Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive570

Elstong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been edit warring to add "Jewish" labeling and general antisemitic content to the Phyllis Schlafly article; when I reverted his partial page blanking/sourced content removal and inappropriate content, he very oddly started calling me a vandal, accusing me of abusing him, and has made the allegation that I'm anti-Semitic on the article talk page and in edit summaries. He is, to put it bluntly, obsessed with Jews. I request someone take a look at this SPA and Schlafly fan and see what can be done. IMO he's here to whitewash her article, malign Jews who dare criticize her, and call anyone who attempts to prevent him from doing so names. Were I not arguably involved I would indef as a disruptive account. I could, of course, be in error. Contribs include the telling edit summaries (most recent at top, as in History):

1. 15:10, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Elstong ? (remove inappropriate abuse from KillerChihuahua|talk) - this is removing a warning I left him
2. 15:09, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (remove false jewish comment by KillerChihuahua|talk)
3. 02:45, 10 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": removed anti-semitic accusation against Critchlow)
4. 23:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (the weasel words were written by the Jewish columnist about a Jewish issue; see the talk page if you want to change it)
5. 06:56, 9 October 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": jewish columnist complained about ignoring jewish winking)
6. 23:41, 12 August 2009 (hist | diff) Phyllis Schlafly ? (?"Stop ERA": change jewish accusation to what NYT said)

Followed by [1] and [2]. thanks for your kind attention - I will be offline for a bit but please post questions here anyway if you have any and I will answer when I return. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for now, but if he comes back with the same crap I suggest indefinite next time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked him after further reflection. His edits are problematic, but a block is a bit premature at this point. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So edit warring and violating 3RR doesn't rate a block? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does, but new users also deserve proper warning about why their actions are inappropriate before jumping to a block. People aren't born knowing the rules. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the substantial issues at stake here, but the editing pattern is that of a disruptive, ideologically motivated single purpose account. If it were up to me, I'd just indef-block it, but won't do so without further discussion, so as not to wheel-war with ThaddeusB.  Sandstein  07:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

+1 for that. We need agenda-driven

WP:BLPs just slightly less than we need page move vandals. Guy (Help!

) 18:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein and Guy. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein, Guy, and John Carter. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully that the pattern was one of disruption, however after reflection I decided it wasn't obviously disruptive enough to warrant a block without attempting to resolve the issue. Elstong was "correcting" what he/she viewed as a biased statement, and genuinely doesn't seem to understand the issues with the edit. He has not (yet) returned to disruption after the warnings.

I do not think it is particularly likely that Elstong will edit productively, but I think he/she deserves a chance to prove otherwise before being re-blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, except as it turns out, this is an alternate account of an established user previously blocked five times for personal attacks, COI, and edit warring. I'm blocking this one for abusing multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The problems with certain range IP reoccurred. I have already informed community on the issues surrounding 124.190.113.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and its "supporting" IPs like 203.56.87.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 211.28.47.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) earlier [3], [4] and I was advised to reach out community if the problem resume. Currently IP 124.190.113.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) resumed his "clean up" of certain articles:

• On Adam Mickiewicz removal of references without any expatriation [5]
• On Franciszek Smuglewicz removal of references without any expatriation [6] (the artcile was already semi protected due to this IP actions)
• On Tadeusz Kościuszko removal of references without any expatriation [7]
• On Władysław Syrokomla changing meaning without explanation [8].

Basically he is following my contributions: I fixed reference [9] after some time he removed that content; I inserted references [10] after some time same IP came and removed that [11], [12]; I reinserted references after some time same IP come [13] and removed them. Can anybody finally stop such harassment, and deliberate damage to the articles' content? Thanks, M.K. (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday, as I was going about my usual rounds of editing, I was attracted to the

Three points. One - you didn't notify Sherurcij about this post - I've done this for you. Two - you've not posted on his talkpage about this. Three - you haven't posted on the article talkpage either. To be fair, he hasn't done either of the latter two actions either. Without digging into this it looks like a content dispute/edit war with zero discussion. Suggest protecting the page to force the editors to discuss this. Exxolon (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

quick note of context, Middayexpress has some strange vendetta and has been warned before not to "accuse respected long time users of being racists"...that from the same sort of "uninvolved admin" he just demanded should "step in" and sort things out for him. And the only user I have reverted on the article is Middayexpress, so it's definitely not true to claim I don't allow other opinions or editors to contribute to the evolution of the article.

For context (since it "appears" to be without discussion), User:Middayexpress earlier tried to have all the image/videos removed from Wikimedia Commons for being "offensive" and thus a large amount of conversation took place there - not on WP - as community consensus was that he was wrong in suggesting the images didn't belong and should be removed. He strangely summarises his own nearly-identical-to-this complaint there to be proof that I have a history of this...yet you'll notice in the conversation he links...all the images were kept and it was determined I was right and he was wrong...an administrator just promised to look into the images for him.

I find it strange when people run immediately to ANI to resolve issues - but since Middayexpress is so fond of diff links, I notice that users on their talk page warn that "she will attack you personally, gleefully, viciously, relentlessly - and with no regard for actual facts. It's her way." So I guess that explains the ANI.

I have to say I find claims like suggesting I'm engaged in "pointless race-baiting" to be grossly in violation of multiple WP policies. The word "nigger" only ever appears in quotation marks, and only ever while reporting the (offensive) actions of the Canadian Airborne which were subsequently played all over Canadian television news programmes for nearly four years. Should we rename

Niggas With Attitude

to "Social perjorative terms with Attitude" to meet his "cleansing" standards? The quotes are only used in their proper context, and if anything, paint the Canadian Airborne in a negative light...how the article could possibly be construed as offensive to Somalians is beyond me.

The claim that I am a White Supremacist based on the fact I have added images to random articles is amusing, of course, since a quick look at my userpage will show that I believe Middayexpress just chose about the only two white people about whom I've written biographies and 95% of my work is dealing with controversial Canadians of all stripes. I mean...I wrote a (fairly damning) article that portrays Canadian racists in a terrible light and shows them at their worst moments...and I get accused of "supporting" them? If I wrote the Paul Bernardo article, would Middayexpress similarly accuse me of supporting the rape of young schoolgirls? He also claims that routine aesthetic work (such as using HTML break tags or font tags) is somehow a conspiracy against him to mitigate the seriousness of criminal charges...rather than to make an in-line template fit onto users' screens. Similarly, the only information I removed was from a table that offered "guilty" or "Not guilty" for each soldier, and he went and edited in personal biographical information on them thus screwing up the table's size and scope. There's hardly any malice on my part - I even agreed with him that one use of the quoted word "nigger" in a video title was extraneous and removed it myself, changing it to "racist language". But it's hard for me to understand hi attempts to justify the belief that exact quotes should be boiled down to something less vulgar than their historical truth to avoid offending sensisibilities. The soldiers charged in the affair used the word "nigger", the newspapers and government inquiries re-printed the word in its exact context within quotation marks...but WP shouldn't do the same? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: Just a quick note to explain/correct the erroneous statement above saying I haven't used the article's talk page to help shape its progress - I'm actually the majority-editor on the talk page (

Talk:Somalia Affair) and have been since June 2009; it's Middayexpress who's never wandered over to it. I created a To-Do list there, I requested help with footnotes there, I asked opinions about article-merges there, and SimonP and I both spoke with each other about Middayexpress's continued "revert to my version because your version has swearing in it and you're a racist" disruption to the article. SimonP even suggested to Middayexpress what possible routes he could take if he had a legitimate grievance to help us "understand" his problem and he never did. Anyways, just didn't want anybody thinking I'd avoided the talk page. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead}

) 05:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Exxolon - This is not just a random "content dispute", and this issue has already been discussed ad nauseam (follow the links above). This is a case of an editor with a proven history of editing & even creating articles on racist and anti-Semitic figures deciding to upload images -- ones that he has yet to prove are copyright free -- of race-motivated torture, voluntarily naming one of those images "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" although he is already well aware of Wikipedia's policies against inappropriate names (an image which, incidentally, he has had months now to try and get renamed, but hasn't even so much as lifted a finger in that direction), knee-jerk reverting sourced statements which outline the legal punishments meted out to the offending soldiers involved in the race-motivated torture in question, refusing link throughs that suggest anything even remotely close to the well-established fact that this was a major scandal, and gratuitously including the word nigger when less inflammatory language works just as well (for example, he insists that the following phrase in reference to the offending soliders which goes "one using racist language and loudly complaining about the presence of black soldiers in the Airborne" doesn't capture his preferred "one stating loudly "We're not racist - we just don't want niggers in the Airborne" -- other than the all-important presence of the word nigger, which Sherurcij insists on using throughout the article, just as he insisted on including it in that torture image's title, anyone can see that the two phrases are virtually identical) , a word which he has already demonstrated in my previous discussions with him that he is not at all shy about using. That's what's going on here. Middayexpress (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sherurcij -

Niggas With Attitude are a rap group consisting of several black men who voluntarily elected to call themselves that. That is the name of their actual group. It is not something someone else called them in order to disparage them & a Wiki editor then felt it just imperative to parrot. Moreover, the niggas in their name is a term of endearment where they come from. It is not the same as nigger; hence, the two separate Wikipedia articles devoted to what are two separate topics. What you've just described bears no relation to the race-baiting you are gratuitously pushing on the Somalia Affair article wherein certain Canadian soldiers are racially taunting people(s) of another race, at least one of whom they would go on to kill. Really lamentable analogy, but oddly appropriate and predictable considering the circumstances and your own previous remarks on this issue. Middayexpress (talk

) 05:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually voted in favour of renaming the video clip back in July 2009, as you may have noticed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers.ogv - do you have another argument? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't a "request". That was a statement of fact. And that link above doesn't work, FYI. Middayexpress (talk) 06:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything here that admins can help with? It looks to me like a

I would agree it's a content dispute, page protection and such are out of the question over-the-top-interference. I think this ANI was likely just blowing off some steam (although interestingly, it was only 24 hours after the dispute arose) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's part of the problem. Basically, what I would like to do now is simply to add the source I have described above without this other user attempting to remove it as he has repeatedly done. Could you help me with that? The reliable source in question is this New York Times article, and the statements I would like to add are featured in this edit. I would also like to add an internal link to the scandal article in the lede, as it isn't linked to anywhere else in the article despite the Affair being a major military scandal, as well as render the sentences meted out to the offending soldiers in normal wiki-code rather than in between so-called "small" tags so that readers can clearly see what became of the accused\guilty parties. Middayexpress (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added both. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you only retained (not "added") one sourced statement that I first added to the article, but only after having first stripped it bare (you changed the phrase "Deemed to be "willfully blind" to the beating, Boland was also demoted to

talk page via Wikipedia policy the exact problem with your continued gratuitous use of the word nigger (the rest of your edits I've already addressed above), and even after I had warned you that you had breached 3RR. Middayexpress (talk

) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 24 from Kralizec! (talk · contribs). - 2/0 (cont.) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• 180.149.208.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - created talk pages and vandalized some non-talk pages. Sorry if this is not the place to report this. I think this requires attention. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 23:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan | 39

23:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Blocked 48h. MuZemike 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Durwoodie (talk · contribs) has been inserting unsourced POV statements in the articles Psychiatry and Biopsychiatry controversy. He was reverted by several users (in the process violating 3RR) and pointed to relevant policies concerning reliable, independent sources. Durwoodie now has posted violent personal attacks on my talk page and on the Psychiatry talk page. Given the way this user acts and reacts, I don't think mediation is helpful and as the pharmaceutical industry has neglected to pay me in recent years, I don't really like to be called their whore... Assistance is welcome. --Crusio (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by

Tan39. First unblock request declined by yours truly. MuZemike

00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's made a more substantive unblock request on his talk page, offering Crusio a full apology.--

chaser (away) - talk

02:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IPs 70.188.151.191 (talk · contribs) (oct. 11-now) and 68.0.235.112 (talk · contribs) (oct 3-10) have been going around and adding to various BLPs' voice/filmography things like Rayman Advent, which, near as I can tell, don't exist. Help cleaning up after them would be appreciated Cleanup done, would appreciate an admin looking into this and taking appropriate action. Nifboy (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Adding to the list 68.0.233.245 (talk · contribs) (August 12-16). Nifboy (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User unblocked. Ruslik_Zero 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM was blocked for incivility. [[15]] I find this block to be totally inappropriate. No where in this was CoM ever incivil and ask for an admin to overturn as blatantly wrong.

Keegan, who keeps me close by cellphone contact knew that this was a bad idea. COI and and shitty block. the_undertow ^talk 09:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(copied from CoM's talkpage). I have an entirely different view on the recent sock puppet shambles to most of the acolytes who gather around whenever this contributor is involved in controversial issues. I support no one or everyone, but not any particular tribe, if you know what I mean. However, in this particular instance the highlighted reason for blocking CoM for half a day cannot be construed as incivility. I share his sarcastic outlook, so if I had responded with an equally sarcastic but opposite contribution would I have been blocked? Of course not. It does look slightly reactionary and you could have let it go or waited until it developed into something genuinely uncivil. (but I may have missed something). Leaky Caldron 09:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't consider that diff incivility. However, it was very nasty and a hair's breadth away. CoM should be unblocked, but warned in the strongest possible terms that making casual allegations of that sort against another editor is (as Keegan said) not conducive to a collaborative environment, and absolutely out of line. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 09:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(

talk · contribs)) seems inappropriate, and possibly block worthy, but the incident that started this off doesn't. Of CoMs recent misbehaviour, this is very mild. Verbal chat

09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I resent the fact that you consider me disgraced. I can deal with the 'Lex Luthor of WP', or 'mentally unstable' or just about anything else, but NPA still applies. I outed myself. There is nothing lacking grace with wanting to rid my own making. Just because I am blocked does not give you free reign to make such an assertion. Never. "Disgraced" is subjective. With that, you deserve your own admonishment. the_undertow ^talk 09:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are using two different meanings, or at least nuances, of the word "disgraced", undertow. Verbal seems to be referring to your recent loss of the tools, which can be categorized as "disgrace". As your post referenced the recent events which led to that, this is most likely. I do not know how you're interpreting it; but I see no implications beyond the meaning I have given. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 10:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I stand by the description of this twice banned and desysoped, by arbcom, editor as disgraced, and for the record I would find calling him mentally unstable to be a personal attack. However, disgraced is backed up by the facts. Verbal chat 10:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not overturning it because I was chatting with CoM in the hour or so before this happened. As such, I don't want the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part (A Wiki admin that is worried about showing bias, imagine that?). Still, the block was obviously a bad idea and should never have been made.Trusilver 09:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any incivility there either. Agree CoM should be unblocked. Keegan doesn't seem to be very active though. Mjroots (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence why we are here. Someone should unblock with an admonshment that it was towards the dge. Let's defuse this while we still can.

talk

) 10:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: CoM has not requested unblock nor has he disputed the block. He's not a noob; he knows about {{unblock}}. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps CoM has gone elsewhere for 12 hrs. Mjroots (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm correct he hasn't requested it yet because it's still the ass crack of dawn in his neck of the woods. How do you think he's going to react to something this blatantly stupid. It'll probably go over as well as a fart in church. Also if I have a problem with this block I can bring those concerns here, today it is CoM tomorow it could be you or me and I['d be pissed.

talk

) 11:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Obviously a bad block, not justified by any element of blocking policy or civility policy. Moreover, it was the last actin of Keegan before signing off for the day (see his contributions), giving no effective recourse. This is especially ironic in the context of [[User:Keegan/On administrators#Blocking|Keegan's own stated view on administrator blocking]. ^Bongo_matic 12:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that it wasn't nearly long enough, as the last one was for an identical 12hrs, and he's apparently slept through most of it. Our dear CoM has been running his mouth for weeks in various forums here about the evils of admins, the cabals that are out to get him, the fantasized stalkers, harassers, disrupters who are "out to get him" etc... You can only go so long in slagging, insulting, and denigrating anyone and everyone who has ever disagreed with you before it comes back to bite you in the ass. Keegan's name will be tacked on to the list for the next round of insults that flows from CoM's direction. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Somebody with 3 bad overturned blocks, and a possible 4th dislikes admins?--
    Otterathome (talk
    ) 13:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Many Admins are out of control when it comes to blocking. Sometimes they forget that being an editor is different than being an admin, and they put the two together without thinking it through.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I disagree with your comment Jojhutton that "many admins are out of control when it comes to blocking" most admins do a good job quietly. The policing aspect of the job is always going to be denegraded, no one much likes being told off or having your privileges taken away for a while, but sometimes it is a necessary evil.
        Off2riorob (talk
        ) 13:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether or not it could be considered incivility, why was he blocked for one comment, though? Don't we warn people and then see if they do it again? On the question of civility, I've seen much worse. WebHamster got away with stuff ten times as bad as this for years before he was finally blocked. The fact that CoM was talking to admins in this case probably had something to do with it, and it really shouldn't have. Equazcion (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If he was making those comments for weeks, I assume that he was warned multiple times.
    talk
    ) 13:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
    • That would be a nice assumption but I don't see any such warnings on his talk page. I just see a block notice. Equazcion (talk) 13:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks.

Well, I don't consider this a conflict of interest because if I did, I would be like Mr Wales and never be able to use my block function.

I don't take blocking lightly, and I don't block often. Maybe less than a couple hundred in three years.

I can understand the jaw dropping and calling it a shitty block, it seems random and inappropriate.

From my view, what was inappropriate and incivil was the comment on the undertow's talk page. Don't get me wrong, I am in incredibly sarcastic person that thinks and sometimes says things along the lines of what CoM says. What happens when I do say these things? I am appropriately admonished to prevent me from being such a dick again. Well, at least for the forseeable future. Eventually I slip up again, it's human nature.

It was a 12 hour block to prevent further "snarkiness" for the evening, well within my descresionary bounds. I think that is reasonable, but I can understand why others think it isn't. Bottom line is that I was working towards something amicable, this user is not. Plain and simple. The block expires shortly after what I assume was a good night's rest for CoM (please note:Do not read that as a cool down block, it wasn't) and we can all get on with our lives. I'll take whatever lumps ANI chooses to give me, I'm a big boy, but I do not regret what I did at all.

We are trying to work in a collaborative environment. Tempers flare, there is drama, I get that, I have plenty of experience on this website. This is an encyclopedia, not a shooting gallery. Happy editing to all, Keegan (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Any response as to the lack of a warning though? People aren't generally blocked for one comment, as I've mentioned above. Even assuming the statement was undoubtedly uncivil, a block still seems like an excessive immediate response. Equazcion (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's his seventh block this year. He's been previously blocked for incivility. Those could probably be considered "fair warning". Note that I am not condoning the block here; I'm merely stating that if the comment did indeed violate policy, a warning would have been superfluous. I remain neutral for the moment.

Tan | 39

15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What Tan said is the reason for my lack of warning. Keegan (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also find Keegan's response troubling as it sounds to me like he's saying the block is so short that we shouldn't be concerned about its appropriateness, and that he's not so concerned with what people have to say about it. Being willing to "take your lumps" at ANI is only an honorable stance if you're also willing to participate thoughtfully and re-examine your actions accordingly. Equazcion (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have obviously made your stance clear. Thank you; no need to reiterate a dozen times - if you want other people to "participate thoughtfully" and examine their actions, you need to be able to do it yourself.

Tan | 39

16:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where I've repeated myself, except once, regarding my concern with the lack of a warning. Keegan neglected to mention that in his statement, so I felt the need to bring it up again. "A dozen times"? Exaggerate much? Equazcion (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked with 2 hours of the 12 remaining, (a) because the single snarky comment does not appear to meet the standards required of a single comment to justify an incivility block (b) the block was unaccompanied by a reason, which is problematic for future interpretations of the block log. In addition, I would say that if CoM does have a pattern of making these kinds of comment, that pattern might be construed as uncivil (in the broad sense of creating an uncivil collaborative environment). That would (a) require more substantive evidence, perhaps via

WP:RFC/U; (b) justify a longer block. Rd232 ^talk

16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The block seemed proper to me. ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a history of disruption and a long block log. CoM is also under multiple ArbCom restrictions about getting into dust-ups with other editors, not to mention a topic ban. Granted, CoM's comment on Law's talkpage was not within the realm of any ArbCom restrictions, but it's obvious that CoM has shown a pattern of disruptive behavior. CoM's comment was highly inappropriate, and has already been deleted as such.[16] If CoM repeats this kind of "pot-stirring" behavior, I would support a longer block. --Elonka 17:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the sort of situation which lends credence to the view that civility blocks are ineffectual. I don't happen to subscribe to that view in a general manner, but this way of applying it definitely is ineffectual. An editor who picks up a block roughly once every six weeks for most of a year engages in habitual sniping, and one of many instances garners a 12 hour block. 12 hours of rest might correct a one-off problem, but not this situation. It is pretty much guaranteed that a variety of editors will line up on both sides and the block will become more trouble than it's worth. If something is the proverbial 'straw on the camel's back' then put a brace on the spine rather than removing or adding individual bits of straw. That is, after seven blocks in a year either propose a community sanction or let it go. Miniscule blocks for habitual problems make a mockery of process. Durova³²² 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. A short-term block should be applied if there is an appropriate short-term problem of sufficient severity. If there is a long-term problem which is sufficiently documented and agreed upon, it warrants appropriate sanction, and a short-term block isn't it. Rd232 ^talk 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Its the standard civility block paradox. Blocks can't literally be preventative without precognition, and ex post blocks can't modify behavior. Either we accept some nuance and block only where obviously necessary or we cut the gordian knot and indef editors who agitate and provoke in such a way that short term 'civility blocks' are the only solution. Protonk (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef block or short-term block are not the only possible responses to short-term or long-term civility or civility/disruption issues. Rd232 ^talk 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rd232 puts it well, and this is distinct from the garden variety civility problem. A civility block can have an effect when a normally collegial editor gets hot under the collar because a particular discussion hits a raw nerve. Most of us have a sensitive spot somewhere; that's just human. When an editor is getting increasingly worked up and rude and polite interaction fails to curb the problem, a day off for rest and food and fresh air can solve the problem (and demonstrate that limits do exist before the overall tone turns poisonous and other editors pick up on it also). When the outburst seems out of character and continues despite attempts at engagement, blocking can be preventative before the editor digs him/herself in any deeper. Durova³²² 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, hence "either we accept some nuance...". As Durova said, different folks, different strokes. Protonk (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Durova³²² 05:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in agreement that multiple short-term civility blocks are not an effective solution. However, neither is it helpful to say, "Civility blocks don't work", without proposing some alternative. It is my opinion that when an editor engages in a chronic pattern of incivility, and appears unwilling to moderate their own behavior, at some point we need to say "enough" and simply remove them from the project as a disruptive influence. However, where do we draw the line? I am in agreement that sometimes good editors just have a bad day. But for me, when an editor has received warnings from multiple administrators, has recently been blocked for disruption, and is spending more time sniping on various users' talkpages than actually working on the encyclopedia, that's where I think it's time to consider a lengthy block to remove the user from our environment. Otherwise we just get into an endless revolving door of second chances, where our policies mean nothing, as the user knows that no matter how poor their behavior, there are never any truly serious consequences. Without consequences, policies are meaningless. --Elonka 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I was always under the impression those block lengths were supposed to get progressively longer. I would hope by the time someone has hit block 7 for the same thing, they should be looking at a 2 month block or more. It might have a greater effect as a deterrent and preventative measure both for now and in the future if people realized there were genuine and lengthy consequences for their behaviour instead of a couple days vacation.--

Crossmr (talk

) 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• It seems CoM is destined to have a block log with multiple blocks that have been reversed as problematic, flawed or unjustified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

RfA that could use an early closing

Resolved

 – Belongs at

WP:BN, if anywhere.

Durova³²⁵

04:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tango 2 The tally is currently 10/53/8. I'm not alone in thinking this has no chance of succeeding. I would close it myself, but I've participated in the discussion. Maybe someone uninvolved could have a look? Equazcion (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) I think you have to ask the 'crats about this. Crafty (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC) According to the main RfA page, a SNOW closing can be executed by any member in good standing. Only RfAs closed as passes must be done by crats, according to the page. Equazcion (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) True, it's just such a nasty situation that the Solomonesque adjudication of a 'crat might be beneficial in this case. Crafty (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) It's possible Tango might be using the RfA to reply to past criticism. (He may be looking to rehabilitate his reputation and may not care about the vote totals). If Tango is not complaining, why not let this one continue? The comments by the RfA voters may give some general insight as to what the community expects from its admins. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Tango has stated in no uncertain terms he wishes the RfA to remain open. With new editors, there can be a slight urgency to close a tanking RfA because they didn't know what to expect. That is not the case here. I don't understand why there's a rush, or concern. If he wants the opposes and criticism, he's entitled to it. Tan | 39 04:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC) He stated that he wanted to keep it open within the first few hours (when even then people were suggesting he withdraw). He hasn't had any new contribs recently, so it's possible he's not aware of how bad it's gotten. There's no particular rush in closing it, but I don't see any particular point in leaving it open, either. It's like watching a dead horse take a beating. This seems like what WP:SNOW was made for. Just my thought. Equazcion (talk ) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) What's the harm in it remaining open? If people don't want to bother with a 11 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to add to a resolved thing. The candidate asks for wider editor involvement - they left a message on the RfA talk page saying they'd left a notice on CENT. (I've worded this as neutrally as I can. Feel free to strike or remove if it's not appropriate.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by User:138.88.255.130

Could someone uninvolved deal with the legal threats here by User:138.88.255.130. I suspect it's one of the prior users there again arguing "I think I know copyright law so I can make up whatever lyrics I want" earlier up that page. I'd also ask that the poorly sourced (and BLP-violating) lyrics be removed with protection anew, if that's considered appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is a threat of legal action. Perhaps incivil, yes. -----

WRE

) 04:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty harsh when it comes to legal threats and I'm not really seeing one here. He's trying to cite law but nowhere does he say it's being violated. --Golbez (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Certainly not a legal threat. Simply mentioning the law != legal threat. His post is about as much a legal threat as this one is. Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I originally brought this up at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Plot_summary_copyrights, but that page seems a bit quiet at the moment, and this is the first chance I've had to look at it again since I posted there.

I came across an article,

• Hot for Paris = [19]
• Carmencita (film) = [20]
• A (1998 film) = [21]
• Wicked (2011 film) = [22]
• Follies (film) = [23]
• The Forward Pass = [24]
• The Rainbow Man = [25]
• Why Bring That Up? = [26] & [27]
• Oh, For a Man! = [28]

I will be notifying the editor in question momentarily --☇Kateshortforbob _talk☄ 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your listing at

WP:Copyvio without that. Any contributor who is violating copyright should be cautioned, as persistence at this is likely to lead to blocking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've found several more examples already. I'm going to have to run a contribution survey to organize this. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's at

WP:NFC violations, with entire summaries or reviews copied. Anyone want to help out? It's all organized at that link. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information and for looking at this, Moonriddengirl. I thought there might be somewhere centralised to deal with stuff like this! I'm glad that the editor has responded to you on their talk page also. I'm just dropping in now, but I'm hoping to have a significant amount of WP editing time this afternoon/evening, so I'll try to head over to

WP:COPYCLEAN and get my head round the process there. Thanks again! --☇Kateshortforbob _talk

☄ 10:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be great. :) If the process seems complicated, please feel free to drop by my talk page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 –

Tan | 39

20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

anyway -- you'll see it -- refers to "menopausal c#$%s...etc." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.93.16 (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please provide a link. also, don't you think it would be good to sign up for a wiki user name? Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not necessary for anyone to sign up for a Wikipedia account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan | 39

20:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Jungle Island Advertising Campaign

Unresolved

I was working on RC Patrol when I noticed an IP turning the

• article tagged appropriate for now to identify the culprit, should the template be removed. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've also toned down the language some, and removed some of the spammier sections. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ecoman23 and Bfigura. I know it's a lot of work going through and removing all the ad stuff, and it is much appreciated. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The

I have sent the article to AfD. It doesn't appear particularly noteworthy, even separate from the promo copy.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 03:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's pretty clearly notable, despite the lack of sourcing. Maxitup16 is probably going to get blocked for edit warring shortly, though, as I'm pretty sure he's past 3RR at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if

Yes spam, advertisement sought of. good block on IP will sought the problem before it is too late. user adding the same link to several articles. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have therefore reverted the IP's edits and left a message on the talk page. Thanks. --

talk

) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• chitraranga.in: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

• AG Guttedar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 117.192.99.113 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.104.75 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.110.198 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.126.192 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 123.236.223.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.122.166 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.118.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 115.108.20.211 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.114.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.97.34.101 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.111.213 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.121.46 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.102.152 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 59.96.64.229 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.97.57.74 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.97.3.244 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 59.92.204.235 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 59.92.129.168 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 59.96.35.104 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.107.16 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 117.192.121.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Now on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be pushing a Ukrainian conection in all articles he edits, to the extent he is removing any references that are present that do not agree with his statements.

See:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

His edit history shows more of the same. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Resolved

 – Closed. No forumshopping please. --Smashville^talk 14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

About a few hours ago, I reformatted

All opinions aside, you have both violated

WP:3RR on that page. --Smashville^talk

16:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Ecoman, please do not mark ANI threads as "resolved" when they very clearly are not. The situation at hand hasn't even been discussed here yet. --Smashville^talk 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Dottiewest1fan filed about the same matter at the 3RR noticeboard, in this complaint. The issue was closed there at 03:11 UTC on 13 October with warnings to both parties not to continue the war. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It is weird that she claims not to be aware of

forum shopping. --Smashville^talk

14:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

tranferred from

Posting this here because the noticeboard has been protected: I'm starting to get the feeling that

It seems likely that User:27 Juni is the user of the same name who was indef-blocked on German Wikipedia in March 2009, for vandalism [30]. User:27 Juni was created on 11 October, focussing on recent changes patrols. The contribs look fine (without checking each one...), but 27 Juni's revert of the above anon's removal of unsourced material at FK Velež Mostar led to this disagreement, which seems grounded in a lack of English as much as anything. Not sure what to suggest, but I can translate if necessary. PS The blocking admin on German Wikipedia is still active, so we could ask him for clarification, if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 15:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If the user is able to write "Im so sorry but i speak german! NOT english! Please translate your english words in german words and write only german on my talk page!", I don't believe that he is unable to read English. And what is someone who can't read English doing on the English language wikipedia? 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a requirement to use English on en.Wikipedia talk pages. The editor cannot insist that you speak to them in German (this user is Elen of the Roads, making an edit on the move) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

To be absolutely fair, there was a recent case of users communicating in Tagalog and it was decided here that they should be allowed to continue. That said, the user clearly speaks perfect English and is just invoking German to be disruptive. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag has left the appropriate warning on this user's page. And if he can only communicate in German, then he has no business editting on the English Wikipedia -- & would be subject to an immediate ban. (That said, can someone who knows German history & culture explain the significance of 27 June? I looked at the appropriate Wikipedia article, & I found no clear reason for the date. I can't shake a bad feeling about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

PS -- The interested should have a look at this earlier version of his talk page, before he blanked it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Can someone please block this editor? He is continuing to revert good edits without discussion, and is doing so after the warnings issued by the users above, simply blanking his talk page. My good faith is all used up, but even for those who want to continue to extend good faith to him, this cannot go on. If he cannot commnicate, he needs to find another website to contribute to, or at least another way of contributing here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support block per deliberate disruptive behaviour. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• There are two possibilities here - either the user doesn't know English and are bungling things up because or it, or they do know English are are purposely being disruptive. Either way, I think an indefinite (not infinite) block is in order until the user can demonstrate they understand the problem with what they are doing, and have so blocked. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• As a final note, this user reverted ThaddeusB's block notice. (Not the smartest thing to do, IMHO.) No need to add another. -- llywrch (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He is adding his own personal analysis to topics of sensitive nature e.g adding a reported date 8 October to an event which took place on 10 October, with no mention of the event in the stated report! He has been given a final warning on this count but still keep reverting the edits. Please act as early as possible as the article is now the main page currently. --yousaf465' 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Diffs and, at the very least which article, would be quite helpful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he has realized his mistake and mended it. These diffs might be helpful [31] and [32].

Looking at his editing history it seems, an admin need to keep a watch over him. So I would recommend he be kept under watch for some time an admin. --yousaf465' 14:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also his edits need to be checked for a 3RR violations. See this list of edits [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38],

[39],and [40].

He was warned, but still continued to add the wrong url. Previously he was warned for Personal analysis. So a regular culprit. Line of action is now with the admins.--yousaf465' 14:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe all occurrences of the url I added have been corrected. Please let me know if any remain that are still pointing to the wrong url. bostonbrahmin 16:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read

Resolved

 – compromised account blocked. Horologium (talk) 13:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now, User:Bunns USMC has been blanking my userpages, after calling me an idiot. Considering that this user mostly hasn't edited since 2006, and was a fairly decent contributor at that time, I think his account may be compromised. However, either way, I'd like to get some admin intervention against his edits to my userpage. Thanks. bahamut0013^words_deeds 08:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit in particular worries me...

 GARDEN 

09:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a 48h block to stop the blanking and personal attacks for now. Situation perhaps should be monitored.

 GARDEN 

09:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed resolved template. User is asking for unblock on the grounds that Bunns USMC is breaching national security. Does this constitute a legal threat? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No, on the grounds that Bahamut (the user with his pages being blanked) is doing so. But yes, very worrying.

 GARDEN 

10:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, stuff like this usually results in an indefinite block on the account performing the edits until we can determine otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, they appear to share the same IP address (just after I blocked Bunns the other user requested autoblock removal). I have'nt the foggiest what exactly is going on here... bit fishy.

 GARDEN 

10:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So it appears they are in the same location so there may be some validity behind these claims.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have commented earlier, but the autoblock nabbed me twice. I would imagine that his assertation that he is also at Al Asad is true, since we seem to be sharing the rotating IP address. However, his claims that I'm violating any sort of policy or am a security risk are not validated. My userspace got a few questiones asked several months ago, but my command deemed the information to be harmless enough. I think he is just angry because he outranks me, but he's not been given deference because of it, and now is spouting out some nonsense so that someone in authority will some in and agree with him. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with Bahamut)I think I understand. However, Bunns had revealed even more about himself than Bahamut does, although he did blank his userpage. I don't think that there is an OPSEC violation here, Bunns and Bahamut, by revealing a real name or stating that he is deployed. (No location is given, for one thing, and there is no unit identification.) As to sharing an IP address, it is likely that they are deployed to the same location, and a significant amount of internet traffic will be routed through the same IP. Horologium (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have lifted the autoblocks on Bahamut0013 and also given him information on how to request an IP block exemption the next time he is autoblocked. Seems to me that Bunns USMC could indeed be a compromised account based on length of time between contribs, but I am not sure. Willking1979 (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's compromised, based on the edits he's performed. If you read what he's written, it indicates that he ran across the user's name by chance (possibly as a search engine result) and decided to apply OPSEC enforcement with a rather heavy hand. Horologium (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking through his edits from 2006, I saw a few cases of PA, specifically, calling somebody an idiot. Could just be a rude person who isn't familiar that this kind of behavior isn't tolerated on Wikipedia. I will also note that he blanked more content than just my personal information. He could easily simply find my phone number and email address in our local listings, and he has not chosen to do so, which further lends me to believe that ego is the motivating factor here, not any serious OPSEC concern. I noted his name from his own userpage's history, and I don't know the individual, so I don't think he found me looking for any concerns. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• threats of whatsoever can not be allowed on wikipedia. any one issuing any threats deserves a good block. 48hrs block is far too lenient, the user should appreciate. Bunns USMC need to acknowledge that his attack was wrong, and should promise to restrain himself from issuing such attacks + blanking others editors pages. users pages are NOT encyclopedic, as such may not be blanked without good reason. They may only be blanked by an admin. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • According to the user's Talk page, the account was compromised and he has now scrambled the password. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Anyone can blank a user page if its violating policies, like attack pages, or other things. They don't have to be admins to do it. They need admins to force it if someone edit wars.--
    Crossmr (talk
    ) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation (at all) of Wikipedia policy on the page that was being blanked. There was a potential OPSEC (operational security) issue, but it appears that somebody was just screwing with Bahamut0013 for kicks, which is a pretty crummy thing to do. In any case, OPSEC is not a Wikipedia concern (that doesn't mean we condone willful violations, just that we don't enforce it.) The account doing the blanking has been indeffed, and the note left on the talk page indicates that he is not going to contest it. Horologium (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to ecoman and his assertion that only admins could blank a talk page.--

Crossmr (talk

) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From some correspondance, the editor in question claimed to be a friend of the account owner have guessed the account's password. He's been indef blocked, I've gotten my IP exemption. There are some messages on the talk page now supposedly from the real Bunns, who said he's scrambled the password and won't be coming back. He's also apologized for the trouble caused. I think we can call this one "resolved" now. Thank you all for your efforts in this matter, it's been an inconvenience for all of us. bahamut0013^words_deeds 13:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User is blanking messages on article talkpages due to them supporting a user he disagrees with,[41] for instance I supported an IP's message egarding Stephen Fry's controversial racist comment against Polish people. DKqerty covered it up. Across various users talkpage he is making constant improper use of warning tags. And then making personal attacks in edit summaries (numerous times - ie calling various users who reply, "trolls" and even calls one user a "dumbass trolling birther" [!]).[42] The user seems to have issues with wanting to control situations, ie - he exessively template tags talkpages, yet when anybody templates his talkpage, he removes them calling them either "trolls" or claiming its "improper". This may actually be better for Wikiquette alert, but I just want it getting across to him that he can't blank messages from talkpages on the basis of them supporting another user. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkpages are for discussing the articles, not the subject of the articles. Therefore, your claim that Fry would be sent for re-education was not appropriate for the article's talkpage, and DKqwerty's removal was correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to get across, in the message, is that I support the anons position for including the fact that the comment is racist against Polish people and has caused controversy (both in the UK and Poland). Yet DKqwerty's talk blanking came across to me, in light of him opposing the anon, a way to try and make it look like nobody else agrees with the anon's position for material to include. I don't think that is legitimate to blank in that instance. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, I do not have time for this (in real or "fake" life).

Yorkshirian made the following edit: [43]. In so doing, the user violated both

WP:NOTFORUM as the comments have nothing to with the article itself, are only tangentially related to Stephen Fry, and simply support Poland (exemplified by the edit summary "shameful!") rather than discussing improving the article. I then removed the comments ([44]) and explained why in the edit summary, then added a warning template to the user's talk page ([45]

).

The user then proceeded to improperly warn me on my talk page ([46]) which I reverted as "trolling" ([47]) under the assumption the user was warning me contentiously and spitefully. The user then reverted my removal of his/her comment ([48]), improperly citing

WP:BLANK as a justification. I reverted the comment once more ([49]) and warned the user once again ([50]). The user then warned me once more ([51]

) but this time over article tags (which isn't at issue here) stating "I'm not impressed" as if that were my intent. The user also accused me of personal attacks because I qualified his warnings as "trolling".

That's it. That's all that has happened (other than the user inappropriately reporting me to

forums and in the process was thrown into this conflict which I never meant to precipitate and have certainly not tried to escalate. In regard to the "dumbass tolling birther" comment, that comment was made months ago in regard to a different editor ([53]

); looking at the diff, that's really the only way to qualify it.

(It should also be noted the user makes some accusations which I cannot follow, like about anon. accounts and the tags thing; as such, I'm not sure the editor even understands what (s)he is arguing about or my reasons for removing the comment in the first place.) DKqwerty (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to be done? The offenses don't appear to be worthy of userpage descretion.....

talk

) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just want him to revert his removal of my message on the talk and generally get across that claiming users are "trolling" due to objecting to removing comments from article talks isn't acceptable rhetoric. - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you weren't trolling, but it's still not an appropriate message for the talkpage, and its removal should not be reverted. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek: First, great username. Regarding your comment, what constitutes trolling? To me it seems a subjective term that can mean different things to different people. For me, I consider reacting this way to simple enforcement of policy "trolling". Apparently, others do not. I guess I use this definition:

"Trolling is is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."

To me, that's exactly what's happening here. DKqwerty (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that makes it clear. He wasn't trying to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia: he thought _you_ were trying to disrupt the usability, and commented in support of the person you were "disrupting". He was incorrect in his assumption and his action, but not malicious, as far as I can tell. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But to me (a far less experienced editor) removing off-topic

soapboxing from talk pages usually results in users getting upset because they not understanding the policies well. My confusion is that this is an experienced and long-time editor (two years) yet (s)he's getting upset that I removed improper talk page decorum? Shouldn't (s)he have figured out what not to say and why after two years? DKqwerty (talk

) 16:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd think so, wouldn't you? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That's for both editors involved. Sometimes a smoother touch is better but for right now it's best to drop the

talk

) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Support trout. This conversation isn't going to go anywhere. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:aiv

Resolved

There is currently five cases on the board neededing resolution. Can an admin go and sort things out?

talk

) 15:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling and POV-pushing in race-related topics

I've been discussing this issue with the admin

user:Dbachmann on his talk page here

, and he suggested that I bring it up on this noticeboard. There are several aspects of this issue, but the most obvious one is that the user Alun / Wobble has a history of trolling these topics and making personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. He’s been warned about this behavior both by Dbachmann himself, and by non-admin users involved in the articles he edits. I've linked several examples of this from my post about this on Dbachmann's talk page, and quoted one particularly obvious example there.

The article Race and intelligence in particular has numerous issues, some of which I've described here and here. I've been accused of edit warring on this topic, which I may be guilty of, but the underlying issue here is the various forms of POV-pushing that are going on. Several users keep making obviously POV edits to this article, such as removing properly sourced information without any explanation of what's wrong with it, and at the moment I seem to be one of the only people who cares enough to revert these edits. This aspect of the article would definitely benefit from some admin attention. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be cautious about using the word

diffs of what you feel are the more egregious violations. --Elonka

19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This recent debate does also seem to be part of this discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another related thread is this 3RR report.[54] --Elonka 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing any comments whatsoever from Captain Occam (talk · contribs) to the talkpage of Wobble (talk · contribs). Generally it's best for users to try and work out their disagreements on talkpages, before requesting attention at ANI. This is looking more and more like a content dispute. Recommend pushing this back to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I used the term "trolling" for this editor's conduct because it's the term that Dbachmann used; I'm not sure whether this term is an accurate description of it or not. But either way, his conduct definitely fits Wikipedia's definition of personal attacks.

Here is one example of this behavior, about which Wobble previously received a warning, and here is another example. While the latter comment was not directed at anyone who was currently editing the article, several of Gene Expression's authors (such as Quizkajer) are editors at Wikipedia who have edited these article in the past, so calling them "fascists" is still a personal attack on Wikipedia users. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"I am not seeing any comments whatsoever from Captain Occam (talk · contribs) to the talkpage of Wobble (talk · contribs). Generally it's best for users to try and work out their disagreements on talkpages, before requesting attention at ANI."

The reason I haven't contacted him about this is because other users involved in these articles have already done so, the most recent time being three days ago. All I would be accomplishing by contacting him there is restating what Fixentries already said. (Incidentally, Wobble's conduct since then hasn't improved.)

• This is extremely complicated and difficult, and I recommend especial care to anyone poking their noses in here. It's a tricky balancing act between the outright racists and the contentions of a minority of respectable scientists who do see a link between genetics and intelligence.
  WP:UNDUE? It is not helped, IMHO, by people like Muntuwandi (how the hell did he get unbanned?), who is certainly not a fit and proper person to be editing such an article. Moreschi (talk
  ) 19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• It is a very complicated situation, of which I am only aware of a portion. I will add, however, that having read through and participated in the discussion at the
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-type behaviour, which along with the edit-warring, clear 3RR breaching reverts of multiple editors[55], suggests to me that s/he is a significant part of the problem. --Slp1 (talk
  ) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed elsewhere, particularly on my userpage and here. I've agreed to no longer edit war on this article as long as the larger POV issues can be addressed.

However, the two instances of personal attacks from Wobble that I linked to were on articles about which I've had very little (or no) involvement, so I think that issue should be decided separately. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You come at ANI complaining of personal attacks of Alun against you, yet of the two (dubious) examples you provide, none is directed at you...????--Ramdrake (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have indeed stopped reverting but "I've agreed to no longer edit war on this article as long as the larger POV issues can be addressed" is not terribly encouraging. What happens if the POV issues you see are not addressed by the community to your satisfaction? The precedent set at RSN of Captain Occam being able to listen to other voices is not terribly encouraging, unfortunately.--Slp1 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think they're likely to be addressed, so I'm not sure it matters what would happen if they aren't. I'm not sure what I would do if they aren't, but based on the amount of frustration I've experienced over this, I've considered giving up on editing Wikipeda altogether.

If you look carefully at the discussion on the RS noticeboard, you'll see something rather odd there: the arguments against the NYT cite being reliable were not based on any specific policy. The other editors there would raise one policy that they thought it violated, we would discuss it at length, and eventually they would abandon their argument based on that policy. Then they would raise another, unrelated policy that they claimed it violated, and repeat the same process again. By the end of the discussion, they were recycling arguments that they had already previously abandoned after the previous time I refuted them, without even attempting to address the earlier refutations. (Some of the earlier refutations are on the R/I discussion page, which is where this dispute started.)

If there were one specific policy that everyone were in agreement was the reason why the NYT citation is inadmissible, that would be one thing, but in this case there never any consensus about what policy disallowed this. I pointed this out in more detail in the explanation of this on my userpage. Eventually I basically gave up on trying to include this citation in the article, but only because I didn't think it was worth the amount of time I was putting into this.

Can we please discuss the issues that I initially brought up here--the POV-pushing and the trolling--rather than having to rehash an issue that I've already more or less given up on? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the personal attacks were directed at me. I said that he's been making personal attacks and possibly trolling, and the reason I care about this is because it's disrupting the articles in question, not because it's directed at me. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has been involved on the talk page from the beginning of the above mentioned issues, I would have to say that Captain Occam can be stubborn, but that they eventually have come to understand most of the policy issues in question. The disputes between C.Occam and others seem to be genuine content disputes... more appropriately handled by discussion/RFC/mediation/arbitration than by admin actions. Fixentries (talk · contribs) however (whom Occam has inextricably described elsewhere as "uninvolved") has been extremely antagonistic and pointy, causing several editors to raise comparisons with Jagz (talk · contribs). T34CH (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my limited experience in the dispute, I agree with the above. Content dispute inflamed by (

assuming good faith) a lack of familiarization with standard wiki codes of conduct. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me}

) 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator please address the issue that I brought up here originally, about trolling and/or personal attacks? The discussion here has gotten pretty far off-track, from people bringing up issues that are only marginally related to this, and my original complaint about Alun/Wobble’s conduct has not yet been addressed. I don’t want to have to post another new section here in order for this issue to receive an admin’s attention. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have administrator attention, for example, um, mine.  :) And I am not seeing any

trolling here. As for personal attacks, I see a few comments which were more sharply worded than probably necessary, from multiple parties, but I'm not seeing anything that requires administrator action at this time. This noticeboard is really for requesting administrator attention in cases of blatant and unambiguous abuse. For content disputes, or non-blatant abuse, it is better to work through procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka

01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And these are the diffs I linked to from Alun / Wobble that you’re looking at? The administrator who directed me here, Dbachmann, said that he thought that these diffs probably warranted a block; the only reason he hadn’t blocked Alun himself is because he occasionally edits the same articles that Alun does, and Dbachmann thought it ought to be done by an uninvolved admin. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful Occam. It seems you are totally "misreading" dab:

diffs (read that, as you seem to be confusing diffs with wikilinks) showing the exact comments you have issues with. To speed things up, here is the tail-end of the relevant conversation: [56][57][58][59][60][61]. I hadn't read it earlier because tldr, but I now see that actually Wobble accuses Occam of trolling, POV-pushing, and socking (well, implies the trolling part). T34CH (talk

) 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No I did't, go and read the diffs again. I have never accused anyone of trolling. I haven't said he's pov-pushing, I have said "I can't help but feel that mostly you're here to justify a single point of view, much of it your opinion, and much of it unsupported by any reliable source." If there's something tremendously wrong with that, then I don't want to edit here any more. I didn't accuse him of socking either, what I did was say that I am suspicious that he is the same person as another editor (do you know the difference between a suspicion and an accusation?). That is not an accusation of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when multiple accounts are used for nefarious purposes, such as trying to rig a vote, or trying to influence discussions on talk pages. I never made that accusation. T34CH, you have totally misrepresented what I wrote. Well done. Alun (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alun, I didn't mean to demonize you. I just thought there was something ironic about this thread. T34CH (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH, I already posted two diffs earlier, this one and this one. While these comments weren’t directed at me specifically, they’re still good examples of the disruptive behavior I was trying to demonstrate here. In his second comment, Alun accuses a group of several Wikipedia editors (those who also contribute to Gene Expression) of being “fascists”.

The first edit was the one for which Dbachmann said that he believed that a block for Alun would be justified. Dbachmann said, “This diff alone would buy you a block if I was in the habit of going to AN/I crying 'NPA!'" Putting that together with what Dbachmann said on his userpage about the blocking needing to be done by an uninvolved admin, I don’t think I’m misconstruing the opinion he's expressed in those two places. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again occam, you only give half the story. The comment I made about backmann I appologised for, [62] and I hardly see how it is relevant here. Your second point is just irrelevant, I called a racist websirte racist. Big deal, that's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. Indeed I'd suggest that it is far more disruptive for Wikipedia when editors continue to cite blogs (which is becoming something of a habit for you), rather than when edtors point out that these blogs are unreliable. Frankly I think you're wasting everyone's time trying to get me into "trouble". There's a word for that, oh yes wikilawyering. Alun (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, several of Gene Expression's authors (such as Quizkajer) are editors here who contribute to these articles, so calling them “fascists” is a personal attack on other Wikipedia users. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally unconvinced by that argument. If I knew that a specific editor was a contributer to that site, and called them a fascist on a talk page, then that would be a personal attack. But your claim is without merit as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides which Quizkajer hasn't contributed to Wikipedia for three years. So now I'm personally attacking someone who isn't even involved in the talk page discussion? Go and read

Wikipedia:PA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, because as far as I can see you're trying to claim that no one is ever allowed to critisize any editor or any publication ever because that's a personal attack. And no, I'm not telling you what you believe, I'm telling you what it seems to me you believe. I did that before and you called that a personal attack. I really think this is an absurd waste of AN/I time and space. Alun (talk

) 08:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my problem, if we take criticisms of wikipedians or publications that wikipedians "might" contribute to, as "personal attacks" then where does it end? My understanding is that a personal attack is a direct insult. I never thought that making a query of or disputing with another editor would be construed as a personal attack. I don't see how saying that you suspect that an editor may have edited before under a different name is a personal attack (and that is not the same as a sockpuppet allegation). I don't see how disagreeing with another editor about an article is trolling, I think that's what talk pages are for. I admit that I sometimes make mistakes and sometimes I express myself in a confrontational manner, but who doesn't? I have always appologised when I have crossed the line. The only diffs for real personal attacks here are actually very old and not directed towards Occam, and therefore not relevant to the current discussion. But to claim, as Occam does above, that I am a troll who has a history of making personal attacks is a bit rich (and frankly at best an exageration), and is just as much (if not more of) a personal attack as anything that I have written. So here's the thing, Occam seems to believe that I should be blocked for this, but I have the understanding that blocks are not meant to be punitive, but preventative. So the only answer is to open an RfC about my behaviour, or to instigate a community ban here and now. Otherwise I don't see what the point of this discussion is. Alun (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What would probably be quite helpful here, would be for all parties to avoid using the words "you" and "your". Because as soon as those words come out,[63] that's definitely getting into the realm of accusations and personal attacks. So please, try to keep all comments in the third-person, and this will help focus the discussion on the article, instead of the editors. If anyone perceives a need to make accusations like, "I think you may be a sock of so-and-so," please take it off the article talkpage, to that editor's talkpage, or even better, to

WP:SSP. Keep the article talkpage for its primary use, discussion of the article, not speculation about the editors' motivations, and the discussion will usually be much more productive. --Elonka

20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:213.171.34.244 running an unapproved bot?

After deleting three very odd talk pages made by this account (they were talk pages for nonsense strings of characters, whose only content was a blank speedy deletion template) I checked this ip's history for any other recent weirdness, and found that the majority of their edits have "robot adding" in their edit summary. Looks to me like they are sporadically running an unapproved bot of some sort. I've never tangled with this specific situation before, so I'm bringing it here.

talk

) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an interwiki link bot which I would guess is being run from the Ukrainian Wikipedia (its edit summaries were first in Ukranian). Icewedge (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just ran a search (with this) and the IP has has thousands of edits on dozens of different projects. Its kind of suspicious, there is a lot of "Робот добавил: [interwikies]" ("Bot added: [interwikies]") but also a lot of nonsense page creation too. Icewedge (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It created a userpage on et.wikipedia.org ([64]) with userboxes indicating fluency in Russian and a very basic grasp of English. Icewedge (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do. It seems static so if you think its doing more harm than good a block could be effective. I don't think we are going to able to easily contact this fellow, although no harm in trying. Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Does

WP:RUSSIA have any members who are also admins? Mjroots (talk

) 07:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the bot is doing any harm at all, really. They're just interwiki links, and the few I checked work and seem accurate. This does seem to be an unapproved bot, but if it's not doing anything "bad" maybe we should just

talk

) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could just be a bot that got logged out? –xeno^talk 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

96.32.188.25

Personal attacks

• 96.32.188.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

WP:Disruptive editing of Talk:Passive–aggressive behavior: [65], [66], [67], [68]

Passive–aggressive behavior [69], [70], [71]

WP:NPA personal attack on User talk:Alansohn after being warned

by that editor.
--

talk

)

Apparently this person is attempting to characterize disagreement with Alansohn's behavior as a "personal attack". In this disagreement I simply identified his behavior as arrogant and presumptuous and noted that he was misusing Wikipedia's terms of use to prevent opposing points of view entry onto the site. - User in question @ 96.32.188.25

It's not a dispute; you're just deleting virtually an entire article because you personally disagree with its content. Wikipedia doesn't go by the anonymous word of one editor as to what is the correct definition of a term, instead basing its articles on

cites many. If you continue to delete it, you'll be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk

) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not get to dictate what is and what is not a dispute based on your self-serving misinterpretation of Wikipedia fundamental rules. Please see the article on Appeal to authority fallacy to gain some understanding of why a completely inaccurate and useless if not counter productive interpretation of "passive aggressiveness" need not be considered true even if there does exist published somewhere a claim to the contrary that can be linked to. The entire concept of a "reliable source" is fallacious. Making threats towards me based on your inability to win an argument using sound reasoning will only result in the inability of Wikipedia to operate as designed and the destruction of your reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that your comments above and

WP:DE, while subjective, is also demonstrated, while WP:Edit warring

is objectively met.

I encourage you to read the embedded links on these issues before you respond. Also, please sign your posts like this: ~~~~ Thank you, --

talk

) 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IP block needed user:168.8.212.131

Resolved

 – IP temp blocked. Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP is vandalizing articles. see this. need to be blocked soon before it is too late. cheers mate. Ecoman24 (talk page) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Disruptive editing by User:Deanb

disruptive editing). I am requesting a sanction against User:Deanb as it is clear that he is not responsive to discussion, based on many previous encounters (see warnings that users have made to his talk page). —Ynhockey ^(Talk

) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As I was writing this, it appears that Deanb replied to my Commons image deletion request. I hope that the discussion continues (on Commons), although this is not relevant to the disruptive editing concerns raised above. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User has uploaded images previously deleted. They are Flickr images that are not licensed with a free license. It is plausible that this is the Flickr account of Deanb, but that has yet to be established. If it cannot be established, I would recommend a block for repeat copyright violation uploads. I don't have time to go through all of the recent uploads, but I have found at least 2 which I have already deleted. There may be more, if others care to look. I've also contacted the user regarding this, and alerted them of this conversation here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look. My apologies for not notifying the user, I meant to but forgot. Anyway, of course copyright is a much more serious concern than disruptive editing, but this is mainly what my complaint deals with, so that should also be looked into. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting new editor

Resolved

 –

Tan blocked the account as a sockpuppet Karanacs (talk

) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:O'Wallaby made his or her first edit today. I became aware of these edits on the wholesale removal of material from the Martin Luther page. Upon review of the other recent edits of this new account here at least to date all his or her edits have been, well, interesting, particularly the first edit, which seems to indicate a familiarity with some of some of the parties of the arbitration one would not generally assume a new editor woudl have. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a potential sock of blocked editor user:Johnnyturk888. O'Wallaby's second edit (to Wichita Massacre) was almost identical to edits by one of Johnnyturk's socks last month. His third edit was to Media blackout), which appears to have been plagued by socks of this user. I suspect there's enough here to pass the duck test and block this account. Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like

User:Tanthalas39 just blocked the account. Karanacs (talk

) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User 118.101.5.219 (and many more other IPs) vandalizes, again

We have an issue at WikiProject Motorcycle racing. There's an IP editor from Malaysia, who's making again edits we decided were not useful: he's inserting tables of data regarding pole positions and fastest laps on articles about the World Superbike Championship and the World Supersport Championship (see this and this for example). We already had a similar discussion last year, but that time it was about the 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season page (you can see the discussion here, the incident was reported here and it led to the protection of the page and of my personal user page for vandalism). Basing on that discussion, I reverted his edits and meanwhile opened a general discussion here waiting for consensus to be reached; but he still continues to revert to his old versions claiming the topic's been "discussed" in the edit summaries. Can you please do something?

Another note: he seems to have returned to his old habit of vandalizing Lewis Hamilton's page too (link), which almost cost him an abuse report to his ISP (see the discussion on my talk page). Asendoh (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreal and tourist like additions in Plodviv and History of Plovdiv

ISBN 1405126566.) The claims on the other cities are irrelevant and the abvg "ref" has to go as well.Megistias (talk

) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved users seem to be unable to understand this that i have posted twice.[74]Megistias (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please seek

dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk

) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him

Resolved

 – Editor blocked, user pages deleted. -- Atama頭 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Transferred from

WP:COIN. -- Atama頭

20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The User name Bruce Cairney has been used to put derogatory comments, contains photo of Bruce Cairney and make some editing in articles on wikpedia seem to come from Bruce Cairney when they have not. This has been continueing since 2006 and still no one does anything. What does wikipedia do about this type of internet stalking occuring within its pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous request for assistance on this when docglasgow Dec/06 interviened on editing of user page ... Revision as of 14:53, 4 December 2007 (edit) (undo)Bacmac (talk | contribs) (→User name created to Slur an individual) User name created to Slur an individual You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 09:36, October 4, 2009

In which articles? I can find no article about anyone called Bruce Cairney? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron Scott - It is the ÜSER NÄME" - User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bruce_Cairney. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this. Username violations are handled at

WP:ANI to get administrator attention and comment from other editors, we'll see what happens. I would have replied to this notice long ago but it was incorrectly placed on this page and I kept missing it! :) -- Atama頭

20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of self-declared sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked indefinately. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Boy Who Read "Madame Edwarda" (talk · contribs) has declared himself to be a sockpuppet, and proceeded to vandalize userpages on that basis. Ray^Talk 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeffed (not by me). Protonk (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thracians

Section removed by users with no talk and DONT LIKE it attitude.[75]Megistias (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to explain to you that you cannot possibly write such a section on nationalism, basing yourself on another nationalism. Greeks argue that Thracians were actually somewhat Greek and you have a Greek writer as a source. And another book from the Balkans as the other. That's quite ridiculous. Using nationalistic rhetoric to battle nationalistic rhetoric? That'd surely lead you a long way. --Laveol ^T 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Same as the above section. Please seek

dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk

) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually this was Megistias being disruptive, for which he is blocked. Moreschi (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive and impolite behavior by User:Cosmos416

Fresh from a two week block [76] for disruption on

Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)

, seemingly obsessed with the notion that this haplogroup originated in South Asia, and engages in an extremely aggressive edit warring in order to push his POV.

Examples of tendentious editing and edit-warring: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83]. Virtually all his edits on that page consist of promoting the notion this Haplogroup originated in South Asia and removing anything that might imply otherwise.

Same on

Indo-European peoples: [84]

He has an extremely hostile battleground attitude, cluttering

Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)

is becoming intolerable.

Talkpage disruption, shouting and incivility: [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

POINTy behavior:[96] [97]

Personal attacks, lashing out at everyone, even those that try to help him: [98] [99] [100]. This, after User:Andrew Lancaster and User:Pdeitiker actually tried to help him.

The final straw was when he left a nasty personal attack on my talkpage [101], which he re-posted after I removed it [102]. I remove it again, and what does he do? He re-posts it on another user's talkpage, telling him I'm a sock on top of it [103]. The childish mean-spiritedness of this is mind-boggling. When I notified him that this little caper was the final straw and that I would report him, this [104] [105] was his reaction.

Seeing that he has apparently not changed his behavior in the slightest since his latest block, it is my opinion that this individual be given an even longer block, or a looooooooong topic ban from

talk

) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Athenean, he had refused every attempt to get him to modulate his behavior, after asking him not to post ALL CAPS on people talk pages Cosmo began making false accusations against me, he appears to be reverting 3 individuals edits on the same paragraph on this page, imposing a Non-NPOV.PB666 ^yap 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely. Enough is enough on that. I blocked him for two weeks back in August; nothing has changed. Further disruption needs to be prevented. I welcome feedback on this block.

Tan | 39

22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Historyprof101

He's made four reverts today to the Mein Kampf article, inserting material about a self-published translation of the book. Would a short block be in order? Bytwerk (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned for potential 3RR violations, let's wait to see if he stops.

a/c

) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Return of multi-blocked sock?

Resolved

 – Blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand all of the background of this, but is there a possibility that Reparative Therapy Survivor (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned Liberty Against Domination (talk · contribs)/Born Gay (talk · contribs)? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

nm, they've been blocked by User:Will Beback. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, could somebody please remove the BLP-violating rant from the User's Talk page and protect it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:The ed17 has rejected a request for page protection on the grounds that this user is not being disruptive. Repeated, willful, proud BLP violations are not disruptive? PLEASE protect the page!!!!! Several users are repeatedly reverting him. It has to be protected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's another reason the page doesn't need protecting, and that's shown in his block log: [106]

a/c

) 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to JD, and apologies over the RFPP mistake. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Restarting an AfD?

Resolved

 – Nothing abnormal to do here. I've adjusted the discussion page links and heading. The AFD notice on the article needed no adjustment, of course. Renaming or editing an article during an AFD discussion does not magically invalidate the entire discussion. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an active AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Schuett but the article itself has been rewritten and moved to Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case. The user who started the AfD has placed the tag on the new article linking it to the old AfD discussion. I am concerned that the casual reader might think we are still debating the Jennifer Schuett article (which actually had a valid delete reason) without understanding that this is a new article, with a new title, about a new topic. I would be all for re-starting the AfD under the article's new name with new reasons for why it should be deleted but dont know the procedure here. I'm also not posting this becuase I want my way or anything like that. If this new article is itself deletable then so be it. But right now the AfD is about the wrong article. Can we fix it? -OberRanks (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I started a big SPI report

talk

) 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked two of the accounts in question as vandalism-only accounts. Are there reliable sources for the

WP:AfD? -- Samir

03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything. It doesn't even have an IMDb page. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brought to AfD -- Samir 05:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unjustifiedly warned for vandalism

I have been warned for vandalism by a childish user who can't understand reasons, arguing that I'm adding unsourced information to an article, while the information I added is clearly sourced. What is the action to take in this situation? Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. Could you provide a diff? --Smashville^talk 14:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is being warned by a user that has a strong opinion on the outcome/future of a movie. Uker has provided sources, the other user has retaliated with the reason that they are "right". The other user (Anesleyp‎) has not participated in discussion on the topic, while urged to many times. Just a passer-by's observation. Gpia7r (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the diff to his warning, you can see it here. I find this specially aggravating if you consider that the template is aimed at newcomers and I got it from someone with less than 120 edits and less than 2 years in Wikipedia. Also worth mention is that the user put the warning in my page not by using the template, but by copy/pasting a warning from somewhere else and then editing it (see this). Also, you may find interesting that his user page is just a mashup of false information copied from other user pages, which results in it saying the user has 23000+ edits (which as I said he has less than 120), him living in both Florida and Washington, him belonging to Wikiprojects he doesn't actually belong to, and showing barnstars he hasn't earned. Numerous users, seeing he had copied information from their user page, have edited and even blanked it, but there's still a lot more. Also, the user keeps making judgements about me editing Wikipedia too much, which I find totally uncalled for (see this user page message and this edit summary). --uKER (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, calling the user "childish" is a

dispute resolution on this issue. This isn't really a matter admins are going to worry about unless the two of you keep edit-warring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. After a quick look at the material associated with Anesleyp (talk · contribs) -- user page, edit history, talk page, etc. -- it appears this person is on the fasttrack to an indef block. RHaworth is attempting to explain to this user what can one can borrow from other user's pages for use on one's own user page -- & how to do this. From her/his Talk page archives, Anesleyp has had a difficult time understanding licensing concepts, & was blocked for 31 hours for this. Since there's an unspoken requirement that a certain level of maturity is needed to successfully contribute to Wikipedia, in this case I think it is fair to say this user is acting "childish"; a more mature contributor would either accept correction much more quickly, or at least not make these kinds of mistakes. A less kind explanation would be to say she/he is being intentionally disruptive. In any case, it's clear that Anesleyp needs to change her/his behavior or face the consequences. And that may involve Admin attention. -- llywrch (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My saying he is acting childishly is due to him repeatedly reverting saying I'm adding unsourced information when it's perfectly sourced, his edit summaries being along the lines of "reverted, I'm right" and him making judgements about me editing too much. --uKER (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just read

BWilkins ←track

) 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Page locked in error

Resolved

 – Unprotected, although

BWilkins ←track

) 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Polanski page was locked in error, admin was contacted, admitted it was in error - and then made up baseless reasons to justify his action rather than correcting himself. Discussion with the admin copied below, may also be found here:[107]

• Why did you lock the Polanski article?
• On the contrary, I unlocked it. It was locked even harder before I came by today. --
• You may want to double check. This[108] was 4 edits prior to your lock.
• Oh my... I think you're right... I didn't realize the edit part of the October 1 action had an expiration date. All the same, this article remains a target and it is a BLP, so longer-term semi-protection is appropriate. I won't self-revert, but you're welcome to raise the issue at WP:RFP.

1st, and perhaps most importantly - it is never appropriate to make a decision in error and then create a rationale. 2nd, there was nooooooooooooo IP vandalism or reverting of IP's. There is no basis for the lock, nor for the locking administrators intransigence in correcting his quite obvious and admitted error. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is there some reason not to take this to
  WP:RFP as suggested by the conversation? Admins who patrol that area will have the best knowledge of the appropriate action to take at the page. Whatever point you may have to make with the admin doesn't seem to rise to the level of an AN/I complaint.  Frank  |  talk 
  15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please take to RFP for a lil more discussion. I like it to be semi-protected, but perhaps ppl have other ideas. RFP is the venue. -- Y not? 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to be engaged in an unreasonable run-around. The action was in error, the subsequent search for justification utterly baseless - there are precisely TWO IP edits over the last two days. (One on the 13th and one on the 12th.) 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As a past RFPP regular, I took a look. While it is more than likely that the page will be protected again, and soon, preemptive protection is against

Tan | 39

15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

TY. Here are the two IP edits from the 13th[109] and the one on the 12th. [110]. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The page has been previously protected due to excessive vandalism. At any rate, I unprotected it, but just a thought - try to not be as confrontational.

Tan | 39

15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, my last response was written before I saw that you had unprotected - an edit conflict had occurred. (note too, that the original, full protection, was due to members) Also, my initial concerns were brought to the talk page in the kindest manner. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:28, 13 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.

User:119.73.3.51

Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor have been blocked. The user is known to have more than 100 sockpuppets, most of them have been blocked by admins. Tajik (talk

) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• user warned, also for issuing religious attacks here. Ecoman24 (talk page) 08:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn closure

Resolved

Shii (tock) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone swing by and close

Crossmr (talk

) 08:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close due to nomination withdrawn really only applies if there is no other editors argues for deletion. So this would have to be a snow closure.

Taemyr (talk

) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

look at the page history. It was actually closed before the IP editor added that, and I have a problem believing that is a good faith oppose considering the amount of reliable sources I provided prior to his oppose, and considering that the nom was withdrawn and the AfD closed prior to him making that comment.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Shii (talk · contribs) for the close. :) Cirt (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection of my user space page to control discussion and prevent me from posting there

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

Matter has been

referred to the Arbitration Committee for clarification as they retain jurisdiction over this matter. –xeno^talk

16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Admin

User talk:Mattisse/Monitoring so that I cannot edit it. I was trying to have a productive discussion with my mentors/advisers as set forth by ArbCom. Now Moni3, who was part of the discussion and therefore not a disinterested party, has prevented me from editing my own user page. Is this action correct. I need to be able to interact with my mentors/advisors on the page designated for that purposes. Further, not all my mentors/advisers are admins, so they, like me, are unable to interact on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisse (talk • contribs

) 15:44, 14 October 2009

The edit summary states that this is per an ARBCOM decision and due to an edit war. Mjroots (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Mattisse says she was trying to have a discussion with her mentors/advisors, but none of them had showed up when she started unilaterally altering the talk page to her ArbCom-approved monitoring page, removing posts without responding to good faith queries from other editors,[111][112] and creating such a jumble that mentors might have a hard time sorting it by the time they did show up, so protection was necessary. If she was discussing with her mentors her unilateral change to the page, there was no on-Wiki evidence of that; in fact, it appeared quite the opposite-- that without discussion, she changed the ArbCom-approved page to begin removing comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>:The ArbCom made the decision that I was to be guided by my mentors/advisers. They did not mention locking down my user page, and certainly not by an admin with a vested interest. Please show me where ArbCom gave Moni3 the authority to lock down my user space page. They wanted me to have productive interactions with my mentors/advisers. This kind of edit warring over my own user space page would be something they would seek to prevent. Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse/Proposed decision. And User:Mattisse/Plan —Mattisse (Talk) 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mattisse, amendments to her plan were to be developed in consensus with her mentors. As Mattisse began altering the Plan in a way that created quite a jumble with no apparent consensus from her mentors, protection was warranted. (Also, it has been pointed out to Mattisse numerous times now that she continues to link to the Proposed decision page rather than the final decision page, which I've linked.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict>:*My mentors/advisers and I discussed it yesterday. There was never any question that I have control over my own user space page. Others to not have the right to bring chaos to the work space where I interact with my mentors/adivers. SandyGeorgia has given her opinion multiple times, both during the arbitration and on my user space previously. ArbCom gave her no rights regarding my mentoring, but rather tended to disregard her suggestions. Neither she, or any other editor who is not my mentor/adviser has a "right" to post on that page. The details of my mentors/advisors and my arbitration are not the problem of AN/I and are not to be worked out here. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please provide diffs concerning your allegations against SandyGeorgia or stop making them. Karanacs (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you developed consensus with your mentors that other editors could no longer post to the discussion page, one of them should have stated that. The arb clearly states that your plan is in consensus with your mentors, and not one of them has yet weighed in on whether they agreed that other editors could no longer post to talk, hence, protection was warranted as you were going against the plan by removing commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict> :*SandyGeorgia has made it plain that she disagreed with the ArbCom decision. It is highly inappropriate to relitigate the terms of ArbCom decision here. This is not the proper forum. SandyGeogia should take it back to arbcom if she disagrees with anything. Moni3 has no right to lock down my user page because SandyGeorgia is not getting her way. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia has nothing to do with my user space page. She was not given a role in my monitoring by arbcom. She should not be part of this discussion. She only is because Moni3 locked down my user page because I had moved comments, including some by SandyGeorgia to an appropriate editoral comment page, to prevent my work page with my mentors/advisers from degenerating once again into a huge long discussion page between other editors that did not included me. I was referred to in the third person on my userspace monitoring page meant for discussion between me and my mentors/advisers. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mattisse, since not one of your mentors has yet shown up (and it's only been about an hour and a half since you unilaterally started altering the plan page, so they can't be blamed), I strongly advise you to hold your tongue and consult with them, as you are continuing the bad faith assumptions and behaviors that led to your Arb to begin with. Please wait for a mentor to show up before commenting further anywhere, and please consult with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Further, it is incorrect to say that I disagreed with ArbCom's plan, and you need to stop making unsubstantiated statements about other editors; this was another behavior that led to the original arb. I disagree with the unstructured chaos on your plan page, but regardless, the Arb decision clearly states it is to be developed in consensus with your mentors, yet you unilaterally started altering the page several hours ago, with no mentors present, and when they had requested a delay until Sunday when some of them would be available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• <edit conflict> My mentors/advisers clearly said that they were not my baby sitters. I was encourage to unilaterally change my monitoring page. Arbcom made it clear that it was "my page" and I was responsible for it. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Here is the precise ArbCom wording from the final case (I continue to be concerned that you refer to the Proposed decision page, when it is the final page that matters) ... my bold emphasis added: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of proposed plan (3)

1a.iii) The plan submitted at

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

.

Passed 8 to 1 (with 1 abstain) at 04:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This matter has now been

referred to ArbCom, so further discussion here is probably unnecesssary. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 16:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to expound on my actions on my talk page or here where necessary, but I believe that it should take place at ArbCom. --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User: PassionoftheDamon

For some time, a number of users have noted the opinionated nature and POV pushing of the article Miami Hurricanes football and associated articles. User PassionoftheDamon with a few friends systematically revert every edit made to the page. This was made clear by my discovery that much of the history section of the article was in fact copied word-for-word from the UM Athletics Dept. website over two years ago. Even though many edits were made since that time, the overwhelming number have been immediately reverted, leaving the biased, overwritten text in virtually its pristine form.

I then applied a {{copyvio}} template, which clearly instructs that no further edits should be made and to work out a new version on a subpage. However, PassionoftheDamon deleted the template and blanked out the relevant portion of the history. I noted this on the Copyright notice board, and PassionoftheDamon claimed that I was lying about his removal of the template and blanking. Because no subpage was established by the deleted template, I then spent several hours reconstructing the history taking care to avoid paraphrasing the copyrighted material and avoiding the POV bias of that material. I deliberately avoided tracking the same selection of detail used by the original article, but I left footnotes to the article as a source.

Now PassionoftheDamon has blanket reverted the entire replacement version without any explanation as to what was wrong with it. His edit summary just says "rv." He is now slowly restoring a close paraphrase of the copyright material, using the same selection of details as the original. Rather than footnoting to the website, he is referencing a slightly different form of the UM history in its 2007 media guide.

This conduct is on top of two weeks of blanket reverting all of my earlier changes to the article. When I have added {{fact}} templates, they are removed without adding a source or offering an explanatory comment. When I delete a sentence as being unsourced (and impossible to prove), he restores it with an edit summary saying I should "slap a tag" instead.

I have tried to describe my concerns on the talk page since October 8.[113] and [114] and [115] While one other reverting editor did discuss my concerns a bit, in the end he explained that the neutral language which I had inserted into the article was "too plain." User PassionoftheDamo has generally refrained from discussing specific changes, and finally exchanged a few comments with phrases like "the only issue is your obstinate refusal to acknowledge sources anytime they contradict what you wish to be reality" to describe my proposal to attribute statements of opinion to their sources. (In short, when PassionoftheDamo finds a source, he is just adding it as a footnote to the end of the sentence instead of restructuring the sentence to something like "Some sports writers have used the term 'Quarterback U' to refer to Miami...".)

Finally, because there is a POV dispute, I have added the POV and cleanup tags to a three of these articles, only to have PassionoftheDamon repeatedly and promptly revert them (without attempting to resolve the dispute.)

We should also determine how this copyright violation continued for so long. What tipped me off was PassionoftheDamon's comment to me on the talk page, "Concerning your final two complaints, both of those passages are paraphrased from the official university history of the program, so if you want sources, those could very easily be provided." I am troubled by the idea that the goal of a Wikipedia article would be an unattributed, very close paraphrase of a biased athletic dept. website instead of an independent NPOV summary of the relevant and significant facts.

I agree that consensus is important. But Wikipedia's other standards including NPOV are equally important, and one or two people should not be able to assert ownership over an article to the extent that it would remain a verbatim copyright violation for over two years. Your assistance would be appreciated. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket's concept of POV is flawed, as he opposes the use of simple adjectives that have positive or negative connotations as not being of a neutral point of view.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• To the extent that there is more at stake than just POV, you have a point. However, "whopping", "rout", "humiliating" and other peacock words do not help a factual account. It is all the more troubling that such words were lifted verbatim from a biased source without attribution. So, we have copyvio, POV, and other cleanup issues. The POV is clearest in the case of the discussion of the demolition of the Orange Bowl (which is not even owned by the University of Miami.) Why should an article about the Miami Hurricanes football team cover either side of the argument on the city's decision to tear that stadium down? The current article covers only one side. When I proposed neutral language, it was reverted as "too plain." Plain language makes for an easy to understand NPOV reference encyclopedia.
• Apparently, I was not the first to notice the copyvio. Someone reported it on the talk page in Sept. 2007 Racepacket (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket has a documented history on the talk page of both ignoring sources and trying to force his edits into the article in the face of opposing consensus. This problematic behavior extends not just to the Miami Hurricanes football article (where he has been reverted not just by me, but others), but pretty much all University of Miami-related articles. He deliberately distorts Wikipedia policy, challenging or summarily blanking pretty much any use of an adjective in a UM article, and when an abundance of sources are provided to verify the description, he simply ignores them.

He voiced a frivolous objection to describing the Orange Bowl as "one of the most historic stadiums of college football," and when three cites were provided from mainstream sources (including The New York Times) describing the facility alternately as "one of the most storied stadiums in college football history", "historic, venerable", and "historic", he still proceeded to claim it was "unsupported" and obstinately tried to exclude it from the article.

He was similarly intransigent with respect to a reference in the article to the Miami football program's nickname/reputation as "Quarterback U." After he decided to make that an issue, four references were provided to support the statement[116][117][118][119]. Nevertheless, he's still contesting that.

He likewise objected to characterizing a 47-0 loss by Miami to Florida State as "humiliating" and "one of the program's worst defeats," even though it was supported by three sources: "most embarrassing, humiliating" "blown-out," "destroyed" (Feldman, Cane Mutiny). Most amazingly of all, he actually tried to claim that this characterization was somehow POV in favor of Miami, the team that lost the game 47-0.

As to the issue of the copyright violation on the previous History section of the article, once it was apparent that it was a blatant case of infringement (literally copied and pasted from the UM athletics web site), I removed it in the interest of shielding the project from liability. User:Drew1830 was responsible for the addition of the material some time in June of 2007 [[120]. Racepacket then began adding an altered version, which very closely matched the wording and details of the source that had been infringed and which, again, sought to inject the same contentious edits that were previously opposed and rejected on the talk page. With that, I went to work crafting a new history section from scratch which uses the 2007 media guide as a primary source while incorporating a variety of other sources. It is better worded, better sourced, presents no copyright issues, and does not contain any of the rejected edits that Racepacket tried to stealthily restore.

These are but a few examples of the consistently quarrelsome behavior of Racepacket. With a history of sock puppetry and lack of respect for both 3RR, consensus, and verifiability, he is a user who, in all frankness, should be permanently exiled from the community, and it is nothing short of amusing to hear him now act as if he is some aggrieved party.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into all the rest, the use of "humiliating" and "most historic" are not NPOV, as they clearly denote an opinion, not a fact. --Smashville^talk 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from the merits of each position, the concern is that the {{copyvio}} give clear instructions on how to proceed, "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to create a temporary subpage." (bold in the original) Similarly the {{POV}} template is clear, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Yet, PassionoftheDamon repeatedly removes POV templates without acknowledging the talk page comments relevant to my concerns. At a minimum we should mutally decide that the POV dispute has been resolved. More serious is the removal of the copyvio template. The idea behind the template is that the original infringing material is left on the page, but not viewable and blocked by a norobots tag to prevent spiders searching it. A new consensus article is developed on a subpage and then an Administrator comes along, compares the two, and decides if the problem was resolved. There was no need for PassionoftheDamon to blank the text and remove the tag and indeed the instructions on the tag told him otherwise. Because the tag was not there to point to the new subpage, I spent two and a half hours writing a non-infringing replacement only to have him revert it without comment or explanation. Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The copyright vio protocol also says that in cases of blatant copyright infringement (which this most assuredly was), the infringing material may be summarily deleted or reverted. As to the tags you continually and arbitrarily kept adding to the article (as well as just about every other UM-related article on Wikipedia), your concerns were discussed and considered on the talk page, and, simply unsatisfied with the outcome of those discussions and that you did not get every single change you wanted incorporated into the article, you continued to reapply the tags even after they were removed not just by myself, but by other editors as well. Finally, don't be disingenuous as to the "new" History section you added this morning, which, aside from being of poor quality, lacking diversity in sources, and very closely resembling the previously infringed work, stealthily included a number of the contentious edits/reverts that you proposed on the talk page and which had been rejected, over and over and over again.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this ANI seems largely opened in response to a pending Rfc regarding Racepacket in which I and several others are taking part, an unsurprising tactic from this particular user.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware of any race to post, but I spent more than an hour drafting this ANI (this is my first time, and I had to review the procedures) and posted it at 17:58, your RFC document was clocked in at 18:30, so I believe you have the chronology reversed. This is all an incredible waste of time. Could you please stop hitting the revert button on every contribution to these pages and discuss instead? Racepacket (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• The constant reverting continues. This morning, I deleted the adjective "prestigious" modifying Heisman Trophy. I also deleted the phrase "A hotbed for professional talent". PassionoftheDamon reverts it without any edit summary or talk page comment. I have left a detailed basis for my concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miami_Hurricanes_football#Lead_paragraph. Would a third party mediator be helpful in removing the POV from the article? Racepacket (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment concerning Racepacket's editing activities, in particular the disruption he has brought to articles in Category:University of Miami. This RFC can be found here, to serve as a third party mediator in all of Racepacket's disruption on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your comment. User:PassionoftheDamon has improperly removed a copyvio tag and has improperly blanked out the non-infringing history that I wrote to replace the copyvio. He has also removed POV templates without consensus. We need an administrator to resolve these. As a separate matter, a number of users have complained for some time on the Talk:Miami Hurricanes football page that he has been systematically reverting everyone else's edits to prevent any changes to biased, copyrighted material for over two years. As a third matter, I twice proposed using a mediator to resolve a pair of content disputes with you on a different article University of Miami. You refused in one case and you did not respond in another. We moved on from both of those disputes. As a separate matter, two paragraphs above, and also on the Talk:Miami Hurricanes football page, I proposed generally to the editors of the MHf page (a page which you don't edit) that we have a mediator resolve some serious disputes including how to handle the copyvio. Yet, in the paragraph above, you are responding that your RFC, which appears to be filed in response to this ANI, should result in a mediation. I have yet to research exactly what an RFC is, but it seems to me the key to unwinding this is to get the copyvio resolved (which requires an administrator) and to get PassionoftheDamon et al to stop blanket reverting other users including: Mcmachete, Anthony Krupp, 74.229.5.6, and 67.67.223.78 (judging by just the complaints on the talk page). There are much broader problems here that require administrator intervention. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinstatement of TWINKLE

Hello. Recently the user Hesperian blacklisted me from TWINKLE, a move which I believe unwarranted. Hesperian provided reasons for doing so, and I countered them. The conversations are at User:Nezzadar/tools/Hesperian box. I also believe that I have done far more good with TWINKLE then bad, and that rather than block me, he should have been more willing to talk about my contributions.

I strongly believe that Hesperian is abusing his admin privelages and acted in an inappropriate manner when dealing with me on several occasions, and at the very least, think he is unqualified to take any actions against me because of his previous involvement against me. The fact that his comments were harsh and were phrased in a way as to provoke a flame war with me also adds a disturbing layer to the equasion.

Someone please help me!

speak

) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're probably not talking about the Geology of Mars, but User:Hesperian. Equazcion (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed.

speak

) 06:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean this in the best possible way, and I am not trying to be mean. Your responses here:

WP:TWINKLE again -- Samir

06:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked over some of the complaints and responses. Unfortunately I have to agree with the decision to blacklist, however I'd recommend that you be granted access again after a break, during which time you should build up evidence that you've changed your habits. The things I think need changing are your dealings with new editors, and your dealing with stubs. In many of those cases, you really should have opened a dialog with those editors in order to determine their motives, rather than just using whichever Twinkle tool best suited the situation. As far as your views on stubs, you need to understand that those are your views, and that Wikipedia allows "publish-as-you-go", regardless of how "unprofessional" you consider that practice to be. Also, this is a little unrelated, but creating these kinds of messages for regular use really doesn't help your case. If you can show at some point that your practices have changed, then I would have no issue with your being allowed access to Twinkle again. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The link Nezzadar provides is a quarter of the story, carefully excised from the context and from the edit history, and placed in a little box especially so he can link to it here. See below for the actual, full story, supported by diffs:

Nezzadar came to my attention after he used Twinkle to simultaneously nominate for deletion nine articles by the same newb—a hideous case of newb biting. Read about it here and here.

Having cleaned up that mess, Nezzadar's talk page was on my watchlist; hence I noticed when someone took him to task for tagging a perfectly good stub as vandalism, and I noticed his grossly inappropriate response. Read about it here and here.

Having warned him to slow down and use Twinkle more carefully, I kept half an eye on him for a day, in which time he rolled back an obviously good faith edit as vandalism, reported an obviously good-faith account as a vandalism-only account, and, when challenged, treated his challengers like this!

Considering the extreme and ongoing false accusations and assumptions of bad faith, I think Nezzadar should be thankful that I assumed good faith of him, and acted on the assumption that the problem is his Twinkle use, not just him.

Hesperian 06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

wp:bite territory in a number of places. I also agree that this is unacceptable, no matter who you are responding to, vandal or otherwise. Frustrating editors come in many shapes and sizes, some productive and constructive, some not, and some somewhere in between. In all of these situations, civility and patience are key, especially when you're venturing into an area of work in which any of us can far too easily alienate a potentially invaluable contributor from the project through one biting "welcome." I would really encourage you to look again at the concerns raised by User:Hesperian, and work towards understanding how to better handle those sorts of situations, before you dive back in with a tool like Twinkle. user:J aka justen (talk

) 06:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One need only look at the edit summaries on Nezzadar's contributions and his dismissal of anyone who asks him questions or wants to know what they did wrong, to see why this person should *not* be a first point of contact for new users. People have different strengths - some people are not born communicators but are great at something else - and I believe that is the case here too. Orderinchaos 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. Nezzadar needs to calm down a bit and read up on

WP:AGF

. Most editors are here with good intent. There are mechanisms to deal with those who aren't. Newby editors make newby mistakes - not wikilinking, bare urls in refs (if they provide them) etc. What is needed there is gentle guidance rather than biting people's heads off. The first bulleted paragraph on his talk page is a bit concerning.

Nezzadar, there must be at least one subject that interests you. There is probably a Wikiproject covering that subject. I feel it would benifit you to join a Wikiproject as it would give you experience in working with other editors on something. You come across as someone who is a self-appointed police force for Wikipedia who thinks that their word is law. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. This isn't criticism for the sake of it, but aimed at improving your contributions to Wikipedia and prevention of you ending up with a block (no, I'm not threatening to block you, just pointing out one possible outcome of your editing and interaction with other editors). Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently had the misfortune of encountering this admin-hopeful as well. I've been editing as an anon for about three years and occasionally get flak from RCPers who don't understand what I'm trying to do, but usually after a conversation they come to a bit of understanding with me. This guy told me that essentially he doesn't have to understand me or AGF because I choose not to edit with an account. I have many thousands of edits to my credit, and yet this editor saw a pattern and made a judgement call without looking into what was really going on. I was blocked once in 2007 without warning, and have had warnings here and there for this and that, but I'd like to think any mistakes and misunderstandings don't outweigh my positive contributions. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that is a shocking response. Blaming you for not having an account for their own mistakes and coming up with crap like this [121]?! This goes to show a lot of the problems we have with dealing with good faith IP contributions. From looking through the warnings on your page, there are a lot of dubious characterisations of vandalism, and not just from

talk

) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • mentor...Could
    User:Nezzadar to use twinkle. Ecoman24 (talk page)
    11:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are joking right? Suggesting that an admin who this user incorrectly accused of admin abuse would have any chance of mentoring this user? This suggestion is dangerously close to trolling as are some of your other recent suggestions on ANI and I would suggest you thought about finding ways to deescalate disputes rather then pouring petrol on the flames.
  Spartaz Humbug!
  11:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• User:Nezzadar. This is about helping each other contribute positively. I hope this is good. I have since edited my comments above, and will not say anything on this case. I remain neutral on this case. thank you. Ecoman24 (talk page)
  12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• In my experience a mentor for issues like this rarely works. Verbal chat 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For a mentor to work, the person has to acknowledge that there may be an issue - like the old sociology joke "how many sociologists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to want to change". Bringing this situation to ANI, and any continued arguments that they "did nothing wrong" would show that mentoring would be a failure. We'll see what happens when the wake up (literally, and figuratively). (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to write psychiatrists or psychologists. Sociologists would only study the behavior of societies whose purpose is to change lightbulbs. (So just how many sociologists would it take to change a lightbulb...?) -- llywrch (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the writing on the wall here. Let me just say one thing though. If any of you think you never did something reprehensible, just tell me. I'm sure everyone makes mistakes. I have over 1000 edits. He found 8 bad ones. Even 20 bad edits is 0.05%.

So maybe I'm harsh, but I was harsh before TWINKLE and I'll be harsh after TWINKLE. I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that being civil all the time will miraculously stop people from doing bad things, go ahead. I won't. Have fun cleaning up the crap that fools throw at Wikipedia. I'm done with TWINKLE. I'm sure of that.

Heck, feel free to follow me around, assume bad faith in my edits, and point them out in an equally abrasive way, go ahead. Hesperian has been doing that since before this began. Oh and Hesperian, you might have the support of other admins, but if you think that you made no mistakes in this, you are lying to yourself. Your comments were pretty much designed to spark flames. You accused me of being abrasive while being abrasive yourself. Stop following me, I'm sure you have something better to do with your time.

Whatever. It's your problem now. Have fun.

speak

) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* That was not the answer I expected from a respected editor. Re-read the purpose of the tool. Hell, we remove rollback for only a couple of minor transgressions - why would Twinkle be any different - and it's usually only temporary? Because you generally do good work does not ever give you carte blanche to

BWilkins ←track

) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For you, anything. Concidering that respect was the one thing I wasn't getting throughout this entire process, it's refreshing for someone to finally imply that my contributions to Wikipedia have at least some value. No one ever notices the good work, they only yell at you for the bad. Between you and me, I didn't start biting until being bitten, hard, a couple days ago. I can be civil. I am offline, just about always, but I don't respond well when people flame me, and I have the unfortunate habit of flaming back. Also, you are the first one to say anything about "temporary" which is part of the reason that I responded so harshly so quickly. If I can get it back in a few weeks, I wouldn't mind as much as losing it forever. I've learned the lesson and I have no problem serving time, but I'd like to have my rights restored eventually, and that didn't look like a possibility until now.

speak

) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note During my initial read through, the edit marked with edit conflict did not appear to have been present, hence the above message.

speak

) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing? Remarks

I'm in the middle of writing a paper now, but when I'm done I intend on cleaning up the guidelines on my talk page so that they are less biting. I'll give this matter a rest of about two weeks and then poll the admins about the edits I made. I doubt I'll ever earn back your trust and respect, but I do intend on earning back TW. And I do mean earning. Concsider this to be a formal apology to the editors I have wronged. I'll try and be nicer from now on. Just don't push me too hard, okay?

speak

) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Nezzadar. Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all good, and yes, good luck! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages not moved about

Last month,

Talk:Orange Bowl (game) to Talk:Orange Bowl), but Lowellian appears to not be editing today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The above may be a case of wikistalking by Ryulong in response to my comment noting the problem and suggesting the restoration of the pre-Sept 2 arrangement with Orange Bowl being the disambiguation page. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move done. {{db-move}} works too. No comment on the immediately above. –xeno^talk 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I did discover the issue by seeing that Racepacket had made a comment at
    WT:WPDAB. However, considering that I have filed an RFC concerning his activities in the subject area, I do not think it is wikistalking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙
    ) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for uninvolved administrator to close a slightly messy RfC

[122] will spiral out of control if it is not ended soon. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, could you offer some commentary? I don't think it's an outrageous request to let the RfC end of its own accord. The debate seemed to be making some progress despite certain disruptions. And on handling said disruptions, any advice would be appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw a lot of discussion and no chance of getting the criteria removed. There is consensus to close the RfC in the last section. Please just let it die. — Jake Wartenberg 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not enjoying this either. I can understand that the FLC regulars are tired of it, I've seen arguments going back to 2006, but the fact of the matter is that the RfC was opened to get community input. The regulars have had years to figure it out where the community received less than ten days. And this sets a very bad precedent when five oppose votes—all regulars too, I believe—can shut down an argument which closes in their favour. Forget every other argument, forget that criteria 5 contradicts the last part of 5a, forget that there is community consensus stating that red links are good and none labeling them "ugly" or "distracting". I will let this matter drop if you or anyone can show me that there is a consensus that minimal means definition 1c and not a or b. Going through the FLC logs I've seen about half a dozen regulars that oppose based on red links and everyone else either doesn't care or reads it the same way I do. Maybe Dabomb can confirm that as his name appeared quite frequently. Otherwise, I would ask that you reopen or restart the RfC, possibly with a reminder of its purpose—even the FLC director seemed confused about it. I'm sorry that it's "messy" but I didn't ask regulars to repeat themselves ad infinitum, or to attack my character or insult newcomers. A couple more days isn't going to hurt anybody. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion. The editors asking for a close are "tired of the debate", the debate is long and muddled, this is not a recipe for "spinning out of control", this is a recipe for fizzling out. The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do. If you could reopen with a note briefly explaining the purpose of an RfC and why more than a week is desirable (honestly don't think they're familiar with the process) and as soon as comments dry up I'll close it myself an you'll never have to think of this again. I'd like a few more days as the subject of compromise and clarifying the wording had come up which had been little commented on previously. In my opinion, most had got hung up on stubs. It may well get zero new comments, that's fine and I'll close, but shutting it down early because a couple editors who voiced their opinions before the RfC even started and don't want to wait for more than a week of outside opinions is a bad idea. Thanks. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do..." what? If you tried not to patronise the community so much, people may respect your arbitrary re-opening of this RFC at FLC and your arbitrary re-opening of this AN/I thread, on both occasions without notifying the closing admins. Think again if you believe we're all "young" and we "don't listen to [you]". The overwhelming and startlingly obvious consensus was that there was no consensus to change our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was bluntness, I wrote that on my way out the door. Excitable would have been a better word. If you're familiar with

WP:Requests for Comment, you'll know that the purpose is to get community input in the form of opinions, ideas and dispute resolution. Not everyone checks the RfC lists every day, so leaving them open for a couple weeks at minimum is par for the course. If a handful of regulars are tired of the debate—why wouldn't they be if the issue has been coming up again and again for years?—they are not required to participate. They've stated their opinion, it's been counted, they're free to go about their business. The discussion is so muddled by this point with the interruptions and that bout of infighting at the end that it may well not get anymore comments, but there might also be a good idea out there somewhere. If no action is taken by tomorrow I'll cut through the red tape myself. I can only assure you that this is not a big deal. A week or two from now this'll all be ancient history. Doctor Sunshine (talk

) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree here. The use of the word "consensus" in this case means the personal opinions of a very small number of FLC regulars-- possibly the ones who wrote the criteria. They are simply against changing the red link criterion, and have themselves become weary of the discussion, apparently, because so many "outsiders" fail to come to their own personal view. There are many editors who disagree with this, but who do not have Doctor Sunshine's persistence. Myself, I have seen commenting at this RfC to be futile, and so have limited my to making a few snide comments and leaving. Like many editors outside of the very small FLC "regulars", I am opposed to this criterion. It foists the personal preference of a very few Wikipedia editors onto the project at large. But I see that it would be a waste of editing time to argue the point there. So, is this how Wikipedia Guidelines and Criteria are run? By a very small group of "regulars" (read:"owners") who circle the wagons whenever an outside opinion is offered, and shut down the discussion as quickly as possible, before any other "outsiders" can join in? Obviously, yes it is... And this is the reason this sort of RfC gets so little input from the majority of Wikipedia, to the harm of the project at large. Dekkappai (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened the RfC and explained the process there as well. Second opinion request rescinded unless anyone feels the need. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly now. Can we stop continually overturning admin's actions? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I did overturn an admin's actions. Why was my edit silly? --JD554 (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Doc Sunshine and the continual reversions. Apologies for not being clear! Your edit summary summed it up nicely... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. --JD554 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just keep dragging this out then. Second opinion request reinstated. If you want to save yourself some time, the last section of the RfC contains the shut down request. The opposing view is that community input is a good thing and should be allowed to proceed whether or not a handful of editors are tired of the debate . Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well since you have reverted the action of two admins without bothering to tell either of them I would suggest that you should stop dragging it out. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Doctor Sunshine, with the greatest of respect, I really think it's time to

move on. --JD554 (talk

) 20:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant half truths, Rambling man. Respectfully, even admins make mistakes. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify why your reversions of two admins actions are both "irrelevant" or "half truths"? You were asked to let me know that you'd reverted my closure (although you didn't have the courtesy to tell me that you were discussing me and my "confused" state here), I had to let Jake know you had reverted his closure here, and then you're back here claiming we're all "young" and we "don't listen" to you. Enough is enough. Move on, please. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Relax. You're talking about formalities, you were both watching the relevant pages as one would have assumed. "The consensus is that there's no consensus" (??) is not a good reason to shut down a discussion. I've had my say, you've had yours, there is no harm in giving the community adequate time to volunteer theirs. I'm sorry if you're offended by being called "young" but try not to take this so personally; it's not about you, it's about community input. That's all. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Urban XII

Hello, I am having some problems with Wikipedia user Urban XII. The editor replied to one of my edits with a personal attack [here]. The [comment] was unnecessarily uncivil, had nothing to do with the issue and is an [Ad Hominem]. So I followed the

DD2K

Dave Dial 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I made a response to a personal attack by User:DD2K, merely pointing out his disruptive record at Wikipedia, leading to a permanent block of him in the past. My comment was clearly appropriate. This user, who has never been involved in anything else than edit-warring and conflicts with editors and never contributed with content to Wikipedia, apparently continues his stalking of me at this page. I don't intend to waste more time on such disruptive editors. Urban XII (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some actual diffs here? I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be looking at. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to [123] made in response to his own comment seen above. In short, a user who previously was banned indefinitely[124], who had made only 42 edits, who has never contributed with content to our encyclopedia, and whose only contributions so far have been edit-warring and conflicts with other editors, attacks me for "using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox" (although I'm the one who has been critical of other editors using Wikipedia as a soapbox). I pointed out the record of this particular user because he himself felt the need to point out that I registered this summer. I've actually made roughly 30 times as many edits as that user and unlike him written a number of articles. When one look at the contributions of DD2K, it's evident that he's in no position to attack other users from being involved in conflicts (or as in my case, being the target of disruptive stalking and vendetta sprees like this thread is just the most recent example of). The discussion is an attempt to revive a previous discussion that has now been archived. Some people feel they cannot let other alone. I see no reason to continue this discussion. Everything has been said before. A more appropriate heading for the discussion would be "harassment by

User:DD2K". Urban XII (talk

) 23:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment DD2K is referring to was placed [125]. Note: the discussion was already archived before Urban XII added the comment in question. Urban did not directly refer to DD2K's request for dispute resolution as vandalism, but he did imply a false accusation of vandalism with this edit. This is not the first time he has confused comments and warnings on his talk page with vandalism [126] [127] [128]. I notified this user here that some of his edits that were marked as minor edits were not considered

WP:SOAP. It has been said (by another user) that he seems to be here to Right Great Wrongs. Maybe that would explain his persistent disregard for policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!

) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, next time I will be the one who starts a thread on you. Maybe someone could explain about NPOV, SOAP, CIVILITY and POINT to you? The same group of users have been continously harassing me at this page following a disagreement at Talk:Roman Polanski. The abuse of WP:AN/I for the purpose of stalking one's opponents is becoming increasingly disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. Urban XII (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he was asking you(

talk

) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The "personal attack" you first mentioned was a summary of your problematic behavior in Wikipedia. That's a far cry from a personal attack. In fact, it's only responding in kind when you did the same thing. It's no more of an ad hominem than your original response, and was meant to illustrate hypocrisy (successful or not). Removing your request from Urban XII's talk page was acceptable, calling it vandalism was certainly uncivil. That in itself isn't actionable except maybe to say "shame on you" to Urban XII. -- Atama頭 20:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm.... So a user starting an entry off with a 'LOL' and responding with a list of resolved issues(almost a year old), which have nothing to do with the numerous complaints directed towards that user is not a 'personal attack' or uncivil? I was commenting on complaints by other users about problems an editor

talk

) 22:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I didn't say it wasn't uncivil. I apologize if it seems that I endorse Urban XII's editing style or particular comments. In particular calling other editor's comments "vandalism" because they don't like them is bad behavior. But personal attacks are a step above, or you could call it a "step below" looking at the pyramid you linked before. :) Personal attacks generally draw swifter sanction than other forms of incivility in my experience so it's often important to properly define them. And it's a subjective call anyway, and just my opinion. But moving on is probably best unless Urban XII starts harassing you about it in the future. -- Atama頭 22:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, and I agree. For the most part.  :-) Thanks again and good job.

talk

) 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24 needs guidance

Resolved

 – Mentoring offered by

Skater EyeSerene^talk

17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have seen Ecoman24 posting to ANI. Please take a look at their contribution history, especially those around the Wikipedia Sandbox. I'm not suitable for helping this person. (I'm just about to inform them of this post.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• what? this is interesting, contributing to sandbox? sorry in error, testing sandbox. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Any one is free to give me impartial advise. I will read. I will set up a school page called user:Ecoman24/MySchool. feel free to post anything there. hope this is enough response. any other response will be answered in the same way as above. please, don't take it personal. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What? Anyone got an English translation of this thread? one that includes Diffs, some explanation of what the problem is, some explanation of what admin action is required? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24 has put the WP sandbox up for speedy deletion as a nonsense page. He's reverting edits to the sandox as vandalism. He's asked for the sandox to be page protected. He's made many contribs to ANI, and most of them are "sub-optimal". Diffs are useful, but letting you find them avoids me being accused of selecting a few bad diffs from many good contribs, and allows others to see the scale of the problem. Really, a quick look through his contribs should show anyone the problem. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

lots of people have been up the sandbox up for speedy delete as a nonsense page, I think I did it when I first got here - because it's an em.. sandbox for em.. testing purposes. Diffs are useful yes they are and it's telling you are unable to provide them. So I'll ask again, please provide DIFFS that shows a specific problem and please explain what *specific* action you are looking for. You make a report here, you need to do the legwork. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have tagged the sandbox, but did you also put it up for page protection? I've made it clear that admin attention is maybe not needed, but this page is watched by enough people who will be willing to provide help and support to this editor before his editing becomes a problem that gets him blocked. You don't want to do the work (of look at contribs (many of which are problematic) or at talk page history (blanking discussion of problems) or at old accounts (abandoned for some odd reason)); that's fine. Feel free to leave this report to other editors, some of whom have noticed him on ANI making odd edits. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll actually see what I can find out. I've noticed him on ANI lately, closing threads that were not finished, giving improper or incorrect advice (I've seen him on more than one occasion tell an IP user on ANI to sign up for an account...at one point threatening a block). He's clearly trying to help, but since he's new here...it's hard to help when you don't know how things work. Give me a little bit... --Smashville^talk 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go...some of these have been covered already...

• [130] - Requesting semi-protect on
  WP:SANDBOX
• [131] - Tagging
  WP:SANDBOX
  as a G1.
• [132] - Claims that userpages may only be blanked by an admin.
• [133] - Marking an unresolved ANI thread as resolved.
• [134] - "don't you think it would be good to sign up for a wiki user name?"
• [135] - Another premature "resolved".
• [136] - Yet another premature "resolved".
• [137] - Incorrect "resolved".
• [138] - "could you please stop using multiple IP address as your main user names? you risk been blocked".

He's obviously a little overambitious...he needs an experienced mentor... --Smashville^talk 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, I don't know how "Experienced" you want (bit over 3000 edits) for me, but I'd like to volunteer to mentor him.--

^Speak.

14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little checking on you...you look like a good one. Sounds like a plan to me if Ecoman is willing. --Smashville^talk 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And, only joking a little bit, a CU might be in order... that's an all-too familiar name.

Tan | 39

15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who for? Ecoman24? They declare a previous account on their userpage, but they also ask people not to mention the name, and they blank reference to it. So, uh, I don't know what the protocol is here. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the all of this subject came up by accident. YES, i tagged sandbox up for deletion. could you delete it please? perhaps this is the best ever response i can give. thanks guys. I am learning to be a good editor, if any one wish to mentor mean, yes, go for it. there is a school page you may use. the link is user:Ecoman24/MySchool. Even the newest editor may help me. I ve been studying wiki recently. My contribution at ANI is to help solve some disputes peacefully. I won't tell you what i do in my day to day life. thanks guys. thanks NotAnIP83:149:66:11 for bringing up this discussion. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, tagging the Sandbox, maybe testing Twinkle etc on the Sandbox is perfectly valid IMHO. We all know that nobody will be deleting it (of course, removing the tags is the next step, if you're really testing). Closing ANI cases is not really helpful by someone who doesn't understand process to begin with, so that is the only issue that I see needing immediate help. (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

point taken. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent the Mentor request, looking forward to his answer.--

^Speak.

17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skater, and my apologies to all that I hadn't noticed this thread when I left Ecoman24 a note regarding their contributions further up this page. I think their heart is in the right place, so with some guidance they'll hopefully become a fine asset to t'pedia. EyeSerene^talk 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please can someone mark this as closed or whatever? Thank you. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Offer by Skater taken up. thanks every one. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Role account and username issue

Resolved

 – OTRS confirmation provided. Username issue can go to

WP:RFCN if really necessary. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• NERIC-Security (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior discussion at AN archive.

This is basically a

WP:Role account, and a username that is inappropriate per the username policy, specifically: Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia

. (Specifically, both the organization's name, and the implied "Security" in the username.)

---

• Rlevse commented at the user's talk page:

This account has been vetted as an exception to the policy. But I suggest the account be renamed to reduce future problems, I can do that if you like.

• I agree with Rlevse that this is the best way to go here. The account should be renamed. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at

WP:RFCN? –xeno^talk

18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is both an issue of

WP:Role account. Cirt (talk

) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If a sitting member of ArbCom bureaucrat 'vetted' it as an exception to the role account policy, shouldn't you bring it up with them first? –xeno^talk 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Amended per Rlevse's note that he wasn't an arb at the time

I notified Rlevse of this thread. However if a sitting member of ArbCom says the account should be "renamed to reduce future problems", I agree that should be done. I would also like to see specifically where it has been verified that there are not multiple people behind this account. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Rlevse's comment was to state that it is permissible for more than one person to operate this account. –xeno^talk 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what it meant, aside from that the username is not really appropriate. But I most certainly do not think it meant it is okay for multiple people to operate the account. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the account was vetted as an exception to the username policy, then why would Rlevse suggest a username change? My powers of deduction lead me to conclude the vetting was for an exception to the role account policy. Anyhow, we'll have to wait for Rlevse to clarify. –xeno^talk 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, he made a similar comment on the user's talk page (archived). I seem to remember User:NERIC-Security stating that the account was not a shared account. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Per m:Role account: On the English Wikipedia, five role accounts are currently permitted. I do not see any way that this account should be permitted to remain unblocked, unless it changes its username to make it specifically clear that it is both: 1) One individual, and 2) that the username does not imply a position of authority. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the user to comment here... –xeno^talk 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Actually, the user page says just that (single user) with a link to a previous discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And where has that been confirmed? Cirt (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I'm not sure how much more confirmation you're gonna get than the link above (and now below). A Checkuser won't necessarily confirm anything. As a single user could log on from more than one location (not at once, mind you) and a multiple-user account could all have the same IP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As agreed to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive121#User:NERIC-Security the account is not, and has never been, used by anyone other than myself, and is only used to patrol the NERIC class B addresses. As far as the username, I work for NERIC and I am responsible for the network security at NERIC. When I sign the IP talk pages, since they are IPs on the NERIC network, NERIC-Security lets them know that it is coming from their network, and is not from the world at large. When I make non-work edits, I user my personal username. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re "confirmation", assuming that my word is not sufficient, look at the IP address used by this account when logged in. Most, if not all, of the edits should be from my office workstation 163.153.230.190 - a PC that is not shared with anyone else. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation would best be done through

WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk

) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since we have untangled the role account issue from the username issue, I would suggest filing at
  WP:RFC/N to gather opinions on the username. –xeno^talk
  18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How are they untangled? Cirt (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're not willing to take the user at his word above, why would an email to OTRS be any different? –xeno^talk 18:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Because conceivably it would be an email from the domain of the organization, but with an email address specifying a single individual. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you get an email from an individual, what's stopping that individual from sharing the login information with multiple people? Equazcion (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail has been sent to [email protected] --NERIC-Security (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am about ready to throw in the towel. When each of you were up for admin, did anyone question your word? What have I done to make you question mine? --NERIC-Security (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this issue focused, and not try to change the topic, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since the user has emailed OTRS per Cirt's request as well as stated here that the account is not being used by more than one person I would submit that this issue is resolved and any further concern over the username be brought up at
  WP:RFCN to gather outside opinions. –xeno^talk
  19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's please wait until this email has been confirmed. Cirt (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. –xeno^talk 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While I am a sitting member of arbcom, note that comment Cirt linked to was from Nov 2008, BEFORE the elections last year were even held. I do recall this and there was some sort of exception already made for this account but I don't recall the particulars. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure the "[email protected]" email address does not exist (I looked it up on our system and couldn't find any result). Can you please try to contact [email protected] instead, if you didn't get any answer from a volunteer already? -- Luk ^talk 20:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

@Rlevse (talk · contribs) - Yes, I think you were making that offer to rename the user's account, in your capacity at that time as a bureaucrat. Cirt (talk) 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't exist, mention of it should be removed from meta:OTRS#Miscellaneous. –xeno^talk 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• As long as the account is only used by one person, it is not a role account. I might suggest renaming to account to User:NERIC-Joe (or whatever the person's name is), then if there is ever a need for a second person to perform the monitoring function, they could create User:NERIC-Sally or whatever. Thatcher 20:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion made by Thatcher (talk · contribs) - and I note it is basically the exact same suggestion as made previously by Rlevse (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, taking the "Security" out of the name would be ideal. –xeno^talk 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone bothered to thank this editor for the help they've provided the project? That may have been a better way of starting this thread. People are suggesting the username is changed. The name has been fine for over a year. Has any editor been confused in that time? What will happen if this editor politely decline to change the name? Who will block? NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment of NotAnIP's post. Why are we assuming bad faith about a person who has been helping prevent abuse/vandalism from their network? Do we really want to chase this person away over a minor username issue? --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Thaddeus and NotAnIP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 23:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• OTRS confirmation provided. I'm resolving this; if someone really thinks the username is an issue,
  WP:RFCN is thatway. --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

I don't know what to do about

speak

) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, Abarbadoro is repeatedly trying to insert either the text of an essay on a blog, or a link to it (at different times). This is in violation of

WP:ELNO. Korubin's initial removal of the essay from the article may seem suspicious to you, but is entirely appropriate. As to the "same signing mistake", note that Abarbadoro signed their initial comment at User talk:Korubin

one way, then Korubin signed their comment in a different way (making a mistake I see often with new editors) and Abarbadoro then made the same mistake, possibly in imitation. I don't see any reason to suspect sockpuppetry at this time.

I do see one bigger problem however. You left a warning on Korubin's talk page, "Your recent edit to rape culture was reverted. The reason for this is that large content removal usually is decided by consensus." I'm curious as to what policy or guideline that is in reference to. Inappropriate material is removed from articles all the time, in amounts both large and small and the warning you left is completely in opposition to

WP:BRD

says that what Korubin did was completely justified; one editor makes a bold edit, another one reverts it, then the discussion proceeds to resolve the disagreement if the initial editor insists that the edit should stay.

Finally, the rest of the notice was, "I also wanted to warn you that the edit you made seems like a suspicious first edit. You might want to start small." That is entirely inappropriate. You're warning an editor to "start small", but why? Do you not want new editors to improve the article? We need new editors, and editors who seem to be very

WP:BITE

in one of the worst ways.

My advice to you, Nezzadar, is to stay away from new editors, at least in terms of giving them warnings. From the ANI thread above and now from this new self-declared behavior you show a consistently hostile behavior toward them. You may not realize that you are doing this, and at this point I honestly believe that your actions are being done with the best of intentions. But your behavior seems to show a lack of understanding of some fairly important guidelines and policies. For example, did you inform either editor of this notice, which is a requirement whenever you begin a notice at ANI? (It says so right at the top of the page, where instructions are given in how to use this noticeboard.) Perhaps mentorship might be of help to you. I don't know, but I'm seriously worried about how many new editors you might be discouraging in your actions. -- Atama頭 23:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason I did not inform them is because it was a sockpuppet investigation, and I wanted an admin with Checkuser to tell whether or not it was the case before I made an accusation. As for the suspicious comment, it was in refrence to the same thing. The way the edits stacked up, it seemed like a classic con setup. (Person sets up fake agressor and claims victim to gain support for something.) Until I was sure what I was dealing with, I didn't want to escalate anything. I do hope you fixed everything up nicely though. Thanks for the advice, but I'll pass on a mentor.

speak

) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually I know exactly what you're talking about. I remember a case not that long ago that I think was posted on this noticeboard where an editor created two accounts and set up a fake edit war between the two. Despite myself, I found the whole thing pretty funny (which I guess was the intention) but the sockpuppet/master was properly blocked for doing so. On the other hand, care needs to be taken with new editors and

WP:AGF is critical. In this particular case I'm not entirely sure what the con would have been. If Abarbadaro was attempting to get sympathy from Korubin's revert it was very poorly done and entirely counter-productive, if anything it only drew attention to the inappropriate text. I have trouble giving credence to the idea of a con being done here, I think that it's a case of one new editor trying to draw attention to a blog essay or promote its message and another new editor objecting to it. Unfortunately in your attempt to not escalate anything you ended up giving some very bad advice to a new editor. -- Atama頭

23:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved from

Wikipedia:Media Copyright Questions

rape culture origional info, possible sockpuppetry

Will someone please check out the issues at

speak

) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First thing that strikes me is the MASSIVE block of text citing only blogs as a source, which is NOT a

WP:OR and should be removed. This probably isn't the right venue though for this request. — raeky ^{(talk | edits}

) 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Alexandra Burke

This template was deleted at TfD last December (discussion here) as being too premature. I noticed it had been recreated the other day and tagged it for CSD#G4, but it has now been recreated again. The template is still pretty bare bones; there's only two more articles to link to (her new single and album) than there was at the time of the original discussion. Is it still eligibile for speedy deletion, or would I be best pursuing this with another TfD? PC78 (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say take it back to TFD and suggest salting. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Lead article, a single and an album? I'd say that's fine. If anything, it needs trimming a bit, but certainly not deleting. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Really? I'd say three articles is way below the threshold for when a navbox becomes justified or useful. PC78 (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk comments

talk

) 23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh. If I were Delicious carbuncle, I would have just stopped responding to you in that particular section of the talk page, and merely ensured that anything put into the article itself was within policy. While I disagree with what I opine are hair-splitting statements over a minor facet of a minor topic, I don't think this should have been forcibly removed from the article talk page.

Tan | 39

23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than me simply giving in, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to resolve this dispute without any more drama.--

talk

) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several options available to you; see

WP:RSNB. I think if everyone involved tries hard to compromise, instead of insist that they're right, you'd all be able to come up with a compromise wording. Arbitration is not an option; the ArbCom only deals with user conduct, not content issues, and anyway thinks have to get a lot worse than this before you'd want to even think about heading there. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper for one person to remove the talk page comments of another involved in the same dispute. I've therefore reverted the removal. No opinion on whether or not the discussion really needs to continue, but this manner of forcing it to end seems improper. As Tan said, the other parties could have simply stopped responding, which would have been the way to go. WP:Just drop it. Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried

talk

) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't telling you to drop it, Dbratland. I was saying that if your opponents wanted to end the discussion, they only needed to stop responding to you. That's what

WP:JDI is about. I haven't read through your dispute in detail but I'll have a look and comment if I can. Equazcion (talk

) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize what you meant. I just wanted to vent, I guess.--

talk

) 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me briefly outline what is happening on here. Dbratland has split

WP:RSN#Sources for special meaning of the word "outlaw"

, he twice misquoted a source and failed to corrct his mistakes when they were pointed out to him. The WP:RSN discussion is the precursor to the one on the talk page and is similarly a discussion about the specific application of the word "outlaw".

Dbratland wants to debate whether or not outlaw bikers should be considered criminals. This is a philsophical debate and Wikipedia is not the place for it. He has been asked, clearly and politely, to stop using the talk page as a soapbox, but has persisted. As evidenced by this concurrent discussion at [WP:RSN], Dbratland has a specific agenda and decidedly not neutral point of view with these articles. He seems to be what is generally called a "polite POV pusher" or

WP:TALK

on that basis, after telling him that I would do so. 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page, which I think is the more appropriate venue. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares to wander over to that talk page, they will see more of the same. I wouldn't mind a hand explaining the basic use of sources. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DC, I think the other editor understands entirely about sources, and you should perhaps be a little less aggressive about

assuming good faith. It would appear that other arrivals at the talk page are sympathetic to the other viewpoint. Elen of the Roads (talk

) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You think the editor understands the use of sources? "In reading Drewery, do you detect in there any hints that perhaps the word "outlaw" has more than one meaning, depending on time, place, speaker, and context? I kind of think that point is in there somewhere". I disagree. And if you think he's simply being sarcastic, you are welcome to read the reference article in question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing more of a closed-minded "Assume everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about" attitude from you, DC [140]. Your stance has been rather combative from fairly early on. I'm pretty sure everyone else is just as frustrated as you. Please try to keep calm, and an open mind. Equazcion (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am calm and I don't know why you would assume otherwise. I do have an open mind, as evidenced by my repeated statements that I have no objection to including Dbratland's point of view (which, I note again, is already in the article). I'm not assuming that no one else knows what they are talking about. You certainly have assumed an awful lot from a one word answer. I haven't found your participation on the talk page very helpful thus far, but I welcome your help reviewing the sources that Dbratland has offered. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When you leave one-word answers, you leave people no choice but to make assumptions. Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly asked
  talk
  ) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think I have made any personal attacks, please provide diffs. You and I agree that further action is warranted to put a stop to the problematic actions happening with motorcycle club articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother providing diffs, because you'll just explain to me how, in each instance, they technically aren't personal attacks according to Policy. But add me to the list of people who think you need to assume a lot more good faith with Dbratland than you have been. Your combative attitude towards him, from the very beginning, has made this whole situation more difficult to resolve than it need have been. This isn't a patronizing civility warning, or something silly like that; it's one human telling another human that I think you're treating a third human with less respect than they deserve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd welcome someone else with a kinder, gentler approach stepping in, but I don't see that happening. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...wait, why is Floquenbeam responding for Dbratland? I'm confused. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm sympathetic to DC's point of view and I completely agree with him that the article needs to reflect what the sources say, whether or not the sources are being fair in someone's mind. But on the matter of removing talk page comments, I believe this needs to stop as Equazcion has stated.

WP:TALK

states that discussion of the article's subject on an article's talk page shouldn't be done unless the discussion is related to article improvement. The "philosophical discussion" that DC objects to is directly related, and stems from the discussion about the term "outlaw" and its meaning in the culture of motorcycle gangs. Removing such comments is in fact a violation of the very guideline that DC was linking.

On a different note, at the risk of being called a "Wikilawyer" I have to state that I don't believe there were personal attacks made at the talk page of the article. Calling another editor "biased" can hardly be considered a personal attack, in fact

WP:NPOV

states that all editors have biases. Sometimes it is necessary to identify an editor's bias in a discussion, and to try to strike that down as a personal attack is counter-productive. The claim that Dbratland might be deliberately deceiving someone can certainly be interpreted as uncivil, but DC is only stating that he believes that Dbratland is misrepresenting the source, either by a lack of understanding or ill-intent. I might consider DC to be lacking some tact, but calling these reasonable challenges "personal attacks" is as much an attempt to shut down discussion as DC's removal of comments.

Assuming that DC agrees to leave Dbratland's comments alone I don't see anything actionable at that talk page.

Dispute resolution might be helpful however. -- Atama頭

19:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of intentional deception is an attack on my character and an insult. There is a world of difference between lack of understanding and ill-intent. But perhaps I should not quibble, other than to note that I'm keeping score of the number of personal insults I've had to ignore since this began, and there are many.

After having requested help at Talk:WikiProject Motorcycling, and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and having received three, or four, or five third-opinions, what does one do with an editor who has flatly refused to consider any of the half dozen compromises I've offered? He has never once offered a compromise of his own, and has instead insisted everyone who disagrees even slightly with him has no business even on the talk page, let alone touching the article. The one editor who agreed with him, HooperBandP (talk · contribs), dropped out of the discussion immediately upon Delicious carbuncle announcing the discussion was over and he was going to begin deleting comments. His threat of censorship worked, and he got away with it.

I could try the

talk

) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat surprised by this latest post, since I've been trying to work with Dbratland on the talk page. I had hoped that we might get somewhere through discussion, but Dbratland seems impatient to insert something that doesn't seem to be supported by the references he cites. I've tried to get more editors involved through this discussion, but it hasn't worked. I hope to have time to work on the article later in the week, but that shouldn't stop Dbratland from taking this somewhere else. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland is a fine editor, but a biased one. I don't mean that in a rude way at all. Its the same for any editor who contributes to articles of personal importance to them. On the matter of the article, I've made my position clear on that talk page. On the matter of deleting talk page comments, that should not occur. Not only is it uncalled for, it also pulls away from the actual discussion of the content of the article. Hooper (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock User:216.241.55.204 used for block evasion by User:Ionas68224

Resolved

 – The User:216.241.55.204 sock has been blocked by User:Nishkid64 for an additional two weeks. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP above admitted on his talk page that he is a sock used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as simple:User:Jonas D. Rand; and banned on Commons as Commons:User:Ionas68224 (along with his sock puppet Commons:User:Swusr. The IP has been warned repeatedly that he should not be editing.[141] when the IP returned to edit war with User:J over harassing statements after a resolved issue. Also editing sensitive articles and starting talk page threads. IP was blocked for by User:Nishkid64 for one week for harassment and personal attacks[142], which expired yesterday, October 13. Immediately, IP set about harassing other editors. IP is only used by this banned user--although he continually uses a few old, sporadic edits to say we can't block it--for block evasion, and should be blocked indefinitely. -->David Shankbone 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that this [143] was me. I am Ionas68224, but there are a number of people in Primm, Nevada who use Cheetah Wireless for their residential service,

Gold Strike Hotel and Gambling Hall (nobody lives in Jean). In addition to this, there are a number of casinos on the Las Vegas Strip

who use it for free internet service as well. And Cheetah only has about 14 IPs, so people tend to share IPs.

It's not true that I am the only one that uses the IP. I can point out 8 edits that were made since I started using this service that were not mine. IP addresses are not to be blocked indefinitely, either. And I think it should be clear who is harassing whom. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It has long been the general practice to block IP addresses which have been, and I may add, are currently being used by a banned user to evade the means of their ban from this website. Just because other individuals have been using the IP does not excuse it from being blocked as to prevent policies from being broken and bans being evaded. You know you are not wanted on this website Ionas68224, so why do you continue to return? To appeal your ban and be able to edit, you have to do so through the arbitration committee and only then will you be allowed to edit under your original name. That does not mean the use of sockpuppet accounts and "anonymous" editing through IP addresses owned by Cheetah Wireless would be excused in any way. You know this and you should just accept the fact that the community will not allow you back.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding?

I admit not knowing all of WP's rules and regs, but isn't it wikihounding when one or two dynamic IPs do nothing but revert me? They're all of the form (173.*.*.*): Indianapolis, Chicago, Indianapolis, Chicago, Chicago, and Indianapolis, among others. It may be one person with a dynamic ISP hub or changing place of work. He goes through the motions of presenting arguments but doesn't seem to read what he cites, while accusing me of sockpuppetry for using these IPs. -74.162.147.4 (talk) 01:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (User:Mbhiii)

Could you provide some examples (

diffs) of the reverts you're talking about? It's difficult to dig through contribs to locate the edits you're referring to. Equazcion (talk

) 03:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay I think I see what you mean. A block might be in order, and someone should look into the sock possibility. You may want to make a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Equazcion (talk) 03:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment

This "outsourced" thread from this noticeboard went largely unnoticed now for 10 days while the reporting user makes some concerning claims of continued wikistalking and systematic removal of a retired editor's edits that need to be investigated. Please offer input at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment#Summarize and redirect back to original issues so that the issue located on that page can be addressed and the issue resolved. Regards SoWhy 08:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Expert eyes

Resolved

 – user blocked indefinitely for vandalism

Hi folks. I responded to an AIV report about El Kazmi Sahib (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It wasn't actionable - few warnings, some apparent good edits, new user, etc. But I've been through their contributions and could use some extra eyes on the ones that are still (top) - the rest were vandalism or very very poor editing, so I rollbacked 'em. The ones remaining have made substantive changes that rollback/undo clearly isn't suitable for; but I'm unclear if the edits in question are useful. Ten of them, at the time of writing, could use more intelligent people than me to see if they need correction. ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• The few i have viewed seem to have been edited in good faith, containing constructive information, although needing references for verification like [this, this, and this. I will advise him on the need to reference work, otherwise unverifiable work may be challenged per Wikipedia verification. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ecoman, I've been here since 2004. The above I already knew. That's why I was asking for expert eyes to double check, rather than, you know, someone random to come along and patronize me. Would you mind, please, thinking before typing on administrator noticeboards? Your presence here is kinda disruptive. ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 11:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

sorry, didn't mean to patronize you. Thank you Redvers . Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

user:El Kazmi Sahib seem not to pay attention to advise. He is blanking his talk page, see His talk page history. he even blanked the good advise Redvers gave him. a big concern. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It means he has read the advice. So far so good. Nevertheless, before this thread got severely derailed, I asked for experts to have a look at his contribs. Lets wait for them. ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 11:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the Shia Islam article, I note that our new editor made almost exactly the same edit (including the same statistics and same two sources) as another editor made four days prior (which was alse reverted). Compare [144] vs. [145]. — Kralizec! (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah ha! Thanks, Kralizec - that was the key I needed. He's not adding anything new, he's not deleting anything. What he's doing is reverting articles back to random previous versions for no reason at all. It's just plain (if sneaky) vandalism. [146] [147] [148] [149] On that basis, I'm blocking him indef as vandalism-only. ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 14:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Will Young

Trying to remove some low level vandalism and neither rollback or edit is working for me. It shows as being successful but clearly is not updating the article.

[150]

Can someone please remove the latest 2 IP edits?

Any idea why my rollback/edit is not working? It was fine on another article. Leaky Caldron 11:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's fine. The IP's edits were to add a line, then to remove it. So any edit removing both is null, and the article history doesn't bother recording it. ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 11:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. many thanks. Leaky Caldron 11:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues and Personal Attacks on JIDF Talk Page

Seems that two editors, John Nagle and Peter cohen have personal beefs with David Appletree of the JIDF. Here Peter Cohen calls David Appletree "crazy" in Yiddish ("meshugunnah"). Here we have John Nagle giving his personal opinion of Appletree "whining" and "complaining" on a radio show, pulling things out of context to put Appletree in a very negative light. These two editors have been butchering the article about the JIDF for quite some time, trying their best to shed the most negative light on the organization as possible. They are also using original research and their own opinions to question the character of David Appletree. I thought that BLP rules apply to ALL pages on Wikipedia? --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

it's very telling that no one has responded to this yet. --216.244.65.89 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it would be helpful to others if you mentioned that JIDF stands for Jewish Internet Defense Force and added a Wikilink to its article.

Second, the JIDF article is a drama-magnet and uninvolved editors may not care that two JIDF supporters (who may be

sockpuppets

of blocked users) are contributing to the drama.

Finally, the instructions at the top of this page say "You must notify any user that you discuss." (emphasis in original) You neglected to notify John Nagle or Peter cohen. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the anons involved would register for Wikipedia accounts. Then at least we'd know who was unhappy about what.

As for "Appletree"'s "radio show" (really just a file on "blogtalkradio.com"), I haven't mentioned that in article space, just talk space. I'm not sure what to say about it in article space. It's been mentioned in other blogs, but not in any serious news medium. The audio file does seem to present Appletree in a negative light, but since it consists entirely of Appletree talking, it's hard to blame that on anyone else. --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for an anonymous editor to register simply to report perceived misbehavior. The diffs above make it clear what they are objecting to and even if they registered, you wouldn't know "who" was unhappy (just which accounts posted the complaint). But to answer the complaint,

WP:BLP#Non-article space covers the matter of BLPs on talk pages, but it doesn't seem to apply to the diffs provided. Talk pages in articles are where personal opinions are allowed, as opposed to article space. Absent any diffs showing particularly horrendous BLP violations on a talk page, or diffs showing problems with article space I don't see what is actionable. -- Atama頭

21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and as it says there, "Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached." I do think it's interesting that the only people who have really responded to this are those who have had issues with the JIDF in the past. Perhaps we can get some objective folks to opine, as I don't feel it's right to be calling people "crazy" on talk pages. --216.155.158.139 (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, um calling people crazy on talk pages is not ideal. So um, don't do it again unless you have a good reason to. Since there's close to no Wikipedia relevant reason to call soemone crazy try to avoid doing it. Ok? Let's move on now. (Refactoring away that part of the remark wouldn't hurt either) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

216.155.158.139, you must be mistaking me for some other editor. I've never "had issues with the JIDF in the past". On the other hand, I won't roll over and let you and your JIDF buddies write the article as a puff piece. As thanks, you've attacked me for archiving the article's Talk page, for responding here, and for God knows what other sins. Thank you for showing the true face of the JIDF. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Atama seems to have covered anything worth mentioning. There is no BLP violation in an editor giving opinions on the article's talk page, and the wording used indicate it is clearly just an opinion. If you couldn't ever discuss whether someone is "crazy" on the talk page, then we would have a difficult time ever writing articles on many people. But that is not even what happened here: editors wrote that the radioshow consisted of "meshugunnah ranting" - BLP policy does not protect non-living transient phenomena. If editors think that some talk page contribution is off-topic, then ask them to strike it out, then get over it - there was nothing dangerous or legally problematic that would need oversighting or even admin attention.YobMod 18:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic Source/community ban proposal

Resolved

 –

WP:RSN discussion, no admin intervention required. Tim Vickers (talk

) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, in the Thracians article a referenced academic source is being constantly removed. The source is: ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by F.G.Debets ). I have been told that the removal of such a source is vandalism. How must I proceed? Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good timing, I was just about to post here myself. The editor in question,

single-purpose account whose edits largely consist of disrupting John Vincent Atanasoff and a few other instances of disruption on Bulgaria-related articles, for which he has been blocked twice. Now he's trolling Thracians with some nonsense or other, as well as my talkpage, informing me that I'm a vandal. Can we just ban this guy? I would do so myself but suppose me reversion of his stuff at Thracians makes me "involved". Moreschi (talk

) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's proper for Moreschi to accuse someone of being a "die hard nationalist" when the edit in question has to do with a properly sourced academic reference? I also don't think it's appropriate for Moreschi to threaten me with a long block (as he did on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi), just because I pointed out that removing academic articles is a form of vandalism and that an investigation may be in order. I do not believe that is within his administrative duty to supress my opinion of his actions especially when they are in reference to his removal of academic sources, as per Wikipedia rules. In addition, I have had a Wikipedia account for nearly four years. It is true that I have been involved in revert wars which have caused me to be blocked twice from editing a specific article for a period of 24 hours. However I don't think that's a very negative record on my part considering the amount of time and effort I have put into contributing to Wikipedia over these four years. In addition, I have learned from my experiences and thus I no longer get involved in revert wars. In other words, I discuss everything as best I can in both discussion pages and user talk pages. That is also why I have come here. That said, nothing changes the fact that Moreschi removed the Dr. Poulianos source which was examined by Dr. F.G. Debets. Furthermore, if I were a die-hard nationalist I would not have included the other sources in the Thracians article years ago, which also show anthropological connections between Thracians and Greeks and Albanians and Greeks. Clearly, my goal was to show that various modern populations have connections with the Thracians, and not one nation versus another.--Monshuai (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally source discussions should happen at the
  reliable sources noticeboard, but I can tell you that phd/ma theses are not generally considered unambiguously reliable sources. Protonk (talk
  ) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thrace is in Eastern Europe. Nationalist warriors at
  WP:ARBMAC. Either ruling would allow admins to impose discretionary sanctions if there is a pattern of ongoing edits that tends to disrupt the encyclopedia. I recall the Atanasoff business and in my opinion it was nationalist POV-pushing by Monshuai. I believe that Arbcom is concerned about nationalist editing and intends that the remedies provided in these cases be actually used. Lately some rather severe restrictions have been handed out under ARBMAC, for instance one revert per week on any article in the area of conflict. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Protonk. In 2006, I was told by an administrator that PhD theses are considered reliable as they are peer reviewed by the relevant university faculty. He/she also stated that PhD papers are referenced in peer reviewed journal articles. In addition, Dr. Poulianos and Dr. Debets are anthropologists.--Monshuai (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that the source in question is published, academic and peer reviewed:

The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. It should also be noted that Dr. Aris Poulianos, the author of the said study, is the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association.--Monshuai (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion at RSN seems to have reached a consensus that the source itself is not reliable, but a highly critical review of it that was published in a journal is. Which is fine. Now, I've had multiple people email me over the last couple hours about this, including one with the (I presume CU-confirmed, since it came from a CU) allegation that Janelle4elle (talk · contribs) is actually just a sock of Monshuai (talk · contribs), which if I do get confirmation of would certainly be a cause to banninate very, very quickly. Moreschi (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN reached a consensus that the source is academic and peer reviewed. Please see it here: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Origin_of_the_Greeks.2C_Ph.D._thesis ) Also, I resent the accusation that Janelle4elle's account is a sock for my account. What are the rules for such accusations and how are they dealt with when they are baseless? I will demand a full IP investigation and a disclosure into who is making these allegations, including why Moreschi is stating this here. Can someone point me to the Wikipedia rule page about such accusations? Thank you.--Monshuai (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is grossly misrepresenting my opinion at

WP:RS/N#fifelfoowarns at 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC). Monshuai is grossly misrepresenting my opinion which is that PhD theses are non notable, and that reliable published sources should be published. I find this behaviour grossly offensive. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have additionally been misrepresented at User_talk:Moreschi#Academic_Sources and User talk:EdJohnston#Hi EdJohnston Fifelfoo (talk

) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am working as constructively as I can with you as stated on your talk page. I would prefer that you and I combine our expertise and interests in this field as a way to write better articles that cover the full spectrum of academic perspectives. I don't see how the work of a respected Greek anthropologist who is also the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association is causing this trouble. I believe you've stated that your problems with the work are that it was originally published in the USSR. However, I don't think that's a problem considering that Poulianos was not Soviet at the time, nor was he to my knoweldge affiliated with the Soviet Propaganda machine. --Monshuai (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Nevertheless, Monshuai, the relevant thread at WP:RSN shows that the only person who explicitly states this thesis is a reliable source is you. Seeing how Poulis is, as you say, the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association, I recommend you follow Fifelfoo's advice: "I suggest you work out of Poulianos' modern writings, and, for that matter, look up modern anthropological review articles on the relevant ethnogeneses and assign weight out of those." Until then, I agree with the opinion that master & doctoral theses should not be considered reliable sources without additional evidence. -- llywrch (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, I have taken note of the perceived short comings of PhD theses papers and this is why I checked out Poulianos's published work on the same topic: The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. I have read Poulianos's modern writings and cannot find him further investigating the specific topic I am currently investigating. The source above seems to meet Wikipedia requirements.--Monshuai (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter abusing his protect button

Resolved

 – talk page unprotected by John Carter -- Samir 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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.

---

The above admin has abused his tools (particularly, the protect button) in order to prevent me from removing MY OWN COMMENTS from his talkpage. This has spun out of control from his mentorship of

UnitAnode

02:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could an admin edit through the inappropriate protection to inform Carter of this thread?
  UnitAnode
  02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While the protection may have been inappropriate, the admin in question has every right to remove comments posted to his own talk page, and if he asks that you stop posting there, you should respect his request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue, Julian. That's what makes it even more inappropriate. He was deceptive in his edit summary. I was most certainly not posting to his page. Rather I was trying to remove my own comments from there, since he was allowing Ottava Rima to make misrepresentational comments about me, but wasn't allowing me to respond. I tried to remove my initial comments, but he protected the page, and restored them. Way, way, WAY over the line of being inappropriate. I have no need to talk to him further, and have stated as much. I do reserve the right to remove my own comments from his page, though, and I think policy is on my side in this regard.

UnitAnode

02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

May have been? Get over yourself Julian. How is it that one editor is able to confer a level of protection on his talkpage that other editors cannot similarly apply to theirs. Irrespective of the merits of the dispute at hand, John should have sought the intervention of another administrator. This is the sort of stuff which provokes cries of "tool abuse". Crafty (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I never endorsed JC's actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins protecting their own user pages is generally seen as acceptable, in my experience. Admins tend to attract an inordinate amount of pissed-off people, so they're afforded that luxury. I don't really see any problem with it as long as it's done delicately. In this case the user should be allowed to remove his own comments from the admin's talk page. Equazcion (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Carter is now (and has been previously) accusing me of all manner of things. The genesis of this problem was at the Mattisse monitoring page, and started when I tried to clean up the clutter by moving it to the talkpage, per (what a I thought, mistakenly was) her request. It's just went dramatically crazy since that point, culminating in Carter's questioning my integrity, and eventually, his abuse of the protect button.
  UnitAnode
  03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(7 ec's) The problem appears to be that you were removing your posts after they had received replies. By only leaving the replies, you leave them no longer making sense as they are out of context at that point. Per

WP:REDACT, the better course would have been to strike out your comments. No comment on the appropriateness of using protect, just my opinion on why he restored the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The protection was placed to prevent the ongoing, I have to say, harrasment by the editor who started this thread. For whatever reason, this individual has no on my talk page and another one, the other one being the one that started this recent burst of activity on his part, indicated that he has the right to do what he wants, and that others do not have the right to change it. The frankly dictatorial spirit of this editor is I believe deeply troubling, and his now repeated failure to abide by even the most basic standards of conduct is something I find deeply disturbing. Getting repeated messages from this editor after I had made it quite clear that he was not welcomee there, and having what I was doing interrupted by his regular violations of my request, with the accopanying "new messages" bar, particularly from such a dictatorial personality as this editor, is something I regret to say I could no longer abide by. If he didn't want the comments on the page, he should never have placed them there. And it was only after at least one presumptuous response to my request that he later deterined he had the right to continue to alter my page in other ways. Like I said, it struck me and still strikes me as a form of harassmen. I will remove the comments, as I have indicated on that user's talk page. However, he has to come to understand that his every whim is not in fact an absolute order to the rest of us, and to perhaps learn to behave more acceptably. I do however acknowledge my mistake, will unprotect the page, and do what I would have done had the editor in question approached me in a less demanding attitude. John Carter (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I challenge anyone to find harassment in my encounters with Carter. I made this edit to show how the "banning" from Carter's page happened, in the anticipation that he would fling wild accusations of "harassment." Look for yourself.
  UnitAnode
  03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be curious to see diffs of the harassment/dictatorial attitude, but would also accept if anyone wanted to declare that the actual complaint here is now resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Once an administrator leaves an official warning at Carter's talkpage about abusing the protect button, and my comments are removed (with perhaps an explanatory note explaining why I want them removed), it's resolved in my mind. Ottava Rima should not be allowed to comment on me, if I'm not allowed to respond.

    UnitAnode

    03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Also, he needs to cut the whole "dicatorial" nonsense, as it -- in my view -- crosses the line into personal attacks.

    UnitAnode

    03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict) Warnings are not punitive, so there would be no point in warning him now. John has already admitted fault. Equazcion (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

      That's true. My main concern now is with his accusations that I am somehow "dictatorial." It crosses the line, in my view.

      UnitAnode

      03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I shall warn John not to use the term "dictatorial". Since the page is now unprotected, are we all resolved here now? -- Samir 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of warnings is to inform, and John Carter clearly has been informed, so that shouldn't be needed. If you wish, you can strike out your comment, but its his talk page - he can keep anything you said there there, so long as he isn't misrepresenting what you said. I'll ignore the "dictatorial" comment, I suggest everyone else does too. Regardless of if John considers your actions dictatorial, or if you consider his protection dictatorial, the situation is the same regarding what each of you can - and can't - do. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't accusations such as "harassment" or being "dictatorial" be bolstered by diffs or withdrawn? I've not called his action dictatorial, I just said it was a misuse of that tool. I'm not making any assertions about Carter's essential character, which he seems to be doing toward me with his accusations.
  UnitAnode
  03:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• One other unresolved concern is with whether usertalkpage rules allow me to remove my own comments. I'd be willing to leave a note there explaining my reason for doing so, but I hardly think it fair or reasonable that Rima is allowed to make misrepresentations about me there, but I'm banned from responding.
  UnitAnode
  03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Prodego. You can ask John Carter to remove the comments, but

WP:REDACT indicates, you do not have a "right" to remove those comments, and John Carter can either keep or remove as he thinks is appropriate. This issue is resolved as far as AN/I is concerned. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤

03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not been incivil to him, though I've had ample opportunity. I was unaware that I don't have a right to remove my own comments from a talkpage.

UnitAnode

03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of incivility, but merely pointing out how it should be done (if you want the other party to respond positively). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As he's -- for reasons only he truly knows -- banned me from his talkpage, accusing me of all manner of things, without a shred of proof, there's little chance of my approaching him at all, whether in a civil or incivil manner.

UnitAnode

03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• He's still at it, with his veiled implications that I'm lying when I say I don't have any history with Mattisse. I have asked him to stop several times, but he persists with his "suspicions." This needs to stop, as it colors the perception people have of administrators when they act in the erratic manner in which Carter has conducted himself over the last 18 hours or so.
  UnitAnode
  14:03, 14 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.

WP:NPA

When have we ever allowed someone to make blanket statements about another without providing evidence? The talk page is unprotected, but I still see an underlying issue which hasn't been solved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I really don't. Questioning another editor's motives & edits isn't a personal attack, and I don't see anything in that last link above (the archived section) that qualifies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Article probation violations by User:Jawesome98

Articles related to Barack Obama are currently under article probation. Jawesome98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly violated this by adding "birther" material to Early life and career of Barack Obama, breaking 3RR in the course of the last 24 hours. [151][152][153][154]. He has previously been blocked three times for edit-warring on this article and breaking article probation. Given this continuing pattern of disruption, I propose an indefinite ban on Jawesome98 from editing Obama-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Given a 24-hour block by another admin for violating 3RR. Some people should continue to keep an eye on this user, since coming to Wikipedia from WorldNetDaily (see talk page) cannot be a good thing. MuZemike 19:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag because, quite clearly, this hasn't been resolved. Let's recap. This user was blocked in July for edit-warring and was almost immediately re-blocked for violations of the article probation. He has continued violating the article probation since then, in the course of which he violated 3RR. Now, a block for 3RR is a good thing and the right thing to do, but that is incidental to the main issue here - the violation of the article probation. This editor has repeatedly violated article probation and has been blocked three times for it. The proper response to that sort of behaviour is to enforce the article probation, which specifically allows for bans from Obama-related articles for repeat offenders. Otherwise we're sending the message that the article probation is meaningless, which isn't a good idea. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that 24 hours won't slow this editor down much, and I agree that a topic ban is in order. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

After discussing with DJ Clayworth, I've escalated to 1 week. However, since he's been blocked for edit warring and probation violations before, I think a ban is in order, because he's not getting the point.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it do any good to add wnd.com to the link blacklist? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clobber it. PhGustaf (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's no legitimate reason that I can see for citing WND in most articles, but wouldn't that prevent us from citing anything sourced to WND in the WorldNetDaily article? It's arguably a reliable source for matters concerning itself, even if it's thoroughly unreliable on other topics. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But before blacklisting we should see how the link is used in existing articles - obviously it's okay as a link from the article about the publication, and presumably as an external link for its own personnel, some of whom are notable. If we blacklist will it still be possible for admins to add manually, or otherwise allow for legitimate uses? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's technically possible to do this, but maybe it could be "whitelisted" for use only in certain specified articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't this come up last year or so? WND is already supposed to be on the blacklist. Tarc (talk) 23:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WND ought to be an acceptable source for itself and for biography articles about its current and former staff, and things such as that. Wherever the 'self-published works' clause of

WP:RS applies. Durova³²⁶

16:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Here [155] Jaws accuses the blocking admin of being a "liberal" (!!!!!). Has Jawsome no sense of decency, at long last? Has he left no sense of decency? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, liberalism you say? We can't have that, can we? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group IP-hopper

I have just protected the article

Bilderberg Group due to one persistent IP-hopping partisan, who keeps inserting a blatantly political screed into the article. He does not listen to reason and (by his edit summaries) seems to be here specifically to fulfil an agenda of some sort. The user is presently blocked for 12h and the page locked down for 2 weeks; I'd be amenable to reducing or eliminating the protection if I can get a few more eyes on the article to eliminate the politicking as it appears. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!}

) 19:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In the future you may want to mention the level of protection you have given a page -- which in this case is semi-protection. (The appropriate level, IMHO.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems a perfectly reasonable response. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle violation of NPA and Harass

Resolved

 – misunderstanding, offending comments refactored. Nothing to see here, folks. Manning (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A website, nycfoto.com, had put links to its photo galleries on 36 New York City related articles. Per

WP:LINKFARM I spent 20 minutes removing them from articles. "Someone" contacted nycfoto.com and said that I was eliminating the competition, so they naturally came here to protest. After being told by several editors told User;Nycfoto98 that the links were inappropriate, User:Delicious carbuncle started a Wikipedia Review thread saying I was "strong arming the competition" by removing photographs (even though almost none of the pages have my photos, I was removing external links, and I don't look at fellow photographers as competition), and then went to the thread to personally attack me and tell User:Nycfoto98 that they should upload their photos with their website in the file name. When asked on his talk page to remove the attacks, Delicious carbuncle instead struck them through and added a new personal attack. This comes off the heels of a failed WP:COIN thread that Carbuncle and banned User:Ionas68224 (see above) brought against me. This is textbook harassment and personal attacks. The comments will only serve to confuse User:Nycfoto98

and may cause issues with them promoting their website in new ways on Wikipedia. -->David Shankbone 22:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• David, we don't want to get into the conflict between you and DC, but we have to respond to the way you referred to our links as "inappropriate". As we pointed out numerous times, all links to NYCfoto that were found on Wikipedia linked directly to the photos related to the article. Perhaps in some articles our links didn't add a lot of unique content (while still being completely relevant), you deleted all of them -- in some cases it was the only source of photos listed in the article. While our links have been removed, links to unrelated content and fully commercial sites have remained. An example would be NYC Halloween Parade page where link to commercial website/store remained on the site. Another note: links to NYCfoto.com have been on Wikipedia for years, articles listing our links have been edited by a lot of people and nobody had a problem with the links. Several years ago, Wikipedia editor reviewed our links and decided they should continue staying on the site.Nycfoto98 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)nycfoto98

David, I struck my comment after you left a message on my talk page accusing me of harassing you. You didn't ask me to remove them. I thought that I had made it clear that they weren't about any particular person and certainly not about you, just tactics I have seen used by self-promoters. You've probably seen a lot of the same things. I'm sorry if you felt they were directed at you. I added a new comment after striking so that other editors who had seen the comment or saw the history would know that it wasn't directed at any single editor. I also wanted to make sure that Nycfoto98 understood that my comments were facetious and not advice that they should follow, so they are better left struck than removed entirely. Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I dispute that this is resolved as a misunderstanding, particularly given the Wikipedia Review foolishness and the silly WP:COIN thread. -->David Shankbone 23:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I'm sorry that you feel the need to continue this thread after I have apologised for the misunderstanding and struck my ill-judged facetious comment, but please stop trying to connect me with Wikipedia Review. Thank you. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

So you aren't Carbuncle on Wikipedia Review, you just share uncannily similar interests? Wow! -->David Shankbone 00:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am advised by

WP:OUTING to neither confirm nor deny any guesses about my identity. Is this why you are accusing me of harassment? Because of off-wiki postings made by someone with a similar name? Do you think I am also Delicious Crab Uncle (talk · contribs) or Delicious Carmichael (talk · contribs) or Delicious Jacobsen (talk · contribs) or Carbuncle delicious (talk · contribs) or Carbuncle of taste (talk · contribs

)? Perhaps the similarity with my username and interests is not an accident. Can we please leave this episode behind us and move on? I don't think there's anything to be gained for either of us. 03:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING doesn't apply--that deals with real-life information like legal name. Or do you just go by "Carbuncle" similar to Cher? lol Being coy will hardly fly in your harassment campaign. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some work to do on Men of Israel ;-) -->David Shankbone

11:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but if only you applied but a small part of these things you demand from others to yourself. But I digress, you were speaking of small parts, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.140.197 (talk) 13:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I see now that the basis for your hostility toward me is my request to you in the recent COI noticeboard thread to voluntarily refrain from editing articles related to Michael Lucas, and to publicly identify User:WatchingWhales as one of your alternate accounts. Pete Forsyth, who said he is a good friend of yours, opined that there was nothing wrong with your actions but there was some COI and that I had begun the discussion in good faith. I closed the thread when it became clear that you were not going to voluntarily refrain from editing Lucas-related articles in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I can't prevent you from believing what you want to believe, but my purpose wasn't to harass you - simply to ask you, as perhaps the most recognizable Wikipedia contributor, to be more mindful of how your actions may appear to some observers. The IP comment above is not from me, just in case anyone was wondering. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Altman

Alas there seems to be no general help desk (and this is a matter of a dead person). I'm therefore posting this here -- improperly, as no administering is (yet) needed.

This edit to Robert Altman makes the article 25% or so shorter. The stuff removed isn't obviously trivial. However, the edit looks thoughtful, if not necessarily beneficial. "RL" calls me away from my computer; could somebody with twenty minutes on their hands take a good long look and then do the right thing, whatever it may be? -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the stuff wasn't sourced (much isn't), I have no problem with it. Give it some time and someone will revert it, for some reason. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

For future note, there is a general help desk. Its

talk

) 14:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ali Khamenei

There's several blog reports that Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is in a coma. It might be advisable to preemptively protect the article. Dr. Cash (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Some might want to call Allah for help. That he should recover speedily. Others might want to call Jaweh for help. :) Debresser (talk) 04:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

We can't

(talk)

08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the rumours should be kept out of the article until there is something more substantial (realiable sources, not just blogs or 1 reliable source discussing the blog). I think this has a very high probability of being a hoax or just baseless rumours (maybe created in order to promote a blog.) I've removed the material for now. Agree that others should keep an eye on this.

Offliner (talk

) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP keeps reinserting the material, using a blog as a source. I don't want to edit war, so I wish an admin would take a look.

Offliner (talk

) 12:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolled it back again and applied semi-prot until better sources than blogs emerge. EyeSerenetalk 12:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Re pre-emptive protection; firstly, policy is descriptive not prescriptive, secondly the language is ambiguous in that it says that pre-emptive protection is contrary to the principles of open editing rather than saying it is not permitted, and lastly it only refers to full protection. Therefore, if not in this case, it is possible that an article may be semi-protected upon determination of a probability that SPA ip's or new accounts will attempt to violate editing policies to such an extent that the project will be disrupted. Anyway there has been an instance of pre-emptive protection of an article pending reliable clarification of reports earlier this year, so perhaps it is more a case that WP:NO-PREEMPT needs reviewing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I'd say BLP applies. This is contested material about a living person without reliable sources. It's not a matter of edit-warring to remove it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Abuse from User:Njirlu

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Njirlu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), already repeatedly warned for his disregard of wikipedia guidelines and policies (primarily his persistence in adding fabricated info to a group of articles) and blocked for it, has returned with the same intent to plaster an invented name into articles. His generally rude language aimed at those who discourage that has now turned into severe abuse and disturbing threats, through a Romanian-language soliloquy on his talk page, targeting User:AdiJapan. Let me translate you what he has written so far: "denumire nativa idiotule, ignorantule" ("a native name, you idiot, you ignoramus"); "comunist indoctrinat" ("you indoctrinated communist"); "rusine sa va fie" ("shame on all of you"); "pana cand sa suport nesimtirea ??? sunteti mai rau ca niste caini!!!! ce oameni sunteti???" ("how long shall I have to bear the lack of sensitivity? you are worrse than dogs! what sort of people are you?"); "securist blestemat adijapan!!! va bateti joc... am adaugat nume nativ prostuleee!! si uite-te pe eurominority la harta si o sa vezi idiotule ca acolo scrie 2500.000!!!" ("you damned Securitate agent adijapan! you make a mockery of it... I added a native name you fool! and check out the map at eurominority and you'll see you idiot that it says 2500,000 [sic]!"; "De ignorant ce esti!! Cretinuleee!!! unde iti este deontologia?? escroculeee" ("The ignoramus that you are! You cretin! where is your deontology? you con man"); "o sa-ti dai seama cat de prost esti cat de curand!!! comunistuleeeeeeeeeeeee" ("you'll soon realize how stupid you are! you communist"); [Right after AdiJapan informed it about the NPA rules:] "Iti reamintesc Adijapan ca esti un functionar public si ca trebuie sa fi impartial. Si ceea ce faci tu este o incalcare a acestui principiu, si mai mult decat atat observ o atitudine agresiva asupra unor denimiri native!! Daca nu esti prost, vei intelege ce spun eu acum. Opreste-te la timp" ("I remind you Adijapan that you are a public official [!] and should be impartial. And that which you do goes against this principle, and more than that I notice an aggressive attitude on the subject of native names! If you are not stupid, you'll understand what I'm telling you right now. Stop while there's still time for it"); "nu uita ca wiki nu este o taraba unde sa asezi tu, cretinule, rosiile dintr-un loc in altul!" ("do not forget that wiki is not a booth where you can move tomatoes from one place to the other, you cretin"); "Am un mesaj pentru cineva!! Esti o zdreanta ordinara!! Si iti vei asuma cat de curan[d] toate mizeriile pe care le faci!!" ("I have a message for someone! You are an ordinary rag! And you'll soon get to live the consequences of all the filth you've been producing").

This user has long ago shown that he has nothing constructive to contribute to wikipedia, that his only use he finds for it is as a platform for his fringe agenda, and at this point in time he has become a liability to editors he comes into contact with. I would expect admins to consider at least a long-term block. Dahn (talk) 08:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Mister adijapn is constantly deleting a native name of Aromanians. These is Romanian propaganda for 150 years! (Njirlu (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

He does these deleting on wiki.fr wiki.en wiki.ro (Njirlu (talk) 08:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

On the site eurominority.org, if you look on the map will see 2.500.000 aromanians in Europe.

(Njirlu (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Is a Romanian propaganda and they dont want to accept that Aromanians are Macedonians romanized and they have their own millenary language.They are a distinct ethnicity.

These is a silent genocid to Macedonians!!!!! (Njirlu (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

Why adijan do these?? He delete my adds since 3 months ago. Why?

Is only a native name of aromanians. Who are not 'Aromanians'.They are macedon-armans.And in their language Makedonji-armanji. But adijapan cant accept these ethymologie!! Why? (Njirlu (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

why Romanian operator ADIJAPAN delete bibliography , external links and a native name?? He is rasist? These is a question to all operators of wiki.en!! Please tell me why he does these ???(Njirlu (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

I only gave a native name at native name section. There we can find armanji, rramanji, and corect to add and Makeodnji-armanji. These is how they call themselves!!! But adijapan dont accept these.Why?? Because in Romania is a genocide to Macedon-arman ethnicity!!!!(Njirlu (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC))

• A block for disruptive editing may be in order. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• The "you'll soon get to live the consequences of all the filth you've been producing" remark is certainly out of order.
  (talk)
  09:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm finding it hard to find anything that is not out of order about his editing...threats, personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, soapboxing, attempts to use Wikipedia as a battleground along ethnic lines, disruptive editing...seriously, other than legal threats, is there anything wrong that he's not done? The list goes on and on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked Njirlu for a period of one month. --Aqwis (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Philip Baird Shearer

This user has on the article

Terror bombing frequently ignores to consensus on the talk and repeated reverts consensus edits to enforce his on singular view for the article. It has reached the point where I feel some admin oversight is required. [156] Sherzo (talk

) 10:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Have you (a) engaged PBS anywhere about this; and (b) informed PBS about this AN/I report? ➜Redvers ^{❝It's bona to vada your dolly old eek❞} 10:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There are actually several lengthy discussions on Talk:Terror bombing in which xe has actively participated. There's been an RFC, and the page is currently being discussed for merger. Administrative oversight isn't required. There are already several knowledgeable content editors involved, including Black Kite and Fences and windows. But protection to stop the back and forth edit war between two versions, and bring discussion back to the talk page, that it seems to have left in favour of edit summaries on reverts, seems indicated. There's been back and forth for a month, here, with practically zero actual improvement to the article (in either of the preferred versions) as can be seen by taking diffs back to September. Uncle G (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh lordy - revert to consensus version when there is plainly no consensus. Where's the cluebat? Guy (Help!) 21:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY evading block?

Several weeks ago,

point. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and request a checkuser. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That was my first thought, but I thought that Observer actually admitting to being the IP kinda circumvented the need for a check. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You should mention that in your request. The administrator will decide whether a checkuser is required. If not, and the IP is a sock, they will block it right away. If you are confident that the case does not need checkuser then you could request "Start an SPI case WITHOUT a CheckUser request" on the same page. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* So done. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm totally drawing a blank right now: assuming that this leads to a block and then it happens again, where do you go for block evasion? Do you just add it to the bottom of the SPI? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The case is filed properly, and I have commented there. NW (Talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer the implied question about what to do if there are future socks, just submit a new case at SPI as you would with a regular submission. The system is smart enough to automatically link the new case with the previous ones. Make sure that you name ObserverNY as the sockmaster each time though. -- Atama頭 21:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Severe in-article comment re recent news event (self-reverted but of concern)

Resolved

(re-adding - apparently lost during edit conflict)

74.169.188.162 (diff) Noted during RC patrol. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to this incident in Florida, in which a 15-year-old was set on fire for "snitching" on several other teenagers who stole his father's bike. The IP is in the wrong state, but it couldn't hurt to inform the authorities investigating the incident of this. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for check of ip vs state/location of incident. (Thought probably noise, but noting just in case.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And the authorities have been informed. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the edit itself be deleted from Wikipedia? It's pretty ugly and hateful. --

Sancho Mandoval (talk

) 20:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC

(re oversight?) The edit was reverted, and given all factors—including the edit itself does not have an edit summary and was part of a sequence of various edits—doubt oversighting of the edit is necessary in this case. But the user has been blocked and administrators are aware of the edit. (If it should be, it will be, I would expect.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Malicious User

Resolved

 – blocked indefinitely

Please look into the extreme malicious edits of this user. The person is adding pornographic content to non-pornographic articles (including BLP articles). Swift admin action is required please. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked, no useful contributions that I could see. Mjroots (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Replacing sockpuppet templates with retired (OK?)

Resolved

Example. Excuse if wrong forum, not sure of protocol about this. (RC patrolling) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion, sockpuppetry templates replaced and user pages semi-protected to prevent a recurrence. I think's that everything...

Bencherlite^Talk

21:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (I'll mark resolved.) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) This is an active sockpupeteer who has been involved in vandalism, edi-wars, threats, racist attacks, and outings. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rhp 26 and previous ANI reports (including one above). His ISP had to be rangeblocked previously, and I'll do so again if he continues. Abecedare (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

7 current accounts with same user?

Resolved

 – Huge sockfarm blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had to re-delete a deprecated section from

WP:SPORTS. The section had been reintroduced since the consensus decision was implemented a few months ago. I was curious about the user who reintroduced the section and discovered a similarity of edits by no less than seven "users" who clearly seem to be the same person. They are User:Information yes, User:Melfurd, User:Wiki editor 6, User:WP addict 0, User:Best name, User:Correct & improve and User:Qzm. While no real harm has been done that I am aware of, I doubt if the use of several different accounts to populate an individual article is proper practice as it creates a pseudo-consensus that presents a false picture. ----Jack | ^{talk page}

04:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SOCK says that it's a bad idea certainly. Do any of them appear to be the "main" account? If so, you might want to ask them to voluntarily give up the other accounts. Without using the extra accounts in a blatantly abusive manner (like in an AfD or an edit war or block evasion) then I'm not sure that an SPI report will do anything (I could be wrong). -- Atama頭

21:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

snigbrook (talk

) 23:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although if

snigbrook (talk

) 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed Information yes (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• WP improver (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gayness 1 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• WP addict 0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Editing it now (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Mnbvcxz 2 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Editing it now (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Gav hobbo (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• UK John UK (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Schwulenbar (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• TVTVTVTV (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed Wiki editor 6 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) =

• Aidepikiw 0 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Qzm (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Negreta (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

 Confirmed Crime researcher (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

• Politics a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Article improving (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Best name (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  

These groups are  Likely to be related to each other.

Biographies 0 (talk · contribs), Biographies 1 (talk · contribs), Biographies 2 (talk · contribs), and Improver 0 (talk · contribs) are  Stale.
Melfurd (talk · contribs) appears to be  Unrelated

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that these results are based solely on technical data, not behavioral. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

All accounts indef blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 00:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sukkah

Resolved

No problem here. Happy things worked out okay. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 00:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Some IP user is adding the text {{for|the board game|chess}} to the article sukkah, about a certain Jewish custom. Today/yesterday he has done so as few times already. He has done so in the past as well, operating from the same range of IP adresses. I don't know what to ask for: semiprotection, a block of his current IP, of a range of IP's. So I throw it into the group. Preferably do not refer me to other venues, but take the relevant action yourself. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I posted this, I wasn't aware that the user had replied to the inquiry on his talkpage. I noticed this only when I came there to inform him of this discussion. I hope we will be able to convince him of his error. Sorry for bothering. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for advice/an impartial POV

I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the recent edits being made by myself and

Talk | Contribs

00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Chimpanzee, do you think you can post some

diffs of the dispute? Also, this might not be the appropriate place as this might be a content dispute. But let's see some diffs to get to the bottom of it. Basket of Puppies

00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also informed nu89 of this, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 01:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we need to keep an eye on the Roger Goodell page?

This edit [157] on the Roger Goodell article was reported on tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann in his segment "World's Best." (The story was meant to segue into general commentary on Rush Limbaugh's recent offer to purchase into the L.A. Rams). It's been my experience that mention in the media tends to encourage massive vandalism a la Stephen Colbert so I thought I'd drop a note about this story. I just saw it broadcast about an hour ago. Torkmann (talk) 01:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Goodell's page is on my watchlist. Hopefully if nothing has happened so far, nothing will (such vandalism tends to occur immediately after such segments air). — Huntster (t @ c) 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Janes8266

Resolved

 – For now.

We have here Janes8266 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose singular purpose since arriving on June 11 seems to be a crusade to expunge all references to a particular book that's critical of the Alcor organization, famous for being the location of Ted Williams' remains. The editor claims any reference to the book is "advertising". Maybe I should have started with the baseball project page, but I tossed a coin and started here instead. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, this appears to be the tip of the iceberg (ha!) of an ongoing edit war at the Larry Johnson (author) page. Johnson, a former Alcor employee, wrote a book called Frozen, which alleges mishandling of Williams' remains. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Also taking this to the baseball page now. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

With the single purpose'ness of the account, a note at

WP:RSN. Wknight94 ^talk

13:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind if the editor resumes its activity. It seems to have stopped for the time being. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Walt Disney and 92.11.217.30

Resolved

 – For now.

92.11.217.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is the revival of something that turns up every so often, some insidious, baseless stuff about Disney's personal life. I've warned the user to stop posting it. Might need a little help here if he won't stop. He's edit-warring with several users over this. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The talk page is being used as a forum for rumor/accusations, ect. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's going to periodically resurface: some people end up being the target of urban myths like this. About the only thing that can be done is for informed contributors to monitor the page until Wikipedia comes to an end (for real, I mean). And maybe mention that Disney's opinions about race, Judaism, etc. weren't that unusual for his times. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You apparently overlooked the accusations of perversion. I don't think that was the norm. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy and to save time by other editors, please provide difs when you complain about some editor's edits, rather than just identifying the editor and the page in question.Such difs might include [158], [159], and [160]. This is unacceptable and a ban is needed if it is not stopped. Edison (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Disney talk page history and you'll see many attempts by the IP to post this so-called information. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, the IP seems to have backed off, after having been reverted and warned by several different editors. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I posted a final warning on the IP's talk page. No hearsay defamation is acceptable. Edison (talk) 05:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A long-standing named editor tried to re-post that stuff, and probably needs to be kept an eye on, but it's not quite time for a warning there yet. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots← 05:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Problematic editor, not sure how to proceed

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 02:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait and see. He seems to have recreated the page in userspace. Daniel Case (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the user, on their talk page, of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 03:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank you BoP.

<>Multi-Xfer<> (talk

) 03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From their userpage: "I have a particular interest in creating pages for actors, who do not yet have their own article, but who I feel deserve one; the pages, Tanya Chisolm and Derek Lea are amongst my creations. But I had to argue hard for them to be kept when I first introduced them, as I have to do for many of the pages I create; I dont like snooty editors and administrators who try to get rid of some pages that I create by redirecting them or deleting them, just because they are of the opinion that they are not notable enough." I am off to bed, but someone needs to explain to this editor that Wikipedia has in-depth policies and guidelines that dictate what can and can not be included. The fact that Nocrowx thinks an actor is notable is not one of these policies or guidelines.

Tan | 39

03:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently that's been done. Now we need to explain

WP:OWN to him as well. Daniel Case (talk

) 03:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I speedied the Tanya Chisolm article per A7. Merely saying "notable" is not a credible claim of notability.

Tan | 39

03:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion please

user:Jasepl seems to think that user:Marcosino Pedros Sancheza may be a sock of Druid.raul (talk · contribs). Marcosino Pedros Sancheza states that he has been a Wikipedian for over 3 years, yet his user page was only created on 7 October 2009, as was his account. Will look back later as I've got to go out. Mjroots (talk) 11:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Recurring sock - Rhp 26 / Druid.raul /

Refer this ANI discussion from a few days ago.

1. The user in question's first avatar - Rhp26 - was blocked for gross incivility in September 2009.
2. He returned under another name - Druid.raul - and was permanently blocked again in October 2009.
3. I'm quite certain he's returned yet again, as Marcosino Pedros Sancheza.

He is feigning innocence - but one look at select articles, user page and way of writing will leave no doubt who it is. Can (should?) we do something? Druid.raul's user page was deleted (on his request), so I'm not sure if the history can be restored. However, there's too many things in common between Druid.raul and Marcosino (I'll use MPS for convenience). Both:

• are Indian
• are from Mumbai
• are Hindu
• are 21 years old
• do not smoke
• have apparently been editing for a long time though edit history shows otherwise
• are short-sighted
• are right-handed
• are male
• are heterosexual
• use FireFox
• and Facebook
• speak English
• and Hindi
• and Oriya (a minor Indian language)
• one decared he won't be editing asab/Muslim related articles ever again (though he failed to live up to that declaration) and the other has proclaimed he's opposed to Islamism
• and so on...

See also the edit histories for NACIL and Air India. User Marcosino made the exact same edits/reverts that the previously blocked users and IPs had been making.

It is the third sock of a banned user, and clearly violates most of the established criteria around inappropriate uses of sockpuppetry. Jasepl (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI filed. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reblocked the IP ranges 203.115.80.0/20 and 203.76.176.0/20 for 3 days due to continued edits like [162]. Abecedare (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Username without link

Resolved

User amended his signature Mjroots (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to point me to the right place for this, but if it exists I sure as hell can't find it.

WP:SIG. I notified him six days ago but no action has been taken. Thank you! *prepares to be harassed to move to a more appropriate location*... ninety:one

21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey!! Move this to a more appropriate location!

Nah I think this is as good a place as any. :) Equazcion (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully he will respond soon. The DocU issue very recently shed light on how the community feels about this. Basket of Puppies 21:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, that was a real good use of everyone's time. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

How about we just turn off the custom signature feature? — Jake Wartenberg 00:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That would do it, and it would be preferable to badgering editors. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll fix it --    LONTECH     06:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lontech (talk • contribs)

fixed -- LONTECH  Talk  11:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dodona socks

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (aka User:PIRRO BURRI and others). Same mode of operation: taking some half-digested bit from a source that he feels boosts his Albanian national ideology, and then mindlessly spamming it across multiple talk pages and articles with no sense nor reason. Same IP range as multiple earlier Dodona socks (e.g. 80.78.64.246, 80.78.70.197). Please block and help keep an eye out on new incarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼

06:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Linas, soapboxing on wikiprojects (and userpage)

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564 § Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas]], and [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Linas again|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567 § User:Linas again]]

Linas (talk · contribs) is apparently soapboxing/forumshopping on his quest to lead a sort of coup against the "nasty, abusive people in admin roles." He posted his rant to WikiProject Computer Science, WikiProject Mathematics, and WikiProject Physics. I'm in the group of five admins who he feels slighted by. That's why I'm bringing it here.

(Context: Linas's request for arbitration, Linas's request for mediation) tedder (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(

WP:NPA, and any other policies that he is ignoring? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk

17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Let me see what I can do, if anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I've removed or refactored the blatant personal attacks. Better than reaching for the block button, I think. Black Kite 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linas was right to raise the issue at Wikiproject physics. This is how I learned about his case. I think he raises a very serious issue that needs to be looked into. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section completely from his user page. If it gets reinserted then full protection of the user page is the next step. He has been warned not to reinsert it. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek reinserted it (why? it's still in the page history). Count Iblis, why do you think it needs to be looked at on WikiProject Physics or via any other forumshopping? tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to separate the issue of Linas using inappropriate language here on wikipedia with the wider point he was making. I think Linas has the right to make the case he is making here and on the various wiki projects (but using decent language, of course). Count Iblis (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I think WikiProject Mathematics should be interested: If we can get a 1 week block just for getting a bit too angry about such an incredibly stupid edit (not sure if that's exactly what happened, but that's how it looks to me right now), then that's a problem that needs fixing. Hans Adler 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek says he's restored it for now. I'll bow to his judgement then. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping I could convince Linas to remove it himself. When it became clear that he wasn't interested in working with any of us, I re-removed it. Sorry, Mj, I was hoping that a demonstration of good faith would help matters, but no such luck. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem Sarek, I'm new here and am still learning. If I get reverted it's no big deal. :-) Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So are we all. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am also here because of Linas' message.) It appears that this whole situation was caused by this absolutely incredible edit by User:Aboutmovies. On first sight this looks like sneaky vandalism and an attempt to promote a new age publisher on a very technical mathematics page that is 100 % unrelated. I have never had any contact with User:Aboutmovies, but this seems to be a well-established user with a clear block log, so it's not hard to assume good faith. Which puts the edit into a different light: An extremely careless edit that happened to be one of the most stupid ones I have seen here. I am not commenting on what happened afterwards, because I am not familiar with it (yet). I would be grateful for links to all the relevant (archive) pages. I am particularly interested in reading Aboutmovies' explanation how this could happen innocently. Hans Adler 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He wrote the Beyond Words Publishing article and was simply looking for places to link it from. He found one that was wrong and was reverted. That's about it. If every time anyone made an honest mistake, they were called an idiot and an asshole and a dick weed, we wouldn't have a lot of people left. Wknight94 ^talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence in principle, although there is also the dimension of creating a climate in which experts don't feel overrun by

Randies

. I don't think this block was a positive contribution to that. Here is an important point that I got wrong at first, and I suspect that Linas also got it wrong, a miscommunication that may well have led to all of this:

Aboutmovies was reverted with a very clear edit summary that explained why he was wrong. He acknowledged this in his comment at [166]. Afterwards he reformatted the citation in question with a strange edit summary ("assist the citation challenged") that can easily be misunderstood as the edit summary of what would have been a revert. But it wasn't. This edit was followed by another that can be understood as a template attack on the article.

Most relevant pages seem to be linked from [167]. It seems that Aboutmovies made a silly edit to 3 pages, was correctly reverted, and then there were serious communication problems. I believe a member of WikiProject Mathematics could have deescalated these, and I am not convinced this was an occasion for blocking. (Blocking this troll who re-did one of Aboutmovies' mistakes and then immediately ran to ANI to boast about it would have made more sense.) It takes two sides to create a Michael Kohlhaas, and it appears both sides were very eager to do so. Hans Adler 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My explanation can be found at the ArbCom request under the "Statement by Aboutmovies". But for everyone here who somehow thinks this was vandalism or "sneaky vandalism" you really, really, really need to read

WP:VANDALISM (we have a specific definition on Wikipedia), which is why I added that link to the original warning to this user. Secondly, since people have not apparently read the entire article on Beyond Words or the math (or physics?) article, a couple of points. First, with citations, under all the formats I know of, the pages come after the name of the publisher, which if you look at the article you will see "Beyond Words, pp. 123-456", thus why there was a mistake. As to the assertion about what the publishing company prints, the do not do New Age exclusively, they started out doing coffee table books, and they will print your own book for you for a fee (self-publishing) regardless of topic. So it is not exactly like they couldn't print this book in question, which in combination with the citation morass is why it got linked. Once it was reverted, there has never been any attempt by me to re-insert it (that would be vandalism). And (without reading whatever Linas has been writing since his original personal attack on me) I will say that expert editing is a noble concept, but then note I hope you math and science trained people would then never edit any article outside of your training, such as your local village or sports team or your local politician, etc. as you clearly would just be committing "sneaky vandalism", right? And as to eager to do so, note I never called anyone names, and I never asked anyone to block anyone. As to the anonIP, that is a long-term, sock puppetting, abusive editor that has been watching everything a certain set of editors does, and is not in anyway related to any of these discussion. Aboutmovies (talk

) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the overriding point is that Linas is the one that escalated from the cordial tone of disagreement and misunderstanding above straight to "fuck off asshole" and "get rid of fucking asshole admins like you". There really is no context that explains that away IMHO. He wasn't even part of the original discussion - just a third party at User talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For me the explanation is that the circumstances misled him into

WP:ABF and he never got out of it. Hans Adler

19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to Aboutmovies' statement at ArbCom.

talk

) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, I should clarify that I would phrase some things differently now that I have understood that you didn't re-revert. By "both sides" in my last sentence I meant Linas and the admins dealing with the matter, not you at all. And I only mentioned the troll because I felt that it probably contributed to the last block, but wasn't blocked itself.

Personally I consider your explanation convincing. But I think I can understand how Linas got into his train of thought. The idea that a serious maths book is published by a publisher known mainly for new age stuff is ridiculous, especially in this case (I can't blame you for not seeing this). And Springer Verlag is the largest scientific publisher worldwide, so that to all science types it was totally obvious who the real publisher was. I guess this made your attempts to explain how it happened sound disingenuous to Linas. That's really Linas' problem: he must understand that he was wrong about this crucial point. Hans Adler 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it help improve the encyclopedia to continue dogpiling on a constructive but testy editor? No? So why can't we just let him rant a little and stop helping him prove his point. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like some assurance that if a brand new math genius editor makes an edit to one of Linas's articles, but misspells something, he won't be called a "fuck brained idiot" and consequently leave the site permanently. Maybe you can handle that, and so can many others, but we can't ascribe tolerance for such immaturity to every new editor. There's no reason for it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

David makes a good point. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over the history of this meltdown, I disagree with David. Linas is too far gone at this point to simply give him his head. I admit I've thought a lot of things he has written -- not against the people he mentions, please note -- but when I get to that point of frustration & disillusion the only solution is to take a long break from this place. In his case, he needs either a voluntary or enforced WikiBreak until he decides to act civilly again. And even if Wikipedia has degraded into a corrupt system that is producing increasingly unreliable content, the problem will be solved by our users voting with their feet -- which is a more efficient solution than foul-mouthed rants & personal attacks. -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What I find disturbing is the idea that there are "Linas's articles" on Wikipedia. Is he allowed to

own them? (And if so, how much is the going rate for a nice stub?) -- Atama頭

20:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ownership of articles is unavoidable in some circumstances. For example, I find that I have become the owner -- against my expectations & best intents -- of a number of Ethiopia-related articles. If it were entirely possible, I would be quite happy to put those articles into a basket & leave them on the doorstep user page of someone with a Clue. -- llywrch (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, unless you're using a definition of "ownership" that is different than what I understand ownership to mean in Wikipedia. Watching over an article that is frequently vandalized and reverting flagrantly poor edits isn't ownership (I have a number of articles that I watch over that way myself). Reverting edits made in good faith that go against your "vision" of the article would be what I consider ownership. But if you meant the former definition then I understand. -- Atama頭 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is that I'm the only person to make any substantial edits to these articles, & it appears to be the only one to even read them. (I've been embarrassed to discover typos & grammatical errors in them that I made & have gone unfixed for months.) You can decide which category these should go in. In any case, I'm happy to leave these little bundles of joy on someone's user page at any time. -- llywrch (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A little Clue to those who are going to User talk:Linas and suggesting Citizendium: Citizendium policy in this area is unequivocal and clear. Had Linas made edits such as this, this, this, or this at Citizendium, xe would have been immediately and permanently banned from the project (even if Citizendium were giving second chances, since Linas made this edit back in 2007). Citizendium does not want this sort of thing. Yes, there's irony in someone who wants things done the way that they are at Citizendium acting in a way that at Citizendium would have xem thrown out on xyr ear in short order. Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. However, at CZ this scandal would not start, since CZ people tend to be less bold than careful, and to first propose a change on the talk page (unless correcting an evident mistake). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns,

User:Pr3st0n

All for naught. Valiant effort by Pedro, though, a hat tip to you Sir. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:06, 16 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.

---

Nothing left to talk about; time to let the archive bot handle this

Pr3st0n (talk · contribs ) Asked to help Pr3st0n with copyright issues after his recent RfA (in which I did not participate), I discovered evidence of considerable copyright confusion in that he had copied content from many websites into the article Lostock Hall (see User_talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2#Copyright_problems.2C_Lostock_Hall). He addressed this, but yesterday I was made aware of some image issues. Some of these also arise from copyright confusion (he evidently believed if he purchased an image, he could license it), but I need review of one set of images that raise questions of intent. On 18 September 2009, Pr3st0n uploaded this image, with the note that it was "A photo of Lostock Hall library which I took in 2008." This image is identical in every respect that I can see to that at the official website. Note, please, that it seems to show a plain brick facade. On 4 October 2009, he uploaded this one, with a note that it is "Lostock Hall Library as it looks in 2009 after some minor exterior paint work." This image is identical (down to the vehicles in the parking lot and the reflections in the windows) to one published under full copyright by David Scott here on September 25, 2007. Note the paintwork, which would suggest the picture with what seems to be a plain brick facade may be older. (According to Pr3st0n,the paint may have peeled and been redone.) The metadata of the image on wikipedia dates it to 13:36, 25 September 2007--the same date it was uploaded to the other site, but Pr3st0n says that this is just the way it is with his camera. According to him, the van is perpetually parked there. He also uploaded File:Todd Hall-2009.jpg on Commons, with an indication that he is the photographer. This picture is identical down to the shadows to another by David Scott, also uploaded in 2007: [168]. His summary suggests he took the photo on 04 October 2009, but the metadata also dates to September 2007. Note that in spite of an evident difference of two years, even the flowers are the same. Questioned about these images, Pr3st0n asserts that he is the photographer and that similarities are coincidental, possibly attributable to standing in the same place. I do not work much with images, but these seem clearly to be the same pictures to me. I hope somebody can clear this up and prove that I am wrong. But, if they are the same, again, we would now be dealing with intentional copyright deception rather than plausible misunderstanding. Since I have worked somewhat extensively with this contributor, I would appreciate fresh admin eyes to determine what might be the best handling of this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The Todd Hall image, and its counterpart on panoramio, have identical md5 sums; they are exactly the same file. It is utterly impossible that these these are anything other than exactly the same image. Even two images taken off a tripod a fraction of a second apart would have different md5sums. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC) And the two library pictures are md5 identical too. There is no possible coincidence where these two pictures could be taken by different people. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Hmm, Seems that the first thing we need to do is to stop the problem getting any worse. Any other admins comfortable with an admin sanction being issued to Pr3st0n preventing the uploading of images to Wikipedia? (Can we sanction Commons uploads too, or would that need a Commons Admin?). Mjroots (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) He has made unambiguous and deliberate statements that he took these pictures, statements that are clearly and willfully false. Given the thoroughness of Moonriddengirl's questioning of him, any claim that this is an accident or a misunderstanding of copyright isn't possible; he's done it on purpose. He should be immediately, and permanently, blocked. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (e/c) Agreed that it is 100% impossible that those two sets of photos aren't identical. User:Pr3st0n needs to review what happened to another editor who made a similar mistake; lying, and then getting caught up in the coverup to the lie. The time to come clean and be honest about this is in his very next post to Wikipedia; an attempt to spin another lie should be met with an indef block. Intentional deceit is about the worst thing you can do in an encyclopedia, and there will be very serious consequences if he doesn't own up right now. (Also, it's a bit insulting that he thinks we're this stupid, but that's a separate issue I suppose). --Floquenbeam (talk ) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC) (e/c)Oh, very comfortable. The pictures are identical down to the cloud positions. No way were those pictures taken at the same place at different times. His lying through his teeth might indicate a need for outright blocking, instead of just sanctioning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Additionally, Pr3stOn states that File:Lostocks hall.JPG "was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't." He stipulates that it is only coincidence. Yet a comparison with the website photo indicates they are indeed identical - down to the exact sticks and leaves in the foreground driveway. — CactusWriter | needles 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I agree, this user is evidently now engaged not only in a series of copyright violations, but also in building up a large web of lies to cover it up. If there should be anything exceptionally valuable in his non-image contributions, we might do just a permanent ban on image uploads (including a ban on inserting images he uploaded on commons, and a notice to commons admins they should keep an eye out on him); if not, block for lengthy period of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I think preventing further damage must be the correct first response (not sure about commons), though I'd also support stronger measures if necessary. There's no question that the images are not merely coincidentally similar, but as Finlay says, the exact same file. Pr3st0n should be seriously considering their next move at this point. EyeSerenetalk 14:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sanction to be issued (indefinite ban on uploading images to Wikipedia) and logged at WP:RESTRICT then? Mjroots (talk ) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC) As a first response, yes. I can't conceive of any mitigating explanation, but if there is one I'd like to hear it before we decide if a further response is necessary. EyeSerenetalk 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) This is intentional deceit, as Floquenbeam stated above. I'm sorry, but a ban on image uploading isn't going to solve the problem. Deceit doesn't restrict itself to one category. Lies are lies, and these are out-and-out damn lies. I almost just did it myself, but decided to comment here instead. Block immediately. Tan | 39 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, so did I on first reading the thread; it wouldn't be the first editor I've indeffed for causing copyvio problems. I believe we may well end up there yet, but with this amount of attention they aren't likely to do any damage so I don't think there's any rush. They haven't edited for a few hours, so they probably aren't even onsite at the moment. However, what I think we mustn't do is allow this to drag on too long without resolution; perhaps after (say) 24 hours we should just indef and move on. EyeSerenetalk 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Go for it, Mjroots. We can straighten out any changed details after we hear an explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sanction issued, logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Tan, let Pr3st0n at least have a chance to respond to this thread before we take any further action. Does the accused not have a right to be heard? Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Sure, notice I have not taken any admin actions. Tan | 39 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Pr3st0n's on, and claims he can't edit here for some reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Well, certainly not because of anything I did. He says "AfD" on his talk page - I think maybe he should just try again. Tan | 39 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I tried to and comment to this, and it wouldn't let me; I was being shown a "block" message - which was confusing to be honest. The image [File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg] is of my own; I already informed that this image was part of a project to create a web-group for the pub which I was working at between December 2007 - December 2008; and image taken by myself, for my own purposes. So I cannot see why this is a problem. I would like to stipulate that I am not "digging holes to get out of lying". I am an honest person, and have been brought up by my parents to do so. So to make such accusations is out of order; I would never make such accusations to any user on matters like this. Treat others how you expect to be treated in return - that policy sound familiar to any of you? yes, right now I do feel a little angry at the statements made, and the fact that Pr3st0n (talk ) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Just to be clear: your stance is still that the Todd Hall images, despite having an identical md5 sums, are not the same? Tan | 39 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Agree with block. Flagrant denial in the face of indisputable evidence. At least Tan | 39 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Thank you, all, for feedback and assistance. :/ I would have hoped this wouldn't be necessary, but given what looks like copyright fraud, I don't know what else we can do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Concur. We simply can't trust any of the images he's uploaded; we should delete them all. Those that have compatible licences (or whose real owners we can reasonably approach), such as the geograph ones, we can re-upload with a fully compliant provenance. Much credit is owed Moonriddengirl for her level-headed tenacity in pursuing this. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Any Geograph images should be uploaded to Commons. Details on my user page for those who don't know about these Wiki-compatible images. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Hrm. So this user says he took the pic, which is of a place he used to work at. Is it possible that the Pub is actually the one who is using his image, and not the other way around? Left them copies once upon a time, perhaps? Tarc (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I considered that might be the case, but it's not just one place -- the images are claimed by several other photographers, none of whom match the name on Pr3st0n's userpage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Note that the picture of the pub, too, is not discussed in my listing. It is a separate issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC) In addition, it's not up to us to create whatever implausible scenario might have happened. If there is a valid explanation, Pre3st0n can provide it. Tan | 39 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have deleted File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg and initiated discussion at the Commons administrators' noticeboard, with a link to this discussion. Awaiting input from the editor and colleagues at Commons before taking other actions there. Regarding en:wiki, recommend a preventive indefinite block unless he admits the problem and assists with cleanup. Durova325 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Commons discussion is at this thread. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Commons likes to reach its own internal decisions about site management. Durova325 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC) FYI, the User:Pr3st0n.  Frank  |  talk  16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Pr3st0n has been given considerable help from MoonRiddenGirl. Frank also offered a lot of help, but was met with an odd reaction. Pr3ston is either acting maliciously, and thus needs to be blocked, or is never going to get it, and thus needs some kind of fierce restriction. All contribs (text and images) are suspect and will need checking. All comments from pr3ston about sources and licences are suspect, and need to be checked carefully for accuracy and truth. Certainly lying about sources of images which are in copyright should be blockable NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC) He's just provided an explanation. This is no judgment as to whether it's a satisfactory explanation, just an explanation that finally addresses the question head-on, at least. Equazcion (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The editor has been blocked indefinitely.[169] Although I've offered him one final chance at explanation, it's probably safe to say that this has entered cleanup phase. Suggest deletion of all locally hosted uploads by this user; there's just no way to guarantee that anything is legitimate. Looks like there will be a text copyvio cleanup too. Many thanks to Moonriddengirl for her exceptional diligence and patience (yet again--the latest of many). Durova325 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Remaining images Several images remain hosted at en:wiki that were uploaded by this user.[170] Would someone who has local sysop rights at en:wiki please review? Durova325 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Although he states that permission should have been emailed to WP, without an OTRS ticket number we can't verify that so I've deleted File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg and File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg just to be on the safe side. I'm not sure about the remaining three (File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg, File:Disused site of LHMPD.jpg and File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg). I've made a quick run through Google comparing the photos and can't find any indications of further copyvio, but you're more familiar with this stuff that I am. Your thoughts? EyeSerenetalk 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2nd one is on commons as well. Third one should be pd if the date is accurate. I can't read the map closely enough to tell. First one might be a copyvio, but I can't find a source online. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Please double check before posting. That file has been deleted from Commons.[171] PD-1923 material originally published in the UK is not necessarily compliant with Commons hosting policy. At any rate, all of this particular user's uploads that were hosted at Commons have been deleted. We have no reason to trust this editor's assertions. Durova325 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Note also that no source is given for the "1892" map. Is there any guarantee that wasn't made in 1952? Durova325 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) No, there isn't. Just making statements about the remaining (at the time) pictures. I'm not declaring that they are pd or ok based on those statements. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Actually I had completed nuking the Commons file and blocked the editor before starting the subthread (a first: I'd never blocked anyone before at other WMF projects). Durova326 00:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC) According to Pr3st0n, the first one belonged to his grandfather, but it is also at this website under the same title. Pr3st0n also claims on his talk page that File:47008, Lostock Hall MPD, 25th March 1964.jpg on commons belonged to his grandfather. Strangely, it was uploaded in 2006 by another contributor. I don't know what to make of that. It has also been tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but not in connection to this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I was just looking at the dates for those two uploads; I believe the steamtube.ning.com upload precedes the WP one? EyeSerenetalk 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Just noticed you've removed it :) EyeSerenetalk 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC) The version on the website is the identical scan, but was uploaded earlier and is of higher resolution. Plus the version uploaded by Pr3st0n is identical to the one auto-generated by the website from the larger original. It seems a very safe bet that the version uploaded by Pr3st0n was downloaded from there. Whether or not it was originally at commons is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have deleted the File:Disused site of LHMPD.jpg following its deletion at commons as a copyright violation. Given the obvious copyvios on the other photos, it is prudent to suspect all uploads by the editor. Unless they can be definitely identified as meeting copyright policy, they should be deleted. I don't think it is worth spending a whole lot more investigating each photo. — CactusWriter | needles 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, I've completed the set. Note that they provided an explanation ([172]) on their talkpage before leaving for work; I've suggested that, if they wish to request unblock, they do so in the normal way. EyeSerenetalk 19:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) An offer I have made the editor an offer [173]. It is my view that this is a valuable editor who we would do better to have editing than not - if they can get the hang of the place. Specifically I don't think we would want the editor to comment removed around the block. I've notified the blocking admin. Hopefully some recovery can be made from this mess. Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I think that's a very magnanimous offer, and one they'd do well to seriously consider. Depending on their response and them staying well away from image uploads for whatever time is thought suitable, you've got my backing :) EyeSerenetalk 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) If they accept the offer and this results in an unblock, please ping me at user talk. Would reopen the parallel Commons discussion upon request. Durova326 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks both. SarekofVulcan has generously indicated on the user talk page he would also be happy, as have other respected editors including Moonriddengirl who started this thread. Durova, I will of course advise the outcome, although it is likely that it will likely be tommorow (UTC time). I have no full account on commons so can't add any input there Pedro :  Chat  20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Pinging on user talk at either project is fine. Am on Pacific time, so morning UTC would be nighttime here. Might mean a few hours' delay. Durova326 21:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I unequivocally oppose this offer, or any move to unblock. We've assumed good faith in spades, and been rewarded with a torrent of deliberate and wholesale deceit. Fraudulent copyright claims place our users, and our downstream mirrors, at genuine legal risk; to accept further contributions from this individual, under any circumstances, weakens any faith they might have that we're actually serious about giving them a legal, freely-licensed product. Mentoring is also inappropriate; mentoring is right for people who've misunderstood the rules, standards, and mores of Wikipedia, not for the wilfully and systematically dishonest. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 22:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) edit: that's "unequivocally"; d'oh -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure this is a good idea. We have multiple examples of both text and image copyvios. Moreover, when he had a chance to come clean he admitted it about some of the images but lied about the images he claimed belonged to his grandfather that seem based on the research here to be almost certainly copyvios also. I have trouble seeing it likely that this individual will be a net benefit to the project. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC) With all due respect to Pedro, who I have at various times maligned and revered - mostly mistaken on either side ;-) - I oppose this "offer". Finlay McWalter says it well; there were so many chances given for Preston to come clean and there was an afternoon of obfuscation, evasion, deceit, and misdirection in the face of indisputable evidence. This issue was not simply a matter of false information on the wiki, as it was with the previous offender named above. This entailed legal risk. We simply cannot allow ourselves to knowingly accept contributions from an account that has a documented past of explicitly fabricating fraudulent copyright claims. I know that occasions like this will occur, but what if it happens again? What if the foundation is sued, and our users knew that this user had a proclivity to making false claims? I'm not Godwin; I don't know. But it seems the risk outweighs the benefits. Personally, I will never trust this user again. I don't think the community should, either. Tan | 39 04:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm afraid I share the discomfort with unblocking him so soon - I guess with many eyes watching he won't get a chance to do it again, at least while they're watching, but I'm still nervous about someone who only admitted and apologized for the copyvios after been given multiple opportunities, in spite of definitive evidence, and who appears to still have only admitted to the ones he was caught out for. Second chances are great, and I think it speaks highly of the editors involved that one was offered, but I'd have been inclined to wait until there was real evidence that he understood what he'd done and why it was a mistake. That said, I think recalling the offer will do more damage, so I guess we watch and see if he accepts it, and, if so, how he goes after. - Bilby (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Conditions of unblock? Certainly I understand reservations. This was a matter of copyright fraud, not error. Further, it wasn't just a question of a user lying when caught. He lied when he uploaded those images as well, when he explicitly claimed he was the photographer. This means that the deception didn't just happen when he panicked on being called out. He intended from the start to defraud that photographer as well, almost indisputably, as some others. However, there are other options than an outright block. I have one multiple article infringer who was given a second chance who has been submitting material to me before publishing it for more than six months. (I don't have time to do this for Pr3st0n as well. Copyright cleanup is more than a full time job.) If Pedro says he will keep an eye on him, I trust him. And obviously as a community we do have the option to ban certain activities, such as image uploads, if we feel that this demonstration of bad faith does not merit our assuming good faith from him again. And I think it should be a given that any future copyright violations should result in an immediate block, no discussion necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC) There is not a particularly clear consensus to unblock at the moment with four editors arguing above not to lift the block, or at least not yet, but with support on his user talk from a number of others. I much appreciate your extension of trust to me Moonriddengirl, and I also understand the concerns in the section above about removing the block. I fully agree that any further "issues" in this regard from Pr3st0nwould be met with an immediate block if he is unblocked now. Either way, I guess it is all moot until he signs in again, if indeed he does. Should that happen we may need more discussion then. Pedro :  Chat  11:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Yes, I see that there is opposition. It was actually my hope that setting conditions might help those who (understandably) oppose unblock feel more comfortable with the option. :) But you're quite right that it's all moot right now. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I believe I bear more than a little responsibility for starting this, because in reviewing Gareth's contributions, which I've done frequently, I noted an updated photo upload and asked Moonriddengirl about it, and we were off to the races (again). Pr3st0n/Gareth first came to my attention at RfA, when he WP:AfC and despite being told so several times, did not get that the template in question was for a different process, and that he wasn't explaining suitably why the article should not be a GA. When I then tried to show him two more RfAs that weren't going well the week after his, he did not take it well and opened an ANI complaint about my response to the matter. Details are here, and when I was pinged about that thread, I put together some notes here. In particular, note the last comment in the ANI thread. Gareth posted his final comment after it had been archived, showing once again that he didn't get it in two ways this time: first, that the majority of responses to his complaint were not agreeing with him, and second, that the thread had already been archived and further discussion there wasn't going to happen. Skipping ahead to yesterday's discussion, in the middle of it all, when he was blocked, his concern was about being able to continue his adoption assignments , rather than displaying any hint that he was getting it regarding the newly discovered copyright violations. I trust you all see the theme here. Gareth is trying to be a part of the community - evidently trying pretty hard - and does not easily get it when things are explained. He often takes things personally as if someone has walked up to him and slapped him across the face, when in fact what has been going on is that people have been gently nudging him in the direction of appropriate policies to read and people to contact. I understand the violations are violations, and in fact I think I am the one who first spotted the problem in both recent cases. (There was an early image problem as well; see File:Jade ewen.jpg (admins only) from January 2009.) I think after all of the recent activity, Gareth has begun to understand the seriousness of the problem. A lot of effort has been put into making that so - probably a dozen people have spent hours each in doing so. I am pretty sure Moonriddengirl must have spent literally days' worth of effort on the two copyright issues, and I know I've spent a full day or two all told. So let me say this about all that: we aren't yet at the stage that we can't unblock Gareth. He can get it. Note that the image copyright question involves images that were uploaded before his RfA, and before the discussion about his text copyright issues. Yes, there was deceit, defiance, obfuscation, and general stonewalling along the way (in both cases). However, he has made honest efforts with his text, and he has made honest efforts with his adoption process. I haven't seen further evidence of text copyright violations, and we have already instituted upload sanction for images. The offer Pedro made is not an automatic unblock just for the asking. The blocking admin has signed on. At least two other editors who have spent considerable time examining Gareth's submissions have signed on to the offer. Gareth may or may not sign on himself. If he does, it will be a tight leash, especially considering the number of people who think he's already used up all his chances. The pattern is known and would be easily recognized if it started again, and Gareth must know that, or we can explicitly spell it out to make sure. I respect the opinion of those who advocate for refusing to unblock. In many similar cases, I would even agree and say that we should all move on. However, I am very familiar with this case, and I think there is a reasonable chance Gareth can be turned into a productive contributor. There are enough people willing to adopt and mentor (forward-looking activities), and enough who are closely aware and will monitor and correct (project-protecting activities) that I think we can make this work - if Gareth agrees. If Gareth displays a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the problem, a lack of understanding of what is expected and required, or a general unwillingness to make continued effort, I would have to agree that keeping the block in place is appropriate. But if he is willing to adhere to community standards and requirements, I think we can unblock this time.  Frank  |  talk  12:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC) No longer moot. I personally am not comfortable with this attitude: "We all do mistakes, and cannot start pointing fingers at others when they make mistakes too. I would never do that to people, I would offer help and support, not pile on by bullying or making them feel worthless." Although he has admitted wrongdoing, this suggests to me that he still feels himself the aggrieved party (and he is still describing his copyright fraud as a mistake). IOW, I'm not sure there is any real understanding here. This does somewhat diminish my support of an unblock. It is an admission...of sorts. That said, I do still trust Pedro. :) I am lukewarm at best. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC) And neither am I. Given this posting and Frank's treatise above, Tan | 39 13:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Actually, having re-read Pr3st0n's statement, I now also oppose any unblocking. He says, "no deceit was intended, it is one thing I despise, and that is deceitful people." I cannot reconcile this with the fact that he actually said that he was the photographer of several of these images when uploading them. He said this was "A photo of Lostock Hall library which I took in 2008." He said in edit summary at Commons that he was the photographer of this. When he says, "Each time I stated one of those copied photos was mine, I was only trying to dig a way out" he is still lying. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I think what he's trying to say in the response is in reference to his assertions yesterday as opposed to "every time" meaning every edit in the past. Speaking bluntly I do have a WP:BEANS footwear related concern and there is an argument that I'd prefer to keep Gareth on the straight and narrow under this name or one he renames too if you see where I'm coming from. Having said that, if the tide is turning and we feel that the effort / reward investment in this user is negative then that's the way it is and no unblock. Pedro :  Chat  13:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Frankly, we should not use the possibility of beans as a reason to unblock. If they beans again, we'll catch it again with the same amount of effort that would be required if they were contributing as a regular editor and still uploading copyvios...except without the front end effort of mentoring. Syrthiss (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) True. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) I really do understand your concern and have taken the same approach to others for that very reason. However, I don't think we can put him on the straight and narrow unless he is willing to fully admit culpability. I suppose it's possible he intends what you mean, but the "no deceit was intended, and it is one thing I despise, and that is deceitful people" is still just an astonishing statement for me given the deliberate deception on upload. Many of his images were--like other copyright violators--uploaded without such a false claim of authorship. This is typically what I see from people who are misunderstanding copyright--even those who use a "pd-self" tag don't always claim to be the photographer. The claim to have taken the picture is extraordinary, though, and represents (in my eyes) intent to deceive. Lacking clarification, I'm afraid that I still see intent to deceive. (Also, his persisting in his claims that these images belong to his grandfather is troubling, given conversation above. Note that one of these images was uploaded three years ago by another contributor and that, as pointed out above, the other one which was uploaded by Pr3st0n seems to be a copy of the lower resolution image at the website which previously published it. It isn't impossible that these were his grandfather's images, but, to be frank, it's implausible. And Pr3st0n's honesty is certainly in question.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Ah, I see now about that image that he claims was his grandfather's. My apologies, I'd missed that one in the mass of other issues. Hampered by the fact that I can't do anything with the commons stuff and th eimages are now mostly deleted I simply didn't notice that issue until now. Yes, I agree - implausible is the word. Hmm. Pedro :  Chat  13:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Consensus seems hazy Users response to the offer outlined above [174] By the last count (and noting that of those who supported unblock last night only myself and Moonriddengirl have had a chance to review the above reply) the situation appears to be Myself, SarekOfVulcan, Malleus, Camaron, John, Frank and Eye Serene comfortable with unblock, Moonriddengirl luke warm to it, and Tan, Finlay and Joshuaz firmly opposed with Bilby opposed certainly at this time. That does not seem to be a real consensus. Suggestions anyone? Should we wait until others involved have had a chance to digest the response? I'm still leaning to unblock with strict understanding regarding mentorship but it's by no means a clear decision and I admit my bias. Pedro :  Chat  13:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I was posting above as you wrote this. Sorry! After re-reading his apology and full explanation, I am now opposed to unblocking, as I believe he is still being deceptive. Though I trust you, I feel I have no hope of trusting him. That said, I do think we should allow others to digest his response as you suggest before reading consensus here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm also going to oppose. It sounds like we can unblock and have several editors devote time (which admittedly is theirs to devote) to mentoring, and have several other editors checking back in on the contributions because they don't wholly trust them...or we can leave him blocked and let all those other editors continue to be productive, non-lying-about-copyrighted-material editors. I 'feel bad' and he's probably a 'good kid really', but wikipedia is not a self help program. Syrthiss (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm swinging over to weak oppose here, in part because of the bit about setting up a photo sharing site and uploading to there first so he can source it. As above, it appears that he still doesn't get it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I have to say lukewarm is my feeling as well. I won't argue against an unblock, and if an unblock occurs, I won't complain and I'll still keep an eye, but I still don't see much effort to get it as I explained above. And for a while I was really persona non grata for trying hard to help Gareth get it; that may still be the case. I'm not sure I'll be of much use to him going forward, which is why I've largely stayed off his talk page.  Frank  |  talk  14:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Er, just to clarify, I'm more in the weak oppose than firm oppose category. Sorry if my earlier remark came across as a stronger stand than that. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Joshua, my apologies for misrepresenting your opinion. Pedro :  Chat  14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC) If it were my decision, I wouldn't unblock until it was clearer that he understands the full implications of his actions and statements, and until you (Pedro) were confident of a reasonable chance of success. In particular, I'm unnerved by the "people are picking on me" attitude that I think his latest response still displays. However, I have no problem whatsoever if you want to volunteer your time and try to salvage the situation. I don't mean to speak heresy here, I know we eat, sleep and breathe consensus and all, but I'd like to give you enough elbow room to use your own judgement a little. If you're willing to mentor/monitor, and almost everyone's opinion is weak oppose or weak support, I'm not convinced you really have to get a clear consensus in favor of this to follow through with your plan. Perhaps a better question to ask (rather than "do I have consensus") is "is anyone strongly opposed to me giving this a try?" Even though I fear this might be quixotic, I trust your judgement to shut things down if it goes pear shaped. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I oppose any unblock. This is serious, and he really doesn't seem to understand, even though it appears that multiple editors have bent over backwards to explain it. The most recent apology/explanation was more a stream of excuses/finger-pointing and what appears to still be, at best, half-truths. He's been given a lot of opportunities to improve, and, as mentioned above, doesn't appear to get it. I'm also concerned with the reference to being suicidal over this - either that's a lie to get sympathy or a sign that this user may be very unable to deal with the pressures of editing disputes and other drama that frequently occurs on this website. Either way, it does not give me confidence in this user and his future performance. Karanacs (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC) On a purely pragmatic level, would the cost-benefit be worth it? Although his interests are encyclopedic they aren't irreplaceable, and I don't have time to vet this on a regular basis--even purely on the image side at Commons. That would be time away from featured content work and training other editors in digital image restoration (which are rare skills). In all likelihood, the site would be better off if he remained blocked and an editor in good standing pledged to write articles about the things that interest him. Anyone who has already contributed GAs could do this faster than him, without the worries over copyvio. Perhaps if there's an ongoing correspondence, he'd come to understand the right way of doing these things during the interim. Durova326 15:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm flip-flopping. For a block: The amount of time and effort that editors have spent on helping this editor while he's not getting it , and not getting it many times over. And then attacking the people who have spent very many hours helping him to understand. And it's not a simple case of asking which are or are not copy vios. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) To clarify my position: on the plus side, I believe that Pr3st0n is capable of contributing good-quality work, and if closely supervised presents no further danger to Wikipedia. Since Pedro has offered such supervision and Pr3st0n would undoubtedly be watched like a hawk, in this respect I see no reason not to unblock. However... having read Pr3st0n's response, I can appreciate people's misgivings. It's concerning that Pr3st0n's first instinct when caught out was to try to cover up. It's concerning that he believes this is something anyone would do in the same situation. It's concerning that he thinks there's been an element of victimisation ("bullying" is the term he uses) in his treatment. It's concerning that he appears to be trying to occupy some form of moral high-ground in the face of his accusers. And it's concerning that he claims this has affected him so deeply. All this speaks to me of a worrying level of emotional fragility and cognitive dissonance that makes me wonder if we're doing more harm than good by providing Pr3st0n with a support mechanism, and we shouldn't instead be ushering him kindly and compassionately, but firmly, out of the door. If he's unblocked, we as a community need to accept that this is likely to be a high-maintenance investment, with no guarantee that the benefits will outweigh the costs. I'm not opposing, but that's more a decision based on Pedro's character and standing than it is on Pr3st0n's. EyeSerenetalk 16:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Weighing in here from the bleachers: EyeSerene said it perfectly. Yes, there is a possibility that this editor can become a productive editor, but as ES points out, the cognitive dissonance is so extreme that this point it would require an life-altering epiphany to bring about. Soon. Reasonably, I don't see it happening. Auntie E. 16:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC) As I have been working with Pr3stOn and two others on an informal mediation case I discovered the extent of the issues with Gareth last night, having his talk page on my watchlist. I remain neutral leaning towards unblock because on the one hand I get the impression that he actually means well, but on the other does not, as has been stated by others, quite get it sometimes, and takes things a little bit too much to heart (e.g. when quoted policy after engaging in original research). I lean towards unblock mostly because of Pedro's generous offer of mentorship and the fact that Gareth will be watched like a hawk in the event of him being unblocked, and also because I have seen some helpful work at the Eurovision Song Contest articles. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC) To clarify my position as has been mentioned above, I am leaning towards unblock though not without hesitancy. As Alexander has said he has done some good things including helped WikiProject Eurovision, which does always need new hands. I am however worried on if he has the emotional capacity for Wikipedia given his tendency to take things too personally, the talk of suicide does worry me in particular. He also, as said, does struggle to "get it" at times, and that will probably continue if unblocked as shown by his statement. If he could be well mentored and watched he could become a very productive editor, but as said that will require a lot of "investment". talk 18:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not completely opposed to unblocking - I'm just of the opinion that it may need to wait until there's evidence that he really understands what is going on and is fully open about it. My concern was the ongoing attempt to deceive when faced with conclusive evidence, not just with images but with text as well. If he'd just said at the outset "Yes, I stuffed up. How do I fix it?" then I'd have felt better. That said, while he has added a lot of copyvios, under Moonriddengirl's guidance he seems to have worked to fix them, and with her help he's been learning how to do so - which speaks nicely in his (and Moonriddengirl's) favour. I'm not convinced that he won't be a productive editor, and there's even some evidence suggesting that he will be, but I'd like to see that he understands what he was doing wrong, and that he's willing to be honest about his actions, as otherwise I'd be concerned that he would return to these problems outside of mentorship or adoption. Yet if it is determined that he would learn better under mentorship as an active editor, then it may be worth a shot. - Bilby (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I'm only weighing in because there was a request above to get more opinions (pardon me if that request is now expired). I'm only slightly familiar with Pr3st0n due to his recent RfA, which I opposed with a suggestion to take up another role until he gained more experience. I saw him then as a well-meaning and enthusiastic but somewhat uninformed editor who was relatively new to the project (though fairly productive in his time here). But looking over this recent controversy I have to concur with others that he just doesn't get it, which when combined with his willingness to deceive others means that he may not be able to be a net-positive editor, and a block might have to be an unfortunate consequence. -- Atama頭 20:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) I am admittedly a bit biased on this issue, as I am Gareth's adopter. I know that copyright infringement is a serious issue and I know that it is indeed grounds for blocking. I would like to say that after his RFA he decided to get an adopter, so he does want to improve the encyclopedia to the best of his abilities. That being said, I have been impressed by his attempts to become better, and I have no doubt that if he should be given a second chance, he would continue to better himself as an editor. With the help of Pedro and myself to guide him, I think he could learn from his mistakes and become a true net positive to Wikipedia.--LAAFan 02:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I'm not against an unblock if LAAFan is willing to mentor. Pr3st0n has expressed a desire for a name change and a new start. I'm OK with that but any change of name needs to be made known. For the moment, the ban of uploading images should stay. It may be relaxed a little at a later stage (say 1 image per week) once the community has had a chance to assess his contributions. Mjroots (talk) 12:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I remain uncomfortable about unblocking. Having recollection of the Rfa and the subsequent copyright discussions, I was not surprised when I saw Frank's initial question to Moonriddengirl that started this latest episode. It was the reason I didn't wait for Mrg but responded myself. There has been a persistent pattern of "not getting it" (as Frank described above). I remain uncertain whether Pr3st0n is purposely deceptive or simply disconnected from understanding his actions. Either way, I do not trust him. However, I do have complete confidence in Pedro to make a decision -- which ever way he chooses. As other's have stated, Pr3s0n will be watched very closely by many. — CactusWriter | needles 13:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Nope, That's it - Indef Per this which I don't believe for one second I now say blocked indef. The IP's only other WP:RBI Pedro :  Chat  15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Agree, archive this thread to avoid further comments/user satisfaction. Tan | 39 15:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Is it not at least possible that it was a neighbor of his who enjoys seeing Pr3st0n in an uncomfortable position? Reading that edit, it never crossed my mind that it could be Pr3st0n himself. I'm sure that if it isn't Pr3st0n will be along eventually to straighten things out. All I am saying is that I don't think we should assume anything just yet. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC) That's naive. Block him, lock it down, lets all move on. Tan | 39 15:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC) That is taking AGF a bit too far. I've blocked the IP for 24 hours for block evasion. If this causes problems, any other administrator can feel free to reverse. Karanacs (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry Soap, but that really is one extension of AGF to far. It's trolling crap by Gareth. I'm mighty pissed off with all of our investment in this to have it end this way. Thanks, by the way, to everyone who made those efforts and my apologies for the way you've been treated by this idiot. Pedro :  Chat  15:50, 16 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.

Countryboyjohn

Resolved

 – Account blocked indefinitely.

Due west (band). However, both were written without sources or categories, and entirely in run-on sentences with the first letter of every word capitalized (e.g. "Due West Are A New Country Music Band They Have A Brand New Single "I Get That All I The Time" The Music Video Has Been In Rotation On CMT And GAC And Is Currently On GAC's Top 20 Chart."). Another user cleaned up the former, and I moved the latter to Due West

and added sources.

Later on, John created two more blatant hoaxes:

Dear Mother, both of which were added to the artists' articles and 2009 in country music by 71.125.113.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is most likely this editor logged out. This IP shows the same editing patterns: capitalizing the first letter of nearly every word (diff), rarely using punctuation, not using rowspans properly in tables (diff), and making several edits in a short period of time (usually to clean up the egregious typos). Both the IP and the editor made false claims of Jeff Bates

having two new albums out in 2010, claims which fooled even a longtime editor of country music articles (not me).

Normally, I would say that an editor with both vandalism and good-faith edits should get only a short block. However, even this editor's good-faith edits are of such low quality that they're nearly unusable, so I'm not sure what should be done. A block is most certainly in order for the hoaxery, but for how long? I have already asked the admin who warned this user for his hoaxery, but said admin has been busy the last couple days so I'm taking it here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bumping since this got lost in the shuffle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see an editor's deleted contributions (as a regular ol' editor myself) but using this tool I see almost as many deleted edits as live edits. I also count up to 6 deleted articles based on the editor's talk page warnings. Combine this with absolutely no attempt to communicate with other editors (either via talk pages or edit summaries) and I can't see any potential for this person. I believe in rehabilitation as much as the next person but you have to have something to work with first.

WP:COMPETENCE explains this pretty well. -- Atama頭

22:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think

WP:COMPETENCE is a good argument. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 00:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked indef. Where a user at least appears to be trying to do it right, we'll go a long way to help out. Where all they contribute is stuff requiring cleanup, they really need to be moved on. However, we'll see what an unblock request (if any) says. EyeSerene^talk 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned user back again

The banned troll User:Barringa has reappeared at the Reference Desk, posting his usual leading questions on vaguely antisemitic themes from an address in the familiar IP range. See here [176] and here [177].

Here's a few links to talk-page discussions of his previous activities: [178] [179] [180] [181] Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC). See also current Ref Desk talk page here: [182]. Malcolm XIV (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also an admitted Light Current sock taking up his cause: [183]. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Removing all my edits

talk

) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• possible edit warring according to this and this. You are both good editors editing almost the same articles (Zain, Circuit ft). I suggest you both read
  wp:3rr. all the best mate. Ecoman24 (talk page)
  16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think somebody with more familiarity with the topic should review. Zen-in was told that he was mistaken in some of his assertions, but also that he could roll back all of CF's edits on Emitter-coupled logic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• They seem to ve been in possible edit warring since
  WP:3RR. any fighting is not good and is not accepted at wiki. talk pages are not battle grounds. No one gets paid to contribute to wikipedia. we will never meet most editors we communicate to. They don't really matter in our day to day lives. Make peace for whatever the price, even lowering your integrity, do it. you will loose nothing. Ecoman24 (talk page)
  17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• There has been a lot of discussion concerning CF's non-stop edits to electronics pages. Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it. If anyone tries to edit the same page he will revert the edits and/or complain to admin. After 50-150 edits, with no other contributions, he will move on to another page, to do the same. There are many editors who completely disagree with his way of presenting electronics because the result is confusing to read. A few months ago we went through all of this with Negative resistance. I and several other editors completely re-wrote this page. I believe that maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles is more important than letting everyone's edits stand.Zen-in (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you scrutinize my contributions, you will see that all my insertions are accompanied with concrete summaries and comprehensive explanations on the according talk pages about the root of the matter. I have been inviting many times Zen-in and other wikipedians responsible to these pages to join discussions. Conversely, if you examine all Zen-in's
  talk
  ) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• CF you should not take the criticism of your edits as a personal attack. Several other editors have stated to you that your writing is unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on your personal opinions and insights (i.e, it is original research). Unfortunately there is a noticeable degradation in the quality and readibility of pages you have extensively edit, at the exclusion of others. You should not take this observation as a personal insult and you should be used to hearing it by now.Zen-in (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hrm, do we have an issue with self-promotion, conflict of interest here? I note a recent tussle over links to wikibooks, e.g. b:Circuit Idea/Revealing the Mystery of Negative Impedance, which all seems to point back to www.circuit-fantasia.com. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Zen-in, this statement (Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it) is/could be interpreted as a personal attack. please, avoid using such statement. they don't help to solve a problem. You both have valid points, defending your actions. You have both made some good contributions to wiki. best thing you can do both is to compromise, not fighting any more. one of you will need to step back. you will loose nothing. worse scenario is, one or both of you may be disciplined. I don't want to see that. you are both veteran editors. Hope you can both compromise. may some one add a section called compromise below. Thank you. This case may also be a content dispute. Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this better? Once CF starts editing a page he will not let other's modify it. If you look at the history of the pages listed in CF's initial complaint you will see they all have long unbroken periods when CF edited them. The root of the problem is CF's use of Wikipedia to promote his university's alternative method of describing electronic circuits, as noted by
  WP:POV. As much as I would like to compromise I cannot because to do so would be to participate in CF's conflict of interest.Zen-in (talk
  ) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you
  Circuit-fantasist, could you also do the same. consider your friend in drafting the solution. Thank you guys. Ecoman24 (talk page)
  21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have not been edit warring since February. I, along with several other editors re-wrote
  Secret Squïrrel, Rogerbrent, and Timberframe since they have dealt with this issue in the past. That is my offer of a compromise. Zen-in (talk
  ) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by:

Zen-in:

This is my offer of a compromise to end any so-called edit warring between

Circuit-fantasist and myself, Zen-in

• WP:COI
  activities that have degraded the quality of many of these articles. He is welcome to edit other non-technical pages.
• Circuit-fantasist on the non-technical pages he does edit. Zen-in (talk
  ) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24:

• Both
  Circuit-fantasist
  to stop editing any disputed article, ADMIN to protect pages mentioned below.
• In future, both
  Circuit-fantasist
  should not edit the same article more than twice in one week or revert the others contribution more than twice in two weeks. Any one doing so will be considered edit warring, and an initial 24hrs block may follow.
• Zain should not edit the following pages Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic,
• Circuit-fantasist not to edit the following pages Negative impedance converter, Operational amplifier applications
  ,
• both of you not to edit the following pages CMOS
• Admin to to protect the following pages - Negative resistance
• Both of you should not use any PERSONAL ATTACK LANGUAGE, see
  WP:PA
  , strict rules may apply
• If you ever found in wanting to edit the same article, please step back, or discuss on the article talk page.
• YOU SHOULD AT NO TIME PUT DOWN your friends personal information on wikipedia. That may be considered HARASSMENT, see
  Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Posting of personal information
  .

I hope this is a neutral solution to the problem that will satisfy both veteran editors, contributing in the area where more editors are needed. Ecoman24 (talk page) 08:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The above is agreeable to me. I can abide by these terms. Zen-in (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the additional comments below. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are painting the problem with an overly-broad brush. Zen-in needs to reign in the emotions a bit and adhere to

WP:COIN would've been a better venue for this. Tarc (talk

) 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Tarc. Zen needs to rein in their frustration, but I see the real issue as being Circuit-fantasist's editing methods and philosophy. They may indeed have some

WP:COI issues, and certainly need to listen to advice from other editors. There also seems to be some misapprehension about what we're trying to build here; I wonder if Wikiversity

might be more what they're looking for?

One question - is there a clear consensus among our regular subject editors/experts in this area that the type of material Circuit-fantasist is introducing is unwelcome? EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to go along with Ecoman24's compromise to keep the peace. My concerns with Circuit-fantasist's edits over the past year are expressed well by Tarc. I will not go into more detail for obvious reasons. The

WP:COIN. It is better that I not get further uninvolved in this at this point.Zen-in (talk

) 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would I want to make a report at COI/N? I'm responding as an admin here :) I acknowledge that there's a probable COI issue, but that can be resolved easily enough if Circuit-fantasist keeps inserting links to their website or other promotional material (a number of options exist, including blocking the editor and, in extreme cases, blacklisting the site). There is, however, a

WP:DR ;) EyeSerene^talk

20:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I understand the problem has been discussed here and there is no need for any further action right now. Is someone going to remove the Circuit idea links from the above mentioned pages Negative impedance converter, and Negative resistance? Zen-in (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Tarc (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by

Circuit-fantasist

:

Ecoman24, I comply on the whole with your recommendations and will do the following to resolve or to soften the conflict:

• I will revise my edits removed by Zen-in and will correct them if there is a need; then, I will place these texts first on the according talk pages to discuss them with wikipedians. I will invite Zen-in to discuss them and will await his answers. If he has adduced reasonable arguments, I will correct my edits again. Then, I will insert them in the main articles.
• I will place all my future edits on the according talk pages to discuss them first with wikipedians and will urge specially Zen-in to comment my insertions.
• I will equip my insertions with links to reputable sources if it is needed; but I won't do that if they are extremely clear, obvious and based on common sense.

talk

) 19:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, Zen-in wasn't the one who re-factored this section, I was, because there was no need for sub-sub-headings cluttering up the contents list.

Secondly, your undertaking to discuss edits before inserting them into articles is welcome. However, with all due respect for Ecoman24's well-intentioned intervention, I think what you need to take away from this is that your idea of what makes an attractive presentation to readers is not necessarily compatible with Wikipedia's mission as a serious encyclopedia, or the normal conventions of presenting such information, or the styles other editors have adopted over years of collaborative working in these areas. Your editing currently gives the impression that you're on a mission to advocate the www.circuit-fantasia.com approach. You should take a look at

WP:NOT, particularly the sections on original thought and soapboxing. As I mentioned above, other websites, such as perhaps Wikiversity, might welcome your approach and your ideas... but please don't persist in using them here. EyeSerene^talk

19:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and for the advices. I have useful resources (circuit stories, pictures and flash movies) located on circuit-fantasia.com that can help understanding circuits; that is why I placed links to them a few years ago. Zen-in has removed all of them. Then I began creating

talk

) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have no involvement in wikibooks and what they allow or not. The problem seems to be with you putting links to there from articles here. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed - although Wikibooks is hosted on the

FA-standard. Since FA requires comprehensivity of its articles, this deliberately excludes almost everything :) It's true that many articles fall far short of this ideal and linkspam can sometimes get out of control, but the state of other articles isn't always a good guide to what is permissible. The sort of material that's ideal for an external link would be something like a copy of an important historical document that couldn't be reproduced in the article for reasons of space and perhaps copyright. An unsuitable link might be one that covers the same material as is in the article, even if from a different perspective. EyeSerene^talk

16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I was heavily involved in the cleanup of the negative resistance article and agree that much of what C-F writes is unacceptable for Wikipedia. I will come on to the problems with C-Fs editing in a moment, but first a few words about Zen-in whose attitude makes this problem ten times harder to deal with than it needs to be. Zen-in edit wars with C-F simply reverting him wholesale, a tactic that had so miserably failed to improve negative resistance over the preceding year that Zen-in resorted to creating a fork article and then left C-F to his "own" article. The first battle at negative resistance, consequently, was not with C-F, but with Zen-in persuading him that the fork had to go before any further progress could be made. Zen-in has shown his attitude above in his proposed "compormise", whose first point is that C-F should be forbidden from editing electronics articles. I do not believe C-F should be forbidden from editing, sometimes he makes a valid point, but because his style is not liked, inevitably the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater in a total revert.

I also do not think that C-F's edits fundamentally have a COI issue as has been suggested by several editors above. The links to Wikibooks and his own website are by and large substitutes for edits of his that have been deleted rather than an attempt to promote those sites. In C-F's eyes the links would not be necessary if he was allowed to write the articles as he wished. The problem is much more one of OR, C-F uses methodology and terminology that has no provenance in the sources, compounded by language difficulties. When challenged, C-Fs response is usually to post extremely long explanations and discussions on the talk page, often retrieving large chunks of text from the talk page archives from a previous round of the same discussion. He thinks that merely the logical force of his own arguments are enough to justify his edits and simply doesn't get the need for reliable sources. A further bone of contention with C-F has been the quality and style of his graphics, which appear to be photographs of lecturing whiteboards. Again, many of these have been reverted, not because of issues with their technical content (although that as well sometimes) but because they include childish "stick men". This is again throwing out the rubber ducks with the waste water.

I am not sure that I want to propose any community restrictions at all here. The essential issue to my mind is to persuade C-F that to write on Wikipedia he must use reliable sources (which does not include his own site or Wikibooks). However, if any restrictions are to be imposed, here is my recommendation for what it's worth;

• Circuit-fantasist not to make any edit in article space, other than uncontroversial maintenance, without providing an inline citation to a
  reliable source
  .
• Circuit-fantasist not to directly insert non-vector graphics into article space. He mus first have his graphics processed by
  WP:GL/I
  into svg format or some other format that other editors can easily correct and amend.
• Zen-in is not to revert any edit by C-F. He may correct and amend such edit but he may not delete them in their entirety.

SpinningSpark 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Spinningspark. I ran into CF about two years ago while editing the Virtual ground article, where I had a lot of the same problems as several of us here had with the negative resistance one, namely OR and unsuitable diagrams. The discussion (and my interest) eventually fizzled, so not as much progress was made as I would have liked. I do believable CF is quite knowledgeable and a valuable contributor, but his ideas are non-standard, often un-encyclopedic and likely OR. I do side with CF that Zen-in has not been as civil and patient as he perhaps should have been.

I think Spinningspark's suggestions are a good idea. With the addition that CF make all his talk page discussions shorter and more concise. -Roger (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene, Spinningspark, -Roger, thank you for the unprejudiced words! I was at the border of despair wondering what to do first - to change my user name (that sounds quite humiliatingly for me) or to remove the links from Circuit idea wikibook pointing to some useful resources located on circuit-fantasia.com....or just to cease my Wikipedia and even Wikibooks contributions and to retire to my site... Because I abandoned my site a few years ago and began contributing Wikipedia and lately Wikibooks with only one thought in my head - to say the truth about circuits to people. If you look at my site, you will see that I updated it for the last time on February 10, 2009! Imagine I have not time to change the date as I have been using every spare time to contribute Wikipedia and Wikibooks. As a result, I have only few subscribers since then! What conflict of interest can you see here? My interest should be to write (pseudo)scientific papers and articles, to make a PHD and then to habilitate. Instead, I have been contributing Wikipedia and Wikibooks and even involving my students to great Wikibooks idea. I have been continuously thinking about basic circuit ideas since (1986) I have been teaching analog circuits and now I know the truth about the most of them. And all I want is to say this truth to people. For example, I want if someone curious reader writes "negative resistance" in the Google window and then clicks on the leading Wikipedia page to really understand what negative resistance is... to learn that there are two kinds of negative resistances - absolute and differential... and to come to know the simple truth that the absolute negative resistor is actually not a resistor but a dynamic source and the differential negative resistor is actually a dynamic positive resistor. Unfortunately, reading the present article, our curious reader will not understand what negative resistance is.

I have been thinking and wondering about this psychological phenomenon: Why when (Wikipedia)people see that someone else (Wikipedian) has managed to find a simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation of some never explained (circuit) phenomenon they do not admire his/her achievement and they do not help him/her? Why instead they do all the possible to destroy his/her work? Please, tell me why since as far as I know Wikipedia is based on a completely different principle - the mutual aid. An example: please, tell me why you (Zen-in and other English native speakers from these pages) having an exquisite style not once have corrected my imperfect grammatical constructions? Is this a typical behavior for Wikipedians?

I would like to note that my recent Wikipedia edits (in

talk

) 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, on a factual basis, with most of what Spinningspark and Roger have said. I am a newbie on Wikipedia and I get bit for trying to do what I think is right. My first impression of CF's work, a little more than a year ago, was that it appeared to promote his pedagogical style and that it didn't belong in an encyclopedia. Feb. 7 2009 is when I started editing Negative Impedance (renamed by CF earlier) but my edits were immediately reverted by CF. A negative impedance is a capacitive reactance, and not the right name for the quasi-DC effect seen with tunnel diodes.

I haven't yet learned how to word-by-word rewrite an article that a) has poor grammar, b) has a difficult to follow analysis, c) has diagrams with childish stickmen (Spinningspark's description). Especially when earlier versions of the same article were very well written. I will admit things did heat up in Feb, but not for over a year as stated above "so miserably failed to improve negative resistance over the preceding year". I encountered a lot of inertia in my quest to rehabilitate this one page and acknowledge playing hardball just to get some forward momentum. I think if I had not acted that way, it would have been a repeat of the

negative differential resistance is what negative resistance

looked like back then.

The agreement at the time (Feb '09) was that other pages, that had developed this same malaise, would be edited, and that CF would somehow change his editing style. Instead, from Aug through Oct. additional pages were significantly changed by CF, with links to his

WP:POV

were not welcome. It is these pages I reverted earlier this week. Most editors, when they looked at these pages, are not interested in trying to fix them with piece-wise edits, for the reasons I have stated.

CF initiated this complaint because of a recent tussle over links to wikibooks, e.g. b:Circuit Idea/Revealing the Mystery of Negative Impedance, my response to CF's impugning Bob Pease, and edits to several pages. I admire CF's enthusiasm about electronics and I think his work at his university introducing electronics to non-technical students is very good. However his oft-stated claim to "know the truth" about electronics doesn't help his cause. His viewpoint is counter to scientific analysis and commonly accepted methods for describing electronic concepts. Incremental analysis, and the use of accepted mathematical techniques are not agreeable to CF. Analogies and comparisons to common place physical effects are useful in an introductory setting, but are not part of mainstream network theory. I think almost everyone in this discussion will agree with this. Pasting banners on the tops of these electronics pages hasn't produced any result. No-one wants to edit them since they are all so far gone. I am the only editor who has done what's necessary to rehabilitate Negative resistance, Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, and Differential amplifier. Some are now being actively worked on by other editors, again. There remain several other pages with the same banners these ones had and similar comments in the discussion area. Most have been that way for a few years and no-one wants to touch them. Zen-in (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

talk

) 10:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the conduct issues but the content issues seem fairly clearly, original research and promotional edits such as this should be reverted on sight. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Further - and it seems to me, when taken in conjunction with his edits, his userpage is promotional in nature and needs dealing with. we aren't here to promote his teaching method. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that C-Fs editing can be characterised as promotional. If he were using his editing to try to sell a training course or a book for instance, that would be promotional, but he is not, everything from C-F is free, the same as any other Wikipedia editor. I am willing to take part in cleaning up articles C-F has been editing, but not if it starts turning into a war of extermination of everything C-F has ever written. If that's what's wanted, I'll leave it to those who are best at that sort of thing.

As I said above, the problem is more one of OR and C-Fs strange ideas, a situation neatly summed up in a quote above from C-F himself: Why when (Wikipedia)people see that someone else (Wikipedian) has managed to find a simple, clear, obvious and powerful explanation of some never explained (circuit) phenomenon they do not admire his/her achievement and they do not help him/her? Once again C-F, let me try to "reveal the mystery of Wikipedia" to you; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia summarising the knowledge of the world. It is not a platform for new ideas. Promotion of new, unpublished ideas on Wikipedia is called

verify this by reading the source and everyone will be happy with the edit. Unfortunately, there do not appear to be any mainstream publications you can refer to to back up your methods so you cannot use this approach on Wikipedia. You must either conform to conventional presentations or take the material elsewhere. SpinningSpark

11:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems a fair summary to me. The outcomes at this point as I see them are:

• Circuit-fantasist has agreed to change their username, which is the first step towards getting away from the promotional allegations. The next step is, as I've noted on their talkpage, to accept that Wikipedia is not a teaching resource or a publisher of non-mainstream conceptual thought - while their innovative approach may indeed be very valuable in aiding understanding, until it's been adopted by textbooks and academic publications we can't reflect it here. They have also agreed to propose potentially controversial edits on the appropriate talk-pages before making them.
• Zen-in has been reminded to follow
  WP:CIVIL
  , and they should also be very careful to ensure they have consensus before reverting anything that's not obvious vandalism; where feasible, improvement is better than reversion.

Obviously further breaches on either side will lead to sanctions, but I hope things are now moving in a more positive direction. Unless there's anything more to discuss, can we consider this closed? EyeSerene^talk 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record here are the other pages that were on my hit-list.

negative differential resistance. I wager a year from now they will still have unreliable content. Zen-in (talk

) 16:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

No-ones stopping you (or anyone else) from editing them; you just need to be careful about unilateral wholesale reversions. If rolling an article back to a previous version demonstrably has consensus support, that's different. I've no idea if you've already done this, but it might be worth contacting

WikiProject Physics) to see if you can get additional views on how to bring those articles back into compliance. EyeSerene^talk

17:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing worth keeping in

negative differential resistance should have been removed in Feb. Unfortunately there is always someone who will want the "alternative viewpoint" represented by these pages to remain. Any attempt by me to edit these pages will make me look like the "bad guy" and I'll just get slapped around some more by a syncophant. I've been there and done that. In a year's time the list of awful electronics pages on Wikipedia will just get longer. Zen-in (talk

) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has helped me to realize what to do in the future. I will concentrate primarily on Wikibooks modules and circuit-fantasia.com where my heuristic approach is the most appropriate. I will contribute more episodically Wikipedia with small edits on the article pages and concise suggestions on the talk pages. Regarding the pages listed above, I won't impede them to be corrected according to Wikipedia requirements.

talk

) 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SPA socking

Resolved

 – taken to SPI

Requesting a checkuser and block of 92.124.117.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for disruptive sock-puppetry at Template:HTTP. Suspected socks include Админ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and AgmuHucTpaTop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest you try submitting a request at

WP:RCU? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk

) 12:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

After further reading I believe it's obvious that these are all the same person, and thus no CU is needed. Also, I think an entire SPI is a little excessive for this blatant single purpose account creation and vandalism. Should not the IP just be blocked and prevented from creating accounts? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 16:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You still should take it to

WP:RCU. The Four Deuces (talk

) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Админ. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:70.249.216.19

I have reasion that

sock puppet. He recalently gave me a false warning. I beleve he is a sock because he only has two contributions, giving me a warning, and talking to NoR, who I made a comment to (which I did not mean to offend anybody by it) I have two suspects of who the "puppet master" could be, but I don't want to make any false acutations. I thought I should bring this to the attition of the Sock puppet invistigation page. regards--Orangesodakid

17:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see the similarity between this user and NoR. In fact NoR congradulated the IP after the edit.--

Expert

17:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternate,

Occam's Razor explanation: an IP editor on a dynamic IP saw you being a bit of a jerk on NoR's page, commented to that effect on NoR's page, and then over-reacted and warned you too strongly about it. If this is the case, what you do about it is: Nothing. --Floquenbeam (talk

) 18:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Interesting, Floq. Either way, as you mentioned, Orange, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• thank you for telling me Drmies. regards--Orangesodakid 18:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is too trivial to justify either ANI or SPI. Wait for something more important to happen, please. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I filled Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nemesis of Reason.--Orangesodakid 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of User:Chandler Bonor

Resolved

 – Blocked for 2 weeks.

On multiple occasions, this user has uploaded fair use images and used them for depiction purposes on BLP articles in violation of our

WP:NFCC policy and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. I warned him about this multiple times in late September (User_talk:Chandler_Bonor#Fair_use_images_of_living_people). On 6 October 2009, he was blocked for creating copyright violations (see his block log). On 9 October 2009 after finding more violations of his post my final warnings, I placed a great big whopping stop sign on his talk page (User_talk:Chandler_Bonor#Fair_use_images_of_living_people_.2A_2). After that, he decided to delve into personal attacks [184]

, for which I warned him.

Today, I find he uploaded File:BillyUnger.jpg, which is a blatant theft from this blog. He didn't put a source or license tag on it, and he placed it on Billy Unger.

I've tried and tried to get our policies on copyrighted images through to this person, and he's just not getting it. Please, somebody block him. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 2 weeks, since the previous 55-hour block didn't get the point across. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:666isactuallyaholynumber

This user posted queries on my talk page and that of another editor asking how to become an admin. The user then answered an unblock request from User:Satan2012forever as though he/she were an admin, purportedly granting the unblock request. It's very likely that one is a sockpuppet for the other. Alan (talk) 22:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both have been blocked, but not by me.

 GARDEN 

22:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 rollback rights

Resolved

 – editor has retired, unless he comes back this is no longer an issue

--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to check User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 rollback rights. They been reverting allot of good faith edits. I found the following edits just today. [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] They even reverted my edit to vandalism and post a warning on my talk page. This tells me that they are ether not paying attention on what there doing or there reverting everyone's edits. After looking over all there contributions I've noticed an unfortunate pattern with there reverts that you might want to block them. They seem to be reverting ALL anonymous user contributions without actually looking at these contributions and deciding weather they are constructive or not. I also seen the user reverting edits back to the previous vandalism. When other users go to repair the article User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 reverts it back to the vandalism.--Zink Dawg -- 01:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems more like a

huggle issue than a rollback issue; but rollback should probably be revoked too. Huggle should definitely be restricted for this user though. Equazcion (talk

) 01:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed rollback. This should not preclude any further actions, sanctions or warnings; I was merely taking the obvious action. This user does not understand what our definition of vandalism is.

Tan | 39

01:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe huggle can be used even without rollback. You may want to revoke huggle too (protect User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1/huggle.css and edit the 'enabled' line). Equazcion (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He still has rollback[204]. Basket of Puppies 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I found much more on the users contributions. It looks like this has been going on for around five months now. --Zink Dawg -- 01:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(Reply to Basket) Nope, refresh your page, maybe.

Tan | 39

01:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hate to be a pain, but, rollback doesnt matter that much. All these reversions were made with huggle, which allows people to speed through reversions, with or without rollback. Huggle should be revoked. Equazcion (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You need rollback rights to use Huggle.--Zink Dawg -- 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. Wasn't that way back when I used it. Sorry. Equazcion (talk) 01:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, huggle can't be used without rollback. This looks to me like a case of "getting to the vandalism first"—treating RCP as a race never helped wikipedia and it never helped you. Anyway, I agree with the rollback removal. This user is too hasty to check his reverts properly or he doesn't understand what vandalism is. In either case, he shouldn't be given access to the rollback tool until he has corrected himself. I'd suggest more careful recent changes patrolling for several weeks, and he can re-apply for rollback if he wants. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Very strange, the link still shows he is a Rollbacker. I even cleared the cash and did a shift-reload. I do trust you, tho, and I'll chalk this up to technical glitch on my side. Basket of Puppies 02:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

See, This page "18:24, October 15, 2009 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs) changed rights for User:Tohd8BohaithuGh1 from Rollbackers to (none) ‎ (misuse of tool)"--Zink Dawg -- 02:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone should remove the rollback rights user box from his user page.--Zink Dawg -- 02:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I see it now. Thanks! Basket of Puppies 03:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the name was familiar. You can see previous discussions about this user here:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive475#Tohd8BohaithuGh1.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29_recent_edits
• Crossmr (talk
  ) 07:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

  Not only that now that I re-read the previous issues in detail, his problem was new-page patrol. Trying to do it too fast and making bad edits. A year later he's still doing it. I'd recommend a block and don't forget his bot account too as its clear that even after a mentor and a year he doesn't want to take the care to edit properly.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 07:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear just what happened between Crossmr's post & a few hours ago, but this user has hung a "retired" notice on his Talk page, & apparently left Wikipedia. It appears any further action is moot at this point. -- llywrch (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sad face. :( As Tohd's adopter I think this is sad as he does do some good work, but he doesn't seem to learn despite warnings etc, and I haven't been as active to be able to tell him off. Sticky Parkin 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Which is unfortunate, but if Zink Dawg is correct and this has been going on for at least 5 months, how has no other new page or recent pages patroller noticed him doing this?--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of one-time characters in Johnny Test

Resolved

 – Page deleted, Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone with the appropriate user rights could check to see how similar this is to the version deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time characters in Johnny Test. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially identical, and deleted. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response/action. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pavel Lukashin

Resolved

 – Page deleted –Katerenka (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place but can someone put this page for speedy deletion because it is a spam. thx Marty Rockatansky (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...

Unresolved

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009,

refimprove}}, and {{Unreferenced}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[205]

and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of

verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭

19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per

WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk

) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User Yogesh Khande

The user Yogesh Khandke comments are in clear breach of Wikipedia NPOV policy.. his quote; "Dickens was a b****y, f*****g, r****t. A white chauvinist p*g. No offence ment to the later. This aspect of his personality is absent in this biographical article of him, and the void has been filled imho by my additions"

With his set agenda and extreme bias this user is contravening one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. He also has unfounded issue with Anglo-American POV on Wikipedia. He has repeatedly highlighted certain unqualified comments to fit his set agenda, whitewash. As a repeat offender i propose user ban from this article. BobSilverman (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Notified user of this section--Iner22 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used *** so that invectives are alluded to. I have been stone walled. I have written hundereds of lines which would not be possible to repeat here unless I go in for a huge copy paste exercise. Would the concerend authorities kindly refer to the discussion on talk:Charles Dickens, please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating my reply to BS's charges, they have appeared on talk:Charles Dickens.

Your clear breach of NPOV, no

self admitting set agenda, yes

swearing, no I have used ***, to remain civil.

racist slurs, no The system is biased, Wikipedia says so, I have not meant to make personal attacks, I have contested views, which I think is fair, freedom of speech

issue with Anglo-American POV yes, is that a reason to be banned???

repeated breach of one of the five pillars of wikipedia, no

i have no alternative but to contact administration. I do not know how to react to this.

Please it is 1.04 am local time here and I need to call it a day, will get back asap. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Censoring yourself does not make your comments civil. You admit above that you were alluding to invectives. How is this any different from saying them outright?

a/c

) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, interesting that he admits to having an agenda...combined with the incivility...I'm not really sure what to make of this user. A problem, for certain. --Smashville^talk 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All of that nonsense should come out of the Talk page anyway,

WP:NOTFORUM. The invective about a long-dead write who can't defend himself has nothing to do with the article. Who cares about US activity in Afghanistan, and what does that have to do with Charles Dickens? Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Charges and my reply

See some charges here Talk:Charles_Dickens#The_five_pillars_of_Wikipedia

I am sorry but you are jumping to conclusions, which is not appropriate, despite your disclaimer, that you have not looked into the matter in detail.

Please there must have been hundreds of lines written on the subject. Do not jump to conclusions. Go through the entire discussion before making comments.

1. Except for the disguised invectives all the other points above are unwarranted allegations. I merely used them to describe Dickens in everyday language, devoid of scholarly euphemisms. But I have alluded to invectives. I perhaps should have used the words, today Dickens would, using everyday language be called a *** *** etc. English is not my first language, and though I understand words and their meanings, I do not know what the fine line between colloquiallity and profanity is, in the Anglo-American cultural context. The discussion page is as far as I understand a little more informal than the article. The American movies that we watch are many times full of profanity, even when families with members of different ages and genders are shown interacting. I have seen atleast one instance of a Wikipedia policy article using a word like jerk which wikitionary marks as (US, slang, pejorative), and gives some synonyms as asshole and bastard. I have no idea what goes and what does not. However in my native tongue, and personally I abhor profanity, and if I come across as profane, I tender an unconditional apology, as I cannot expect others to be sensitive when I am not sensitive to their feelings.
2. There have been no edit wars, so your advice though generally sound is unwarranted in this case.
3. I have not synthesised, I have not indulged in original research, the charge of
   wp:undue
   is unwarranted and not based on evidence,also you have to prove that only a minority of reliable sources hold the view that Dickens held racist views. Please quote one non-white non-Christian source that exonerates Dickens of the charge of racism.
4. Please read the discussion carefully before making charges, though your disclaimer says that you have not arrived to indict anyone.
5. As far as I can judge the situation, the editors involved are comfortable with their differing views, and I have stated that I do not need arbitration, or rfc, but am prepared to wait, for other editors to come in. Please go through the entire discussion before forming opinions.
6. wp:FREE
   which says editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Have I abused my privilege as an editor, unless criticising imperialism and slavery and white supremacist ideology is construed as a violation of this privilege. In that case I am prepared to relinquish my editing privilege, not on this article but on Wikipedia as then Wikipedia would not be worth to be around imho.
7. I have written that I have contested views and not attacked individuals. I have supported my arguments even on the talk page with reliable sources. I have gone through
   wp:LEDE
   and have quoted it above. It seems to confirm my arguments, but if there is no consensus I will not indulge in edit wars, this was and is my stated position.
8. I have not violated
   wp:V as every word I have written in the article has been sourced from good reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk
   ) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• For context, I believe this is in reply to an attempt I made to mediate / intervene. For those who'd like to see the comments Yogesh is responding to, they're either here on the articles talkpage or in the box below (reproduced for convenience). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments that are responded to above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, I have no idea who the two of you are, or what started this dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved here. (So, this is based on a cursory review of the discussion, and is not an attempt to indict anyone in specific). So here goes: There's no need (or excuse) for cursing out the subject of an article. Doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, or if you spell it out or use asterisks. See WP:TALK if you need clarification. We work by consensus. Just because you think something doesn't mean it should be in the article. If you want to enact controversial changes, you need the support of others. To put it another way, we don't actually WP:V , and that takes precedence over ones own opinion. Any controversial statement needs to be backed up by sources. For example, if you feel that Dicken's is racist against the swiss because in one chapter he has a character shovel other swiss characters into a meatgrinder, that's not enough. It would be undue weight . That is to say, if only a minority of people hold the view that Dickens was racist against the swiss, it should described as such in the article.Note:after reading through the article, it would appear that there are at least enough sources to justify the racism section at least in part. The WP:LEDE should summarize the key points of the article. I don't currently see a justification for including the race issue there. And lastly, Wikipedia is not a battleground. The viewpoint that prevails in the end will be the one with consensus, not the one that makes the most edits. If you make edits that are continually reverted, you need to build consensus for your views, or if consensus goes against you, recognize that. If you feel a wider viewpoint is needed, start a Request for Comments , don't repeat edits against consensus. Hope that helps some. --Bfigura (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links for the referred comments has been given above already. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to charges here

1. I have replied to charges of incivility, though incivility is usually used in the context of other editors, also I have an agenda: try to make wikipedia articles multidimensional, and not just a perpetuation of the Anglo-American world view and bias (which has been acknowledged by Wikipedia, while following all Wikipedia rules,) is that a problem?
2. The charge of
   Holocaust in the same breath, events which had a hundred year gap. Do you wish I come up with reliable sources that connect Dickens' white supremacist
   attitude with US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
3. I do not claim to be perfect. But I have no hidden agenda, all my cards are on the table, and I am pledged to play the game by its rules. Is that a problem? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

1. WP:CIVIL
   does not require you to be incivil to a specific editor. Claiming that articles show an "Anglo-American bias" is a loaded accusation so, yes, it is a problem.
2. Connecting Dickens to modern American wars would be
   original synthesis
   and against the rules.
3. We're not here to play a
   game, so neither should you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
   21:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One source for 2 above

This one is not first class, let other editors judge.[[206]] It can atleast prove that I am not a mad railer imagining things. Dickens was a white-supremacist and a racist and a imperialist. Remember more people died in the Bengal famine than all Romas, Romas, Slavs and others in the Holocaust. Imperialism was a seriously damaging ideology, based on white supremacy, whose supporter was Dickens. He was an active campaigner, Jamaica, Rae, 1857-India, he used his weight, to further its end. (Do you want

wp:rs for this, check his article.) Yogesh Khandke (talk

) 04:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're using what looks like a socialist blog to prove Dickens's imperialist racism. That's not only not "first class" but it would take a great deal of effort to find a less reliable source than that. You seem to be editing simply to make a

point which I assure you is not going to be successful. -- Atama頭

21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, as you said previously, Wikipedia just may not be for you. We do not allow people to slant articles to fit a particular point of view, nor do we allow racism (regardless of which race it's against). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh Defends

It is amazing that people here just do not have the patience to read, but simply want to jump to conclusions and condemn. I will reply in the order of appearance above.

1. On the issue of civility please see
   Charges and my reply
   point 1.
   1. I am not claiming that articles show Anglo-American bias, Wikipedia acknowledges that English-Wikipedia shows an Anglo-American bias as a systemic limitation. (to see internal link, check talk page of Dickens) I am merely pointing out that the Dickens' article is one such.
2. Connecting Dickens' to American imperialism is not my fantasy, just as there is a connection between Fagin and the Holocaust, events 100 years apart. This replies to Atma too. The cited source is a site with 3.4 million hits, too bad it is socialist. Are socialists the new Untermensch? (Atma in Sanskrit is soul, just a randon musing). Atma (please read before rushing to accuse), I have not used the source to prove Dickens white supremacist ideology, there are other sources and they are there in the article. Please check. It is a pity that I started on a back foot about the source though, it is pretty sound. I did that because blogs are not considered good sources irrespective of the blog's ideology, or quality.
3. To play the game by its rules is a phrase, if you are not aware of its usage it is not my fault. Phrases to my knowledge (which is limited though, considering that English is not my first language) are not shredded to pieces. Just to help you here is one example of usage: [207]
4. I am editing Dickens' because I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should not be uni-dimensional, is that a crime? I repeat if Wikipedia is here to perpetute a certain vision, sweep the unpleasant under carpets, it is not worth any sane person to spend good time with it? What my views are and what my agenda is, is hardly important as long as I do not violate Wikipedia principles and practices. The Dickens' article was and remains slanted, to borrow your term, I'll give you one example, the Inuit-Franklin controversy was hidden between verbiage, even an editor who spent lots of time dueling (a figure of speech, don't take it literally) on the discussion page could not find it. How would a casual reader? The Dickens article was/is like the Tower at Pisa, I am merely putting/have placed counter weights to straighten it. I have not been the first one and hopefully not the last.
5. Theoretically racism can be in any direction, but have hundreds of thousands of white slaves ever been shipped to Africa? If they have it is equally reprehensible. Even if one has it is atrocious. For my other disclaimers and views on racism please see my user page, Dickens' talk page and my talk page. As I said my cards are on the table. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Atma's Allegation that

I have climbed a soapbox

Please come up with instances where I have

1. indulged in propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment
2. indulged in writing opinion pieces.
3. Scandal mongered, indulged in self-promotion or advertising.

Either prove or withdraw this allegation. Please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yogesh, you're starting to exhaust the community's patience here. Your entire purpose seems to be to advocate a position ("Dickens was a racist") and your persistent single-mindedness on this topic is what's causing the friction here. Several members of the community have pointed out to you that your actions are not within Wikipedia's rules, and your attitude has been very confrontational. I suggest you let this matter drop. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A few members have alleged that I have broken rules, I have demonstrated above that such allegations are false, unwarranted and unfounded. There has been no heat generated on the Dickens' talk page. Yes my entire purpose for the moment with reference to the Dickens' article is to ensure that the said aspect of Dickens' personality is adequately represented in the article, such multi-dimensioned articles would enhance Wikipedia's worth. Aren't remarks such as "Yogesh, you're starting to exhaust the community's patience here." and "your attitude has been very confrontational" themselves examples of attempts to browbeat. I have not brought this matter up, I have been "put on the docks", I am merely defending myself. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, my name is Atama, which is Japanese for "head" (which is also written in

biographies of living people have stricter standards). -- Atama頭

20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My class mate and friend works and lives in Tokyo. His children go to school there. His daughter and son once told me about hirakana, katakana and kanji (I hope my memory has not failed me). Thanks for the information about Atama. Wonder whether it has any relation to Sanskrit Atma, head and soul don't seem too far away.

A summary of NPOV is

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

I have a lot to learn and improve, no doubt, but please give me one instance where I have violated the above when editing the article.

Advocacy (as well as I can understand it) in simple words means to act and communicate on behalf of others or ideas, such as an advocate of free speech or prohibition or gun-control, or pro-life or the homeless or gays or white supremacists. Now cite one word of edit I have made related to Dickens' article which falls foul of above. I found a lot written about Dickens' and his white-supremacist views on the net, I checked his article, well some of this was there but was camouflaged to hide (well please don't raise the red flag, oh I should assume good faith,) scattered here and there, plus his in-famous remark "...exterminate the race (Indians), ... blot them off the face of the earth..."", was not there I put it there. Please check the article's history, there have been no edit wars. I wish you would tell me Yogesh xxxxx is what you wrote in the article but it should have rather been yyyy because of zzzzz reason, and that would make me a better editor, strengthening Wikipedia. If you check history, and see the talk page, I started with primary sources, an editor commented on it being inappropriate, he asked me to find

wp:or, so I found the sources, wrote is xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ok, on the discusson page, there were a few iterations, after he was satisfied he wrote to the effect, "oh it is fine", then it was added to the article. Just one example. Yogesh Khandke (talk

) 21:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

My Japanese is admittedly rusty (I haven't studied it in nearly 15 years, holy cow I feel old now) but what you remember about the different writing systems is correct. :)

Here are my problems with your arguments which I believe amount to soapboxing. Admitting to having an agenda, while good in the sense that it is admirable to come clean with regards to your intent, is in

edit war is shown to be false due to a brief look at the history of Charles Dickens, where you are seen to have reverted the same information many times. This is all in an attempt to use Wikipedia to get out your message, which is the definition of soapboxing. -- Atama頭

22:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I wonder why allegations are repeated, now hypothetically, I find it like somebody is telling me if you murder you will be hanged. My desire is to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. I am starting to learn the ropes. My opinion is that editors with varying backgrounds would enhance Wikipedia's worth, and make it less biased in favour of any particular view point, the way it is now, as it itself acknowledges, please check Dickens' talk page for links. I have been misunderstood or I should have been less ambiguous. My give me one... , is a figure of speech. A hyperbole. It is meant to convey the meaning that, imo there would not be many Jews who find Fagin any thing but rabidly anti-semitic. Reg. edit war, have I made many reverts? Any reverts for that matter? Here is revision history of Charles Dickens article.[208] Is there even one instance of the three reverts ban being invoked? Or even a see-saw of edits. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the issue raised by Atama is that you need to understand that certain types of edits are simply unacceptable, regardless of what beliefs you hold. I'm not sure if you're looking for examples, but one would be the RS issue mentioned by Atama. Another would be this [209] edit and summary. As you've said, you're new to Wikipedia, so there is bound to be some learning curve. However, I think the community is concerned that you understand that you should not repeat certain behaviors (not talking about edit warring, or POV pushing, just the things I listed here). There also seems to be a wider concern that you're only here to push a POV, which as others have said, isn't in alignment with Wikipedia's goals. Best, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Happy Diwali

1. The
   wp:rs
   issue referred by Atama was about a source used on the talk page and not in the article, please be patient and check the context before commenting.
2. The edit you have linked, what is bad? is the source bad? That would be the only complaint, as the content is not my imagination but from the quoted source. Please prove source is bad.
3. I hope to keep learning, even when I would need adult diapers. Not just Wikipedia but in life.
4. Wikipedia's goal is a representation of all views, see
   wp:npov
   , within the framework of it editing principles. It even acknowledges that English Wikipedia suffers from a Anglo-American systemic bias. My actions are intended and would serve to further Wikipedia's goals.
5. I will not repeat profanity, which is an unlikely lapse from my side, which I myself abhor. I was trying to communicate in a language which I (erroneously) assumed was merely informal and not dirty.
6. I have learnt that I have to be double careful with rules when it comes with the prejudices of a certain race group and their
   holy cows, or my action would be no balled. Other editors At least one other editor (though this one is a anon so I don't know what action can be taken) can get away with a comment like "They (Muslims) worship the mofo as some kind of god.[210]

Wish every one a Happy Deepawali and a prosperous new year! Will be back on Tuesday (IST) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:WolfJack45

WolfJack45 (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit warring at Chinatown and making legal threats, claiming his edits were copyrighted and nobody could edit them (at least, that's what it seems to mean). He was unblocked on the grounds that he would retract his legal threat. Does this screed continue the legal threats? He also is apparently claiming that his brother works for Wikipedia. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. Definitely smacks of legal threat. Though I suspect it's some kid screwing around, perhaps someone should contact the Foundation to determine if the most recent statement has any basis in fact? GlassCobra 20:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

User:MuZemike has re-blocked him. Who then was a gentleman? (talk

) 21:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indefinitely blocked again. He was warned by myself (full disclosure: I unblocked him for retracting his previous legal threat) upon threat of another block not to do it. If any admin wants to take a second look at it, go ahead, but I think this is pretty clear. MuZemike 21:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We could use a checkuser here, as I strongly suspect

socking as well as sleepers (that is, if WolfJack got through). After looking at the histories of Talk:Chinatown, Manhattan and Talk:Chinatown, San Francisco

, the following accounts are pretty much guaranteed to be sock puppets of each other:

• WolfJack45 (talk · contribs)
• Conpac4 (talk · contribs) (the "brother" I think WolfJack was talking about)
• DreamShips221 (talk · contribs)
• DennisChow (talk · contribs)
• SlopChop (talk · contribs)
• Weslo2 (talk · contribs)
• BobFromPhilly (talk · contribs)
• HobLub (talk · contribs)
• InspectorDetector (talk · contribs)
• VirtDave (talk · contribs)
• CrimsonChina (talk · contribs)
• JohnnyLovesJazz (talk · contribs)
• BlassMass (talk · contribs)
• RandolphMulligan (talk · contribs)

(Note that I have just also blocked DennisChow and SlopChop as obvious socks and for good measure, even though they're both stale for CU purposes, anyways.) Well, so much for assuming good faith. MuZemike 01:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: all accounts blocked. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Redirected and Cannot be Undone

The page Pirate Radio (US) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pirate_Radio_%28US%29&redirect=no was redirected to The Boat That Rocked, the reason cited for the move was "more proper dab, considering movie is about uk." While it is true that the subject matter of the film is about the UK, the (US) in the title was in reference to the US release of the film. The Boat That Rocked was a previous release of the film, from which it was substantially changed and entirely re-branded in order to be released in the US. The Pirate Radio (US) page had different information including a different poster, synopsis, release date, links to trailers, etc. The redirect is very confusing to the US audience who know the film as Pirate Radio and are looking to Wikipedia to gain information about this film. While The Boat That Rocked was released first, it is in fact a different film than Pirate Radio which is why there were two Wikipedia pages created.

When attempting to undo the move, the message received was "The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use Requested moves to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the article by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the article text." We would greatly appreciate your help in reverting back to the original Pirate Radio (US) page and your assistance in regaining the entire article about the film.

talk

) 20:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, please make this request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, as suggested to you by the system message. GlassCobra 21:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. The material in question was at Pirate Radio (flim) which is now deleted as a possible copyright violation. The flim page was created 8 October but the copy and pasted material had been around for at least a week prior. Having looked at the material there was nothing there that couldn't have been merged with The Boat That Rocked and there was absolutely no indication that "The Boat That Rocked" was "substantially changed and entirely re-branded" or that "it is in fact a different film than Pirate Radio". Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

links are not in English (may be vandalism)

Resolved

 – nothing here requiring administrative attention

Can someone check this out? [211] I have no idea what the link is about. Leaky Caldron 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki links, looks like. Protonk (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's thai. Totally kosher. If you want you can ask the editor to say "interwiki" in the edit summary, that always helps me figure that out at a glance. Protonk (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Could be Thai. The

Hunters in the Snow is returning a HTTP 404. Leaky Caldron

That's because the link is from The Hunters in the Snow. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks Leaky Caldron 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(The above was my mistake with the wikilink. I did dif.

Hunters in the snow but at the time the Thai article did not exist, resulting in the HTTP 404 error.) Leaky Caldron

Is there a "stuff in foreign language, please can someone translate so I know if anything needs to be done or not" noticeboard? It'd be handy for a bunch of stuff. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The format of the links should make it clear that they're interwiki links, [[xx:foreignname]] where xx is a wiki code (usually a language code). kmccoy (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A single look at a diff should have been enough to tell most people that [212].--

Crossmr (talk

) 01:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well no need to jump down his throat. :) He's probably just never seen interwiki links and didn't know what they were. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to admit: 99% of interwiki link additions that I see do not have any edit summary whatsoever - it's one of the most annoying things, like, ever. (

BWilkins ←track

) 09:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

[citation needed]. Most of the interwiki links I see on the articles I watch are always bot done and contain descriptive summaries.--

Crossmr (talk

) 09:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

We run in different article circles, although I have seen a handful of properly-summaried interwiki links, as I said, the majority that I have run into have not. (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Anne Fairbairn

 Done

Someone (not me) has requested that some edits be deleted (not oversighted), see

WP:BLP/N#Anne Fairbairn. Nil Einne (talk

) 13:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take I've taken care of it.--Slp1 (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Watch this editor user:Smartse

Smartse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), may some one watch over this editor, i am going away now. He is reverting articles without proving his claims. He reverted this article Tahir Abbas claiming that he could not verify the information. simple google searched produced the information needed. Again he has done it. thanks guys. Ecoman24 (talk page) 19:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't comfortable with an editor's actions, generally you would begin by speaking to him or her about it. This is step one of

dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

20:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note MRG. I'd searched to try and find sources for the claims but couldn't find any I considered to be reliable. Ecoman has used Tahir Abbas's website as a source to state that he is a member of the Royal Society of Arts. I'm sure it is true but I can't find any third party sources saying it. I'd hardly say that this is worthy of an incident here.... Smartse (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, we don't use "simple Google searches" to verify information in articles. We use proper references to do that. If you notice information that is challenged but unsourced, and you find reliable sources in a Google search, you should

add those sources yourself to the article for verification. -- Atama頭

21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he meant "I searched on google and found websites with the information he wanted", not that he's using a google search page as a source. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I assumed that myself, which is why I suggested that instead of finding sources using Google and telling other editors that he did, he could just add those sources himself. -- Atama頭 16:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

further addition :* I am not sure this information he removed in the article List of largest UK law firms is spam.

• on the article Trafigura, he removed the information which could be verified with web achieve, stated in the link
• On the article Gang, he removed the information, claiming not appropriate, if facts are relevant they should be incorporated elsewhere. I wonder why he couldn't have put that information some where himself
• he proposed the article Weidemann Company saying the author seem to have {{COI}}.

Comment.... This isn't about fighting smart. This is about helping him to understand. I find most of his deletion to be not well justified. He need to learn to use appropriate templates rather than listing an article for deletion cause of {{

Unverifiable}} template. he need to access information well before deleting. I suggest that he calms down with the way he removes contents. He is a good editor though. He does some work well like he did to the article Carter-Ruck, and his talk page. I do hope that he will take these points into consideration. Thanks. Ecoman24 (talk page)

06:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wacker Construction Equipment AG which lists Weidemann as a brand of that company. Can we stop random accusations and get on with improving wikipedia? Smartse (talk

) 10:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

thank you User talk:Smartse for the responses. as i have already said, this was not about accusing you of doing wrong things. while RC patrol, i noticed the error pointed out above. I reverted it and corrected it, within few minutes, you were back and did the same. if you had done it the third time, it would have appeared to be edit warring which we are all trying to avoid. thanks. case closed with you now. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't avoid it by escalating immediately to ANI. We avoid it by leaving the other contributor a note saying, "Hi. I noticed you were doing this, and I'm not entirely sure why. Can you explain?" A read through

WP:DR might be helpful here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

11:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban

The would appear to be yet another inappropriate and disruptive ANI post by Ecoman24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I had thought Ecoman24 was under mentorship for this type of thing. Since that isn't working, I propose the following:

• That
  Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  for a period of three months.

Any comments? ➜Redvers

It's bona to vada your dolly old eek

❞ 10:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

anything wrong, point it out? Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tell me what is wrong? Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(I have moved your comment; you placed it inside of Redvers' note.) The directions and or suggestions at the top of the page you did not follow: (1)You must notify any user that you discuss; (2) Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. (3) This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues." There was nothing in this situation that required administrative intervention, which suggests that you may not yet understand the purpose and function of this page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

fair rational, I left the msg here for some one to watch over the user to avoid edit warring. I appreciate your rationale which I have now taken into account in future comments on ANI. I withdrew all the further wrongs i pointed out in his edits. Thanks. Ecoman24 (talk page) 10:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't just about the above thread. It's about every thread you have contributed to. Your talk page is littered with people asking you to stop such posts; you have people commenting on your posts asking if you're trolling them; and each time you promise to change, promise to get better, promise to be mentored... and then post here on ANI again with something else inappropriate. You've been asked not to post here. You didn't listen. So now I'm asking the community to formally restrict your posting here. ➜Redvers

It's bona to vada your dolly old eek

❞ 10:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And now, surreally, you've gone running to Ironholds and lied to them about the nature of the above proposal. I'm starting to agree with others who have accused you of trolling. ➜Redvers

It's bona to vada your dolly old eek

❞ 11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm hesitant to be that punitive towards Ecoman. It is clear that they do not understand the purpose or process of ANI. Rather than prevent access, perhaps Ecoman would be more willing to voluntarily refrain from posting in ANI threads for a period of time.

I highly recommend that they may continue to watch and read, as they will learn how some portions of Wikipedia actually work - however, I urge them to realize that the type of interaction that takes place in here is not the commonplace pattern. Wikipedia is built on community, and ANI is where anti-community violations come. Combativeness is not the norm.

One needs to have a good grasp of Wikipedia as a whole before jumping into ANI (or even WQA for that matter) - it took me thousands of edits before I even dipped my foot in the ANI water.

My honest suggestion for Ecoman: go out and edit articles. Join a project. Understand Wikipedia. Read policy. Become a respected editor. Then come back, start monitoring ANI without comment - start to understand how policy comes into play, and learn the "investigative techniques" used.

If your goal is to eventually become an admin, you'll need at least 5,000 edits to even be considered, and you'll need to have made a positive name for yourself.

ANI is not for everyone's pleasure - it's supposed to be serious business. (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just got the talkpage message he left me, and generally agree with Bwilkins. I say "generally" because I'm not convinced a strictly voluntary restriction will work. How about this; Ecoman is prohibited from posting on AN/I. I take it upon myself to act as a mentor to him, and as part of that if he runs into any disputes he runs them past me. If I feel that yes, it is a valid dispute, I give him the go-ahead to post it here. I see this as killing "two birds with one stone"; we prevent the posting of "inappropriate and disruptive ANI posts" without preventing the posting of any real problems, and also offer him an avenue in which to, as BWilkins suggests, go out and edit articles. Ironholds (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support I'm torn between out and out troll or well meaning but bumbling incompetent. Either way, his contributions here cause more problems than they solve, the edits listed above are non-problematic edits from an editor in more than good standing, he's been editing three years and never been blocked. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - I think Ironholds would be a great mentor, Ecoman seems to be well-meaning but putting his foot in it every time and some guidance might help. And I agree with Bwilkins, I stayed away from ANI for years because I didn't feel confident my input would be useful. And I'm sure I was right to do so because I was so clueless for a while (I cringe at some of the ignorant arguments I made as a newbie). Not that I suggest that Ecoman is that bad, but I at least knew enough to stay away where I would do more harm than good. Heck, even now sometimes I worry that my comments at ANI aren't all that helpful. -- Atama頭 16:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from Ecoman's Mentor Forgive me for not catching this myself, battling a bit of a cold and school work. I have advised him for now to stay away from ANI and focus on editing. If he still want's to help with dispute Resolution then he can try
  ^Speak.
  16:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

User:Skater. Ecoman24 (talk page)

17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what we're getting at is that you've really had no reason to post on ANI in the first place, hell I even tend to avoid posting in this sea of drama (except the big stuff, If I recall last time I posted was the banning of dougstech). The post you made here shouldn't of occcured, you should have talked to the user directly and if that didn't work

Wikiquette Alerts

. ANI and AN are for administrative action.

As for your thread about the vandal, it's a common mistake to post those here, but they really belong at the

^Speak.

17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support formalizing this ban + arrangement (between Ironholds and Ecoman24) for an indefinite duration - until further sanctions are no longer necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC) However, if the arrangement does not work out for any reason, I support the original proposed ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Ironholds has ever officially volunteered to Mentor Ecoman, shouldn't we know before we try to formalize such an arangement?--

^Speak.

16:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I take his comment (at 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)) to be sufficient to formalise an arrangement whereby Ironholds is his mentor, at least to the extent of giving him clearance on whether a dispute should be posted to ANI or not. But I'll clarify my vote in case that does not work out for any reason. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alleged "admin misconduct" at Mark Levin

An editor complained at my talk page of the conduct of admin User: Gamaliel at Talk:Mark Levin. I scanned the talk page and the contributions of Gamaliel but saw no problem. However to prevent any allegations of "admin collusion" I am posting this here for uninvolved review. Manning (talk) 04:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything flatly objectionable, but again I dunno what to look for and a quick look seems to tell me this is part of a topic I do not touch. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a garden-variety content dispute.

Dispute resolution is that way. Rd232 ^talk

17:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD closure

talk

) 14:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Closed (and deleted). FWIW, I gauged the consensus with a fresh eye, despite Joe Chill's attempt to interpret it here.

Tan | 39

15:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete? Really? Usually I align with you so well on these things. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

"Is notable in (foreign country)" is not based on en.wiki policy. I felt the delete arguments had a stronger basis in policy. If you disagree enough, take it to

Tan | 39

15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm off to take a closer look at

BWilkins ←track

) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates for Deletion is now Templates for Discussion

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

What's done is done, and no one seems particularly interested in reversing it. I would just point out that erring on the side of over-notification and

Publicizing discussions widely is always a good idea. –xeno^talk

19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

I had to call attention to this, though everyone here probably would've seen it soon anyway.

Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion#Requested move

The name change for TfD was the result of a run-of-the-mill move proposal at TfD's talk page, when I really think it should've been a community-wide discussion. I was personally not aware that this was being discussed, and only found out when a TfD log page I was watching was moved as a result of the close of the discussion. At closing, the move discussion involved 7 editors, which includes the closing admin.

I'm actually in support of the change, but I think we still need to remain vigilante about not handling decisions (especially big ones) in the "back-room". I'm not accusing anyone of malice, only of perhaps a lapse in judgment. Equazcion (talk) 03:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. It was discussed at the main discussion forum for such a move, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. It stood for a week on the official movereq announcement page. There was a redirect from "discussion" to deletion" before, and now that is a redirect from "deletion" to discussion". May I also point out that agreement was unanymous and instantaneous among all those who commented. An important factor was that the recentintroduction of templates for merging had made the rename uncontroversial and imperative. We are not at fault if people sleep a week long, then wake up and say "oh, it's raining". Debresser (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The entry at

WP:CENT would've at least been a good start, in my opinion. Equazcion (talk

) 03:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is

WP:CENT? I have 40,000+ edits, and never even heard of it. Talking about a "needle"... Debresser (talk

) 03:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should spend some more time doing something usefull. Working in article mainspace, or improving something (like a template or a maintenance category), and making constructive additions to discussions. Spending less time on wp:ani (or wp:cent for that matter) will do us all a favor. Debresser (talk) 03:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. CENT would have been a good idea. ANI is about as widely watched as CENT. If anyone does actually object to this then we should move it back and post it to CENT. In the meantime, this seems like not a big deal. Moreover, changing the name of an internal page sholdn't be a big issue: The goal is writing an encyclopedia. It doesn't matter much if we call ANI "Happy, fluffy bunny page full of sunshine" (WP:HFBPFS). Moves are only an issue substantially when they impact either how the project functions or something that readers will see. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The move was made because it was intended to change the way that aspect of the project functions. Equazcion (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The move was made because it was the more logical name. Nothing changed in functionality. Debresser (talk) 04:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm under the impression (perhaps the wrong one) that the name was changed so as to open TfD up for merge discussions etc., rather than focusing on deletion. If nothing changed in functionality, it seems to me that's only because certain people have begun using TfD for those things lately already, and now sought to make it official. Equazcion (talk) 04:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your first impression was wrong, the second right. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Which wouldn't be a problem, if it weren't the same people executing both the change in practice and the subsequent push to make it official. It seems rather machiavellian to me. An open proposal and wide community discussion would have been the better choice, I think. Equazcion (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is a good idea to widely publicize things like this. See
  WP:Publicizing discussions. Did anyone inform the various script writers (Twinkle, etc.) to expect this change? –xeno^talk
  04:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Ooh. That's a good point. This could break stuff. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Schutz was informed, because he does daily maintenance. Others have not been informed especially. Thank you for pointing that out. Debresser (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest changing this back procedurally (per the script issues) and starting a process RfC to discuss the proposed rename, posting to Village Pump and the Community Bulletin Board. That should give a better range of feedback from the community. Durova³²⁶ 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I would note that the proposed change was discussed twice at

Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion and also at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) before it was posted at Wikipedia:Requested moves. I'm not opposed to even wider discussion, but this isn't something that was rushed through. It's just that there were other venues for discussion that weren't fully exploited. --RL0919 (talk

) 17:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TFD discussion. It seems like it was brought up a coupe times in the past and was discussed rather briefly. I don't think all three discussions can be said to combine to equal a wide consensus, but that's just my opinion. Equazcion (talk

) 17:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know that it got raised at VP. Still, since there's this much dissention it may be best to open an RfC. Durova³²⁶ 03:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reverse and have a full and open discussion about it. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 16:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard of WP:CENT either. Support Durova's suggestion. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment A reversal would actually break WP:Twinkle, which has already been changed (here). Are there any other commonly used scripts for posting at TFD? Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Twinkle's rewrite following the move didn't seem to take all that long, so presumably it could be changed back just as easily. Plus, Twinkle's author would be notified ahead of the change this time, rather than after the fact. Equazcion (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support opening a discussion, but oppose reversal of move. As one of a handful of admins who helps out at TFD, I believe reversing the move would make the problem even worse in terms of "breakage". Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no need for more discussion, let alone reverting. What was done, was done properly and rightfully. I suggest you all go back to editing. Debresser (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that if there were something controversial about the rename, or if there would have been raised any (reasonable) objection, I am sure broader discussion would have been instigated. But being that the move was completely logical, precedented by a perfectly happy Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and not even one voice was raised in protect, I see no reason to presume a need for further discussion. Debresser (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Does anyone here seriously opposes this renaming -- or know of anyone who might? If no one objects to the renaming, let's just invoke
  WP:IAR here (because we got to the right place by a slightly irregular way) & let this go, but in future instances like this make an effort to ensure more visibility. However, next time a pervasive change like this happens that is off a lot of people's radar, since everyone now knows to publicize discussions of important changes, reverting for the sake of following procedure will be more meaningful. -- llywrch (talk
  ) 17:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the change, only with the way it was handled. I've actually proposed in the past that merges and such should be options for TfD closings, rather than that "default to keep" practice that often doesn't result well; the answers I got were along the lines of "TfD is to decide whether or not to delete, period". So change would seem to address that issue, but there could be significant objections. A concern also might be that people could become inclined to take shortcuts in the future, if there's no consequence when it happens. But if no one else feels this is any real concern, I'm alright with IAR. Equazcion (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
    • If the concern is mostly about the future and not about the substance of this particular change, then as one of the participants in the earlier discussions, let me say that I for one already take this incident as a lesson in the importance of publicizing such proposals more widely. --RL0919 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - leaving aside whether this change was good or bad, Debresser's responses are somewhat abrasive and non-conciliatory - "This is ridiculous.", "I think you should spend some more time doing something usefull." (sic), "I suggest you all go back to editing." - not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people. Exxolon (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no issue to win friends... Feel free to disagree with me. I really think you (generally speaking) are fucking ants here (as my father used to say. A Dutch expression of utter contempt for bureaucracy.) And I indeed hold that no further discussion is needed.

wp:cent, the sooner the better! Debresser (talk

) 18:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, this is an admin hopeful, ladies and gentlemen. Equazcion (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack? I am expressing my opinion in colourfull descriptions. You should thank me for livening up the discussion. Talking about turning an ant into an elephant... Debresser (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Or do you want to propose banning all those who disagree with the purpose of

wp:cent from being admins? I do not believe in worldwide discussion of trivial and local problems! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs

) 18:43, 17 October 2009

I'm deciding whether or not to continue responding to this particular tangent, but if I do so it will be on your talk page instead. Equazcion (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

This 'fucking ant' will make sure to be bright and early at any RFA you have. have a lovely day --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, "fucking ants" does not mean that you are "fucking ants", G-d forbid, but that you are engaging in the practise. It's a Dutch expression. Debresser (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just your general passive-aggressive manner - it's not something I look for in an Admin. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting what you mean by "passive-active agression". Please use my talkpage, if you feel like expanding on this. Please rest assured that I have no immideate plans of becoming an admin, just that it is easier in fixing templates, many of which are editprotected. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also notice that

wp:cent claims to be for discussing policies, not such trivial things as renames. Debresser (talk

) 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The point was that the discussion should have been publicized. Cent itself was just a suggestion, though most would disagree with you on its use. Cent is used for any discussion requiring broad input. See its history, which includes several rename discussions. Equazcion (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me. I have said clearly, that if there would have been anything controversial about this rename, or if there would have been any (serious) reservations, I am sure broader inpout would have been seeked for. Just that this specific case is so trivial, that making a point out of it, is rather out of order. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Cent is for any central discussion. It should have been used as this is a change in a central process. Anyhow, this discussion isn't going anywhere, I'm closing it. Read

WP:Publicizing discussions and take its advice to heart. –xeno^talk

19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A sort of ‘low level’ edit warring

This

be very hard of hearing. Falun Gong related articles are a mess, but I think that this user is trying to pointedly disrupt and oppose a consensus that could seriously improve this article. I am sure that this user, and the other editors at the article, all have strong opinions about what is going on, and I sincerely hope that this does not escalate the issue (I hope to resolve, not exacerbate, this dispute.). Irbisgreif (talk

) 06:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would observe that the Falun Gong articles are subject to Arbcom probation, and that HappyInGeneral was a party to that Arbcom case. I have been in direct contact with him, and have been in more than occasional conflict with him for several weeks now. He exists in a very different paradigm to most people, and suggest that he be given a very stiff warning on his talk page. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, you are certainly most welcome to review my edits, and while you are on it, I would love to if you could provide me feedback on how to improve and be more helpful for this encyclopedia.

Now regarding this nomination, let me add a bit of context, which is outside my edit history, but still perhaps helpful to evaluate it:

• Regarding the 2007 Arbcom dispute, back then I was a junior editor, and the reverts, [213] I made where characterized, to quote one of the administrators, "Edits show restoration of well sourced image. Fred Bauder 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)". Also the user who did the repeated removal was banned. Now the image is gone from the Persecution of Falun Gong page, most likely due to activities like where PRC apologists make sure to sanitize all the pages for anything that would document the persecution of Falun Gong. One such example of relation is here, but I agree that this might not be the most significant sample.
• About my nomination here, Irbisgreif was previously involved in such attempts [214], like renaming the article to something other then persecution, like "Policies of the People's Republic of China concerning Falun Gong.", Then when Ohconfucius renamed the article, for which there was no consensus, only an outnumbered vote of the clan, Irbisgreif moved and requested a page protection move, to make sure that the name stays. See here: [215], [216]
• About the consensus and the moving of the page. Consider that this new attempt to dilute the persecution page, this time started with saying that the persecution page is a subset of the
  WP:FA work on a related page, and tried to seek advice on how to proceed. After explaining the facts, and after he took some time to do his own research, he concluded thta the persecution page needs to be created again
  as a separate page. For now this is a rough copy/paste which will need to be worked up to be as encyclopedic as possible.

• So far what I presented is only a tiny bit of context, and I'm sure if I where to do a bit of data mining, tons of things would surface. Still based on this little context, you might be able to see why "very stiff warning on his talk page.", to quote Ohconfucius, would be useful for some editors. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not dispute the previous rename attempts (Policies, &c.) and subsequent discussions. I do dispute that I moved the page to “History of Falun Gong”, as I did not. Also, I requested move-protection because there were several moves in quick succession (I still watch these pages.), and I wanted to head off a move-based edit war. Finally, I feel that calling people “PRC” apologists is a personal attack; I know that I'm insulted, at least. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention to personally insult anybody, so I stroke that out. Have a great day! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that civility. I may be a communist, and I may disagree with you, but it's not out of a love of the PRC. Irbisgreif (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is also related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Falun Gong. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher

Hello. Anybody remember the discussion about

WP:MYSPACE. And, judging by his archives, I think he's refusing to go back to his own wiki beacuse Roux wouldn't give him a cookie. I hate to do this, but I really think a block is in order, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!)

09:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I"ve left him a strong warning, but if I had my admin bit I'd delete all of his subpages alongside that warning. Also, this thread belongs on ANI to where I've moved it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I noticed that, sorry, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

For anybody unfamiliar, here are the other cases against the user,

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Guitarherochristopher, again
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Guitarherochristopher
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#Block_needed:_compromised.2Fshared_account
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#User talk:Guitarherochristopher

,Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 09:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He has over a 100 article space edits so I don't know why don't just ignore it unless it is affecting other users. And he is using his user space for article stuff. I don't know why this user is any different to all the other users which do it.--

Otterathome (talk

) 09:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. When he started out he had almost 100% article contribs (all about Coldplay stuff, but that isn't that bad). But recently he started making random unconstructive edits, and even more recently, he started focusing almost solely on his userspace and talking. If you look through his archives, you can see all his subpages that were deleted because of being games, on some he even ignored the warnings and recreated them. You can read all about it in the above links I provided. Just look at is recent 50 edits. About 0 of them are to articles, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember GHC has a disability of some kind (autism?). As long as he's not causing damage to the project itself it's probably best to leave him along in his user space. Mjroots (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we here working on an encyclopedia or are we here to provide a happy corner for special ed needs? Jesus,

WP:UP#NOT is a widely-accepted guideline. Why are we practicing selective enforcement? Tarc (talk

) 12:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the /revamp page as an obvious violation of WP:NOTMYSPACE. Totally agree with Tarc; Wikipedia

Tan | 39

13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What Tan said. Further this user has a habit of posting

non free images on various bits of user space so we're not even in a "does no harm" debate I'm afraid to say. [217] [218] [219]. Pedro :  Chat 

14:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Guitarherochristopher has had his own Wiki made for him by Roux. He can do what he likes over there, just not here. But he seems to be refusing to go back unless Roux gives him a cookie. See here (scroll down on that same page to see an example of GHC's blogging). Given that Roux is retired, I think that may be a tad difficult, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear GHC needs a friend, and WP is really only for making enemies. And an encyclopedia! I agree with Tan and Chat. Bandwidth is a precious commodity. Drmies (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I see all these good arguments.Very good. But does anybody have any suggestions on what to do about him!?! Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Final warning given [220]. I think it covers the points above? I think a blocknow is unfair (although maybe not unwaranted) without a final cluebat. Pedro :  Chat  15:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment:We only have the word of someone posing as his father, that he's autistic. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Uh... I accidentally made an unwelcome discovery. Since this ANI report was created, GHC hasn't made any edits to Wikipedia. He's been at the wiki Roux created, working on this. I don't know if it matters in this discussion, just thought I'd throw it out there. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with a block but only if his random editing continues. As ALI said, he hasnt done anything since this was made...--

Expert

16:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. He's been at his wiki, making fun of User:Roux. At least I think he's making fun... I've never heard Roux described as "Queerer than a three-dollar bill." A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

and since when does Roux like me? He Hates me!!! Im getting confused by reading it...--

Expert

17:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Given that it is claimed that GHC has

Autism, it may benifit us all to read the article. Mjroots (talk

) 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What does that have to do with anything?

Tan | 39

17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice proof that no good deed goes unpunished! –xeno^talk 18:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He may be autistic but remember

Expert

18:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, does no harm doesn't mean "does good". If the statement about autism were not waved, would we say this was OK? Nope. Warning, warning, block.

_complex

18:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Tan and WLU. WP is not therapy, and if GHC cannot be productive, he should be shown the door. GlassCobra 22:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't get the point everyone has been trying to get him to understand. I myself have attempted to use a software/friend tone with him in hopes of him realizing his errors. I agree that no exception should be made for him, but we should be tolerant in that as he has contributed in the past. Let's hope he resumes to contributing in a positive manner. And if would helplp if he removed the siren/strobe light from his user page... Netalarmtalk 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're mis-using the term software, as it is a noun, not an adjective.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, meant "softer". This is what happens when the keys are all so close and when I stay up too late. xP Netalarmtalk 20:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)