Wikipedia : Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590

) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

An additional note, per his last message on

) 17:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec ... this "letter" from an author, that sounds awfully fishy, and is obviously not verifable as a

) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Rutherford didn't bother looking carefully. In the first case, OBrasilo's claim that the articles are being redirected against consensus is untrue; the only one objecting to it is him (see here) along with a few IPs on the other talkpage which are geographically similar. I haven't followed the second case but it appears to be that Collectonian is reverting persistent attempts to add large amounts of trivia into a featured article. Probably not the best idea to remove the talkpage section but frankly the IP which is OBrasilio (who strangely appears to forget to log in a lot - how difficult can it be?) is just reposting arguments which have been discussed and rejected. 86.148.109.82 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

the articles ARE being redirected against consensus, obrasilo posted the consensus on the talk page of windows odysses article, please read it.

And I myself was now warned by Collectonian about disruption of these two articles even though i was just keeping consensus (which was clearly posted on the windows odyssey talk page).

As for what happened in the other article mentioned here, i read that too and i dont think obrasilo is bullshitting about the letter, i dont knwo why but he sounds convincing to me.

and no im not a sock puppet of obrasilo, i dont even know who that guy is and i welcome any admin of this site to IP check me to prove that.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And yet...you, a "new" editor pop in to defend him despite your having no knowledge of this discussion through visible Wikipedia communnications, and somehow he came to your defense on articles in which you have a clear COI with as an employee of MS (or former employee, depending on the day it seems).[4]. Both you, Obraislo, and his IPs have all been the only reverters of those articles as well. He also stated that "we" have provided sources - which would seem to indicate some possible meatpuppetry or socking. I think an SPI wouldn't be unwarranted in this issue. As for the issues with the Windows articles between OBrasilo, Lin, and Schmucky, it should be noted that most of this occurred in November and December. --

talk · contribs

) 17:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, I didn't notice you, because you explicitly told me not to post on your talk page, which I respect, so that's why I didn't notify you there. And I did notify you on the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, though, so please.

And you warned Lin Godzilla for disruption? Read the consensus of those articles he edited, LOL. He was the one keeping the consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat went against consensus. Six out of eight people are for keeping those two articles as is, this means 75% consensus. This is a huge consensus, and SchmuckyTheCat keeps going against it, rejecting the articles as "speculation", just because he refuses to acknowledge that information.

Also, please notice, that the guy isn't un-related, he admitted to have worked on both Neptune, and Odyssey projects, which means, he COULD be trying to push a MS Marketing POV by redirecting those two articles.

As for the stuff with Collectonian, I admit my apology there. However, she should have simply reminded me of that, and ended it there, instead of throwing accusations at me, that's all I wanted to say. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT me, Collectonian, they go to Dallas, USA, whereas I'm in Slovenia, Central Europe. And they aren't proxy IP's, so you just slipped up big time here. How nice of you to accuse everyone who dares agree with me of being a sock-puppet of mine. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

those ips arent me either. my ip starts with 70, not 76, and im from florida, not dallas which is in texas.

and collectonian here seems to be bending facts to prove that obrasilo is a bad user, so i have a question for here - dear collectonian, have you maybe thought that the guy simply forgot the content of his apology and then did his action in forgetfulness? because thats the first thing someone assuming good faith would assume, but i think youre clearly assuming bad faith here.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The contiual concerted efforts of these two to deliberately try to escape 3RR on the Windows articles in question seems to speak for itself, as does Lin's assertion that he is "from Florida" while also claiming he is from Seattle Washington[5] Will wait for admin responses. IPs are not the only info used to determine socks, nor as their being in different ranges really relevant. They can be spoofed or proxied. Behavioral evidence can also indicate either sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, and as OBrasilo has already shown he will engage in off-site meatpuppet recruiting, assuming that much good faith would be beyond naive. --

talk · contribs

) 17:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

So because they agree with Lin, and me, they must be sock-puppets? Come on, get real. And you just violated 3RR yourself in the Windows Odyssey article.

Please, do some research. I'm the founder of three Beta forums, and sorry, but a lot of members there agree with me about those articles, and yes, I can give you access there, so you can see for yourself, that I haven't been involved in any meat-puppet recruiting there.

Yes, I tried to recruit meat-puppets on the Magic-ball forum for the LBA versions stuff, but only there, and I also acknowledged it's wrong, and stopped with it. Now you're trying to use what I did just one time in all my period of Wikipedia membership, to prove that that's how I am.

You're just trying to bend the facts to support your view, that is, that anyone agreeing with me, is a sock-puppet, or meat-puppet. This is lame, at the least. - 212.235.186.231 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

collectonian, i was born in seattle, WA and now live in tampa bay, FL

also you violated 3RR in the odyssey article, why are you even editing it? you dont

WP:OWN

it. and the consensus youre defending is non existant - the only three people agree with with the redirect are schmuckythecat and two others, but the only one actively pushing the redirects is schmucky. had he never started his redirect war in the first place, we wouldnt be here right now.

Lin Godzilla (talk) 18:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The December AfD clearly shows that consensus was to merge or delete. You "two" are the only ones who feel otherwise and are the ones acting against consensus. You don't

talk · contribs

) 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, about the message you left me in the talk page - I have provided reliable sources, namely, the site by Paul Thurrott, and the Microsoft Anti-Trust law-suit. It's just, that SchmuckyTheCat keeps rejecting these two sources as un-reliable, based on personal dislike about Paul Thurrott, and on no reason as for the law-suit.

Also, again, I'm a founder of three Beta forums, it's obvious that people recognize me, and that my friends, and other members of my forums, will support my views. No meat-puppetry involved here, since my friends supprot my views without me having to tel them anything. It's their decision. It's obvious they're going to be against redirecting those articles, I don't need to resort to sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry, sorry.

So, please, you're rejecting our consensus based on no reason here. As Lin Godzilla said above, were it not for SchmuckyTheCat, no-one would be redirecting those articles, as of now. He started it, and refused to discuss it, even resorting to snippy comments. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, what? The AfD ended in no consensus, as for deletion. And the merge vs. stay as is dispute, was to be resolved on the article's talk page, which I attempted to do, by starting a new section there, and the only person to express the support for the merge was SchmuckyTheCat.

There are four people against the merge. One is me. The second is Lin Godzilla. The third is 142.47.132.6, which is user Marcello from my OSBetaGroup forum. And another is 76.x.x.x which is another member of my OSBetaGroup forum. And I can easily give you access there, to prove, that no meat-puppetry is involved there.

So, if anything, it's 4 out of 7 people against the merge. And this is majority. - OBrasilo (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting the Meatpuppetry.[6] You recruited friends from your forum, again, to try to help you in an edit dispute. I politely request that an administrator take over at this point. This is not the first time this has occurred, and per

talk · contribs

) 18:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not admit any meat-puppetry about the Windows Neptune, and Windows Odyssey articles, so please stop bending my words to fit your own POV. I simply stated most of the editors come from my forum, but I also stated I did NOT ask them to come here, and edit the articles. They did so of their own accord, which means there's no meat-puppetry involved, whatsoever. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2010 (

So, several editors from your forum just "happened" to all decide to come those articles that you were involved in an edit dispute on, despite having not edited here before or since? Hmmm....--

talk · contribs

) 19:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Several? Only one, 142.47.132.6, which is Marcello. Only him, and I, among the editors, are from my own forum, and I didn't even know he was editing these articles, until he stated so himself in my forum's chat box. Lin Godzilla I met for the first time here in Wikipedia, and I don't have direct contact with him even here on Wikipedia, let alone off-site contact, which I don't have with him at all.

And the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, whom I only met on IRC, once, and he even insulted me then. So he even hates me, and he's not a member of any forum. Hardly someone I could ask to help me. - OBrasilo (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian removing someone's post on the talk page[7] is totally inappropriate. She states in the edit summary "nothing more to discuss - its been discussed and its not going to chan)". She decides something shouldn't be done, and then dismisses the opinions of others, trying to shut out any discussion about it. So the complaint about her being uncivil, I believe is quite valid. Recently, in the article for
Characters and wildlife in Avatar she insisted the article had no reason to exist, kept trying to replace it with a redirect despite protest, even during active conversation on the talk page about this(please read the responses of others to her actions [8]), others agreeing with those complaining here.) And yet, during the AFD that followed, the overwhelming majority of people said Keep, and the AFD was closed as Keep. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Characters_and_wildlife_in_Avatar Just mentioning that as another example of her mentality. Wikipedia is decided on consensus, not the opinions of someone who decides something shouldn't be there, and tries to eliminate it. Dream Focus
20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

As you are about as far from neutral as possible in anything related to me - I'd request you stay out of it. You are not an admin and randomly throwing out AfDs that have nothing to do with this topic is irrelevant. The complain about any incivility with be dealt with people who do not have an ax to grind with me and love to accuse me of stalking while doing s0 himself. --

) 20:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with me commenting on your removal of someone's talk page message, nor me mentioning a previous case where I find similar, to demonstrate your are, as the accusser claims, uncivil towards other editors. In both cases you reinsert a contested redirect into an article, and argue on the talk page in what I would say is clearly an uncivil manner. Dream Focus 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A redirect contested by a single person (which meatpuppets are considered) against the AfD consensus is neither uncivil nor inapproriate. And as long as your maintain your

talk · contribs

) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you may not remove or re-factor another users talk page comment without good reason. It is against policy and it is disruptive. It sounds to me like you are trying to silence those who disagree with you. Jeni ^(talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the entire history before making such a claim. It is not against "policy" nor is it disruptive to respond to a disruptive editor. Whether it was an appropriate response does not make it an incivility issue nor an administrative issue. The sock/meat puppetry, claims to be speaking for a famous, living person (

talk · contribs

) 22:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The key words being "without good reason".

WP:UP entirely allow refactoring of disruption. Orderinchaos

23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason, just disruption by the person doing the removal. Jeni ^(talk) 23:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I felt there was. When he restored it, I then left it there to allow someone else to review it instead. What is disruptive about it?

talk · contribs

) 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Collectonian, I don't claim to speak for the author of Tokyo Mew Mew, I copy+pasted her own words here. Accusing me of fakery is a deliberate personal attack, targetd at circumventing and nulling any, and all, opinions, that disagree with you.

And stop with you meat-puppetry and sock-puppetry accusations, un-less you can provide hard evidence for it. Because subjective obviousness is NOT evidence for anything, which you do not understand. So please, cut it off with you accusations.

Me never doing something to validate said letter? Of course, maybe because the letter wasn't sent to me directly? I don't even know, what e-mail address my friend (mr. Nakamura Hiroshi) received it from, I told you to ask him, and even gave you his e-mail address, he'd be glad to help you validate the e-mail address. But of course, you never did that. You keep asking me for validation, whereas rejecting the one means to validate it, which I provided you.

And yes, I admitted were done by members of my own OSBetaGroup forum, but not because I recruited them to do so. And first of all, only two of us who edit the article are from my forum - mr. 142.x.x.x who is user Marcello, and me obviously. Andrew Lin is NOT from any forum of mine, I have no off-site contact with him, and the 76.x.x.x guy is Lad Hattiur, who even hates me (but just so happens to agree with me on Neptune, and Odyssey), so hardly a viable meat-puppet. Mr. Marcello edited just a single talk page of Windows Neptune, to add an innocent comment, and didn't even tell me about that. I didn't even know the IP was him, until I asked him on IRC, and he told me it was him.

After Lin Godzilla, and Lad Hattiur (76.x.x.x), I don't have any contacts with them out-side of Wikipedia, with the exception of Lad Hattiur, whom I met on IRC, once, and only once, and got even insulted by him then.

So, apart from me, the only one from my forum editing those two articles, was mr. Marcello (142.x.x.x), who did it of his own accord, so where do you see meat-puppetry here?

And Collectonian, the stuff you attempted to remove from the Tokyo Mew Mew talk page, and the last thing you removed from your own talk page, was not disruptive stuff. It was, in the first case, me attempting a civil discussion, and in the second case, my apology, complete with the author's letter. Nothing disrupting in either case. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you did claim to be posting a letter for the author, which is claiming to speak for them. You have never proven that the email was from them (obviously because you can't). It isn't my job to validate your claim, it must actually be validated BY the author. Claiming it came from this person who got it from this person isn't proof at all. Further, if she has something to say, I'm sure she is more than capable of actually doing it herself without having to daisy chain some email between multiple people (and funny how you originally claimed she sent it directly to you, and now it supposedly came from other folks). You continue to admit the people reverting for you were from YOUR forums and NONE have edited at Wikipedia before or since except to revert for you. That is meat puppetry. And, FYI, I can remove anything I want from my talk page and yes it was disruptive. You agreed to stop harrassing (your own words) over the issue and that you were wrong, yet you started right back at it again. That is disruptive and just provides further proof that you seem to be less than honest and straight foward in your dealings here.--

talk · contribs

) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just what the heck are you on about? Obviously I never claimed the letter was sent to me directly. I always clearly stated it was sent to me through my contact, also because the author of Tokyo Mew Mew doesn't speak English well, so it would be use-less for her to send me the letter directly. She sent it to my contact, who is the one who knows her, and who translated the letter to English before sending it to me.

As for validating BY the author - again, she does NOT speak English well, or she would have registered here herself. Use some damn logic. Also, I told you to e-mail my contact, so he can validate the letter, but you refused that. I can't prove squat myself, I'm not the one who got the letter from her directly, I don't know from what e-mail address it came, nor anything else. My contact knows, and he's not a member of the Wikipedia. Sorry, but if you want to validate it, you MUST contact him, since he's the only one who can help you here. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Check the

BWilkins ←track

) 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla

There is something shady going on here. I suspect that the

ping

21:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The question is what to do about it? Orderinchaos 23:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the

ping

12:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Also wondering what, if anything is going to be done about the pretty obvious meat puppetry, at best, going on here. --

talk · contribs

) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla also relies on the (dubious) assertion of his employment to push his POV: where do you see speculation? im a ms employee and agree, enough?, Do we need another Essjay-level drama here before some admin intervenes?

ping

15:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Lin Godzilla is not my sock-puppet, nor a meat-puppet. Please stop with your base-less accusations. Prove I have off-site contact with Lin Godzilla, and/or that my IP's match his, or stop. I'm tired of your continuous denigration of me, and anyone who dares agree with me. See, this is exactly the problem of Wikipedia. A few select editors decide to keep some articles one way, and whoever doesn't agree, is automatically grouped together under the meat-puppet pretense. Please provide hard evidence for your claims, before pushing them further. Subjective obviousness is not hard evidence.

As for the user editing the CHWDP article - maybe he has Polish relatives, or maybe he travels to Eastern Europe often, and so knows about the subject? Again, you're trying to judge based on circumstantial evidence. - OBrasilo (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me guess: a Chinese American (by name) working at Microsoft cares enough about an utterly obscure Eastern European topic that's not even remotely IT related to tag spam the article in his first few edits on Wikipedia? An knows how to link to some Polish organization in it? An that's his only edit beyond revert warring on the Odyssey/Neptune articles?

ping

17:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of evidence has already been given and I am not the only one who strongly suspects your going on. A few "select" editors who do no edits except to support the two of you, and which you have admitted multiple times are people you know and magically just happened to only have an interest in supporting your view of those articles? That is meat puppetry whether you want to admit to it or not. Nor are the accusations "base-less", as noted by others above, and by your own past history. --

talk · contribs

) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

For any admin reading all this, another 76.x IP has popped up and is reverting those who are actually attempting to salvage

) 16:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruption from IP socks has begun again: [9] [10]. They restore an unsourced version of the article full of speculation, and mark their reverts as "reverting vandalism".

ping

17:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

What evidence has been given? You're only given subjective interpretation. There is NO meat-puppetry involved, and you do NOT have hard proof for it. You only have subjective interpretation of events, and facts, which is NOT hard proof in the least. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, the 76.x.x.x IP's are NOT MINE, so stop saying they're my sock-puppets. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said the latest edit warring IP was your sock. Why are you so defensive? It is obviously a reincarnation of someone previously involved in that article though. I don't expect some random IP to begin editing Wikipedia by reverting some article to many versions ago. The IP hopping guy is obviously disruptive and may need admin intervention if he doesn't stop of its own accord. Not every ANI post is directed at you. In fact, I haven't directed any insofar, but I find it strange that you jumped to the defese of Lin Godzilla inventing various excuses for him, even though you claim you've got nothing to do with him.

ping

18:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's end it here

OK, I'm going to stop here, since it's obviously use-less to argue. Feel free to believe, whatever you want, you won't see a single contribution from me on Wikipedia, except on the CHWDP article. - OBrasilo (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know you edited that article too.

ping

20:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

comment

SchmuckyTheCat has copied the new message bar, which according to the policy, is NOT allowed... Please correct me if I'm wrong. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 11:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a variation of it on my talkpage too, but for a very different purpose than as what was once a common joke - do you have a concern about that? (

BWilkins ←track

) 11:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It is generally advised to avoid doing this. See

Wikipedia:USER#Simulated_MediaWiki_interfaces --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions

) Changing the world one edit at a time! 16:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"generally advised" != "forbidden". Looking for additional reasons to give an editor "shit" is nto a good plan. In other words "so what?" (

) 17:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Obrasilo

As seen on multiple articles now, and repeated other occurrences on ANI (where I am not involved), O-brillo is a disruptive advocate of using original research to write articles. He is argumentative, disruptive and has shown repeatedly that he will bring in people (meatpuppets) from his forums and fansites to argue here. As an advocate for including original research in articles, his contributions to the project are unhelpful. Over the last year he has repeatedly failed to "get it". Combine a lack of clue, a lack of compromise, a lack of attempting to conform to our requirements, with the disruption and puppetteering that follows everywhere he goes, it would be better for this project if he were banned. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet another IP sock of the 76 range has popped in at

talk · contribs

) 04:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

SPA has officially been filed at

) 06:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Merfishpreservationsociety

) 17:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

– Blizocked by User:PMDrive1061. Problem solved. Carry on. --Jayron32 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Merfishpreservationsociety (talk · contribs) breakes many Wikipedia rules and policy. This includes but not limited to:

. Group user names
. Improper username
. Username used for creating Hoax articles
. Username is used for uploading Hoax images.

--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track

And we've sent it elsewhere... --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism denied because no recent activity. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

UAA suggested Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Posted there as well. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No recent activity unless he has a sockpuppet voting on the AfD. There's a recent SPA there who has only edited the article and the AfD.

talk

) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whew ... all that work for an account that made 20 edits over a period of a week? (As far as content, the merfish (effectively the reverse of a mermaid - a fish with human legs) is a well-known myth, and clearly not a hoax) (

BWilkins ←track

) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy

WP:FORUMSHOP Batman. My goodness, someone is taking this Merfishpreservationsociety thing rather personally. As noted, its a relatively inactive account, isn't likely a real-life organization, and isn't promotional. Blocking is a relatively severe thing, and is only done when absolutely necessary. UAA and AIV have already determined that it doesn't meet that criteria. How far are we going to take this? --Jayron32

19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No further I hope since the RfC is concluding that it's not worth their time either. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As one of this site's premier "rouge administrators," I've deleted the article and blocked both accounts. Seriously, that nonsense took up way too much volunteer time on the debate of its "merits." And yes, he did create an AfD sockpuppet. --

talk

) 19:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hezbollatte

Toronto municipal election, 2010 without providing justification. Getting annoying. Fred the happy man (talk

) 02:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report the user at

WP:AIV if the disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK)

06:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Smuconlaw

This user was reported at

) 21:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like they're not going to cause a problem, I see no harm in letting them be--Jac16888 ^Talk 21:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess

WP:IAR applies. I notice on that user page that participants are told to create new accounts, and if that's the case then there shouldn't be any harm. If we had a bunch of people sharing the Smuconlaw account I'd be more concerned. -- Atama頭

21:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the others who've commented: this appears to be a perfect example of how universities should be using WIkipedia to teach. I see absolutely no problem at all with this one. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I assure you that there is no intention to do anything wrong. The username doesn't represent the institution I work for. It will only be used by me for the purpose of the project.

talk

) 08:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of William M. Connolley

Resolved

Block, block, semi-protect. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki
)

arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki
)

At least two anon IP's are currently harassing User:William M. Connolley on File talk:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png. Could an administrator take a look at this and put a stop to it? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

2over0 has done this. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 10:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Change to user contributions format?

Resolved

– Revisions were deleted, but the user asking the question wasn't at fault. ~ mazca ^talk 08:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed two entries in my contributions that looked something like this:

(del/undel) ~~04:52, January 8, 2010~~ (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ‎~~(comment removed)~~
(del/undel) ~~04:48, January 8, 2010~~ (hist | diff) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard ~~(comment removed)~~

Was there a change to the MediaWiki interface today to do that? If so, what does it mean, and where would I find it announced/documented? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see

WP:RVDL. -FASTILY ^(TALK)

06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand now. I made a comment in a section where the section title contained a person's name. When it was deemed necessary to suppress the person's name, the name had to get suppressed from the automatic edit summary in my edit history as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. So is there any other issue, or can we close this? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:64.184.121.97

Resolved

– blocked ~ mazca ^talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Over the past seven weeks,

List of characters in Madagascar,[23][24] and has moved on to add the speculation to The Penguins of Madagascar.[25] This editor clearly isn't getting the message and, after three blocks already, more punitive action seems necessary. --AussieLegend (talk

) 08:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for another month - this seems to be a very persistent bumhat on a static IP. Re-report for another speedy block if he comes back again once this one expires. ~ mazca ^talk 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX

Resolved

– Blocked indef. Sandstein 10:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX (talk · contribs) - Some hours ago i've notified him for vandalisms specialized for his personal POV and nippocentrism, tagged many times by another editor.
see his career here
ja:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for vandalisms and sockpuppetry)
it:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for write-only vandalisms)
After my first notify he answered threating me. Please provide immediately --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think both of you need to spend another year or so studying English before editing en.wiki anymore.

Tan | 39

21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a helpful comment Tan, and

WP:CIVIL states not to belittle other users. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho!

21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spitfire, it doesn't matter. PS (Tan): I edit here rarely. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very helpful comment from Tan. The user above does not have sufficient grasp of English to contribute to an English-language encyclopedia. That's a fact. Civility does not call for ignoring the blindingly obvious truth, or for setting aside the need for basic

talk

) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bali, i have not to try to improve my english for an encyclopedia because I don't edit here. My rare edits are too little to be considered as a work on en.wp. My actual knowledge of english language is not for an encyclopedia. I know it perfectly, it is not necessary to repeat it. I've asked for an incident about personal attacks. I'm not interested to do a training course for encyclopedical english. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its not an appropriate or civil thing to say to a user who has just come to AN/I complaining of a threat from another user. Not really interested in debating the point, just to make my opinion clear. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(

uncivil to boot. We users expect better of our admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!!

21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've drunk the koolaid to such an extent that you no longer understand what the word "civil" means.

) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not have meant to be rude, but that's the way it came across. I have personally helped copyedit articles written by one of our Polish editors whose first language was not English - that article went on to be featured. -

05:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wrote

here only to notify a [personal attack who sounds like a threat. A threat showing my host and some of mine personal datas. It could be simple trolling but, anyway, it is againist the policies of Wikipedia. I don't thing that this i know who you are is "funny". --79.44.23.67 (talk

) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to be offended by anybody, ok ? My English is not for academy but my politeness in what i wrote is out of disputation. I'm here only to notify personal attacks. I don't want to read some of my personal datas used as a threat by AvengerX. This is the only reason. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The folks thinking I was somehow being insulting are the same knee-jerk civility police editors that are currently plaguing this project. Would you please try to analyze the situation before you start leaving self-important, tsk-tsk messages here and on my talk page? These editors' grasp of English is very poor. This is the crux of the problem. I didn't belittle anyone, or make light of any actual problem, or even remotely insult anyone. I stated a fact that was extremely germane to the problem at hand. I notice that neither of the police here commented on the actual problem or bothered to look into this issue; that shows their priorities here. The patently obvious solution is for either or both editors to improve their English skills - that will a) improve communication and b) improve comprehension to a point where the numerous communication and comprehension errors that make up this issue will be solved.

Tan | 39

00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If this "jerk" is refered to me, i send to you back. What part of "i don't edit here" or "i've received threats" haven't you understood ? I think both of you (you and Bali) need to spend another year or so studying the basis of politeness and civility before talking to me anymore. Ok !? Go to joke with another jerk ! --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a little pragmatism, such as that from Tan, would be rather useful at times. Anyways, on the original topic, it's kind of hard to tell what exactly to make of that comment, but it's obviously nothing good. Something has to be done, but this isn't my specialty here. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Tan actually means well by that statement. It's just that for non-native English speakers it can be extremely hard to give a definition for the very very specific window we call things to be versus other disruptions or incident-starting events. Actually, most native English speakers here have no idea we use it a tad differently than the norm. It can just be extremely hard to try to piece together some very specific details of these disputes as the quality of the English changes frequently. For the record, however, the jp.Wikipedia icon for a sock as being a shadowed stuffed bunny is incredibly cute. We can try to find versions from before the string of contented edits started, but without further disruptions, it would be punitive and not preventative to act at much length. Oh, and of note, it's possible for many IP users to have their general location pinpointed via the Geolocate link on the tools menu given at the bottom of contribution pages for IP users. This is not intended to be used as an invasion of privacy in any way since it's information that can be found many places online anyway, but more for basic research toward

(talk)

07:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

← Yeah. You both need to back away from each other. His "threat" was in response to your "threat" about knowing who he is. You are both in the wrong here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX (2)

AvengerX (talk · contribs) I've still notified this user yesterday for threats. He continues today leaving me an absurd message of threat involving my government. Tell me what have I to think about an user who send me threats reguarding "i know who are you" and "i will inform italian government about you if you don't reflect". --79.27.142.88 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope for the restriction to this IP user. (It is guessed that this IP user is Mr.Pil56). I expect wise measures of all of you. --AvengerX (talk) 13:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck and good hope in another place mr, bye bye. No, it is guessed that i'm not Pil56 of it.wp, if it was your axis to threat me. Greetings from my national goverment --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have left a notification of this discussion on the user's talk page. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Shirik and Closedmouth. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Is him blocked or not ? The user continues vandalizing his talk page adding offences and total false accuses of racial prejudice --79.27.142.88 (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, their talkpage is NOT blocked, as they may request unblock. It's often normal to allow some degree of "venting" as long as it's not disruptive. Do not poke the bear, however (in other words, stay away from them). (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

His edits are distruptive: False accuses of racism, offences to italian people (read edit summary), lots of threats and offences to Pil56 (inscribed here), and admin of it:wp who provided to block him over there. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, he has his right to defence. But he can't continues offending and threating Pil56 (believing that me and him are the same person), that's a regular en.wp user. He can't use edit summary to start offences to him and so offences to italian people. He has done to my people, i'ven't done to japanese people. I admire japaneses, but i don't like trolls, of any nation or culture. I wish you'll delete from the edit summary the offensive references to the user Pil56 --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Stay away from their talkpage - poking is disruptive. Accusations of sockpuppetry are not in and of themself disruptive. He will be suggested to file his proper SPI request once he decides calm down and get himself unblocked. You've done your part, now back away slowly. (

BWilkins ←track

) 14:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I request for a check user within myself and Pil56. I want to prove that me and Pil56 are two different people. So, i could stay away when he will stop to use the edit summary to offend him. He is only using the e.s. for this. I don't know who is Pil56, but i know that's a regular member of en.wp, out of this history. I've notified to his it.wp talk page of this usage. --79.27.142.88 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can drop by

BWilkins ←track

) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Crikey Mr IP .. was this really necessary? "Mr lamer"?!? You were advised to stop poking the bear, and to let admins deal with it. You have spent much of the day escalating this situation beyond necessary, and then wonder about why he retaliates? (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

After being advised to stop with racist vio's of NPA, and to refrain from accusing of sockpuppetry unless they are willing to file an SPI once unblocked, the user added this to their talkpage. I have removed it, and left a message explaining why. (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Note The removed attacks have been re-added and he has now turned his sights to me. It's probably a good thing that I cannot see the youtube video right now. Maybe he needs to have talkpage access removed, and I'm disengaging (

BWilkins ←track

) 12:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well since it didn't look like it was going anywhere, I revoked his talkpage access and reverted his latest edit. Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

And now the user has decided to send me poorly written diatribes on my racist leanings, so they have had their email access revoked as well. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Syrthiss (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

low-grade edit warring and extensive personal attacks by Pyrrhon8

sorry to send this here, but I no longer know what to do with this person. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) has just gone off the deep end.

background: the article Dignity was at one point in time a personal essay here before I began working on it. ultimately the article went through and AfD discussion which resulted in a merge (with Human Dignity) and rewrite result. I carried that out. Pyrrhon periodically tried to revive certain portions of the old essay-like construction, which I mostly reverted as against the AfD consensus; he was combative, but not excessive about it. recently, however, I did some cleanup on one section of the article, with the following result:

my cleanup edit, here
Pyrrhon reverts, no summary
my first revert to the cleaned up version
my talk page request for information
Pyrrhon's insulting talk page response
revert by pyrrhon with insults
my request for 30
the 30 response
several edits by Pyrron reinstating his old version and ignoring 30
my revert using twinkle
my incorporation of the 30 results
another talk page request from me for discussion
Pyrrhon's revert, with insulting summary
my revert back to 30 version
pyrrhon's next revert
my next revert back to 30
pyrrhon's most recent revert.
the final straw: Pyrrhon's protracted and totally unwarranted attack which has almost no bearing on the article at all; he draws in random comments from material that's months old from multiple pages.

In short, he's editing against consensus, engaging in extreme personal attacks, and refusing to engage in discussion about any of it. If it were up to me, I would ask for a short block and a six month article ban from editing dignity, but that might just be because he's starting to irritate me. I would appreciate any action that gets him somewhere back in the vicinity on normal, civil editing practices. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my goal to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the solar system. It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia. The conflicting goals make it difficult for constructive editors to work with Ludwigs2. I have presented a list of examples here to help anyone who wants to understand why constructive editors find Ludwigs2 disruptive. I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks. I suspect he is going for some sort of record in being blocked. (He has been blocked 5 times.) As far as I am concerned, he has exhausted all the wikilove he deserves. PYRRHON talk 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig isn't in the wrong. You were going against consensus. The blocks of Ludwig don't have anything to do with this.

talk

) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2's edits have improved the article. The original essay read like a Grade 10 school project; it's biased, poorly organized, and awkwardly worded with many weasel words ("some have noted" - who?). Pyrrhon's edits have not improved the article, and his actions give the appearance of

article ownership - he's ignoring consensus to preserve a version which is both unsupported by consensus and unencyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk

) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off the deep end indeed. There was no malicious intent in the edit, it was a simple, regular cleanup. Pyrrhon8 reverted it without any sort of explanation: when Ludwigs2 politely and respectfully asked for one, he replied, "I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia!" (emboldening mine.) Pyrrhon8's behavior strikes me as just unacceptable and to an extend ridiculous: In his response above, he says, "It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia... ...I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks."

If you want it in policy terms, Pyrrhon8 has demonstrated complete disregard for

WP:NPA ([27]), and honestly, an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. The talk page discussion

pretty much sums it up.

Pyrrhon, you need to be open to the idea that Ludwigs is not an evil adversary whose sole purpose is to destroy Wikipedia. Try and cooperate with them on this. You can start by talking about what content is objectionable to you, and then try and work towards a mutual solution. Does that help? ALI ^{nom nom} 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both editors are engaged in an edit war (and should be duly warned for it, both of them). That is not constructive. Regardless of content disputes, Pyrrhon8 needs to stop the personal attacks occurring in edit summaries or will be risking a block. That's not acceptable. -- Atama頭 03:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think I was engaged in an edit war - I made 4 reverts over a period of 3 days, and that was in an effort to retain the consensus version and get some discussion going. I may have my flaws, but this dispute isn't an example of that. --Ludwigs2 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Side question: can I go ahead and revert Dignity back to the 3O version of the article? I can wait if people prefer, but any subsequent discussion about article changes ought to start from that version. --Ludwigs2 20:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be a better question asked on

talk

05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Pyrrhon
About red herrings and consensus

Re

Red herring (idiom)

, a rhetorical device that is very popular with disruptive editors.

On 1 March 2009, Belasted nominated Dignity for deletion. He suggested that Wikipedia make do with a deplorable article called "Human dignity." The article on Human dignity had two sections. One section was Christian dogma. The other section was about the laws of Germany.

I proposed that Human dignity's section about the laws of Germany be moved to Dignity, and that the article "Human dignity" be deleted. The issue of consensus arose. There was no consensus to delete Dignity so the nomination failed. There was general agreement that the articles should be merged. On 5 March 2009, Ludwigs2 mashed the contents of Human dignity into Dignity. He deleted Human dignity.

Ludwigs2 moved the section about the laws of Germany to the end of the article. He inserted the dogma as a sentence here, a phrase there. I had no objection to the section on Germany. I did not like the poorly-written mishmash that the remainder of the article had become. (Back in September or October 2008, I had to undo a similar mishmash when Ludwigs2 inserted a different example of dogma into the article.) Despite the disruptive efforts of Ludwigs2, I eliminated all the bad writing. In May or June, Ludwigs2 insisted on having a badly written introduction. I appealed to the Administrators to stop his disruptive editing, but no one was helpful. I gave up on the article. I had other articles that I wanted to write and to improve.

Now, Ludwigs2 says I am "editing against consensus." A consensus is an opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus I suppose Ludwigs2's idea of a group is himself and NativeForeigner. They have agreed, it seems, that Ludwigs2's changes to Dignity would make it better.

Let us consider just one of Ludwigs2's changes. Ludwigs2 wants this line about Mirandola in the article: This oration is commonly seen as one of the central texts of the Renaissance, intimately tied with the growth of humanist philosphies. I do not understand how this assertion is pertinent to what dignity is. I am not told what percent of the population is caught up in "commonly." I am not told who sees the oration as a "central text." I am not told what a "central text" is. I am not told what the central texts have to do with dignity. I am not told what the "humanist philosphies" are. I am not told how it is that they grow. I am not told what it means that texts are "intimately tied" with philosphies. There is no explanation for the assertion. The assertion has no references. Who said this? Is the assertion original research?

I picked this line from Ludwigs2's writing because it is typical of his style. His style is full of complicated phrases, undefined terms, and weasel-words. He has never added a reference to Dignity. I do not know if he has any use for references. Because he is not familiar with the references, he makes statements that misrepresent what an author said or what an author meant. He deletes sentences that are critical to understanding the concept being discussed.

It is a tedious and thankless job to turn Ludwigs2's writing into something meaningful and encyclopedic. As I mentioned above, I have had to sort out his messes twice. I do not want him spoiling Dignity again.

And yet NativeForeigner says that Ludwigs2's writing makes Dignity easier to understand—not impossible to understand, but easier. NellieBly says, "Ludwig2's edits have improved the article." Ali says Ludwigs2 performed a "cleanup." How is nonsense a cleanup? How do weasel-words improve an article? Ludwigs2 says he has consensus to use his style. In effect, he is saying he is improving Dignity by complicated phrases, undefined terms, weasel-words, and original and unreferenced research.

How do we reconcile the opinions of NativeForeigner, NellieBly, Ali, and Ludwigs2 with articles like these:

WP:DUTY

!

About personal attacks

I understand that many people interpret any statement of fact or any display of logic as an affront or as a "personal attack." I am reminded of the case of the Scottish lad, Thomas Aikenhead. He remarked one day that religion was nonsense. The priests had him killed for his "attack" upon religion.

I do not regard a statement of fact or a display of logic as an "attack." I am pleased to say I have nothing in common mentally with anyone who does. PYRRHON talk 05:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

for reference, here are the first and second deletion nomination discussions, and their results: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dignity_(2nd_nomination). I've gone ahead and restored the article to the most recent consensus version, since there was no commentary on my request above. --Ludwigs2 08:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

P.s. Pyrrhon, if you're really trying to improve the article and not just reinvent the [august 2008] version, then this would go a lot more smoothly if you discussed the matter with me on the talk page. I have taken a profound dislike to you, but I will deal with it if you get over this and start behaving civilly. --Ludwigs2 08:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us get back to the issue here. Is it time to ban Ludwigs2? I say YES. Does anybody else say YES? It takes only two to make a consensus (so I am told). PYRRHON talk 17:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

well, he reverted the consensus version again, with another uncivil edit summary here and continues on protracted rants against me. Is someone going to deal with this inveterate troll, or are you all going to wait until it escalates into a full-scale conflict? I will eventually lose my temper. The endless reverts at dignity will not go away until (a) he settles down and talks the issue out or (b) he gets blocked, and the possibility of (a) given his current behavior is so remote that I find it inconceivable. really, I don't fucking mind if he wants to edit the article, BUT GET THIS LITLE PIECE OF @#$% OFF MY BACK! --Ludwigs2 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhon, no, there's no reason to ban Ludwigs2 because you are in a content disagreement with him, that's uncalled for. The only person whose conduct suggests some sort of sanction, in my eyes, is yourself for refusing to participate in dispute resolution efforts at the article and for your repeated personal attacks.

Ludwigs2, while personal attacks have been made I fail to see how the edit summary in your most recent diff even comes close. I wonder if I'm missing something there. -- Atama頭 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I gave the wrong diff, sorry. correct one is here. very mild by comparison with his other attacks, but he was really pissing me off there for a bit and I got flustered. I'm better now.

. --Ludwigs2 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not a nice thing to say, and definitely editing against consensus. However, apart from posting to ANI, what dispute resolution steps have you gone through so far to try to resolve this issue? -

talk

05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked for clarification and discussion on that talk page a couple of times, with no positive results (Pyrrhon ignored the requests for the most part, and posted anti-me rants when he did post something). I opened a

Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dignity

- which as you see only got a string of abuse and not much else. after that, I brought it here. I might have tried mediation if I could get him to respond to me with anything other than abuse, but his responses to me have been so over the top I doubted that would have made one whit of difference.

I really don't know why he is quite this POed at me - I've just come off a multi-month wikibreak, so I haven't interacted with him in ages. I made what I thought was an innocuous cleanup edit and he came out swinging. it's possible it wasn't innocuous (please tell me if you think I overstepped), but heavens!, he went from 0 to arrggh in 5 seconds flat.

maybe the best thing here (since he refuses to communicate with me) is for someone else to speak with him and figure out what's going on. if it's something personal I can redress I'm happy to oblige, but I'm just at a complete loss. --Ludwigs2 06:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it sounds like instituting a 1RR on this editor might be a good idea. -

talk

09:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Response2 by Pyrrhon

Ludwigs2's remarks above at 18:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC) constitute an example of the argumentum ad baculum. The "argument" is nothing more than a threat. Bullies, thugs, and assorted belligerents favor this "argument". It shifts a dispute away from logic into the realm of madness, where the bully, thug, or what-have-you has an advantage. No reputable philosopher has ever found the argument persuasive, but many philosophers and scientists have had to retract their theses and agree to madness because of it. Galileo is one example of a scientist who had to repudiate reason when confronted by madness. Kant is a philosopher who had to put a bridle on his atheistic tendencies when King Frederick observed that Kant would have difficulty teaching without a head. I mention Galileo and Kant because their circumstances illustrate that the "argument" usually governs the interaction between the bully, thug, or what-have-you and the intended victim. This interaction is the conventional application of the "argument".

Here, Ludwigs2 has played a variation on the conventional application of the argumentum ad baculum. He has cut the intended victim (me) out of the picture. He has issued his ultimatum not to me but to the editors of Wikipedia. He has commanded the persons around here to do something, or HE WILL LOSE HIS TEMPER. The persons around here have to consider whether it is worth the risk to Wikipedia to have Ludwigs2 lose his temper.

It might be expedient to sacrifice one constructive editor and one article for the sake of all the other editors on Wikipedia. The persons around here have to consider what Ludwigs2 might do if he is not obeyed. How will they feel if he holds his breath and his head explodes and there are no super-slo-mo cameras to catch the action?

Ludwigs2 may have stumbled upon a winning strategy to get his way. It seems that some editors cannot understand what a disruptive editor is. It seems that some editors have faith that "Ludwig isn't in the wrong." It seems that some editors devoutly believe that inserting inane gibberish into articles is what editors should do. If Ludwigs2 can gather enough birds of a feather around him, he may prevail.

Because Ludwigs2 has shrewdly played a variation of the argumentum ad baculum, some editors may contemplate the issue as a choice between compliance and mutiny. They may be asking themselves: should they obey the commands of Wikipedia's self-appointed captain, or should they make him walk the plank?

I hope the editors of Wikipedia will not frame the issue in that way. I would rather that they consider Ludwigs2 a cancer that needs to be cut out of the body if the body is to survive. There is no point in hanging on to a cancer. I say cut it out, and let us get back to work. PYRRHON talk 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 "threatened" to lose his temper (if you want to put it in those terms), that "threat" was ignored, he later calmed down, and no harm was done. The only person making a big deal out of this is yourself. My question to you is why you've bothered to write this diatribe. Are you trying to stir up drama? And a further question, will you commit to no longer putting ad hominem attacks in edit summaries? Will you agree to using

dispute resolution to come to a peaceful and collaborative solution at dignity rather than demanding that your version be the version that is in place? Those are what I am concerned about, I really don't care of Ludwigs2 gets mad and has to go punch a pillow now and again off-wiki. -- Atama頭

23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay this is getting out of hand, the two of you are not doing any sensible discussion with each other, just sniping back and forth. I've protected the article now for two weeks. Please discuss the article on the talk page. Do no discuss each other, do not complain about frivolous edits and no reverting of each others comments. Discuss the article and how you can improve it. If you can't get along on the article then we may need to revisit this, but I protected it before people start getting topic banned or blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC problems at
Talk:List of alleged alien beings

Resolved

– As I am entirely uninvolved in this article (and never likely to be involved in it!) I have closed this RFC as no consensus. Involved editors really shouldn't close contentious RFCs though. -

talk

11:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RfC about the inclusion of certain images on the

List of alleged alien beings last month.[28]

This received a decent amount of input, and was automatically removed from the open RfC list after a month by a bot (so far, so good).

An involved editor then closed the RfC and decided what the consensus was.[29] I (also involved, obviously) undid this change[30], but was reverted again[31]. After some discussion, he still refused to let someone else close the discussion, but changed the supposed consensus[32]. Meanwhile, the same editor acted upon the perceived consensus to edit the article immediately after his closure of the RfC[33]. My revert of this was undone by another editor (also participant in the RfC).

Questions:

Can someone previously uninvolved please reopen the RfC and close it with whatever conclusion they find?
Can someone please look at the conduct all around (especially by me and by User:Camilo Sanchez) to indicate where we went wrong?
Anyone who would like to join this rather
WP:LAME
dispute is welcome to join the discussion, as I don't believe a clear outcome has been reached yet.

Thanks,

Fram (talk

) 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is lame. If you think about it it really addresses a very important point on how graphic contributions should be handled under the current policies. Nothing lame about that.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reopened the RfC. It is not appropriate for the person who created the images to close the RfC (especially, as originally, in favour of inclusion of his own images). I have also commented on the RfC. I would urge other long-standing editors to do the same as the discussion has not had a great deal of input from outside the small group of editors already involved. Fram, you can relist it on the RfC page if you like. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, totally wrong move to close a discussion that you're involved in, especially when you close it in your favor (which it clearly was not). I commented there as well. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I welcome the involvement of more editors in this discussion. Be certain that whatever decision will not be contested from me in any way so long it is reached on the sake of the improving of the article and the Wikipedia. Thanks!--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 15:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was for support - as I read it. The RFC closed in the beginning of January and had started in the beginning of December, so it wasn't by any means a fast close, the only problem I saw (and I've been called on this myself) is who closed it.

I'd lean to WP:IAR on that close, since it was supported. _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't, since the support did not seem to be founded on credible interpretations of policy. Guy (Help!) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we include the British royal family in this list?

talk

) 00:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You are, sir, a bounder! Pistols at dawn? – ukexpat (talk) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest light sabers in a crop circle by the light of Venus. seems more fitting... --Ludwigs2 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I had in mind

talk

) 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input (here, even the last few jokers, and over there). Discussion is progressing, although I am not certain in what direction yet :-)

Fram (talk

) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been open for quite a while. I've closed as no consensus. -

11:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fibromyalgia content dispute; block evasion by IP

70.57.228.12 was blocked for 3RR against Fibromyalgia, now User:97.115.198.139 is performing identical content removal. Perhaps a one day of semi-protection on Fibromyalgia will quieten things down? Josh Parris 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And now User:174.30.135.4 is at it [34] [35] Josh Parris 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to rais this at

WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!

) 14:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for 3 days. I hope this will slow down the revert battles and encourage some talk page discussion by the IPs. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are also threats of organized disruption involved. They are in this section:

"LOL there are like 10 ways to work around being blocked on Wiki." 97.115.198.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

... and this section:

"You can block whomever you want but I can bring back the whole entire Fibromyalgia Sufferers Group from Facebook and we can see how 80,000 people feel about that invalid comment." 174.30.135.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

People who make these types of threats can create significant disruption through sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. We'll need more eyes on the article to stop it if and when it comes. --

talk

) 03:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I refactored the recent personal attack by the IP on the article talk page and gave them a warning. At the moment, there appears to be no disruption other than the single account. I'll keep the article watchlisted for a short while -- but if the disruption increases or returns after the block, you can raise the issue again at

WP:RFPP

to request another block.

I do note that the issue with the IP appears to be a simple content dispute focused primarily on the words "non-disease" used in the lede paragraph -- and the talk page indicates that there are other editors who questioned that wording as well. It would be best if this was resolved first through independent Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Over 50 warnings and still no block...

WP:AIV

only to be told that they haven't been warned properly or correctly and to re-report when they inevitably do it again.
I have seen this happen before with educational institutes using a shared IP and the subsequent vandalism from numerous members of the establishment using it. In past cases, a soft block (schoolblock) has been put in place for 1-2 years to stop the constant vandalism from the school/college, and the option given for good intentioned students to be able to register as an editor so as not to exclude those who adhere to the rules (user talk:194.82.16.252). Can they be soft blocked ("schoolblock"), or at least considered for it due to the very long past of disruptive editing, and failure to adhere to the numerous warnings given to them? Thanks. _Will^dow (Talk) 17:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. However, extreme caution should be taken to avoid blocking other users (registered) editing from this IP. This would lead to a snowball affect. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but the schoolblock on the example I added (user talk:194.82.16.252) allows registered editors to still edit from that IP address as long as they log in; so as not to be anonymous. I think completely blocking an educational shared IP address would be wrong for the exact reason you state, but if it can be blocked like the example I linked to, registered users (generally the one's who stick to the rules!!) will still be able to edit from this University, and the anonymous users who vandalise will be stopped. _Will^dow (Talk) 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If they begin vandalizing again, please report them to

AIV. The contributions now are so sporadic that a block wouldn't accomplish too much. TN X Man

17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Last time I checked, there was only one warning in one month.

) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I agree with the schoolblock concept, there's no immediate requirement to do so as there is not immediate negative activity. (

) 18:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a tactic many anonymous vandals use. They vandalize, then they stop for a while. Then they vandalize again. Then they stop for a while, and so on. This is how they avoid blocks.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Or, at Univerisities, they get busy on real homework. The purpose of the many-thousands of dollars spent on education is to become edumacated, not to be a weenie. Mom and Dad don't like to hear "I spent the weekend getting drunk and vandalizing Wikipedia" (

BWilkins ←track

) 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, duh. They're only vandalizing Wikipedia when they're not busy copying stuff from it.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

To 66.177.73.86: How would that look different than a public computer terminal in a high trafic area where every few weeks, a different person sits down and comitts one vandalism, then goes away? --Jayron32 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted me. I was only relating it to this.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow you actually know most vandals! Impressive. Theresa Knott | token threats 19:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think we're getting a little side tracked here. I still stand by my suggestion for a schoolblock. This university has 23,000 students [36]. Warnings aren't likely to be read by the actual people who are vandalising. Perhaps sporadic disruptive editing can be contributed and aligned to the university terms/semesters... I notice that there is little/no editing over Christmas, but as soon as they return to University in January it starts up again for example. I think that this will continue, with short breaks from disruptive editing during holiday times making it appear that the editing isn't all that often. If there weren't so many edits and warnings stretching so far back, I probably wouldn't push this point, but the facts are there for all to see. If people there want to make a positive contribution, they can register an account and bypass the schoolblock; that way, no innocent people with good intentions get punished. _Will^dow (Talk) 09:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah I see this IP is now on a final warning. I'll check their contribs from time to time to see if they take heed of it. _Will^dow (Talk) 12:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More anontalk spam

Resolved

– quite old, but now filtered. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The filters need to be adjusted to prevent this from happening. I've been told they can block edit summaries.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole Cyrllic o-slash thing is what helps circumvent the filter.

talk

) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Man Kimmo is pathetic. May need to adjust the regex filters a bit. Maybe if we did 6 or 7 characters out of 8, in order. Anybody know where the proper forum is to bring the issue up? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've adjusted one of the filters accordingly. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you mean Kimmø? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He has many names, most of which can't be repeated in polite company. Thanks for the speedy action, zzuuzz. BTW, do you have to be an admin to view private filters? I'm interested in the matter and am creating similar programs for school. Is there any way for a normal user to request access? Throwaway85 (talk) 11:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to view private filters is generally restricted to admins - I don't think the abusefilter-view-private right is assignable, or whether anyone would assign it to someone who hasn't been around a while. I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be assigned the abusefilter-modify right, which is the current alternative. You'll find more discussion of this topic at the

WT:EF archives - viewing the private filters is generally not particularly enlightening for other websites. It's also worth pointing out there are at least five filters dedicated to anontalk spam, and they are generally rewritten each time he starts another campaign. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

11:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for letting me know. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Ritamaj removing speedy deletion templates

Resolved

User:Ritamaj has removed the speedy deletion template from her new article Kristian Bertel five times, despite four notifications including User:OliverTwisted's final warning here. Glenfarclas (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really worth reporting. If they re-create the article and continue, then action may be taken. -Reconsider ! 11:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, it's just that when someone lays down a perfectly justified "last warning" that "you will be blocked" and the conduct continues anyway, I'd hate for him to come off looking like a faker when it turns out not to happen. (I'm not referring to myself, of course.) That's why I thought it merited notice here, but I appreciate your response-- Glenfarclas (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll note the friendly little post I left on their talkpage - they appear new, and they may not fully grasp the "rules", and they may not have even read their talkpage. I'm

BWilkins ←track

) 13:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff! Glenfarclas (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog

Resolved

– blocked by

Nev1 (talk

) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nev1 (talk

) 13:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic AFD spree by User:SuaveArt

Resolved

– Not a problem. Thanks for the input from everyone. Carry on. --Jayron32 13:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINTy-theme to them is problematic. --Jayron32

05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd endorse closing them all as

WP:SK and warning the user. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism

05:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So if they had been about Buddhist topics, would this be an issue to you? The fact that you mentioned "Christian" topics before you did the actual alledged "problems" with my AFD's suggests that you're concern is that I'm "biased against religion" moreso than whether my noms are legitimate or not, which I believe they are.

Currently I spend time patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets. Just take a look at International House of Prayer for example. The article on Carman (singer was also just a long promo before I cleaned it up. "Christian spam" is still spam, and doesn't get an exaempt status just because it's "religious" spam instead of "secular spam". I believe so anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuaveArt (talk • contribs) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

All of his nominations don't appear to actually have the problems he notes,
and he does not appear to be following WP:BEFORE in any way before
nominating articles for deletion, including checking sources cited in the
articles themselves.

I believe they do (and some of the articles I've nom'd have already been deleted, so apparently I'm not the only one who agrees with that). I have checked the sources (and even mentioned this in my AFD summaries and why the sources don't cut it), and I believe the articles in question do not have sufficient mainstream coverage or assertion of notability. If you disagree, then you're free to put your two-cents in at the AFDs instead of taking up admin time on ANI. That's what the AFD's are for - to determine consensus. If you know the article's meet our criteria, then obviously my AFD's will fail, so problem solved ;) I don't see why you'd be this defensive unless you aren't confident that they meet our criteria for inclusion.

Normally, there is nothing wrong with nominating lots of PRODs and AFDs, but
the fact that all of these AFDs have a WP:POINTy-theme to them is
problematic.

Well you essentially proved my 'point'. Apparently your real issue is the fact that the articles are about a religious subject, not that my AFDs are "illegitimate", and you have nothing to back that up other than unfound claims, which simply aren't true. This isn't an "incident". You said yourself that "normally", multiple AFDs is fine. If these AFDs were on football topics, would you have considered it "problematic"? Put your two cents in at the AFDs. That would be the mature way to handle this. Coming here asking admins to "help" when there is no urgent issue just because I "offend" you isn't very mature on the other hand. God bless.--SuaveArt (talk) 05:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're long diatribe here, which accuses me of attitudes, intents, and feelings which I have shown no evidence of says a lot more about you than it does about me. --Jayron32 05:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you didn't read it, because I elaborated on the claims you made about my AFD noms and why they were unfounded. But your initial complaint was that the articles were on "Christian topics" (which you reaffirmed at the end of your own diatriabe about me). If that is the case, then you don't have much of a complaint, because my AFDs were in good faith. I was not "nominating multiple articles on Christian subjects without reading the sources". Many of the articles were created by the same user(s), contained blatant spam and promotional content, and in my view, failed to assert any real mainstream notability (some of them have also been deleted). Why don't you comment on the individual AFD's instead of creating a pointless ANI?--SuaveArt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You implied that it was the Christian nature of the nominations that was why I raised an objection. Au contraire. Its merely because you seem to be picking on a single, narrowly defined topic area that seems to be a problem. Had you been mass-prodding and AFD-ing a wide range of topics from any other random area, it would have raised the same red flags. Your response has done little to alay these concerns. --Jayron32 06:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While I would caution Suave to be more, well, suave, I'd also like to say that the AfDs being on one subject area is not in and of itself problematic. I'm inclined to AGF when he says he patrols Christian topics. That just leaves whether the AfDs are legitimate or not. If they are, then there's no issue. If, however, a large proportion of them aren't, then perhaps some form of intervention might be required. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, none of this are disruptive, and most of them do have the concerns raised (I could only dispute IHOP). I would still recommend SuaveArt

WP:CHILL'd a little bit. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism

07:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this isn't the first time this has come up, less than a month ago there was this report. The exact same behavior, except it was with prods rather than AfDs. -- Atama頭 07:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well while accusations and words have been thrown around, I've yet to see any evidence of an improper PROD or AfD. If you disagree with a PROD, take the tag off, if you disagree with an AfD, comment there. That said, a check of SuaveArt's contribs (filtered to project space) shows a large number of AfDs so perhaps Jayron or someone else can draw a selection that were obviously improperly nominated? Failing that, one is inclined to conclude that this is a case of one editor disagreeing with another's methods, not an incident requiring administrator attention. HJMitchell You rang? 07:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the next time the nominator thinks to accuse someone of improper use of Wikipedia tools they could first provide actual links to specific examples, rather than making a general complaint about perceived behaviour. This would at least make it easier for the people he wants to become involved to follow his reasoning. Weakopedia (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, a lot of that looks like Godcruft to me. Flywheel (film) and Charisma (magazine) are certainly of questionable notability. This looks like a resurgence of the walled garden problem with Christian culture articles; nobody outside a small circle of US evangelicals gives a toss about most of them, but they have their own parallel ecosphere of publications and spend all their time writing abut and boosting each other. Bands which if they were mainstream would not get a mention anywhere, get articles because the usual suspects rave about how they glrofy the Lord. It's a long-standing problem, one I always think of as Gastroturfing (some here may recognise the reference). Guy (Help!) 12:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

to start with, Christian evangelicals are not a "small circle" -- our article Christianity in the United States gives 24 million. This is not fringe; it's a group, but not a splinter. We cover all social or religious groups in a fair manner without the sort of invidious discrimination implied by "Godcruft", a term I find exceptionally offensive.

Second, it is entirely reasonable for someone to concentrate on a particular topic. It is even reasonable for someone to concentrate on removing spam from a particular topic (there are one or two topics that I keep in mind only for that purpose,) But the pattern of editing is disturbing. 1/Removing the list of someone's publications, and proposing the article for deletion [37] 2/ Simultaneously removing what sources there are and challenging for unsourced http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Christian_Post&diff=prev&oldid=336332806] . FWIW, I have !voted delete on some of the articles the user proposed for deletion, and keep on others. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DGG, I don't think that he said that U.S. Christian evangelicals are a small group, he said that a small number of U.S. evangelicals cares about some of these articles... there is a distinction here :-) -

talk

10:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I found notability for Flywheel very easily.

talk

) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Policy violations re:
Wrestlemania 23

Resolved

– Content dispute, consensus is absolutely clear at the article's talk page and has been for some time. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A dispute has been taking place at

WP:NPOV

were too strong for those objections to succeed. The opposing editors then moved on to complaints about the wording of the edit, repeatedly citing "opinion" and "bias" while never defining any specific violation. A variety of different NPOV wordings were rejected. At this point, the dispute revolves around that wording. One side wishes to include a contextual reference to Meltzer's methodology in the article text or its source link; the other side says any such context violates Wikipedia policies.

The above account is for background purposes only-- I understand that this board does not deal with questions of content. However, the response has escalated beyond an editing dispute, and it is that response which I am listing here. During the course of the discussion, several policies and guidelines have been ignored or broken, including ongoing misreadings and misrepresentations of

WP:TPG, which was violated when one side intentionally misrepresented the other side's argument (detailed at [49]

).

I have behaved civilly throughout this process. When I saw that GaryColemanFan had listed some of the above complaints last week ([50]), I did not pursue an administrative hand because I still felt resolution would be possible through normal talk page means. But following the last abusive post from User 3bulletproof16([51]), I have changed my mind. The post constitutes likely violations of

WP:CONS

.

I would appreciate any intervention-- guidance, direction, warnings, blocks, mediation, etc.-- that might bring this matter to an appropriate solution. Given the users' indifference and/or contempt for policy and guidelines, accompanied by inappropriate and sometimes abusive behavior towards other Wikipedians, I think administrative action of some kind is needed. Thank you.

(To avoid any confusion, my IP rotates; in this instance, I am both 208.120.152.75 and 208.120.153.110. I have been editing on Wikipedia for almost six years, and have never encountered a response like this.)208.120.153.110 (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You want guidance? Fine. The matter is well below the level of trivial and simply not worth fighting about. Disputed information which has a single source and is utterly unimportant (in an article which is itself basically trivial) can be omitted with absolutely no detriment whatsoever to the encyclopaedia. Here's some more guidance: sometimes when everybody else tells you that you are wrong, it's because you are wrong. And one more: when

WP:ADMINSHOP is a great way to get sanctioned for stonewalling and obduracy. Guy (Help!

) 12:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would only point out that the editors in question claimed

WP:CONSENSUS from the onset of the discussion, which proved not to be the case. I agree that the content dispute is unimportant. 208.120.153.110 (talk

) 15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual solution is to open a request for comment on the content.

WP:RFC. That often draws in more opinions and gives a broader consensus. If you're right, people will show up and agree with you. If that doesn't happen, be prepared to drop the matter and move on. It's a good idea to be short and to the point at an RfC, to get maximum responses. Durova³⁹³

15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree-- this is is a pretty straightforward

(talk)

19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark as resolved as go to RfC?

Thank you all for the responses. I concur with the above poster's observation about civility vs. content in this matter. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

David Sills

Can someone take a look at this page? I've removed copvio text (from here) several times now, User:Fellin333 keeps replacing it.

Examples: me, Fellini

me, Fellini

There's another in the page history but you get the idea.

Talk page edit, me.

nb I'll be offline for a couple of hours. pablo_hablo. 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now at the edit warring noticeboard [52].

talk

) 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Fainting Goat
article

The article is prompting users to save an unindentified file type to their desktop. I have yet to actually see the article due to this issue170.123.4.230 (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Checked the article and was not prompted to download anything; found no problematic content nor clear vandalism that would cause that. --

talk · contribs

) 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article looks fine to me. Sure it's not one of the recently removed non-encyclopaedic external links? Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Potential legal threat by User:Crackofdawn

During a hotly contested AFD regarding the John Rosatti article, User:Crackofdawn stated that "these stories are all fabricated lies which has caused me to contact johns attorney . If these sources are used as reliable sources then wikipedian editors are supporting slander and defamation of character without proper research." [53]. Much of the AFD and related BLPN discussion centers on the extent to which published accounts of the subject's criminal history (there seems to be no dispute that he's a convicted felon, or that court documents describe him as associated with organized crime) are reliably sourced.
This may not be an explicit legal threat, but I believe it comes close enough to the sort of comment intended to intimidate editors in the same way as explicit threats do that I'd like some comments and, if appropriate, action, per

WP:NPLT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk

) 17:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning that you have contacted an attourney is not a legal threat, this is more reflective of seeking legal advice, Crackdown has only sixty odd edits rather that drag him here it would have been better to have mentioned to him the policy and asked him to have a read of it. Did you give him a warning or direct him to the policy?

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Saying that you hve brought the matter to the attention of someone else's attorney is not "reflective of seeking legal advice," and other editors have been blocked for similar comments. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this as a legal threat but more of a polite, coherent complaint regarding what Crackofdawn sees as an attack, I have left him a note on his talkpage informing him of our position here as regards legal threats and directed him to the policy page and requested him to read it.

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry? "This is slander, I have spoken to a lawyer" is not a legal threat? Ironholds (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I don't feel it was a clear legal threat, no, also the editors inexperience as regards policy should allow us to assume good faith and point him towards the policy and assist him to understand the situation, which is what I have done.

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an obvious legal threat. Read

WP:NLT; there is no proper extension of good faith for blatant threats like this. Ironholds (talk

) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not threatening to personally take legal action, thus there is no legal threat. Think of it backwards. If he were to be blocked, the way for him to be unblocked would be to rescind his threat of legal action. However, since he hasn't made a threat of legal action, he can't rescind it. What legal action is he threatening to take? --Smashville^talk 20:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

However, definitely not contributing to a healthy editing environment. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please, it's a blatant legal threat. "You're doing what I don't want. I've bought a can of gasoline and a match" is a clear arson threat. It obvious that this user is using the threat of legal action to force others to accept his personal view in a conflict. It's not important that he speaks in hypotheticals or that he speaks in a passive voice. The compelling part of this is the use of potential legal action to force other people to do what HE wants. He may be in the right, or he may not, but that's not the issue. The issue is "I've talked to a lawyer, now do what I want!" is the clear intent of his message. If it is NOT his intent to say that, it's up to him to clarify or redact his statements. --Jayron32 20:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't see the clear and present danger or the desire from the user to use the comment to get people to do anything, lets allow him the good will to explain his position.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has stated that they have contacted a person's attorney, and in the same breath has accused people of supporting criminal acts, all in an attempt to sway debate in a deletion discussion. That shouldn't be tolerated or overlooked. -- Atama頭 23:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This particular editor is naive and doesn't understand wikipedia very well. He is frustrated at his inability to control the content in an article that is clearly very important to him, involving someone with whom he is closely associated. I do think there was an implied threat of legal action in his comment about the lawyer, and I agree it was disruptive to the already-contentious debate there, but still I would cut him some slack over this first and probably unwitting offense. A matter for education rather than punishment IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie

Agree with Melanie here. (I have participated in the AfD discussion.) Note that there has been relatively broad agreement at AfD that the article had (and the google cache version still has) significant BLP problems, so I think we should sweep in front of our own door first before attacking those who may reasonably feel aggrieved and exasperated. --JN 466 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I have participated in the Afd thread. User:Crackofdawn is clearly naive about Wikipedia policies and standards, I have invited them to participate here and think that they should be given one chance. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First they need to be told to retract the legal threat immediately. That is non-negotiable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, I find all of this a little absurd. Editors here wrote an article that, in the opinion of several well-respected Wikipedians (including one arbitrator, who confessed himself "disturbed"), clearly violated our own sourcing policies for BLPs. I am not aware that anyone has apologised on behalf of Wikipedia. Yet we, who have not been personally aggrieved at all, now become all huffy and tell the person who complains about our breach of policy that they should withdraw the information they volunteered about having discussed the matter with a lawyer and should conform to our communication standards. Next we'll be telling them to "assume good faith", while Wikipedians include defamatory material in the articles they are concerned about, in violation of BLP policy.

Let's face it, our BLP reputation is crap, and deservedly so. I think we need to do a little better with people who have legitimate cause to feel aggrieved with Wikipedia. First of all, it would be nice to say sorry and assure them that there won't be a repeat of these policy breaches. That might help everyone calm down. If we don't do that, we come across as a bunch of immature gits who think they have the right to throw stones at people in the public spotlight from the safety of anonymity. --JN 466 03:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Then the bloody article should be fixed. But legal threats are an attempt at intimidation, and editors should not have to stand for that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have no idea what all the hoopla was about. This was a clear legal threat. We don't invite people who do this to discuss their threat on ANI; we block them indefinitely. I have done so.

Tan | 39

03:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that

Soxwon (talk

) 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Soxwon, I think this banning was over-hasty. Found at

WP:DOLT: "This page in a nutshell: When newcomers blank articles or make legal threats, they may have good cause. Stop and look carefully before assuming they're disruptive or wielding a banhammer." --MelanieN (talk

) 04:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

(EC) Support, it's clearly an attempt to intimidate using a legal threat. Even if it's not directly phrased, this editor is attempting to get the upper hand through a legal threat, and should be blocked for it. If he understands and recants, lift the block. If the article is crap, fix the article. However, an attempt to intimidate through legal means should be met with a block until it's understood that's not the way to gain consensus. Dayewalker (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Question (and I'm not being argumentative, I really want to know): How is he supposed to recant if he is blocked from posting? --MelanieN (talk) 04:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

On his talk page, like every other person ever blocked for making legal threats. Also, to everyone else, please note that I am not looking for evaluation of this block (although you are free to give it if so inclined) - this was a close-to-textbook legal threat and an indefinite block was the appropriate action.

Tan | 39

04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, OK - so a person who is blocked can still post on his own talk page? I didn't know that, and I don't imagine the inexperienced editor under discussion here knows it either. Maybe that information should become part of the "you have been banned" notice. --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

LATER: I see he apparently figured it out - he has retracted his "threat" and has asked that the block be removed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN

Support block. --John (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

I have spoken with the user on IRC. I told them they would have a chance of getting unblocked if they tried to clarify, retract the threat in an unblock request. They have done so. They have tried to clarify what they meant, in that, what they meant was not meant to be used for intimidation and, in the event that that is how it was taken, they retract such threats.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we could have just politely told them to retract the threat and explained the possibly instead of blocking someone who had obviously been ignorant of policies, was obviously a newb, and immediately retracted after the block was in place. But of course that would have been sensible.

Soxwon (talk

) 05:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT is policy, and what Tan did was the standard response to such issues. Blocking someone until they recant is completely fair, all that a person really has to do is say "I didn't really mean it as a legal threat". -- Atama頭

07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Now that they have recanted, is there anything else preventing them from being unblocked? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I forgot Atama, policy over-rules

Soxwon (talk

) 14:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should

) 15:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked their account now as they've clearly retracted any legal threats - Alison ^❤ 09:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

1) I don't really see how they've recanted if they've contacted an attorney and then merely said, "I recant". However, as Alison (for whatever reason) wields considerable clout here, I'll let it go. 2) Getting huffy (a la Soxwon) is a bit silly. We didn't beat them or insult them or tell them to go away. I took away their ability to edit articles until the issue was resolved. Try not to read more into this situation than what actually occurred.

Tan | 39

16:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DOLT

is a good essay, actually; thanks for linking to it. I think our NLT policy should evolve to take some of these sentiments on board. Excerpts:

In August 2006, Jimbo stated:

“

There's a sort of typical pattern where I've seen this happen over and over and over. Somebody, they go to an article and they see something they don't like in it so they blank the article. Right. So somebody warns them, and then they blank again and they get blocked. Right. Then they make a legal threat and they really get blocked. And it's just like a totally bad experience for that person, when in fact, they may have been right in the first place. Or maybe they weren't right. maybe they just didn't like what we wrote about them, but still, we didn't handle it well ... And the few people who are still sort of in the old days, saying, "Well, you know, it's a wiki, why don't we just... ", yeah, they're sort of falling by the wayside, because lots of people are saying actually, we have a really serious responsibility to get things right.^[1]

”

And in September 2008, further stated:

“

The [No Legal Threats] policy is a good policy, overall, but there is a very unfortunate sequence of events that happens far too often. A BLP attack victim sees something horrible in Wikipedia, and I think we can all acknowledge that they have no moral responsibility to become Wikipedians to fix it. Some of them react in ways that we, as Wikipedians who favor reasoned discourse over threats, find inappropriate. Sure, and why not? They are being unfairly attacked and they are hurt and angry and they have no idea what our rules are. That's not their fault. Banning them on the spot for a legal threat is not a very helpful response, usually.^[2]

”

--JN 466 10:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

^ Wales, J, Speech at Wikimania: August 2006 Wikimania archives
^ Wales, J, Post to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, 9 September 2008

I've started a

WP:NLT talk page. --JN 466

14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that why it's standard in cases of legal threats to refer the threatener to our lawyer? If we can't expect people to go on wiki to fix BLP violations, isn't that why we have a legal team for those who wish to deal with issues in that manner? Throwaway85 (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS

I'm curious why nobody told this obviously new editor about OTRS? He could have filed one or contact the WMF to inform them that he felt he was being libelled. Surely this would have satisfied

talk

13:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what it would have helped when the editor was not personally taking any legal action.--Smashville^talk 14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not really the point. If he felt he was being libelled and he felt strongly enough to get legal advise (no, not a legal threat, I know), then shouldn't we at least point him to somewhere he can have his grievances addressed more effectively? -

talk

14:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Except he didn't feel he was being libelled. He felt someone else was being libelled. --Smashville^talk 21:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

He actually was told about OTRS, and OTRS told him to try and tell everyone of what was going on. He did so, and it was interpreted as a legal threat.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 23:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's

tough. Our customer service clearly sucks. --JN 466

00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we'd better apologise and unblock him then! -

05:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In my experience folks like this are best handled by patient discussion via OTRS and advised to note, either via OTRS or on their talk page, any specific and actionable issues with the article. That means the changes they propose have to be shown to be verifiable and supported by reliable independent sources, the policies we know and love. You have to look carefully at the article history to see if there is an attacker at work, and you often have to spend time patiently explaining that if the New York Times calls John Doe an idiot, then we say "the New York Times called John Doe an idiot" and if John Doe says he's not an idiot then we ask for an independent critique of the New York Times' article, we don't simply remove it because he says it's wrong. This is not easy work and if anyone here has that kind of patience and the ability to assume good faith with hurt and angry people then I am sure Cary would love to hear from you, new volunteers are always needed. Guy (Help!) 12:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I might be interested in helping... -

talk

13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, you can volunteer on the Meta page OTRS/volunteering. Sarah 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Cary? --JN 466 15:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

meta:User:bastique. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cary is the WMF volunteer co-ordinator and he has local accounts,

WP:OFFICEy type edits User:Cary Bass (and our customer service does not suck. very good people donate a huge amount of time working very hard on OTRS, sure sometimes things don't get handled great and there's sometimes misunderstandings or mix-ups and sometimes things simply cannot be handled via OTRS, but it most certainly does not suck). Sarah

22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873

– 2 week rest granted by Tnxman307

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

This thread was archived with no action:

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created inappropriate pages (see User talk:Mainman873 for a history of the warnings he has received). Template warnings and personal warnings do not seem to deter him in his desire to create articles on albums that are non-notable, or that do not yet exist. User received a level-4 warning in December, but has continued to create inappropriate pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty dismayed to see him back after all his articles got deleted following his last editing spree. He is clearly here to hype a small clique of artists and is prepared to introduce unverifiable, speculative and outright fictional content to do so. He has no interest in discussion, makes no serious attempt to reference anything and ignores all advice and warnings. None of the albums he writes about checks out on Allmusic or is available to buy on Amazon. He claims that they feature guest appearances by major rap artists, which would pretty much guarantee coverage if it was true, yet Google News has nothing. I don't see why we should have to continue to waste our time checking this stuff and shepherding it to deletion. He has had quite enough warnings. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Hear, hear. I tried to help them by pointing out how to verify notability, but they never responded, and continued the same sort of editing. Woogee (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I think he needs to be blocked for disruptive editing; I'm just conflicted as to the proper length of the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking indefinite, till they discuss it on their Talk page. Woogee (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) is still active, creating hoax pages (here and here) and vandalizing existing pages (here). Since an indefinite block was suggested even before these new events, can someone please address this user? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left a blunt, "stop it" note; further edits of this kind and he's done. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

And blocked for two weeks by Tnxman307 (talk · contribs) for carrying on. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (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.

Plea from a former sockpuppeteer

Resolved

– User has been shown the standard offer and the IP is blocked for evading a previous block. AniMate 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I edited under the account

WP:FA status. Is there anyway in which I could return to editing? I am willing to go through the CheckUser system on regular occurrences to make sure that I am not sockpuppeting again. I am deeply apologetic for my actions and assure you that, if I was to be unblocked, this would not occur again. I am willing to contact participators who I have worked with other the years for support if need be and I will also provide links to articles that I have worked on if this helps. Thanks again, (The editor formerly known as Dalejenkins) 94.10.84.90 (talk

) 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked because you went right back to working on articles for deletion, something your original socks did. If you want to be unblocked, just contest it on the Dale talk page. Creating more accounts is probably the worst thing that you can do if you want to start anew.

) 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You edited 2 days ago using this IP in defiance of the community ban you received only a month ago? Leaky Caldron 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. 94.10.84.90 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Standard offer. There's no automatic get out of jail free card, but it lays out a nice path to return as an editor. AniMate 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

6 months? Could a review be opened a bit sooner? 94.10.84.90 (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) why? Leaky Caldron 22:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(

AfD, and it's gonna take a lot longer before I'd want to see you unblocked. If you did get unblocked, would you be willing to stay away from all deletion discussions for at least a while? (Note: I may be biased due to WP:Articles for deletion/Search for Alan Goulden). - Kingpin¹³ (talk

) 22:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was to be unblocked, I would never enter/start a deletion discussion. The only condition would be if an article that I had largely contributed to or created was AFDed by another user. In which case, I'd obviously want to defend my corner. (I'd also like to point out that there was no sockpuppetry at that AFD, but I understand the sentement). 94.10.84.90 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The standard offer is clear – apply for consideration in 6 months – from 6 January (the last known use of this evasive IP). I'm not sure you're in a good position to set conditions TBH. Leaky Caldron 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither are you, especially as you aren't an admin. 94.10.84.90 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Six months is likely the soonest a review that has a chance of succeeding would take place. In the meantime, if you really feel you must edit consider one of Wikimedia's other projects. Positive contributions elsewhere can only help getting your block lifted. If there's nothing else, I'm going to close this section and give your IP a nice timeout, since you are currently evading a block. AniMate 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dale, his issues have no place for discussion here.

talk

) 22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but you were canvassing I think - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say perhaps we can consider an unblock/unban if you abide by the

evading your block via IP addresses. –MuZemike

22:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just for info. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins. Leaky Caldron 23:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I got blocked for being Dale and I'm nothing to do with him. Fucking hilarious at the time, but if I was Dale I'd be well pissed off. (Signed: windhover75) 81.155.144.48 (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for disruption, including [54] and [55]. –MuZemike 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Travisharger

Can somebody watch over this guy? He is in a conflict with every article that has an edit by SuaveArt. Na'vi (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful. All I see are edits at International House of Prayer, its AFD and from around that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist edit?

Resolved

– Blocked by Materialscientist Bfigura ^(talk) 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone check if this edit is vandalism?

Offliner (talk

) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it already -- seemed problematic to me, to say the least. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Now the IP is edit warring over the edit. Could someone else take a look (or banhammer?). I also think that this [56] is somewhat problematic as well. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparent
wp:COI (& mini edit war) on Accrediting Commission International

Accrediting Commission International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Acischolar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On the

wp:SPAM in my opinion. I have been unsuccessful in getting any interaction on the talk page. It would appear that the editor has made the same addition again, only they have used an IP address instead. I've reached the three revert limit so I'm done with the reverts for a while. Another editor's view of this situation would be appreciated. Thanks, TallMagic (talk

) 03:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just soapboxing; it's copyvio cut and pasted from the organization's website. Click the the "Answers to Critics" section at the ACI site to confirm. I've left a message for the editor at user talk about how they can edit in compliance with license and policy. Durova³⁹³ 04:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the attention, help, and clarification. Regards! TallMagic (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, and best wishes. :) Durova³⁹³ 06:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Would people consider that username a

username violation? I mean, the initials are a dead giveaway, but maybe there are other reasons... –MuZemike

08:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The user probably needs blocked. It's a self-evident
WP:COI and his only edits are whitewashing a credibly identified accreditation mill. I have left what I think is a suitably unambiguous warning on user talk:Acischolar, if he edits the article again or continues the disruption then we should show him the door. Guy (Help!
) 13:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Guy is handling it, so I won't take any action, but a user with the name Acischolar editing the ACI article is clearly in violation of
WP:ORGNAME and I'd ask them to change it. Like Durova, I think the copyvios are the biggest concern myself. -- Atama頭
17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The user is signing as "John F. Scheel, PhD" - that's the name of the person who operates American Century University, which claims "accreditation" from ACI (and is therefore most likely a degree mill). Googling gives some... interesting results. The fact that they maintain a second and completely different website at http://acuniversity.edu is not a good sign, IMO. Here's their accreditation certificate, worth just a couple of bucks less than a cup of coffee. Read this letter for a giggle. Guy (Help!) 17:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Century in New Mexico is a sad institution that somehow managed to get "grandfathered" in when New Mexico passed some tough anti-diploma mill laws. The law let Century continue their activities in the state. They recently changed their name from Century University to American Century University.[57]Whether or not the place could be called a diploma mill is dependent on one's definition of the term. TallMagic (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

YungSilver

YungSilver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has three blocks on his block log, and a talk page chock-full-o-warnings for vandalism and false information. He doesn't seem to have absorbed any of the warnings. Today's edits include this one], which obviously contradicts the source, this, which is false per www.riaa.org, and others that have been reverted by other editors as dubious. I think it's time for a fresh, longer block.—Kww(talk) 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Indefinitely, until he's willing to engage in discussion on his talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally. It's a damn shame that so many editors here wasted so much of their valuable time, constantly vetting the multitudes of fraudulent edits this one person has been making, continuously, for the past 16 or 17 months. Moreso that he's been ignoring every since attempt at communication since then. Thank you so much C.Fred for doing what needed to be done. :( JBsupreme (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

IP POV Warrior on a spree

Resolved

WP:TERRORIST, but they persist with edit summaries such as "This is the truth, sorry it hurts", "Okay now, terrorist symapthizers?", and "The TRUTH is NOT vandalism & wikipedia is NOT exclusive to Irish Terrorist sympathizers". Can we get a protective block? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk

) 04:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rockpocket 04:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So much for that. Perhaps 24 hours isn't enough Throwaway85 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Block extended to 72 hours, talk page access revoked. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A kid on a self-propaganda spree (needs to get cut in the start) ;)

Greetings y'all. Reporting edits from

Malez

Warned user. Please report the IP to

WP:AIV if the disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK)

08:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible threat against school by User:124.176.96.213 at Wycliffe Christian School

I came across these three edits while on vandal patrol. While there was no explicit threat, and they are likely a prank, I felt them disturbing enough to report to the school and local police. I'm sure I'm overreacting, but I figure better that than the alternative. I'm looking for feedback on the situation. Are there any policies in place that I should be aware of? Should I have responded differently? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you that they are disturbing enough to report as a non-emergency matter to the local law enforcement agency.--Baron Larf 08:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Besides, the message sounds sinister to me. Throwaway was right to report it, as we only need to recall atrocities such as Dunblane, Columbine, etc. to make us realise that all possible threats against schoolchildren should be taken very seriously.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my thinking as well. Better to waste everyone's time than to let a potential threat against children go unreported. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these messages remind me of the message placed on the school monitor at Columbine High by Klebold and Harris the day of the massacre when they wrote You don't want to be here today. It sounds scary. In point of the fact, I think the parents of the students should be informed of the threat.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That might not be a bad idea. As I said, I've alerted both the school and local law enforcement. I'm not sure there's much else we can do from this side. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I emailed the school as well. Perhaps with emails from multiple people they may take it more seriously.--Baron Larf 09:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simonm223

Resolved

– No admin action required. -

talk

11:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone ought to check out the behaviour of Simonm223 on Global Consciousness Project and Talk:Global Consciousness Project. In my opinion he is bringing wikipedia into disrepute 92.26.147.184 (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Difs please? A cursory examination reveals no policy violations. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Article about psychically detecting "major world events" by rolling a lot of dice and waiting for statistical fluctuations attracts

WP:FRINGE proponents - nothing to see here. - 2/0 (cont.

) 05:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A fringe proponent editor

WP:3RR

or any other policy. This IP editor is very likely the same person or somebody related to him.

It is interesting to note that I was not informed that a complaint had been lodged against me at the ANI noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I found out because the IP user canvassed Zacherystaylor (talk · contribs), a fringe theory proponent who I have had conflicts with in the past[58] to post on the Rational Skepticism noticeboard about me. [59] I wanted to see if the IP user had canvassed anybody else and found this. Simonm223 (talk) 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking to ensure that you had been informed. There doesn't appear to be any real issue here, and the IP who brought this to AN/I doesn't seem to want to follow up. I suggest we give it another day for them to respond, then close the case. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

User persistently ignoring WP policies

Resolved

– Please take to

talk

11:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

During over a thousand edits over 3 years user regularly adds unsourced material and original research eg [60], leaves few edit summaries, removes valid unreferenced and refimprove tags (amoungst others) eg [61][62]. Told me that I was discourteous when I warned them of this. Told a regular IP user who correctly raised concerns about their removing valid tags ie [63] "It is not really a good idea for people who do not even have accounts to tell others what to do and not do in their posts." and "I would appreciate you not stalking my posts"

Please stop this user damaging the project and abusing those who inform them of the policies and guidelines. What options are there for dealing with the amount of unsourced/original material added ?

Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any currently ongoing issues? The diffs you provided are at least a month old and stretch back to June. Nothing that you provided seems actionable. Has there been any attempt to engage the user on the respective articles' talk pages? If so, what was the result? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked through some of the issues, I don't see anything that I would call "brutal" or "current". When pressed (such as in the November

BWilkins ←track

) 12:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Buffysboy292818 and Rugrats

– Editor warned. -

11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Buffysboy292818 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been making a lot of unsupported changes to Rugrats articles, inventing new seasons and making sweeping changes to episode lists. Does this fit a pattern of any known vandals, or is this just a confused user? Fences&Windows 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He isn't a previous vandal of my knowledge, but he continually adds false information as well as some ip addresses all along the same line. BOVINEBOY 2008 :) 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned. Let us know if it occurs again. -

talk

11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

IP AfD Vandal

It looks like the same person behind some AfD vandalism the other day, see

talk · contribs

) 01:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That one was blocked, he jumped range, and left a note on my talk page [64] stating "Derserves everything he gets, I intend to harass the clueless cunt from my unblockable /9 range until the fucker retires. Yours in brotherhood (you can block this one now, I'm going to work)". --

talk · contribs

) 01:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems that our UK friend knows their ip ranges and how large - perhaps a bit of a clue? If they are right, then it is a case of "whack-a-mole". Please don't block large BT isp ranges, you might get me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's the same person whose IP I just blocked at

WP:ANI#Plea from a former sockpuppeteer two sections above. –MuZemike

02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore the individual IP addresses. He'll get bored soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 10:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandal-only account with racist name

– Indef-blocked by Zscout370

User:Azntinypenor, if the name weren't enough, appears to be a vandal-only account. Contribs. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's racist? It sounds more like he's talking about the diminutive size of his manhood, which relates to what his so-called contributions consisted of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in the block log, the name comes out as Asian Small Penis (there is a racial stereotype that Asian males have very small penii. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I read it as "hasn't any". Regardless, he gawn. Thanks for the explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Azn is the short form for Asian that is used online, but glad you know now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Not that I'm behind the curve, but I just found out what LOL stands for. Still wondering about lol, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal threats and possible further block evasion by prolific sockpuppet

With regards to this threat on my talk page [65], it is likely that it relates to this exchange last night [66] . The new user Tnuceht has signed it in the name of the prolific sockpuppet Dalejenkins who was the subject of that ANI exchange.

Note he has also impersonated another editor MickMacNee, with whom Dalejenkins had interaction in the past, in a further grandiose personal threat – see [67].

It is entirely possible however, given his record of sockpuppetry, that Tnuceht is another malicious sock of Dalejenkins. I request immediate action to block Tnuceht and carefully consider whether Tnuceht = Dalejenkins, in which case much more than the 6 months per wp:standard offer should be considered in view of the clear threat he has made. Please note that IP 95.149.80.193, a further probable sock of Dalejenkins, has just arrived on both my and Hallucegenia’s talk pages essentially reverting the changes made by Tnuceht. This could be a genuine attempt on Dale’s part to revert the damage attempted in his name or subterfuge on his part to muddy the pools and create confusion. Leaky Caldron 13:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No matter the outcome, User:Tnuceht should be blocked for an egregious violation of the username policy. It might be a good idea to add "tnuc" to the NameWatcherBot blacklist. --NellieBly (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit harsh? Tnuceht (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For just the username? Perhaps. For the other stuff I have indef-blocked the account. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the 20 or so list of socks already identified [68] and the blatant, threatening and highly provocative nature of the edits made by Tnuceht should the account be investigated to confirm whether it is a further sock or a mischievous imposter imitating him? This will either benefit Dale by clearing him of involvement and thereby not clouding his record further when he applies to return, or verify that he is continuing to evade his block, in which case further action may be suggested. Leaving this unresolved will leave suspicion hanging over him which is unfair. The same may apply to the IP involved. Leaky Caldron 15:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP ranges are different but could, in theory, be used by the same person. My guess is that there are two different users here. I would suggest the behaviour by Tnuceht will have absolutely no effect on the block length of the recent AfD troll, if it's the same user. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dalejenkins seems to have taken this for granted, but I haven't seen anything to convince me. That is where any unfairness, if it exists, is most likely to be found. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was proven to be him then surely his suggested 6 months wait would have to be reconsidered in light of the serious personal attacks, indeed threats, coming as they did only a few hours after he was advised what the route back to editing was? Leaky Caldron 16:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment has nobody read the user name backwards? Is this really an appropriate user name for Wikipedia? Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the way he set up the user page [69]. Together with the threats it is important that Dale is either found to be accountable or hopefully exonerated otherwise it hangs over him when he tries to come back. Leaky Caldron 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The username was commented on above and the account is blocked. In reply to Leaky_caldron, my opinion remains that there are two different users involved. Which is which is a matter for debate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate he is now blocked, but if it is Dale then further action is needed and if it is not Dale then any suspicion must be removed. This latest potential abusive sock is not include in the earlier investigation, yet its behaviour is possibly far worse. If a self-confessed SP sets up a user page with the description “I am a c**t”, threatens 2 users and imitates a further one within hours of seeking to come back [70]and not undergo an effective investigation to confirm if they are indeed a further SP then this will inevitably be raised when he applies to return in 6 months and may sway against Dale. I have corrected the 2nd link in opening para. which explains more of the background. Leaky Caldron 17:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Adrienne Cullen

Adrienne Cullen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Creation of pages about her husband and father-in-law; removal of templates, especially those noting conflict-of-interest, continuing after final warning; link to own biography and promotion of business. Conflict of interest and article ownership issues and refusal to discuss. I've asked for help at COI page and reported as vandalism, where it was recommended I report here. 99.12.243.20 (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

See also: Rebecca Van Buren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 99.12.243.20 (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have left them a comment about templates, and advice on how to proceed. -16:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:LegatoXxXxXxXx and thier continuing
WP:DE
behavior.

Hello, I was on this board last week complaining about a user who is deleting and reverting massive amounts of info on the article, Celine Dion. The user give no reasoning to why they are reverting long-standing statements. The user also continues to ignore any conversation about them, both on their user page (to which they deleted everything on their talk page) and the Celine Dion discussion board, see Talk:Celine_Dion. This user is unregistered, is behaving in an incredibly uncivil manner, and is possibly jeopardizing the FA status of Celine Dion. The user has made personal insults against me on my talk page, and has continued to ignore my, and other users requests to end their apparent destructive behavior. I was told on this board to try to engage in a positive conversation with them, which I tried to do. They, as I stated before, ignored every effort I have made, and continue to edit, without any inhibition at all. I implore you to make the necessary actions, so that this user doesn't do irreparable damage to the Celine Dion article, or any other articles that he/she may begin editing. Thank You. BalticPat22Patrick 16:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the editor of this thread. HJMitchell You rang? 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked them indefinitely. Should they indicate that they are willing to subscribe to the ethos of collegiate and consensual editing, then any unblock request might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A practical joke?

Resolved

– OP advised of policy - if they really hate it, they can talk to the person directly

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

Is this allowed?

You have new messages (last change).

I found it in User:Ccrazymann. --MW talk contribs 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately.

Tan | 39

18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Typically frowned upon, but not against policy (yet). Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it annoys you, remove it. Friday (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the one that says "You may or may not have new messages. Check yourself, you lazy bastard!" At least that one was funny.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:UP#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces. –xeno^talk

18:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

...see the same question under SchmuckyTheCat section above :-) (

) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That content guideline makes clear that such fake messages should be avoided. I also think they are disruptive; if users want to make practical jokes, they can bother their friends and family. Fences&Windows 18:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree; I can see absolutely no reason to allow this user to

intentionally waste others' time on their page. ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands

─╢ 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not against policy of Wikipedia. But to avoid conflicts was eliminated :=). Regards.Ccrazymann (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on- it is mildly amusing! Someone put that on my talk page but

to start an ANI thread. HJMitchell You rang?

18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The last time I stumbled accross one of those I happened to have a message anyway. Kinda gave the game away when two of them popped up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Any concerns about the

BWilkins ←track

) 18:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

None from me, since it is fairly obviously not like that new messages pop-up in terms of text or the internal link placement. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an unrelated and random side note - I personally like this one better...

You have new messages (last change).

-FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hovering over links before clicking is a virtue...

The Thing _{Editor Review}

00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a bot running so that after anyone's 100th edit in 24 hours it pops up with:

You have been editing too long. Go have a beer and come back tomorrow.

Devs, are you listening?

talk

) 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Boris, maybe that should be:

You have no life (get one).

--Ludwigs2 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

While not expressly forbidden, I'd think the wording of

WP:SMI would allow for removal if there's wide agreement that such things are annoying. Tarc (talk

) 13:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there a policy on rickrolling? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Its all good fun, I love the signing out ones. Yes annoying, but in the larger scheme of life, its better than being easten by a shark.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

[Citation needed]--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Send me the shark and I'll let you know if that's true or not. GJC 19:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be

WP:OR?--Jac16888 ^Talk

19:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's a shark, I'm definitely

) 19:53, 9 January 2010 (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:Huey Newton and the News

This user insists on continually adding

Jay

11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a typical content dispute. Consensus seems to be against the image per the talk page but it's better if you let someone else actually remove the image (as both of you are edit warring now). I'm assuming he's moved on but consider

WP:RFPP for page protection if it continues. Note that I did comment to Huey about one of his edit summaries and his debating style. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 12:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User has re-reverted yet again, this time claiming that he was reverting to a version of the article that "works". Is there no form of sanction that could be imposed upon him? –

Jay

21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have left it alone since the last time it was reverted. JJohnCooper (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Gave him a final warning about it. The edit warring is itself problematic but the misleading edit summary is really inappropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats by GoodDay/EvilDay

Resolved

– The stalker's account has been blocked and it looks like I'll live to see another day. —

what a crazy random happenstance

16:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

what a crazy random happenstance

14:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt they are the same person. But I've blocked EvilDay indefinitely anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it would be rather strange for someone like GoodDay to create a sock like EvilDay, now that I've looked at the edit history of both. Still rather peculiar and worrying, it is possible to do a checkuser and find out who did create the sock? —

what a crazy random happenstance

14:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

In

BWilkins ←track

) 14:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

And I wouldn't worry as to your personal safety. GoodDay makes a habit of suggesting to editors that they don't want to get involved in controversial topics. --Snowded ^TALK 14:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's the phrasing GoodDay usually uses I have to say I'm still not so positive about his mental stability, though naturally the likelihood of someone coming through my back door one of these days wielding a meat cleaver hasn't been raised too significantly. (The sheer fact that it has, is making me a wee bit uncomfortable though.) I'm not sure whether the threat was left by GoodDay or someone intending to defame him, and were he to say he didn't leave it I would be puzzled as to who and why did leave the threat, and probably insist on a checkuser for safety reasons. —

what a crazy random happenstance

14:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

GoodDay has for some time been harassed by a Wiki-stalker using different IPs. I am convinced that this EvilDay is the username of this same stalker.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jeanne, GD just has to think before he types or use the preview button and then think does this help if not then dont post. BigDunc 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Something seems wierd also. The suspected sock mirrored GoodDay's talk page on his/her own as well. Seems too easy? Most likely a Gooday hater in our midst. This is why I hate the idea of user being blocked without check user confirming.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jeanne and Big Dunc. Good Day makes a lot of ill-though-out inane comments which don't help. I know GD's posts well enough to read "Don't get involved. You might regret it" as a well-intentioned that-subject-may-give-you-a-migraine warning, I can see why it may not come across that way to someone new to GD's style. Also agree that Evil Day is more likely to be a stalker. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed as well. GoodDay isn't the threatening type. This person was likely his stalker. Reso lute 15:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it, but if all the stalker was doing was imitating GD's style maybe there's a problem there as well. Poor bloke though, having a stalker, yikes, that must be deeply unpleasant. Is there nothing that can be done about the stalker situation? ISP reports? —

what a crazy random happenstance

16:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably part of the reason why I tend to stay out of controversial areas of Wikipedia. People tend not to get so crazy arguing about 19th-century Canadian sportspeople. ;) Reso lute 17:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you all remember the movie Play Misty for Me? Copying my 2nd Userpage? what's next, my house keys? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It may already be someone you know. (and the

what a crazy random happenstance

16:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

They ain't sown unless a

commie-hunting computer is involved... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!}

) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Essay-writing spam problem requires checkuser

There appears to be a spam insertion attack going on right now and for the past few days. This change popped up in my watchlist and was sufficiently strange for me to take a closer look. An external link search shows eight other incidents (at time of writing). There is a related thread already at WT:WikiProject Spam, but since each account seems to be used for only one edit, this seems like it won't be solved without a checkuser getting involved. Note that none of the offending accounts seem to be blocked yet either. Can someone please take a look at and squelch it before the spammers get smarter? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've hardblocked 122.49.210.50 (talk · contribs · block log) and 119.111.124.194 (talk · contribs · block log) for an extended period as the likely source. A checkuser would probably be useful to flush out the socks and see if any other IPs are involved. Anyone want to file an SPI? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do it if someone will send me an email containing the names of the accounts. For reasons concerning legumes I'd rather it not be on my user talk page. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found roughly 12 throwaway accounts and closed them out. Note there's a related meta discussion here. Will locally blacklist any of the domains that are not already at the meta list, but there are quite a few disposable links. Kuru (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I noticed some more in the

WT:WPSPAM archives. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tanya09 seems as good a place to do this as any. I'll probably get around to starting it in the next hour or two. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

21:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of outing by User:Binarygal

No WP:OUT-ing, nothing to see. Collapsed as an early show of Drama Out

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In this edit

outing. Considering several previous contributions have alleged the existence of a cartel (see example diff

), I am concerned that no company is named or any implication that any organization I am professionally involved with may be part of a cartel.

In the recent previous ANI for Binarygal, the ANI was closed on the basis that Binarygal was leaving Wikipedia. As this has evidently not happened I am requesting more positive action to ensure an end to this long history of accusations against other editors, claims of an active cartel supporting ITIL interests (presumably in breach of competition law) and threats of outing editors.—Ash (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone reading this should be informed of the repeatedly hyperbolic nature of the comments by Ash directed toward BinaryGal. The failure of Ash to stick to level phraseology in regards to BinaryGal's claims of a conspiracy may be indicative of something deeper, and it may only be reckless speech. At any rate, I feel that it is harmful. I am absolutely, and will remain indefinitely, only interested in the parties both being civil, as I am not in the position of being able to investigate the alleged conspiracy's truthvalue. I will also point out that I am not intent on replicating everything said back and forth over time, and can only report that what has been said recently by Ash, that BinaryGal expresses negative thoughts against the rest of the world, is blatantly false.Julzes (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Simply see the full portion, including Ash's words, from the example given by him- or herself. It's more complete and accurate.Julzes (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point about hyperbole or "truth value". Are you suggesting that to counter unsubstantiated accusations of a conspiracy I have to professionally out myself? Apart from stating that there is no conspiracy either within or outside Wikipedia and that I have no direct interest or potential benefit from whether the link to http://www.itlibrary.org is in the article or not, I'm not sure what you are expecting (or how much clearer and with much less hyperbole you expect such a statement to be). You appear to be accusing me of failing to prove my innocence for something that I have not actually been clearly accused of and for which no evidence has been produced or will ever be produced (because it is not there to be found) while at the same time stating that you are not interested in the truth of the matter. Your opinion as stated seems overly Kafkaesque and in no way a rationale for Binarygal's threats.—Ash (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm really only posting in regards to civility over the short period that I've examined. Anyone else is welcome to look at the detailed history of the matter. This is the second time you have responded to me. I haven't spoken to you before. Keep a level head in your own use of words, please. What I appear to be doing according to you is in your own head.Julzes (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The incident raised here is not an issue of civility, your comments are off-topic.—Ash (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am interested in the truth value of the subject; I don't ask you to reveal any details about your professional affiliations; and my comments are not entirely off-topic because of your own choice of words. Where a conspiracy is alleged by someone with seeming verisimilitude who displays no personal vested interest, and where hyperbolic remarks about that person's words are used, the possibility exists that there may be an attempt to silence someone. Try to choose your own words more carefully, and perhaps there won't be an issue. That much said, anyone reading this should be informed that I am ignorant of the subject matter and the long-haul of the dispute. I just don't have time to fully engage.Julzes (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can not accept an argument that I share any responsibility for Binarygal's threat of outing. If you have nothing to add to the unsubstantiated claims then you appear to be side-tracking this ANI for no reason. You will note that you introduced the word "conspiracy", the ANI I raised referenced Binarygal's claims of a "cartel" which is a different issue. The term cartel in this context falls under the guidance of no legal threats as if any evidence were published on Wikipedia this has immediate legal implications for the companies involved.—Ash (talk) 09:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have stopped editing because of what has gone on with that article. It is abuse of the worst kind, quite sickening, and nobody is listening or taking it seriously.

I didn't ask to spot what was going on there, but I did. I then had the choice of watching the article being abused, or kicking up a fuss and trying stop it. I did what was right.

I was then confronted with abuse and hostility. Easy words to say, but the truth. Please, please read ALL the talk pages and all the pages he has created about me. I have been accused of being some sort of conspiracy fruitcase, through to being tedious, boorish, and so much more. You will see that I have been rather restrained in the circumstances.

I am just a simple topic editor, and know little about Wikipedia protocols. This guy has therefore used them as a stick to bully me with, over many months. He has used them to take some sort of perverse high ground, rallying others who know the protocols, to avoid the core issues and place focus on ME instead of the where it should be.

He hasn't just abused the article, but has abused the Wikipedia protocols as well. He has been allowed to.

I have been screaming since day 1 for someone to help, for some really senior Wikipedia person to fully investigate the abuse of this article, and everyone involved. This is a matter of record. Go through all the material and see for yourselves.

The core issue is actually pretty obvious if you examine it in sufficient depth with a basic understanding of the market it pertains to. There is a cartel like structure in place within the ITIL domain, revolving around licenses, all driven by money of course. Free ITIL and Open ITIL are aggressively marginized out there, but both are significant and vibrant. Attempts to subvert the Wikipedia article were always going to happen, something which was obvious.

From this reality, look at the talk pages from the start. Look at the insidious methods used to slowly remove all references to open entities. Look at the ruthlessness, the aggression, the very clear campaign. This isn't in my head.

For example, why would someone embark on such a lengthy determined drive, taking so much time and so many words just to remove a simple link... if that link wasn't central to what I have said? They wouldn't, especially as there were other links there to hopeless lightweight websites.

As others have said, if this WASN'T about marginalizing the open movement that much effort and determination would be insane, over a trival link which is in any case is to a half decent site.

He has used a variety of methods to hide this, including branding me a conspiratorialist and more, using words and Wikipedia procedures to pander to the prejudices of others, simultaneously discouraging them from taking this seriously and embraking upon the investigation which I have begged for.

In the end I got sick of it. I stated clearly that Wikipedia would end up with the article it deserved, and wouldn't edit again. The article is left as a sales pitch for ITIL rather than a description of it, and is a wholly inaccurate description of the landscape.

Did they stop abusing me though? No. Again, look for yourself.

He continued to abuse me on the talk page, backed up by has newly acquired friend. It was over, the article was hopeless, and I had walked away... but they STILL kept at it.

I responded, stating that I had every right to defend myself, and asked them to stop. Did they stop? No. They continued, as though it was some sick little game.

This passed the point of being acceptable some time ago, but nobody has stepped in. Editors who tried to help here and there were quickly rounded upon too, and disappeared.

The situation now is that I have lost all confidence in Wikipedia and won't edit again. I will respond though if they continue to abuse me.

I have not outed anyone (despite vested interests), and have only ever responded to abuse, never initiating anything unpleasant. This ANI, or whatever it is, is the latest stick being used against someone who is walking away, still having childish names thrown at them. It is pathetic, but typical of what has happened.

If there is anyone who actually takes the principles of Wikipedia seriously here, and will finally undertake the investigation I have requested so many times: you will discover a subverted article and multiple vested interests. You will discover that I am just a person who tried to improve Wikipedia, spotted abuse, and ended up being chased away for resisting it.

Or you can continue to believe that a large number of edits and knowledge of Wikipedia protocols equates to integrity, and pass me off an an unhinged conspiracy nutcase.

It no longer matters to me. All I will do is respond to any further abuse I am subjected to here. BinaryGal (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading the above, you appear to be stating that your core issue is that my interests are as an advocate of a cartel with vested interests in protecting ITIL for profit. Is that a fair summary?—Ash (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer it if this whole thread stopped completely. Far too much Wikidrama. -

talk

11:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To stop the wikidrama, I have archived

talk

11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that
WP:NLT being breached due to repeated allegations of a cartel in operation. This is not only a case of personal attack as in Tbsdy's summary but a direct allegation of companies and contributors to the ITIL article and talk page involved in a breach of UK competition law.—Ash (talk
) 11:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- There is far too much wikidrama around this article. It's a bit of a long bow to stretch that they are making legal threats. ITIL is meant to be incredibly boring. This is far too exciting here! :-) There is no evidence that the editor has any information on Ash, and Binarygal seems to have said it in the heat of the moment. Certainly they should not have said it, but they have since been warned by another admin. Let's stop all this drama now? -
  talk
  12:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  I have re-opened after discussion on my talk page (See User_talk:Ash#Binarygal) as Tbsdy lives has been heavily involved in the discussion on the ITIL talk page and has also been subject to accusations by Binarygal. Consequently although motivated by good intentions, he/she is not a suitably independent person or currently an admin in order to credibly investigate or close this incident notice.—Ash (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved (& perhaps senior) Admin, I took a quick look at this matter, since Binarygal's allegations that

tendentious editting. At the moment, this is still a content dispute. Barely. As another uninvolved party commented about 8 months ago: "If ILL toolkit becomes notable someday, someone who has no conflict of interest will come around and write an unbiased, neutral article about it." My advice to Binarygal is to drop the club and back slowly away from the dead horse. Continue in this vein, & you will be shown the door. (This is not a threat or warning, just an explanation of how Wikipedia works.) -- llywrch (talk

) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As a PS directed to Ash, I don't consider Binarygal's comments to be a threat of outting (as defined in our rules), but I can see that this matter has gotten under your skin. I strongly suggest that you leave this article alone for a long while, say 1 to 3 months. The worse that will happen during your absence is that Binarygal (or someone else) adds those External links back -- & what will harm will this cause? If Binarygal does it, she'll be blocked for disruption. If someone else does it, they can't help but be more amenable to persuasion. (And after all this, there is that slim chance that she just might be right & these websites should be linked to this article.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? Perhaps nobody here actually WANTS to get it.

You say "I took a quick look at this matter". Is that it? A quick look? Do know what you will find with a "quick look"? Nothing.

A "quick look" will have you supporting the guy with protocol knowledge, and a big edit history. Can't you even see that? No?

Wikipedia has been horribly abused, and you offer "a quick look at this matter". The abuser has profited, and an honest content editor has walked away, and NO-ONE can be bothered to actually go through ALL of the history in the context of the article topic.

Does no-one actually CARE here? Is it too difficult for you to confront, that a mere content editor has identified long term abusive editing, and vested interest?

I guess the answer is that no-one cares sufficiently, and it is much easier to brush it under the carpet, and pretend I am deluded. Makes for an easy life, eh? Honest Wikipedia principles, RIP.

No, don't bother to reply. I guess you have the article you deserve, and you have the editor you deserve. BinaryGal (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Even on this page, now, I am being insulted and portrayed as some sort of unstable personality: "Collapsed as an early show of Drama Out".

This appears to be what happens then, when a simple but honest topic editor uncovers systematic abuse and tries repeatedly to get someone to take it seriously.

For almost a year I have been asking for Wikipedia to investigate fully and not superficially. For my pains I have been ignored, abused, and ridiculed. Nobody has taken it seriously: far too easy to portray me as a nutcase.

It is an object lesson for anyone who uncovers article abuse by one or more established editors: you can't do anything about it - this is where it ends. I guess it is also an object lesson for anyone who trusts what they read in Wikipedia articles. BinaryGal (talk) 09:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole lot of articles on Wikipedia that need work. As you know,

BWilkins ←track

) 18:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, I would be surprised if there aren't several articles which currently are being

owned by someone with a financial stake in the content. (With over 3.1 million articles, can anyone seriously doubt this is the case?) However, the way to fix this is by providing a reasonable & persuasive explanation -- which you have not done, BinaryGal. And I remain unconvinced that excluding 4 external links are an undeniable example of "article abuse" -- even if someone like Bwilkins made the accusation with as little substance as you have done here. Let me put it another away: go work on another article. Now. -- llywrch (talk

) 21:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, there wasn't consensus to remove that link, or to exclude all reference to Free ITIL and Open ITIL, and there never has been. If you read all the talk pages you will see how those abusive edits have been pushed through, using everything from gross repetition to bullying. Just read the whole catalogue over many many months, and you will see where the abusers are coming from and how they have operated.

Regarding arguments, I provided rationale many times, but it became lost in the sheer volume of vitriol coming my way. You really have to read it in full to understand it.

And I guess you already know the answer to writing an article: what is the point? If I write a replacement article why would it have a better chance than my defense of the honest aspects of the existing one? It wouldn’t, and I won’t go through what I have had to go through in the last year again. Given that Wikipedia hasn’t cared enough about its integrity to support me, why would I continue to expose myself to the stress of the bullying, abuse and ridicule I have suffered?

I was more than happy for these bogus complaints about me to be made, because I imagined that they might encourage an admin or someone to actually undertake the full investigation I have pleaded for from the start. But alas, it never happened.

And to be frank, neither do I buy the line that this particular article abuse is ok, just because there are other ‘owned’ articles. Surely the way forward is to properly sort them out as they are identified.

I did my best and have been let down. It really is that simple.BinaryGal (talk) 10:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As Binarygal seems to be pushing a point here, and is really showing signs here of

talk

23:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting a topic ban or something else?—Ash (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, but what I was suggesting is that if the user makes any more comments that assert there is a conspiracy on Wikipedia that we just revert or remove the comment. However, I've just added a warning to their talk page, after this I'm going to file an RFC as this might be a better way forward. -

talk

04:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's not mess around with this any more. BinaryGal will not drop this matter, despite numerous people telling her on-wiki to drop it, so I have indefinitely blocked her. I invite review of my action, but the simple matter is that she has gotten stuck on this trivial matter & won't let it go. (I'm at the point of listing the ITIL article at AfD just to be done with this.) Doing this is not only tendentious editting but disruptive; at this point, I'm not confidant that if we all told her to go ahead & put the stupid external links back in that this dispute would end. I'm sorry that it had to come to this, but sometimes a quick block like this without all of the usual process & community input will resolve a problem with a user with a minimum of WikiDrama. (P.S. -- I didn't collapse the thread above -- it was KoshVorlon, but I take that as another uninvolved third party's opinion that this matter had gone beyond our good patience. I merely moved where the collapse tags went.) -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't list the ITIL article at AFD, it's a major, major article and widely used by industry. But I do understand that you might be just saying that because you are exasperated :-) I support your action, this editor has proven to be a tendentious editor and causes lots of issues on the ITIL article (and here). -

talk

11:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

My exasperation about this is only a very small part of my concern about this article. The subject may, indeed be an important subject (although having been involved in the computer industry for roughly 15 years I've never heard of it), but having read the article there is little that explains its notability/importance to someone who is unfamiliar with it -- which is what tempts me to nominate it for AfD. (After reading the article, I am left with a vague sense that it is some kind of collection of best practices for implementing/using computers in libraries, & is part of the certification process in certain countries.) Rewriting this article so someone who is not an expert in it can understand its importance -- someone like me -- would greatly improve it. This won't happen as long as there is this incomprehensible ongoing dispute over the inclusion of four external links. In any case, unless someone wants to discuss this indefinite block of BinaryGal, I think this thread has ended & can be archived. -- llywrch (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are much involved in things like service desk management, change management, release management or any of the multitude of things that ITIL does, you may well not have seen it (I don't know what sphere of IT you deal with). But believe me, I know it's extremely important.

talk

02:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Indefinite block against User:MisterWiki (applied for sockpuppeting & indef evasion)

I am writing this after being made aware of the above sanction against the user mentioned. I have had contact with MisterWiki both on and off site (via IRC) and i am quite concerned over this block.

MisterWiki has admitted to ban evasion and creating doppelganger accounts, but since his new username, almost 2 years ago, he has been a consistently hardworking editor who has tried his best to mend what was past for him. I appreciate that a block is in order, i don't contest that, but in the circumstances and taking into account his current 2 year period of good behaviour, i'd suggest that an indefinite block is harsh.

I know i'm not an admin, and there is no limitation on how long after an event action can be taken, but i'd ask that another look be taken at the block length, maybe with a view to reduction, upon admission and tagging of all known sockpuppets of this user, in circumstances, i can't suggest how long but i feel a reduction would warrant based on his recent good work.

Thanks for listening. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 03:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest a reduced block; maybe 6 months? On the plus side, MisterWiki has been a far better editor under this account. On the minus, not only did he break the rules for a long period of time he did so knowingly, and until recently has edited under two different accounts excluding his old one. Ironholds (talk) 04:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

An indef does seem a bit harsh and he seems quite sincere in his latest unblock request. I'm not going to admit to being the world's biggest fan of MisterWiki (his welcoming templates, attitude and recent misguided use of rollback al concern me greatly) however, he is a good editor and edits, for the most part, in good faith. I think a block is in order for recent conduct, but, as I say, an indef is slightly over the top. Maybe a month (assuming he doesn't sock in the meantime) would be enough time for him to learn his lesson? We have very little to lose by unblocking after a suitable period of time and, in the form of content editing, a lot to gain. HJMitchell You rang? 04:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Support HJMitchell's idea. Ironholds (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
A month may be too short. MisterWiki's deceptive sockpuppetry – which he has outright lied about and
WP:POINT at RfA... well, to be honest I don't really think a lengthier block is unmerited. A Stop at Willoughby (talk
) 05:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah no. We don't reward people for block evasion and sockpuppetry. Jtrainor (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Point; I was unaware of that. Keep the block as it is. Ironholds (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Given ASaW's diffs, I would suggest a 6 month block is the minimum that can be expected. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep the block as is and if he behaves himself and doesn't continue socking, he can appeal in six months (or whatever). I had a look through his contribs, though, and I have to say that I really don't think he's been a great editor. His writing skills are poor and it seems to result in him having communication problems and then offending people and ending up in silly disputes. He was also recently stripped of rollback for misusing it after having been warned twice before for misusing it. I'm not saying these are reasons not to let him edit or anything, just that I'm not convinced that he's really been that great an editor. Regardless, the ban evasion is enough reason for him to be blocked. If he really cares about this project as much as he claims, he can show us by abiding by our policies and not creating socks to evade the block. If he wants to contribute to a project in the meanwhile, he can show us what a great editor he can be by contributing honestly to one of the other WMF projects or the es, pt or one of the other language editions of Wikipedia which he can read and write. Sarah 12:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose long block: MisterWiki is very young, and was really very young two years ago. I'm sure a lot of people did really daft things in Lower School that they have rather grown out of by the time they are ready to sit their first set of public exam, and also I submit that young persons are often naively confident that earlier bad behaviours are gone and forgotten. I understand the desire to impose some kind of penalty, but would encourage probation and mentorship by a more experienced editor rather than a lengthy block. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition to socking and hoaxing, he's abused rollback, edit warred, left bizarre warnings, hounded new users and very nearly driven several away. Or at least, if this user is unblocked, it should be under a strict civility and anti-hounding parole, given that he's driving away, or been very close to driving away several new users with very aggressive behavior. For example, see
competence matters. We can't have people driving away new users left and right. henrik•talk
12:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also a very interesting page to say the least. Sarah 14:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure of the point Sarah is trying to make with that link- I don't see anything obviously sinister, perhaps you could elaborate? Also, to clarify the misuse of rollback, I commented in the resulting ANI thread and it appears MisterWiki
meant well, and was not edit warring or intentionally abusing the tool. He was rightly stripped of the tool, but was not "abusing it". I'm not advocating an immediate block by any means, but I think an indef is harsh and the block should perhaps be reconsidered (though not necessarily lifted) in around a month. The problem here is that people are very quick to jump to conclusions about, in this case, User:MisterWiki, and don;t take in to consideration his other good faith contributions (even if not all of them were entirely policy-compliant). HJMitchell You rang?
20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was sinister. If I thought it was sinister I would have said, "Hey this is sinister!" I just found it interesting to see him spend a whole page social networking with a self-declared block avoiding sock. Sarah 22:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. For what it's worth, the original account's block log is clean; maybe she was hit with an autoblock. As for the social-networking, I agree that it's problematic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right and the prior account. I didn't even notice her former username there on her userpage when I read it last night (that will teach me not to edit in the wee hours of the morning :p) Regardless of that, though, my main point was the social networking. Sarah 04:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

- Luckily, I was unblocked today, after a long talk with users in IRC, and my reasons on my talk page. However, I will be checkusered weekly, but I don't care, because I'm not going to use any other secret account. --MW talk contribs 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay then; please do behave this time around. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, perhaps "abuse" was the wrong word; "misuse" is more appropriate. But I don't think the commenters were jumping to conclusions. This is not an isolated incident; it's part of a pattern. I agree that MisterWiki has acted in good faith, and that he's done good article work, but some of his behavior has been disruptive. Furthermore, policies like
WP:POINT apply to all editors, even those with excellent content work. A Stop at Willoughby (talk
) 01:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As does
Let him be for a bit and see if he does some good because it's easy enough for an admin just to re-block him should any further issues arise. HJMitchell You rang?
04:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

Following MisterWiki's conditional unblocking, and with the approval of Drini and DragonflySixtyseven, I have added an entry to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (see here), detailing the conditions accepted by MisterWiki. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was at all wise to unblock this user while there was an active ANI discussion happening which was indicating consensus towards at least some period of block. I also don't like that MrWiki says he was unblocked as a result of IRC discussion. IRC isn't transparent since non-irc using members of the community can't read it or participate in it and it should not be a replacement for on-wiki discussions. I kind of thought that was long established. If consensus is to unblock him, then I don't have any problem with him being unblocked, but discussion on-site was heading in the direction that he should be blocked for at least some period of time and I really don't like someone being unblocked while subject of an active ANI discussion as a result of discussion that's taken place elsewhere. Sarah 02:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider this, then. MisterWiki is, for the most part, a decent editor who is here to help not hinder the project, thus blocking him serves no use, not least since blocks are intended to be preventative, not punitive. If, as it seems, the block has been lifted, the best case scenario is that he goes back to doing some decent editing and in the worst, he can be re-blocked as easily as he was unblocked. Let's give him another chance? HJMitchell You rang? 03:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. The point is we make Wikipedia decisions on-wiki, not on irc. And the on-wiki discussion was heading in the direction of at least some period of block. I'm also very surprised to see that it was Drangonfly67 who made the unblock because the last time he unblocked a user who was being discussed on this noticeboard, also after an irc conversation, we ended up at arbitration. I'm very glad that this time he apparently spoke with the blocking administrator, but I'm still not happy that he unblocked a user while a.a discussion was actually taking place on-site, b.that discussion was leaning in the direction of a block of at least some length of time and c. that the unblocking administrator still hasn't bothered to come here and explain his rationale to the community. Sarah 04:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the unblock. This is one of the cases, when you have a young and unintentionally problematic editor, where having an uninterrupted longer conversation where you can thoroughly explain the problem is more helpful than a somewhat chaotic ANI discussion. I'm sure Dragonfly67 made it absolutely clear what mine and others complaints were and what MisterWiki needed to change. henrik•talk 07:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have to say that I do. Not necessarily for the fact that he was unblocked, but I believe that Sarah makes an excellent point. Discussion was underway here, and there were some pretty decent reasons for not unblocking him. A decision was still pending. I'm even more concerned that this decision was made via IRC! This sort of this should really be discussed on here first. -
talk
13:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly right, Tbsdy. I don't care so much about the unblock itself - if there's now consensus for it then so be it. And I have no problem with them having an "uninterrupted longer conversation where you can thoroughly explain the problem" with Mr Wiki, as Henrik says, but that's got nothing to do with circumventing or bypassing a community discussion which was in process. I'm actually quite shocked by all of this; after the various arbitration cases and dramafests about using irc discussion as a replacement for on-wiki discussion, I really thought this type of thing was in the past. Sarah 14:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note, I typically avoid AN/I as if it has a case of explosive diarrhea (and when I say "explosive", I mean "explosive"), and I avoid arbcom as if it that case of explosive diarrhea was virulently contagious and transmissible by proximity. So I'm not really up to speed on all that sort of thing. Sorry. DS (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin decisions are often contentious. There is no reason why ANI should be so combative, but unfortunately the end users sometimes cause this. But being an admin and making admin decisions really requires that the admin will participate or at least notify others about what they are doing, and AN & ANI are well known and accepted forums for this sort of thing. That's why I started it, my (unfortunately) greatest success :-)

talk

00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding ANi is all very well, but if you are going to take any admin actions, you have to be prepared to engage with the community. If you don't like ANI and don't want to come here and discuss things, then it's really simple, don't use your tools - leave it to someone else who is prepared to come here and explain what they plan to do and have an actual discussion about it. Unblocking people on the basis of irc discussions while you're well aware there are discussions taking place on-site is a misuse of your tools. I'm assuming that you did know there was an ANI discussion taking place because if you didn't it would be even more alarming as it would indicate you didn't even do a cursory review before acting. You seriously need to stop using your tools in this way or this is going to have to go back to the arbitrators as it's a clear abuse of your position as an administrator. Sarah 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I was asked about it, and I always said: "I'll follow whatever is decided". I didn't ask or argued about block or unblock All I said was "whatever is the outcome, I'll be fine with it". -- m:drini 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me of DragonflySixtyseven's unblock of User:Pickbothmanlol (who was reblocked after ANI discussion), not so long ago. Back then, it was e-mail correspondence that lead to an unblock. Again, his excuse for unilateral action after off-wiki discussion is wholly unsatisfactory. Last time it was "I'm too busy to discuss my unblocking" and now it's "I avoid ANI". I find this pattern where DS doesn't care about community input and defends it with lame excuses somewhat disturbing.--Atlan (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's also very similar to the Sadi Carnot case which led to arbitration Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Dragonfly67 unblocked Carnot after an IRC chat with the only person actually arguing for the user to be unblocked and while there was an extensive ANI discussion occurring which overwhelming supported the block. DS flew in and overturned the block without discussion with the blocking admin or at the ANI discussion and his unblock rationale (as you can see in his ArbCom statement) was that he didn't want the sole objecting admin to resign his admin bit. That was two years ago and I'm really shocked to learn that it's still an ongoing problem with him. All I can suggest is moving to strip him of his tools. If he's unwilling to engage the community and continues to misuse the tools, taking admin actions on the basis of irc discussions irrespective of the discussions taking place on-site, it seems the only avenue. Sarah 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he did the right thing, since I'm not a large scale sockpuppeter. I owned 3 accounts in the past, and I don't wanna do the same again. If I create another account I will tag it properly as an alternate account or doppelganger. --MW talk contribs 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly a constructive addition to conversation. The unblocked account feels it's good that he's been unblocked, my! Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think anyone expects Misterwiki to disagree with this course of events. Anyway, I'm not suggesting MisterWiki should also be reblocked. The Pickbothmanlol case was a different one entirely. What bothers me is DragonflySixtyseven going around unblocking people at his whim, with no more than a shrug of the shoulders when asked about it.--Atlan (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Wiki, I don't think it's in your interests to be trying to minimise your misbehaviour as it only gives the impression that you "don't get it" and aren't taking seriously the concerns of the users who supported leaving you blocked. You created socks, created hoax articles about yourself, created socks to waste peoples time supporting and arguing for your hoaxes and then when blocked, you created a block-avoiding sock and wasted more time, used the site for social networking, caused more problems with other users, and tried to mislead people about your socking. I would also suggest you don't create any accounts, tagged or otherwise and if I see you causing further problems with other users or otherwise behaving inappropriately, I will be reblocking you myself. Sarah 02:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Block again

MisterWiki has repeatedly socked, repeatedly lied about it, repeatedly and directly made efforts to portray that his old socks were someone else, posted bizarre warnings and messages, run a bot against policy, abused rollback, repeatedly edit-warred and made

WP:POINTy RfA contributions, as documented above. After an indefinite block, his case came up before ANI, where consensus was growing that while an indef was inappropriate, a block of some kind was necessary. In the middle of this, DragonflySixtySeven unblocked based on an IRC conversation. I'd suggest that this was (whether knowingly or not) in breach of a growing consensus, and we should reiterate the need for some kind of block. The editing restrictions are insufficient, since they only address a couple of elements of his problematic behaviour. Time off is more likely to be effective, and more likely to convince him of the need to reform. As a result, I suggest we re-impose the block, in my opinion for around three months. Ironholds (talk

) 16:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose With no disrespect intended towards Ironholds, my belief is that re-imposing the block in the absence of continued misbehavior by MisterWiki would be unduly punitive. If the user misbehaves at this point, then re-block and increase to indef to prevent disruption. I agree that it appears that DragonflySixtySeven unblocked in breach of consensus, but that is no fault of MisterWiki's. --Stani Stani 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. While I might have preferred a timeout previously, given the facts on the ground, I don't think reinstating a block would accomplish its intended goal. Continued supervised editing under DragonflySixtySeven seems preferable and more likely to rehabilitate the user. henrik•talk 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Has there been any problematic behaviour since the unblock? –xeno^talk 17:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC

I would support, because competence is still more important than "meaning well" (and who doesn't besides trolls and vandals?), but I don't see consensus for re-blocking at this time. I will support to block the minute he steps a toe out of line. I don't see that he has the right attitude for editing the 'pedia (however typical a one for someone his age) and I don't expect it to make a 180º in a day, but stranger things have happened. Auntie E. 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
While I disagree (obviously) with the methods by which the unblock was negotiated, if not the exact circumstance--reblocking now would be about as
wheel-y as it gets. Regretfully, I'm gonna have to oppose this one. (But like Auntie E, if this user extends so much as an eyelash over the line, I will support a block--and "MisterWiki" will be "OldCodgerWiki" by the time that block expires.) GJC
03:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposed A block is ultimately preventive, and never punishment. If MisterWiki misbehaves again, then he can be re-evaluated, but right now, he's been given a second (third?) chance- and it costs us little to see how it plays out. MW, assuming consensus doesn't develop right here into a block, people are going to be watching you. Poor behaviour will end up with you right back here- with few defenders. Hopefully the thread here, the recent block, and the mere existence of this proposal will be enough. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - As an administrator who actually declined a recent unblock request before the recent unblock, of course I share concerns about the editor. But I think the restrictions will help and I trust the judgement of those who worked out the current arrangement with him. I've also run into his most recent edits on a couple of pages on my watchlist, and they were constructive improvements (see here for an example). He's pretty much "on probation" at this point and seems to know it, if he returns to his old behavior I doubt the community will be as lenient. -- Atama頭 20:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose in spite of the reprehensible behavior of admin acting as if only admins are part of the community. The block was undone. This proposal should only be one of two things, 1. sanctions for the unblocking, or 2. an indication of continued behavior that requires a new block, or the reinstatement of the old block, not a request to re-impose a block when some sort of monitoring and editing negotiations have already taken place. If and when he acts inappropriately again, that's time for requesting a block. Please just close this. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I share the sentiment Ironholds but at this point it would seem to only serve as punishing MrWiki for the bad actions of a single admin. If we were going to reblock, it should have been immediately after the unblock and now it's probably best to just wait and give MrWiki a chance to screw up and if he causes any problems he will be blocked immediately. Of more importance, I think is addressing the broader issue of Dragonfly67 continuing to overturn blocks at will without seeing fit to engage the community. I'm really astounded that this is still an ongoing issue with him even years after the Sadi Carnot incident and artbitration case. He obviously didn't learn anything from that incident and remains unrepentant about acting as a rogue admin and has no intention to stop misusing his tools in this way, so it's going to have to be addressed at some point and I think that is more important that the individual case of MrWiki. However, I would support a proposal formalising community-based editing restrictions for MrWiki. Sarah 02:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on Jews by User:Tholzel

Please could some deal with the anti-Semitism and being spouted at Talk:David Irving#Hints of religious bias haunting this page and Tholzel's tebdebtious arguing.

The way he keeps on referring to "religious" editing despite being challenged on it makes it quite evident that he is referring to Jews. He has been given multiple references to how both the English High Court and the Austrian criminal courts have described Irving as a "

talk

) 10:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You're required to notify editors when you bring them up here. I've done that now.

talk

) 10:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery to wade into these waters again, but here goes: Tholzel's comments, to me, do not represent antisemitism or an attack on Jews. His claims that a Jewish cabal attempts to push its POV may be disruptive and paranoid, but it is not racist. If I were to claim that a group of asian editors were attempting to push a particular POV on Tiananmen Square, that would not be racist either. Tholzel has demonstrated poor editting behaviour, and that may be worthy of a block, but let's not go labelling things as anti-semitic when they may not be. The overapplication of that label dillutes its meaning and reduces its impact. If Tholzel feels that the article on Irving violates BLP, then he is more than welcome to attempt to improve it. The mere claim that editors belonging to one group or another are conspiring to see their POV is accepted is not racist. In fact, such claims are made all the time by various editors against various groups of various nationalities. Let's not overplay the race card. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been involved with this article, and so am not totally uninvolved so I won't action this report, but I agree with Peter's comment's completely; it is clear that this editor is claiming that the article is a Jewish conspiracy against Irving and their language is extreme (eg, "there isn't actually that much historical evidence to support a lot of historical opinion" on Hitler, "Holocaust denial is a crime in many countries, so calling Irving one—without having to say what that means—is a terrorist act" and "But there is no warning that certain sites like this one are off-limits to contributors, and which is watched over by a secret priesthood that has taken over complete control of the entire article. Not kosher!"). As a result, this is clearly POV-pushing by a member of the far right and a block is in order to stop it. Throwaway85; several courts have found that Irving is a Holocaust denier, and as a result It is a fringe view to regard him as anything but. The editor's repeated references to religion make it completely clear that he believes that this article is part of a Jewish campaign against Irving, which is the standard defence of him by far right wing figures. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not debating whether Irving is or isn't, I'm merely stating that no article is so sacrosanct on Wikipedia that an editor cannot challenge it. If they can provide good sources to back up their claims, those claims get included. If not, they don't. No article gets special consideration in this regard. Similarly, claims of conspiracy do not equate to racism. It may well be a standard defense amongst fringe and even racist groups, but that does not make the claim itself racist. I fully agree that much of Thozel's other language is wholly inappropriate, and administrative intervention may be required. I simply disagree with the "antisemitic" label being applied in this case. Throwaway85 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I didn't even know the article existed (well, coulda guessed to find it in 3million...), but reading through the entire thread (link above), I can't help getting away with a similar impression. Nick's quotes ("priesthood", "kosher") are just snippets. If I was editing an article on, say, apartheid, and somebody consistently threw rants about "those low pigmentation folks" at me, I'd know they'd mean "white-asses"... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I've not been involved and after reading the exchange and brushing up on the latest Irving propaganda, this looks very familiar. To make the claim that Irving no longer denies the Holocaust is disingenuous at best, and part of the many word games "Holocaust deniers" use to confuse the issues. For instince, the user

talk

) 13:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, there is nothing antisemitic about what Tholzel posted. Labelling him an Irving "follower" is disingenuous and baseless. It is fully possible to challenge what an article says about someone without being a "follower" of theirs. An accusation of collusion is not ever racist, unless it is accompanied by specifically derogatory language. Furthermore, if Irving did in fact recant, then revisiting the issue is absolutely required in accordance with BLP. His later comments may make changes to the article unnecessary, but it is never wrong to question the status quo in such an instance. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Reading through the talk page I see

WP:TE is more widespread, I think we have more to discuss (please provide diffs if you think this is the case) but this edit seems to indicate the editor is done with this article. Toddst1 (talk

) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Tholzel went back and taunted the editors on that talk page and has now been blocked by me for 31 hours. I would suggest indef block if/when this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a lot of civility there,to be sure. I wouldn't necessarily jump straight to the indef, but he does need to understand that behaviour is unacceptable. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, can I suggest that you note the block on the talkpage in question? To any passer-by, it looks like no-one has challenged the comment. --FormerIP (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that this is largely a content dispute, though I am of course quite concerned about their bad faith allegations that the article is being controlled by "religious zealots"... which strangely he denies means Jews! I have added my comments to the talk page. I don't think this editor is the most uncivil editors I've come across, however. He at least largely sticks to commenting on the article. -

talk

12:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Having been blocked, this user is now editing from an IP, still taunting other editors: [78], [79], [80]. RolandR (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While he has been editing while under a block (which is bad), I'm afraid that I just can't see how that last link here is an example of baiting! Especially as he wrote

"On the zealous cabal, I apologize for that graphic overstatement. But the essence of it, I believe, is essentially true. (If not, please say so!) The Irving article appears to me to be a corporate piece, very carefully researched and very well written. It is in no way the usual amalgam of various conributors. Indeed, the rapidity and sterness with which any changes were excised, seemed to me to indicate that the piece was closely guarded by an ideologically-motivated entity (thus my "cabal")." etc.

It sounds like he's genuine in wanting to change the way he edits, I think that its only fair that we give him a chance to show that he can edit that article harmoniously (once his block expires, of course). -

talk

14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. Whilst it is of course acceptable for a user to challenge specific examples of bias where they see them, the comment "Why didn't you say you were Jewish? Then I would have understood why you are totally unable to present Irving's biography in a neutral, disinterested manner" strikes me as a very clearly offensive comment of the kind that ought not to be taken lightly. I also think that any editor who weighs in so strongly to defend the reputation of a proven and notorious holocaust denier and anti-semite, a poster boy for the far-right in Britian, ought to be allowed to express themselves within the rules, yes, but also ought not to be given a long leash to go around making abusive remarks. I think if it continues then it would be appropriate to deal with it ~~harshly~~ appropriately. --FormerIP (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say we should treat someone harshly... but certainly if personal attacks continue then we should take further measures. Perhaps a topic ban on anything related to holocaust denial? That said, I do hope that the editor stops making the personal comments. -

talk

15:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything here that can't be dealt with through the usual

dick. Throwaway85 (talk

) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Tholzel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be lurking on Talk:David Irving. His sporadic edit history is a bit hard to fathom. However 4 months ago he raised the same point and got a comprehensive explanation here. Why is he now repeating the same thing four months later? One possible interpretation is that his comments are trolling on the talk page, designed to cause offense. He doesn't seem at all interested in discussing sources (like for example the book on David Irving and Holocaust Denial by Richard Evans referred to in the explanation above). Mathsci (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly bemused that Tholzel's repeated and explicit references to 'religion' are being dismissed out of hand here - he even included them in the headings of the discussions he started ('Blatant Relious-based Misuse of Edit Freedom' and 'Hints of religious bias haunting this page')! Given the declared intention of the discussions he started and his repeated claims that the article is a Jewish conspiracy against Irving, it is clear to me that this editor is a bigoted troll. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to an open-minded, equal opportunity troll? I don't really see how claiming people are conspiring on religious grounds is any different from claiming they are conspiring on political, nationalistic, or any other grounds. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No form of trolling is acceptable conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree entirely. I simply don't think the particular form of trolling warrants any extraordinary measures that we would not apply to any other troll. Is the issue ongoing, or has he subsided? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I disagree they are a troll. -

talk

00:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing whether the user is a troll or not, but if these repeated edits are trolling. It's hard to see how a repeat of the same offensively phrased question after a four month gap, when it has already been answered, can be described as anything other than trolling. Mathsci (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The comments are antisemitic on their face, which is upsetting. There's a huge difference between race baiting and just plain baiting. If you accuse Wikipedia of being a conspiracy of time-wasting nerds, you're just being insulting - a nerdist perhaps. If you accuse people of bad deeds based on nothing more than your perception that they are Jewish, that's the definition of antisemitism. The Jewish conspiracy thing ties in with the main strain of this particular bigotry throughout history, to blame things on the Jews. Wikipedia should have no place for that, not an instant. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we are, actually, though it's not the main aspect of this discussion! Given that the word trolling has been used, I felt I needed to express the opinion that he's not a troll. Maybe something worse? I don't know. But if you engage in trolling, surely by its very nature that would make you a troll? -

talk

02:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Larry Sanger problem

Resolved

– Fair use rationale added. That's what was required to meet policy. Inclusion of the image is subject to the normal editorial process. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There's some sort of edit skirmish going on there, over the subject of an image of the Citizendium screen. I don't know who's right. But could an admin take a look and see if there is any policy-based reason not to include the image? Beyond that, the arguments seem to be "I like it" vs. "I don't like it", and that's rather flimsy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Citizendium main page.png, the image in question, has no fair use rationale for its inclusion in the article at the time of writing, so according to the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy, it is not an appropriate use. I'd consider protection while those involved discuss whether the image could be justified under the NFCC, but the edit war seems rather one-sided. Skomorokh 17:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. The one red-link, rcsv or some such, is one who has gotten into skirmishes in the past, and the IP is probably one of the other warriors logged out. But they're mostly arguing over whether the picture belongs, as a picture, and that's a stupid thing to be edit warring over. Semi-protection won't help. Full protection would probably be needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad-hominem attacks in the future, particularly when you're choosing to overlook who it is fighting against consensus and just what their own history is. Accusations of bad faith and sock-puppetry are not helpful. Rvcx (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit history shows you added a tag the Larry Sanger's user page without his permission. QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why a screenshot of another Wiki project couldn't be included on Wikipedia as fair use...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could, but if it lacks a proper rationale, it be gone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.105.26.139

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/189.105.75.22 There is an IP who continues to revert my edits at more than one article. I have a fan on Wikipedia!

The image is completely relevant for the Citizendium section of Larry Sanger. Removing the image without a specific reason is damaging the article. This is a low resolution image that has no market value. A rationale was recently added to the image. It is pretty standard to use such image. See the discussion. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 2#File:Citizendium main page.png QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The only reason anyone would want to take this image down was if they had

some sort of grudge against Sanders. The image has absolutely no market value whatsoever, and almost every other article about a website has at least one screenshot. There is no reason that it couldn't be fair use.--66.177.73.86 (talk

) 17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of what my assumption was. But that doesn't mean the image is valid. Since Sanger is obviously a high-profile individual in the wiki world, perhaps someone could write to him to get explicit permission to freely use the image. If he says "yes", you're good. Conversely, he might say "no", and then it's probably out. Either way, that would resolve the issue, yes? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not if

King Jimbo doesn't approve...--66.177.73.86 (talk

) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's representative of the Citizendium version of

WP:AGF I can see why the project failed. Guy (Help!

) 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's failed yet, it's just too small to be effective. As I understand, it's like the opposite of wikipedia, in that almost no one can edit. Given that approach, it's going to have very slow growth. Some middle ground would be ideal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree... I think that this page is pretty promising. I would encourage editors not to attack Citizendium or any other project, because they are all quite valuable in their own way. Citizendium may even be something we can cite in future articles here. -

talk

11:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, I'm not one of the other users logged out. Second I reverted because the image is non-free and there wasn't a strong enough argument for its inclusion that would satisfy our legal requirements. Third, I'm not following Quackguru around, I watch both the Citizendium and Larry Sanger’s articles, both of which Quackguru regularly edits. Since his edits are mostly moronic and against consensus (the revert he links above is a clear example) they quite often get reverted, including by me 189.105.44.186 (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the illustration as an illustration. The question is whether it's allowable under fair use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, when you tell someone to "watch the personal attacks", it's more than a little ironic...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was once suspended 5 days for calling some other users "idiots". I don't care what you call anyone, me least of all. I'm just giving you friendly advice. Especially as you've been blocked 5 times in 2 months. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Don't make personal attacks or call others moronic. -

talk

11:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

At least three editors think the image isn't worth including, for a number of reasons. (It's definitely not cleared for use in this article, and even if it were I think it makes the article worse, not better.) One editor is edit-warring against consensus to keep it in. Having a tough time understanding how that's not a violation of policy. Rvcx (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit war has resumed. Presumably an admin could protect the page. Or someone could. Or maybe no one cares. Whatever. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is not even one editor who really thinks the image isn't worth including. The image is being removed for no logical reason again. The article doesn't need protection. Just tell any editor who is removing it for no reason to restore it. Uninvolved editors believe the image is appropriate for the article and fair use was established. Rvcx needs to stop removing the image. QuackGuru (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

One logical reason for removal is that it still lacks a fair use rationale for use in the article. I'm guessing someone could potentially come up with one, but it's not there now. If the image eventually gets a FUR for use in the Sanger article, this is an issue for Talk:Larry Sanger as it's a simple content dispute. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

A fair use rationale was recently added to the image. See the discussion. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 January 2#File:Citizendium main page.png QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That rationale is for the Citizendium article. It needs a separate rational for every article it is used on. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The file has been updated for each separate article. QuackGuru (talk) 02:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The isssue is not resolved. Many BLPs have more than a few images in the articles. But for Larry Sanger editors don't like to have any images in the article except for a picture of Larry Sanger. Editors are making excuses on the talk page and are ignoring it is common that many BLPs have images in the article to improve Wikipedia articles. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a content dispute. Discussion of whether an image should be on an article is not something that can be decided by administrators - perhaps file an RFC about the issue? -

talk

02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:BowserQ is using foul language

Resolved

– Indef-blocked. Sandstein 18:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at this user's talk page. Incivil language, directed towards wiki and wikipedians.

Hitro talk 12:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You could try not reading it; personally I don't care. Otherwise, yeah, he's not useful but he's not bothering the actual encyclopedia now. Can someone look at the deleted

WP:BITE him. -- Ricky81682 (talk

) 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(ecX2) Wikipedia is

) 12:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm heading to bed but I do see there is a legal threat in that mess if anyone has a shorter leash. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED only applies to the encyclopedic content. It's been said over and over again. That's just plain uncivil conduct. ♠The Ace of Spades ^♣♥_♦

04:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: from my reading of the horrid grammar, he is likely a sock of a blocked user, as his own block log is clean, and he's going on about suing whoever blocked him. Anyone block any bad-grammared Canadians lately? (

) 12:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned user has been blocked on mediawikiwiki and metawiki. ∞
15:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Following his further screwing around here for example, he's been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad-grammared? Omai, that's an understatement if I ever heard one. I know kindergartners who can write better than that. –MuZemike 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"kindergartners"? lol! -

talk

04:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Resolved

– Page protection correct action for admin to have taken. Nothing further to be done. -

talk

11:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a very minor edit war going on there between an IP user and user:Skapperod (from what i see they each made 1 revert). Then admin user:BaronLarf appeared on the scene and slapped a semi-protection to the article without even trying to talk to them first. I request the semi-protection is lifted because 1) it is premature 2) semi-protection should be used only if both content disputants are IPs. Dr. Loosmark 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The story is somewhat different. User:Mamalala had moved the lead section that was stable for months into the (existing) background section on 6 Jan, where the lead section obviously does not belong. I have reverted that edit on 8 Jan, several other users did so too. Mamalala reverted back. When Mamalala did 3 reverts, an IP continued to do the same, and additionally deleted a referenced section. I reverted the IP, the IP reverted me, BaronLarf protected (the IPs version!). There is certainly no fault on BaronLarf's side.

What makes that episode suspicious is Mamalala's user page stating "I will fly over you soon", and the IP started editing from a plane geolocate 12.130.116.227 about three hours after Mamalala made his last logged-in edit. Which probably renders the semi moot anyways, it seems. Skäpperöd (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all the problems on the article were identified long ago, already in July or August I think. So that the section was "stable" only means that nobody dares to touch the article because Skapperod immediately opposes changes. The article is simply way too long and some things unfortunately have to be reduced. Instead of starting a revert war why doesn't Skapperod propose some alternative solution? And to clarify the so called "referenced section" doesn't really belong to the article, in fact it is my understanding that there was sort of consensus on the talk (minus Skapperod) to do so. In any event admin BaronLarf (who btw never before showed interest in the article) should have IMO tried to at least talk to the editors instead of protecting the article so quickly. Finally I don't get why is Skapperod launching a personal attack against user Mamalal. If he thinks their user page is innapropriate he can simply report it or something. Dr. Loosmark 22:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A week or so ago I had already posted a suggestion on the talk page to discuss major changes before they continue, since this appears to be a contentious issue. (diff). Discussion began to occur between several users. Then an anonymous IP began removing large portions of the article (diff), and then reverting attempts by other users to place it back (diff). At this time I put on a soft protect on the page to prevent more removal of material, and explained the soft protect on the talk page. (diff and diff). I protected the page to prevent further blankings by anonymous editors, as well as to try to convince editors to reach a consensus before continuing to edit. This appears to be a permissible use as it states at

WP:PP. I did not want to have to place full protection on the article yet, hoping that it would not be necessary. If the consensus here on ANI is that full protection should have been used, I have no problem with using that instead. The dispute on this particular article appears to me to be one front in a content dispute over Polish-German-Lithuania-Czech history involving some of the same editors. (Ex: Tadeusz Kościuszko, History of Gdańsk, et al.) I had been planning to remove the protection as soon as consensus had been reached. Cheers, --Baron Larf

00:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comment by BaronLarf shows exactly the problem is, by accusing the IP of "removing large portions of the article" he adopted exactly Skapporod's terminology and his POV. The "large of portions of the article" is actualy a section about Germans in America during WW2 which does not belong to the article. It's ridiculous that the article has to be protected coz Skapperod started an edit war. Dr. Loosmark 02:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problems with any editing of a portion of an article with good reason, and the reason that you have given seems to be a good one. I was simply alarmed by what appeared to me to be blanking of sections with no edit summaries. That combined with another user also raising an alarm and an edit war ensuing caused me to semi-protect the article until consensus was reached. I did not revert any removals. I am not taking Skapperod's side--I actually semi-protected the page at state after another user reverted his edits. As I see that Dr. Loosmark is assuming bad faith on my part, I welcome the contributions of others users perceived to be neutral, such as Wehwalt, in improving the article. Cheers.--Baron Larf 03:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems pretty reasonable to me. BaronLarf's action was warranted, I don't think we have anything else to see here. I'm going to mark this as resolved. -

talk

11:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:woogie10w

My concerns regarding this article are as follows:

1-There is a section on German Americans interned in the war that is not related to the topic. This is OR and should be deleted.

2-The article needs to be copyedited and slimmed down. The current article is poorly written and sorely needs a lot of cleanup work. Over the years this article has become a hodgepodge of edits by editors who acted in good faith but unfortunately lack historical expertise. The historical facts need to be narrated in a credible scholarly article rather than the current disjointed, poorly written mess that exists at this time.

3-The comparable articles on German Wikipedia Vertreibung] and Heimatvertriebener do a much better job covering this controversial topic

4-The inclusion of the ultra-right wing author Heinz Nawratil drags the article into the gutter. He is mainstream and persona grata in Germany, however in the English speaking world his association with the Institute for Historical Review makes him a poor choice as a source. Wikipedia should have a zero tolerance policy for persons possessing neo-Nazi tendencies--Woogie10w (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, I don't know what a neo Nazi tendency is. Is it kind of like my car tending to pull a little bit to the right if I'm not careful?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing for the Institute for Historical Review--Woogie10w (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Is everyone who writes for that a neo-Nazi? Surprised that there are that many neo-Nazis who can read and write. Anyway, I don't see much to be done here. It is plainly a content dispute, and you guys need to work it out. I am afraid we don't do copyediting here.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that, you guys don't have a clue regarding the content of the article. That is why it has become such a mess. Good night.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't take it the wrong way. I do have some knowledge of the subject matter, I've read the book After the Reich, which includes lengthy descriptions of the expulsion of those of German ethnicity from Eastern Europe. I just don't see that we can do anything as admins here. We are not competent to judge the quality of the sources, and consider finding someone outside the picture to mediate the differences.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, if you get a chance, check out the article. Maybe you can help.--Woogie10w (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It strikes me as in great need of copyediting, that is for sure. I will look it over more thoroughly within the next couple of days, and in the meantime will watchlist it and keep an eye on the talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, the page needs the attention of an knowledgeable admin with a NPOV--Woogie10w (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Some say I have passable writing skills as well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I took look at your user page, as an Attorney I am sure your critical eye will help sort out the mess over there. BTW it has been 40 years since I read about Hiss, I reaaly would like to know the story of how the KGB under Yelsin turned him in.--Woogie10w (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm going to do Hiss, I have all the references, I just need some time at home which I'm not going to get for a while. Anyway, I'm going to keep on top of the situation at the article and will help with rewriting. I suggest we mark this resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish PostCodes - Whether An Post Supports or Not

Resolved

– Sorry, no can do. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Request assitsance resolving this dispute over content http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Ireland_postal_addresses#An_Post.27s_Support_Or_Otherwise

Thanks: Dubhtail (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, this noticeboard is only or incidents requiring

WP:DR, probably. Good luck! ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle

─╢ 11:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor violating 3r and vandalising

Would someone be kind enough to block

WP:BLP and is now past 3r. This has been going on for days now. The editor has been warned both on the user page and in edit summaries but keeps playing this game which is boring. I have asked User:Lar to do this but he is not online at the moment. I would appreciate the help, so would others. Thank you for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk

12:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is for. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I was just coming here to let everyone know. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Discographer

Discographer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I was rather surprised to see this post on my talk page from an editor who I have never encountered before (AFAIK). In nearly 4 years of editing here, I've never been on the receiving end of such crudeness. Since I wasn't in a position to knee him in the groin, I didn't want to make a drama of it, so just told the eejit to get lost, with a good dose of sarcastic contempt: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Our_tongues_in_each_others_mouths.

I'd have left it at that, but another editor posted to my talk page suggesting this needed action, which is why I'm posting here.

I'm OK to leave it at this so long as the idiot stays away from my talk page, but it seems that may not be the view of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That type of behavior is unacceptable. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

BHG is more than capable of delivering a verbal knee in the groin where appropriate and I don't think she needs any help in dealing with this incident. The point is simply that we don't tolerate those kind of comments around here. Editors who make them to other editors way are not welcome. Immediate block. No questions asked. That is not the atmosphere we want. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (

coṁrá

) 15:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've added a message expressing my disgust on Discographer's talk page. -

talk

04:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

They have posted an apology. -

talk

21:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44

Resolved

– blocked by AniMate. HJMitchell You rang? 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the guidelines for College Football Bowl games, the page should reflect the records of the two teams coming into the game. Carthage44 (talk · contribs) has been informed of this several times on his page, based on him edit warring at the 2010 Cotton Bowl Classic page the day of the game. He's returned again today, and made mass changes to quite a few bowl games from the last two years. Multiple editors have tried to correct him, but he's changing the in-page notes as he goes [81] and pretending the policy was always that way.

Note this editor earlier was warned earlier today about changing the scores of games to indicate they were finals BEFORE the game actually ended by MrArticleOne, his response [82] was simply "Don't be mad... because I got it first!"

Can a patient admin please try and get him to listen? He appears to be an immature editor who can do good grunt work around Wikipedia, but doesn't seem to get it. My last contact with him [83] makes me think he's not going to listen to me. Thanks in advance for your help. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: When informed about this ANI thread, the editor [84] blanked it. Dayewalker (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44 (talk · contribs) is now openly edit warring with multiple editors across many Bowl game articles. Can we please get an admin to step in, so we can fix the changes? Thanks again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Carthage44 (talk · contribs) is reverting good-faith edits on bowl games and openly ignoring consensus on the infobox layout. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it vandalism? Am I free to rollback to assist? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Too late. Done. Decided that accusing other editors of vandalism and refusing to enter discussion on this point (deleting all warnings and good-faith attempts to talk it out) was enough bad faith and could be considered vandalism in itself. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

At this point, it is vandalism. He has had consensus building explained to him, been pointed to the correct template procedure, and he continues to edit war. He deletes any message left on his talk page that might be critical or try to correct him. —Ute in DC (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the confirmation. He also just removed his block notice. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think that removeing a block notice is vandalsim Jade. To tell you the truth, when I got blocked back in september, I removed the whole discussion.--

^{Let's talk}

03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There is nothing wrong with removing block notices. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:POINT? ArcAngel (talk) (review

) 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. As I said on

this just now. I remember being told a few months back (by an admin, I believe) that block messages were about the only thing that could not be removed from a talk page. It's possible, however, that they meant to say unblock messages." --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}

04:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologised to him. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given him 24 hours off and have revoked his talk page access for the duration of the block. When he returns he can either work with others or he can be blocked again. AniMate 03:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I support your decision, Are'nt you allowed to remove block notices?--

^{Let's talk}

04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why were talk page rights removed?

Nev1 (talk

) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said. When I was blocked, I removed the notice becasue I did'nt want to be considered part of the group of "disruptive editors" and yet I never had me talk page access removed....--

^{Let's talk}

04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always heard that it's unblock notices you're supposed to leave alone. Everything else is fair game, on the grounds that you've read it. Meanwhile, does the user Carthage actually have Rollback? Has he been using it to revert? (I kinda don't think so, given that he's posting edit summaries, in general). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant policy is

Nev1 (talk

) 04:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If any administrator disagrees, they are free to restore his talk page access. This user has a history of not communicating and edit warring, the block and subsequent loss of talk page access will let him know that neither are acceptable here. He can remove the block notice when it expires, but he's not going to keep reverting edits on his talk page or in articles when he needs to be communicating. AniMate 04:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there some new policy I am not aware of that says editors MUST communicate when removing messages from their own talk page? So he wasn't communicating back to you - it happens. From what I have seen of him, that's how he works. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As stated before, his actions on his talk page were in line with policy. Yours were not.

Nev1 (talk

) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with the talk page block, the editor has spent the entire day ignoring good faith advice from editors and trying to pretend they've changed the policy. They need to understand that's not the way things work. Regardless of that, however, can we keep this discussion here on ANI, and not spilling over to the blocked user's page? That doesn't seem to be fair to them to have a discussion going on there while they can't contribute. Dayewalker (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44's actions on his talk page were within policy as demonstrated above. The block itself has merit, punitively removing talk page privileges does not.

Nev1 (talk

) 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw this flash by yesterday but didn't have time to say anything. Put broadly, a blocked user can remove anything and everything from their own talk page other than declined unblock requests. Moreover, no user need talk about anything on any talk page. While true that if there are other worries this can stir them up more quickly, not talking about something is, wholly in itself, allowed. The block itself seems sound but I saw no need to turn off the account's editing of their own talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Amir Vahedi

Resolved

– now RS-confirmed. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, there are tons of rumors circulating around the various poker blogs and forums that Amir Vahedi has passed away. As of yet there are no reliable sources to confirm this. This might be an article you might want to keep an eye on for possible premature reports.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protected it for a day. And confirmed there's nothing about him on Google News yet. Jclemens (talk) 07:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source now available - UPI confirms death.[85] --John Nagle (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected per Jclemens' rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Mcjakeqcool, or someone with similar behaviour

nothing here but

talk

) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like tattling but in this instance a new account's actions are proving to be a concern. User:Bob thegamepro shares a lot of similarities with the blocked User:Mcjakeqcool: frequent spelling errors, poor sentence structure (despite claiming to be English), an interest in creating single-line obscure video game articles (including copied-and-pasted stub notices, rather than editing in the appropriate stub mark-up). This diff is bizarre, his talk page also has strange ramblings about wishing to be an administrator. The abortive single-line stubs are now at AFD making work for others.

I don't like saying any of this about a new user, but is this not familiar to some of you guys? Someone another 21:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Frankly, I thought Mcjakeqcool was generally worse as far as grammar/structure/general (in)competence is concerned, but there are some parallels present. Perhaps we can get a Checkuser to look into this? –MuZemike 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That had passed my mind, but the deja vu caused by clicking on those articles at AFD and seeing the copied stub text was like flashing lights. Tampering with block templates and referring to them as vandalism seems like a strange thing for any new account to be doing, whether or not it's Mcjake. Someone another 21:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm starting to wonder, after looking at [86] and [87] for instance, that

WP:DUCK applies. –MuZemike

21:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, compare Mcjakeqool's edit summaries with Bob's edit summaries. –MuZemike 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Then there's the Atari Age connection: [88] (see bottom of that section), surely that's him just reducing the amount of typing so it's not so obvious. Someone another 22:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked per
talk
) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

POTD caption

Resolved

– I noted Time3000's comments on the Error Report function and it was corrected. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a slight inaccuracy in the picture of the day caption: it should read "... Her sister ship MS Sovereign of the Seas was the largest cruise ship in the world at the time of its completion in 1988." The

Batillus class supertankers were significantly bigger. I've corrected the unprotected version, but I can't do anything about the live version which is transcluded on the main page. Time3000 (talk

) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You should post this to the mainpage talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia policy neutral? Are the administrators neutral?

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.

10 January 2010 23:57 (Block log) . . Tanthalas39 blocked Saldezza (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Disruptive editing)

moved here from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

My experience of Wikipedia is that its policy is not neutral. I started by reading various entries on British people, entries which seemed to me to be biassed. I put in material and suggestions that were factual and made the balance on the whole more neutral. One of these articles, the entry on Christopher Monckton, is not so much an entry as an assassination! It is rude and could not be less neutral. Various administrators instantly and repeatedly erased my contributions, labelled them "Vandalism" or "disruption" and sent me offensive e-mails which arrived in my inbox completely without any warning. The administrators just assumed that anything differing from the entry was POV and the article itself was fact: that is erroneous. The articles in question needed to be changed in order to become more factual, less biassed and in some cases less rude as well. The administrators have since gone on to block me, more than once, erase my contributions from the discussion pages, impute insulting reasons for my contributions, and threaten to block me from writing even on my own talk page! How can you talk of a POV policy when the Wiki articles only take one point of view? How can someone discuss changes or find a genuine consensus when you are censoring the discussion? Blocking and banning people is not a neutral policy.

In many cases, the administrators seem unaware that it is possible to be biassed without being aware of your bias. They assert that they are neutral when they are nothing of the kind. They think that their assumptions, the POV they take for granted, is "fact" while any other opinion is mere point-of-view.

That is a fallacy.

The names of these administrators are:

There seems no objection to putting them here as they already appear on my talk page. Saldezza (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Saldezza.

You've created a list of seven different people who have, very politely, tried to explain the same rule to you. You've added to your list a link to an essay suggesting that it's never helpful to blame others for your own failings; I cannot tell whether you have read the essay yet. It is fine with me if you ask this question, and I hope that someone here can explain the

neutral point of view policy in a way that will be helpful, since your reading of the policy and the advice of the seven of us were not sufficient to help you. I've also fixed the formatting for you (I explained once on your talk page how to do this, but I see you're still having trouble with it) and corrected the spelling of User:Tnxman307's name so other users can identify him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 18:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO is not an administrator. --TS 18:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Saldezza says: Whether or not he is an administrator, he has behaved like one, censoring me. Also I don't agree with FisherQueen's claim that all the users above were polite to me. I think their behaviour was dictatorial, insulting and a form of violence. I think the threats they are now making to me are another form of violence. I would assert that it is me who has tried to explain something to them, and they who so far show no signs of being willing to consider another viewpoint. They are definitely interfering with British politics and I think that your condescending tone is somewhat unwarranted since you admit your ignarance of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saldezza (talk • contribs)

If FisherQueen is ignorant of the subject then that makes it more probable that she is coming from a NPOV. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion should be moved elsewhere (

WP:ANI, I guess), since it does not seem to be about policy in general but rather about a specific incident of policy enforcement. Rd232 ^talk

19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is forum-shopping. Salzezza has just finished a week-long block for abusive conduct and apparently hasn't learned anything from it. As FisherQueen says, a number of us have tried to explain Wikipedia's policies politely. Unfortunately the response has been, to put it diplomatically, unconstructive. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(added) I suggest that uninvolved editors should take a look at User talk:Saldezza to get a sense of what I'm referring to above. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the talk page and the user's contributions. Not impressed. Doesn't seem to understand the difference between objective & subjective, between fact and opinion. I expect he/she will probably come to grief sooner or later by exhausting the patience of the community. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, it's amusing to see that

WP:NOTTHEM is mentioned as an "administrator"... -- ChrisO (talk

) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reblock, this time indef. The editor seems more interested in creating drama than anything else. If half a dozen admins politely discussing with him/her made no progress, I'd say we cannot reasonably hope to redeem the editor now. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Reblock and escalate to indefinite. Users this aggressively clueless tend either to be here to push a POV or troll, and in both circumstances we don't need them. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me; editor seems to spend most of their current time here either 1) moaning, 2) whining or 3) complaining. Perhaps they should get a blog instead? HalfShadow 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, blocked indef. Up until now, I've been uninvolved with this - and this editor needs to be firmly shown the door.

Tan | 39

23:59, 10 January 2010 (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: Pooeybumbum

Pooeybumbum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently been indefinitely blocked for using an inappropriate username. Now, I can understand blocking someone who calls themselves "User: Nigger Killer 5000", but how is "Pooeybumbum" "offensive"? There are users with far sillier, more immature usernames on Wikipedia. I mean, are you seriously telling me that "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" is any better than "Pooeybumbum"?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessarily offensive so much as "disruptive", in my opinion, which is another category of names which are generally disallowed. If the user does object to being blocked, though, it is possible that he could be allowed to use that username; otherwise he is free to create another name. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's stupid and immature, but there are several Wiki editors with far worse usernames...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? Like what? -

talk

03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The policy is kinda vague, which has led to it creeping out like this. I don't have a strong opinion. It's not like my name is much better; it's a song by a silly hard rock band and happens to be about a monstrous serial killer. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support Valid block of "stupid", "immature" username that is not conducive to the betterment of an encyclopedia (
BWilkins ←track
) 19:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Me too, though if Mr. Bumbum himself appeals the block I wouldnt have any problem with it going to
WP:RFC/U. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions}
19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Support - what Bwilkins said. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the feeling that this user is Experiencing A Significant Gravitas Shortfall --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

We have a few of those as usernames, we do. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an issue that comes up sometimes at
talk
) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW the username "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me" says "I'm a fan of Alice Cooper." "Pooeybumbum" says "I'm still anticipating potty training." Auntie E. (talk) 21:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC) and why not Pooey Mcbumbum? That almost makes it acceptable.

Actually, that Alice Cooper song took its title from a Simpsons episode, and pluralised it (the username in question is "

Can't sleep, clown will eat me" Oh, and I see no problem with the block. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions}

02:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Look. My name is just as bad if not worse. And im not indef blocked am I? I think that the real reason that this user was block was for the fact that they have no contribs, not their name.--

^{Let's talk}

03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of editors who chose a username they thought was "amusing" which perhaps, upon reflection, wasn't. Some editors even chose a "silly" username before they ever heard of WP, and have used variations of it all over the internet - just for some sort of continuity. Really, unless a username is offensive (and intended to be) it beholds us to ignore the tag and concentrate on the quality or otherwise of the edits. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there's that and the fact that haveing a user named Pooeybumbum that's not indef blocked is not good for public relations. And don't forget that admins (Im not makeing any accusations) can be a bit trigger happy at times when it comes to blocking.--

^{Let's talk}

03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alleged admin "trigger-happiness" aside, I'd be interested indeed to have someone go through the list of not-quite-4000 usernames starting with "Poo" (and that's only users with edits!) and find out what percentage of those users made valid, non-vandal edits, and the percentage of non-"Poo"-names with non-vandal edits. And to show I'm not looking for results that suit my supposed bias here, I included legitimate usernames like "Poohbear" and "Poodle". I'm not a betting woman, but if I were, I'd bet pretty heavily that if (hypothetically) 25% of all users have made non-vandal edits, the percent of "Poo"-names with non-vandal edits would be less than 10% of that total. GJC 08:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard is right - some editors, like me, simply chose an username they've been using on other things before. (Well, I had an account years before, but since the PRC govt imposed the ban on WP I was forced to retire. Years after they lifted the ban, my life stabilized a bit, I decided to return, but could't remember the username... So this time I simply chose the username of my WoW account) Maybe they do sound silly, but I think if they are not particularly offensive to others, then it should not be a ground for blocking. Blodance (talk) 06:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I may be in a crashing minority here, but (were I inclined toward creating Venn diagrams ) the set "names referencing fecal matter" and the set "names particularly offensive to others" would show significant overlap. And no, it's not the immaturity of the reference that flips that switch; "Gluteus Coprophagius" or something similar would provoke the same reaction. Or look at it from a marketing standpoint (and no, I don't mean Wikipedia marketing; I mean as a generic concept): I'd like to ask the user Really, is "Pooeybumbum" really the brand identity you're looking to establish? When people think of you, do you really want them to associate you with concepts like "skidmarks" and "poor hygiene"? In short: seriously, are you SURE you want to identify yourself with poop? GJC 08:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Camp Chapman attack problem

Resolved

Both editors blocked

I would like to point out a problem with user cs32en. Currently he has started an edit war with me at the article Camp Chapman attack, and even violated the 3RR rule (three revert rule), I myself reverted him two times and stoped. After that I have come here in hopes of resolving this issue. The problem:

1.Every major news media is reporting only eight people (nine if you include the attacker) died in the terrorist attack, references for this can be found everywhere. User Cs32en is violating the

WP:SYNTHESIS rule by inserting information that has showed up in only one article so to make it look like nine people (ten if you include the attacker) died. His source is here [89]

. His claim is that the Afghan security chief of the CIA base, Arghawan, was killed. At this point I would like to say that except for this one source no other source is reporthing Arghawan's death, and this source was only a few days after the attack when the situation was still chaotic and fluid.

2.With the addition of Arghawan to the list we got nine dead on the list of casualties, seven CIA, one Jordanian agent and the Afghan. Again, pointing out every major media news outlet is reporting only eight persons died. Also, I should state a source for the backgrounds of all of the seven CIA agents has been provided in the article [90]. There is no mention of Arghawan in the article. And multiple reports on individual backgrounds of the operatives can be found everywhere, again no mention of Arghawan.

3.It should be pointed out that until a few days ago he started another war with me claiming that only six CIA operatives died and not seven. His edit was again based on only one source here [91]. I told him that the source provided for the number 6 is also linked to an article as a source for the number 6, but that source states 7 not 6, their mistake. He wouldn't back down claiming constantly that six CIA operatives died, even though I provided him with sources that claimed to the contrary, sources like the president of the United States [92] who said that seven Americans died and a spokesman for the CIA itself [93] who said that a memorial for qoute seven CIA employees who fell in the line of duty was held at Dover air base where their bodies were transfered from Afghanistan for burial in the United States. He just brushed aside those sources and still pushed his POV that only six died, at one point even proposing that the president of the United States and the CIA were making statements on unreliable information. Both the presidents and the CIAs speechwriters got it wrong? At this point I proposed a compromise. I took in the posibility of the Afghan maybe being an American of Afghan origin, since seven bodies were right there on the airport and Obama stated seven Americans died. For a few days he agreed to this since everyone was still reporting 7 and not 6 CIA officers died. But he only agreed to it if the wording was such that left the posibility of the Afghan being only a simple Afghan and not an American one. To please him my wording in my edit implied both, he was an American Afghan or he was just an Afghan.

4.However, yesterday he again erased from the article the posibility of the Afghan even being a CIA operative. And he started a new edit war until today he himself added a new source [94]. A source that states the backgrounds of all the seven who died, and the source states that the seventh person killed was the Kabul CIA station deputy chief. This made me to belive that since Arghawan has not been mentioned in any other news article or media outlet after that one ABC report that Arghawan was in fact never killed. Thus I reworded the article. The report on the deputy chief was still not confirmed so I stated that possibly the deputy chief was killed. But now since we had nine dead and not eight on our list I erased Arghawan from the list, but still mentioned him in the article. This was my wording and source. Initial reports also stated that the security director of the base, an Afghan named Arghawan, was also killed in the attack.[95] However, in the days after the attack no mention of Arghawan among the casualties had been made.[96][97][98] He still reverted me, and reverted me three times: 1st time - in edits from [99] to [100], 2nd time - [101] and 3rd time - [102]. By the way my apologise for deleting that whole section titled Initial reports before the second revert, my bad, my mistake, not my intention.

5.I confronted him once more about this, I told him multiple reliable sources are stating that only eight people died and not nine, I told him that only one source has stated Arghawan was killed but after that no other mention of him. His response to me was: I know that multiple sources exist. One source, however, is sufficient. I will not spend my time formatting refs for a particular piece of information just because you would want me to do so. The death of the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station has not been confirmed, so there is no reason to change the overall death count. He said that even though he himself changed the death count with nine people listed in the table of casualties. I myself have googled and yahooed Arghawan on the net and only one article mentions him on the whole Internet. Where are those multiple sources?

6.I would like to point out that user Cs32en has been blocked once before for edit warring [103] and while in conflict with me has been in conflict with two other users over different issues, users Deicas and Troed. This shows a pattern of edit warring. UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

7.An additional point 7, user Cs32en deleted my notification of his behavior on this noticebord as seen here [104], which I think constitutes vandalism, and made an accusation against me. I think that is called covering up the evidence.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to sum up, I have presented all of the evidence. User Cs32en violated the 3rr rule and is constantly inserting information based only on one source while deleting multiple other references that are contrary to that one. Also, he deleted another users notification on the noticebord so to make his own case without the other users voicing his opinion.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you post the four diffs you say violated 3RR? Also, Cs32en, you are obviously aware of this thread, can you respond?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

He got blocked; for 31 hours. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin. It does seem that more outside reviewers are needed. There is a solitary source - which appears reliable - that differs from the others, so it may be that careful wording should try to balance the different references. The more input, the better. As for the block, and why only Cs32en. Both parties are edit warring and technically there is a question on whether either went over 3RR, so instead I reviewed the non article editing. UrukHaiLoR has been attempting to resolve this matter by discussion, noting differences and suggesting methods of incorporating both viewpoints - Cs32en has been disparaging such efforts, and misrepresenting policy to support their preferred version. Further, Cs32en has actively disrupted Wikipedia by removing another editors comments (UHLR's notice to this board) and posting a "counterclaim" in what would appear to be a bad faith attempt to both divert attention from their actions and to "win" the content dispute. While the question over edit warring may be further investigated and possible actions taken, I have suspended Cs32en's editing privileges so that they may have the opportunity to reflect on the appropriate methods of resolving editing difficulties. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In response to Wehwalt's request for the three revets, here they are: 1st time - in edits from [105] to [106] he deleted and reverted all of my edits, 2nd time - [107] and 3rd time - [108].UrukHaiLoR (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK Queue 5
) needs attention

DYK Queue. Cs32en

19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Just posting to note that this user has just been blocked for 31 hours and cannot continue in this thread unless unblocked (likewise for the thread above this one, which appears to be the other person's viewpoint of the same dispute). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a gesture of good faith here, particularly with this baffling rationale. Block seems appropriate, notwithstanding the issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en posted a note saying the removal was an inadvertent edit conflict and that his note you linked referred to this removal from his own talk page. *shrug* Call me naive, but I buy it. I'm sure Cs32en is experienced enough to know that a stunt like that would 1) not go undetected, 2) result in swift action. henrik•talk 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know him or his experience level, but that seems plausible. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While it is possible that Cs32en accidentally removed UHLR's comment, it is unlikely. It could have been done by opting to edit the entire page and opening the edit page before UHLR did so, and then saving after UHLR. To do this Cs32en would needed to have taken longer to post two sentences and sign than UHLR did with several paragraphs. Any other scenario would have resulted in edit conflict warnings. Again, possible if UHLR composed his comments off-page and just copied them over - but I would point to this diff where UHLR notified Cs32en of his intention to notify the admin board. It remains unlikely that this is only an unfortunate turn of events. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That does make it seem somewhat less plausible. :/ Well, whether this was inadvertent or not, the behavior around the issues in the article remains problematic. He has been blocked for edit warring before and should be familiar with dispute resolution practices. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's at least possible that he did it by accident. Here's an example of me doing the same thing a few months ago, and I still don't know why. I believe that there will be no edit conflict warning if the user is editing from a "diff view" version of the page, since the software assumes the user knows better. That might explain both my example and his. I have no opinion on anything else related to this ANI because I haven't read it. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize to UrukHaiLoR and to the other involved editors for (inadvertantly) removing his report from this noticeboard. I used the "new section" tab to make my edit, while UrukHaiLoR's report was not yet on the page. Then, at the edit conflict window, I copied my text from the lower part of the window into the upper part. I did not remove any text from the upper window, but somehow my edit resulted in the removal of the report. Then, I went to look for specific additional sources (the URLs, as I knew that the sources existed) corroborating the ABC report. Returning to the noticeboard, and refreshing the page, I saw UrukHaiLoR's report, and the banner informing me of his message on my talk page. I should have read his message more carefully. As I had just seen his report to the noticeboard, unaware that I had deleted it before, I thought that UrukHaiLoR would refer to a previous 3rr notice he left on my talk page. I responded to UrukHaiLoR, stating that removing a notice would be seen as evidence that the editor had read the notice (which of course refers to talk page notices).
UrukHaiLoR claims that no sources have reported on the death of the Afghan security director at Camp Chapman, other than ABC. He says that three sources would confirm his view. However, neither of the sources explicitly supports what he added to the article (i.e. that no other media reported on the death), nor does any of the sources say that the security director would not have died. There are several sources, other than ABC, that have reported that he was killed in the attack: The National (Kuwait), India Times, AGI (Italian Press agency) Chosun Ilbo (Korea). The Associated Press reported that an Afghan was killed (Kansas city newspaper with AP text).
At the beginning, UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee, [109] (edit summary: "Fixing some grammer errors and working a bit on the style") and inserted the claim that nine people would have been killed in the attack into the article, [110] [111] a claim that was not supported by any source at the time and was based on synthesis on his part.
In his report to the noticeboard, UrukHaiLoR says that I would have stated at one point during the discussion that six CIA operatives had died in the attack (see point 3). Instead, my edits to the article stated that "at least six" resp. "six or seven" CIA officers (not operatives) were killed in the attack, thus reconciling the available sources. (It is now likely, according to reliable sources, that four or five CIA officers were killed.) UrukHaiLoR is misrepresenting our previous discussion with regard to this issue.
I initially discussed the issue with UrukHaiLoR in a rather lengthy exchange of opinions at my talk page (talk page archive). I admit that I got annoyed by UrukHaiLoR arguments, in which he constantly synthesized information taken from various sources, instead of sticking to what the sources actually said. At that point, I should have filed a request for comment myself, instead of just suggesting to UrukHaiLoR to do so. After discussing the issue repeatedly, I grew rather impatient, and responded rather swiftly to UrukHaiLoR's comments. It would have been better at that point to leave the editing process to other editors, and I think that it is a good thing for me now to take a short break from editing anyway, whether my block is being upheld or not.
I think it is important that the article is well sourced, without original research or synthesis. Also, it's important that any information is closely linked to the respective source, and that no information is being inserted into sentences that are based on unrelated sources. This is especially important, as the article is currently in the Did you know queue, and I hope that more editors will have a closer look at the article during the next few days. Cs32en 21:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cs32en's comments

In response to Cs32en's comments at his discussion page that Henrik copyed to this noticebord. He stated the following about the three refs I provided that would confirm my edit: He says that three sources would confirm his view. However, neither of the sources explicitly supports what he added to the article (i.e. that no other media reported on the death), nor does any of the sources say that the security director would not have died. All sources confirm that eight people died in the attack, seven of them CIA operatives and one Jordanian operative, no mention of an Afghan. I think that falls under the category that no other media reported on the death. Also if any administrators start to think, like I also did in the begining myself, that the Afghan is possibly one of the CIA operatives, I would like to point out that the president of the United States and the CIA itself stated all 7 CIA operatives were Americans and all seven are to be buried in the US. Again, no mention of an Afghan. I have provided refs for this above.

To continue, his accusation - At the beginning, UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee and inserted the claim that nine people would have been killed in the attack into the article, a claim that was not supported by any source at the time and was based on synthesis on his part. I am sorry for saying this but this is simple lying and manipulation of information on his part. After the mention of the possible death of the Afghan yes I did sum him up with the others to get a number nine but this was since it was confirmed that 7 Americans and a Jordanian were confirmed dead, 1+7+1=9. However, I did not at the same time claim that the Afghan was also one of the CIA operatives, this is pure lying on Cs32en's part. It was later that day when I saw that they didn't change the official number of dead from eight to nine that I deduced the possibility the Afghan was one of the 7 CIA employees. After that I changed the number back to eight. In the days following the number of dead maintained to be eight but all of the CIA were confirmed to be Americans, no Afghan. Thus the information on the Afghan has become unreliable. However user Cs32en continued to insist that while the official number of the dead in the article is to be stated to be eight (7 CIA and 1 Jordanian), he continued to mention the death of the Afghan security director as an additional ninth death, while not stating that he was a ninth death thus maintaining the number eight. User Cs32en's reasoning is beyond me.

As for his additional sources of proof that the Afghan died: 1st source - India Times [112], doesn't mention the Afghan killed by name just states an Afghan and the article is dated the same day as the previous original ABC article that mentioned Arghwan, also it should be noted that the india times article also states that again eight died, of them 7 CIA (all Americans) and 1 Jordanian, how did this Afghan come here magicaly?; 2nd source - Italian news report [113] dated at the same time Januar 2-3 as the previous ones, once translated the information is highly simillar to that of the ABC article, most likely the Italian newspaper reported what the ABC article reported; 3rd - a Korean news article [114], I don't know Korean but my guess is it's the same as the Italian one; 4th - the Kansas news article states eight Americans and one Afghan died, that was reported only a few days after the attack and is unreliable since it has been confirmed that seven not eight Americans died. Would you please point to me one other English or US news article that states Arghwan died, that is not a copy-paste of the ABC article? Except for ABC there is no other US or English news media that reports his death, but I give credit to Cs32en for digging up the articles in Italian and Korean.

And his final accusation of a possibility that only four or five CIA officers died and not seven, it has been sourced and proven the CIA consideres contractors as it's operatives, and the article has made a distinction, seven CIA employees - 4 officers and 3 contractors.

Summery once again, user Cs32en insists on counting the Afghan security director as one of the dead based on one lone notable article, he insists that eight people died (which I agree) - 7 CIA (all Americans confirmed) and 1 Jordanian. However he still wants to state the Afghan died separate of the others which would make nine deaths but still keep talking eight died, I think his math is a bit off. My compromise solution to him was, and I think it to be the best, is to state the following - Initial reports also stated that the security director of the base, an Afghan named Arghawan, was also killed in the attack.[115] However, in the days after the attack no mention of Arghawan among the casualties had been made.[116][117][118]. He rejected this by saying the article should still say - Eight people died: 7 CIA agents, 1 Jordanian agent and one Afghan security director. 8=7+1+1??? I tried to compromise with him to than include the Afghan as one of the CIA operatives since he worked for them despite the fact the CIA and the president of the United States said they were all Americans, he rejected this compromise too. This compromise I only proposed since six of the seven CIA operatives were identified or partialy identified, the seventh was still unknown so I came to the assumption of an off posibility of the seventh being Arghawan, but today the posibility of the seventh being the CIA Kabul deputy chief came to light and thus the posibility of Arghawan being among the dead was shot down for good.

For more proof see the table with the list of casualties in the article here per Cs32en's edit:

**Fatal casualties**
Name	Affiliation and position	Age
Al Shareef Ali bin Zeid	Jordanian intelligence official	Undisclosed
CIA officer (unconfirmed, undisclosed identity)	CIA officer, deputy chief of Kabul CIA station	Undisclosed
Female CIA officer (undisclosed identity)	CIA officer, chief of base	mid-30s
Harold Brown	CIA officer	37
Elizabeth Hanson	CIA officer	31
Scott Roberson	CIA operative	39
Dane Paresi	CIA contractor ( Xe )	46
Jeremy Wise	CIA contractor ( Xe )	35
Arghawan	Security director at the base	Undisclosed

Is that eight or nine people I see in the table?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am still open for compromise despite he is not. He wants to include Arghawan? Fine than say nine died. He wants to say eight died? Fine but you cann't include Arghawan. You cann't say eight people died and than list nine fatalities.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cs32en's reply

UrukHaiLoR's statements above illustrate the type of communication I have been subjected to while discussing the issue with him.

A general comment on the issue of the number of dead: Two people were seriously injured, and we cannot exclude the possibility that one or both of them died subsequently, thus changing the actual number of dead. This is just one possibility that makes even simple math difficult in this case.
UrukHaiLoR says that the Times of India would not mention Arghawan by name. The Times of India says [119]: "killing eight people, including an Afghan security director" "the suicide bomber was often picked up from a border crossing by a trusted Afghan security director named Arghawan and driven to the base" "there was a suicide blast that killed eight people, including Arghawan".
I have not included any articles on the issue that say some like "According to ABC,..." Also, ABC says it spoke to someone close to the security director, so ABC is not simply repeating some claim from an uninvolved person.
On the issue of 8/9 killed: I have added "unconfirmed" to the entry of the Kabul CIA station deputy chief in the table. UrukHaiLoR has removed this qualification in his last edit to the article.
UrukHaiLoR says that my statement that "UrukHaiLoR claimed that the Afghan security director at the base would have been a CIA employee" would be "simple lying and manipulation of information on his part". However, he makes at least two statements to that effect in a section of the talk page section of that article which he named "Revised list of casualties based on new references provided by our friend Cs32en, thank you :)". The comments included the following remarks: "It's over, Cs32en" and "You are out of arguments Cs32en, anything you say from this point is simply POV-pushing." Also, on my talk page, he said "haha......Wait......Wait.....I just noticed something [...] I got it, the Afghan security chief, he was a CIA officer as well, he was probably an American of Afghan origin, it would make sense." "Why is his body being buried in the US if he was only an Afghan? Hmmm? Stop fighting this man. Jeez." (talk page archive)
I had accepted the "compromise" that UrukHaiLoR refers to. However, after the New York Times reported the death of a CIA officer that had not previously been disclosed, it was no longer reasonable to infer that the Afghan would have been a CIA contractor. (It never was anything else than synthesis, from a policy viewpoint.) I therefore removed the description of Arghawan as a "CIA contractor" in this edit. Cs32en 23:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that we are past the block/unblock stage, how is this not a matter that cannot be compromised? There are many articles with uncertain information, where we sometimes put both sets of information and explain the circumstances to the reader.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree. Why can't you tell the reader how different news sources report different numbers? Seems a lot simpler than an ANI thread. ALI ^{nom nom} 02:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, I totaly agree with you too. But that's the problem. I have been trying to compromise but everything I proposed didn't sit well with Cs32en. The facts are everyone is reporting eight people died (7 American CIA officers and 1 Jordanian officer). No mention of the Afghan. No mention of the Afghan. However, I would be open to compromise to state that Between 8 and 9 people died (7 American CIA officers, 1 Jordanian officer and possibly the Afghan security chief). Per user ALI's recomendation. However the problem is Cs32en, doesn't want to agree to this. Because according to him that is OR, and I realy have no idea why is it OR if ABC is such a reliable source according to him. While Cs32en is telling that putting that nine died is synthesis he himself is listing nine people on the fatalities list while still saying that eight people died overall. Is that normal? At this point I am open for a compromise not to exclude the Afghan security chief from the list of those killed, but Cs32en has to agree that we put that - Eight or nine people died in the attack. Among those killed were 7 CIA operatives, 1 Jordanian intelligence agent and according to some sources possibly the Afghan security chief of the base. Is this satisfying? I think you cann't get any more compromising than this, even though everyone is still reporting only 8 people died, not including the Afghan.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you need to say both "some sources" and "possibly". If you say "some sources", the reader knows there is doubt. How bout: "While most news sources report eight deaths from the bombing (including the assailant), some report that the Afghan base security chief, Arghawan, was also killed."--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I could agree to that, but without (including the assailant), since the number eight is 7 CIA and one Jordanian military officer. OK, I would agree to While most news sources report eight deaths from the bombing, seven CIA operatives and one Jordanian military intelligence officer, some report that the Afghan base security chief, Arghawan, was also killed. But the statement that Eight or nine people died in the attack. needs also to be included.UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Shows what I know (grimace). I am afraid I have not followed the details of this story. Well, that sounds good, run it up the flagpole and see who salutes. Are you pro-Orc, by the way?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Orc? o.O?UrukHaiLoR (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied from Cs32en's talk page at his request

On the compromise: I wouldn't mind personally if the article says 8 or 9 in the lead. We have no source for "9" anywhere, however. NPR now says the deputy Kabul CIA station chief did not die, so we are back to eight dead anyway ("The deputy chief of station survived the blast, according to several intelligence officials, but is in grave condition at a U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany." NPR) So the prior compromise with UrukHaiLoR (indicating that Arghawan would be a "CIA contractor", although there is no single source that says so) could be reinstated.

I always assumed that the burden of proof would be on the editor who inserts new information, in this case speculation about the status of the security director, or the aggregate number of nine fatalities. Apparently, this is not always the case. There are several difficulties with UrukHaiLoR last edit to the article (which repeated previous edits) [120]:

UrukHaiLoR

changes "its security director" to "possibly the Kabul CIA station deputy chief", not supported by any of the sources that are given at the end of the sentence that he modified;
removes a reference to the Financial Times
changes "Some of the names" to "The names of five", not supported by the source, which says "some of the names have been disclosed in local media". In addition, the New York Times reports that one name has been disclosed by an online journal [121], so the information given by UrukHaiLoR is also factually wrong.
UrukHaiLoR also inserts the words "Initial reports have stated" and "in the days after the attack ... no mention of Arghawan has been made," two statements that are not supported by the sources he has given, and the second statement also appears to be factually wrong (see the sources I have provided, i.e. Associated Press, The National, India Times, AGI, Chosun Ilbo).

I hope that by now there are enough eyes on the article, so that synthesis and original research can be avoided. I do not think, however, that a compromise, as outlined above, would resolve the basic issue here, which is that I prefer to stick to what sources actually say, while UrukHaiLoR tends to extrapolate from the sources and thus to engage in synthesis, sometimes original research, i.e. not combining information in an unwarranted way, but deducing new information by comparing sources. The new information that is now available on the deputy chief of the Kabul CIA station (alive, not dead) illustrates the danger in such an approach.

Having said that, I would not revert UrukHaiLoR if he would reinsert such language, but would rather file an RFC (concerning such content which is not included in a potential compromise). I remain, however, concerned about the integrity of the article, which need to stay well-sourced, especially as it is in the DYK queue. Cs32en 03:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk page?

Take the content discussion to the talk page. Unless someone else feels like joining Cs32en in being blocked, I don't see what admins can do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

User:UrukHaiLoR blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of User:Top Gun

I have filed a sockpuppet investigation against UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs). This account very likely is a sockpuppet of Top Gun (talk · contribs), who has been blocked indefinitely for "lying about sources, in addition to a whole host of other sins". The first reason for this block sounds very familiar to me, and there is abundant additional evidence. Cs32en 02:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that I was a bit hasty in resolving this issue. This looks to me like you are doing an underhand attempt at "winning" this content dispute. Shut this down please, or else someone else will do so. You are getting disruptive, this doesn't look good for you Cs32en. -

talk

03:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I posted on the Sockpuppet investigations page, I think that a checkuser is fully justified here. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

~~All right. If this proves not to be the case of sock-puppetry, then I would suggest some form of sanctions for disruptive editing, which this looks like to me.~~ -

talk

03:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I take that back, that's far too harsh. -

talk

04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

UrukHaiLoR has just been blocked by Nick-D; see user talk:UrukHaiLoR and the SPI linked above. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 04:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd note that it was not in regards to this particular article; I haven't read through this thread in any detail, though arguing over the number of casualties in a recent battle or terrorist attack is consistent with Top Gun's standard behavior. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Cs32en is entitled to a great big "I told you so". Trout slappings where appropriate. Issues resolved; next case?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the reasons given for blocking are less than compelling. -

talk

06:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to start a new subsection and explain your rationale for saying that? I haven't reviewed the evidence in detail, but from what Nick D stated on UrukHai's talk page, it isn't totally off the wall.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's fairly simple really, technically the CheckUser can't see that the editor is a sock-puppet as the old accounts are stale. I think that the fact that the editor was editing those articles, while a bit suspicious, is not really enough evidence to prove they are a sock-puppet. But, as I've stated on Nick's user talk page, I'll not pursue this any further as I'd rather not cause too much wikidrama than has already occured here. -

talk

06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've detailed on UrukHaiLoR's talk page, the similarities between the edits made by that account and those made by Top Gun go beyond what can be explained by coincidence; UrukHaiLoR has focused on the same types of articles and made the same types of contributions (including continuing the OR which contributed to Top Gun's block). The creation of the Danish Defence casualties in Afghanistan today using the same methodology and relatively complex format as two other Top Gun articles (which were either deleted or totally changed before the UrukHaiLoR account became active) is particularly telling. Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have collected much more evidence than what had actually been used in the SPI investigation. I assume that part of this evidence might be useful to discover additional sockpuppets, and possible sockmaster accounts. I would present the additional evidence to a member of ArbCom, or to a CheckUser, yet I don't want to show Top Gun (talk · contribs) or other blocked users how they might be able to avoid getting detected. Cs32en 06:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit unfair. "We would use special tools to prove your guilt/innocence, but we're not going to because we don't want you to know about them." That said, I'm not convinced that UrukHai is innocent, but I thin a CU should be requested to make sure. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see if UrukHai contests the block. So far, he hasn't. If he does, I would say that, depending on what UrukHai has to say for himself, there may need to be more disclosure. I say that we mark this resolved, and if UrukHai requests an unblock, either start a new thread or deal with it on his talk page. Cs32en comes out of this looking reasonably good, but a reminder that if he hadn't given UrukHai an opening by deleting his AN/I intervention, which focused our attentions supiciously on him, there might have been considerably less drama. Everyone skulk offstage, now.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I really can understand that people get upset and suspicicious if things are deleted from the noticeboard, especially in situations like this one. As far as I can tell, the removal of his report associated with my edit, however, was a technical malfunction, not a human error on my part. Cs32en 15:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point. However, I didn't use any special tools to find the evidence. Everyone can find it. However, if Top Gun (talk · contribs) knew about the evidence, he could change his habits, so that future sockpuppet he will be running avoid displaying the same evidence. That UrukHaiLoR (talk · contribs) was able to make more than a thousand edits before being detected is unfortunate, in my opinion. Again, I much prefer to show the evidence to trusted members of the community only, but if the case is reopened, and I would be asked to provide more evidence, I would always do so, of course. Cs32en 14:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ALI, a checkuser was been requested, but apparently isn't feasible for technical reasons. While I don't necessarily endorse the approach suggested by Cs32en, I'd also note that the guidance for submitting sock puppet reports at

WP:SPI states that "Notification is not mandatory, and may, in some instances, lead to further disruption or provide a sockpuppeteer with guidance on how to avoid detection". Given the frequency with which Top Gun has attempted to evade their block it's in everyone's interest that he not be given notice of the means used to identify him (though it is likely by now that he is aware of them). Nick-D (talk

) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually have informed UrukHaiLoR of the SPI request I had file. [122] While he may be aware of some of the evidence that exists, I doubt very much that he would be aware of certain types of evidence that exist, but that have not been used in the sockpuppet investigation. Cs32en 08:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Resolved

– Take to

talk

10:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Muslim article. He has undone 4 of my edits and a couple of others by other editors that were not mine. Can someone please have a look at this situation? Dumaka (talk

) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered talking to him? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I have, but that is not working out all too well. Dumaka (talk) 06:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So you've chosen to edit war. Not good. Toddst1 (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the one edit warring. I took it to the talk page but he still reverted my edits. Dumaka (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the first time you've been under this misconception. See [123]. You really need to seek dispute resolution in a much more constructive manner. This is becoming chronic. Toddst1 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So asking for conflict resolution from a third party "twice" is considered chronic to you? Dumaka (talk) 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the relatively low number of edits you've made and the number of articles you've become deadlocked after leaving a single note on a single talk page, yes. As I've written twice on your talk page after your edit wars have been brought to my attention: "Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting." Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright fine. In the future I will be more constructive. But that still doesn't stop the fact that this individual has undone every edit I have made to the article and it seems like no one has warned him about

the three-revert rule until I brought it to the Admin board. ("Relatively low number of edit"? I've made 1,736 edits. That's not low.) Dumaka (talk

) 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion on his talk page. If the issue you have is his conduct, you could try that first. You didn't even notify him, which as noted above is required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dumaka is lying because I started the talk, not him. See bottom of

Muslim article and I'm telling him that an average Muslim is not Chinese, and that China doesn't even have 1% of Muslims but he insists on putting the image of Mongols. Not only that, Dumaka is attacking me for no reason. Can you please revert the page to my version? Thanks!--AYousefzai (talk

) 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You're the one that just started reverting everything without cause or explanation. Just because the majority of Muslims are not Chinese doesn't mean there should not be a picture of them in the article.Dumaka (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
@AYousefzai: Why do you say China has 1% Muslims when you recently entered on the "Islam in China" article a (dubious) source that says China has 65 million Muslims, which is 4.5%? BTW I searched in several online databases through my university library and cannot find any issue of U.S. News for August 23, 2005, which you say was the source for your number. You need to verify this source, or it should be deleted. Also, that number (65 million) is about 3x the number that can be verified from any count of the population of nationalities in China's census that have a predominantly Muslim heritage (Uighurs, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Hui, etc.). So 65 million remains a dubious number in any case.~~Mack2~~ 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I must defend my self against these false accusations. I left messages in the edit summary then I left more messages at the talk page, but you (Dumaka) were reverting without explaining anything until now. I didn't remove the image of the Mongol boys from the article, I just placed it down below in another section.

The 2005 SPECIAL COLLECTOR'S EDITION ON ISLAM from U.S. News & World Report (Secrets of Islam) shows a map and a chart of all nations with the number of Muslims in them and it marks China with 65.3 million Muslims.[124] However, other sources claim there's only 20 million Muslims in China. I paid around $5.99 for this issue and it's entirely about Islam from the front cover (with Muslim woman wearing black Burka) to the end cover (with Muslim girls from Indonesia). It's filled with the entire history of Islam and etc. Call the toll free number of U.S. News & World Report and tell them if such issue exists or place an order and see for yourself.--AYousefzai (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Go to the article talk pages everybody. ~~As it says above,~~ this is NOT the complaints board. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Matching text

If I'm reading correctly, some of the text in Nazi human experimentation matches directly the text in [125]. MoodFreak (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How much of the text MoodFreak? If it is a few sentences, then you could paraphrase it and provide a proper

WP:CSD#G12 would not apply. I mention it as a general principle for you.) Alternatively, if it is a large chunk of text, not easily paraphrased, yet not comprising the entire article, then the right course of action might be to delete the text that is copyrighted. As you can see, the answer to your query depends upon you highlighting for us the specific text that you fear violates copyright. Thanks! — Spike Toronto

06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of instances during some research. Actually, there are many options in the above that you give me, so I may be able to do this myself... I'm not going to get in any hot water, simply removing or rephrasing text? Thanks, MoodFreak (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, you do not want to simply remove text. Instead, paraphrase in a way that does not violate copyright. Sprinkle the paraphrased text with important quotations from the copyrighted material being sure to use quotation marks and citations. Finally, as said above, be sure to provide

WP:REFBEGIN provides a great primer on how to format your verifiable references/citations. Remember to cite fully. Do not provide only the raw internet address, a practice that will one day create deadlinks devoid of citations. Good luck and have fun! — Spike Toronto

06:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are additional options and actions which may be helpful in such situations. Wikipedia:Copyright violations sets out the basic approach, and specific instructions can be found at Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions. While intended for administrators, Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Advice for admins may offer some useful advice for checking to see whether Wikipedia is infringing or being infringed upon in its investigation section. If you believe there is copyright infringement and you cannot clean the text yourself, it is better to remove it or to tag it so that other editors can. It's also helpful to identify when the material entered the article so that you can make sure that the contributor understands Wikipedia's copyright policy and does not create copyright problems in additional articles that could result in contributory infringement problems for the project.--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest taking out the copyrightable material, then note on the talk page what you have done. Also read

talk

10:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism and Improper use of tags by User:119.160.32.243

This user has been, for the past few days, continuously putting the NPOV tags on the articles on Messiah Foundation International and Younus AlGohar. In addition, this user has been vandalising the page Younus AlGohar with derogatory language in Hindi. They seemed to justify this by calling the group and person a "terrorist organization/terrorist". It was explained to them that regardless of their opinion, the tag they were putting up was inappropriate, as there were no disputes on any of the article's talk pages: Talk:Younus AlGohar and Talk:Messiah Foundation International. They were encouraged to express their concerns on the talk pages, but they chose not to and instead continued to vandalise both articles. See User talk:119.160.32.243. (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Its not vandlism but true if you look at this through Google this organization it has and this person, you can easily figure out that this organization it has and this person, are not worthy of having an article on wikipedia. It is a self-made cult, which is creating and spreading hatred in the society.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
- Moreover, all their sources are not third party sources but their own websites, which is contrary to wikipedia rules and regulations.--119.160.32.243 (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  - This 119.160.32.243 User is right.--Asikhi (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  - You are not understanding the problem. Regardless of your opinion or obligations you have, you are not going about it correctly. The edits you have made are NOT constructive edits to the Younus AlGohar page and the Messiah Foundation International page by adding the NPOV tag and foul language. It hardly supports whatever points you have. Plus, the articles themselves do actually source many third party sites such as news articles and reports by the UN. Anyway, if you DO have any other objections please list them in the talk pages of these articles instead of repeating your vandalism. Thanks (Omirocksthisworld (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC))
  - I appreciate that the anonymous editors might not be aware of how Wikipedia works. If they feel that this article should not exist on Wikipedia, they should consider taking to
    talk
    10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the IP editor explains on the articles' Talk pages why they think the articles are POV, their slapping of an NPOV tag on the articles is vandalism, as I have explained to them. Woogee (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat?

I'm not sure about this, or what (if anything) is the usual response, but this may be a potential suicide threat. Probably nothing, but to me it somehow smacks of desperation rather than vandalism. Eve Hall (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably just a troll, but per

WP:SUICIDE, we shouldn't take any chances. Anyone want to see if we can contact someone? ConCompS talk review

23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take note that

WP:SUICIDE is an essay. These things are common to the internet, and we have never received evidence that this reaction is effective. Do as you please as a response, but bear in mind the environment we operate in and that we do not represent Wikipedia when making such notices in any official capacity either for Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation. Keegan (talk

) 03:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that if you are NOT a mental health professional that you don't do too much other than refer them to a mental health professional. I would also not give too much attention to this, for much the same reason that the Australian media don't normally report on specific suicide cases - it may give rise to copycat suicides. -

06:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

According to TrustedSource, the IP is registered to Johnson City, Tennessee. Phone numbers can be found here for their police department. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simonpettersen and image uploads+

Resolved

– Editor warned.

There is a problem with the user Simonpettersen who has shown repeated patterns of editing against guidelines and policy, almost every article that he creates is deleted through either AfD, prod or speedy. He has taken to creating vanity articles, December Flower (album) and Simon Pettersen. The particular problem are his image uploads, almost every image has had problems, he originally claimed to own copyright on album covers and uploaded to commons [126], which he now seems to have stopped. he now uploads here almost entirely without any kind of licensing or fair use claim, his talk page is a testament to the dozens of copyvio/non-free images he's uploaded here which have since been deleted. Even in the last day or so there have been eight more such uploads. User as been almost entirely unresponsive to quires or requests to justify his edits, and has generally shown that he just doesn't get it. Is there anything that can be done here? Rehevkor ✉ 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've given him an absolutely final warning. One more inappropriate upload should be responded to with an indef block. Mjroots (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Lautner

Based on this [127] there is an attempt by 4chan to create a hoax about the death of this actor. including by editing WP I have fully protected the article page (it was previously long-term semied), and then took the unusual step of protecting the talkpage too, since it was also subject to some fun and games to spread the rumour. If others disagree with my actions feel free to undo them in all or in part. I'm going to bed. --Slp1 (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the comment by

11

05:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Searching Google News suggests this is likely a hoax that started outside 4chan and 4chan just came along for the ride. I wouldn't recommend assuming that all of the people adding death reports are vandals, although I'm sure at least some of them are. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I still have the 4chan thread on a tab here, and it seems obvious that it did start there "01/10/10(Sun)21:52:48 No.187829818 Want to piss off limitless fangirls? Let's propogate this death hoax: Teen heartthrob Taylor Lautner has died..... But anyway yes, probably some of the editors were just taken in by others. --Slp1 (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember when raids were original... Throwaway85 (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User 116.71.2.18 's ongoing reverts of Messiah Foundation International and related

It appears that a single editor, from various accounts/IPs, is consistently adding/restoring {{NPOV}} to articles about the Messiah Foundation International and its members. While I agree that the articles are NPOV, this user (in his various guises) consistently fails to explain his actions despite polite inquiries from the major editor. I fear that his refusal to communicate is causing grief for an earnest (if CoI) editor. Further, he has recently started adding insults to his edit summaries, like Younas is kutte ka Bachaa, nothing is wrong in it!! Suggestions for how to deal with this ongoing disruption and failure to justify edit warring? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File a request for semi-protection at

WP:RPP. How is the edit summary quoted insulting? Could you translate it please? Mjroots (talk

) 07:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit summary is far from appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the IP now. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One IP blocked for a week for edit warring, the other has been warned re their editing. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't semi-protection be a better option here? -

talk

11:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this was discussed

talk

14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As it's only 2 IPs, I'd rather avoid semi-protection if it is possible, but it will be implemented if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But as the IPs won't stop, I've semi-protected the articles for a while. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat

TerryE has made an implicit legal threat on my talk page regarding an article I created yesterday, Harvey Whittemore. Although the article cited 27 reliable sources, including articles in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, I have been accused of defamation, libel and (elsewhere) of promoting an unspecified point of view. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this as a legal threat. Noting a potential problem is not the same as threatening to take action; he seems to be cautioning you against raising the ire of the subject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I see no implied legal threat. The comment "I also think that the article crosses into defamation or liable in places (which is unwise thing to do against a lawyer :LoL:)" is a description of the article - not an accusation that you did it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Admins might have a different take on this one, but from what I read it doesn't seem like a legal threat. TerryE said you ventured into those areas (whether you did or not, I don't know, I haven't read the article), not that he or someone else would sue you for that. Admins might have a different take, but that is mine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not a legal threat. He's saying that the editor should be careful, and humorously pointed out that the subject is a lawyer! -

talk

13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, but I fail to see any humour here. I wrote the article, which is why TerryE made the statement. Whether this is a legal threat or not, I feel threatened, as the subject is in fact a lawyer with close ties to powerful politicians. TerryE's statement was meant to intimidate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel threatened. Him suing anybody over a Wikipedia article would be the worst possible move. See Streisand effect. If nothing else, the man seems to be savvy enough not to do something so stupid. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that you didn't notify them about this noticeboard posting. I have now done so. -

talk

14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an extra notice, but it is linked in the section just above yours. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap. Sorry about that. -

talk

14:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I have been working with Keepcalmandcarryon on the Whittemore Peterson Institute article, where a number of the editors have expressed concerns at Keepcalmandcarryon's POV stance in his content. One of the benefactors is a Nevada multi-millionaire, Harvey Whittlemore. It seemed to me that K has created this article on Whittlemore in response. (I defer further comment on the article itself as this is outside this specific complaint.) We have crossed "editorial swords" in the past and we know each others posting habits, so my note was intended to be a friendly and informal 1-1 asking to reflect of the balance of this article. I am not going to sue anyone. I am not threatening anyone. However I do feel that I've failed in my reaching out to Keepcalmandcarryon, in that he has escalated this to the administrators in the first instance before even clarifying my position with me. I apologise for the impact on your workload. TerryE (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserves

Not quite sure the best way to go about this:

I stumbled across

Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserves

through an IP making un-constructive edits on my watchlist. As I read through, it sounds like it's been taken straight from a holiday brochure or something aimed at advertising it.

Also at the bottom of the page there's blatant advertising: "Indian Holiday can help you with information about the Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve in Andhra Pradesh. Just get in touch with us for more information about Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve, Andhra Pradesh".

Thirdly, the English is very poor throughout the article. Is the article beyond hope and a candidate for deletion? Or do you think it can be salvaged? _Will^dow (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now been stubbed out, which is what it was until this last summer, when the spam push began. IMHO, it makes for a decent stub, and is quite likely notable, and thus the restored stub-state is likely the proper state for the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

– Blocked indef. —

ark

// 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this entire thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball (updated to include a couple of entries here not reflected there); I have also added an e-mail I received through Wikipedia from WGB at that page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Something's busted with Wikipedia.

Resolved

– Wrong venue. Take it to

Tan | 39

18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Any time I make an edit, it tells me it's waiting for something called 'bits.wikimedia.com' then it apparently disconnects and reacquires and then finishes. It's taking me almost a minute to edit anything. Anyone know what's going on? HalfShadow

Is it still doing this? I was having a lot of trouble this morning (even reading pages), but it seems to have cleared up now for me. Syrthiss (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Still doing it up to the point I posted this. HalfShadow 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was running very slow for me about 30 minutes ago but has since stopped. If you are on a poor internet connection that probably isn't helping things, I know mine isn't the greatest. DegenFarang (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Goes 'Waiting for en.wikipedia.org, Waiting for upload.wikipedia.org, waiting for bits.wikipedia.org,' then hangs for a half a minute and the edit click is on the opposite side of the title when it comes back. until I do something that refreshes the page. And I'm on a cable modem. HalfShadow 17:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mine broke earlier this morning, so I went off to do something else for an hour or two. Working fine now. I'd guess it's maintenance work or something. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

bits is the new delivery platform for Wikimedia files that are the same for all wikis (sitenotices, icons, global CSS and JS files, etc.). I'm guessing there are some bugs (not enough capacity?) associated with the initial deployment. Dragons flight (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The system is running really, really, really slowly this morning, particularly when trying to save an edit. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe some servers are down. Anyway, there's no administrators can intervene. The place to ask technical questions is

talk

) 18:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of over 100 Alberta place articles

Resolved

Taken to

WT:AFD

A total of 110 articles on settlements in Alberta, Canada have been nominated for deletion - see Category:AfD_debates_(Places_and_transportation). It is generally held that settlements are sufficiently notable enough to sustain an article. What's the best way to deal with these? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Say so at AfD and asked that they be speedy closed. If there is a continuing dispute after that, other than DRV, then I guess you may need to come back here. It does seem excessive, but it is best addressed at AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO these should at least have been bundled, but then it would be hard to close them as I know of no script that can close a bundled AfD and do the necessary work on each article. It would have been prudent to nom a couple as test cases before flooding the AfD log like this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd a few as speedy keep where the nom has withdrawn the deletion request. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there's over a hundred of them. This is creating a ton of unnecessary busywork for both editors and administrators who will have to sort through all of them and close them when we could be spending our efforts editing and improving articles. We're all volunteers. Can't speak for all editors, but responding to over a hundred settlement AfDs is not how I want to spend my free time in a week. It all looks like a good-faith case of

WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk

) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there were more severe circumstances, or repetitions, not going to block anyone. Blocking is not punishment, it is preventative. If there have been withdrawals, obviously someone has figured out that he's goofed. If he moves on to Saskatchewan, let us know. I don't condone it, but there's no administrative action that is going to make things better.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is necessary either. However, I propose that we procedurally close all of the AfDs that only contain the boilerplate nom and two equally boilerplate !votes. The remaining few can serve as the test cases, and after those are closed at the end of the 7-day period the nom can renominate the procedurally closed ones if the consensus is in their favor. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps decide that at

WT:AFD or something?--Wehwalt (talk

) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied the entire discussion there. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a case for ANI, 100% good faith noms, just unfortunate approach; maybe the nominator can be asked to do the grunt work and close the afd's?--

Qyd (talk

) 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I didn't think that this was a case of

WP:DE, otherwise I would have said so. Marking as resolved here. Mjroots (talk

) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Vandal

I am not sure what User:Cmguy777 is upto on Ulysses_S._Grant

Withdrawn with apologies

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulysses_S._Grant&limit=500&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Unmanifest (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this just me or is this alarming? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Cmguy777 Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there something problematic in particular? I looking through a handful of edits, and I don't really seen anything to be concerned about, other than the editor not using edit summaries (which I already mention on his/her talk page). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see what you are saying. It is just that his edit style raised alarm bells in my head. The article in question was getting reduced in size for over 10 minutes. But when I went back enough, I relaized he had added most of the material. I have apologized to him, lets close the matter. Sorry for your trouble. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's

WP:OWN issues, there's no problem there. No harm in keeping alert though. Doc Quintana (talk

) 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation bot

) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Citation bot performs a valuable service cleaning up citation templates on articles in response to requests by other editors, but recently its maintainer has been unavailable and repeated complaints about buggy behavior are piling up on User talk:Citation bot. I'd like to propose that the bot be blocked until its maintainer returns and responds to the complaints. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it, pending a response from the bot operator. — Carl (

CBM · talk

Administrator Conduct/Abuse

How does a mere editor take an administrator up on misconduct charges? For decorum sake I will carefully avoid using his name though a search through my recent contributions will make it obvious.

This administrator improperly deleted one of my articles about an hour after I created it. There was no nomination for deletion, no discussion--it just disappeared. I went to his Talk page and sent him a pointed message about how this was against procedure and demanded his resignation. His first response was to ban ME, though he later changed his mind and reinstated my article.

While reviewing his talk page, I can see a litany of other editors asking the same kind of question: Why was my article deleted? As I inspect further, these are all very recent. My negative comments, only a few hours old, have since been deleted from his talk page. He is obviously hiding his tracks. I have got to ask, how many other people is this administrator bullying, deleting articles without following the deletion procedure? How many other NEW articles has he crushed before they can develop? How many new editors has he completely discouraged from contributing? How much damage has he already done to the knowledge base? This is a person, whose WP administrative history needs to be reviewed and potentially disciplined. In my mind, he clearly is the kind of self-important administrator who does not deserve the power here on WP. Trackinfo (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I work new page patrol rather often. I do not know what content you had posted but if it falls under a csd criteria no discussion is needed. Demanding that the admin resign is ridiculous. Ask him or another admin to explain why it was deleted and if nec. to userfy it.

talk

) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Deletion review. SGGH ^ping! 18:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per the above, a large part of your problem is the way in which you approached the issue. Coming to an administrator's page demanding their resignation and making unecessary threats and intimations that you are going to pursue action against them is most certainly not the best way to go about what is otherwise a minor dispute. There is such a thing as a mistake, even we administrators make them; had you even considered a civil, calm approach, asking the administrator in question why they did what they did, rather than going for the throat? It's not the kind of approach that is likely to engender much sympathy for your position. Shereth 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BWilkins ←track

) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the administrator in question blocked you, but am pleased to see that they later reconsidered this. You should also thank them for restoring the page. Yes, sometimes administrators make mistakes, everyone does, what marks the good from the bad is the ability to own up to and amend these mistakes, which I am confident that the administrator in question has done. As for your own conduct, telling users to "get out" and demanding "notification of [their] resignation" is not appropriate, what you should have done is politely and civilly discussed your concerns with them. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll let the merits of this article stand on its own (about a small Private High School)--as I understand WP policy, all High Schools are considered notable. That is not what is important.

His conduct IS the issue. No administrator should be directly deleting pages on their own volition. A page that looks like an insignificant stub as it is just created is certainly not at its full potential or maturity. If the subject is obviously not vandalism, ONE PERSON'S OPINION of its significance should not be the ultimate decider. This administrator has an obvious history of this kind of unilateral decision-making. THAT is the problem. THAT is why I think this needs to go beyond a simple dispute resolution.Trackinfo (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

His conduct is just fine. It's YOUR behavior that needs modification.

notability means. 67.51.38.51 (talk

) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And you might want to read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Admins are fully within their rights and responsibilities to delete articles which fail to meet notability standards. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was even going to suggest that I would bet that another user had CSD'd the article first, and the admin read the suggestion and agreed: that makes 2. Contested prod's can go to

BWilkins ←track

) 18:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I contested the prod. High schools are uniformly kept at AfD as long as they are verifiable. BTW, it certainly is not speediable, as schools are explicitly excluded from A7. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, there doesn't appear to have been a CSD tag. This kind of thing is why I always tag instead of just deleting myself - gives a second opinion on the article. Having said that, Trackinfo's approach to requesting the undeletion was ... rather unnecessarily aggressive. Demanding immediate resignation over one speedy deletion isn't the best way to go about things. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if we want to talk about conduct, Trackinfo's failure to notify the admin involved of this discussion is a big no no. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Being an admin reminds me of Twain's comment about being run out of town on a rail: if it wasn't for the honor, he would have preferred to walk. Now and then, we get reactions exactly like Tony cited: You're a disgrace, please turn in your tools, why are you on Wikipedia at all? At least I sometimes wonder the last one myself. It is why I think we are very cautious about the perennial proposals to have desysoping, that it won't be used to evaluate performance, but as reflective reaction to one unpopular action.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If I or any other administrator had to had to go through some sort of committee each and every time a deletion needed performing, nothing would ever get done here. Trackinfo, listen up: I do a lot of new page patrolling and I do delete a lot of articles. It is only natural that I will be asked why a page is deleted and I in turn will give my rationale. If a mistake has been made, I will reverse the deletion which is exactly what I did with your stub article. I would respectfully suggest that you put at least half the effort into improving the article as you've put into crying foul. I replaced the article, I rescinded your block and the article now has to stand on its own. The ball is in your court. As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions, so kindly let this drop. --

talk

) 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I do not believe that administrators should be intimidated (not that PMDrive has been) into not pursuing policy in deleting things. Articles that meed the criteria for CSD will be deleted, and we must ensure that the quality of Wikipedia does not fall because admins are intimidated away from CSD because of fears that creators will launch into semi-abusive "discussion" like this. I hope that when PMdrive says "As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions" he means "As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions [so long as they do not meed CSD criteria]"... I'm sure he does. :) SGGH ^ping! 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. :)) Seriously though, all this over a three-sentence stub. Sheesh. --

talk

) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like Administrator Tony Fox’s approach outlined above. It avoids any appearance or apprehension of conflict of interest or bias in the deletion.

That is, if I understood Tony correctly, if he CSD tags an article, he lets another administrator decide whether or not it should be deleted. While not necessary under the letter of the law vis-à-vis an administrator’s remit, it certainly avoids any appearance of impropriety. And, it definitely would have obviated the need for this thread! :) Trackinfo would have been told that two different administrators effected the speedy deletion of his article: The decision of one administrator to tag it had been vetted by the separate, and distinct, deleting administrator. — Spike Toronto 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and, were I an admin, I would probably do the same thing. I wonder, though, give Trackinfo's response to this matter, if it would have made a difference. Trackinfo, tone it down. Never call for someone's gun and badge because of one incident you disagree with. You would likely have never been blocked, and had your article restored, if you had simply gone to his talk page and asked nicely. More flies with honey than vinegar, yadda yadda. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. You'll get more sympathy both from the admin and here at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I create new articles fairly often, and have had some speedily deleted. It is a PITA when this happens, but even a deleted article can be undeleted. There are many admins who, just like many editors, seem determined to work as fast as possible and rack up "points" or something. I rather enjoy asking such admins to undo something they did in haste. It slows them down briefly and may encourage them to stop and think about how they spend their time here.

I agree with you that admins should be using established processes, just like other editors. I know many admins agree with you. Your complaint concerns an admin who seems to think it is an admin's perogative to dispense with established processes. That attitude is hard to defend when its subject behaves well. Your complaint would have been vastly stronger had you kept your cool. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told to stop. I have stopped. Privately I'll be glad to articulate my position, which has little to do with this little article. You can reach me at trackinfoorg @ yahoo PMDrive1061 you are welcome to contact me there too.Trackinfo (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

...and Una, if you read and checked it out, you'll know that the admin did, indeed follow established processes. Please ensure that you verify your information before making vastly derogatory comments like you did above. (

BWilkins ←track

) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Purposal to remove
G5 from Speedy Criteria.

– New York Giants, Wide Reciever, #17 in your programs, but #1 in your hearts...

I suggest this be removed. Who cares who created the article, if it's a good article, we're better off all round. Having this Criteria is ridiculously petty and like punishment for daring to edit. Kitten of Annoyance (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're a banned user, eh? Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

^{Let's talk}

00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@OP: We delete articles from banned users for the same reason we revert their edits: To enforce the ban. If you've done screwed up enough to get yourself community banned, you've proven to the community that your contributions are not worth the hassle, and so we'd rather not have them. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What if the banned user isn't the only one who's edited the article since it was created? In that case I'd definitely be for the article remaining, since it would be destroying other legitimate editor's hard work just for the sake of enforcing a ban on a single user.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

G5 reads "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." Pages with substantial edits by others are already excepted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to include a
WP:BLPSPS
violation.

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

Resolved

– No administrative action required. AniMate 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ensuing edit war at

WP:BLPSPS

will not be tolerated.

Note that another discussion was started here. --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. If this is a biographies of living persons matter, shouldn't you be discussing it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? --TS 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a policy violation. Either board is sufficient, but since you insist I'll go post a notice of this report there as well. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. See[130]. I asked that the conversation be conducted here. --GoRight (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a suitable warning here of my intent to report repeated violations. --GoRight (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that you've reverted two separate editors on this matter? I sympathize with your view that this is a BLP issue, and grant you leeway on that, but how about chatting about it a bit more? It's been in the article for some time now and it's obviously a picture of Monckton. --TS 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good friend Tony, the provisions of

WP:BLPSPS are not something that can be negotiated so chatting would seem to serve little purpose. This is a very clear violation and it must be removed per the policies referenced. If I am wrong on that point I am sure that the neutral admins here will inform me of such. --GoRight (talk

) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is very poor and represents him badly, it seems that he was caught unawares by a group of young climate change protesters, I also think it negatively represents him and should not be used to represent a living person.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some much nicer ones by the same photographer on flickr but apparently they are not acceptable either. It's the Principle, Dammit! Though I must confess I don't see precisely what principle is being pursued here. --TS 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit confused. How is this a violation of self-published sources? AniMate 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Flickr be considered anything BUT self-published? People upload their own material with no oversight. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we get rid of all of our photographs of living people, because all of them are either self published on Flickr or self published here. AniMate 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. Also it is an exaggeration. Images for which we have received explicit permission would obviously be usable. Also images published in

WP:SPS such as Flickr by someone other than the subject are NOT acceptable according to the policies as they are currently written. --GoRight (talk

) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I think Monckton has some kind of medical history meaning that his eyes appear bulbous. I'm not sure that the photo is particularly unflattering or whatever, it is just what he looks like. Bearing that in mind, this just looks like a picture of him engaging with either journalists or the public and does not reflect badly on him. --FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote from

WP:BLPSPS

to save everyone the time:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

The restriction I have highlighted is all encompassing (i.e. "material" includes images) and unambiguous (i.e. unless it was put there by Monckton himself it is not suitable for inclusion in a BLP). Note that it makes no distinction about whether the material is positive, neutral, or negative. It is ALL unacceptable. --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We have literally thousands of images of living people uploaded by Wikipedia contributors and Flickr photographers. Wikipedia has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated photographs. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am citing a policy. I am not sure what you are citing, please clarify. But unless it is also a policy then mine trumps yours. If you are citing a policy then they are in conflict and need to be reconciled. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking on flickr and there are pictures far better but not at commons, has he really got bulbous eye syndrome? There is nothing on his article that suggests that.I couldn't also find the picture still on flikr? He is being confronted as I said in the picture by climate change protesters as the description at commons clearly says, the picture was uploaded by

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously tried to edit that information into the caption for the picture. It was edit warred as well. Regardless, any pictures from Flickr are deemed inappropriate for use per

WP:BLPSPS which is unabmiguous with respect to SPS. --GoRight (talk

) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he has Exophthalmos. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically

Graves disease (Barbara Bush suffered from the same thing). The claim of a BLP violation is insane, considering that Wikipedia has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated pictures. The following is GoRight's "rationale" (I use the term advisedly) on the article talk page: "How can we be assured that this image actually IS a photo of Monckton? How do we know that this is not some imposter made up to look like Lord Monckton in a disparaging likeness?" I find it hard to believe that even GoRight believes this. It looks like (yet more) wikilawyering to me from an editor who has gained an unenviable reputation in that department. -- ChrisO (talk

) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask my good friend ChrisO to review

WP:BLPSPS. Either way, the use of SPS material in a BLP is clearly and unambiguously excluded as being usable. This is regardless of whether that material is positive, neutral, or negative. --GoRight (talk

) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, that has never been the situation in practice. We have thousands of such images on Wikipedia, donated by Wikipedians, Flickr photographers and other contributors. You are reading something into BLP that has never been applied in practice and which is completely contradicted by Wikipedia's long-standing policy on encouraging user-generated images. Your approach would require thousands of images across Wikipedia to be deleted. It's a complete non-starter. I think you know it's a non-starter. I've never seen anyone make the claim before that you have here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of noise in this thread, so let me see if I can distill your argument into a sentence or so: You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs, so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs. Is this it?

talk

) 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs" - With the exception of SPS published by the subject themselves, yes.

"so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs" - Not strictly true. If these individuals have their pictures published in an otherwise

WP:BLPSPS as it is currently written. --GoRight (talk

) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately it has now been changed to close this supposed loophole, which you appear to be the first person to spot or try to exploit (neither of which do you much credit, I have to say). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would again ask my good friend ChrisO to review

WP:NPA for a second time. --GoRight (talk

) 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there any other pictures of him that we can use on Wikipedia? If not then perhaps we should think of asking e.g. the BBC if they are willing to let us use one of their pics for this and other articles. The BBC frequently refers to Wikipedia for further reading in some cases, so they should be willing to help us out. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd need a free picture (that is, not just one for us to use, but one for anybody to use under our free license). Historically we have relied on Wikipedians and the like with cameras going to an event and pressing the shutter button then uploading. Self-published? Yes, of course. --TS 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I think this picture is fine. I think it actually reflects well on him - his public role involves engaging with people and that is what he is doing in the photo. I think it would be ethically wrong to search out a photo of him that makes his Graves Disease (or whatever it is) seem less evident. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above that it makes no sense to prohibit non-reliably-published photos, even (or especially!) in BLP cases since published photos are almost never available under an acceptable copyright. The appropriate policy to go by is

WP:BLP violation to call the image "disparaging and denigrating" as GoRight has been doing, since it implies a negative judgement about the man's looks. On the other hand, the "confronted by activists" part of the Flickr description hints that he was taken in a state of surprise which might have exaggerated his features. So I'm not sure whether it can stay or go, but I think it should be a matter of editorial judgement rather than administrative action. Which is to say, take it to the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk

) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This really seems to be him, compare to [131] and [132]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One important point which I think it's worth making is that Graves' disease is apparently a progressive degenerative condition. A picture of Monckton taken several years ago like this one is not going to represent Monckton's current appearance. People have said "but he doesn't look like that in other pictures", but an up-to-date picture is of course going to differ from an old one, given the Graves' disease factor. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make this determination. That's why

WP:RS were created. We rely on other independent sources to make such determinations. --GoRight (talk

) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall enjoy watching your newfound zeal re: BLP-compliant photos as it is expressed towards subjects encompassing the complete spectrum of political and cultural views. GJC 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?Jarhed (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that if the photographers were climate-change skeptics, and Monckton was on the other side of the debate, I question whether this conversation would ever have occurred. GJC 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who really cares what you think would be people's responses if roles were reversed? Are you trying to be deliberately confrontational? If the roles were reversed, the photo would still be objectionable. Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of a number of editors (here and on the Monckton site) questioning other editors motives. Please stop the sarcasm and personal aspersions. This is not a crusade by GoRight - almost half the editors posting there agree with him. Next you'll be accusing us of being "meatpuppets" (again).

Back on point - All of this is a tempest in a teacup, since it has already been established at the article's discussion page that a consensus exists for a better photo to be used. The photo in question not only holds a bias in the view of nearly half the editors involved, but as I've mentioned it's a crappy photo on it's own, and therefore in violation of various other image guidelines: 1) It's cluttered (an out of focus camera is in the frame nearly blocking his face). 2) there are other people in the shot. 3) it's off center (someone had to do a crop to correct.) and of course 4) it's content's bias is contended, 5) it's usability vis a vis self-publication is under question (regardless of how many other violations exist, GoRight has been correct on the policy, and 6) nearly everyone involved in the discussion has agreed (amazing!) that a better picture is preferred. I have located a better photo, which carries an open license directly on the page is appears on. It's use has been challenged and I think, a little unduly. This photo is here. ChrisO claims that another editor has claimed the photo has been found elsewhere on the web (here) and therefore the open license statment that appears under the photo at cfact.tv is suspect. My argument is that we are not in the business of second guessing the clearly stated licensing of the website in question, and that this photo is being subject to an unusually high standard...if we go much further, we may very well have a rationale for pulling down thousands of other photos. My specific question to this community is, can we not use a photo from a site that has clearly been posted with a CC 3.0 open license? Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2010 (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.

Legal threat by IP editor

What looks like a legal threat appeared in one of the talk pages I have watchlisted. [133] Specifically: "The unbalanced reporting going on here is in need of serious examination. It supports the allegation this site is administered in accordance to protecting Wiki founder Jimmy Wales commercial financial interests. Violating the law that grants Wiki's non-profit status.

The evidence of this is overwhelming. All one needs to do is examine the arbitrary dismissal of factual evidence and lending credence to sources that's allegations were shown through court proceedings to be baseless. Using unreliable sources such as those who commit Libel and Slander violates Wiki policy and rules. Namely, The Los Angeles Times, Stolen Valor, and SOF magazine, etc. " "Presenting unreliable sources while removing any mention of those shown to be reliable demonstrates malfeasance and actual malice. In the past, this actual malice includes archiving this discussion page by which to control the information and status qou.". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably banned user User:Avianraptor spewing his legal threat nonsense again. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#Legal threats in the Frank Dux article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/COI/physical threats. –MuZemike 21:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be my guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP 1m for legal threats. Adjust if necessary. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Er... isn't that a ComCast IP address? Are we certain we aren't blocking innocent users? -

talk

11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comcast cable IPs are effectively static. They only change if there's a long-term service outage or other failure, or if you actively change your address. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnildo is correct; I myself use Comcast and, barring a router reset, service outage, or the like, my IP doesn't change. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath, User:Saturday

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

IMO, the user just

doesn't get why they were blocked, and, in my opinion, continue the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. I therefore request someone with sysop status, explain to them why they are wrong, as I don't think I can handle it.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs

00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, seems that's not a link... if someone knows what it's called, please fix it, I can't for the life of me remember.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you want

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions}

00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I could do it, either. This guy seems to just want a pound of edits from Tan at this point. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I told Daedalus on my talk page just to ignore him, but apparently we all want to rattle the cage a bit. I imagine if it continues some other admin will end up protecting the talk page, but I don't much care.

Tan | 39

00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I still hold out hope that this guy drops his crusade, but if he keeps asking for your head I don't see anything less than a talkblock in his future. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's resolved. I revoked the user's access to their talk page, and then Ryan P (somewhat strangely) protected the page. At any rate, it's all over.

Tan | 39

01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why somewhat strangely? I didn't see you'd revoked his talk page access - I thought I'd protected his talk page and then left him a note, but it didn't go through so I protected it after I'd left him a note, in which time you'd already removed it directly in the block settings. No offence Tan, but describing my action as "somewhat strange" isn't too fair when clearly we were trying to achieve the same end result. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the ~~standard~~

Tan | 39

01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have one bad attitude Tan. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good chat.

Tan | 39

01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hey fellas! Whoa there a minute - we're all friends here! :-) -

11:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moot as user is blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&oldid=337106067 --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

can't unblock

Resolved

– Autoblock lifted by

Tan, editing priviledges restored. Throwaway85 (talk

)

User:Therequiembellishere. Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Special:BlockList, where he's not listed. Another admin failed as well. Attempts to unblock get the message that he's not blocked. Help! Thanks. kwami (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an autoblock still in effect? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing until Therequiembellishere responds again. But he said it still was after two of us "confirmed" that it wasn't. kwami (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I cleared the autoblock.

Tan | 39

00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a similar issue a while back, which is why I suggested it. BTW Tan, first time I've ever read your full username. ~~Dragonlance~~ Sooper Seekrit Buk? If so, +1 internets to you, good sir.Throwaway85 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Shh.

Tan | 39

00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it. No one will know... Back to the matter at hand, is the issue resolved now? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it is. Thanks, Tan. kwami (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the autoblock, did I screw up somehow, either in blocking or unblocking? I'd rather this didn't happen again. kwami (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The autoblock is always for 24 hours if the original block length is longer, so even when you shorten it to 1 minute (or second) afterwards the autoblock remains there and must be lifted manually. This tool, also linked on Special:BlockList, can find active autoblocks (or you can just do a Ctrl-F on the page and look for the username). Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-tip: preview the {{unblocked}} template at the user's talk page and click the handy link. –xeno^talk 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Elonka on a fishing expedition?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

– SPI came up negative. No further issues to discuss.

I am currently the subject of a Sockpuppetry "investigation" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Irvine22

A Checkuser has been requested and I am confident that it will confirm that I am none of the six or so IPs and usernames that have been suggested. However, I am concerned that this Checkuser request does not appear to meet the evidentiary standards required. The initial report by Snowded was scanty and supplied no diffs etc. More worrying, Elonka seems to be adding new users to be checked on her own initiative, on the basis of the most slender of suspicions - sometimes just a single edit - and I am concerned this has become something of a fishing expedition. I'd appreciate some fresh eyes on the situation and comment. Thanks. Irvine22 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this really a matter for the Checkusers and clerks to handle? AniMate 03:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel it constitutes admin misconduct. Irvine22 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to Elonka?

Ask me

) 03:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, this isn't a "fishing expedition". It appears that the complainants (and Elonka is but one, and not even the initial filer) have,

in their minds reason to believe that sockpuppetry is afoot. If you are innocent, the checkuser will find you so. A fishing expedition would be if, apropos of nothing, and with no evidence at all, someone said "I think Irvine22 has some unnamed socks, and I want a Checkuser to dig those out, as well as any IP address he may have." That would be a clear fishing expedition, but that's not what we have here. The filing editors, in apparent good faith, have reason to believe there are shenanigans are afoot. If there are not, then you will be exonerated, and all will be fine. --Jayron32

04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much what is going on. Snowded's initial report - which doesn't seem to come even close to meeting the evidentiary standards outlined in the guidelines for filing, ie no diffs - focused on one possible sockpuppet. There seems to have been a free-for-all thereafter, with Elonka adding four other possibles on the basis of no proferred evidence whatsover.Irvine22 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If one of those addresses is you, come clean now, it'll be better for you. If they're not, you'll be cleared. Hipocrite (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

None of them are me. Since Sept I have edited only as Irvine22, with the occasional inadvertent IP edit when I wasn't signed in, by an IP I have "claimed" - and not one of those featured in the report. I have no concerns about the outcome of the Checkuser on my own account. However, there are as many as five other people involved here who are having their privacy violated because someone has taken the notion - and little more than a notion - that they might be me. My concern is that this seems to be (another) area in which Wikipedia practise fails to live up to stated policy. Irvine22 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something Dick Cheney would say. Irvine22 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the terms of service, don't edit here.

ping

04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Love it or leave it"? Irvine22 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Irvine, that several editors believed there was circumstantial evidence of you socking is perfectly acceptable grounds for an SPI. This isn't court, no one needs a warrant. I've had an SPI run on me for far, far less. If you're innocent, then everyone goes about their business. If not, then we procceed from there. There's no Miranda rights, Habeus Corpus, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, or any of that on Wikipedia. If you have actual evidence of wrongdoing, then by all means present it. Simply accusing someone of sockery is not an offense. And yeah, love it or leave it. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no warrants, Miranda rights etc - just Wikipedia's own guidelines -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Evidence_and_SPI_case_guidelines - which you will notice call for "verifiable evidence in the form of diffs". No such evidence has been offered for any single one of the half-dozen or so usernames or IPs that are supposedly me. The "beliefs" or other editors are not sufficient - or shouldn't be according the the guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. In the interests of openness and due process, I'll ask them to provide diffs to back up their allegations. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the results of the Checkuser are in and are as I predicted: none of the supposed sockpuppets are me. I remain concerned about the apparently reckless disregard of guidelines in this matter. Irvine22 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reckless disregard? A bit dramatic I think. It was just a check, and the check was inconclusive, no harm done.

Ask me

) 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because CheckUser is not for fishing." Is this guideline no longer operative? If not, should it perhaps be archived? Irvine22 (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Erm actually the right venue for complaints about the possible misuse of checkuser privileges would be the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee or am I wrong ... ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 06:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone comparing the edits of Irvine22 and the socks would see that there were grounds for suspicion. My note to Irvine telling him about the report says "please see this (hot link to report) Its obviously a sock puppet and the editing style is sufficiently like you to make you a suspect. If not you have my apologies but best to get it sorted out quickly".

It is worth noting this abusive response by Irvine22 to Elonka. What we have here is an editor with a series of blocks for disruptive behaviour attempting to muddy the waters around an admin who has shown considerable patience in dealing with him. I see this ANI report as another in that sequence. --Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have supplied diffs to allow us to make that comparison, as required by the SPI guidelines. Can you do so even now? Irvine22 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Beware of "Plaxico". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I have just stocked up on rooster tails and power bait for an early Sunday morning fishing expedition. Who's with me??? JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI is de place for de bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear the trout are biting this time of year. Irvine, the case is closed. What more do you want? The circumstantial evidence was strong enoguh to warrant an SPI. Snowded, perhaps in the future you could prepare some specific diffs. Happy Irvine? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there remains the matter of the four other IPs/usernames Elonka bundled into the Checkuser on the basis of no proferred evidence whatsoever. That's where the abuse of checkuser is in this, in my view. Irvine22 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

She's not a CU, and the entire SPI came about as a result of behavioural evidence. What redress are you seeking here? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The "behavioural evidence" clearly doesn't meet the standards in the guidelines for an SPI, let alone a Checkuser. I'd just like to know how anybody thought this Checkuser met the guidelines, and whether - by extension - Wikipedia takes privacy issues as seriously as it claims. Irvine22 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Throaway here, the report seems fine. Besides, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee as mentioned above. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That venue should be a last resort, surely. I'll wait to see if anyone involved can make a credible case that this SPI and Checkuser met the guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You, perhaps, could have just asked me, or pointed me here. :-) I performed the check mostly because of the confusion as to Dick Stauner, especially in light of the supposed confession of sockpuppetry. Several editors seemed convinced that its behavior pointed to you, and offered some persuasive evidence that it could be, while you yourself claimed to have been framed. In cases like these, where uncertainty may tarnish an innocent user's reputation, it is often in the interest of all parties to try to put the matter to rest by checking IPs. As for the other four, each blocked for misbehavior, I judged them to have convincingly not newcomers based on their actions, including the continuation of ongoing conflicts or patterns of abuse, to merit a check as well. That a check comes up negative is not proof that it was wrong to check in the first place. Dominic·t 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So you ran the check based on the beliefs of editors, but lacking verifiable evidence in the form of diffs. Is that consistent with the guidelines? Irvine22 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let it go, Irvine. It's just an SPI. It happens. You aren't doing yourself any favours by railing against anyone and everyone involved. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur that the editing patterns seem to meet a behavioural pattern that called for a SPI due to potential for disruption. Glad to see that it came up negative, and that Wikipedia is safe again. Concur that it's best to let it drop. (
BWilkins ←track
) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (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: SuaveArt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

), Seregain inserts a claim (which is also not in the proper place in the article) that "HPV vaccines will do little to reduce rates of cervical cancer" using Dr. Diane Harper (who apparently speaks for an anti-vaccination group) and the Catholic Exchange as sources. In the diff I linked, he also inappropriately reverted nearly 20 newer edits just to reinsert this dubious claim into the article.

– Mentorship has begun under the tutelage of User:Jclemens. Lets see how that plays out before further action. Nothing further to discuss here until mentorship is given a chance to work --Jayron32 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to know where to begin with this user. I guess I'll just rattle stuff off as it comes to me. (Note: many examples cited below involve me due to SuaveArt targeting me.)

Issue #1: SuaveArt has taken it upon himself to target Christian-themed articles almost exclusively, which indicates a POV agenda. SuaveArt's explanation, such as it is, is that he is "patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets."[134] If SuaveArt were truly concerned about spam, he wouldn't be "patroling" Christian articles alone as articles of all types are frequent spam targets. SuaveArt's explanation gives the impression that he believes that Christian articles alone have an issue with spam, which is simply not supported at all.

Issue #2: SuaveArt's usual solution to this alleged spam issue is to immediately nominate targeted articles for deletion. The majority of these nominations have been defeated or are well on their way to being defeated. Some of the most ridiculous nominations include Sarah's Choice, International House of Prayer, a user box, a template that has been nominated twice before, Relevant Magazine, the Christian Post, and Christian singer Carman.

Issue #3: SuaveArt has made several extremely POV edits and reverted removals of POV material that had to be reverted. Examples: [135], [136], [137], [138]

Issue #4: SuaveArt has only been a member since May 2009 and has made fewer than 1000 edits, but he makes comments on talk pages as if he owns Wikipedia.

Issue #5: SuaveArt harasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner towards them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of vandalism and POV pushing): [139], [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145]

Issue #6: Engaging in edit warring: [146], [147]

Issue #7: Engaging in bad faith revenge edits with false and inflammatory edit summaries: [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157] and many, many more.

These edits indicate a serious problem with SuaveArt's presence here. I took some time off to back off the issue, but he only started targeting other users.

Constructive comments from non-involved editors are welcome. I would particularly like to know if the edits cited in "Issue #7" were at all justified. Seregain (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

#4: Everybody owns Wikipedia. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: This user was just discussed recently here. GJC 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time in almost as many weeks as this issue has been raised about this user (disclosure: I started the second thread). ANI may not be the place to discuss this. The best option here may be to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which is essentially what the above is formatted like anyways. I notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SuaveArt is currently redlinked. Maybe someone should fix that. I have little doubt that the RFC would be certified if opened. --Jayron32 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I just open that page and copy my edit there? Or do I have to start it from the RFC page? Seregain (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hold off for a bit given Jclemens offer of mentorship below. If that sticks, a full fledged RFC wouldn't be necessary. Also, RFC/U's tend to have a templated format; your comments fit in one of the standard sections, I forget the formal name, but it would be rather obvious from the name of the title. Just hold on to those diffs; or pay attention to where this gets archived, and if the formal RFC becomes necessary, it can be brought back. --Jayron32 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do that. I really appreciate your help and advice. Seregain (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've offered to mentor this user. Agreed that if he doesn't change his style of interactions he won't be long for Wikipedia, but there may be some positive contributions he can make. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Issue #6 above (edit warring: [158], [159]) — The edit war has been over two links (one to my personal weblog and one to an internet quiz). SuaveArt has been the only user to take issue with these links since I placed them there (June 16, 2008), and even though the user admitted that they are "harmless" ([160]), the user insists on constantly reverting back to his deletions (going so far as to leave vandalism warnings for a user who reverted his edits - [161] ). I'd like comments on this from some other users; several other users have either disagreed with SuaveArt's deletions, or reverted them, yet the user insists that I'm breaking
WP:UP if anyone would like me to. Comments, anyone? God bless, Filmcom (talk
) 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see no basis for deleting such a weblink. I can envision proselytization so blatant that it would merit removal ("All y'all are going to hell. Want to avoid that? Ask me how.") but this isn't anywhere near that bad. Further, there's clearly no basis for editwarring on another user's page to prevent its reinsertion, nor is the reversion of such a removal vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I admitted that the link was "harmless" (the proselytiziation site (NeedgodDOTcom - a link to a humorously simpilistic Ray Comfort "Good Person" essay which doesn't even have a Biblical basis, but enough about that) had no viruses or harmful content, though it was little known and would have been removed as spam from any article). Filmcom however took several of my comments out of context. I told him my reason was that

WP:SOAP

prohibits using userspace to promote a political/religious POV, and it does.

2 The other site (his personal website) contains an online store, which I believe violates our policies on using userspace to promote your business/sell products/etc. That's more appropriate for Myspace than Wikipedia.

3. The user I warned for vandalism for commenting on Filcom's talk page told Filmcom directly to violate Wikipedia policy because "I (Suaveart) am probably a troublemaker" (which is also a violation of our personal attacks policy). The user then went on to rant about me somehow being a "MoveOn.org" supporter just because I removed a violating link from a userpage according to policy.

So in reality, Filmcom and the above users are "quote mining" and not being very honest at all.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this user end his baseless and rather bad-faith nominations of UBX's such as

^{Let's talk}

00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to avoid lying. When I nominated the userboxes for deletion I clearly explained my rationale (you don't have to agree with it, but you have no call to accuse me of "bad faith" since you never explained your rationale for disagreeing with me").

In the nomination for the 2nd userbox, I explained my reasoning, and your only response (or lack thereof) was "Yet another bad faith AFD by Suaveart" (very intelligent). I asked you to explain your justification for that personal attack and why any of my AFDs have been "bad faith" (I also mentioned that several of my AFDs were successful, so you were indirectly attacking the administrators who agreed with me).

But rather than respond to my sincere question, you choose to lie and claim that I'm "attacking you for not siding with me in my AFDs". Very immature.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seregain's disruption/censorship

I encountered this user about a month ago, and he seemed like a blatant POV pusher, so after checking some of his edits, I found some interesting diffs:

1. His 1st edit was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, which was immediately suspicious.

2. In Ken Ham, he removed a sourced entry referring to the Secular Student Alliance visiting Ham's "Creation Museum" with Dr. PZ Meyers shortly after his AFD of the SSA article, claiming that it was "irrelevant to the article".

3. In

Human papillomavirus (newer edit than original

4.In Cervarix (newer edit than original , Seregain inserts the same claim he made in the HPV article, using Diane Harper (anti-vaccination spokesperson) as a source, claiming a "lead researcher comes out against Cervarix". Like in the HPV article, in the above diff he also inappropriately reverted multiple editors just to re-insert his questionable content.

5. In Gardasil, Seregain removes text from the article which identifies Dr. Diane Harper with the anti-vaccination group National Vaccine Information Center.

6. In Carman (singer), he reverted a consensus-supported revision which was decided upon consensus during a very recent AFD to an earlier version which contained promotional spam, unsourced an inaccurate content, and inappropriate tone (without even bothering to follow the AFD discussion).

There are many others as well, but these I consider the most disruptive.

I hadn't had any contact with him until a day ago, when he logged out of his account and made this personal attack using an IP as a sockpuppet("Reverting censorship by disruptive troll). He admitted that his was him in these edits 1, 2 "This was my edit. Neglected to log in.

After starting this AN/I thread, he immediately visited User:SarekOfVulcan's talk page and asked him to intervene here on his behalf (which I also consider disruptive).--SuaveArt (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Issue #6 above (edit warring: [162], [163]) — The edit war has been over two links (one to my personal weblog and one to an internet quiz). SuaveArt has been the only user to take issue with these links since I placed them there (June 16, 2008), and even though the user admitted that they are "harmless" ([164]), the user insists on constantly reverting back to his deletions (going so far as to leave vandalism warnings for a user who reverted his edits - [165] ). I'd like comments on this from some other users; several other users have either disagreed with SuaveArt's deletions, or reverted them, yet the user insists that I'm breaking
WP:UP if anyone would like me to. Comments, anyone? God bless, Filmcom (talk
) 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- I see no basis for deleting such a weblink. I can envision proselytization so blatant that it would merit removal ("All y'all are going to hell. Want to avoid that? Ask me how.") but this isn't anywhere near that bad. Further, there's clearly no basis for editwarring on another user's page to prevent its reinsertion, nor is the reversion of such a removal vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

re: asking to intervene -- he did no such thing. Can we try for a little accuracy here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That was an accurate statement (and the link you provided just further proves that). This thread did not directly concern me and you, so he posted a notice of it on your page because he knew that we had an earlier conflict over AFDs and assumed you would be biased toward him (while at the same time, he lied in this very AN/I thread when he said that he wanted "constructive criticism from "non-involved editors", while linking you to the thread immediately after). That's not really appropriate, because WP:AN/I is supposed to reach an objective consensus (attempting to bring others into it just to back yourself up is somewhat disruptive IMO). I did no such thing, though I'm sure if I wanted to, I could bring some of the deleting admins of my AFDs into this, but I'm not immature enough to take that route.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

- There is little accuracy in anything he posted. I will elaborate in a response when I have time in a couple hours. Seregain (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything I posted came from direct quotes, so it is perfectly accurate (anyone can read them for themselves). The fact that you aren't going to respond to them now (if you truly believe that they are inaccurate) also just makes you seem that much more guilty. I responded to your inaccurate accusations the minute you notified me about this thread. Why can't you do the same?--SuaveArt (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very immature? Have you even looked at the links that I gave you. You called everyone else insane by saying that you were the only "Sane person here". If you have a problem with my "Immaturity" then take it up at the

^{Let's talk}

00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this in the above section. ;) That comment I made was just humorous sarcasm. In the above section you lied about the nature of the comment I made on your page about your (earlier) lie that my userbox nom was in "bad faith" (I explained my reasoning perfectly, you don't have to agree with that, but that was a far more immature comment than my "sane person" joke). Now you're still avoiding the issue (and using tu quoque at that) which I believe further proves my point.

And no, I'd rather not waste admin time discussing your "maturity" on WP:WQA. I'd rather discuss it in this thread (just as you seem to be doing here with your opinion of my own maturity).--SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

you obviouly don't know a thing about

^{Let's talk}

01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're free to read my rationale for nom'ing the "Wikipedian" UB again, because I clearly explained why I nom'd it, so your claim about "bad faith" was (and still is) a baseless lie. Close, but no cigar. And more tu quoque? Please. I have no serious problems with my editing style, and I've addressed and debunked the allegations made about me in this thread (along with quite a few of my own which show that Seregain is the real disruptor here), so what's there left to discuss anyway? It doesn't look like you can refute any of my points or even add to this discussion.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

look, Im done dealing with the

^{Let's talk}

01:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, the whole idea that my first edit was "immediately suspicious" is without merit or sense. Exactly how does one determine within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia - particularly that of "assume good faith" - that someone's first edit is "immediately suspicious?" If I, like you, had first edited a handful of other non-controversial topics before jumping in head first into AfDs, would that have made my first edit more palatable? The SSA article had been tagged for months with no one attempting to address the issues with it. At the time of the nomination, the article had ZERO references and, using your preferred vernacular, was filled with spam and trivia. It's better now, though I still see improvements that can be made.

Second, the material about the SSA's visit to the Creation Museum did not fit into the article about Ken Ham, particularly in the section about his "Claims and beliefs."

Then move it to another section instead of censoring it. That coupled with your nom for SSA makes your pro-religion censorship intent slightly obvious.

Third, the information about Dr. Diane Harper, the LEAD RESEARCHER for the development HPV vaccine (hardly someone who fringe and non-notable!) and not someone who is an "anti-vaccination spokesperson," and her comments made in a speech are neither vandalism nor POV pushing. These comments were widely reported by all sorts of sources.

She spoke on behalf of an anti-vaccination group, and you tried to censor that in another article. It's slightly obvious that you were trying to push an "abstinence-only" POV into those articles, which is as laughably unscientific as it is juvenile.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fourth, your issue regarding the Carman article is laughably false. You cite an edit I made not even 6 hours after you first started attacking the article with your ridiculous AfD. Exactly how in that 6 hours, when only you, I and one other editor had edited, could there have been a consensus reached? The only consensus that existed at that time was the one consisting of you and you.

AFD was closed, consensus was decided upon, the article was a promo before I AFD it (and had been that way for 2 years, with no sources and a huge body of inappropriate, laughably written text) and you purposely reinserted the ridiculous spam. Case closed.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifth, the issue of "IP sockpuppetry" is a gross and inflammatory misrepresentation of the facts. After being unable to convince you to work with me on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces article, I took a weeks-long break from Wikipedia as I did not with to deal with the headache over the Christmas holiday. When I decided to come back, I didn't even think about if I was logged in or not. It's a mistake that can happen and has happened to many editors and it is highly inappropriate to immediately jump in with the "sockpuppet" accusation, particularly when I freely admitted to the error.

You called me a "disruptive troll" as your IP. Whether it was an error or not, the statement was true. I did my best to work with you on LB (but you had a specific agenda and were unwilling to compromise just because you wanted it to read like a promo for the game).--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally, your representation of my comment to SarekOfVulcan is yet another gross and inflammatory misrepresentation of the facts. I saw that he was questioning your disruption to my user page and I directed him to view the ANI which contained even more egregious examples of your disruptive edits. I in no way, shape or form "asked him to intervene on [my] behalf." No one else is seeing it that way. Why are you?

Anyone with common sense does see it that way. You said in this thread you wanted comments from "un-involved users", and now your admitting you directed him here because "he'd been involved with me". My point proven.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to reason and work with you to no avail. I have been met only with hostility. On December 13th, you spend at least an hour or two sifting through my past edits and reverting them for no good reason other than to be disruptive specifically towards me.

False. Nearly all of the edits I reverted were subtle (or not so subtle) attempts at censorship and POV pushing. If I reverted any that were legit, I apologize.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I well and truly hope that you will take the mentorship seriously and cease your hostile and disruptive editing. I have seen you make positive

contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that will become the norm instead. Good luck you you. Seregain (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You too.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot even bring myself to read your responses to my points. It's incredibly beyond the bounds of reason to insert your responses inside my text. It makes the section confusing and unreadable. Wikipedia is not a place for

fisking. And what is going on with your changing the subsection title seemingly every time you post something new? Now you've gone and added "censorship" to it. (Something I find ironic considering your own censorship of properly sourced material I added to a few articles.) Seregain (talk

) 14:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seregain's assertions about SuaveArt addressed point by point

It's difficult to know where to begin with this user. I guess I'll just rattle stuff off as it comes to me. (Note: many examples cited below involve me due to SuaveArt targeting me.)

Actually only a handful of the below edits involve you, so that's a lie. The rest are examples of you "targeting" me by going over my edits (the same thing you said was "targeting" when I did it after seeing some of your spam) and using out of context links and misleading link summaries to push a false agenda, so your credibility is already going down the drain.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #1: SuaveArt has taken it upon himself to target Christian-themed articles almost exclusively, which indicates a POV agenda. SuaveArt's explanation, such as it is, is that he is "patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets."[166] If SuaveArt were truly concerned about spam, he wouldn't be "patroling" Christian articles alone as articles of all types are frequent spam targets. SuaveArt's explanation gives the impression that he believes that Christian articles alone have an issue with spam, which is simply not supported at all.

That's a very childish assertion not based on facts and isn't even worth addressing, but I'll try. I simply said that I patrol Christian music and film-related articles because they are prone to spam (much of which has been introduced by yourself and several other users you've mentioned, whether in bad faith or not).

If you're argument is that "If you remove Christian spam, then you have to remove spam from non-Christian articles too or it's not fair" then that's just a good summary of how childish and inaccurate your entire diatribe and persecution complex is, but I think that goes without saying. ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #2: SuaveArt's usual solution to this alleged spam issue is to immediately nominate targeted articles for deletion. The majority of these nominations have been defeated or are well on their way to being defeated. Some of the most ridiculous nominations include Sarah's Choice, International House of Prayer, a user box, a template that has been nominated twice before, Relevant Magazine, the Christian Post, and Christian singer Carman.

All of these nominations have been completely legitimate and well-discussed (so your claims are lies as usual). The only clearly inappropriate AFD I know of here is your AFD for Secular Student Alliance (your [i]first edit[/i]), which essentially gave no reason whatsoever and was abruptly defeated. There is no rule that "you can't AFD an article", but if the community disagrees with the nominator, it will stay. Everyone of the articles was prone to spam and in my opinion unproperly sourced, several of them have been deleted along with many deletion supporters.

Also (as I documented), in the Carman article, you went against the closing AFD consensus and reinserted all of the spam which was removed after the AFD.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #3: SuaveArt has made several extremely POV edits and reverted removals of POV material that had to be reverted. Examples: [167], [168], [169], [170]

It didn't "have to be reverted" because it was appropriate in itself (e.g.

far-left), but consensus disagreed with it on WorldNetDaily and Constitution party, and I left it at that. On the other hand, you using Catholic Exchange and an anti-vaccination organization in articles such as Cervatrix goes well beyond that (this has been documented above). Not only did that actually "have to be reverted" for pure disruption, but you've edit warred and used personal attacks (as well as overridden dozens of editors) to try to reinsert it.--SuaveArt (talk

) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #4: SuaveArt has only been a member since May 2009 and has made fewer than 1000 edits, but he makes comments on talk pages as if he owns Wikipedia.

That's a meaningless assertion and I could say the same as you and have just as little credibility for it. But what you're referring to is you violating official policies which the community (not me) has decided on, and me reverting your changes. Just a translation.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #5: SuaveArt harasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner towards them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of vandalism and POV pushing): [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177]

Yawn... Seregain harrasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner toward them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of "censorship" and "being a disruptive troll") via his IP sockpuppet (which he admitted himself).

See the section above where I documented this. All of the above claims have already been fully addressed in separate discussions and are lies, by the way. I will pull up these discussions later if requested.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #6: Engaging in edit warring: [178], [179]

It's not "edit warring" if the edits are clearly policy violations (which they were) - and you edited the same page, which means you engaged in "edit waring" as well (by your standard). On the other hand, when you reverted over 20 editors in at least 2 articles multiple times (which I documented) just to reinsert your inappropriate content, that went beyond edit warring and bordered on outright disruption.

Issue #7: Engaging in bad faith revenge edits with false and inflammatory edit summaries: [180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189] and many, many more.

All of those edits were in good faith, and were not "revenge edits" (as I explained in my discussion of your own disruptive behavior). Your edits were inappropriate and I outlined the reasons clearly in the above section. On the other hand, the personal attack which you made against me as a sockpuppet (which I also linked in the above section) was most certainly a revenge edit.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

These edits indicate a serious problem with SuaveArt's presence here. I took some time off to back off the issue, but he only started targeting other users.

Actually they simply indicate a serious problem you have with my presence here (as well as Wikipedia policy and basic editing standards), which

I haven't "targeted" any users personally, just specific inappropriate edits by users that I've interacted with (there is nothing personal in this other than that their, and your edits were clearly inappropriate). That's an untrue and trollish claim which has no factual basis (while on the other hand, the attack you made on my with an IP sockpuppet does prove that you actually "targeted" me specifically - it's in the link in the above section).--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Constructive comments from non-involved editors are welcome. I would particularly like to know if the edits cited in "Issue #7" were at all justified. Seregain (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have specifically notified SarekOfVulcan (a user who I interacted with) of this thread if you wanted "constructive comments from non-involved users". Clearly you're lying again, just as you did in all of your above comments.

Note: This user was just discussed recently here. GJC 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was and no one agreed that I should receive any discipline, since my actions were not inappropriate - The user basically complained, just like Seregain, that I was AFD'ing articles "without reason" even though he never bothered to read my reasons. Even my unsuccessful AFDs were useful because they helped to raise awareness about spam in the articles, and several of mine were indeed successful. So much ado about nothing, I say.

I believe this should cover it. I can explain each individual AFD, discussion, etc in detail if requested as well, but his is basicaly a summary of Seregain's lies and disruptive, targeting behavior.

--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking

WP:SOAP(wtf?), and called this a "good faith" edit?... AFAIS, This is entirely disruptive editing and abusive usage of minor edit, thus pure vandalism. Other instances, such as using an edit summary like "rmved linkspam by POV pusher", can also be found, Yet he completely avoided explaining these, instead claimed they are "good faith" edits. Other editors please notice this - I think this is a serious issue. Blodance (talk

) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this (and every one of those edits) at least a dozen times in multiple threads. If you didn't follow the discussions, that's your fault, not mine and doesn't give you a right to continue to repeat this lie in spite of the facts I've presented which debunk it. See my talk page thread if you want the quickest explanation for Seregain's page. It wasn't vandalism, because Seregain's page (and the edits I cited) had a theme of Christian proselytization (which I believe violates

WP:SOAP

- using userspace to promote a specific religion/policial view).

Be sure to check out Seregain's diffs while you're at it (I linked them above). Okay? ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By no means are you entitled to BLANK others' user page based solely on your OWN interpretation, and mark it as MINOR. And calling others' comments "lie" doesn't make them so. I'm not making further comments - I believe by now this user's behavior is obvious, no need to say more. Blodance (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The page had 1 line of text. That's not a "major edit". And I'd love to see policy on that.

2. I explained in detail why the comments were a lie (using direct quotes via links). If you choose to ignore the facts, that's your decision.

3. Yes it's obvious that I'm the only one here engaging in intelligent debate, I hope with both agree on that. ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MINOR. Blodance (talk

) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Block/Topic Ban of User:SuaveArt

Based on the diffs provided, as well as the statments of others, I am proposeing a block or a topic ban of

^{Let's talk}

02:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, try reading more. Based on the comments of others in multiple threads (which you conveniently neglected to read), the diffs provided, and my detailed explanations above and in other specific discussions, you're way off.

1. Every diff provided along with the above claims was debunked in detail (in this thread and separate discussions). Once again, you're refusing to read them because I believe you're taking this as personal for some reason.

2. A topic ban is completely ridiculous since I haven't even been blocked once for any of my edits (and several admins have agreed with my AFDs and deleted the articles). Your claim about POV-pushing is also untrue, as AFDing articles and explaining my reasons isn't "POV-pushing". That's a foolish statment.

Also, if a ban were to be applied, it should apply to articles on Christianity, not "religion-based articles", since I've only been active in Christian articles. ;)

3. I believe the length of a ban should be decided on an admin once said ban is decided upon.

4. Your above comment is so poorly written that I doubt it's sincerity. Since an admin has already commented here (and found no reason to issue a ban) and has asked to mentor me on this issue, I believe this "poll" is just trolling and should be removed for disruption.--SuaveArt (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Support block/ban.Neutral(non-admin opinion) Vandalising others' user page and marking the edit as minor is a gross breach of several policies, let alone other issues. As an admin offered a mentorship, I'll change my course to neutral. But if this editing pattern continues, then bring the axe, IMHO. Blodance (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have notified SuaveArt of this thread again.--

^{Let's talk}

02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as premature. All of these problems predate the current mentorship offer by Jclemens, which SuaveArt seems to be actively pursueing. It seems rather rediculous to enact any further restrictions before mentorship takes its course. Should the problems persist despite the mentorship, this may be worthwhile to revisit, but right now a ban/block seems unneccessary until all other avenues of dispute resolution have played out. Since one just started less than a day ago (mentorship), lets not jump to this end just yet. --Jayron32 03:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(non-admin opinion) A topic ban at this point is premature. This should be taken to RFC, IMHO. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
To give another non-admin opinion, I must concur with DC, but let's see what happens for at least a day or two- filing reports and RfCs is pointless if the problem is in the process of being resolved. Obviously, if there's further disruption, then there's this noticeboard or even AIV. HJMitchell You rang? 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(non-admin opinion) Any ban is indeed at this point premature. Varsovian (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment since all of these diffs are prior to SuaveArt's mentoring, im willing to let this go for now. He needs to learn that vandaliseing userpages is not allowed though. I'm withdrawing my support for a block/topic ban on the basis of
^{Let's talk}
11:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment - I'm willing to let this issue go permitting SA drops the hostility and gross misuse of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, takes his mentorship seriously and strives to work in harmony with the Wikipedia community, including those with whom he may have ideological differences. Seregain (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I also hope he will refrain from asking for help here (ironic, considering his reaction to my post on SarekOfVulcan's talk) on other websites:[190] The internet is forever (and damned inconvenient sometimes, eh?). Seregain (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Oppose topic ban, though I would recommend SuaveArt to put at least minimal effort into checking notability
before nominating for deletion. Also stay off Seregain's user page. On the other hand, Seregain's editing of medical articles looks problematic. --Apoc2400 (talk
) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (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.

A case of strange behaviour?