009 -User:Cenarium (admin) ADD 02:44, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL] 02:39, 11 October 2009 - User:JBsupreme ADD R02:38, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 02:31, 11 October 2009 - User:Will Beback (admin) ADD 02:27, 11 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 DEL 23:39, 10 October 2009 - User:Rd232 (admin) ADD 17:02, 10 October 2009- 99.142.8.221 DEL 16:57, 10 October 2009 - User:Off2riorob ADD 16:00, 10 October 2009 - 99.142.8.221 User_talk:99.142.8.221 DEL 14:09, 9 October 2009 - User:Physchim62 ADD 14:06, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 DEL 13:50, 9 October 2009 - User:Wilhelm meis ADD 13:20, 9 October 2009 - 99.142.5.86 User_talk:99.142.5.86 NOTE ALSO: 99.142.1.147 User_talk:99.142.1.147 48 hour block 17:42, 4 October 2009

COMMENTS: (I have observed)

• 99.142.x.x participates on talk page, but argumentatively asserts sufficient consensus to add category, but does not have consensus.
• 99.142.x.x's assertions are often misleading/misdirecting etc.
• Disclosure I have been in contention with 99.142.x.x over the past few days (most lengthily and absurdly over talk page management, to wit: whether a topic can be removed or collapsed on the talk page). I have directly asserted that some of 99.142.x.x's messages are Misleading bs (and have, for the first time on Wikipedia, I think, used the whole word "bullshit") It is not my habit to do so, but such is the nature of the communication patterns described. Other contentions around undoing of a few things I've reverted (with full edit summaries and talk page discussion.) BOTTOM LINE: Lots of BS. Lots of wasted time. 3RR fully broken and crushed. etc etc.

-- (data & comments) Proofreader77 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No one denies the subject wasn't contentious and difficult. But many ignore the fact that the subject was discussed intelligently, at length and with reason. - 99.142.8.221 (talk) 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The people posting ridiculous warnings on IP 99's talk page seem to have a problem with the fact that Roman Polanski is a convicted rapist(the dictionary definition of rape includes someone below the age of consent) and a admitted pedophile(he admits to having sex with a 13 year old). You seem to have a lot of people keep trying to keep information about his crimes off the page anyway they can. The news brings a lot of traffic to the page, and his fans keep erasing information, others reverting them. Dream Focus 10:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• • It looks to me like Polanski was never actually convicted of rape or child molestation (and isn't actually a pedophile by any definition I'm aware of). He pled to "unlawful sexual intercourse" and the other charges were dropped. Equazcion (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article, that's the same thing as statutory rape under CA law.

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I saw that in the Wikipedia article, but I don't see it in any news articles that talk about the situation. If someone could provide a reliable source on that point, if one exists, it might help to clear things up. Equazcion (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two references for that statement already in the article. From one of them "Polanski pleaded guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse" with a minor. What's the difference between that and statutory rape? They're synonymous."

Ravensfire (talk

) 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there's some discrepancy there. I notice you placed "with a minor" outside the end quote. Indeed I've noticed many news sources state the charge as simply "unlawful sexual intercourse". Some add "with a minor", and some instead add (perhaps more telling) "with a 13 year-old girl" -- and the latter certainly is too specific to be an actual charge. The discrepancy alone indicates to me that the former portion is the actual charge. Though I could certainly be wrong.

More importantly, we're not arguing about a rape category but a child molestation category. According our own article on child molestation, that label only applies in cases where the party was below the age of puberty.

This may all take a backseat, though, to general public opinion. Taking a random article from Category:Convicted child molesters, John Wayne Gacy's victims were all above the age of puberty. But he was a sicko, so I'm sure everyone wants the label applied. Polanski in contrast is more of a controversy. He had sex with an underage girl; But there was no pattern of such behavior evident, she reminded him of his brutally murdered wife whose murderer had just died, it wasn't a violent rape, most of the charges were dropped, etc. I'm not condoning it but this is probably the problem. By not using categories strictly, we open up the possibility for such debates. Equazcion (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you read the article in the reference, "unlawful sexual intercourse" is defined as sexxual contact with anyone below the age of 18. The quote is directly from that article (including the "with a minor phrase"), otherwise I wouldn't have included it because it's redundant. From looking through other references, the charge is most commonly called unlawful sexual intercourse, with some sources then adding more to it, probably for clarity.

No disagreement about the category stuff. Toss in the technical charge name isn't the name we're most familiar with (statutory rape), and it's a bit of a mess.

Ravensfire (talk

) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

TRM Auto

Resolved

The user

speak

) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All G11 stuff deleted. Will block account asap, post-review. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Help again please-

Resolved

 – Content dispute, one editor has left Wikipedia, nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:52, 11 October 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.

---

No one took seriously my complaint about

WP:CAPDIS but yet continues to go around to the articles to remove information without ever adding or finding references for unsourced material. This is disruptive and takes time out from wikiproject members who have better things to do. I'm sure he will respond here, again I will not respond directly to him, only to questions posed by administrators. Please, I beg anyone to do something to keep him out of articles regarding the Capital District. His claims are always of me claiming "ownership", which I have never done, I have collaborated immensely with several other editors of the wikiproject ports, wikiproject warning templates, wikiproject nrhp, wikiproject capital district, and wikiproject new york; I am the cofounder of the wikiproject Capital District, if I didnt want other people working on articles I work on I wouldnt have ever brought up the idea of that wp or continue to inform others of articles I start and ask for help from them. I simply dont want this disruptive editor on articles that I think have potential when all he does is remove information that in his opinion doesnt matter, he never brings concerns to the talk page nor does he listen to others. He often cites the matter at the Siena College article as me not listening to others, but he fails to mention that it was 8 against 2, in my favor, with two of the supporters on my side being administrators and a third later became an admin as well so I dont know who I was not listening to. Please help!Camelbinky (talk

) 21:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should have informed Hippo43 of this so I've done it for you. Jack forbes (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable - so Camelbinky again thinks I have to seek his approval for changes to 'his' articles. Can someone please explain to Camelbinky that removing trivia (which may have value in a more specific article) can also be a way to improve an article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, and should be discussed on the article's talk page first, which unless I'm mistaken hasn't happened yet. Equazcion (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about the content dispute, its about the long standing disruption that the user in question has continued to do. I'm not going to continue to have my contributions subject to hippo43's approval and removed if that one user objects to them. I have the right to edit as anyone else, but hippo seems to believe that my edits stay only if he agrees. I will not edit like this. I am requesting a topic ban on that user to keep him off these articles which he has clearly shown he has no relevant knowledge about to contribute to them. Bringing this to the article talk page will do no good, as shown in previous discussions where he was clearly outnumbered a consensus means nothing to Hippo43. I have shown the notability and relevance of my inclusion and that similar sections already exist in other articles. I am here requesting administrative and disciplinary action to be taken, I will not continue to be a member of Wikipedia if my edits are only allowed based on Hippo43's approval. This is the last time I will stand by while he reverts sourced material I have added, I've had enough. If something cant be done then there is no reason for me to continue to contribute at all to Wikipedia. I should not have to get clearance from another editor to add information. IAR means nothing if one editor can decide the "rules" on their own.Camelbinky (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Camelbinky, Hippo43 is right about the Albany information. If you care to produce an article on Albany library, or libraries in the district of NY, or whatever, then information about the change in how the books are stacked on the shelves would be hugely significant I'm sure. In an article on Albany, it's trivia, and that level of information on libraries in other areas is trivia. This is a content dispute, and does not belong at ANI Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, you don't need my approval to add material, and I don't need yours to remove it. How many of your edits have I actually reverted or changed? In what way have I acted as if your edits are subject to my approval? I removed some tangential content from an article which is already tagged as 'too long'. You have no idea of what knowledge I do or don't have, and your patronising statements on the subject do you no favours.

The only consensus established in our Siena College dispute was the consensus among the reliable sources. They disagreed with your view - I suggest you move on. --hippo43 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this isn't an issue of the removal of

WP:TRIVIA. The information might be trivial, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition. The cataloging system could be seen as excessively specific for the article, but on the other hand if formatted the right way and perhaps cut down some, it could integrate well. Either way these are thigns to discuss on the article's talk page. Please give that a shot first. Equazcion (talk

) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[EC] I agree that this is not a situation requiring administrator intervention. It's a dispute over content, and I haven't seen evidence that the parties have tried to resolve it through discussion. Furthermore, I agree with Hippo43 and Elen of the Roads that the library's plan to abandon the Dewey Decimal System is too trivial for inclusion in the article about the city, particularly in view of the 84-kB length of the article. Have you thought about creating a separate article about the city's public libraries? I suppose there might be some merit in including information about Albany's abandonment of this system in Dewey Decimal Classification (but I'm not a library maven -- this would be a topic for discussion with Wikipedians interested in that topic) ... --Orlady (talk) 22:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ARGH. The matter at hand is not the specific incident of whether or not the specific information should be in the article, though I still say yes, other articles on cities have library sections, yes, right now all Albany has is the one paragraph I added but I was in the process of researching to put more on how it is one of the oldest in the nation and other relevant information. A library section is no more trivial than an education or transportation section. The length of the article is so long because it is still very much a work in progress. The history section will be cut down significantly once we are done with History of Albany, New York (and watch, now that I've mentioned that article Hippo down the road will visit and disrupt there too, as is his practice, but hopefully by calling him out that wont happen). Media in New York's Capital District will similarly allow a significant cut to be made to the media section in the Albany article as well once a rewrite is done to accurately reflect the change done by the switch to digital. Other sections as well need rewritten, that is why this is a work in progress needing to be done by those with knowledge and not by those willy-nilly taking out information they dont agree with. A library section is relevant. Allow work to be done on the article to improve it, removing information is not improving anything, this information is not vandalism. Hippo should have taken his concerns to the talk page first. I see all this talk about "it should have gone to the talk page", ok then address that to Hippo instead of to me, I havent reverted his move. This is not a stand-alone event that everyone is making it out to be and I am done with his propoganistic lies and half-truths he spouts everytime he posts a comment, the sources in Siena College never came to a consensus, and if they did it doesnt matter, consensus of editors is all that matter in Wikipedia and eight said he was wrong, but of course Hippo has to spout his lies to make himself look in the right, therefore I'm quiting Wikipedia. The articles relevant to the Wikiproject Capital District will be worse off without me than they wouldve been without Hippo43 around, but I guess if choice is between me or him the consensus seems to be to keep him. Removing information should be a last resort, not the default. I'm through with this crap. I'm sure we'll see a last word by Hippo making himself look good and me bad, he always has the last word and try to goad me into responding another time by spouting another lie that will rankle me, hoping I'll come back. I wont give in. This is ridiculous and I hope someone picks up articles I created and worked hard on to continue to make them better. This is not self-centeredness, there truly are articles only I have cared to work on, we all have articles like that. I wont stand by and let Hippo continue his rampage of finding them and hurting them. Check his archives on how many complaints there have been of articles he's done this to before. Nobody cares though. Have fun on this endeavor and hope you like it when he or someone similar gets to an article you care about.Camelbinky (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky, I think you may need to take a

break. I looked back at Administrative Districts of New York, and saw that Hippo reverted you twice, and you reverted him twice. That's it. Not a rampage of destruction in sight. Elen of the Roads (talk

) 23:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky is justified in feeling extremely frustrated with Hippo43's entering in on a new article. Hippo43's characterization of the Siena College article dispute in this edit above is irritating. The consensus of all but Hippo43 there was that Hippo43's tendentious editing was the problem. There was an administrator nominally in charge there who opened an RFC but in the end, IMO, did not act forcefully enough to stop Hippo43. Eventually I and others walked away. The net effect was that Hippo43 won by edit-warring and obstinacy. If I were Camelbinky I too would have a horrible sinking feeling to see Hippo43 enter in against what Camelbinky was working on in a different article now. doncram (talk) 18:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not entering a new article. My first edit to the Albany article was months ago.

Further, my characterization of the dispute at Siena College may be irritating to doncram, but his description of it is simply dishonest. I was not the only editor who took my position - while I was especially unwilling to cave, my view was shared by User:Squidfryerchef, User:Akhilleus and User:Gnhn, as well as User:Dicklyon at WP:RSN (not to mention the reliable sources).

In any case, how does my history of disagreement with Camelbinky affect the validity of my recent edits? The material I removed was clearly not appropriate for the article. There was no 'incident'. --hippo43 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(This is Camelbinky on an IP address) I am only coming back to Wikipedia to address lies presented by Hippo43. His "first edit to the Albany article months ago" was to delete an entire section that in his opinion was unreferenced, I had to undo his "edit" and mention in my edit summary that the information had the name of the magazine and year and while not in the proper inline citation it was still enough information to be a citation. Siena College and Albany are not the only two articles. There have been Loudonville, Newtownville, Adm. div. of New York amongst other Capital District articles in which has not shown any knowledge of the subject. This would be different if he had shown any interest in adding knowledge to an article in the NYCD area or has shown in any of our disputes any knowledge of the area or the people or the particular topic of the article, he has not despite his continued insistance that I "dont know what he knows or doesnt know" if he has knowledge, let him share with us. I'm asking for a topic ban on him to keep him away from any article relating to the New York's Capital District, that is all, so I can continue to edit in peace without worrying about him popping in. If I make an edit that may (in good faith) be too in-depth or whatever like the one to Albany then there are plenty of members of

wp:capdis such as admins Daniel Case, Juliancolton, and UpstateNYer, and non-admins and non-members of the wikiproject such as Doncram that watch the same articles that I edit and they will bring it to my attention in a polite manner. The issue is Hippo's arrogance and self-centeredness regarding he is always right regarding the application and interpretation of policy and guidelines, he does not recognize consensus or IAR and has been riled by my fighting against the very kind of editing and interpretation of policies that he has at the various noticeboards and village pumps at which I participate including the strengthening of IAR and a new warning template for use against those who delete sourced material or non-disruptive/non-controversial unsourced material without first bringing it to the talk page first; which is why it is strange that right after learning of this new template he on the same day I edited the Albany page he goes there and deletes sourced material. It is a vendetta by him for my actions to continue to stop the type of "editing" he and similar editors on Wikipedia do that I find disruptive and who hold the belief that policies are for them to decide and implement strictly by the book and discussion is not relevant. I will return to Wikipedia to edit when I am guarenteed that Hippo will not bother me, either his voluntarily deciding to stay away from NYCD articles, or an admin putting a topic ban on him. Until then I will watch this noticeboard and hope more people who have had a run in with Hippo stand up or an admin goes to his talk page and look through the history and talk to the many who have had similar run-ins with him, there have been many, this isnt just me.148.78.245.13 (talk

) 20:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What "lies" exactly? --hippo43 (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Camelbinky's reference to lies was somewhat of a mischaracterization, meant to provide emphasis for effect. Relatedly I'll forgive Hippo43 for calling me dishonest, above, after i made a small mischaracterization. I recalled the Talk:Siena College discussion as showing consensus of all but one, but I did forget about Akhileus' view in support of Hippo43. I apologize for forgetting that there seemed to be a 5-2 consensus, not an all but one consensus. Hippo43's naming of several others in support of his view seems to me to be a misleading characterization. There were no others persisting who considered the totality of the situation; one he mentioned made just one comment and another did not comment once at Talk:Siena College but rather commented in a different forum in response to Hippo43's prompting there. So there have been mischaracterizations by me, by Hippo43, and Camelbinky. Enough!

And, this thread was marked "resolved" at 20:52, 11 October 2009, with identification that it is a content dispute, which I agree with. Perhaps the Siena College issue could be revisited sometime at the newish Content Notice Board

wp:CNB. doncram (talk

) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your numbers, but I do remember the consensus in the reliable sources, and I don't believe I said anything about editors "persisting who considered the totality of the situation"! Still, at least we've moved on from arguing about Siena and are now arguing about the argument. I am glad. Maybe you should let it go? As far as I'm concerned, it had nothing to do with the recent edit Camelbinky took exception to. --hippo43 (talk) 01:08, 12 October 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.

UserBox

Resolved

 – Nothing more to discuss; see Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's post. NW (Talk) 23:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been archived to prevent a heated discussion. Equazcion (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

User:XpressBuy

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. JamieS93 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is promoting a business, please block this user indef.--

Expert

23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA. :) –Katerenka (talk • contribs)

00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, katerenka, your allways fixing my mistakes here.--

Expert

00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for username violation/creating a spam page. JamieS93 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jamie and there is another one that I reported at the

Expert

00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerbilling, improper deletion?

Resolved

 – No admin attention required (hopefully)

Due to the subject matter, I'm probably the only one with the guts to bring this matter to attention (if you must ask why I was looking this up I got there from a certain Hugh Grant urban legend I was reading about..) but I'm not sure why this article was deleted as the consensus was clearly to keep as per the

deletion review first? -- œ^™

20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that

WP:DR would be the correct course of action. Mjroots (talk

) 21:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you meant

WP:DRV, because I don't think there's much that can be done there. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Yes, I meant DRV. Mjroots (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an incident, since the AfD was three years ago and the deletion last year. I would say it can go to DRV, but I'm just has happy with it staying deleted. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The article deleted was a very much truncated version of the one that has usually been discussed here. I think DRV is in order--this is not the place to judge

Both the truncated and longer version of the article discuss the practice in length before both admitting that it doesn't actually exist and is merely an urban legend. I'd be very very wary of restoring this, given the kerfuffle/edit-war/drama that recently broke out over the attempt to insert* said urban legend into the bio of a well-known person. * probably the wrong word to use, but hey. Black Kite 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe.. nevertheless a notable urban legend deserving of an article.. i'll take it to DRV.. see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 October 12. -- œ^™ 02:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities Attending Concerts

Resolved

 – page protected, DR on-going on page

Ok, so on the I Am… Tour page, there was a list of celebrities who attended the concert and on what dates. Now early this year I remember that other tour pages had that same exact info, and it was removed because it is not important, and was considered clutter on this website. Because of that, I removed it. However, even though I have clearly stated the above facts in my explanations, people keep adding them back, and I keep removing it. Can I please have some admins help with stopping this information from being added back? ---Shadow (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

adminstrators don't intervene in content disputes except to issue blocks for edit warring or lock pages that are experiencing heavy edit warring from multiple parties.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr - administrators can intervene in edit wars in a variety of ways, and blocking/locking are but some of our options. I've had a quick glance here and the situation may benefit from admin attention. Regrettably I don't have time to act further at this moment. Manning (talk

) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I've only been here for 3 years, but I can't count the amount of times I've heard an admin say they don't use their tools in content disputes other than to prevent disruption. Admins can intervene as regular users and give opinions, but I can't say that I've seen many admins say they're going to force a specific version of a page for an individual user.--

Crossmr (talk

) 02:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not strictly correct. Admins can, and should, intervene in content disputes if the dispute contains elements that are against policy or against prior consensus. (Though, admittedly, in very limited situations and in very limited ways.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 03:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've protected the page for a very short period, started a note on the talk page, and removed all the

WP:RS but I'm going to first post a note to everyone's talk page about edit warring. I've offered an opinion but I think I've done enough to be at least neutral on the issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 03:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Repost of Deleted page

Resolved

 –

G4ed by Protonk. - 2/0 (cont.

) 05:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please help with a speedy deletion of a previously deleted page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Raymond_Cunningham —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osprey9713 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2C-B-FLY - someone please watch

According to a source on a forum [258] the alleged proprietor of a company thought to be involved in the distribution of this drug is supposed to have died from incautiously sampling his own wares from a batch which is postulated to be contaminated. Two IPa and User:Cegli have attempted to add the info to the top of the article, on the possibly good faith grounds that they are issuing a public health warning. They are arguing on my talk page that by reverting them I am somehow responsible for the death of anyone who might die from consuming an overdose of the product from the alleged faulty batch.

I'm going to bed. Could someone keep an eye on the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Crafty (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reports of at least two deaths appear to be genuine despite having not yet been picked up by mainstream media sources (the Danish dead guys family and friends have set up a facebook memorial site for God's sake) so I added a brief note in the "Dangers" section. Agree a "Warning" section right after the lede is hardly appropriate though! Meodipt (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And not surprisingly I have been reverted already. I would cite cases such as

WP:IAR can and has been in the past applied in the public interest to try and protect people from death under specific unusual circumstances. Certainly there are differences on which the cases can be distinguished, as in the cases of the kidnapped journalists there was a definite risk to an identified individual, whereas here we have a risk to an undefined class of individuals of unknowable size, but similar principles apply. It appears that a contaminated batch of 2CB-Fly containing an impurity which may be lethal at milligram levels, has already been sold to many people around the world before the "bad batch" was discovered due to the death of the person selling it. Obviously this has not yet been reported by reliable sources but when it does, those reliable sources will be reporting deaths that might have been prevented merely by allowing wikipedia's flexible rules to be bent temporarily. Can we get some consensus on this? Meodipt (talk

) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, for my money the info should only be added if reliable sources pick it up. How do we know the source in the forum isn't trying to damage the company's reputation? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Meodip, you reverted back at a few minutes later, giving the very poor explanation "pending discussion"; pending discussion would be a reason to have the material deleted pending sourcing. My own view is the same as Protonk's. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By pending discussion I just meant I expected it would be discussed here and consensus reached. The bluelight forum on the deaths is only reporting what is being said at a Danish drug forum psychedelia.dk which is a members-only Danish language forum, as many people are members on both sites. Reading it with google translate is slightly hard going but it appears a lot of people knew the guy personally and he is definitely dead after ingesting what was meant to be 2CB-FLY. There may be reliable sources already linked off there but they would be in Danish I suppose, foreign language newspapers were deemed good enough sources when the first deaths from mephedrone and bromodragonfly cropped up a while back though, as they were also in Scandinavia. It was the boss of the RC company who died so discrediting the company seems unlikely! Meodipt (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this content for lack of sourcing (saw the note, then came here). Just because something is mentioned on a danish drug users forum doesn't mean it should be here until picked up by sources. (I'd be happy with one in Danish, but google didn't turn up anything that mentioned the drug). And besides Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, or place for medical advice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Google didn't pick up anything? Look at this 2cbfly death search. Out of the top 7 results, 6 mention it, and one doesn't (that'd be Wikipedia, folks).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia may indeed be be neither a how-to nor a place for medical advice, but given IAR (and basic human pragmatics), maybe we should try and come up with a way to make it fit, at least for the time being. Maybe something similar to "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly."^{Reffed with a bunch of message boards.} And yes, policy says "Primary sources may be used to make descriptive claims."

Relax, no one is going to be sitting at home thinking "now just before I pop these pills, I'll drop in to Wikipedia to see if the pills might kill me". If such a person finds the rumor online somewhere, they have been alerted, and the fact that it is not in Wikipedia (nor any reliable source) will not influence them. If in a day or two it turns out that there is some basis for the excitement in an Internet forum, we will again have

not been a news outlet; so be it. Johnuniq (talk

) 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

@Peace and Passion: the top hits are not

reliable sources as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!

) 17:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I say word it as such. I clearly realize what reliable sources are, I don't need to be linked there; why'd you think I suggested it be phrased in such an epistemologically-sound way as "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly." I was just trying to be realistic and look on the situation in a healthy way. I fully well realized it wasn't fully in line with policy, that's why I phrased it the way I did and mentioned IAR. Nicely, Meodipt quoted the de facto standard of quashing something if it was believed to help someone, but it's now clear that such a "quashing" needs to be initiated by a newspaper editor and Jimbo at the upper levels of Wikipeida, not by us "regular" editors who are supposed to be the "flesh-and-blood" of Wikipedia.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not fix the problem of lack of reliable sources by saying "according to unreliable sources, X". The way we deal with stuff not covered in reliable sources is by removing it. That's a core value of the project. End of, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually if you look here page views for the 2CB-FLY page have gone up considerably since the guys death on the 7th, so it seems that quite a lot of people may be looking to wikipedia for information about this incident, perhaps precisely because it has not yet been mentioned in the mainstream media. But as I said I came here for consensus and that is clearly that this information should not be added until a suitable source is found, so I guess we will have to wait until some Danish newspaper picks up the story. Meodipt (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice sleuthing, Meodipt :) Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument that IAR should allow the publication of unsourcable (as far as reliable sources go) rumors is actually self defeating. In the examples given where reports of the kidnapping of journalists was concealed for their own safety, the suggestion of potential harm was based on reliable, if somewhat private, information. And the purpose was the opposite - to remove, not add, mostly unverifiable information. The reason we have rules like

reliable sources is that, as one of those pages mentions, anyone can go on the internet and make a claim. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigating rumors, and it would tarnish the reputation of the Encyclopedia to place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death. Alarmist email chains have achieved great followings in the past, so the fact that lots of people on the internet are pushing this is irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk

) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

After reading this discussion, now I'm really interested in what happened with this "kidnapping of journalists" story on Wikipeida, as I've never come across it, though it sounds significant. Could anyone point me to a link which discusses what happened, if one exists? I'd be curious to read it!

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS, I'm giving up on this one as the experienced consensus seems to say otherwise; but, Someguy, just a friendly reminder to be careful brandying blatant strawmen ("place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death.")!  :)

From the horse's mouth: NY Times — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, then, a case where it was decided that one person, based on a bit of circumstantial conjecture and newspaper influence, should have their article "influenced" on Wikipedia in order to "protect" them→and Jimmy raises a mini-cabal to suppress the info. I'm basically okay with that, but it's more than slightly debatable. Here, a case where many lives are much more clearly at risk, and this previous situation is not allowed as an analogical example of de facto policy here? Weak double-standards, community.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 21:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...It's not like we took a poll and agreed to let jimbo do that. Also the two situations aren't really analogous. Protonk (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh the situations are certainly analogous, in that they involve a definite risk of death to people in the real world which is potentially amenable to manipulation of the information posted on wikipedia. The difference is really in the remedy requested, and obviously adding unsourced information is a much bigger no-no (i.e. an explicit breach of the rules), whereas secretly disallowing the addition of properly sourced information is much more of a grey area, it may go against the spirit of established policy, but is not specifically forbidden by any rule I am aware of. My reasoning is that there was a greater degree of risk in this case (i.e. risk of death to an undefined class of individuals rather than a single person) although obviously without reliable sources there is no way of proving that the class of people supposedly at risk even exist, let alone estimating how many of them there are. So I didn't really expect the "bad batch warning" would stay up, but thought it was worth a shot and certainly worth testing what the community consensus was on the matter. Meodipt (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Moot point now seeing as someone has added the information back just using the erowid warning page as a reference and that seems to be ok with everyone! Not that a newspaper article would really be any more reliable than erowid I suppose...Meodipt (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The real problem is that we have no reliable information about the toxicology of these phenethylamines. Hence we cannot and should not say that they are "safe" or "dangerous", and there's little point in saying that we simply don't know. There's speculation that this was a 'bad batch' of 2C-B-FLY, but that's all it is – speculation. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• very few refs, tag should be inserted to warn users of unverifiable claims in the article. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Overlinking

Muslim Agricultural Revolution I have in the past removed hundreds (sic!) of superfluous links. I have warned him on his talkpage, but he continues to add repeated or trivial internal links to this article. I am unlinking them after his edits. I admit that I have unlinked a few examples that are arguable (but not more than arguable) as well, as I have admitted on my talkpage. But that doesn't remove the problem: that this editor is overliking and unwilling to listen to reason. Debresser (talk

) 04:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it is okay to link possibly unfamiliar terms again in a new section of an article if it is relevant to that section. Despite this, I have attempted to avoid duplicate links, although you seem to be removing some links that don't even have a single link in the article to begin with? I think that might possibly qualify as underlinking? However, I admit that in my recent several edits a few other terms were linked again because I was copying some text over from another article, although I was already in the process of editing it before you de-linked them yourself. I can assure you that I am making efforts to avoid overlinking, but that does not mean we should underlink either. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you are now more aware of this issue. According to

wp:linking a link might indeed be repeated "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first". But all that pertains to relevant "links that aid navigation and understanding". No need to link the name of an author or a publishing house in a reference (and certainly not more than once). And why link words that are familiar to the reader, and therefore do not contribute anything, like "lemon", "rice" or "paper"? Debresser (talk

) 06:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Context is important when linking. For example, it is appropriate to link to

History of the book, since paper was integral to the development of the book, and a user reading about books might well want to read about the development of paper next. On the other hand, the link to paper in Business continuity planning is inappropriate since users will most likely not be needing to research paper in the course of reading that article. Abductive (reasoning

) 07:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Jagged 85, it is good that you have admitted your errors. Q will you be happy for me to advise you when you go wrong? I will not write essays for sure. one advise at a time. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Request clarification

[259]. An admin who had reviewed my block came to a page that I was editing, and in the course of my saying that a group was non notable and shouldn´t be included in the article, he created an article about the non notable group. I nominated it for deletion, apparently in the wrong place, and he speedy closed it. Is it appropriate, if in the wrong place, for an admin to speed close something in which they are involved, or should they allow someone else to do it?--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Eh. It's a perfectly valid close. You sent a mainspace page to MfD. That's not the right venue. Any registered editor is free to make that close. I mean, hell, should we look at your nomination of his article as improper? Where does the cycle stop? Protonk (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be improper? It is a non-notable group. I just wanted clarification, as I thought any deletion nomination, regardless of where, should not be closed by the person who created the article. I suppose we should look at is it improper to create a specious article to try and make a non notable group look notable during a content discussion? I am certian you can´t be implying that it is improper for me to have nominated it under those circumstances? Or, hell,should following me there after USER:ChildofMidnight defended me be pondered on? I assumed that your question was not rhetorical, so I have attempted to answer it. I really wasn´t wanting to know anything else, but if you want to open that door.....--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AFDHOWTO? Or is this thread just a coatrack for some other dispute? In any case, I do not see any admin-type actions needed here, so this should probably be closed. - 2/0 (cont.

) 05:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I was unaware of it. Go ahead and close it. I cerainly didn´t want any action, just clarification. Now I know where to go.--Die4Dixie (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you say you're unaware of

WP:AGF and say this isn't a coatrack, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the MfD was incomplete - it was never added to the daily log. If it had been, someone probably would have beat me to closing it. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't implying it, but the fact that you skipped from the close to the creation and missed the nomination when listing improper actions leads me to believe that it wouldn't have been a fruitful discussion. Protonk (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics

Resolved

Section on Partners has been vandalized with "NAOOOOO =DDD Much luuurve xx" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Summer_Olympics Nick (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Nick

 GARDEN 

09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Policy/guidelines on user page deletion?

Today I am forgetful. After speedy deleting a non-notable autobio (

AGF, I seriously doubt this completely unreferenced autobio will be shaped into an acceptable basic article in the future. Somehow I can't remember what guidelines cover the preferred course of action in this kind of case. Could someone point me to them? I'm just a little thick tonight. Thanks, Pigman☿/talk

01:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an awful lot of information to be putting out there. I'm not sure why the user wants to write such a tell-all biography for all the world to see. Do we have the subjects permission (assuming the writer is "Drew" and David is the brother? I would lean towards deletion for privacy reasons here. –xeno^talk 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Way too much personal info, even though he's an adult. And one of the longer single-paragraphs I've seen here. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Middle name of David A. Provost is "Andrew" = Drew and so probably User:Drewprovost. That info is somewhere in that humongous para I think. Deletion of those user pages reproducing the content of the article for privacy might be a good enough reason. User seems to be a SPA for only this article. I just wasn't sure whether that was the right way to go. I'm always leery of deleting user pages in what I consider a borderline case. I'll delete them now but I'm getting offline right afterward so if there's an issue or complaint, someone else may have to deal with it for the next 10 hours. Thanks for the input. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I note the pages were deleted, but no communication was made with the editor. Might explaining the issue to him have been a good idea? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgh. Thanks for the pointer, Elen of the Roads. Doing admin tasks while tired is a bad idea for me; I forget to attend to details like that. Correcting now. Thanks again. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I see [261] and note that it may not have been worth the effort. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I had made the same evaluation. Still, politeness and explanation to new editors isn't a wasted effort in my opinion. Not, at least, until they become persistently trollish and abusive. Even then, civility and politeness are my watchwords. I was nonplussed by the argument that deleting the article was "unpatriotic," one of the more unencyclopedic claims I've ever heard on WP. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review request

• Rain City Blues (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• See previous ANI listing

On 13 September 2009, this contributor was blocked for two weeks for violating

WP:NPA and WP:Harassment. He came back today and among some 18 or so decent contributions also did the following: [262] and [263]. I interpret this as a clear indication that he intends to continue disruption, since he has immediately resumed the activity that got him blocked, evidently without further provocation. Accordingly, I have blocked him again for the same term as his previous: two weeks. I'm inviting review of this block to determine if others agree this is the appropriate handling and duration. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

12:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - blocking ok. Ecoman24 (talk page) 13:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask where I am in conflict with him? So far as I know, my only interaction with him has been in commenting at the last ANI thread. (Perhaps you have mistaken me for the recipient of this message?) (evidently, a misunderstanding) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. From a review of the edits made previous to Rain City Blues' ban in September, one can conclude that the editor cares deeply about the material they edit. However, when attempts are made by other editors to correct, clarify, or attempt consensus, the editor takes the edits as a personal affront with an unhelpful combative attitude. In fact, the colorful language used by the editor against others does not have a place in Wikipedia. I would support this ban until the editor displays the ability to work with others. Additionally, I would like to suggest that someone volunteers to coach the editor after the ban expires so that we do not lose any good faith edits that Rain City Blues would further contribute. Inomyabcs (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, although two weeks may be too short a time in which to grow up. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure how I got to be the Evil Nemesis in this situation, and didn't want to block him myself, but I was disappointed to see that he came back from the block to immediately start hassling me on my talk page again. I'd noticed that he had some useful edits going, and had hoped that he would come back ready to focus on those rather than on his dislike for me. And all this because, months ago, I declined his request for unblock and explained about not

edit-warring to him. I wasn't even mean. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 16:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The correct block here would have been an indefinite one.

Tan | 39

14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you (or others) feel that way, I have no objections whatsoever to you adjusting the length. The e-mail I received from him this morning would suggest he does not intend to alter his behavior unless I "get this admin off...[his] back", which is a bit difficult given that she hasn't made contact with him in a month. He tells me that "Else, we can go back and forth like this for eternity." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Renaming of lists to outlines, and outlines

Resolved

 – admins are not magic fairy pixie dust to resolve content disputes.

Spartaz ^Humbug!

14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe this was closed improperly. This thread is not discussing content disputes but is discussing Verbal's actions. (although it did become slightly derailed) -- penubag  (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The thread was closed in your interest and The Transhumanist's. Are you sure you want it reopened and the behaviour of all parties examined? We have clear guidelines about what to do before a contentious move, they were not followed, and their purpose is to avoid exactly the kind of situation that we are now in. Hans Adler 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

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. User:Verbal decided on his own that outline articles needed to be "renamed to be more conventional". He has started moving numerous "Outline of" articles without any discussion even when pleaded to stop (he violated 3RR). Edit wars have occurred on pages as a consequence of this, but he still insists on moving the outlines because he says "there is no consensus for outlines". Outlines have been around since Wikipedia was set up so there isn't any consensus for outlines, as there is no consensus for other entities such as Lists. Regardless of who is right on the fate of outlines, the actions he is preforming are unacceptable; other opposers haven't even agreed that this is what should become of outlines. I suggest that User:Verbal not be allowed to preform any more controversial page moves without consensus. Here is where this issue was discussed with him: Talk:Outline of chocolate (also in edit summaries), Talk:Outline of water (also edit summaries), and User talk:Verbal (his entire page). He continues to make these controversial page moves and after a brief edit war on Outline of water he went to WP:RfPP and got it move protected although consensus on is strongly opposed to his actions. Thank you for handling this matter. -- penubag  (talk) 09:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) User:Verbal has been notified. Crafty (talk) 09:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I've mostly reverted renamings done without consensus, and against the lack of consensus at WP:BRD. I don't see any need for admin intervention, what I do see a need for is community discussion in a neutral venue (ie not here and not under this heading). A more accurate, and more civil, name for this section would be "Renaming list articles to outlines without community or local consensus". Verbal chat 09:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC) May I point out that Outline of water was created with the title "Outline of water" and you moved it to be otherwise. What you also claim above is not true. Regardless of who or what is opposed to outlines, you need to at least have a discussion before you rename the outlines (there are thousands). Also do not derail the topic of this matter; this is not requesting for comment on what to do with outlines or a review of the civility of a member's comments; it is discussing your controversial page moves. -- penubag  (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Also, there are policies and guidelines for lists, but not for outlines. That demonstrates consensus for "lists". Please simply demonstrate consensus for "outlines of". There are many objections and many objectors. I see no benefit to this discussion, it is the wrong discussion and the wrong forum. Consensus for the individual article could be established at the water portal or locally, but a community wide consensus would address the issue much quicker. Note though that the WP:OUTLINE essay recently had the proposed policy tag removed by consensus. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Need I repeat myself? There is no consensus, they have existed from the beginning and has only experienced a recent influx. There is also definitely no consensus for removing or renaming them at the moment. This is the right place to discuss your page moves; we are not discussing the fate of outlines at the moment. -- penubag  (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) By the way, I think I've undone (with the uncoordinated and spontaneous help of other users) all the recent burst of non consensual list renames, so I see no likelihood of doing any more moves. It looks as if the outline project wanted to present this as a fait accompli, however they will now have to establish WP:CONSENSUS. If they were more open about their page moves then it wouldn't be so hard to track them down. I don't think there is anything left to say here under this heading. Verbal chat 09:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Now that penubag has admitted above that there is no consensus I see no further point to this discussion. I'll not be commenting here again unless requested by a neutral or trusted editor. Thanks, Verbal chat 09:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Again, don't derail the subject of this discussion. I'm not commenting on the integrity of outlines, but your actions. -- penubag  (talk) 10:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I'm a neutral editor, and I should remind you that the burden of evidence is on the one arguing for a change to the status quo. Whether or not there is consensus to "keep" the outline articles is irrelevant: if you want to make a change it's you who needs to get consensus for that change. Jafeluv (talk) 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I fully agree. I have undone the renamings, and the status quo is lists - per practice and guideline and policy consensus. I believe the recent renamings by the outline project have all been reverted, but it is hard to find out and the transhumanist has so far refused to document recent project renamings. Again, as it has been admitted above that there is no consensus for these renamings, I think this matter here is closed. Verbal chat 10:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Actually I've just found a few more renames without consensus, such as Outline of radio. I'll not revert this move, and the others, for now so tempers can cool. Verbal chat 10:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral - DEFINITIONS A list details subject which are not related to one another. You can read one and ignore others, and you will be satisfied. Articles such as List of parapsychology topics do not qualify to be a list. This article even states that "The following outline is provided as an overview of and introduction to parapsychology:". That article should be an Outline of parapsychology. A good example of a list is List of U.S. biological weapons topics , which should not be an outline An outline details subjects which all needed to be studied to gain a good understanding. a good example of an outline article is Outline of geography. all topics needs to be studied to gain a good understanding. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I would counter that Outline of geography is a list, whereas Geography provides an "outline of Geography". Your List examples rely on the lead text, which in the parapsychology case was a direct copy of teh parapsychology article, with "outline" tagged on. I've removed it as a GFDL problem. Verbal chat 10:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) I changed the section header to be more neutral and accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 10:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC) brother, you are renaming articles which have been written by thousands of people. are you telling me that you are more knowledgeable than those thousands of editors who created those articles? the amazing thing is, you are changing outlines to list and list to outlines. wiki is free, but if we find ourselves in possible edit warring, best thing to do is, to stop doing that which is perceived to be wrong by others. you will loose nothing, but gain peace of mind. you have already spent so much time defending your renaming actions. No good please. lets move on as friends with a common purpose to share knowledge more freely on wiki. good day my friend. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I'm sorry but you're a bit mistaken. I have restored the original names, the status quo, and have been reacting against what you describe - the unilateral renaming to outline without consensu. If you look at the article history and talk for the two you mention in the list section, you will see I have restored the original name and there was no consensus established for the change. Most of the edits to these articles happened under the name I have restored. Basically, I agree with you! I'm against changing any list to "outline", and haven't done this. Cheers, Verbal chat 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you brother for your understanding. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Will you please explain why Outline of Water needed to be renamed to List of water topics? It was created as an outline. The same goes for outline of chocolate which you are trying to get renamed. Your claim that you are "undoing" the renames are false. -- penubag  (talk ) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) case concluded for now Case concluded. however, most people still have interest on the subject of which articles should be a list and outlines. may i suggest that you start a new thread. for now, original case, which i have renamed to its original tittle of User:Verbal's renaming of outlines is concluded. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) The case isn't concluded. Until Verbal gains consensus he cannot rename the outlines and shouldn't do so until he has. I would like to proceed undoing his renames. -- penubag  (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC) According to this, there is no recent history of page move as at now. please, read his responses above. all should be done to avoid edit warring. lets make peace and move one. verbal seem to have moved on, understood every one's concerns about edit warring regarding page move. Will you agree with me to close this case please, unless new evidence of page renaming concerning ONLY List and Outline come to surface?. Thank you for your understanding and voluntarily contributing remarkable knowledge to Wikipedia. Ecoman24 (talk page) 14:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Ecoman24 please review these links create, move move protect and tell me if you think that the original names have been restored and status quo have been achived. --Stefan talk 14:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC) the case was closed in good faith. user:verbal has stopped renaming pages. there is no need to continue antagonizing each others. lets move one gentlemen, there is loads of work that need editing. lets do it. well done all. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:02, 12 October 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.

Elektra Records

Anyone who knows me knows how much I hate these boards, but

non-free content guidelines. Despite being removed several times by myself and others, it keeps getting added back. As I write this, it's in the article. Any intervention/help reverting appreciated. (I've made a note about this post on the article talk page.) J Milburn (talk

) 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a perfectly proper venue for settling this. It's FFD. Please use it, rather than edit-warring. Jheald (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, as I indicated at

WP:NFCR

, there is a strong case for thinking these logos do usefully help user understanding, and therefore do satisfy NFCC#8. To quote what I wrote there, "Branding for record marketing is highly visible and notable, hence the interest we take in it on WP. Furthermore, showing the logos allows people to approximately date releases, which in itself may be useful to readers given the collectability of the product. It is not unusual for an article to show a number of logos, to trace the evolution in the branding history -- it's validly encyclopedic. Also, the changes from logo to logo are substantial, not just minor detailing. So in my view, yes these logos do add valuably to the understanding the article conveys about Elektra, and therefore should indeed be retained."

To re-iterate: we have a mechanism for disagreements about which side images fall of NFCC#8. Please use it, and take the question to the community to decide, rather than trying to bulldoze your personal view. Jheald (talk) 10:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluded I like the way you guys have resolved this issue on article talk page. well done

user:Redvers for protecting the page. Ecoman24 (talk page)

11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Concluded? What? What we basically have is someone claiming this is a "content dispute", which legitimises the idea of galleries of non-free content, and two weeks before the next reversion. Great. I'm reminded of why I hate the noticeboards... J Milburn (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please gain more experience on Wikipedia before declaring matters 'concluded' on the various noticeboards. –xeno^talk 14:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I support JMilburn's views. Logos can, as Jheald says, be illustrative of a company's history. A discussion of this with references to reliable sources would be great. In the case of Elektra, surely there are books or magazine articles discussing the evolution of this famous name, with some references to the logo(s)? However, non-free images without such accompanying critical commentary are a breach of our policy. One of our five pillars is that Wikipedia is free content. They must certainly not be in galleries, or dotted around the article next to random paragraphs. We need to actively remove content that violates our goal of being a free encyclopedia. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Concur with J Milburn. The question we need to ask isn't "could the images provide/illustrate critical commentary" it's "could the images provide/illustrate critical commentary and is there no free way to do this?". In this case, as JPS says, there must be
  reliable sources discussing the company history and the name with reference to logos. A claim that this there is no free way to deal with such things is one that is going to raise a lot of eyebrows. Ironholds (talk
  ) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

WoWWiki

I'm fairly sure this isn't the right place to post this - but not sure which is the right place ... hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

The

WoWWiki article was converted to a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) in November 2006. Now, HooperBandP (talk · contribs

) has recreated the article, and reverted the change pack to a redirect with the edit summary "this site has grown considerably since the previous RfD, and this page is done better since".

Compared to the original version (archived here), the new version appears to be sourced even more poorly; but due to the age of the original AfD, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to request the user send this through

WP:AfD to determine current consensus? Can someone with more experience with old AfD'd content please provide some advice? --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 15:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Attempting to apply CSD G4 after three years would be unwise. However CSD A7 may apply. I would just do a new AfD if I were you. Mike R (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I've gone ahead and created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (4th nomination) based on your suggestion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not an A7, but consensus at the AfD is already pretty clear... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection decline reconsideration

I requested that Tedder reconsider his declination of semi-protecting

WP:VPP

. After a little discussion, he suggested I bring it here "stating that [I] have requested protection, and that [we] wanted to make sure other admins felt it was appropriate."

The problem I'm trying to solve is blatant sockpuppetry by someone (SPI request already filed). By semi-protecting, it will prevent the sockpuppeting user (whoever it may be) from using multiple IP addresses to avoid

WP:3rr

and/or bait me into violating it and getting mself blocked.

In the interests of transparency, there are other issues being addressed in other forums, but this is all I am asking from

WP:ANI: is such page protection warranted or not? — BQZip01 — ^talk

17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• (copying and pasting from
  WP:SPI when he doesn't like the edits being done against his preferred version (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TomPhan). This isn't about vandalism. It's about a preferred version that BQZ wants and a content dispute. Protection is unnecessary. --Hammersoft (talk
  ) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• There are two issues here.
  • Sockpuppetry. It's entirely possible BQZip01 is correct; he has been subject to harrassment by an IP-hopping sockpuppeteer, and this could very well be him again. I think accusations of "trying to win an argument by claims of vandalism" might be a misunderstanding of what he has been dealing with.
  • Semi-protection. That said, what effect would semi-protecting the page have? Surely, BQZip01, you aren't planning to revert the page again, when multiple non-sockpuppeting editors have reverted you? This is not an issue that has to be resolved in the next five minutes; discuss meta-issues like this on
    WT:VPP. --Floquenbeam (talk
    ) 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Floquenbeam, thank you for the prompt reply. No, I have no desire to re-re-revert at this time as someone other than hammersoft as weighed in on the matter (not counting IPs and a user who doesn't want to talk about it). The person who is sockpuppeting has accused me of murder and threatened harm to me along with other things that have been oversighted (hence the extended protections on my user & talk pages). Again, all I am asking for here is semi-protection. That will not prevent discussions with the primary users, but will prevent banned user sockpuppet intervetions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • • Just to make sure I was clear; I have no doubt you are being harassed; I think I remember seeing one example of this on an old AN/ANI thread before it was oversighted. I don't know if these two IP edits are the same person or not; I wouldn't be too surprised. However, even if they are, I think semi-protecting
          WP:VPP now would be trying to lock the barn door after the horse has escaped. If further IP edits to VPP are more clearly harassing, semi-protection could be re-visited, but I don't think I'd recommend it now. --Floquenbeam (talk
          ) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
      • And if it had been semi-protected before, it would have stopped a whopping TWO edits, edits that other logged in users had already performed, which you kept reverting. I fail to see the service being provided by semi-protecting the page when no vandalism is occurring, and you are attempting (via several days of edit warring) to push your version. The problem here, frankly, isn't the IP. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
        • He's already said he's not going to re-revert; at least maybe try to have some sympathy for what he's having to put up with, even if you really disagree with him about other stuff? --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't have to have sympathy for him to recognize that what the IPs did on that page was not vandalism, just something he didn't like that he's been edit warring over for days now. For the rest of his problems, frankly I don't care. I'm not involved, don't want to be involved, and this particular dispute has nothing to do with it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• I declined it and recommended that BQZ bring it here, so a consensus on protecting it (short term) could be made. In other words, protecting VPP isn't something I wanted to do without more opinion on the matter. tedder (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Warsow article

A set of IPs - 209.242.227.160 and 68.185.182.117, and a recently-registered user "Gmandaman" have been have continually re-added opinion and original research into the article for little over a week now. They've been warned, but are totally unresponsive. Eik Corell 18:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked for 1 week

Vintagekits has been unjustly blocked here [266]. The very maximum length should have been 24 hours, and that is debatable considering the circumstance and context. 1 week is unjust and worrying, one wonders why? The reasons given for such a long length are untrue and grossly exagerated, so the block cannot hold.

talk

) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With a minute of me posting sandstein, with whom I am in conflict declines the block - how much longer are we to have to put with this so called Admin?

talk

) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I came across the unblock request while browsing

CAT:RFU, and was not aware of this thread prior to declining the unblock request.  Sandstein 

15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did Sandstein, no doubt you are again completely susprised by the instantaneous support your decision has received as you delve innocently into political minefields.

talk

) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One week for Vintagekits sixth block seems lenient.

Tan | 39

15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tanthalus and with Sandstein. A more appropriate block length would have been indefinite. See also this section above. --John (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sixth block? I think this is more like 30! GiantSnowman 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I took that article off my watchlist this morning, when it was clear he was simply going to try and edit-war his way around the on-going discussions about the possible BLP issues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tanthalus, this user has had way too many chances. Perhaps next time it should be indef? Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is generally the case with editors whose block log is several screens long.  Sandstein  15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• How speedily you all arrive. It must be just like old times for Sandstein!
  talk
  ) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How speedily Giano arrives. It must be just like old times... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't arrive speedily but I note that Bastun did. Kell supreeze as the French would say. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I hope you don't feel that I am in any way biased against you or VintageKits, but it looks like a perfectly sound block to me. VK's block log is extensive, to put it mildly, and the three-revert rule is a very bright line that he was well aware of. His edit warring is pretty indefensible. I think it may be best to let this one go. HiDrNick! 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair block. 24 hours would have been fair, questionable, but fair. A week is suspect - does he have a long long history of 3R? No. One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting, which is what you are all advocating. Sandstein's presence here is very suspect, but then again, I suppose no one is surprised to find that while most editors are busy writing content Administrator Sandstein is monitering a page listing even more people for him to punish. I also find the speed of all the responses interesting - more intersting, in fact, than Administrator Sandstein who sets himself up for such things.

talk

) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting" You can on Wiki. There is little logic or proportionality from these admins. The support the arbitration committee has given to gangs of score settling cabals only encourages this kind of behavior. These admins are totally unwilling to try to alleviate disputes in a collegial and civil fashion. They are Wikicops run amok. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki. Equazcion (talk
  ) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a decent block to me. I also don't want to have this thread turn into garden variety shit talking and whinging about admin abuse. We already know the opinions and positions of the usual suspects, it doesn't really help to remind us incessantly. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Good block. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with civility on Wikipedia (and I'm not talking about calling someone an idiot). Abuse of tools and lengthy blocks of good faith contributors is very damaging. Did Sandstein engage in discussion with the editor before declining their unblock request? What efforts were made to resolve the issue amicably? Vintagekits thinks the terminology Northern Ireland is problematic and violated 3RR. Asking them to revert themself should have been the first step. There's also page protection and warnings. There are lots of tools that don't involve belligerence and abuse towards colleagues. Try treating your fellow editors with more respect instead of patting each other on the back your take-downs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me this. Is there a way out of this where I can say "this doesn't look like an abuse of the tools, rather it looks like a decent block" and not be accused of colluding to support some admin? Is that possible? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you were able to note that appropriate dispute resolution was tried first in a collegial and collaborative manner, appropriate warnings were given, and that Vintagekits was unresponsive or refused to self-revert, then you would be in a better position to justify a one week block for a 3RR violation. (post ec) I trust Tarc's trolling will be met with an appropriate response. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With CoM? Not a chance, no. This has be come another annoying habit; hopping around AN/I and making martyrs out of blocked users, esp if the block has come from or is supported by Sandstein. I really hope that this behavior is dealt with soon. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Sandstein's lurking about looking for people to punish (though, I suppose, that cannot be ignored) this is about the old adage: "give a dog a bad name and hang him", it's a simple as that. And Oh my! Don't Wikipedia's Admins love to show their power and do that? If it flatters them, they will ignore even the most obvious. I thank God, I was never tempted to be an Admin. There is something seriously wrong with this project and its justice system.

talk

) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported Vintagekits and support the Admin action, he was obsessed with his edit and also got a bit uncivil, I was suprised that such an experienced editor was attempting to make the edit, perhaps if he understands why he was blocked a reduction would be possible.

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can so understand where you are coming from [267]. It's just awful when people become obsessed isn't it? How dare you? Even comment - do you think we are all so stupid?

talk

) 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my edits I suggest you do it on my talkpage Giano. You ask me, how dare I comment..I can comment like anyone else...I have commented in support of the Admin action and that is the issue here, isn't it?

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No we can do it here because YOU are the ne who reported VK for this "crime".

talk

) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The

three-revert rule does not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. That is based on the "Definition of the three revert rule." --Domer48_'fenian'

20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to Domer) There is no obvious revert of vandalism.

There is no obvious revert of biased unsourced information.

There is no obvious revert of poorly sourced controversial material.

What exception of 3RR do you believe applies here? Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and the oppoint I am trying to make (poorly) in the link above [268] is that it seems quite OK for some to do (those who report VK for this "crime"), but not for VK himself. Just the usual rank hypocrisy, as usual endorsed by Administratir Sandstein.
  talk
  ) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits was blocked for edit-warring to insert multiple derogatory nicknames into the infobox of Audley Harrison. Per BLP policy, that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR by any means, even if those multiple derogatory nicknames are all sourced. Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his "Northern Irish" edits, despite that inference from this section's heading. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault, I combined these threads thinking them related. –xeno^talk 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a big thing to put it vack where it was? It's biasing VK here.

talk

) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all (done). Again, my apologies, I misinterpreted John's statement. –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily done!

talk

) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it now suggested that negative information on a BLP is prohibited? That we must only use positive information? That sounds like bias to me, and to remove correctly sourced information, either positive or negative is vandalism. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, Domer. Just because something is sourceable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. For example, if you dug enough, you could probably find a newspaper clipping about my participation in the state Math Team, but it would hardly be appropriate to stick in here...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here here Domer. I can here everybody reaching for their 'xyz is a terrorist' sources as we speak, given this new epiphany in understanding of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, with respect you are wrong. Removing well sourced information is not vandalism. Simple. End of matter. It happens all the time to make articles clearer. Just because information is

verifiable

does not mean it must be included. I have many quality secondary sources that there is a tree in my garden (planning applications, third party images, secondary reports from councils etc.) Should we include this fact on Wikipedia? No. I don't dismiss your arguments but you need to be more dispassionate here about what value is created by adding facts to an article.

As to the block, which I believe is the point of this thread, Vintagekits is a problematic editor with a foul mouth. So am I. As a supporter of Giano, COM and Sandstein (yes - it is possible to be all three) I feel a reduction to this hideous "time served" concept may be viable. I regret that I suspect it is only a matter or time before VK meets the indef. block line, and I for one would prefer we at least get the benefit of his quality article input before that, somewhat inevitably, happens. Or maybe VK can prove me wrong in my gross asumptions of his future on WP? Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The simple long and short of this is that VK has been well and truly screwed for screwing up. He should not have 3Rd, but before anything could be done along came "Administrator Sandstein" adjusting his peaky cap, and upholding an overlong silly block to the echoes of delight from the well orchestrated heavenly chorus. In a nut shell that is it.
  talk
  ) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a peaky cap...

Tan | 39

21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be glad, perhaps they only get made in certain sizes

talk

) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Vintagekits is one of the few for whom cooling off seems to work, at least for a while. 24 hours is not long enough for this. Indefinite blocking is not warranted at this time IMO but he is skating on thin ice. Giano is usually a good judge of quality of content writing so perhaps a mentor will come forward to help VK with his recurrent problems. To some above, baiting Giano is a really bad idea so please just don't. We're used to his ways and the best thing is to let the hyperbole wash over you. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. I had a look at this earlier this afternoon but decided I didn't really have the heart to enforce BLP on Audley Harrison, quite possibly the worst boxer ever to enter a ring. Objectively, however, a week is probably fair enough. Such things don't really belong in infoboxes. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view all info boxes are all horrible, but anyway all sorts of

talk

) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A hat-trick of toxic personalities, all pleading for poor behaviour to be ignored. Delicious. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • A mentor for Vintagekits? A splendid idea! I'm shocked that no-one's tried it ever before.. (for those of you are aware of the history, I apologize for the massive amount of sarcasm that's dripping from this post). From what I understand, another editor let VK know that he was going to help him in getting info to support him, and VK just charged in anyway. Which is, if you're aware of the whole thing, status quo. VK's first reaction to someone opposing him isn't to seek consensus or to get other eyes on it, it's to edit war. Maybe a 1 RR rule, or requiring him to seek 3O before getting in an edit war? SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits is good when he isn't heated up. But if you think mentoring would work for this editor, what is there to lose?--

Here comes the bird!

23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, figured I would have to explain where the dripping sarcasm was from. Vintagekits had a mentor in the distant past (two years ago, now?). That poor soul was me. When I was a wet-behind-the-ears newbie admin. I fugred VK was getting a rough shake, and all he needed was someone to run interference for him, and smack him upside the head when he got out of line. That was 21 blocks ago. SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done though. With all due respect for this editor, this is a never ending pattern that is doing more harm than good. Like I said, as long as this editor is out of the heat, there are no problems. But he needs to be pushed back into line far too often for comfort.--

Here comes the bird!

23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we don't have consensus (yet) for an indef block, 1RR followed by 3O might be a valid last chance for this editor who says he has retired from content work and now just does all the stuff he gets blocked for, and is proud of his block log. Just that he has had so many last chances already. But sure, why not? --John (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was I who blocked Vintagekits for edit-warring. I have read the comments above.

I based the duration on standard practice in responding to reports of edit-warring at

WP:AN3

and upon the policies regarding blocking and edit-warring. Some people commenting have suggested that the block was too lenient; I would reply that a corrollary of assuming good faith is to err on the side of lenience. I have no opinion on whether, as some have suggested, Vintagekits ought to be indefinitely blocked and even had I any opinion it would be outside the scope of a run-of-the-mill edit-warring report to make such a block. Other editors have argued that the block was too harsh or was completely unjustified; this opinion I disagree with as not in keeping with either practice or policy. For that reason, I think their arguments would be better made at the relevant policy talk pages since a change in policy appears to be what they seek.

I have been trying to assist at the edit-warring noticeboard recently as it has been frequently backlogged since Dr Connolley ceased to be an administrator. I am not naive regarding the unpleasant consequences of responding to some of the reports that occur there but it would be helpful if more administrators could look in occassionally. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

VK is unsurprisingly taking the advice of Giano QC and lawyering it up big style for his third unblock request, attacking Sandstein and claiming he did not edit war and he is not an edit warrior. If you were to suspend belief and pretend he has no other issues but edit warring, and were just concentrating on this 'I am not an edit warrior' claim, I simply scanned his last 500 contributions, which go back to 11 August, and found evidence of edit warring (using the proper definition, not the lawyer's one) on the following articles (reverse chronological order):

• Audley Harrison
• Shea Campbell
• Martin Rogan
• Joseph MacManus
• Matthew Macklin
• Derriaghy Cricket Club F.C. (and 9 other similar articles)

And if you do ingore that edit warring, in the same period alone by my reckoning he could have been blocked about 5 times for various other seriously

tendentious behaviours, if admins were actually monitoring him properly. MickMacNee (talk

) 10:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all MickMacNee, were I a learned QC, I would point out that in cicilised place QCs present evidence to a learned and wise judge. Here on Wikipedia counsell is shouted down and sentance handed out bu the ignorant mob.

talk

) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd take mob-rule using the clarity of direct experience over special pleading to an uninformed judge anyday. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think myself or one of the other editors at the Audley Harrison discussion, should've requested page-protection there. That way 'nobody' would've been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. Clear violation of 3RR, with the number of previous blocks about the length of my cell-phone bill. Would he have supported "only" a 24 hour block for someone editing against him with such a history?

WP:BLOCK#Duration of blocks (a policy, btw) clearly states that penalties increase over time, not just stay lenient for the 6th, 7th, 8th, etc. times. Magog the Ogre (talk

) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I note that

3RR is not an entitlement, this editor did not make 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. Edit warring, yes, 3RR violation, no. –xeno^talk

15:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1 maybe 2 3 4. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"maybe 2" seems to be an unrelated edit. I was basing my comment off the actual EW report which stretches beyond the 24 hour window. However, not to ruleslawyer, there was edit warring, but it just wasn't over 3RR. Just wanted to point that out. –xeno^talk 15:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is just another example of Wikipedia's law-ignorant mob rule mentality. "If he has erred in one way, he must be punished for another" The mob wants blood so the mob is given it regardles of of any laws, justice or procedure. A project run in this way has to ultimately fail - the way justice is dispensed here is ignorant, without format, account of precedent and standards. In short, it's a beauty and personality contest. I think one only has to look at the Moreschi/Ottava Rima fiasco down below to see that.

talk

) 17:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So Vin did not violate 3RR but is still blocked, and not one Admin has seen fit to unblock them. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There is no consensus to unblock him; there is a consensus that the block was just. Don't edit war or you get escalating blocks, is the message to take away from this. 3RR is not an entitlement. --John (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that someone would defend all of this. Today, I have also seen people defending an editor that celebrated someone's death.

talk

) 17:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody who understood Wikipedia's mission could defend an editor who boasts about his block log. Doing so is a clear statement of intent to further disrupt. I see he has blanked his user talk after unsuccessfully requesting unblock and "retired" again. We shall see. --John (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What amazes me, with this particular editor, is that he has been blocked perhaps 30 times now, over a period of years, by at least 19 different administrators. The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP.... Yet every single time a campaign is launched to attack the blocking admin with claims of bias or conspiracy.

Now perhaps some of these blocks were without merit, and perhaps some of the blocking admins had an axe to grind, but all 19, all of the time? Logic dictates that the common denominator is the issue, and the common denominator is VK, not the admins. Moreover as Mick McNamee rightly points out, the "poor Vk is being victimized" argument doesn't hold up. For every time his is blocked, one can find multiple examples of blockable behaviour that is ignored, simply because it isn't worth the mud slinging that will follow from the defense team.

The usual justification trotted out for his continuing participation is that he is an expert contributor on boxing articles, yet this time we are seeing a very questionable interpretation of BLP and our policies on censorship to justify adding insulting nicknames to a boxer, then edit warring over it. So this the kind of expert editing to boxing articles we are keeping him here for? Rockpocket 18:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Rock and John; neither of you appear to understand the issue of systematic bias on Wiki despite my best efforts to explain it in single-syllable words. You (plural) never fail to disappoint. But the fact that you are both totally predictable doesn't mean you are consistent, or right. That you are lining up with such as Mick McNamee should give you pause, but self awareness appears to be an insight neither of you have.

WP:CIVIL allied to the Admin "hanging judge" system of policing is a goon's charter and anyone relying on a "block log" for their decisions isn't fit to be an Admin. Nor is anyone defending or excusing such an Admin. Sarah777 (talk

) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Given he has been given more second chances and returned from more indefinite blocks than any other editor, the suggestion that there is some bias against him is laughable. Every single other editor who has edited the way he has is blocked indefinitely, yet he is still here. But then again, every other editor does not have the loyal defense team that Vk does. Seems to me that you should be looking a little closer to home for evidence of systemic bias.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but am not and have not used a block log to make a decision on any given transgression. However, its entirely appropriate to use one's knowledge of a lengthy record of transgression to argue that there is a pattern of disruption that is not being resolved by short blocks. Rather than throw mud at me and John (neither whom have had anything to do with this block and thus who's self-awareness, of lack thereof, is entirely irrelevant) why don't you address the key issue here. Being aware of out polices, I expect (hope) you are not suggesting you support the actions of Vk in this instance. Assuming you don't, how do YOU suggest we stop it continuing? Because, guess what, insulting me will not solve the problem here. Rockpocket 23:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might mirror the Bastun remark to Giano and ask why you both keep turning up here to attack an Irish editor when so many real problems within the orbit of both your Wiki-worlds get no response at all? Sarah777 (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the same reason you felt the need to turn up here to attack us. Rockpocket 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, your posts here sadden me. That you see this as my "attack[ing] an Irish editor" says an awful lot more about you than it does about me. I truly could not care less whether Vk is Irish, Lithuanian, Puerto Rican or Scottish like me. His behavior up to now does not give me any hope that he can reform, so I think it would be better if he was removed from the project. Anybody who supports edit-warring to add derogatory nicknames to an article on a living person, as you are implicitly doing with your comments above which criticize me and Rock but say nothing about Vk's behavior, has no place on this project. Anybody who sees every single problem in narrowly nationalistic terms as you appear to be doing, has no place on the project. Think about it. --John (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeking clarification: Will Vk's block expire after 1-week, even though he's retired? GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. MickMacNee (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Mick. GoodDay (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits unblock request

Could someone have a look at this, please? It's been outstanding for a long time now. I'd do it myself, but my inclination is to unblock and I've been involved with VK before, so I can't really do it. Black Kite 10:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was just doing it when VK blanked the page and put up a retired notice. For the record I would have declined it giving the reason: The default for disputed material is to exclude it until there is demonstrable consensus for inclusion, whether it is sourced or not (it might, for example, be decided that it violates
  WP:ONUS is on those seeking to include material, to achieve consensus for inclusion. As such, your unblock request does not address the problem and gives no kind of assurance that you understand the problem and will not repeat it. Guy (Help!
  ) 16:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

user informed of this discussion, he is still active on wikipedia. Ecoman24 (talk page) 18:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I had asked Vintagekits a question (seeing as how there was opposition to unblocking, and also support for blocking indefinitely) with an eye to lifting the block , but they did not respond. –xeno^talk 18:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that two pages on a block log from January 2007 till now is worth the block (maybe even indefinite).

talk

) 18:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, yes, write the laws as we go along - never mind what the transgression, but he has a long block list so ban him for ever - don't bother to look at each "crime" individually - some of you people are totally amazing. I suppose where you all come from, five convictions for speeding and you can be sent to the electric chair for murder.

talk

) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you such a dick in real life? No way that your comments are civil.

talk

) 21:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• What an interesting choice of words. Twice in one day [269]. Good job I'm not a suspicious type of person - who ever it is you are - I'd be more careful in you choice of words if I were you.
  talk
  ) 22:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You should choose your words carefully. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you were being civil? Also, that talk page comment isn't mine!

talk

) 22:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote another editor, "The blocks have been for transgressions that span the entire range of antisocial, disruptive behavior: sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry, personal attacks, personal threats, off-wiki abuse, edit warring, pointy disruption, BLP." Don't you think that he would have learned by now?

talk

) 21:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to contemplate indefinite block for his small crimes. Vintagekits has been offered two olive branches, one admin said if he would remove the retired template then he would look at his unblocking request (why unblock when a retired template is at the top of the page?) Vintagekits resisted this and said he would rather sit the block out, Giano removed it, but that was not the point, also User Zeno has offered him a 1RR condition and if he accepted then unblocking, to this offer Vintagekits has not even responded. He has been offered avenues of opportunity, he could have easily been unblocked by now.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What are small crimes? Why can stuff like that get people blocked for a long time and not others?

talk

) 22:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, from you posts over the last 20 minutes (here and elsewhere) Joe Chil, that you have turned up here, with completely unconnected issues and proplems of your own that you feel are unresolved. Attacking me, VK or indeed anyone else is unlikely to resolve them. You clearly have a grudge against me, yet I have until 30 minutes ago never heard of you - I suggest you sort yourself before attempting to sort others.

talk

) 22:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I called you a dick. All of your comments here were uncivil and you said that I posted an uncivil comment on your talk page when I didn't (it seems like you were calling me a sockpuppet). I don't need to know an editor for a long time. I just need to see the type of comments that they make. You're the only one that I attacked. My comments about Vintagekits are similar to the other comments. Do you think that you are being civil?

talk

) 22:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. Same with this and this.

talk

) 23:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It has obviously escaped your notice, but this thread is not about me, but VK. You clearly have some aother agenda, and quite what the link to Sandstein is supposed to prove, one can only speculate.As usual when anyone othet than the chosen few are "uncivil", Administator Sandstein is concspicuous by his absence.

talk

) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have an agenda. The link to the ANI added on to your blocks from 2006 till September 2009 show what I mean. I really don't take you seriously when you have been blocked so many times and you're attacking me (with zero blocks) and other editors that disagree with you since 2006.

talk

) 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• No one has attacked you. No one is bothered about you. I shall not be responding to you.
  talk
  ) 07:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"I suppose where you all come from, five convictions for speeding and you can be sent to the electric chair for murder." was towards me and others. If that was it, I wouldn't even bother. But I have seen more than that from you. You ignored "and other editors that disagree with you since 2006."

talk

) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact he has ignored those two olive branches shows what type of editor he is, and what type of editing he is likely to return to. For one, I'd support an indef of this user, the kind of incivilities that come out of his mouth are not welcome on WP. Jeni ^(talk) 23:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying: "Damn the content of the encyclopedia, my sensibilities are more important." That he has not (so far) picked up the proferred "olive branches" (for that read conditions) do indeed show the "type of editor he is" - one with some principles. A weeks block for 3R was ridiculous, and the fact that no Admin has had the guts to lift it, says more about Wikipedia's Admins than it does about VK.

talk

) 07:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There are over 1,000 admins from all walks of life who could lift it if they wanted, so I think it says more about you to be honest. And yes, I am quite sure you are going to take that as a compliment. MickMacNee (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In view of Vintagekits' most recent response [270] and a lack of willingness to lift what is only a 1 week block (

WP:DEADLINE), this issue seems to be moot. Rd232 ^talk

08:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The retired template in this case is utterly meaningless. He was retired for most of the period of edit warring and other behaviour detailed above. When his block runs it course there is no reason to think he won't be back. The entire template should just be deleted to be honest, if its proper use cannot be enforced on the project. Interesting to note that Giano can freely remove it from VK's page, yet an editor was blocked for adding it to his page when he declared he had 'retired'. MickMacNee (talk) 10:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than to also note that this comment, as with several on this and related threads, is profoundly unhelpful, I will explain. VK and Giano are well disposed toward each other, and Giano's actions are in good faith and quite possibly with VK's approval - while the incident regarding Giano's page was done without Giano's permission and quite possibly in a bad faith attempt to get the reaction it did. Furthermore, the use of the template itself does not fall under any policy - it is only a courtesy notice which sometimes do not reflect the situation. Perhaps you should make a representation to Jimbo Wales that persons misusing such templates should be sanctioned, although I should note that Jimbo had a wikibreak notice on his talkpage until quite recently even after he had become active again. I am sure that such a fair minded and undiscriminating person as yourself will not allow such minor points to distract you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread, and his talk page, is prima facie evidence that pointing out that VK does not use the template in the way it is widely understood, is helpful to others, because they quite obviously didn't know. This is a notice board after all. Yes, sadly because the way this place works, the template is next to meaningless, a fact anybody with any real wikitime eventually realises, but you won't find that explained for anybody who does't know that (or has not found that out the hard way). And no, it is unlikely Giano had permission to remove it, given VK's previous comments to others pointing out the exact same thing he did, and the fact he replaced it immediately anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And I hadn't even noticed this either. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the "retired tag" because it was being used by others as a silly excuse to not unblock him. I also knew that he would not see me removing it as an attack or an anoyance, he may not have liked it, but he would have known I was doing it with the best of intentions. He eventually replaced it, when his justifiable frustration with the project became too much for him to endure. I very much hope he will be back, obviously most of you here do not. So yet another editor bites the dust for failing to conform to a culture of manners which he finds alien. Whatever, it's a pity. Anyway You seem concerned Mick - has he complained about me or is this just another tangeant on which for you to complain?
  talk
  ) 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the "retired" tag was being used by Vintagekits as a euphemism for "You can't fire me! I quit!" And since he's evidently so intent on retiring, why don't we just remove his option of returning by giving him an indef block? After 30 blocks by 19 different admins, the guy has had more lives than three cats put together! –

Jay

23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, and to your final point, the issue is not resolved because an excessively long block still stands. The fact the editor says he has retired does not resolve an injustice, or are you suggesting it does?

talk

) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court of appeal. ANI's purpose is not to seek justice, but to ensure the project proceeds without disruption. A retired editor, whether blocked or unblocked, will neither help nor hinder the project, so our work is done (until Vk returns from yet another kneejerk "retirement", and we all reconvene here to dispute unfair block #31. See you then, Giano) Rockpocket 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, Rockpocket, the purpose of this page is to assist the aims of the project, and ensure it proceeds fairly. What we are seeing is one editor, Vintagekits, victimised and bullied with excessively long blocks for comparitively minor crimes born out of frustration. People here are always quick to condemn him never so quick to help him.

talk

) 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So, Giano, what would you say was a "fair" block for edit-warring to restore derogatory nicknames on an article on a living person? --John (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say so long as something is well sourced and accurate (which it was) - no block at all. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia of fact - not a world of "lovely lovely la la land." However, he was blocked for 3R, not the material - so at the most 24 hours.

talk

) 07:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Twenty-four hours is a typical block for a first offense. Per

WP:3RR: In cases where a block is appropriate, 24 hours is a common duration for a routine first offense; administrators tend to issue longer blocks for repeated or aggravated violations, and will consider other factors, such as civility when doing so. This seems to be VK's seventh or eighth block for edit warring (not counting the even more numerous blocks for incivility). A one week block is a lenient remedy.   Will Beback  talk

  08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me, that certain Admins are now digging deeper and deeper to find reasons to keep him blocked. The original blocking reason was wrong, so it's now a desperate scramble to find other reasons to back it up.

talk

) 12:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about a 1-week block of a frequently-blocked user who has declared himself retired. Go and do something useful. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vk has retired. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Has he? that retired notice has been there for months and I can't see where he makes such a statement after his block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

An assumption, sorry folks. GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I took this edit by VK to his talk page on 10 October to be a (re)declaration of retirement. However it is true that the user page RETIRED notice seems to have been there a while. Rd232 ^talk 09:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vin did not violate the 3RR rule, and should not have been blocked. End of story. Now deal with this and not be scrapping around for alternative reasons. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As a quick look at his block log would reveal, he was blocked for edit warring rather than 3RR. Do please feel free to comment further once you have researched what it is we are talking about. --John (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if Domer doesn't know the difference (hard to believe to be honest), VK certainly does - in his own unblock request, he stated "... I accept that I was edit warring and problably deserved a block ...". Domer doesn't need to read up about edit warring, he needs to study the blocking policy and our essay on wikilawyering. Or failing that he should just read this entire thread a few more times, accepting that by now over a hundered admins must have read it and not once come to the same conclusions he has. 'End of story.' MickMacNee (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The end of this story, a very sad story, will be, MickMacNee, when VK is unblocked and returns.

talk

) 20:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)