Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive632

I have reported this user for edit warring... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sceptre_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 on this artickle. Please not his offensive comments in his reversions. I also read his politically motived diatribe in his summary above and cannot take it seriously as it simply reflects his personal subjective opinion on the sources in the article Vexorg (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Clerical note, the page in question has been protected for one week to (hopefully) induce discussion and stop the edit war. --Chris (talk) 04:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, the "reviewer" right should be removed. Vexorg simply can't be trusted with it. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The above exposes your childish agenda because it goes BEYOND the contention on this article and attacks my editor status as a whole.Chris was right in protecting the page to to stop your edit warring. Looking at the edit history of that page you have a clear 'ownership obsession' of that article. All I did was restore properly sourced material. YOU jumped in with an immediate edit war obsession straight away because another editor trod on your perceived territory. . Vexorg (talk) 05:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not protect the page to stop Sceptre from edit warring. I protected it to stop the edit war. As you so correctly pointed out, it takes two to edit war. Do not misconstrue my action as support for your position. --Chris (talk) 05:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is not a proper source. YouTomb is not a proper source. Indymedia is not a proper source. American Free Press is not a proper source. And there is nothing "childish" about upholding the policies of Wikipedia, which, sadly, I seem to be the only person doing so for that article. Well, and Chris too. Thanks for protecting the right version. :) Sceptre ^(talk) 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, how many times do I have to say this? YouTube is usually not a proper source. :) Cptnono (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe YouTube et al fall squarely under

WP:SPS. So yes, they would usually not be proper. --Chris (talk)

05:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Here are only four out of dozens examples from user:vexorg edit history: removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic; arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic; Inserting BLP on Tony Blairabsurd editing. With such record the user should be banned on a few topics at least, and not given reviewer rights.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Eech. He's worse than I thought. No wonder I was the subject of personal attacks. I mean, I'm already considered far-right at my university for not thinking Israel should be wiped off the map :P Sceptre ^(talk) 05:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg does seem to be a very problematic editor. Someone else pointed him out earlier, and looking at his contribs I can see why. Not just in relation to Israel, but really just about everything. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Vexorg has a longstanding and disruptive pattern of POV-pushing and incivility. Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Given this discussion and his block history, I'm going to remove his reviewer rights later today unless there's some strong objections.

talk

) 09:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. "The permission is removed at the request of the user, the community, or the arbitration committee." Removal would seem to have to wait until more discussion by the community has taken place. Under the current phrasing... Doc9871 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• I am also unsure about removing his reviewer rights, this effectively disenfranchises a user, he does have issues, but are his additions vandalism, if they are only poorly cited or POV then they can be dealt with through reverts and reports as usual. Has he misused his reviewer rights? As more is known about the reviewer right now the community could use a discussion as to if and when the rights can or should be removed. Also as the pending changes trial is about to expire and is in need of consensus support to continue, the reviewer right could be redundant.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 10:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: the reviewer right can be removed at the request of the community. I see Dougweller's comment above as initiating such a request. I'd suggest that !votes should be made with that in mind, and not whether Dougweller is correct in removing the right (Dougweller hasn't removed the right: they've opened a community discussion about removing the right). TFOWR 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Note That's correct, I'm not going to remove his right without some form of endorsement of that action. But I can't see how it 'disenfranchises' him. And I simply do not understand why someone with a substantial block history for edit warring (Feb 2010, 4 blocks in 2009, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2007) should have been granted the right in the first place. This latest block just underlines the issue.
  talk
  ) 11:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of experienced quality contributors that have substantial block history for edit warring. Has he misused the reviewer right?

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be so,, and I don't know if he's misused the right, but do we want them to have reviewer rights? It's a serious question.

talk

) 13:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

After the two months trial now more is known about the workings of the tool and it is closing today or tomorrow and community consensus support is required to continue, here

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously moot, so I'm not going to take any action. I'll probably comment in any discussion if it's kept, as I think this should only be given to trusted editors, and that many blocks for edit warring shows he isn't to be trusted.

talk

) 15:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes agreed its moot at the moment. Other users have recently also commented in support of your position but I agree that is a needed topic of discussion only really possible after the community decides if we shall keep the tool. I also note that although not opined for a lengthy period there was not one comment in support of removing the right from the user.

Off2riorob (talk

) 15:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree; in my opinion, if, through their actions, an editor shows that they don't understand our policies regarding BLPs or reliable sources, then, even if they do not technically misuse the reviewer right, it can be revoked. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• As initiator, Salvio is entirely on the money. Given how much power reviewer gives a user—in effect, they could become liable for defamation litigation if they are found to have accepted a defamatory edit—and how the right introduces defamation to a volatile article for about 95% of the readership if said edit is accepted, an editor would need to exhibit that they can identify reliable sources and understand NPOV, at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• I think that Vexorg's longstanding pattern of engaging in disruptive and uncivil editing is causing a problem. They are repeatedly POV-pushing on talk pages and in article space, have been warned many, many times on their talk page about incivility and edit warring (for example, 1, 2, 3), and are persistently incivil (for example, 1, 2). And, for some older civility problems, I left a post on the user's talk page months ago regarding a discussion in which the editor was participating in which he persistently accused everyone disagreeing with him of having a sinister political agenda:1. Now, I'm glad that Wikipedia doesn't block people for simply holding fringe views. But when an editor combines POV-pushing for fringe views with persistent personal attacks on other editors, at some point you have to wonder what they are contributing here, and how to get this editor to stop being disruptive to the community.... Cordelia Vorkosigan (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann. His signature style is to create a new account because we have not banned his IP address and nominate articles for deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, Richard Arthur Norton is a pompous, foolish person that enjoys accusing other people of crimes that only exist inside his own mind. I see that he has had several blocks for incivility recently. He is following me around, striking out my comments, and taunting me. He is making me not wish to contribute to wikipedia. Are all editors like this? Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Norton also has a knee-jerk reaction to blame a "sockpuppet" whenever one of his articles is being deleted. see this "sockpuppet" complaint. Frank Fascarelli (talk) 02:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Indeffed. Maybe a friendly CU can look for IPs and sleepers, but that doesn't seem to fit the MO. Protonk (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is the IP blocked, or just the account? That is 8 times an account has been blocked, but he keeps using the same IP. Why isn't the IP blocked? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• • He uses the same IP every time? I have no idea what is IP address is because I'm not a CU. The IP that account used will be autoblocked for 24 hours, but that's it. Protonk (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • I don't know, folks. He's vowed to move to Cote d'Ivoire where his IP cannot be traced and become an admin so he can, well, you folks can read the rest of that diff ... :-) –MuZemike 03:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I've put a checkuser block on the IP; there was one earlier in the year, but it expired. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've closed these AFDs per

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank John Bersbach, Sr.
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Hamilton (general)

There are a few others I left open because they have an outstanding delete !vote. Not sure about this one..

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors

"Convert to category" might be considered a delete !vote. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What are the other AfDs besides the ones you listed? I would like to see if the articles can be rescued. Silverseren^C 03:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlipMe
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manz Corporation
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheek’d

I was still tempted to close these per

WP:IAR --Ron Ritzman (talk

) 04:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already got the Manz Corporation covered. I'll see what I can do about the other two. It would help if you went and voted in the AfDs yourself, whether it be for Keep or Delete. Silverseren^C 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No need, Armbrust struck his delete !votes so I punched keep on both. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of African-American pornographic actors has 2 delete !votes. One is an rather sarcastic. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone have a look at these edits on the numbers of victims? Vandalism?

1. 15 aug 2010 15:26 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (88.056 bytes)
2. 15 aug 2010 15:07 Professor john enistein (Overleg | bijdragen) (87.970 bytes)

--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Replacing cited figures with uncited ones? Seems pretty clear cut to me. I've reverted them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

And welcomed the user and told him/her that you raised this thread - don't forget you have to do that. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks and sorry that I forgot that warning. The exact number of casualties is a topic that I would rather like to skip, if you don't mind--JanDeFietser (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like some changes to {{

Resolved

 – nothing for an Administrator to see, advice given.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, my concerns are regarding his activity on my talk page, especially after I've asked him to please just leave my talk page alone. Obviously wikipedia business is still an acceptable use of the page, but beyond that I have asked him to refrain as it feels personal. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about

WP:ADOPTION until now. That sounds like it would help (should I decide to continue involvement here). I have not had another user name or account. I've read many articles, of course, and even wrote an essay in high school about how community-controlled knowledge (like Wikipedia) is a peek into the future of human endeavour. Now I regret getting involved here. I literally stumbled onto a page that sparked my legal interest (future law school student). I've spent hours reading the wiki guidelines and hours and hours searching for material to help expand that page. I'm thinking it's probably best at this point for me to take the high road, concede that somehow I've acted inappropriately, and if I find the strength, return to the wiki guidelines and maybe try again some day. At the very least it has been a learning experience. ValkyrieOfOdin (talk

) 22:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will close this then as there is nothing worthy of any action. If you decide to stay then do consider the adoption as it is very useful, you are of course welcome to ask me for advice on my talkpage and I will gladly help you if I can.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User blocked for personal attacks. Fences&Windows 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tell me if I'm overreacting or if the userboxes on Mark Sheridan (talk · contribs)'s page are unacceptable. I removed them once as personal attacks and they've been reinstated and I'm not interested in some war with this user. Canterbury Tail talk 12:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagreements are fine, userboxes calling specific users bastards are not. I've removed the userboxes again and warned the user to stop doing so, or be blocked.

WP:NPA is there for a reason and very much applies here. ~ mazca ^talk

12:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Mazca)They are so pathetic I nearly burst out laughing. That's the lamest disruption I've seen for a while. No, they are absolutely NOT acceptable and I see they have been removed again. They should stay removed. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That's entirely what I thought (and knew) however since it obviously involves me I brought it elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It's important to note that this user has had a previous final warning for NPA against Canterbury Tail. Since then these boxes have appeared at least twice. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up Toddst1. Based on that, I have handed out a block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Editor urged to brush up on

WP:ROLLBACK; no need to revoke the privilege for the moment, however. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Has someone spoken with Docboat and reminded him of WP:ROLLBACK? And have you notified him that he's under discussion here? Kudos, by the way for your grasp of Wikilingo and policy, unusual for an IP.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Result of tedious hours spent searching and following links. Yes, I have approached Docboat on their talk page and notified them too. I am very dismayed by the high error rate I see in reverts made by page patrollers, and I think

WP:DONTBITE pays too little attention to what to do instead of biting. 66.167.43.31 (talk

) 17:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I see Docboat has not edited since an hour before you dropped him a note, which was late this morning. Perhaps it would have been best to discuss it with him or at least allowing time for him to respond (keeping in mind that a few editors around here actually have lives). Just in the interest of not having us rush into anything, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Also I see a very friendly and apologetic note from Docboat on your talk page]. Very appropriate. I will say that it is very easy to mistake an edit, at first glance, from an IP as vandalism. I will confess to having erred there myself. Not everyone wants to join, but having a username does get you a little more respect, which is not a reflection on you, unhappily most of our vandalism comes from IPs or else brand new editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that Docboat hasn't edited much in that past year, only deciding to begin using rollback again a few days ago after only 8 edits since last October. Perhaps Docboat does have a lack of experience, but I would have made some of the same rollbacks too, especially that defecating edit. A reminder of WP:Rollback is all that may be warranted in this case.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A nice note. There is no reason to remove rollback from someone who is at least trying to use it properly, and who hasn't shown that he won't learn.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

As a side story, I had Rollback removed once for making a single poor revert. I didn't even get a reminder, it was just yanked, albeit with the promise to restore it in a few days. Apparently it was to teach me to slow down. It was restored in a few hours after a consensus determined that the removal was unnecessary.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So much contention! Since Docboat was notified and will no doubt check this thread, he should know to refresh himself on policy, and I think we can mark this resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Not an admin issue, try Wikipedia:Community portal for ideas. Fences&Windows 23:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Which articles would you suggest I edit? My knowledge is very broad, ranging from abstract algebra and insights into advanced geometry and group theory, to 19th century literature, specialising in crime fiction, to an enthusiasm for contemporary culinary techniques and a love of fine dining. So where would you all suggest I start my wiki-editing career? 188.221.144.7 (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Wherever you like. Welcome to Wikipedia! Administrators don't tell other editors where to edit, it is completely up to you. Why not register and get a user name? You'll be taken more seriously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of Where do you want to go today?. Come to think of it, if we ever advertised we could use that as a slogan. "Where do you want to edit today?" --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Per this PMDrive1061 has retired because of offwiki stalking and nothing being done onwiki (when it pops up onwiki) to fight it. I think it best to just leave PMDrive1061 alone, he has reached his limit of Wikipedia and we owe it to him (after all the hard work he has done) to just left him

disappear. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 23:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, but will someone clean up after him? Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably needs a checkuser to make sure the accounts aren't together or part of other sockpuppets, then an unblock. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But the block wasn't for sockpuppetry, the trolling Cook was blocked for was for going around saying "bless you for the work you do here," how is that anything like Terry-John's trolling of saying we're possessed by Satan for just being editors here? The only reason Cook was accused of sockpuppetry was because he and Terry-John are or claim to be clergymen, and they joined roughly around the same time. That's it, and there's plenty of evidence against sockpuppetry. It's completely unnecessary, but if it will get someone to do something, fine, include it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues that make a connection plausable: timing of account creation; and the fact that subsequent socks of Pastor Terry-John have singled out Rev. Ian Cook's talk page and through that found your talk page - it would be odd for them to find this specific blocked account and then to remain fixated on it unless there's a connection. That may be enough to justify the need for a checkuser ... but I agree that without that firm evidence, we should AGF and at least permit talk page access for now. I'll re-allow talk page editing for now - restoring further access can be discussed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Page unblocked. I meant to do so earlier, but as you can see by my recent history, I've been busy. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Goodbye. --

Took me a moment to realize you had already unprotected it was why I wasn't seeing protection to remove.  :-) --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Rev. Ian Cook is, regardless of any connection with Pastor whoever, an abuser of multiple accounts; he is also User:Reverend J. Connolley, User:Pmoultrie, and User:TheRevC. He's probably also some or another serial socker, but it doesn't really matter who; this abuse stands on its own. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, RevC is Cook according to a check user (before he had our policy on sockpuppets explained to him because it was assumed he was Pastor Terry-John), but where are you getting the rest from? Reverend J. Connolley (banned for being a puppet of Pastor Terry-John) left a nasty message on Cook's talk page (just like PTJ), and I'm failing to see any connection between Pmoultrie with any of this. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, jpgordon has checkuser access. He didn't state specifically, but I am guessing his statement above is based on a check. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I guess I should say so when I make declarations like the previous. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fuck me, without checkuser access this was all I could see. Nevermind everyone, I'm sorry for the mess. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No big deal. It gave me the opportunity to peek and get rid of a bunch of PTJ's sleepers. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ian, they're trolls, either friends, or the same guy on two connections. This is what they do.

@PMD; bummer, best wishes. Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh User:Rev. Ian Cook trolled me on meta; [7], feigning to be User:A Nobody. There're two more of the same by m:User:NotAnybody, just above; [8] [9]. Both accounts are unified. I get this a *lot*, which contributed to another mess somewhere ↑↑ on this page. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These two now blocked on meta; m:Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat#a couple of cross-wiki-trolls. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Its always best to confirm with a checkuser, and make sure. Hate to see innocent users get blocked, although that doesn't seem to be the case here.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The "Rev. Ian Cook" account *was* confirmed by Josh, just above, and the accounts are

unified, so that's the same account on meta; it was blocked here and went off to meta to troll there. Someone shut down teh talk pages if there's another peep; block User:NotAnybody, too, as a sleeper, who was rightly blocked for trolling on meta. I was pointed at m:Steward requests/Global to get any globally blocked, if needed. These are garden variety trolls; they get swatted with the edge of a garden spade on a daily basis. Cheers, Jack Merridew

21:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, guys, they're all GEORGIEGIBBONS socks and are just there to waste your time.  Confirmed, BTW. I tagged a handful and left the rest as they're all blocked anyways - Alison ^❤ 06:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – IP has been blocked for 39 hours and Michael W. Dean doesn't have enough recent disruptive activity to warrant PP at this time. Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User 24.160.114.178 has made seven edits to Wikipedia, all of them vandalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/24.160.114.178 Suggestion: permanent block of user.

Also, article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Dean has had ongoing vandalism over months from a bunch of persistent, unregistered users, suggest permanently protect the page. Other than the vandalism, the article is not very active edit-wise, and will not suffer from having edits limited to registered users with proven useful edits.

(also posting second paragraph on "requests for protection.") Thank you! ElizaBarrington (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would anybody want to vandalise this. More's the point, why did somebody bother to write it in the first place? Oh, well the intrinsic problem with Wikipedia is that it will always attract people with ,let's say, psychiatric difficulties. A healthy dose of tolerance and shrugged shoulders is required. Petebutt (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Report the IP to

WP:RPP. See my note in the resolved section above. Whose Your Guy (talk

) 03:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just want to make sure, is the propaganda in favour of Tony Blair on User talk:Thehelpinghand allowed on Wikipedia?. I removed it previously, but the user warned me on Wikinews that it was allowed by an administrator. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gah! Diego! I blocked you, dammit!!! :). I saw that on WN; if you look at the WP talk page, Deskana is questioning if he really did say that. See here for en.Wikinews. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My feeling on this is that it is not really worth pursuing. Thehelpinghand has bigger problems right now. It's silly and it makes a mess of the page format, but it's not hurting anyone. Best to let it drop since they are indef blocked.

talk

) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

About it being "allowed by an administrator", I recall him asking that on irc help channel, basically all we told him is that noone really cares what you have on your userpage, just don't violate

WP:UPNOT. -- œ^™

12:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image on user page

Resolved

On August 11, 2010, I removed a non-free image from

Perhaps nom it for deletion?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's used on an article. However, I reverted the addition, welcome/warned the IP - and will block for copyvio should they re-add it. (

BWilkins ←track

) 17:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is an IP adding images to other people's talk page? Unless the IP is Chris, not logged in.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Great, thank you guys very much. Wehwalt, yes the image is actually the album cover for Weezer's Hurley. I was curious about the IP/User relationship as well, but I was less worried about sockpuppetry than the copyvio. (The IP's edits are so few.) – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 17:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That IP was my friend doing that as a joke, just so you know. We didn't know about the non-free image rule, so sorry about that. Chris9086 (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT and just familiarise yourself with them that should be fine. Also, have your friend learn some manners. Cheers Chris. S.G.^(GH) _ping!

17:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Aaaannnd, the IP added it back - left some moronic content on his talkpage, and has been blocked for 31hrs for copyio, as warned/promised. If it's really Chris' friend, then maybe Chris wants a block too for

BWilkins ←track

) 09:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I did inform Chris that his "friend" needs to stop acting like an idiot and his conduct reflects badly on him. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

I am having consistant problems with the 75.170 range on the WGGH page. For the past year, it has been the same repeated vandalism over and over and over. It is tiresome. I have, again, requested page protection (got it last time), but I think a rangeblock is needed. Could an admin take a look at the history and see if a rangeblock can be put in place? Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

A range block seems a bit much, as long as its only one page. Wouldn't a simple page protection be better? Or do you think that there are other pages?--Jojhutton (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think what NH might be thinking is that given the range of IPs seem to have no other edits other than to WGGH, why apply a semi protection to exclude all IPs when one can exclude one IP range with no good contributions. Though I would never dare to presume what he is really thinking... the reality would frighten me, I'm sure. In any case, it is semi protected for now and given that it is such a tiny article perhaps semi protection would not hurt it no matter what it's duration. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Does user SGGH have a conflict of interest with WGGH? Or just by accident a similar name. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This article seems to fail

WP:CORP which is the notability (companies) page. Does radio stations get special treatment such as "all radio stations are notable"? I know high schools are given special allowance to have articles no matter how obscure or non-notable they may be. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk

) 19:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that if the range was having vandalism edits on one page, why wait for them to go to another and start something. Kind of ABF on my part, I know, but I have seen no good edits from this range other than vandalism on WGGH. @SGGH, don't worry, what everyone is really thinking frightens me too. @Suomi, yes, all radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Do they all geolocate to wherever WGGH serves? And how long are you thinking for a block? That's another consideration: semi protection can be indefinite but I doubt an indef rangeblock would be considered. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just learned that radio stations are not automatically notable.

Most likely your right about the notability, but thats an interesting angle on fighting vandalism. Delete the page and vandalism will go away.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well if it doesn't pass notability criteria then whatever its edit history it doesn't really matter. AfD it if you wish as failing notability. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I recommend not going for AfD. There is precedence set by past AfDs that radio stations are notable. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. No need to waste the time. We all know the outcome way in advance don't we? There always seems to be enough fanboys to create a no-consensus. Just see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater, to see what I mean.--Jojhutton (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

These unwritten precedents are ridiculous. They stem from a time when we had different criteria, and they are basically 'Well, that's the way we've always done it, go away now." And they are accumulative, first there are just a few, then people say 'That's what we did last time', and so it goes. I say either put it into the guideline or let decisions be made according to our written guidelines.

talk

) 21:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We do have a guideline, acutally...

WP:NME

. The precedence from the AfDs, well, you can go search AfD, I am not diggin' for 'em.

Suomi Finland 2009 and I are hashing this out on

WP:WPRS, another WPRS member is actively updating the page with sources, so I request this be marked resolved and pushed to WPRS. - Neutralhomer • Talk

• 21:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I presume that Neutralhomer is withdrawing his request for a range block??? If not, then this isn't resolved. I have no opinion since I know nothing about WGGH. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Like SGGH I'm too frightened by the prospect of imagining what Neutralhomer thinks, but I'd regard a rangeblock as unnecessary now that the page is semi'd. There is still the open issue of radio-station notability, but this is probably not the best venue for that discussion. TFOWR 21:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I just figured since we have a discussion going at WPRS (the radio station WikiProject), it wouldn't be cool to fragment the discussions. Yes, I am withdrawing my request for rangeblock (since it isn't needed now...might be later but we will cross that bridge then). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I'd like to point to examples of the problem:

talk

) 08:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but we ought not to clog up ANI with such policy discussions now. I'll drop by the Wikiproject and see what they say. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. Can we please change the page Chartered Accountants of Australia to Chartered Accountants in Australia ? I would do it, but cant because the current page Chartered Accountants in Australia automatically redirects to Chartered Accountants of Australia. I hope that makes sense and you can help us please. Many thanks. Charteredaccountantsdigital (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the correct name of the article? Because there is non titled Charterd Accountants of Austrailia. As an aside, your username is in violation of our username policy. Whose Your Guy (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done -

Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia leaving a redirect. JohnCD (talk

) 10:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am referring this to the Admin notice board as the debate has got way out of hand and one user is continuing to engage in wikilawyering and personal attacks against myself. A third opinion was asked for in this case, which has resulted in the user expanding their personal attacks. Please can this be sorted out as this kind of behaviour towards myself is unacceptable and removed the ability to debate the issues at hand. I have though also made a claim that this user is acting as the article owner which I believe to be a true statement but may be taken as unhelpful. This is due to the nature and continued personal attacks and attempted character assassination of myself. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am, presumably, the editor in question. If this is indeed the appropriate forum for LucyMarie to direct her concerns (my own opinions notwithstanding, a legitimate issue about personal attacks would presumably be better dealt with first on the user's talk page, and then at WQA, and then at an RfC on user conduct), and an administrator wishes to investigate this 'situation' (no death threats, racist attacks, or legal threats are involved), I advise them to read the talk page of the United States Senate article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 09:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Lucy-marie, I don't see it as a personal attack for one editor to say that another is completely misinterpreting policy. If we couldn't say another editor misunderstands policy, we'd have no way to conduct consensus building discussions. Furthermore, while I admit to skimming parts of that quite long debate, I didn't see either side "wikilawyering"--you were both looking closely at policy to solve a content dispute. Can you point to a specific diff which you think is a personal attack, that meets the definitions in

WP:NPA? I do think the debate spiraled out of hand, but I am hard-pressed to say that the blame for that lies with The Rhymesmith. Qwyrxian (talk

) 09:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The comments I take issue with are comments after towards the end of the third opinion which are in bold and are only there to attempt to create an impression of me a bad faith editor. Rhymesmith has trawled through my history and dug up some poor editing I did when I first started. The comments had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand and were only there to try and discredit me as an editor. If Ryhmesmith is allowed to get away that level of personal commenting which only designed to diminish another editor as opposed to actually commenting on the content of the article then no serious discussions’ purely on the issues can be had.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The following are a selection of diffs which I consider to ammount to personal attacks diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 this diff states Rhymesmith is deliberatly not assuming good faith 6

Please take a look at the above as I consider the above to ammount to personal attacks.--Lucy-marie (talk) 11:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, I am not mandated to assume good faith under circumstances where I have explicit grounds for not doing so. My grounds are articulated alongside the actual statement of not assuming good faith, and stem from Lucy Marie's behavior. Good grief. Now, from

WP:NPA

- a partial definition of a personal attack.

I am perfectly happy to defend each of my remarks, if requested, by showing how I am commenting on explicit instances of unhelpful behavior by LucyMarie in the course of the discussion, as opposed to merely my attempting to disparage her. My accusations of alogia, for example, are not intended to belittle her, but to simply establish that she has "repeatedly and unrepentantly refused to debate in a logical fashion", just as my remarks about her history of disruptive and POV editing are perfectly apposite to her approach to the US Senate article, and just as my remark about her either having no grasp of Wikipedia policy or deliberately "slinging bull" to support her viewpoint is something which can easily be established as true in the context of the debate. I don't see the need for a humiliating proof of this, but I will provide one, if necessary. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The above diffs I have provided are in my opinion attacks as they comment directly on me and not on the content being discussed. Also claiming you are going to provdide proof of something that will be for humilation only is again in my opinion a personal attack.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on you as a direct function of your conduct is not a personal attack, as far as I'm concerned, just as calling an actual vandal a vandal is not a personal attack (as Qwryxian has analogously pointed out, above). Nevertheless, I am not going to clog up this page with another extended "argument". If someone wishes to read the whole discussion at the Senate talk page and then wishes to do something, I will be happy to defend each of my remarks as a function of your behavior. The Rhymesmith (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having the no personal attacks policy has been blatantly missed. The nutshell clealy states.

It appears as if you have inverted that by commenting on the contributor and not the content.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed all 6 diffs above. I do see a lack of civility, but it's mild and seems born of frustration. I'm not taking The Rhymesmith's side here, as I haven't reviewed the entire conversation (nor do I feel compelled to) but all of those comments were observations on behavior, not personal attacks against you. There's a difference between stating that a person has said something stupid, and calling someone stupid. Sometimes people do try to

request for comment to bring in more people to the debate if the discussion is stalled or otherwise not progressing. -- Atama頭

21:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The above IP address has a persistent history of adding poorly sourced controversial material to BLPs (eg1). He has instigated and continued edit wars at several articles, antagonising several users (eg2). This appears to fit a pattern of behaviour that led to other IP addresses being blocked (eg3). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: those IPs were not blocked but (the ones which are actually me) changed periodically. I'm told this is due to my ISP assigning "dynamic IP addresses". I would like the allegation that I am evading blocks to be struck out. 90.200.240.178 (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has edited from several IP addresses and at each of them has persisted on adding negative, controversial and dubious material to BLP’s, and other articles resulting in a great deal of disruption, and has attempted to evade blocks by using a changing IP. From IP addresses User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12,User talk:90.207.105.117, User talk:90.197.224.58 edit warring with multiple users including pages;

this article, here here here here here here.

Again at This article here, here, here, here, here.

Again at This article here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (after several discussions and warnings discussion, warning, warning, BLP noticeboard discussion. Again

this article here, here, here, here, here, here, here. BLP noticeboard discussion.

This Article here, here, here, here, here.

This one, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

This Article here, here, here. Amongst a lot of other reverts of similar disputed content dating back to 6th July 2010.

Serious BLP issues Here dating back to 29 june 2010 [10]. Numerous reverts and disputed inclusions up until August 5, including tagging blatant vandalism as factual here, including ridiculous images here. History of taking sources out of context and misquoting sources for example here, here, here, here, again after ref had been cross checked here. Personal attacks example, example Blatant vandalism example, here Monkeymanman (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I find User:Chrono1084 as an extreme POV pusher who is twisting information in the Prostitution in Afghanistan article. For example he starts the article with "Prostitution in Afghanistan seems to flourish, as the traffic in women for it did under the Talibans, in the country although it is one of the world's most conservative." and uses this as as a source to support his POV. That source only contains 1 sentence which states "Under the Taliban in Afghanistan, the traffic in women for prostitution thrived." The fact is under the Taliban prostitution was very strict and less people were involved. This is what the article itself says and is backed by so many official reports. Chrono1084 also keeps adding "some kids being sold into it by their family" which is poorly sourced and is irrelevant in the article because prostitution generally includes people who may have many different kinds of family problems and we shouldn't point out a specific one. Chrono1084 may be the same person as User:Nuwewsco, who also edits the same articles with very similar styles. He keeps reverting my edits and I don't know how to stop him, please help. Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? Unlike me, you keep on deleting sourced info that doesn't pleases you or you interpret it the way you want. I would like to know what this book contradicts except for your POV. Also I'm willing to do a user check to prove to you I'm not Nuwesco.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

To admins, I reported the user here just so you know.--Jrkso (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Prostitution in Afghanistan seems to flourish, as the traffic in women for it did under the Talibans, in the country although it is one of the world's most conservative" hardly seems like a neutral or suitable way to start an introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole article is a complete mess. I've tried to do a bit of work on it - but it might need a complete rewrite --Errant

Talk

) 13:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You've done a good job, I agree the intro and the article should be rewritten.--Chrono1084 (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as a remark on style and syntax - that first sentence is horrific, and should be charged with war crimes against the English language. The Rhymesmith (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Both Jrkso and Chrono1084 have been given 24 hour blocks for edit warring (not by me, I hasten to add).

talk

) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to add this, but looking again at the sentence he seems to have added to the beginning of the lead, I changed my mind. I don't know about this article, but there is a bit of a dispute at

talk

) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead because it made me cross-eyed; but I agree the material needs a good look into. For anyone interested in the content issues I also left a talk page comment. --Errant

Talk

) 14:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've struck my comment above after being told this was being discussed on his talk page (there's no discussion with him on the article talk page, which is where I looked, but the subject was discussed a few weeks ago there).

talk

) 16:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor violating voluntary restriction

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

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor

Two days ago I blocked

Economic history of China (pre-1911) and Chinese economic reform within 1 month of GPM. I've blocked TI for violating the restriction, but would like a broader review of the situation. Note that there is already a RFCU open for TI about different issues. Toddst1 (talk

) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly reasonable to restrict someone in this way. He now has to look through history to see which articles he's allowed to edit? There must be some way of reformulating the restriction in a way that makes more sense. If Teeninvestor is editing reasonably, he should be able to edit any page. If he's not editing reasonably, he should be blocked. I see no purpose to such a restriction. Friday (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Not commenting on the merit of this particular incident, such a restriction is difficult to respect for the restricted user and very easy to game, if the other party wants to keep them from editing a particular article or a group of articles. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 18:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have misparsed the restriction as a 1-month ban on editing articles recently edited by GPM. But in any case this was a comment on GPM (who had started the GAR). Kanguole 18:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• The whole condition detail seems a bit severe to me and he only had a 48 hour original block and got these conditions imposed for an early unblocking, and the conditions appear to be easy to violate and of course he has and now he has a three week block, it seems a bit much to me, the condition should be removed as it is nothing but trouble. Allow him to finish off his original 48 hour block and remove the condition. This will also allow him to defend himself at the RFCU.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 18:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the others that this restriction seems to be the type that can easily be used to game the user into getting a longer ban. I deem "interaction" to be talking with the other user in non-mainspace directly (or being involved in a discussion that features the other user in a major way) or directly reverting or being involved within only a few edits on an article in mainspace with the other user. Saying that GPM edited the article a month ago and TI editing it now is interacting with him/her is ridiculous and impossibly restrictive. And, as Off2riorob stated, the restriction is impossibly harsh for just an early unblocking of a 48 hour block. In short, I do not consider this incident "interaction" and feel that TI should be unblocked immediately. Silverseren^C 18:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor knew full well before the block which articles were contentious between him and others users including me because we were interacting on these for several weeks now and they are actually closely related in terms of contents, many relying on the same set of scholarly references. The disputed articles were no more and no less than seven:

1. List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita
2. List of regions by past GDP (PPP)
3. Military history of China (pre-1911)
4. Economic history of China (pre-1911)
5. Chinese economic reform
6. Great Divergence and
7. Roman metallurgy

On all articles (or their talk pages) has been a lot of action in the recent past and a lot of users were involved. Particularly, Teeninvestor's edit behaviour on these articles was dealt with at length on his RFC/U. In this light, I find it hard to believe that Teeninvestor who writes about economic history and historical statistics had over night lost his ability to count up to 7. It were only those seven articles out of 2.5 mio and Teeninvestor happened to edit three of them within 24 h of the agreement. Moreover, he indirectly violated the agreement, as I see it, by trying to get another user on board for Economic history of China (pre-1911). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Those who claim that there is a time gap of one month between my last edit and Teeninvestor's should please provide evidence for that, because is actually no such large time gap. Most importantly, my editing stopped only because Teenivestor relentlessly reverted me and others, not because I, as others, agreed to his version in any way. The editing only moved to other pages where the contentious questions were much the same. In other words: The whole dispute ran across the seven articles in circles and to pick out a single example where there may be a time lag of one than one week is missing the full picture of the dispute. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent incidents and notifications

I begin to hate this reporting, but Teeninvestor just does not seem to find the stop button: Since the lifting of his second block, he has been trying to mobilize other users to confront my edits, speaking lowly (and falsely) of my contributions and also those of User:Kanguole and User:Gnip in the process and denouncing other users as a "little clique" who wants to oust him from WP):

Notifications:

• Asking indirectly Soap to interact with me ("little clique")
• Requesting Patar knight directly to interact with me on 1RR basis
• Speaking lowly of the edits of us three here and here

His notifications of other users are very much a continuation of his 'policy' to draw the attention of other users to my edits, which he has already attempted with Nev1 after the restrictions were first imposed on him.(For clarification: I'd be happy to discuss my edits, but the users have to come on their own accord) His disregard for the interaction ban vis-a-vis admins has also its precedence in this attempt which also occurred after the first block was lifted.

Editing of restricted articles:

• undoing of my actions at Chinese economic reforms
• undoing of my actions at Chinese economic reforms

Both sets of actions are against the voluntary restriction agreement agreed upon with Toddst1, reconfirmed by Patar knight and recorded here, which explicitly stipulates that Teeninvestor should refrain from talking about me and from editing any of the seven articles above, among them explicitly Chinese economic reform. I have notified Patar knight of this. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Postscript: This post (first sentence) reveals to me that Teeninvestor has not understood in the least what the voluntary restriction agreement and all this is about; he doesn't even seem to be really aware that such a restriction exists. I am at loss of words and have nothing more to say. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

May I ask where Teeninvestor badmouthed me? I was only recently aware of the fight btw GPM and Teen, but I don't believe I was involved in it. Gnip (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2010

Check out Speaking lowly of the edits of us three here and here, the last diff including in both cases your edit at

Military history of China (pre-1911) (which I checked btw and which is correct). Gun Powder Ma (talk

) 09:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I never referred to your edits, as you were correcting a grammar error.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. Gnip made a change to contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Teen was referring to me, considering I was changing Gun's edits. It was only a slight change anyway. I was just making sure the claims fit with the sources. There's nothing more to it than that. Gnip (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban proposal

I was going to make this earlier but discovered Teeninvestor had been blocked and had agreed to a voluntary interaction ban.

I am now going ahead and proposing the following interaction ban:

Editors User:Teeninvestor and User:Gun Powder Ma are banned from interacting with each other. This editing restriction shall include a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. The restriction is to be interpreted broadly. If either party feels that the other party has violated this ban or other Wikipedia policy, and no uninvolved administrator responds to the violation within a reasonable amount of time, they may notify 1 uninvolved administrator of the incident on that administrators' talk page 12 hours after the original perceived infraction, and if that first administrator does not respond by at least acknowledging seeing the report within 24 hrs they may notify a second uninvolved administrator in the same manner, but in no case more than 2 notifications on-wiki. Repeated spurious reports to administrators using this mechanism shall be grounds for blocking for disruption.

This would be logged at the edit restrictions page if enacted by community etc. It would not have a fixed duration, ie it would last until repealed by the community.

talk

) 18:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you're good at this. Silverseren^C 19:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Withdrawing I've been convinced that this is not necessary nor a good idea. Sorry if I've created any unnecessary drama (there is such a thing as necessary drama I think).
  talk
  ) 16:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Teeninvestor has also been banned from interacting with another user, Tenmei. And, frankly, I don't see why several users should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits when it is obviously him who creates the stir. I don't like the idea of creating an exclusive lane for problematic users at the cost of other users. I don't like it even less since he is the subject of an RFC/U, not me. Have you taken a look on how many users find Teeninvestor's edit pattern problematic? More than half a dozen, in fact. On how many more users do you want an interaction ban to be imposed so that this one user can go his way? I don't see the least reason why I should be singled out to pay for Teeninvestor's aggressive edit pattern.

I have edited for four years on military, economic and technological history and I don't see a reason why I should suddenly give up a good part of it because of one problematic user. I am frankly disappointed by your one-sided approach. Teeninvestors breaks the agreement and you shift 50% of the blame (or rather its consequences) on me. Real neutrality does not lie in simplistically distributing the blame equally on all shoulders as you well know, but to judge everyone according to one's actions. So forget it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"should be banned from articles Teeninvestors edits " Perhaps you may want to re-read the exact language: a complete prohibition from comments on the respective user talk pages, filing reports on admin noticeboards, reverting edits on articles, commenting in other venues about the other party, or directly responding to each other's comments on article talk pages. You cant revert each others edits, or directly respond to each other on talk pages, but there is nothing saying that you cannot edit the same articles. --Active Banana | Talk 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Not reverting? This is unworkable. Not that I am fond of reverting (a waste of time), but it is impossible to work on an article effectively if there are sacrosant statements which cannot be changed. Effectively, this would mean that there would be two separate articles created on one page. I can agree to the whole ANI stuff, but I want my right to edit and revert to remain intact. If I overstep the 3rr or whatever, block me, but don't take it away from me. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that editing under such conditions would probably not be easy, but perhaps would not be completely impossible - working by gaining prior consensus of edits on the talk page etc. --Active Banana | bananaphone 15:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support: This conflict has got to stop. If this passes, we should unblock TI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Support. One-way interaction bans never work and the current editing restriction appears to be overly harsh. Interaction bans are not a way of allotting blame, but only to stop conflicts and disruption; therefore, you shouldn't construe one imposed on you as a way of saying you're wrong or disruptive or whatnot. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Doug's proposal seems a reasonable and balanced measure, intended to keep the peace; it limits the interactions of users who've been engaged in a long-running series of disputes. It offers no judgment or prejudice against any party. An interim measure, pending further and future decisions. This might have worked, but: Haploidavey (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: Teeninvestor's self-justifications further down the page worry me; sorry, don't know how to do diffs, but see under "Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal"). After all that's been said, he still justifies his misunderstanding of what's required and relevant to topic. Gun Powder Ma has no such difficulties. I'm now in favour of limiting Teeninvestor's editing rights. I'm opposed to any editing restictions on Gun Powder Ma. Haploidavey (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified users of RFC/U, since they are most knowledgable about the whole thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - seems fair to both sides. I also support the unblocking of User Teeninvestor.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 19:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the disruption seems to come from Teeninvestor, particularly his high degree of incivility and wikihounding of GPM. This is the reason he was banned from interacting with GPM in the first place. It seems unfair to impose restrictions on the victim as well. The stipulation that This restriction by itself does not prohibit mutual participation on articles, as long as the editors stay away from each other. is also problematic and seems unworkable, and can potentially lead to all kinds of problems and misunderstandings.
  talk
  ) 19:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a neat, balanced solution, but this is not a balanced situation. The trigger for this was Teeninvestor's behaviour at Roman metallurgy, where he has been edit warring to remove a well-referenced figure for Roman iron production, not because he has a different figure, but because he finds it out of line with what he knows about China (I am not making this up). It's also unworkable, both for them and other editors on these articles (not that the one-sided version was much better). Kanguole 20:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Gun Power Ma, I was going to propose just this before I even knew there was any agreement. I also agree that it is Teeninvestor who is the main problem. However, I'm not convinced that a one way ban is a good idea and I know that both above and elsewhere I've seen them opposed. We'll see what others think, I'm flexible if we can find a solution that brings this conflict to an end and stops other editors from wasting time on it.
  talk
  ) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Really, Dougweller, this is not only unfair to me, it strikes me as completely unworkable and could probably lead very quickly to a confusing situation which would rather increase the risk of blocks for both of us. With such a ill-conceived and ill-defined framework, neither Teen nor me would be able to assess the consequences of our actions properly and risk involuntarily massive (and unjustified) blocks. In other words, the situation would rather escalate and not even necessarily because of bad intentions on either side but because the whole arrangements has massive shortcomings, loop-holes and grey areas. Yesterday, I promised to stick to the interaction ban for four weeks and that's what I still intend to do.

There are these seven articles above which are contentious and which are edited by both of us. Other than that, Teen and me have had in the past not seen much overlap. If Teen keeps out of them for the next month and does not follow me I don't see any particular problem. So my proposal is let's wait for the four weeks and the outcome of the RFC/U. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment If there is some way to insure that, I'm happy with it. I certainly do not want to hinder your editing.
  talk
  ) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Procedural remark: I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually is, hence the need to draw up detailed rules for every case. I've attempted to describe our usual practice on the relevant policy page, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - the blocking administrator has added wikibreak templates.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 22:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite gone yet but on my way out. For the record, any administrator is free to modify the existing block on TI, unblock or modify the voluntary restriction in place. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, thanks for that.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose restriction on GPM Teeninvestor seems to be the aggressor here. And its not the first time either. They need to learn to edit collegiately or go somewhere else.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  22:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose this would not improve content, and would likely harm it. As I've said elsewhere, if there are problems with GPMs content contributions, they're subtle and hard to detect (i.e. i haven't found any). Teeninvestors, on the other hand, are nationalistic, rely on weak sourcing, and are skewing content.
  talk
  ) 22:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Comment Having seen quite a number of the edits of both of these editors, I can't disagree with your comments about their editing.
    talk
    ) 06:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose restricting Gun Powder Ma. (Comment placed out of order because it pertains to preceding.) I have confidence in Dougweller's view, but if GPM's contributions to article content aren't at issue, he should not be placed under restrictions that inhibit his efforts to create high-quality articles. That's what we're here for, and from what I've seen, his work is good. WP is an encyclopedia anyone can edit, not a
  CPUSHers has to stop; send them to WP:CHARM SCHOOL instead. Cynwolfe (talk
  ) 14:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE --
  Dougweller's proposal needlessly undercuts the significant investments of time and thought which mark Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor
  .

A. This gambit is bad for Wikipedia going-forward; and in the context of the RfC/U, it becomes a little like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory (转胜为败).

B. This thread arises from a number of factors which aren't captured by this proposal. It is both untimely and short-sighted.

C. The understandable frustration of

Dougweller and others is justified. This puts a spotlight on problems which Coren

identified in 2008, including the need for

• More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. All of us need to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues -- see here
• Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). All of us should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia -- see here
• Increased transparency -- see here

Summary restatement. This approach moves us towards

talk

) 23:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• oppose, sorta. I don't have a strong objection to the interaction ban being put in place, but I don't think it will solve the problem. While both parties' behavior is objectionable I think this is a case where we shouldn't say that both parties are equally at fault—Teeninvestor is more responsible for this situation than Gun Powder Ma, and sanctions should fall more heavily on the party who's more responsible. I'd rather see a topic ban for Teeninvestor, or perhaps a site ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support at this point, an outright interaction ban would be best, since both sides are at least partially responsible for this drama through their stubbornness. This would formalize what Teeninvestor has already agreed to do in his unblock request through e-mail to myself. However, recognizing that the consensus is that GPM has (perhaps arguably) had a lesser role, I would not be opposed to a weaker sanction on GPM. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Please allow me to summarize briefly the

User:Nev1

, this has been running for almost a month now. In this period:

• 2 users apart from me have certified to the basis of the dispute
• 4 users have endorsed Nev1's summary of TI's problematic behaviour
• 6 users apart from Toddst1 have provided outside views on TI's problematic behaviour which were endorsed by altogether
• 12 users
  User:Bali ultimate, User:BigK HeX, User:Akhilleus, while only one user, User:FeydHuxtable
  , took a position more in favour of TI.

Now sit back and think a minute. How much clearer can get the picture? How much clearer can get consensus? I won't object to your observation that I have behaved stubborn at times, too, and this has been pointed out to me by other users (and I will work on that), but your notion that "I am also at least partially responsible" is at complete odds with how the drama around Teeninvestor actually evolved and what the community believes. I bet you won't find a single user from above who believes that Teeninvestor's edit pattern would not have been problematic if I had not opposed some of his edits. I fully accept that my actions are placed under close admin scrutinity and that I am liable to strong admin reaction if they are deemed improper which is only fair. But I will object to any simplistic portrayal which reduces the said user's problematic overall edit pattern to a sort of Western stand-off between him and me. This was never the case. In fact, Teeninvestor has edit-warred against multiple users on multiple pages over an extended time span, and that's exactly what the current RFC/U shows. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support I proposed a similar proposal to User:Toddst1 before. I won't comment except to say that if anyone's interested in my side of the story, I presented an overview here 1 before I was blocked (and that BigK HeX didn't participate in my RFC).Teeninvestor (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose sanctioning Gun Powder Ma: The proposal is based on the premise that the parties are equally at fault, yet the discussion so far and the RfCU do not back up this assumption. To the contrary, it seems that Gun Powder Ma has spent a lot of their spare time to prevent damage to the project. A simplifying "it takes two to tango"-approach is likely to cause harm in the long run - we need editors who dispute problematic edits, and not let those wo introduce them have their way as everyone shys away in fear of sanctions just for that. If someone is disputing problematic edits and/or challenges problematic behavior, it is not the dispute (symptom) that needs to be remedied, but the problematic edits/behavior (cause). Skäpperöd (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Perhap in order for an admin to better gauge consensus, it would be better for everyone who's expressed their opinion to also state if they're involved in the underlying content dispute. As far as I'm concerned, I'm entirely uninvolved. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked Teeninvestor per an e-mail he sent me through the Wikipedia e-mail system nearly half an hour ago. For transparency, text was as follows:

“

Dear Patar Knight: I would like to draw to your attention a recent issue which I have found myself in. Recently I have been blocked due to disruptive behaviour in an editing dispute with other editors. The relevant link is here: [11]. I would like to apologize for my behaviour and I promise this will not happen again. I would also like to state that I support completely Dougweller's proposed interaction ban on ANI, and proposed a similar proposal to Toddst1 [12]. I promise to respect this proposal, stop interacting with GPM, and to address the issues involved in my RFC such as use of sources, NPOV, etc. I hope that in light of my changed altitude, you will consider unblocking me. I am truly sorry and I hope this incident will be the last. Teeninvestor

”

Since if he follows those provisions, incidents like these will not arise, I've unblocked him with caveats that he follow what he's agreed to do in this e-mail to avoid further drama. If those provisions are held, there is no reason why he cannot be unblocked to constructively work on non-controversial articles. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor's promise to "address the issues" at RfC

In order evade a restriction here which explicitly preserved Teeninvestor's participation in the RfC, Teeninvestor crafted a sentence in the section above here:

"I promise to respect this proposal, stop interacting with GPM, and to address the issues involved in my RFC such as use of sources, NPOV, etc."

The edit history for the RfC here shows that

talk

) 02:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Teeninvestor proposal

I want to put up a proposal for discussion which predates the failed interaction ban. This I still find a impossible and unpractical scheme. I propose a topic ban for Teeninvestor on military and economic history. I firmly believe only a solution where there is a clear red line would be helpful in easing the dispute and not having the opposite effect of unintentionally aggravating it. From my experience as an editor, a sufficiently clear red line can only be one which stipulates that certain articles and section are taboo to interaction. The above proposal that users can edit one and the same article but only on the condition of not interacting with one another in any way I find thoroughly unworkable and a sure receipt for disaster. This would almost certainly lead to the destruction of our accounts in a cloud of confusion and allegations and counter-allegations, if we start editing the same articles.

Moreover, a majority of users, particularly those with past experience of TI's behaviour, agrees with me that a ban which would place the same restrictions on me as on Teeninvestor would be unbalanced and unjust to me given his aggressive edit pattern. Obviously, the topic scope can and should be better/more narrowly defined, but our disagreement has been practically confined to questions relating to military and economic history (particularly with what I regard Teeninvestor's continual efforts to subsume European and Western history under China by making strained and unnecessary synthetical comparisons as someone else fittingly observed), so I am positive we could work something out if the majority of users believes a ban of some sort is necessary. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

But you are his main opponent, your suggesting restrictions for him is clearly better avoided, also, teeninvestors restriction that was imposed by Todd has no value and should be removed and forgotten about. What you guys need to work on is getting on, you have what looks to me as a content dispute and you both seem to be intelligent just with opposite views, try to meet in the middle and add both sides to the articles. For the duration of the RFC simply avoid any further fall outs.

Off2riorob (talk

) 08:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. I am not his "main opponent" or what you make of it for the reasons given above. Perhaps you would like to read the RFC/U on Teeninvestor first to get more background info. I won't comment any further on TI, but I don't see a reason why this proposal should be less seriously discussed than the one above. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I think it likely that the RfC will settle these matters anyway, and sooner rather than later. Interim, I don't characterise this as the failure of two sides to settle their differences in a content dispute. Just some thoughts here; on the one hand, cited content based on scholarly sources. On the other, generalised appeals. Coming in from left field, "civility" issues (yes, scare quotes; it's possible to edit and discuss tendentiously and destructively, all with the most winning good manners). Maybe a couple of own-goals, one or two fouls worth a penalty. But should all this be lumped together and redistributed evenly between both "sides"? I'm beginning to wonder about the usefulness and justice of a judiciously even-handed ban in these circumstances, even if temporary. Haploidavey (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This link proves that I never cite my sources. Same here and here. I wonder if any of the editors above who claim I have weak sourcing has accumulated more numerous and reliable sources than this?Teeninvestor (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I may well have, and I'm certainly someone who has said before that you've used sources improperly - you must recall discussions about

talk

) 15:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, Teen. Your link compels me to clarify my position. My comments here apply to editing at Roman metallurgy. My contribution as an outsider at the RfC is limited to the same. Haploidavey (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record I also cited several of the sources there such as Wagner 2001 and Needham 1986 for the dispute on Roman meatllurgy, but apparently no one wanted to look.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not about the content, which you should take to the relevant page, where it has been stated repeatedly that sinologists are not experts on ancient Rome. Arnoutf (talk) 14:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view Teeninvestor should stay away from any historial China-Europe comparison, either on Chinese history, or on Europe History pages, as in both cases he seems to promote a "China was the best" non neutral POV. How this would be captured in a topic ban is beyond me, as it involves all European and far east articles but those only on comparative history. Arnoutf (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I have one thing to say: The speed at which the quality and balance of the articles involved have declined is truly astounding. I intend to respect my editing restriction and refrain from editing these articles or topics related to this in ancient Chinese history, but these diffs speak for themselves 12 3.Teeninvestor (talk) 02:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid they do not speak for themselves, unless you intend to show that Gun Powder Ma is encouraging restraint in the making of sweeping "best of" and "first to" claims. My involvement is limited to Talk:Roman metallurgy (where I tried to put myself in Teeninvestor's shoes and see his grounds for questioning information) and previous exposure here and there to GPM's work in areas pertaining to ancient Rome. My concern as I review these proceedings is that Teeninvestor mistakes criticism of his methodology for personal attack, and equates "balance" or "neutrality" with the need to make truth claims more appropriate to the Guinness Book of World Records than to an encyclopedia. Report information, and leave it at that; what good are claims of national superiority, and always debatable "originality"? This raises questions of POV pushing, fairly or not. Also, at Talk:Roman metallurgy, Teen argued insistently while asserting factual information that was point-blank wrong and easily corrected, if he had bothered to conduct neutral research; he deleted material that was properly sourced, without offering sources that directly contradicted GPM's valid sources. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Those edits by GPM et. al. are hardly examples of "encouraging restraint". It seems that they are doing exactly what they were complaining of Teeninvestor in his RFC/U. Specifically, they all made sweeping and controversial changes—apparently taking advantage of Teeninvestor's ban to settle their every content dispute with him and then some—with misleading edit summaries. It is difficult to evaluate the enormity of the edits without being involved with the articles for a long time (for example, the dispute over citing Robert Temple for uncontroversial facts is not resolved to the satisfaction to anyone except GPM), but some of the changes are no less nakedly partisan than Teeninvestor's.

Among other things, Kanguole's edits in the Great Divergence replaced all images of Chinese industry, opulence, etc. with European equivalents. Gun Powder Ma introduces his own superlatives, gloating that the Song dynasty was "completely" conquered, and adding an obscure Tang defeat at the hands of the Arabs to the economic history of China. While I must give Gnip Gun Powder Ma some credit for contrastedly not marking his mega-edit as a

talk

) 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First, ANI is not about contents, about which, secondly, you seem to be clearly not well-informed: The Song dynasty and the whole of China was completely conquered by the Mongols in 1279, the Battle of Talas between Arabs and Chinese has significance for Chinese history in that it marked the beginning of the Tang decline and twelve users to two have voted Robert K. G. Temple here to be an unreliable fringe author which must not be used with regard to Chinese and world history. If you disagree, take it to the talk page, but please do not try to confound the issue here by making unqualified statements with regard to contents. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The focus of my comment was behavior, not content. In other words, you have portrayed yourself as an unbiased editor who has encountered a problematic chauvinist who doesn't follow the rules, and are now saving the encyclopedia from him with just the facts and restraint. This well-argued denial of the

"it takes two to tango"

maxim has saved you from sanctions imposed on Teeninvestor, which is unusual (it has been noted by others) in a dispute like this.

But to reiterate, you and the other named editors are using the same weapons that you objected to in Teeninvestor: sweeping changes with misleading edit summaries, edit-warring to support an imagined consensus, and removal of sourced content that contradicts what you know to be The Truth. For Teeninvestor, that's Chinese superiority in a certain time period, and for you, that's European superiority in the same. This is not to suggest that you deserve equal sanction, or that the diffs I just looked at are representative of your whole history with Teeninvestor, however, I think this behavior does explain some of Teeninvestor's recent aggravation.

talk

) 15:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no denial, rather you seem to be totally unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor which contradicts the general thrust of your tango argument. It should also be pointed out that only yesterday you came to know of this dispute, yet today you have already formed a strong opinion. Perhaps you spend the night sifting the countless diffs on TI's problematic behaviour, allowing you to give a balanced and informed view, but this does not appear to be the case. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have been aware of the disputes between you two in the various forums since 7 August, when I corrected one of Teeninvestor's overzealous interpretations of sources in this diff. I have read Teeninvestor's RFC/U (and ironically enough, reviewed it last night) and referenced it in my original comment, but being unfamiliar with the RFC process, I did not (yet) add my own assessment. I don't hold "strong" opinions on this dispute as you imply, but it also should be noted that that hasn't stopped the coterie of editors from

talk

) 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF? I didn't make those edits. In fact that link you provided looks like editing done by Gun Powder Ma, yet for some reason my name is in there instead of his. I do admit that I did make an edit over a battle between the Dutch East India Company and the Ming in the battle of LiaoLuo Bay. But it was not my intention to "subtely explain away the defeat as simple numerical superiority". In fact if you looked at my edits there is no mention of numerical superiority at all. In fact I decreased the number of ships on the Ming side and increased it on the Dutch side. If there was a fault it would be for not providing sources, but then again the page never had any sources to begin with, and all my sources for that article is in Chinese. Gnip(talk) 11:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Quigley, you appear to have missed that each of the diffs Teeninvestor gave and you repeated spans a sequence of edits. You may wish to examine the individual edits and adjust your accusations (e.g. regarding edit summaries and minor edits). Kanguole 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gnip! I looked at it again and the diff Teeninvestor provided was between three of Gun Powder Ma's revisions, intended to show the sum of the changes. Your edit was just the one after them, so the software displayed your username. Indeed your own change was small and uncontroversial, and I have revised my comment to reflect that the controversial edits were GPM's. Kanguole, I struck out the portions of my comments referring to the edit summaries/minor edits.

talk

) 17:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain which of my 14 edits to that article constitutes "edit-warring to support an imagined consensus" or "removal of sourced content that contradicts what you know to be The Truth". Unless you have specific concerns about my edits, I do not see why I am required to stop editing that article. Kanguole 17:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my correction message, the most aggressive edits were GPM's alone. The "imagined consensus" I was referring to was that Robert Temple was an unreliable source for everything related to Chinese and world history, which GPM promotes by making reference to a majority vote on the RSN (which is not what consensus is), repeatedly labeling him a "fringe source", and mentioning Temple's unrelated thoughts on extraterrestrials whenever his name is mentioned, so as to discredit him to editors who aren't willing to investigate Temple more.

Removing (even common, corroboratable) information sourced to Temple seems to account for most of GPM's content removal, but there are others: in this edit alone on iron vs. wooden ploughs (apparently offended by the implication that the Romans did not use iron ploughs, which the text did not say), removing information on the

talk

) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's ok, Quigley. Now that I read over it again it's obvious that the mistake wasn't intentional. I admit I overreacted, due to the sheer surprise that wiki could actually show edits not done by me but under my name. Gnip 13:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As you say, Quigley, most of my removals are due to the community decision to not use Temple. But even here I left many claims in place with a citation tag. As for the wooden and iron plows, Pericles and me have already been for days in an intensive exchange of sources here where Pericles confirms that, while Chinese agriculture was advanced, its technological level in comparison to other world regions was exaggerated by Temple. The iron production numbers have been extensively discussed now and the issue was considered solved by everyone bar TI. This will be my last post on the matter which has run its course here. You, as everyone else, are invited to participate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor#End of RFC/U. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was contesting a source that stated that the Roman Empire had a higher iron production per capita than Europe in 1700, Han or Song China. That statement is the ancient equivalent of claiming that Brazil has a higher computer per capita production than the United States, considering that Romans did not have cast iron, steelmaking technology, or any other advanced iron smelting technology. All the sources I have on Chinese and European iron production per capita contradict this. Above editors claim to want "reliability" but I wonder what will the expert think when he goes to wikipedia and it claims that movable type was insignificant or that Rome had more advanced iron technology than 1700 Europe.Teeninvestor (talk) 23:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-examine what

talk

) 02:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Topic" conflates wrong issues

The mis-directed focus on "topic ban" conceptually conflates the wrong issues.

The core problems are summarized succinctly in one paragraph by N5iln -- see here.

Even a cursory review of page histories and diffs as shown above appears to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that

WP:OWN

, and I must concur with the certifying editors vis-à-vis both the description of the dispute and the most desirable outcome.

The straw man of a "topic ban" is misconceived. It fails because of its underlying assumptions. If Teeninvestor were not "investing" skewed diffs in a "topic" related to China or Europe or who-knows-what, who believes there be no problems?

There is a similar flaw in

Offriorob characterizes Gun Powder Ma as the "main opponent" of Teeninvestor

.

Gun Powder Ma is not the opponent, nor am I, nor is Cynwolfe ... nor is N5iln.

FACT: Teeninvestor learns from experience.

QUESTION: What has been learned in the just one month? What has been adduced from Teeninvestor's participation at:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor??? +
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing and other issues during RFC/U by User:Teeninvestor??? +
• Wikiquette alert against me
  ??? + etc.???

I have

talk

) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You are right in that a topic ban won't necessarily change the user's overall behaviour; he will be barred from a certain topic range, but could simply continue his ways everywhere else, as long as he still lacks understanding of what behaviour the community would like to see from him (which is unfortunately what the majority of users here and on RFC/U believes of him).

On the other hand, the last couple of days have shown that the voluntary restriction ban is even less effective and has become actually something of a farce: Even though the core of the agreement refers to no more than merely seven articles, each time after his apology it took no more than 48 h before he was back in his old vein, displaying a kind of Karma circle of attacking then apologizing then moving into attack mode again. I feel further admin activity is necessary, this extremely disruptive spiral has to be broken, and Teeninvestor has to be taken at his word now.

For the longer term, we could ask Nev1 to bring the RFC/U to an end; I believe there have been now enough voices heard, the collected material is abundant and we need to move to a permanent solution instead of the current ANI patchwork approach of which I am sure all parties are fed up by now. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I plan to follow the leadership of others. For absolute clarity, my comments are as much addressed directly to

talk

) 15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to closing the RfC, and I don't think it will serve any further purpose to keep it open. Even the "olive branch petition", the only solid outcome of the RfC, did not last long. However, according to the RfC instructions "A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor."

Nev1 (talk

) 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who is uninvolved and willing to close the RfC?

Nev1 (talk

) 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For the RFC to have any credibility, it must be closed by an uninvolved editor, preferably someone with lots of experience. I'll make a request on the IRC channel if no one is found. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:39, 17 August 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.

2-3 questionable sockpuppet accounts

Resolved

 – Freedom2010 blocked for 2 weeks, socks blocked. Doc9871 (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi - I bring to your attention the following 3 user accounts:

• Theempirestate (talk · contribs)
• Freedom2010 (talk · contribs)
• Empirestate10 (talk · contribs)

Each were created over a few months, had edited the same article Maurice Esposito-Morgan (which has been nominated for speedy deletion). These accounts are most likely sockpuppets and they have categorized themselves within what is a category only for articles Category:Dominican Republic boxers. My first instinct is to remove the category from the userpages, but I request the attention of a more knowledgeable administrator.

Another question is what becomes of these accounts if the article is deleted based on CSD. Obviously they are single-purpose accounts.

Thank you, Shiva (Visnu) 00:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not commenting on the sock issue, per

WP:USERNOCAT, user pages, not being articles, do not belong in content categories... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

00:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the cats per

G.  ツ

00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The second in the list predates the first: a better candidate for the master. They all look pretty obviously related... Doc9871 (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, based on this discussion I've opened a case at

WP:SPI which you can find here. Feel free to comment there if I've missed anything. elektrikSHOOS

09:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You also need to notify any user you discuss here. I'll be notifying them now. elektrikSHOOS 09:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent call on the notification (missed that one). As far as the SPI: again, by chronology, Freemdom2010 (20 Jan 2010) -> Theempirestate (19 Feb 2010) -> Empirestate10 (15 Aug 2010). So the "master" should be Freedom2010, not Theempirestate. Ahh - who cares? It's all the same editor anyway. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming Checkuser and Oversight appointments

Following the

call for applicants, the Arbitration Committee has reviewed applications and is now actively considering the following candidates for Checkuser and Oversight

permissions. Unless otherwise stated below, any appointments will come into effect on 1 September 2010.

Checkuser:

• Frank (talk · contribs · logs)
• MuZemike (talk · contribs · logs
  )
• Tiptoety (talk · contribs · logs)
• Tnxman307 (talk · contribs · logs)

Oversight:

• Wikimedia Foundation's
  staff.
• talk · contribs · logs
  )
• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · logs)
• MBisanz (talk · contribs · logs) From 10 November 2010, when his term on the Audit Subcommittee ends.
• Phantomsteve (talk · contribs · logs)

Between now and 23:59 on 25 August 2010 (UTC), the community is invited to comment on the suitability of the candidates. As the primary area of concern is confidence in the candidate's ability to operate within the Wikimedia policy, comments of this nature are best directed to the Committee's mailing list (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org).

For the Arbitration Committee,  Roger Davies ^talk 12:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hmph :P S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent candidates. I foresee the majority being promoted. -- œ^™ 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm gathering the comments made for review by ArbCom, so if the comments could be centralised at the location linked to, that would be appreciated. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OlEnglish, great candidates all around. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have a very, very small trout that could slap the above comments in the right direction? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do that sometimes. My goof. :) I take my trout with a side of popcorn shrimp, please. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

obstruction of ref clean-up

• User talk:Gimmetoo#Asinine actions
  (I section I did not start;)

Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), who claims to be Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), has been disruptively reverting edits related to the reflinks tool, and citation templates. See Halle Berry, Sean Combs, and Jennifer Lopez, and likely moar. Contrary to some of their edits summaries, most of what I did was done manually, not directly with tools. The referencing edits I and others have been reverted on are all good and progressive. Cheers, Jack Merridew 20:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

User Jack Merridew is 1) edit warring, 2) with automated tools (reflinks), 3) to impose a change of style to an article, 4) to impose cite templates and 5) to impose some "list-defined" referencing scheme. User Jack Merridew is acting in violation of multiple Wikipedia policies. If User Jack Merridew wishes to "clean up" refs on a fairly well-developed article (a GA even), then User Jack Merridew should do that while respecting the existing style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is appropriate clean-up and you've gotten push-back from others about this. What's your point? You want poor referencing and untagged dead links? Bare URLs? I don't respect that, sorry. Hope you enjoyed teh fish ;) Jack Merridew 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you wanted to fill in some "bare URLs", you could have done that without changing the article to a different style. But you decided to change the entire article in multiple ways, which is inherently disruptive and also obstructive to other editors of the article. You not only added list-defined refs (which some editors find confusing), but actually renamed a number of named references. You also accused an editor of "vandalism" for undoing your undiscussed changes. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

They're improvements. This is all-good. Folks will look at our versions and agree. You cut good stuff, not just the cite templates, removed {{dead link}}s, restored bare URLs. If that's not vandalism, it sure is pointy. And others have been objecting to your stance re cite templates and reflinks. Consensus is against you on this, and you know it. Better referencing is a core goal of this project. Jack Merridew 20:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then restore the established style of the article and incorporate that part of your edits which were "improvements", and not arbitrary style changes, and do not obstruct other editors from making those improvements in the established style of the article. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It is *all* improvement. Jack Merridew 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to hear two things from Gimmetoo:

1. Can you explain why you would revert these changes? It's not like they were incomplete and made the article inconsistent or anything: the reference cleanup was done consistently throughout, and brought the articles up to current practices.
2. Can you please log on as Gimmetrow and confirm that you and he are the same editor? The question of your identity has been asked a few times, and I would like to see confirmation. Behaviourally, it appears that you are the same person (see this for example), but I would like to see explicit confirmation.—Kww(talk) 21:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

At

bright line and I'm glad you're talking about this but consider this a reminder and a warning. Otherwise I'm waiting for answers to Kww's questions. -- Atama頭

21:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, now, that this kicked-up more than three months ago: [13] vs [14]; w/Pablo, a few days later: [15]/[16] vs [17]. I didn't notice I'd been reverted, at the time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious. NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

  I'll leave the articles be, 'til tomorrow. If Gimmetrow claims this account, we'll continue this; if not, I think a CU is in order. FWIW, I don't know Gimmetrow at all and have no idea why they've not edited in months. Someone familiar with them might drop an email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I dug lightly into the dual identity before, and came to the conclusion that the accounts are the same editor. Note that the resistance by Gimmetoo was begun by Gimmetrow, for example. The articles of interest overlap, as well. Another user got tangled in an autoblock when Gimmetoo was blocked on July 30, though, and that means a CU wouldn't hurt if Gimmetrow doesn't reclaim the account.—Kww(talk) 00:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

  I saw that the rvs began with 'trow. Also saw that 'too responded to NW's block within a minute. Yet, 'trow has not edited. This could easily be moar mimicry. We'll see... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have come to this process as an interested observer, I am not fully informed on these actions as this is my first such interaction. Let me preface by saying it was I, who created the thread here. I was taken aback at the undoing of a
  WP:REFLINKS or other citation styles are acceptable, if not preferred, opposed to raw urls'. Thanks for considering these as well. My76Strat
  02:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimme has a very valid complaint. The new method of including all the references in one section, rather than interspersing the actual references throughout the article, is controversial. Many, many editors (including a large proportion of those who deal with FAs), dislike this method. Long-standing consensus has been that if a referencing system is in place on an article, the system should not change. Jack Merridew acted incorrectly in converting articles to list-style references when they were already using a different method. Although individual references improvements are, of course, welcome, the referencing style should not be changed for an article without prior consensus on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Karanacs is correct here.

CBM · talk

) 14:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It is one thing to follow one style only, but it's something completely different if you start blanking references only because a different style was used. See this edit, for example. Note the references under "Early life."

That's called disruptive editing. Nymf _hideliho!

14:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any <ref> tag removed there, just citation templates. I agree that the more detailed information is nice, but presumably Jack Merridew could have re-inserted the citation information without the templates. As soon as someone pointed out to Jack that templates were opposed, he should have stopped adding them. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to blank as in plain <ref>the url with no other information here</ref> rather than detailed ones. Nymf hideliho! 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the reference was like that back on July 27 (cumulative diff), so the article is really just back to where it was before reflinks tool. Adding reference details is great, but editors who do so need to follow the style established by the article. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 15:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of

"Reword rather than revert." Nymf _hideliho!

15:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If the change to list-style references had been undone, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Undoing a change from manual reference citations to properly templated ones is extremely counterproductive. The "changing of citation style" is intended to prevent mixing Harvard citations with other citations, or similar mish-mashing. Here the citation style is consistent, it's just the method of getting there that changed.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, Kww. I hadn't even looked at it from that angle. That means there is nothing wrong with Jack's edits at all. Nymf _hideliho! 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually,

CBM · talk

) 17:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree there's a precedent not to convert from templates, but not to convert to templates? That seems extremely strange. What are the arguments against converting from a manual citation format that cannot be easily adapted to MOS changes to a templated one that enables rapid sitewide changes? What would be the motivation for resisting that?—Kww(talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I have been following WP:CITE long enough to give a summary (it's not my personal opinion, but I think it's faithful to those who hold it). (1) Templates make the wiki source hard to read and edit, particularly if there are many footnotes. (2) Templates have their own idiosyncratic formatting which may not be the same as the formatting already used and doesn't agree with any fixed style guide. (3) It's easier and faster to type citations by hand without having to look up parameter names for the template. (4) If there are a lot of footnotes (say over 100), citation templates can significantly increase page loading time.

In any case, there are enough editors who dislike citation templates that we treat them somewhat like ENGVAR. It's a perennial issue that is unlikely to be resolved one way or another. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 17:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

First-off, I had not noticed that these pages had no cite templates at all in them. Look around; most pages do, and this is good.

42, while typing We're supposed to cite sources and do so in ways that are verifiable. Links rot, any ref-style can have information omitted at the time of initial entry. Templates are *appropriate*, automated tools are *helpful*. References belong in the *references* section; click [edit] to edit and maintain them. When I edit pages, I look for recent missed-vandalism; I also look for stuff done poorly, or that can be improved. I am, as Dave Shea

cleverly put it, a structurist. I fix stuff under the hood.

I will not add references or tidy them in an inappropriate style, using regressive mechanisms that date from years ago. It's wrong. We can, and do, do better. Locking an article into an old style is against the notions of anyone editing, of consensus can change, and being bold. It's ownership, it's disruptive. This issue has come up with multiple editors seeking to appropriately improve these pages and the reverts were unhelpful, disruptive and, I feel, edging into vandalism. The 'too account may be some troll, or it may be an alt of 'trow; tbd, at what's turning into quite the SPI mess.

I'm familiar with the concerns Carl has summarized above, and have rebuttals: (1) list-defined references make the prose clearer by removing the cites from inline; some day

Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters

. (3) Sloth; use automated tools to help; let someone get it right, at least. (4) I've spent years in places with extremely poor internet connections, and page load time is not much of an issue with articles, really. It's pages like ANI or AC/Workshop pages from hell that get balky.

This view towards excluding citation templates and tools like Reflinks simply does not fit with widespread practice; it's absurd to edit a ref section and get a mere <references /> or {{reflist}}. Surely this has resulted in many WTF-moments for n00bz. If this view needs challenging, fine. Let's get to it, RfC it. Or we could be wise, and just get on with properly referencing the sea of content on this site. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You're free to bring up the issue at WT:CITE. But our present (and well-established) policy is that you should not change the referencing style of an article once it has been established. So your argument misses the point, because like ENGVAR the goal here is to avoid the argument by simply leaving the established style.

Like everyone else, you need to follow our community norms in this regard. If you prefer not to add reference information because you cannot change the style, that's up to you; it's a volunteer project. — Carl (

CBM · talk

) 00:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a good response. Bare urls are not a style choice, they are a part of the article which is incomplete, as all our articles are. Protonk (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Nope.

WP:IAR *is* fuckin' policy, and I improved the article. I would prefer that guidance be correct and will support efforts to correct it. I will also seek to improve most any article I happen upon. We have an article on kick the can? Yup, although it's not quite what I was thinkin'. That's my approach to a lot of things; nudge things in the right direction. Incremental improvement; progressive enhancement. Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time. Sincerely, Jack Merridew

05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Just confirming that CITE (and best practice) says editors should not add citation templates where a style has already been established, or over objections. They are contentious, they add to citation clutter, several of them use citation styles that don't exist outside WP and look ugly, and when there are lots of them they slow down load time considerably. Templates apart, CITE is clear that we shouldn't change from one citation style to another. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a checkuser request on Gimmetoo at

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jamiecocopops.—Kww(talk

) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Kww(talk) 16:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The existing style of most Wikipedia articles is to use accepted correct spelling. When a contributor introduces useful information to an article, sometimes misspelled, we don't revert the content, we correct the spelling. If I introduce information to a reference, but otherwise metaphorically misspell it, applying the same courtesy should be intuitive. To suggest otherwise, in my opinion, as previously stated, is asinine. My76Strat 04:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem with Gimmetoo's revert was that it reverted everything, not just the change in citations that was supposedly the thing being objected to. I realize what I'm about to say belongs at

WP:Cite, but it seems counterproductive to me that an attempt to improve an article - whether correct or incorrect - can be reverted with nothing more than "this is how we always do it", "I don't like it" or just a plain "no". It also means that an editor can make changes to as many articles as they like as long as nobody notices or nobody objects, but one editor can stop them from from changing the citation style on one article, even while ignoring every edit to any article that doesn't interest them. Doesn't this empower one editor to decide they "own" the citation style for an article such as Halle Berry based only on the fact that a style (any style) is already in place? If the argument was to use a style that is most accessible, most easily used or is standard to the project, I'd be happy with whatever it was, but the citation style seems to be determined by the personal preference of whichever editor got there first, regardless of merit. I also don't understand how this can be beneficial to editors who may wish to edit across a range of articles which use different styles. It means that they have to either learn and understand how to use all of them, or they stumble along and do their best in the hope that eventually someone will fix whatever they've done. Then if they use something like reflinks to update citations, they run the risk of someone telling them not to rock the boat. It seems to me that of all the reasons for using a particular style, "because it's there" is the weakest. Rossrs (talk

) 04:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Furthur; I've not looked, but I'm betting that

furthur, so I can pitch-in tomorrow? We fix things one article at a time and my last effort was disrupted. Jack Merridew

05:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

2002 ;) The first reference was added to the article in 2006. By Gimmetrow. It's quite the non-standard ref, containing no less than seven external links. This ref has survived to this day, although it's down to five links, with one tagged as dead (and two more are, too). And what's it about? A

WP:SYN regarding her date of birth. Is this the standard we're to be held to? Jack Merridew

08:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) (and ya, I saw Risker; 'too is 'trow)

Wiki guideline is that you do not change styles in articles. Previous editors have explained the reasons. Rossrs seem to be concerned that this guideline lets one editor "own" the citation style of an article. Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles? So who should get to "choose"? An editor who doesn't contribute content and spends a few seconds completely changing an article with some script, or an editor who maintains the article, reverting vandalism and fixing up things for years, and who has to actually deal with the article text? I've been around long enough to know that the cause célèbre du jour in style changes is likely to be undone by a later cause célèbre. Remember linking dates on every article you edited? Yep, people went around doing that on thousands of articles. And a few years later, people went around undoing it. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I expressed more concern than merely that point. "So who should get to "choose"?" Whatever the correct answer may be, I read your answer as "Gimmetoo". You've expressed your view that your opinion is worth more to the Halle Berry article than anyone else's because you've been dealing with article content and maintaining it for years. That's a terrible reason, and it reads like ownership. A lot of people expend a lot of energy fighting vandalism and bad edits out of numerous articles - that's something we are all supposed to do - but it doesn't give them any greater claim over those articles. Changing the citation style is not "completely changing an article". It doesn't take as much as a comma out of the content you've contributed or maintained. You ask, "Do you not see that Merridew's approach would allow a single editor to "own" the citation styles of hundreds of articles?" No, I don't. Because if there was no opposition to it, that would imply consent or acceptance on the part of any editors who have seen the changes, and if the style remained in place it would be because collectively the community either accepted it or did not oppose it. That shared "ownership" is within the expectations of Wikipedia culture. Jack Merridew wouldn't own the style, nobody would and everybody would. A single editor never has that large a voice. Their voice is entirely dependent on the rest of the community. You're not bound to abide by the guidelines, it even has a disclaimer to that effect, but if you choose to uphold it "because the guideline says" instead of "because it's the best option", you do own that, not the community, because you've made the decision for everyone. There is a difference and although Wikipedia is not a democracy, Jack Merridew's edits allow for the whole community to comment upon them, and that does allow for a more democratic process than just shutting him down, which would result in essentially zero comment. You make a good point about the delinking of dates. It's possible that next "delinking of dates" could be "updating of citations". I've also been around long enough to see one cause célèbre du jour made obsolete by the next, and that is precisely how best practices evolve, not only in the real world, but here too. Rossrs (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Teh owner's back. The tool, Checklinks in the last instance, fussed with "Accessed" vs 'Retrieved' a bunch of times; that's about consistency. It also tagged some links that have rotted and mebbe we should be getting back to that. There are other worthless links in there, too: [18], [19]. I did not do most of my edits in 'a few seconds'. See the history, this span of edits that took nearly two hours; that was manually done work to the referencing, which is a part of the 'content'. You don't like that my focus is on structure, do you? That's a big piece of this, methinks.

I don't know what the deal with your admin account is. I don't care about all that noise. FWIW, when I first posted @you, it was on User talk:Gimmetrow, not User talk:Gimmetoo. This was per your claim of being an alternate; and I noted that it was of an admin account, but didn't notice that 'trow had not edited in months. An hour later, I'd looked further and posted to the talk page with the recent other block and the trout on it.

FWIW, I supported unlinking most dates; seven million links to 2006 is dumb. Regards, Jack Merridew 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Kindzmarauli (talk

) 14:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

it continues

This is inappropriate. I believe we've one user who wants to lock it down their way and a fair number of people who are fine with a new style, as I've begun. Cheers, well, sorta, Jack Merridew 07:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've posted an RfC at: Talk:Halle Berry#citation style. Jack Merridew 05:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare's involvement

For reasons that should be obvious, I find NW's participation in this incident to be particularly wrong. The block was wrong. The talk page lock was wrong. The threats of global block was wrong. I am a little concerned that NW locked the talk page right after I claimed misconduct, which could be viewed as an attempted coverup. I suspect at some point that NW started to become aware that NW might have screwed up, but NW did not remove the block. NW, in the capacity as SPI clerk, approved an SPI involving an editor NW had inappropriately blocked; this could also be interpreted as a coverup, hoping to find some dirt so NW's critic would stay silenced.

NW is currently an arb clerk "trainee". The first quality listed of an arb clerk is that he be

competent/clueful

. I claim this incident demonstrates NW's incompetence. I think NW should be removed from the arb clerk position. Also from the SPI clerk position. Shouldn't screwups of this magnitude have some consequences?

And trouts all around for the other admins (Fastily, WJBscribe, Kww) who supported NW. If there were such a thing as wiki sensitivity training, I would think they need it. Seriously, "forcing" an editor to edit with a different account can have real life consequences. If the account hasn't been used in a few months, maybe there is a reason. Gimmetoo (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Risker has said you are exactly you who said you were. I would guess this seems clear. Fine.

I am still totally lost why you went through no effort to prove anything about your identity. As a long-term sysop and editor, you must have been aware that there have been issues with impersonation before. You are correct that at some point I felt uneasy about the block I made. That is why I reenabled talk page access, hoping you would provide a reasonable explanation for your actions. I approved the checkuser to doublecheck my block, not to find any dirt. But had a checkuser report not come back, I would have stuck with my block. While you might have been editing in some of the same areas, your writing style in some areas didn't seem to resonate with what I had seen you write before, although of course I am not am expert on these matters and have only seen you in passing when reading GA and FA-related pages. WikiChecker showed you editing from likely another time zone entirely. Not once were you (and still, might I add) willing to provide any sort of proof for who you were.

And as for real life consequences, I considered that and dismissed it. You had not invoked a right to vanish or left no message to indicate that you were retiring in early May. Your new account was clearly identified as the old one, hardly the usual work of someone looking to vanish.

I do apologize for the block, as it was mistaken, but it would be nice if you could provide any sort of explanation.

As for the ArbClerk and SPIclerk business: Someone has noticed your request on

WT:SPICLERK, while there is no mailing list discussion there, I would not participate onwiki unless the other clerks asked me to. NW (Talk

) 12:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding a trout for Kirill [20]. Suffice to say that Kirill no longer has my confidence, and will probably not be supported at the next arbcom elections. This also confirms my decision not to email the arbcom. Can none of you see that there might be a legitimate reason why someone with access to a second account would not be at liberty to login to it or edit from it? Perhaps I should have done some edit from the 'trow account to connect the accounts before May. Perhaps I did and none of you have noticed it. But once I am not longer at liberty to use the 'trow account, then using it to satisfy some random admin is simply not an option. Do we need some sort of policy provision to handle this situation? I really wonder why so many admins can't get it. Are most of you teenagers without enough job or life experience to even imagine what might be at play? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm crossposting Kirill's statement so people don't have to click on the above.

It was certainly appropriate to treat Gimmetoo's claim of being Gimmetrow with a healthy level of suspicion; impersonation of administrators is not uncommon, and it is quite feasible that someone may have wanted to harm Gimmetrow's reputation by getting involved in a heated conflict while pretending to be him. Whether this suspicion needed to be handled with an immediate block, or whether the appropriate investigations could have been carried out while the Gimmetoo account continued to edit, is a question to which different answers might be argued; but, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the block was not a correct response, the Committee is not so fickle as to judge someone on the basis of a mistake made in a good faith attempt to protect the project. NuclearWarfare retains the Committee's confidence, and will continue in his current role. Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(Clerks, as there appear to be multiple venues for this discussion, please feel free to cross-post my comment above to any other venue where NW's role is being discussed.) Kirill [talk] [prof] 14:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

talk

) 15:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I didn't see an edit conflict, as I saw Kirill's post below after I hit save.

talk

) 15:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider that editing from multiple accounts is a privilege, not a right, and that someone cannot simply claim to have an administrator account without providing any evidence thereof? If we have no way to verify that you are who you say you are, then we are unfortunately forced to take measures to ensure that we protect existing accounts in good standing from being harmed by your actions. That is unfortunate, and not a reflection on you personally; but we could have a difficult time explaining to Gimmetrow why we failed to do so had it turned out that you were, in fact, an impersonator. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, you do have a way to verify the claim that the accounts are linked, and it's a way that doesn't require someone to edit from the second account. There was, indeed, plenty of evidence that this was an alternate account. I would question whether, in this case, there is a simple claim to "have an administrator account" - yes, 'trow is an admin account, but it's not like either 'too or 'trow identify as an admin on the user page. Nor have I been claiming admin "authority". Nor have I tried to have the admin bit transferred from the account, which I would expect requires some verification, and probably wouldn't happen without making the request from the admin account. The identity or non-identity of the two accounts was, as far as I can tell, pretty much irrelevant to the issue that started this. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As you may have seen in the SPI discussion, I thought it was nearly impossible for this to not be you, simply using common sense. But in defense of those who were suspicious, common sense should have suggested that you place the declaration of this being an alternate account by using your main account. I had a temporary alternate account that was retired a long time ago, and I marked it with my main account so that there'd be no ambiguity. At least it is cleared up now. I apologize for the inconvenience it caused you, but please remember that all of this scrutiny started when you choosed to engage in an edit war at an article, something that has given you two blocks in the past. Maybe in the future, for your own sake, you might consider a voluntary

1RR? I chose to abide by 1RR myself long ago and I've never regretted it. -- Atama頭

17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make one extremely obvious statement here: Gimmetoo's behaviour is problematic. No plausible explanation has been offered that would explain why posting as Gimmetoo and loudly proclaiming oneself to be Gimmetrow would be safe, and making a single, simple edit as Gimmetrow to either unblock Gimmetoo or claim the account would not be. In addition, per Gimmetoo's request on Commons, I e-mailed Gimmetrow some codewords for Gimmetoo to use and verify his identity. I haven't seen them from Gimmetoo. I think the most likely explanation is the Gimmetrow and Gimmetoo are the same editor and that he believes himself to be defending some point of principle, but I'm at a loss as to what that principle is. I asked politely above for him to link the accounts with no threat of blocking, and that was ignored. His response to his block was immediate (within 60 seconds), so it was apparent that he on-wiki and presumably aware of the request. Once blocked, he could have cleared the situation in seconds, but instead he chose to escalate it. Why?—Kww(talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ik ben Gimmetrow. Ik heb geen flauw idee waarom jullie heb mij geblokkeerd. I'm not inclined to provide any reasons - the time for that is long gone. But you might want to review

Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT, security, as one example. Assuming admin accounts on Wiki have any value, someone might not want to have an admin account compromised in a keylogging environment. Not saying this is what's going on, but it is one scenario where even a login wouldn't be possible. Gimmetoo (talk

) 17:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed what Gimmetoo was asked to say in an e-mail to Gimmetrow.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, that would be a perfectly legitimate reason to operate a secondary account; nobody is suggesting that you may not have one. The concern is that, if you are faced with circumstances where confirming ownership of the account may be impossible at the time you are questioned, then the onus is on you to make the necessary arrangements for it to be confirmed in a manner and at a time convenient to you. That may, in a case like this, mean that you will lose access to the secondary account until you are able to take whatever steps you feel are necessary to safeguard access to the primary one; but, at the same time, other administrators cannot be expected to let a potential impersonation continue merely because the potential impersonator claims such circumstances, as that claim is just as easily made by a real impersonator as it is by the owner of the account. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 17:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK policy says: "Such accounts should be publicly connected to the main account or use an easily identified name." It did both. If any other "confirmation" were actually expected, it became pretty difficult to draw anyone's attention to any other "arrangements" that had been made once the alt account was talk page and email blocked. Indeed, at that point someone was dictating terms without reference to policy. I would be curious, if someone suddenly indef blocked you and removed all email access, what prior arrangements you have made to confirm ownership of your account? But it really doesn't matter, since nobody has really established a good reason why any confirmation was necessary. If anyone had any genuine doubt, and treated the accounts as separate, what difference would it make? Gimmetoo (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious way of confirming ownership would have simply been for the primary account to make an edit "claiming" the secondary one; this is really something that could (and should) have been done when the account was first created. In the scenario where you had not done so (and could not do so at the time of the block for security or other reasons), there are any number of alternative methods for confirming that the same individual is operating both accounts, such as using email or another form of off-wiki contact, having a trusted user vouch for you, and so forth.

As for your second question, the main reason why this situation was of concern was because if the "Gimmetoo" account were not, in fact, operated by the same individual operating the "Gimmetrow" account, then it would be (a) falsely claiming to be Gimmetrow and (b) likely doing so maliciously in order to harm Gimmetrow's reputation, and would thus need to be blocked in any case. (I think it is reasonable to assume that the average administrator would take exception to an impersonator falsely painting them as involved in a dispute in which they had no part; perhaps you are not troubled by such a scenario affecting you, but I believe that would make you the exception rather than the rule.) Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This is rather ridiculous. NW was straight forward when he said why he blocked the account:

Gimmetoo blocked indef until he can prove that hu is actually an alt account of Gimmetrow. If it's the latter, I do apologize, but the edit warring and disruptive behavior combined with the lack of confirmation makes me suspicious.

— NW (Talk) 23:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the beginning of this incident, just under the level 2 heading. It was a reasonable request, in my humble opinion, to ask for verification, given the circumstances. The complaint was of an edit war. Why would an admin knowingly and willingly get involved? That is just plain suspicious if you ask me. What I see here is an unnecessary bit of

drama

. NW did NOTHING unreasonable in blocking an account that was in question, after noticing it claimed to be Gimmetrow. All the owner had to do, was post from trow "that's my account", unblock it, and move on. Instead, there's paragraphs and paragraphs of drama, because someone blew this whole situation out of proportion. It was, in my opinion, the right move. What if this account WERE an impersonation of an admin? Then everyone would be happy. But because the account was legitimate, everyone is freaking out.

You say "trouts all around for the admins who support NW," because he did what an admin would do. I've not seen anything particularly "wrong" in his handling of this situation. He blocked a suspicious (and from what I can tell, disruptive) account pending verification that he was who he said he was.

So drop the drama, get off this witch hunt, and go do something constructive for Wikipedia. Cut the drama. Thank you.

My opinion probably means jack shit to you guys, but, I figured an outsider's point of view might be nice for this situation. --

talk

21:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This response illustrates another problem. Apparently NW did "nothing unreasonable" in blocking an account without any query or attempt at contact. I have yet to see any policy cited which authorizes admins indef blocking on unlikely doubts. I don't think many editors would really want to find themselves blocked because some teenager has a slight uncertainly. Yet my actions were considered "suspicious". Put those two together and the message I'm getting is: admins should shoot first and ask questions later. Is that what you're saying? Do you think I should have just immediately blocked Merridew for disruptive editing? Gimmetoo (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There are good reasons why a user may have a second account and refuse to confirm it from their primary account. For example, they may not trust the login would be secure (for whatever reason). That's built into

WP:SOCK

and is a commonsense reason - and maybe not one that Gimmetrow wants to make public (as is his right).

When there is an impersonation concern and the alleged alternate is an admin or experienced user, the request for confirmation of the claim is sensible and commendable. If none is forthcoming escalation is predictable. Many bad faith users "play the game" quite well so a claim to be someone else's alt account is not always enough, nor is subjectively similar style always evidence. Sometimes the user could be concerned about the two being identified as alts, but in this case it appears not.

Those who acted did so in good faith. At worst a "brief lapse" now fixed, not a major drama or the end of the world. This happened to me years back - I got blocked once before my RFA because of a lapse and it took time for the admin error to be agreed and the block undone, I don't remember posting on ANI about how bad it was or pointing out people I wouldn't trust any more. I remember respecting the admin was acting in good faith, that he'd had a lapse, requesting unblock, and appreciating that we have a community where one can ask for review of admin actions.

All concerned here are experienced users who will surely try to learn from it. Those on both sides remain good Wikipedians - let's head back to fun. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To second FT2 and third Kirill and others - administrator impersonation accounts are a real and active ongoing problem (though not in our top 10). The way this played out was unfortunate in this case, but there's a difference between "unfortunate" and "neglegent".

Gtoo - I think the community owes you an apology, but NW didn't do anything wrong. There was insufficient evidence that you were legit and not an impersonator at the time he made the judgement. He operated under policy, administrator behavior standards, and what the community has come to expect from us in terms of balancing protecting users and admins from impersonation. That the standards we have here ended up biting you is unfortunate. But don't make it personal against him or the others. They didn't act wrongly. We can't ask that you not be upset about it, but personalizing it isn't helpful. NW doesn't deserve that.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Although I absolutely agree that NW doesn't deserve this, I'd vouch for his competence/clue/integrity, and have never had reason to doubt him, I don't think some people truly appreciate situations like this. Accordingly I'd note that people aren't going to handle things in the same (calm) way. Clearly the user is venting, but at this time, comparing how you'd personally approach a similar situation (even in the past) is unlikely to produce the desired results - it may just add fuel. What is needed is to go beyond the rules and sympathise, or actually...empathise with the frustration of a (good faith) user who feels they weren't treated correctly, and especially when it involved actual sanctions or threats of the same. Sure, perfection is not expected, but that doesn't mean a situation can never be improved, and although a blocker may feel something at some point, it can never compare to that which the blocked user feels, even after block has been lifted. Especially when users are in placed a position of trust that is higher than the other user in a particular situation (let alone most other users in general), the expectations are obviously going to be higher, and the handling of the aftermath is even more critical to reducing any damage that may have been inadvertantly caused. I believe NW has appreciated whatever it is I am trying to convey, earlier if not much earlier, and I see evidence of this on Gtoo's talk. I'd recommend something similar again at some point, but only after letting time do what it does. That's my 2 cents, and I hope that others learn from it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Restrictions

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

Unless I am mistaken, Jack Merridew's editing restrictions were last modified near the end of 2009. One of the restrictions apparently currently in place is: "...follow dispute resolution processes to resolve editing conflicts with the understanding that misconduct could result in blocks or Community editing restrictions." Do others think that Merridew has "followed dispute resolution processes" appropriately in this case? Merridew has stated that WP:CITE "got it wrong", but has never apparently discussed the issue at WP:CITE. Merridew is acting in opposition to WP:CITE, and has left the article in an inconsistent style. He claims to invoke

WP:IAR to reject WP:CITE, and has said "Get in my way in an unreasonable manner, and I'll kick you in the... shins... every time." WP:IAR is a double-edged sword; you can cut yourself when you invoke it. Merridew doesn't seem to care about the the usability of articles for other editors after his makes his edits. Note that, before the 2009 modification, Merridew's editing restrictions included "avoiding all disruptive editing" and "may be blocked for one year by any uninvolved administrator". Comments? Gimmetoo (talk

) 16:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Hmm if there are still any restrictions on Jack the committee should probably remove them now. If you want a comment from an admin, you both behaved badly but as an admin I would have expected much better of you then Jack. *trout* Happy now?
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  17:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Renomination of images for deletion and failure to notify me.

Approximately six weeks ago, two images I uploaded were nominated for deletion by

ownership issues in Doctor Who

related areas anyway and this latest stunt is typical of his MO.

Relevant links :-

• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_25#File:Vampire-queen.jpg - Original FFD 1
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_June_28#File:Eknodine.png - Original FFD 2
• Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_July_5#2010_June_25 - DRV on FFD 1
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_August_9#File:Vampire-queen.jpg - New FFD 1
• Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_August_9#File:Eknodine.png - New FFD 2

I'm not very happy with his actions at all - can someone weigh in? Exxolon (talk) 02:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The instructions (Point #3: Give due notice) are clear concerning notification. I would guess this goes for re-nominations as well. No comments concerning
  WP:OWN. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk
  ) 03:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• If at first you don't succeed, try try again. TreasuryTag seems convinced that he is right, and that means he's not willing to drop the stick. Not alerting the uploader is poor behaviour, and TT is familiar enough with the process for this to be a deliberate omission. I think TT should be blocked the next time he nominates anything to XfD and fails to nominate the creator. Fences&Windows 15:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, because it's really block-worthy... OK, an

  be in any way acceptable and/or constructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince

  ─╢ 17:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps you shouldn't use TW then. I don't - all my edits are manual. Exxolon (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  It is interesting to note that in all the how-tos for listing XfDs, only in FfDs and MfDs (only for userspace files) is the notification mandatory, while all the others are of a "you should consider..." sentiment. But anyways, this sort of thing isn't block-worthy unless it becomes repeated behavior, IMO. Closing a discussion as no consensus is pretty much an invite to re-nominate at some point down the road. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  "Down the road" - perhaps. Six weeks is too soon in my opinion to rehash the exact same arguments. Three or six months would be more reasonable. Exxolon (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Just speculation on my part, but pages in MfD and FfD are probably less-trafficked and less likely to be watchlisted than other kinds of pages, which would be one reason to make notification mandatory, as it's easier to delete such pages "under the radar". -- Atama頭 22:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Probably true but I suspect the real reason is that files are uploaded by one editor and userspace pages are (usually) created and edited by one editor. Therefore, there is no reason not to notify that one editor. An article is (usually) edited by a lot of editors and who created it is not important unless the article is new. Also, for an article that has been around for years, it's more important to notify current editors then it is the creator who may not even be active anymore. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - I've currently got an image I uploaded slated for deletion for the third time; each nomination by different editors. I was notified each time[21][22][23]. If the same editor nominated the image for a second time and didn't notify me; I'd be "irritated". Jus' sayin'... Doc9871 (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Paddock Wood

I'm only posting this here as I could be seen as having a conflict of interest as this is where I live. Marksairey (talk · contribs) has been editing the Paddock Wood article, particularly in relation to various proposed developments around the village, including the addition of links to his own website. I'm not looking to get Marksairey sanctioned over his editing, but would appreciate another experienced editor looking over his contribs and explaining why they do not meet various policies, and possibly pointing to methods of overcoming these problems whilst still conforming to policy. I will notify Marksairey of this post. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Notified Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Your COI would be weak in this case, but advocacy from Marksairey isn't welcome. I find troubling this statement, "I would urge Wiki to be part of the drive to increase the number of people contributing by placing information and fact on the process." That's not Wikipedia's purpose. -- Atama頭 22:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Atama. I just want it to be transparent that my actions are wholly based on keeping the article encyclopedic and not because I hold any views for or against the proposed developments. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:IainUK

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.

Both users have indicated they wish to drop the topic, and the real issue is being handled at Articles for Deletion, thus this mess of "He did this" and "They did that" can stop, as it has no further purpose. Before raising this topic again, actually try to disengage as both of you agreed to, and see what happens. --Taelus (Talk) 12:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Ok, I'm at the end of my rope here. This morning has been a challenge with

WP:HARASS

- the editor continues to delete and add things to my talkpage contrary to requests. He has been warned by multiple users.

The overall genesis of the situation is:

• On 12-AUG,
  Andrew_Stone_(Pineapple_Dance_Studios)
  for CSD under A7
• About 10 hours later, User:Phantomsteve declined the A7 as notability was at least stated
• On 14-AUG, the main editor (
  WP:CSD
  being decline actually means.
• As Accounting4Taste is “retired”, I looked further into the article.
• The article at that time was completely unreferenced, and notability was weak as per
  WP:AFD
  .
• IainUK left a message on my talkpage that showed that he continued to misunderstand what a declined CSD meant, and still believed that this meant it was a permanent article.
• I replied on my talkpage about what CSD meant, and directed him to read
  WP:DELETE
  .
• I removed a {{
  WP:AFD
  .
• IainUK began to comment on the AFD – again, mistaken about what a declined CSD meant. Editor then added some other text, which I properly formatted on his behalf. I recommended that he read
  WP:AFD
  to better understand the process, and how to reply.
• IainUK begins to attribute the AFD nomination to malice on my part both on my talkpage, and in the AfD.
• I advised the user that the nomination was in good faith, based on policy, including
  WP:BLP
  . I ask if he has read the policies that he has been pointed to.
• The editor becomes more aggressive, attributing further bad faith, and violates
  WP:NPA
  .
• As such, I ask the editor to refrain from further posting on my talkpage, and keep the discussion about the article on
  WP:AFD
• The editor begins to edit-war on my talkpage.
• I specifically emphasize the on the editor’s talkpage my request to stay off my talkpage, and then write a gentle notification about
  WP:3RR
  on my talkpage, plus my ability to remove offensive posts
• Contrary to my multiple requests, the editor continues to add/remove portions of my talkpage - based on the clear requests to stop
  WP:HARASSing
  me, I have undone them as vandalism
• At this point, I engaged another admin, and disengaged from the situation, although I was forced to remove additional edits to my talkpage
• User began to delete portions of my talkpage, which I restored.

I have disengaged, but the user doesn't get it. I'm always up for discussion, but after the violation of NPA and edit-warring on my talkpage, another Admin has recommend that I bring additional eyes. (

BWilkins ←track

) 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note: editor and other admin have been notified of this discussion (
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 15:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be t'other admin, however I'd add that IainUK was also advised by Taelus (talk) two minutes before their most recent revert on Bwilkin's talkpage.

IainUK seems to have

WP:NLT and was met with a barrage of wikilawyering. Eventually I, too, disengaged, with a suggestion that IainUK bring the matter here if they remained unsatisfied with Bwilkins' and my handling of the matter. Instead they have continued the earlier edit-warring on Bwilkins' talkpage. TFOWR

15:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• • Already attempting to persuade user to disengage, I begun to do so prior to this ANI listing (got edit conflicted). Hopefully they will disengage, as the only real problem now is that they won't drop the topic. I think the problem is though that IainUK is assuming bad faith of Bwilkins AfD nomination, as they began by accusing him of not doing research/wanting to improve the article. They seem to have convinced themselves now that Bwilkins is biased, when really it is just an AfD discussion which should focus on content, not contributors. --Taelus (Talk) 15:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever it takes to add a

BWilkins ←track

) 15:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These two images probably need an experienced eye. The permission box reads "This is a "free image with no copyright restrictions".".. hardly compelling evidence. Rehevkor ✉ 18:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The first is reproduced from the group's official website, from their gallery here. The site says "© Click Records Entertainment Ltd"; there is no indication that the image has been placed in the public domain. The image is used in a variety of other sites, generally by way of promoting the group's appearances, but this doesn't place it into the PD either. The second image is a crop of the first. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Since these would not pass

F11 them unless someone can think of a reason not to; or a better speedy criteria. Rehevkor ✉

20:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I just wanted to point out that a declined CSD does not in any way make an article ineligible for

here for details on what is and isn't eligible for proposed deletion. -- Atama頭

17:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pineapple Dance Studios (TV series)

BWilkins nominated this related article for deletion which seems a little odd. Primetime TV shows on major channels are pretty much a shoe-in as far as notability is concerned. What gives Bwilkins? Exxolon (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is this at ANI? While I agree with the sentiment, Bwilkins' talk page is a much better place to start this conversation. Jclemens (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I noted my error about an hour ago and withdrew the nom. With the crap surrounding the above editor and a related article, I admit I got a bit kerfuffled, understandably I'm sure. (

BWilkins ←track

) 00:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think

WP:NPA

, despite his actual personal attacks on me) and marked the conversation as locked (or similar) and not to be edited. I asked him politely to either delete all the conversation, or put it back to its original form, but he constantly ignored me and deleted my attempts to talk to him calling it vandalism. It is my view that he is working the rules to his own personal advantage and it gives an unfair and false representation of the conversation. I can't see why he won't just be reasonable and delete it and forget about it. Even by the way he continues to talk about me, it is clear he has an issue with me, and whilst I always assume good faith, Bwilkins has made it obvious that the benefit of the project and community is not his top focus in this case. He is clearly a well experienced editor, and I have no doubt he has done great good for the community - but on this occasion he has clearly acted inappropriately.

All I can say about User:TFOWR is that they basically supported Bwilkins position, and so obviously we were in disagreement.

User:Taelus rightly advised, from a neutral point of view, that I just forget about it. This is good advice and what I would like to do - and I would like Bwilkins to do the same and show the reasonable gesture of removing or restoring the conversation.

I am an inexperienced editor - but I do my best. Bwilkins clearly has an issue with me, and I don't understand why. I have made mistakes, but we all do when we are new and I believe Wikipedia should be open and welcoming to new editors who are keen to do well. I regret that, on this occasion at least, I feel Bwilkins has abused his position as a long and respected editor to work around the rules to suit his own ends, while forgetting what is best for Wikipedia.

User:Rehevkor - I am not sure what the images have to do with this discussion - they have been tagged and I have responded accordingly.

That is all I have to say about this. I hope

User:Bwilkins will agree that keeping the conversation as it is now is unfair to me, and not beneficial to the project or community in any way, and show that he is decent enough to do the reasonable thing and delete it. Other than that, I personally have no issues and am happy to continue editing and creating articles for the benefit of Wikipedia. IainUK (talk

) 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"He has said himself that he only nominated the article for deletion to teach me a lesson that articles which pass a speedy deletion request can still be deleted"?? WTF? I don't teach lessons in childish manners such as that, and I have never said such a thing.

Let me say it clearly and carefully: at the time I nominated it, it was a new

WP:BLP

. It had ZERO references. The notability was therefore sketchy at first, and without ANY references, it was more than questionable. This is the SOLE reason that the article was AfD'd. Full stop. I don't give 2 shits about the topic, and I'm too old to play games and have something "against" an editor.

The editor unfortunately decided to go off on me on what appears to be a pet article, no matter how politely I did attempt to assist. The description I provided above is accurate: it was checked by another participant in the situation as accurate.

Accusations of "bias" and "abuse" simply because he did not like the fact that his article was nominated for deletion is pretty sad. Asking the editor "can't you read (the policies you have been linked to)" is not an attack, it's asking them to actually read the damned policy. God, this is childish. (

BWilkins ←track

) 16:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Note as the user has multiple times made stuff up about what actually wrote, I have made one final request to them to stop it. I have also in the same post advised the editor again why the article went to AfD (anyone can see that it was an unref'd BLP at the time of nomination), and also clarified how the situation escalated when it should not have, and how to avoid it in the future. Truly, as my philosophy is that everyone has something to add to Wikipedia, I wish this editor the best. By now, he has had a hard lesson on how important it is to actually read the policies that someone gives them before they go off half-cocked. As they seem to have finally been given a
  BWilkins ←track
  ) 17:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I only wrote on your talkpage to ask you civilly to either keep the conversation as it was, or remove it all. You deleted it and called it "vandalism" and brought it here. I'd say that was just a tad on the overreacting side. I am just glad now that it is on record that the conversation was edited and archived - so at least people know you are someone who does things like that. Everyone can see in your history the comment which was removed, and know that it is nowhere near as bad as the way you spoke to me - which makes your real motives for removing it obvious. And I am glad that is publicly exposed so that people can make up their own minds. I don't think there is any need to talk about this any more. IainUK talk 09:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then based on the above, and your actions on your talkpage, I'll take it back: clearly this issue is not resolved, and the editor has absolutely no

BWilkins ←track

) 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what more I'm supposed to say - I'm obviously annoyed that you wouldn't just leave the conversation as it was, but you have made it clear you aren't budging there. And although I feel it is wrong, in the grand scheme of things it is pretty insignificant. I do sincerely feel like you have treated me unfairly, but I'd rather just forget about it. And if an (other) administrator wants to talk with me, I am of course ready and willing for that conversation. Cheers IainUK talk 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I hoped not to post in this ANI again, but I would like to note that I have just come across a discussion about me on

Bwilkins has made his case against me, and I have stated my defence - there shouldn't need to be any further dialogue on this - especially not on another user's talk page. IainUK talk

08:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and the editor has finally admitted that the article was unsourced when it was nom'd. He still thinks the

BWilkins ←track

) 08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Important Note I never once denied the article was unsourced when it was nominated - please see here where I agreed references needed to be added at the top of the

Bwilkins is wrong to say I did not admit the article was unsourced right from the start, as it is completely untrue. IainUK talk

11:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is either an "important note", nor how it demonstrates that you acknowledged that the article was unsourced when the Afd was filed: the comment in that diff says that you agree that the article needs improved sourcing, not recognising that it had no sources at the time. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are saying it is correct and truthful for

Bwilkins's other posts on this topic. IainUK talk

11:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The "offending post" on my talkpage was made at 20:07 - three minutes after Bwilkins' post here saying substantially the same thing. I regard IainUK's latest post here as frivolous, and indicative of precisely Bwilkins' complaint: a lack of

dropping it - and not just saying "I'd rather forget about it" but actually, you know, moving on. We all have more important things to do than justifying routine actions and comments. TFOWR

09:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear, to avoid confusion, that I had considered this matter over at 15:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC) when I responded to Bwilkins' statement on this page, until

Bwilkins posted on my talk page again. I again had considered it over until I noticed TFOWR and Bwilkins discussing me on TFOWR's talk page again. I am becoming frustrated at having to keep coming back to answer this ANI, or to find Bwilkins still talking about me on TFOWR's talk page. I believe that Bwilkins attitude, manner and tone is not appropriate for someone with admin status, especially as I have been civil throughout, and I think TFOWR has chosen sticking up for Bwilkins over being impartial and helpful. Perhaps a Bureaucrat will look into that. I just wanted to give clear evidence to show that I am not the one who keeps bringing this back up, like TFOWR falsely implies. IainUK talk

09:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Remember, your talkpage history is clearly open to everyone before you say that you considered it "over", as you chose to openly continued to not consider it over. Cheers. (

BWilkins ←track

) 10:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Bwilkins I am fully aware of that, infact I have included links to previous versions in my comment above. I encourage people to check these so as to confirm that after making my ANI response at 15:43 on 15 August 2010 (UTC), you then commented on my talk page again. After replying and again saying I appreciate the (partly) good intention in your post and would like to forget about it, you proceeded again to discuss me and this case on TFOWR's talk page, to which I asked you to stop as it is simply not nice to talk about another user, particularly in those terms, on another user's talk page. I did not make the point that you keep bringing this back up, I was happy to forget it - it was TFOWR who chose to bring that up, and I simply wanted to clarify the facts. Please, no more. IainUK talk

10:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And

Bwilkins, I would be grateful if you could stop following me around citing policies. I might have a way to go, but I'm getting there - and this is not helpful. IainUK talk

10:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a question from an uninvolved observer - does this "discussion" have any point? Like is there anything that anyone actually wants an admin to do about it? If so, I'd suggest people just state what they want to happen, calmly and unemotionally, and stop this utterly pointless "He said...", "No, he said..", "No..." argument. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It has no purpose whatsoever. As both editors have stated that they want to move on, I am going to help them by boldly archiving the open discussions on the topic, and hope that this actually does end the argument. As said before, the AfD will handle the real issue here, the after-argument began from a misunderstanding and has snowballed into this mess which has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. --Taelus (Talk) 12:27, 17 August 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.

British Isles (I'm so sorry, really I am...)

I realise you're all sick of this, and I really do apologise.

I've been trying to cut down on the vitriol at

WT:BISE

, and as of today, and following warnings yesterday, I've been removing comments about other editors' alleged points of view. And warning the editors making such comments.

Earlier today I removed one such comment, and warned the editor responsible. I have just removed another, more general, comment as off-topic, and warned the editor. Who has now reverted me.

I'm inclined to block the editor responsible, and apply a topic ban on editing the WT:BISE page (and, by implication, adding or removing "British Isles" from any article, etc etc, though I don't think that's an issue here). I'm obviously annoyed that I've just been reverted, and I don't feel competent to make a rational decision at the end of a long and, frankly, tedious day. Accordingly I'm looking for a community mandate to do what needs done. TFOWR 22:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, those barbs & such would be best kept on the sparring editors talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

So you would remove me 100% from anything to do with British Isles atfer just two days back on the issue following 10 months off editing? Hell, HighKing's been at this for three or four years and he carries on! What gives? LemonMonday Talk 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Apply a topic ban on editing the WT:BISE page ?? Such a thing was considered during the debate on Highkings future and we were told it would be wrong to not let people discuss edits on talk pages. LemonMonday should be given another chance to follow the rules, if he refuses or can not then that is a different matter. But he should have another chance. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support a topic ban, we don't need new editors throwing petrol on the flames. p.s. LemonMonday, that sig is unreadable. Fences&Windows 23:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the sig, but topic banning someone whos been back for less than 48 hours seems a little quick. He should promise to follow the rules on

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

Woops thanks for that lol BritishWatcher (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick look and lemonMonday seems to have come back and dived in to a disputed area in a quite disruptive manner, if he hasn't earned himself one of the quickest topic bans in wiki history has will consider himself lucky, the area has been disruptive and TFOWR has calmed things down a lot and the users involved appear to me to have begun a decent discussion, this is a lot better, and anyone diving in and making big splashes will likely quickly deserve some editing restrictions.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that it seems LemonMonday is a single purpose account, of his edits 90+% of them are to insert British Isles or to revert the removal of the name. A topic ban is pretty much the same as an indef block on the account as that is all the editor is interested in editing. Canterbury Tail talk 02:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This editor's previous involvement ended in Oct 09 when they were given a warning by Black Kite in respect of this issue. At this stage I think the community should simply back up TFOWR who is showing the willingness and patience to deal with behavioral issues here. --Snowded ^TALK 04:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not that long ago we were on this page debating

WT:BISE, but i consider it just as disruptive as certain editors removal of British Isles from articles. BritishWatcher (talk

) 08:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sick and tired of the constant misrepresentation of facts, and the wiki-libel used by a very small number of editors. It's not funny when personal comments are banned from

HighKing (talk

) 14:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are making a mistake in doing so. Any deletion is only going to be interpreted as favoritism to one side or another. In truth, it is all very mild with no direct personal insults being made. Adults generally don't take well to be nannied about and it should be avoided.

Rather than have "alleged points of views" it would be far better --- and more adult --- just to keep a list of users and actual points of view. To discuss editor's motivation is relevant and a simple list would help others understand what was going on.

Unfortunately, without it you are going to go through the same user learning curve --- and justified reactions --- time and time again. It is unfair to pick on and scapegoat newcomers --- and, again, it appears very one sided --- just because some admins is tired.

You ought to realise that it takes two to tango. There are other ways to cause offence that may be more subtle, and more insidious, than calling a spade a spade. It is obviously clear that some editors are motivated on an immature nationalist level and using the Wikipedia to play out a territorial game that they could not in real life.

In general, all the critical view boil down to the same suggestion and that is this "Task Force" is one man's insidious campaign to remove the term from the Wikipedia. Perhaps it would be healthier for all to remove the "Task Force" as being divisive and a waste of time and energy instead?

BTW, how would one propose the disbanding of

WT:BISE

?

I recently raised the impossible of "discussing" each and every topic. Amongst flora and fauna of the British Isle alone, that would equate to 30 - 40,000 topics. This is not humanly possible and this is why bona fide publications make and stick to prior blanket editorial guidelines.

Perhaps it is only individuals with some expertise or understanding that can understand how frustrating dealing with individuals are blind to such obvious problems --- or are blinded by their agendas. --

Triton Rocker (talk

) 02:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted LemonMonday's revert. I've not blocked, and in the cold light of day I'm happy to see how things pan out first. I'd like to see more support for a topic ban before enacting it, though both non-involved editors who have commented (Off2riorob, Fences and windows) appear to support the idea. Any other non-involved views? TFOWR 08:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Has this debate been to ArbCom? I see it so much on this board, and elsewhere. At this point it feels like an issue that the community is unable to solve. If it has, disregard. If it hasn't consider bringing it there because of what I just said. elektrikSHOOS 08:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It has not been to ArbCom and i think attempts to go down that route would be counter productive. We have a process in place, editors do need to just follow the rules and we need to agree on a limit of the cases editors can bring forward at a time to stop us all being overwhelmed. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been a lot recently, true, but I think ArbCom is premature. The community mandated sanctions, and appears to support the process at

WT:BISE. Since then it's been brought up here either because the regular admins (Black Kite and myself) were absent, or, in this case, because I'm seeking community guidance as to the scope of possible sanctions. That said, as always, more eyes at WT:BISE are welcome - particular editors with no involvement in "British Isles". The process considers subjects that non-involved editors may well have considerable experience with, and that kind of experience is extremely useful. TFOWR

08:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This guy came from nowhere straight into the BI debate, is a SPA and doesn't assume good faith and attacks other editors. If he never edited again on WP would we be worse off? It's also funny the people who support the removal of BI as seen as the baddies and POV pushers but it's people from the other camp the seem to attack other editors. LemonMonday is not alone in doing this nor his he alone in being a SPA. Bjmullan (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban of

WT:BISE, it appears that any uninvolved admin can issue such a ban. There doesn't need to be a formal discussion here at ANI to ratify the ban (though consultation never hurts). EdJohnston (talk

) 12:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban!!! For what, pray? Making a few remarks about some POV pushing on the British Isles issue. Have you seen the so called BISE page and all the comments there have been over the last few months, and some of you .... (expletive deleted) .... people have the audacity to suggest I should be topic banned after virtually no input for months, leaving all the other hardened warriors to continue merrily on their way. It beggars belief. Why don't you try getting to the nub of the real issue here. LemonMonday Talk 13:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If from now on you follow the rules on that page you may not get topic banned. Getting yourself blocked will not resolve anything, attempting to clean up some of the mess from the crusades would be far more productive. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you BW. I'm going to put a number of suggestions forward in the coming days. LemonMonday Talk 14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently, we have

WT:BISE. I'd like to see a "TB02" that deals with disruption at WT:BISE itself, but I gather that this may have been discussed in the past with some objections? Anyway, with a bit of luck LemonMonday now realises their posts will be removed if they choose to discuss other editors. If not, I suppose a block for disruption would be in order, which would render a topic ban moot - at least until the block expires. Uncle G (talk) mentioned 1:1:1:1 block durations the last time this came up - and I'm rapidly coming round to that idea: 1 day, 1 week, 1 month... you get the picture. TFOWR

14:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just let me be clear on this, having read into it over the last couple of days. The current status is a de-facto topic ban on everyone anyway, is it not? Anyone wanting to remove or add British Isles now has to ask for permission to do so. So if the above suggestion would come to fruition you would really just be placing a gag on me but on no-one else. When I say "ask for permission" I suppose it's a case of getting agreement (broad) at that silly page? And that really means no progress. Am I right about the de-facto universal topic ban? LemonMonday Talk 14:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not correct. A topic ban means "no input allowed at all." Under the current system, people are allowed to suggest changes, those changes are discussed and then implemented or not based on the merits. Basically, the normal

WP:BRD cycle has been abused so badly, we're going straight to the Discuss step on this matter before changes are made. So, there's no de-facto universal topic ban, as you put it, nor are you gagged. The whole situation has simply become such a powder keg that we need to proceed cautiously. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

12:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sanctions for disruption at

WT:BISE provided the rules are clear, the previous debate was focused on a rule about initiating lots of discussions to add or remove the term, rather than clear rule breaking. BritishWatcher (talk

) 14:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocks would probably work better for this type of disruption (should it recur in the future). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot creating 100s or 1000s of potentially bad species articles

An automated bot, Ganeshbot, is creating gastropod species articles. The bot's owner asked for approval to create about 650 Conus species articles. Conus is a popular and well-studied gastropod species. The bot owner took this approval to mean blanket approval to create articles about species from other gastropod familes suggested by project gastropod members.

I spotted some of the articles on a list of new articles after I created a Wikipedia article. I was surprised by some of the names for the articles, as I thought the names were no longer used. I checked 6 articles. One is about a species only mentioned in 3 on-line sources, WoRMS (where it is attributed to its original 18th century single source and to an out-of-print book by an amature shell collector), the out-of-print book by the amature shell collector, and Wikipedia. Another is an incorrect species that is very well known as its subspecies. Another article had a strange false fact about the species listed in it.

I think this bot should be stopped from creating articles for the time being. The bot owner continued working on articles after I alerted them of some problmes, and the owner says the gastropod project is approving the families to create articles, but has not provided me with a link to this approval, so I may point out problematic genera to Wikipedia editors. I posted this at the bot board as directed, but, for now, I think the bot should be stopped, and the articles with bad information and bad taxonomy should be removed from Wikipedia.

JaRoad (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, it makes it very difficult to begin to look at this without any account or

WP:BAG links, and we don't even know that you've notified the bot operator of this thread. Some protocols are basic, and although we don't need to be spoonfed, there is a minimum level of information to be provided. Rodhullandemu

23:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you need from me? Excuse me, of course, for thinking creating bad articles would be more important than my getting all the details correct. I posted a note to the bot operator. I only have sokme 20 edits in my history, so some bare sleuthing on your part might be quickest. What WP:BAG link? --JaRoad (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

[24]

[25] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I think is "zero information is preferred to misleading or false information" [26] Wikipedia should be fast to remove false information. Not only that someone should want to remove the false information rather than hindering people who point it out.

The bot owner looked at a web page that showed pictures of snail shells and translated that, somehow, into the shells being transparent and the snail looking like a sea slug. Here's the bot operator's edit.[27] Here's the web page where the bot operator got the information about the invisible snail shell:[28] with pictures of the non-invisible snail shell.

Can someone just err on the side of caution, stop the bot, then discuss the issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JaRoad (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am the bot owner. The bot is stopped now and is not going to do anything more until this discussion is complete. — Ganeshk (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. But it would have been nice to stop the bot when I first brought the problem to your attention instead of using it to continue to add lines to articles about shelled gastropods that supposedly look like sea slugs. Can you remove that line or revert by hand all of those additions? You misread the first page, or your bot did, and created something that isn't that is. JaRoad (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The numbers: the bot owner asked if he could create some 650 Conus articles. This was approved. To date, the operator has created over 14,000 articles on gastropods with this bot approved for 650 articles [29]. I would like a link to the discussions by gastropod editors about creating these 14,000 articles. JaRoad (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the

BRFA and BAG) before the project members had a chance to respond to his/her concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk

) 01:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I posted here to get the bot stopped because I was surprised you started the bot up again after I raised my initial concerns. It seems the response would be to hold off until more discussion is had. However, you just started the bot up again, adding lines that are not verified by the source you attribute them to.

The link you give says, "Neogastropoda is done. So Littorinimorpha is next" Wheres the discussion that says the bot will be used to add over 14,000 species articles under the guideance of project gastropod? You say in your request for approval that you'll be adding 650 articles, not 14,000 or 15,000 as you keep upping your tally.

Where does that editor attribute his source for the transparent shells that are clearly seen in the picture you link to? The gastropod editors can't just assign text to the articles, unsourced, then you source it to WoRMS, particularly when WoRMS doesn't agree with what you said.

So, all you had to do was stop editing, then discuss it. But you ddin't. Someone above mentioined WP:BAG, so I posted a link there.

When you're creating inaccurate articles, no article would be better. You don't appear to have the approval to creat 15,000 articles, only 650, and the gastropod people also don't care that they don't have approval and the articles are inaccurate. JaRoad (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot stopped running like 4 hours ago. It's last edit was 6:26 PM EST . I am editing with my own account, Ganeshk. Do you want me to stop editing? — Ganeshk (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the notice on your bot board is wrong. It says that by posting there my message will stop the bot, and the bot continued posting for another 26 minutes after it was supposed to have been stopped. Would you fix the notice so it doesn't say a message will stop the bot if that is inaccurate? JaRoad (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot did not create any new articles after raised your concerns. I was completing the task that it was doing (ie. only making updates to existing articles). The articles will be incorrect if they were left partially done. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

So you're editing as your bot, then taking me to task for not knowing that? Well, EXCUSE me! JaRoad (talk) 02:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I was responding to this point you just made, "However, you just started the bot up again, adding lines that are not verified by the source you attribute them to." I thought you were wondering about my recent edits. I had already explained why the bot was editing after you raised your concerns. — Ganeshk (talk) 02:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Section break

Perhaps I'm missing something, but it looks to me as though the approval for these semi-automated edits was (1) for ~600 such edits and (2) explicitly restricted to no more than 100 edits per month. In both these respects, Ganeshk appears to have far overstepped what the approval allowed. Deor (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The bot approval was for the task, to create species using the WoRMS as reference. I don't see myself getting approval for each mollusk family. As for the 100 edit restriction, they were lifted at this discussion. — Ganeshk (talk) 04:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But the bot has still created way more than 580 articles. IMO all articles created by your bot should be deleted, and this should be done over from scratch. Next time ask for permission to create as many articles as you actually intend to create. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But you say the task is for 580 bot articles, nothing more, after someone brings up other problem bots:

Yes, but it has also been done before with disastrous results. I still have nightmares about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. Not that this will be anything like that, of course, but when you say "this has been done before", you don't settle my concerns about this task. I oppose all automated stub creation by bots. If over five hundred pages are simple enough and repetitive enough to be created by bots, I'm not entirely sure they should be on Wikipedia in the first place. What's the point of having 500+ articles that are essentially the same? — The Earwig ^(talk) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

This task is no way close to what AnyBot did. I had clearly mentioned that about 580 stubs will be created (nothing more). The list of articles that will be created are already listed in the data page (first column). The point of creating these articles is so that the Gastro team can come in and expand them. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I added the bold marks to Ganeshk's text, they are not in the original.

You make certain the others know you are only asking for the approval of 580 stub "nothing more" to quote you, then you ask in a different, unofficial, place about lifting the timing restriction, then take the lifting to mean you are allowed to create as many stubs as you want.

Maybe there is some communication gap with what is being discussed and what you are doing. I think you should stop running all tasks on all bots, as you appear to be purposefully deceptive in asking for approval for one task then marching forward with a huge task that others had real concerns about. The Anybot links show that what you are doing is exactly what The Earwig expressed concerns about. JaRoad (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

A Request approval for bot creating 1000s of species stubs be revoked

I have requested the bot approval for 1000s of species stubs be revoked. A bot creating species stubs had its approval revoked for similar reasons, creating bad articles with poor knowledge and no oversight on the part of the bot operator. The operator asked to create 580 Conus stubs with a bot and took approval for that single task to mean approval for creating 15,000 gastropod stubs without community input. The request to revoke the approval of the bot can be discussed on that page:

Request for approval to be revoked]

JaRoad (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You need to calm down, stop taking offense, and let other editors handle this. You've made the report, now let them review it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hysterical. I'm not offended, after all, I didn't find a sneaky way to put up 15,000 bad species stubs. And, I am letting other editors dicuss this, which has earned me the accusation that I am not discussing this. Thanks for accusing me of over-dicussing it and being hysterical, shades of Freud. Please tell the bot owner that you told me to shut up so he can stop accusing me of shutting up. With that said, I'm done. I saw what Wikipedia does to editors who point out bots creating bad articles. JaRoad (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Per the above, you clearly are taking this personal. I have never told you to 'shut up', and I have not accused you of over-discussing anything. You used all caps when responding to a post of his that was not in the least bit uncivil towards you. Please calm down and let others handle this. If you keep reacting in a hostile manner other editors are not going to be sympathetic towards you. Pushing away those trying to help you isn't going to solve anything.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you might want to consider switching to

WP:TEA and let the community take a look at the situation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't written anything in all caps. You might want to get the facts correct and address your personal remarks about calmness and caffeine to the correct person.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JaRoad (talk • contribs)

User:Epeefleche

Resolved

 – There was no

vandalism. Editor was notified appropriately. No evidence of an ongoing problem has been submitted at this time. Article has been raised at WP:BLPN. TFOWR

15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche created the page Soho Properties. I, and other users, have removed some attacks he included in the page, including an attempt to slander one of the company's executives by saying that his uncle, leader of the Arab League of nations, supported Hamas, as well as linking to Jihad Watch, a notorious anti-Islam site. He has reverted on sight, and now accused me of vandalism and threatened me with blocking, even though it is clearly not vandalism but a content dispute. He has almade no attempt to address the issues, despite the notice at the top of my talk page 'that I will remove standardised warning templates, feel free however to discuss the underlying issues with me.'.

His is aggressive, destructive behaviour. Could someone please address? Sumbuddi (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the external link and attempt to smear-by-association removed in this are clearly in violation of the biographies of living persons policy. Consequently their removal is not subject to the three-revert-rule and restoration ought to draw preventative sanctions. CIreland (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Concur with the concur; probably should have taken it to the

Talk

) 13:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche didn't appear to have been notified of this discussion - so I went ahead and told him --Errant

Talk

) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

he was: [30]

User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims.

Off2riorob (talk

) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Scanning Epeefleche's recent edits they do appear to be pushing a certain POV. --Errant

Talk

) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought, but I'm wondering if the "Nour Mousa" link to "Amr Moussa" (also in the Park 51 article) is even accurate. The surnames are not the same, and while the claim has been propagated across numerous anti-Park 51 blogs, it seems to stem from this article [31], which has been noted as a desperate hatchet job.[32] Is this in fact a reliable source? Sumbuddi (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits linked to here concern me greatly, I don't know the editor in question but there is no question even from a cursory glance that the intend is to create a POV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Curious that nobody notified me until a friendly non-involved editor. About to head to a meeting shortly. Shall we discuss here or on the BLPN? As to Off2, I imagine people here are familiar enough with him and his block history that I don't have to detail my personal experiences with him.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Apart from me having to defend BLP articles from some of your previous POV attacks you have no history with me at all. You will also notice that this thread is about you not me, this pattern of POV is an issue and has been at other articles previously.

  Off2riorob (talk

  ) 13:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  Uh, Epeefleche, you were notified within a minute of this being posted here, by the same editor who initiated this thread. TFOWR 13:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I completely missed that (because of the subsequent section header). Entirely my fault :)

Talk

) 13:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear up the confusion on the notification issue, so everyone understands it. Tmorton left me notice of this ANI, helpfully, saying he did not know why I had not been notified. He and I were not aware I was notified--because my "notification" was embedded as an unsigned stray sentence within a DYK notice that I had been given ... making it somewhat easy to miss.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't just a BLPN issue, I posted here primarily because you are assuming bad faith in a content dispute and accusing me of vandalism, which was clearly inappropriate. We might have different opinions, but that doesn't make me - or you - a vandal, and it's not constructive for you to say so, as you did here.[33]Sumbuddi (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you call it when you use procedural means like this ANI page to try to stop editors from editing? Look at this comment: "User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims." Okay, I say Epeefleche should no longer "add any content about any living Muslims." Then those seeking to use Wikipedia to

WP:SOAPBOX can write glowing articles about any topic they wish and we all can stop wasting our time on the ANI page to shut people up. Epeefleche, these people or people like them don't stop coming after you, I have observed over time. I had a group promoting MMfA come after me recently, on the ANI too, so I can understand what you are going through. My point involves the tactic being used to silence Epeefleche, not the underlying content being whatever it is. Folks, if Epeefleche is not perfect or is making POV edits, then improve Wikipedia by making better edits or using the Talk page, don't just use the ANI to try to escalate to get others to stop someone from making edits you do not like and have not properly addressed in Talk. This page is not to be used as a means to pressure others. This is Wikipedia, not OneViewPointOpedia. Someone please close this ANI and everyone please get back to work. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk

) 14:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it should be closed.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point that Epeefleche should be allowed to continue attacking living people because if he didn't others would write glowing articles is amusing indeed. No one is trying to silence, let him write good articles about french town and cities but stop him attacking living people that he has a strong POV against and that he repeatedly inserts into wikipedia articles, this then creates edit wars as people remove the BLP violations and then user Epeefleche throws warnings at them and calls them vandals and threatens them with blocks, this is what the report here is about.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(

WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"User Epeefleche,s personal POV is so strong that he should not be allowed to add any content about living Muslims." Sounds like an attempt to silence someone to me. I know, I recently lived through such an effort that went on for weeks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk)

No, you have this wrong. Epeefleeche was using this article as his soapbox, which I don't have a problem with of itself, because other users can edit and remove his biases.

What is unacceptable is trying to silence me by threatening a block and accusing me of vandalism [34] for repeating edits already made by two different other users with edit summaries explaining exactly what the objection was. That is not vandalism, and it's bizarre to be defending him on a 'free speech' basis, when 'free speech' is exactly what he was trying to deny me. Other users [35] might be silenced by similar tactics, I'm addressing this here, not so much because I'm concerned about his content biases, but because I don't think his edit war tactics are acceptable. Sumbuddi (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sumbuddi, I'm not trying to be trouble. It's just that the edit you gave as evidence of being called a vandal, I just don't see how that edit evidences your being called a vandal, neither do I see it in the history comment. To me it looks like a standard warning used repeatedly on the Talk pages of a multitude of editors. What am I missing? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling, you seemed to be suggesting that several of us are trying to "silence" this user; as I said above, I don't see enough evidence of POV-pushing and disruptive editing in this topic to warrant a topic ban, and unless I've overlooked someone, Off2riorob is the only user in support of such action. I understand what you're getting at and agree that a topic ban is too extreme unless the user proves that he is unable to edit constructively to this topic, but effectively suggesting that the community is witch-hunting when we're actually responding to some fairly serious policy violations, isn't especially constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. Standing back and looking at the big picture, however, this editor has procedural action after procedural action brought against him. At some point it's time to notice a pattern. I was merely noting a pattern. Sure, on an individual page, it's no biggie. But in general, there is a clear pattern. While this AN/I has been going on, Epeefleche got another warning on his page for, get this, violating a 1RR, and I noticed no notice of the unusual 1RR on that page. Why didn't someone just give him a heads up instead of giving him another warning on his talk page? The effort to topic ban Epeefleche in the immediate effort was merely what set in motion in my mind that Epeefleche is someone who is challenged constantly for essentially being an effective editor. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, four issues:

• Epeefleche, please don't refer to good faith edits as
  vandalism
  .
• There was a misunderstanding about ANI notification. It happens, we all realise that, that's a non-issue.
• If there's an ongoing problem in terms of Epeefleche and POV - no one's offered any evidence beyond this one incident.
• This particular incident should probably be punted to
  WP:BLPN
  .

TFOWR 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree . This discussion can serve as a warning to Epeefleche not to refer to others' edits as vandalism when they are actually a matter of content dispute. The content dispute itself can be handled on the BLP noticeboard. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm a big fan of BLP, and if I erred I'm happy to understand precisely how I did so and to certainly make every effort to not do so in the future. Perhaps it will be helpful if I analyse, ignoring the noise and the ad hominem attacks, what I understand to be the main issue. And what my thinking was.

The primary focus of editors who see an issue here appears to be on the bolded language in the following edit: "Mousa is the nephew of Amr Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League, who was the first major Arab leader to go to Gaza and affirm support for Hamas, in mid-June 2010, after the Gaza blockade-running incident.[36] That language was properly referenced to a RS. It appeared in a paragraph in an RS article about the subject of the article -- Soho House -- which said

... an Egyptian property developer, Sharif El-Gamal... is chief executive officer of Soho Properties, Inc., a commercial real estate investment firm he founded in 2003. His partner is Nour Mousa, another guiding figure in the Ground Zero mosque effort and the nephew of Amr Moussa, head of the Arab League. Amr Moussa was the first major Arab leader to go to Gaza and affirm support for Hamas, in mid-June, after the recent blockade-running assault.

I didn't see this as a BLP violation. Let me explain why.

1. it was sourced to an RS.
2. it accurately represented what the RS said.
3. the subject of the discussion in the RS article itself was SoHo House.
4. while I gather some here view the Gaza matter as negative (and a "tarring"), it is by no means clear that that connection is negative. To the contrary, much of the world would certainly view that connection as a positive (there was definitely an outpouring of positive response in favor of Gaza after the incident).
5. even if it were negative, we do routinely report even negative information on wikipedia.
6. it is one thing if an editor himself makes a connection relating to Soho House--it is quite another if an RS does so, and we simply reflect it. Which is what I sought to do here. Nothing more.
7. as to whether it is notable, or relevant, enough to reflect (is that even proper fodder for an AN/I discussion?), I take as a guide what the RSs think is notable. This is likewise our objective guiding light in our article notability discussions. It allows us to avoid personal subjective POV. Otherwise, an editor could simply be driven by his personal subject POV, and claim that anything he doesn't like is not notable, even if the RSs report it.
8. the article and the reference relate to SoHo House and its connections. Soho House is not a BLP, so I'm not even clear that this is a BLP issue. But that is beside the point, given my above comments.
9. I didn't see there as being a need to report who specifically the source was of the statement, but if it were felt that that would have improved matters, I would certainly have had no objection.

I don't know if that helps understand my thinking. But I was simply trying to reflect what an RS said when discussing the company, sought to do so accurately, and didn't apprehend a violation of any sort. I do find it somewhat surprising that someone would think this editing dispute ANI-worthy.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of what could be considered BLP violation is inserting unsourced and/or poorly sourced info about living person. It is clearly not the case here. I believe the thread ought to be closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd greatly prefer

WP:UNDUE, but I'm by no means a BLP person. This is about protecting a living person, not about assigning blame. TFOWR

14:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(

Talk

) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR--That's fine; personally, I don't think anything significant is lost -- even though what was said in the article is precisely supported by the RS -- if we were to trim out the words "for Hamas". The content is still substantively the same.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I note this accusation: …an attempt to slander one of the company's executives by saying that his uncle, leader of the Arab League of nations, supported Hamas, as well as linking to Jihad Watch, a notorious anti-Islam site. It is impossible to slander the executive (malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report) by stating what is believed to be true about a relative of the executive. I’m quite sure Wikipedia does not have a policy to burry information like 9/11 on notorious individuals like Osama bin Laden just because Osama might be a second-cousin three-times-removed to the ex-sister-in-law of Jimbo. If Epeefleche is incorrect that the Arab League leader supported Hamas, then challenge him to produce a proper citation buttressing the information. If he has truly edit warred, warn him. If both editors have truly edit warred, warn them both. If this is just another edit dispute, mark it resolved and tell the editors to stay away from each other for 48 hours. Greg L (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not really worth arguing it out; but it could be slander by association. i.e. raising an undue point unrelated to the article to associate the company/individuals with those views. What the uncle did is not related to the company or owners (it is related to the uncles biography) and, so, raising it becomes problematic --Errant

Talk

) 15:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be engaging in an exercise in semantics. The sentence is designed to link Soho Properties, which hitherto has dealt in uncontroversial office buildings, to Hamas, and specifically one of its living executives, to a US-desginated terrorist organisation. Whether or not that should properly be called 'slander', 'slur' or something else is irrelevant to the fact that it's an attack sentence.

Also I'm not quite sure why you are comparing

Osama Bin Laden

, the world's most notorious Islamist mass murderer and international terrorist. It is reasonable to describe Osama Bin Laden, if you had to in one sentence, 'as the perpetrator of 9/11', but it's not reasonable to describe Moussa simply as 'a Hamas supporter' on the basis of an official visit to Gaza. Clearly that description is grossly distorted and only someone who feels 'bin Laden' is the most apt comparator with a moderate senior Arab diplomat could feel otherwise.

Nobody wants to delete the fact (if it is true, and I'm not convinced, given that the names aren't even spelled the same) that Mousa is nephew of Moussa, but describing him as a Hamas supporter is bizarre; you might as well say 'Mousa is nephew of Moussa, a popular Egyptian politician, who in 2005 was petitioned to run for president.[37]'Sumbuddi (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I involved here? (User:Wittsun)

Resolved

Wittsun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user is under a topic ban covering all race, politics or religious subject. The ban was tweaked to include all Wikipedia namespaces on 22 July (see his talkpage). However, an article that he created is under AfD, and so of course he received the standard template inviting his comments on the AfD.

Whilst I am sure he is aware that this was a violation of his topic ban, he did go ahead and comment on the AfD (whilst making an attack on other editors). Given the auto-AfD message, however, I have not imposed a block on this occasion. However, it's now occurred to me that I previously !voted on the AfD, and with an opposing view to Wittsun's. Therefore, it could be suggested that I am involved, and any admin is welcome to unstrike, remove, edit or otherwise revert my edits, and my message to Wittsun on his talkpage. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Any editor could have taken the same action you did and it would have been OK - I would have probably taken the alternative action of removing his comment as: (1) there were no responses to it, (2) it's not going to be a fully enforced vio (by blocking), and (3) the edit should not have been made in the discussion (that is, it was prompted by a couple of mistakes, from a generous good faith perspective anyway, so that might be the best step in reversing the effect of those mistakes). But that's just my view, and obviously, I can understand why a more cautious approach could be adopted. As for any involvement, I'd say it does not extend beyond this particular AfD. (There would have been a concern if you imposed a block in this situation, but that's not an issue here.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Apprpriate use of the admin remit. I reviewed BK's comments to the AfD, and note they deal entirely with the nomination as relating to the subject and not to article creator - therefore I consider BK is uninvolved in regard to acting in relation to Wittsun's violation of his topic ban. The determination that the violation was not deliberate by BK speaks of a commendable degree of AGF, since I note that Wittsun's common response to notification of sanctions and restrictions is to indicate incomprehension - upon that evidence I would have blocked the editor for their transgression. In all, I think Black Kite acted in an exemplary manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with Ncmvocalist that removal rather than striking would be the better choice as, from a general standpoint, I'm of the mind that only the writer should be striking comments, lest they be misrepresented. I've done this, and marked resolved. –xeno^talk 13:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to place a permanent block on certain IP ranges

As a lot of users might know, I was the target of a particularly nasty vandal attack on Saturday by User:BoxingWear among other socks. This individual was previously banned by Jimbo under the username "George Reeves Person" or something like that.

This individual has engaged in serial attacks against a number of editors, including Jimbo, for several years. The little bit of information gleaned on him suggests that he is either homeless or partially so; he almost certainly suffers from mental illness. He edits out of a public library system and on occasion, box stores and two colleges in his general area. It is my understanding that he's engaged in harassment via telephone; he neglected to turn off the caller ID on one call and the number rendered back to a church in the same area. A call to the church confirmed the man's illness and the fact they try and protect him.

I've blocked four of his ranges for one year here at WP and for five years on Eflightwiki.com. All of these ranges have a long history of abuse, almost certainly from this same person.

The ranges are:

• 64.44.24.0/24
• 66.2.70.0/24
• 66.99.2.0/24
• 66.99.1.0/24

This person is now following me to other wikis on which I use the same username. He was particularly nasty at Eflightwiki.com until I was granted sysop rights. He's now attacked me at Simple English; I have no sysop rights there, but an admin here who does is closely monitoring my pages there.

Under these rather unusual circumstances, I wish to propose that all of these ranges and any subsequent range be blocked permanently for the personal safety of this site's users. This person is likely to be criminally insane and we owe it to our volunteers to insure their safety while editing Wikipedia and other wiki sites. --

talk

) 15:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If the person is editing from public terminals, it would be in Wikipedia's not best interest not to range-block as that would also negatively affect a lot of potential positive contributors. I can understand your nasty feud with a sockmaster (I've had a few run-ins myself) but a rangeblock of publicly accessible computers is not the solution. elektrikSHOOS 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Elektrik; permanently blocking several IP ranges is likely to cause more harm than good. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Though there's practically no recent activity on the first three ranges that isn't vandalism or non-useful, and not a huge amount on the fourth either. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thought of this later. A better solution might be to contact the owners of the IP addresses in question and see if these places can bar access to this individual, as it appears that xe is not using the computers productively. elektrikSHOOS 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, that kind of approach generally hasn't worked out so well in the past, although it is worth a try. We routinely block ips that are causing disruption despite the fact that other productive users might be using them. I think what is scaring folks here is the word "permanent." How about we start off with a year or two and see if that curbs the problem, if this guy comes back even once from any of these ranges we can re-instate the block for another year or two. I fully support the idea that harsher measures need to be taken against the most unhinged and obsessed trolls, they suck way too much time away from the various projects. Given the dearth of positive contribs from these ranges the potential collateral damage is minimal, and the potential of diverting this troll is worth it.

talk

) 16:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the severe abuse that the editor in question has engaged in here and elsewhere, I'd strongly agree with Beeblebrox - a long rangeblock makes a lot of sense here to cut the damage substantially. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd support such a proposal, but I'd prefer it if the block was anon-only, so as not to block well-meaning contributors who might wish to use those computers to edit Wikipedia (and, if an anon needs an account, they can ask one to

WP:ACC). Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}

16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

More background for PMDrive1061's complaint may be seen at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoxingWear/Archive. I notice that PMDrive has renewed the rangeblock (anon-only) on all four addresses for one year. I support this, except for the first address, which I suggest that he should double-check. The address he listed above is not the one that he blocked. (The 24 and 44 are reversed). He actually blocked 64.24.44.0/24 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) whose contributions seem rather innocuous. The matter appears serious to me, and there is reason to take strong action. There is nothing magic about public terminals that should prevent them from being blocked anon-only if serious abuse is coming from them. EdJohnston (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. I'll correct that right away. I now have a list of all his known IPs and I'm going to take the initiative nd block all for one year. Anon-only might not do any good since he actually creates sockpuppet accounts more often than not. This individual impersonated me with a YouTube account...and I'm told that was nothing compared to stunts he's pulled. He has engaged in e-mail bombing, incessant crank telephone calls and has managed to create bogus death threats from his victim to himself. Apparently, he's done this pretty well since users have lost IP access as a result. --

talk

) 17:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a delightful individual who lives a rich and rewarding life.[

Virgin killer article, but I wasn't discouraged from creating an account by e-mailing the foundation. If we can afford to block entire ISPs on such an issue, I think this user's actions more than warrant the proposed action. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

19:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Promotional editing for US government agency

Resolved

 – Good spot, but no further action needed. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User Wikiproject1400 (talk · contribs) appears to be editing solely to promoting the US Agricultural Research Service. This editor's initial edits were mostly additions of links to ARS education pages and press releases [38][39][40], but after being warned about the WP promotional link policy the editor switched to adding full prose to the article body [41][42][43][44]. A few of these additions seem reasonable to me, but the informational value of many of them is questionable, and most appear to have been for the sole purpose of adding links to ARS press releases. I posted a caution to the editor's talk page [45], but given the likelihood that this is self-promotion by a governmental agency, I thought it might be wise to raise the issue here. – ClockworkSoul 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I checked the more recent diffs, and they don't seem to be overly promotional. I don't think there is any need for admin action at this time. As long as they are not misrepresenting the information in their sources there certainly isn't any need for a block or anything like that. If you see such problems developing you might want to post at

talk

) 17:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing actionable at this time (I wasn't looking for anything like that), but it seems to me like something worth keeping an eye on. – ClockworkSoul 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where there might very likely be COI involved (extremely probably at least), but the COI in question is actually improving the project. Thus, I don't think this is a major problem. Even if it is adding only info found by the ARS, it is legitimate info and seems extremely helpful and useful for the articles themselves. Silverseren^C 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the project is being improved: many of the additions describe research that's very preliminary and/or trivial, such that it's difficult to justify its inclusion in a general interest article on a subject. – ClockworkSoul 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slippery slope - WP policy is that any "paid editing" is to be strongly discouraged. Were we to say "well, the US government is exempt" where will the final line get drawn? In the past, edits from government workers have been found to be intrinsically COI. I suggest the existing policy has not been altered on this. Next we may have Saudi government employees, or Russian employees, or others editing on what they have issued press releases on. WP is not an agency of the US, and must, perforce, avoid any perception otherwise. Collect (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If they are improving the encyclopedia and not distorting the facts then any rule that tells us to stop them can safely be

talk

) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Themastertree

I'm concerned here primarily with the volume of edits to ethnically controversial topics. Some of them clearly appear to be copyediting, but others are content changes that might be sensitive. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the region to judge the changes on their merits, but I'm troubled by the pattern and the lack of edit summaries in a controversial area. Triona (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC) [46]

• Could someone familiar with the areas this user is editing in please take a close look at the contributions. Also, there has been no response to attempts to communicate via the user's talk page, including several warnings left by RC patrollers. Triona (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Islamism (conspiracy theory) (AfD discussion)
• Suppression towards Islam (AfD discussion)

The above two articles, created by this editor, have been nominated for deletion.

Greater Afghanistan requires some serious work to provide it with much-needed context. Whose idea, exactly? Those who didn't accept the Durand Line? Uncle G (talk

) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They are continuing to create loads of spurious OR articles. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

As well as Islamism (conspiracy theory) (AfD discussion) and Transitional Ethnic groups (AfD discussion). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through the rest of their contributions, they aren't that great, but there's nothing that sets alarm bells ringing. There was some more original research and Pashtun POV-pushing, but in some cases they did make use of decent sources. I've tidied their contributions up, but more eyes to skim them through might be a good idea in case I missed anything. Fences&Windows 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wetman trying to frame me, starting edit wars and engaging in personal attacks

On the 6th of August, I was reading about Zoroastrianism and noticed that there were instances of CE/BCE in the article, which were obviously conflicting with the introduction etc, which had BC/AD. In the spirit of helpfulness, I fixed the consistency issue. A few days later, I discovered that User:Wetman had changed the entire article to CE/BCE and tried to justify it by falsely accusing me of doing the reverse. He then started a discussion on the talk page, which was primarily a personal attack against me and an attempt to intimidate all the other editors out of reverting his vandalism. See here.

In the meantime, I was reading about the Epic Cycle and noticed exactly the same kind of issues here. I fixed the BC/BCE inconsistency in the article Epic Cycle and added "AD" to "tenth century" in the article about Venetus A. Venetus A is a little-known work, written in the 10th century AD about something that happened in the 12th century BC (i.e. the Trojan War), so it would seem logical to specify that Venetus A came from the 10th century AD and not the 10th century BC, as might be assumed.

As it turned out,

WP:ERA

rule. See: 1st disruption in Epic Cycle 2nd disruption in Epic Cycle] 3rd disruption in Epic Cycle 4th disruption of Epic Cycle 1st disruption of Venetus A 2nd disruption of Venetus A

Back on Talk:Zoroastrianism, I responded to User:Wetman's personal attack but was followed by User:Warrior4321 falsely accusing me of starting the trouble and even repeating it on my talk page.

I know it's only a minor detail, but while writing this summary, I noticed that I was mistaken about the number of inconsistencies that I fixed in the article Zoroastrianism. It was a genuine mistake; I had forgotten how many there were since the week before last, when I fixed the article.

I am absolutely disgusted and appalled that User:Wetman and User:Warrior4321 would break the rules to frame an innocent, helpful contributor like myself, all for a pathetic attempt at hijacking a few obscure articles. I normally only make the odd contribution to the encyclopaedia when I'm not busy, but this bullying by two established users has been very stressful and disheartening. (Huey45 (talk) 10:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

One of those "BC/AD" warriors:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers); see also Wikipedia:Eras #BC/AD versus BCE/CE reading list. This tiresome cultural bullying generally seems to push changes to BC/AD not the other way: nevertheless, simply put, either is offensive, and I keep an eye out for such infractions of courtesy and collegiality. As for "spirit of helpfulness": a repeat offender: see Zoroastrianism edit "so that now the newer sections match the introduction etc", this Epic Cycle edit "to match the rest of the article", this Little Iliad edit "Date: spelling" [sic

] These are articles on my watchlist: I detected the consistent program on the part of this user and repaired the damage.

Anyone interested should read User talk:Wetman#Disruptive edits in the last few days for this user's insults, intentional mischaracterizations and threats, unlike anything else on my talkpage— to which I have not responded, as they carry no information only bad attitude. What more can I say? --Wetman (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I find that if one doesn't want the boomerang to return and smack one hard on the forehead, one has to throw it less powerfully than you are throwing it here. Uncle G (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Uncle G. I hadn't read those, or I would have been even crosser.--Wetman (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I also note several articles where Huey45 entered AD at least once where there had been nothing before. Given his other edits, this may have been to keep them on the AD side of
      talk
      ) 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
      • By the way, I've just noticed this repeated revert at Epic Cycle, with the intentionally inflammatory and factual incorrect edit summary "Undid vandalism 378999651 by Wetman (talk) which re-introduced inconsistencies and is in direct violation of WP:ERA" I will not characterize this behavior, but many of you can imagine...--Wetman (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Uncle G, what is your point? I already said that User:Wetman started the personal attacks. I see you looked through a lot of material; you should have noticed this straight away. Am I suddenly an evil trouble-maker just for having self respect? User talk:Preciseaccuracy is entirely irrelevant anyway; User:Preciseaccuracy started a dispute related to an article about dodgy art salesmen.

The facts are simply:

• The article Zoroastrianism had conflicting occurrences of both BC/AD and CE/BCE when I read it for the first time.
• I made it consistent by replacing the CE/BCE terms with AD/BC.
• A few days later,
  WP:ERA
  ) then abused me and falsely accused me of starting trouble.
• The exact same thing happened in the article Epic Cycle.
• I responded to the personal attacks.
• User:Wetman kept going.
• I came here.

End of story. (Huey45 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC))

Yes, reading the diffs, it is easy to see what actually happened.--Wetman (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to save everyone some work, looking at the article before Huey45 came in, there was only one instance of BC (because the title of the 6th century article says 6th century BC), no instances of AD, and EVERYTHING else was BCE/CE. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Huey45 accuses me of asking him to cross out his personal attacks, claiming I am "just as bad as this disgraceful liar" (note the personal attack in that quote as well), when he has blatantly made personal attacks against another editor. I don't see why he's so disgusted by my actions, I only asked him to

stop the personal attacks. It's also ironic how he asks me to read everything before getting involved and "shooting my mouth off", when he replaced a few BCE/CE with BC/AD by just seeing one inconsistency. warrior4321

16:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any reason why Huey45 should not receive a substantial block for his disruptive behaviour? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, Blocks are preventive not punitive. And Huey45 is a new editor who should be helped not punished.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The account Huey45 was registered on 5 October 2006 and has 954 edits. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 17:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not new, and doesn't respond well when warned, eg see the section on copyvio here [47]. But maybe just a topic ban for 3 months on adding or changing BC/AD/BCE/CE? The business about trying to make an article consistent by making several changes instead of just one isn't acceptable (and an excuse I've seen before),

talk

) 17:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I second that. That would have the preventative effect. Heiro 17:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe a short block after all, then a ban. We've got [[48] which isn't exactly civil, [49] where he reverts 2 edits from 2 editors from his talk page, calling them vandalism, [50] where he accuses an editor of trying to sneak something through.

And ironically, after accusing someone of trying to sneak something through by not leaving an edit summary, we have [[51] where his edit summary is "Undid grammatical error 378892865 by Wetman". Now Huery5 did indeed change an and' to a 'so', but he also changed a BCE to BC.. That's not as bad as [52] which has the edit summary 'spelling' - and changes BCE to BC.

talk

) 17:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

And an anti-American attack here [53] with the edit summary " Verification needed for dubious claim that serial commas are standard practice. Perhaps it is in the U.S., along with dumbed-down spelling, but not elsewhere." (I always say Americans removed the Frenchification of words and went back to an earlier spelling..l.)

talk

) 18:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

View the posts at Template talk:Trojan War which record the discussion of a group of responsible editors who came up with a template that would not "appear" to impose a BC/AD convention on established texts. The posts also demonstrate the characteristic behavior of User:Huey45 that falls under the category of a deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. This is the same user who accused me of "trolling" Wikipedia!--Wetman (talk) 21:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone should take a look at the rest of Huey45's contributions. Harassing other users appears to be a main interest of his... --

Imladros (talk

) 21:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not interested in harassing anyone; I'm an innocent victim of circumstance and of User:Wetman. The article Zoroastrianism was indeed inconsistent and you admitted that yourselves. Maybe there was only one BC/AD, maybe there were more; I don't even know. BC/AD is what I saw in the introduction, so it should be fairly safe to assume that's how the rest should be. After all, the introduction would have more attention paid to it than any other section.

If User:Wetman's previous insistence that I started the trouble wasn't a clear enough indication of his lying, deceitful style, now all of you can see that he's dragging up old, unrelated non-issues, which are only a small fraction of my nearly 1,000 helpful contributions to the encyclopaedia. You all admitted that the article was inconsistent and that I made it consistent; I've done nothing wrong. It was User:Wetman who hijacked the articles Zoroastrianism, Epic Cycle and Venetus A and User:Wetman again who started the personal attacks. He is trying to squirm his way out of trouble yet again in exactly the same manner as before; by accusing me. (Huey45 (talk) 06:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I just noticed that now User:Paul_August is also falsely accusing me of starting the dispute and even re-instated User:Wetman's controversial changes to the article, despite knowing and admitting that the issue remained unresolved. Isn't this against the rules? User:Wetman has been continuing the personal attacks, including here, where he calls me a "troublesome user probably on his way out". It is absolutely outrageous to see this trouble-maker trying to use personal attacks, intimidation, bullying and even ganging up with other users to subvert the proper rules and processes. I am the only one doing the right thing, yet all of User:Wetman's buddies are insistent on framing me as the starter of trouble. (Huey45 (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I haven't made any accusations. Why do you say that? Let me quote what I said on the talk page: "I've restored the article to a consistent (I hope) usage of the BCE/CE date era convention, which as far as I've been able to determine has been the norm for most of the history of this article, for the last few years (that's also, by the way, how the article started out). Let's please not make any further changes to this until we can establish a consensus here on the talk page, thanks." And now you have undone my edit and a third editor has undone yours. I'm willing to assume that your original edit which took an article with 20 uses of the BCE/CE date era convention and one use of the BC/AD and made it "consistent" by changing the 20 uses of BCE/CE to BC/AC, was made in good faith. But now you are editing against the consensus of at least four other editors, I ask you please to stop. Paul August ☎ 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Every one of those old, unrelated examples dragged up by User:Wetman and his friends are nonsense anyway; I did nothing wrong in any of those circumstances. The claim about commas did need verification; the guy who emptied out the Metamorphoses article did leave an incomprehensible edit summary and was rude to me; the guy in the Privateer article left no edit summary and I couldn't even find what he changed (so I didn't know whether it was legit); and User:Preciseaccuracy has even been banned for her sock-puppet edit war over an anti-Israli conspiracy theory. (Huey45 (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Just so everyone knows, Huey45 is continuing to outright lie in his edit summaries. Huey45 is the only one actively favoring CE/BCE, he knows there are at least 4 editors in the article actively favoring BCE/CE, he knows the article favored BCE/CE before except in one link to another article, he knows that we're watching him for disruptive editing and dishonest edit summaries, but he continues to do it. Considering this, and per

WP:SPADE, I'm going to state my belief now that he is editing in bad faith. If someone wants me to assume good faith here, please show me where he has been giving us any reason to. Ian.thomson (talk

) 12:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Huey45 first edit to Zoroastrianism was made innocently enough. But I think now he feels under attack and is reacting defensively. However that may be though, to continue to now insist on his version of the article is wholly inappropriate. Paul August ☎ 12:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said on my talk page just now. Whether there are 4 of them, 5 of them or more should make no difference; Wikipedia works on consensus, not majority. Besides, those people are ganging up against me for no legitimate reason and claiming they want to restore the article to its former state when really they're reinstating the controversial edit by User:Wetman that started the whole dispute.

I don't know how many instances of CE/BCE there were or how many there were of AD/BC; it was a long article and I noticed the inconsistency in the first 30 seconds or so. I just pressed Ctrl + F and quickly went through the article, making them match up. I was certainly not out to cause trouble, as those unscrupulous editors would suggest. I am a victim of circumstance and a victim of bullying.(Huey45 (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

And now you've reverted to your version of the article again. No, a simple majority does not necessarily constitute consensus, but neither does a consensus need to be unanimous. In this case there is the previous apparent consensus which can be inferred from the status quo of the article over it's history (which as I've stated above has, so far as I can tell, been for using the BCE/CE date era convention, as well as the current opposition of at least four other editors — with no one in support – for your version of the article. Your first edit may have been innocent, and perhaps you've been, to some extent, ill-treated. But that is no justification for your now continuing to insist on your version of the article against apparent editorial consensus. You may not, as you say, have been "out to cause trouble", but you are making trouble now. I ask you again to please stop. Further I'd advise you to read

WP:EDITWAR, if you persist in insisting you may end up being blocked. Paul August ☎

13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention it earlier, but User:Wetman's insistence that I'm determined to push a POV is a complete fabrication as well. I only like to make small edits these days, after a string of annoying disputes. This involves spelling, grammar and correct abbreviations. Almost all of my recent edits fall into those 3 categories. If anyone is trying to push a POV with CE/BCE, it's the editor who tried to sneak his changes through by framing me.(Huey45 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You got the ball rolling here, you're the only one that's objecting to Wetman's edit, everyone has been able to point out where your edit is going against the grain and is disruptive, it is your edit that was controversial. Honestly, calling Wetman's edit controverstial is like saying "he started it when he hit me back!" And while consensus isn't majority determined,

it's not determined by edit-warring and filibustering, it is not voided by you disagreeing with everyone else

. That you are the only one pushing for BC/AD means that consensus is still BCE/CE.

Also, saying you didn't see what the consensus appeared to be before changing everything is an admission of incompetence, which is a sign you need to back down.

Wetman was restoring the article to what it was before, and making the 1 change necessary to make the article consistant. 1 change. You changed the entire article except for 1 instance. You made the more drastic change, you are the one that has been outright lying in your edit summaries, you are the one that's sneaking around. Quit it, you're only making yourself look bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I never once lied and I never did anything else wrong either. You are a lying scumbag and you are totally misrepresenting the facts. You are a complete disgrace. You don't even know what "consensus" means. Your only involvement in this issue consists of your repeated attempts to ram through the changes in violation of

personal attack right in front of the administrators, for all to see. Who is making himself look bad?(Huey45 (talk

) 13:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Huey, take some advice from a disinterested party - no matter how valid your edits may be, you're only hurting yourself with your consistent engagement in personal attacks. "Lying scumbag"? Really? If you want your opinions to be respected, please try showing some respect for the opinions of others. Doniago (talk) 13:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing other users' comments from the article Talk page isn't especially going to help your case either, not in the least because it's against policy unless you have very good reason for doing so. Doniago (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson has now made in excess of eight (yes, 8) personal attacks;

here here here here here here here and the one above. He's even worse than User:Wetman. I would hope that the administrators would act upon such a disgusting and appalling disregard for civility, politeness, truth and of course the rules. (Huey45 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

You've never lied? That's another lie, along with false accusations (I've only reverted you twice today so I haven't violated 3rr, my revert does not go against the MoS, pointing out a sham edit summary is not a personal attack per WP:SPADE, I never edited your user page), Lying edit summary (your edit is what started the dispute, your edit was the first mass change), more lies (Wetman's edit did not go against WP:ERA) (another example of misrepresenting WP:ERA, and another, which also lies about personal attacks you made, and another lie about personal attacks you made when you say that Warrior4321 falsely accused you of personal attacks), lying about making personal attacks (you did make them, and then continued to make them against those who pointed them out), further lying about personal attacks you made, more lying about personal attacks you made, and another lying edit summary. Honestly, how stupid do you think we are? Or are you just incapable of examining your own behavior? If so, you leave until you get help, man. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I merely responded to personal attacks and false accusations from the troublemakers, including yourself. I started no personal attacks against anyone; wherever I was even slightly rude to anyone, it was after they had done worse to me. That's just a simple matter of self respect. What you said about the 3RR rule is totally wrong anyway; the level 1 and 2 templates are both for circumstances where the user is engaging in an edit war but hasn't reached 3 reversions. Therefore the level 2 template was indeed correct. Similarly, I was right and

WP:NPA "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor.". Both of you keep insisting that you know the rules when clearly you don't. (Huey45 (talk

) 14:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

I have been following this discussion since it was started by

talk

) 14:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see this message before I blocked Huey45 for 12 hours. Sorry. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, you just ran out of

talk

) 14:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

While the apology is welcome, I doubt anyone will argue that it was necessary. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Due to the continued personal attacks on his talk page, I have extended Huey45's block to indefinite and have warned him that continued personal attacks will cause his talk page privileges to be revoked. —

talk

) 14:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given not just his personal attacks, but his - misleading is really almost to mild a word -- edit summaries, I still think a topic ban from adding, removing, or moving BC/BCE/AD/BC in articles should be imposed if he is unblocked.

talk

) 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If this account is to be unblocked in future, unblocking should be made on the basis of a thorough survey of his previous edits, leaving aside his present furious reaction and denials at being caught. I doubt that a survey will show that the encyclopedia will ever be improved by User:Huey45's presence, but I am certainly not the one to make any further comment in this case.--Wetman (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on

talk

) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

File:John howard.jpg

Resolved

 – Source added on Commons.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I moved File:John howard.jpg (log) from en.wikipedia to Commons some years ago. It has now been tagged as "no source". Could an administrator check if the original file page here contained more information about its source? Thanks, --Kjetil_r 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original source was given as http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Jul1997/970627-D-2987S-028.jpg CIreland (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tracked down the current location of the photo and added it to the commons image.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks, guys. --Kjetil_r 11:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – warned by Rjanag

Last sentence. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Not a real legal threat; I'm not sure that sentance, taking in the context of the rest of his silly screed bears special attention. --Jayron32 05:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind User:Rjanag agrees with me. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

John Barrowman

I'm not confident enough yet to take care of this, but could someone look into the soapboxing around this article recently? I just blanked the repost at the help desk and User talk:Winzentween (there's yet another one still around at User talk:92.0.110.132), but not sure if anything else is required. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revdeleted all the BLP issues, semi'd the article for a month. Whilst the material is sourced, the additions to the article are written in a manner that is not supported by the refs, which suggest that Barrowman's actions are clearly meant in a manner that is far more innocent. Much better refs would be required in order to paint such actions in a light bordering on the criminal. Black Kite (t) (c) 13:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible COI editor? Making personal attacks.

Yesterday I sent the Michael W. Dean article to AfD, after which the person who started the article posted complaints at the AfD that the article had already been through AfD multiple times (it had been through once and been deleted as a vanity piece as a result [54]). On a hunch, I began looking at the edit history of this account and noted that many of the account's edits were to this same article as well as other articles related to this Michael Dean person. For example, the account also created $30 Film School and Bomb_(band), both apparently non-notable topics I have also AfDed. The account also has a history of adding spam links to articles unrelated to this guy but which link to Dean's homepage [55], [56], [57], [58], and to his blog [59], [60]. Her first note to the AfD denigrated me as a "youngin", implied that since the article existed here before I opened my account that I didn't know what I was doing, and posted a screed about the "failure of Wikipedia". Today, the author of the articles I sent to AfD has acknowledged that she assumes bad faith of me, says I'm "destroying her work", claims I'm biased (mentions an article I improved with references and voted to keep), accuses me of drunkenness and lack of judgement, and finally compares my sending of her articles to AfD to the controversial Arizona immigration law. I left a note at her talk page about making personal attacks. Other edits made by this account have been to topics apparently related to Michael Dean, such as Open carry in the united states [61] (Dean has pictures all over his website of himself open carrying a gun in stores and elsewhere) and to some other gun-related articles. The author's unique interest in this Dean person and a number of things directly or indirectly related to him makes me suspect that this account may actually be closely related to the subject, perhaps even the subject himself or his wife. I've also noted that the account has made no effort to vote KEEP in any of the AfDs or provide any third-party referencing to establish notability, implying to me that these topics are actually not notable. In any case, I will be away from the computer for part of the day so I will be unable to respond to any further queries for a few hours. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just an observation for right now, but it seems like a rather significant case of

article ownership to me, to the point of launching attacks at others. The warnings are certainly substantiated; I'd wait and see how this develops more before recommending any blocks be made. –MuZemike

18:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I did move a lot of it to the talkpage. Sometimes that's the best way to get it through people's heads to knock it off...--Smashville^talk 14:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Francis Bacon (philosopher)

This page move was implemented without discussion and the

Old Moonraker (talk

) 10:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean [[62]] this page is the page that was lost? I'm only on my first cup of coffee so if this isn't helpful my apologies. Syrthiss (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure that is it.--Artiquities (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, such a major move should be discussed on the talk page of the article in question before being carried out. So please revert the move. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Page moved back. Please use the

requested moves process if you want to open a discussion on this move, Artiquities. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk

12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --

Old Moonraker (talk

) 14:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

81.178.168.152

I have listed a sockpuppetry case regarding 81.178.168.152 (

WP:NPA carried out by the user following notification regarding the case. Thanks in advance for looking into this. Regards, Raywil (talk

) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind looking into this case - apparently already covered by a range block for the sockpuppetry. Raywil (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It will only be blocked for a short time, though (24 hours) as it is a section of one of the UK's busiest ISPs; indeed blocking 4,000 possible users even for this time might be problematic and it might be worth keeping an eye on RFU. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watchlist and post back in this section if there are any further problems. Many thanks. Raywil (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just letting you know that the user returned sooner than expected as this sock. Raywil (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Signature of User:Sennen goroshi

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.

Userpage and signature changed. No further discussion required. –xeno^talk 20:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Signature of User:Sennen goroshi contains offensive word in Korean, so Chugun requested him to remove the word. The problematic word is "또라이", which is often used to humble ones who are crazy/mad or who are intellectually retarded. He is avoiding the point in reply to Chugun's request.

WP:SIG#Purpose_of_signatures says that "Having an uncivil signature is strongly discouraged." I thik he is complete going against the guideline. Approptiate sanction is needed to make him remove the offensive word. Best regards. Kwj2772 (talk

) 05:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• This discussion has apparently moved to his talk page. elektrikSHOOS 07:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Given that the user's reason for wanting the word in his signature is simply that it "looks cool" to have Japanese and Korean there, I would suggest he simply replaces the offending word with a more innocuous one. I don't understand Korean so I can't assess how "uncivil" the word might be, but clearly if another user has sufficient concerns with it to take it to AN/I, it's not appropriate to be used in a signature, especially not as it could be easily replaced with another Korean word. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 07:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The literal translation is, unsurprisingly, "crazy". My grasp of Korean is tenuous at best, so I can't say whether this can be used in a context like the English "go crazy" (as in, "you want to talk? Go crazy") or not. Generally though, this seems to be a rather... superficial "teacher, teacher, look what Billy did!" complaint. Honestly now, are there not more pressing matters to attend to? Badger Drink (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Crazy is a pretty big insult in Korean compared to how it can be casually said in English. In English we might say "You're crazy" just as a playful casual comment. Saying the same thing in Korean can be quite insulting and even saying it to one of them in English will often offend them until you explain it's used differently in English. However, this is hardly an isolated incident. This user has been reported here for being disruptive in one form or another several times. You can see some extensive inappropriate behaviour from him here
      Crossmr (talk
      ) 08:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to be even a little bit insulting in the signature, and using other languages than English to get around it should not be accepted. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If someone is signing xyrself as "Sennen goroshi, raving nutter", who, exactly, is being insulted? Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • The issue isn't with an individual being the target of the insult, Uncle G, it's that clearly some individuals find the word to be inherently disruptive as it is an offensive word in korean. While we don't have a specific policy against using profanity as long as it's not used to attack editors, we do have a policy preventing profanity or other disruptive content being placed in a username or signature. The signature, then, isn't so close to "Sennen goroshi, raving nutter", as it is to "Sennen goroshi, fuck". GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The issue is the insult as far as OpenFuture is concerned, above. Hence the question. And it's the same question as would be if xe were signing xyrself "Sennen goroshi, fucking nutter". Uncle G (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • I'm not sure what the problem would be with that signature, either. All said, the problem is that being called crazy is offensive to Koreans. Calling oneself crazy is voluntary, and if someone else takes offense, I'm afraid that's their problem. That said, given the issues with translation, it's easy to misinterpret the .sig as calling the reader crazy, which is a problem. I'd hope SG would be willing to change that voluntarily, given the misunderstandings that can cause. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Yes it is, especially since Korean doesn't require a subject or even an object, and often adjectives just thrown out there are assumed to be about the person most likely to be said to. For example simply saying "Smart" would mean that you think the other person is smart since it would be rather conceited of you to just call yourself smart (unless there was a contextual reason for it). Simply tossing out "Crazy Fucker" (which is roughly close to what this might translate to) with no other context might indicate he's calling someone that, since it would be unlikely that he'd refer to himself as such. But Sennen Goroshi obviously knows this. This isn't a word you just pick at random to add to your signature and it just more in a long history of disruption by this user. If he doesn't change it, I'd suggest an admin change it and give him a long block to review our policies and think about things.--
              Crossmr (talk
              ) 13:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• (outdent) Actually, while we're at it, you should probably change the Japanese, too--for those not familiar, it is pronounced
  WP:USERNAME is, though, so I'm willing to be overruled on this.Qwyrxian (talk
  ) 13:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have to disagree with the sentiments above, that having "fucking nutter" in a signature would not be disruptive; whether self-referential or otherwise, it's unnecessary and inappropriate to have profanity in a signature since it has clear potential to cause disruption; it's fairly clear that this word wasn't just randomly chosen because it "looks cool", it was designed to be provocative. Well, fun's over. Wikipedia is a serious project and using foreign languages to circumvent disruptive username/signature policies isn't acceptable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If it was an explicit term, or directed at anyone (on or off wikipedia) then I might be tempted to remove it. As for the Japanese in my sig, it refers directly to my username. I don't see anything wrong with my sig, I just see some editors getting annoyed with my contribution to an AFD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pure_blood_theory_in_Korea カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Multiple users fluent in korean appear to have stated that it is a korean profanity. As such, it should be disallowed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No, it has been translated as "crazy" I have also seen it translated (by a native speaker) as "nuts" - while I am unlikely to turn up at work tomorrow and call my boss "crazy", I don't consider it to be profanity. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Again, read the above. Calling someone crazy in English is a playful jab and rarely harmful, but in Korea it's highly insulting. Therefore, your signature is considered disruptive. I don't really see a need to bang in this point any further. elektrikSHOOS 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • As I have previously stated, if the term was directed at someone, I might see the problem - it isn't and I don't. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Direct translations do not capture the meaning of a word or phrase, and the direct translation of a korean profanity being relatively innocuous in english is completely irrelevant; the fact that your only reason for wanting the word in your signature is that it "looks cool" and you are refusing to change it to any other word despite the fact that multiple individuals have stated that it is profanity and against signature policy speaks volumes. It has become clear that the word is a profanity in korean, you have refused to change it regardless, and personally I would therefore support a block until you reconsider. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • You have one question to answer. Think carefully about your answer, because people with the ability to revoke your editing privileges are reading. It has been pointed out to you that your signature, to native speakers, reads the equivalent of "Sennen Goroshi, up the arse fucking nutter!". Any person signing xyrself as this in all innocence, because the words "looked cool", would change xyr signature in a flash once xe became aware of how it actually read. Now that you are aware of how your signature reads, are you going to continue to use this as your signature? Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • On principal, no I won't change my signature. It isn't directed at anyone, and it is not profanity. I also question the motives of those who have complained about it, seeing that the complaints followed an AFD relating to a controversial Korean related article. hmmmmm "up the arse fucking nutter!" would be an amazing signature, but I assume that would result in another ANI discussion. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Slightly take issue with Uncle G there but for all good reasons: Sennen's signature is not the equivalent of saying "Sennen Goroshi, up the arse fucking nutter!" - there is no equivalent translation because the insult/profanity is based on the cultural connotations of the word. If I were to say Tom Cruise is gay - am I insulting him? No, I'm merely saying that he's a happy person. The word has different connotations depending on the usage, which can be difficult to explain to non-English speakers, especially when dealing with a different alphabet and lexicon. The term causes offence to the native language speakers, that much has been established, so it should surely be removed? The reasons for keeping it seem the literary equivalent of, well, just being awkward for the sake of it.
  talk
  ) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I think the point Uncle G was trying to make, and certainly the point I've tried to make, is that using this korean word in a signature is exactly as offensive as including the word "fuck" in a signature. Obviously the word "crazy" wouldn't be inappropriate, the english word "crazy" is not a profanity. But the fact that the only direct translation of the korean word is "crazy", doesn't mean that the korean word isn't itself a profanity, and policy dictates that profanities are inappropriate regardless of language. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it's not quite the equivalent, because I didn't translate what "Sennen Goroshi" itself means. Since we've wandered below into a discussion of what account names mean in other languages, I point out what "sennen goroshi" itself denotes (as clearly referenced). So this signature reads the equivalent of "Two fingers up the arse, up the arse fucking nutter!" if we're going to look at all of it. Uncle G (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Block proposal

Given the above comment, I'm proposing a short block for Sennen goroshi. The editor has proverbially spat in the face of numerous editors who have expressed concern over their signature and refuses to change it. Since it is clear that the signature is disruptive and should be removed, and they refuse to, a block may be necessary until the user understands the seriousness of this issue. elektrikSHOOS 19:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support block. It seems you beat me to it; I would suggest that the block be indefinite, however; i.e. until the user understands policy and agrees to abide by it, and change his signature to exclude profanity. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I think blocking someone for a signature that may or may not be slightly offensive ie. "crazy" and therefore preventing them from contributing to Wikipedia is about as counter-productive as I can imagine. That would be similar to me dealing with a cockroach infestation by nuking the entire planet. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • As I've stated above, translating the word as "crazy" is clearly inaccurate. The word is a korean profanity, and whether or not the direct translation into english is also a profanity is completely missing the point. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • OK indef block me for a signature. Nice move. Lose a 3yr editor with 1000s of edits over a signature? Are you joking? カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Conversely, you could lose privileges at a place you've made 1000s of edits at over a signature. Are you joking? AniMate 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
          • If people are willing to indef block me for a signature (which may or may not be offensive) then I would have to reconsider if I want to continue contributing to Wikipedia. At the moment, I have faith in Wikipedia and the people that make the decisions, this current discussion is testing my faith. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Is it really that difficult for you to admit that your signature might be offensive to others (Korean users) and change it yourself? Silverseren^C 20:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) Frankly if you think you can bully us into allowing you to break policy despite the fact that several users find your signature offensive, you are overestimating your own worth to the project. If you would rather discontinue editing rather than abide by policy and change a signature which is clearly offensive to many korean people, in a way which would have almost no bearing on the appearance of your signature, then so be it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As sad as it is to lose a productive editor, it's worse to allow an intentionally disruptive editor to continue to defy the community's request. I'd rather that Sennen Goroshi modify the signature to comply with our guideline, but anyone who would be this unnecessarily belligerent isn't likely to collaborate well with other editors anyway. -- Atama頭 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, looking over this editor's block log, this topic ban, and other issues in this editor's history, I feel much less reservation about supporting this block. This has been a troublesome editor for a long time. -- Atama頭 20:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The fact is, users have expressed offense at the signature. If reasoning for its use is truly "it looks cool", the user should have no problem with being asked to change it. In reading the user's responses, s/he appears to be willfully being offensive, for no discernible reason.  Chickenmonkey  20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have no desire to bully anyone, I am not changing it on principal and I am not interested in editing somewhere that would indef block me for not changing a signature. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • What principles do you possibly have toward your signature? And how could they be so important that you wouldn't break them since other people are offended at your signature and are asking you to change it? Silverseren^C 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support The signature's offensiveness has been explained, but apparently the markup Sennen goroshi uses to identify himself here is more important than continuing to edit here. When things like signatures and those dopey practical joke new message bars become more important than harmonious editing, it's time for an enforced break until one can edit and exist here harmoniously. AniMate 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. This is a community; all editors should try to keep the editing environment as harmonious as possible; this entails accepting to modify one's signature if other people can be reasonably offended by it... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, but I see none of the usual societal taboos involved here (e.g. racism, anti-semitism, profanity, obscenity, etc.) that would raise the signature to "offensive". This discussion seems a bit overboard and I would strongly oppose a block simply for someone calling himself a moron in his sig. Ronnotel (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Please note that an editor felt the need to edit my sig, which I had altered slightly to illustrate my point. I had included a self-referential, derogatory word that begins with the letter "R"
  • Except in Korean the word is much stronger than moron. I imagine it's similar to going to the Korean Wikipedia and having the word bitch in you signature. You can say that it just means female dog, but the real meaning is obvious. AniMate 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
    • The principal is that I take great offence is being threatened with an indef block over something so unimportant. I am annoyed about the time being spent discussing such an unimportant issue, time that could be spent productively. I am annoyed that you would consider an indef block for something you cannot confirm to be profane. I am happy to continue editing Wikipedia in a productive manner, but due to my principals and my pride, I will not change my signature, neither will I beg for any block to be lifted. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Evidently the several Korean-speaking editors who have stated explicitly that it is profane isn't considered "confirmed to be profane"...
        Sigh. elektrikSHOOS
        20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I don't think I see "several Korean-speaking editors who have stated explicitly that it is profane" in the discussion above. If there are then please forgive me and I might be willing to change my mind. Ronnotel (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel the same, I am looking on this discussion, and on my talk page - and doing a little uncitable (yahoo answers) research, and I can't find anything to say it is profane. My understand is that it is about as offensive as "baka" in Japanese, an insult if directed towards someone, but just as a word, pretty harmless. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

From the google search that i've been doing, it seems to be a Korean swear word. It does not mean "baka", which means "stupid". It's closer equivalent in English would be something like "asshole". Silverseren^C 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• • • • • • Crossmr. And then Qwyrxian pointed out the problems with the Japanese. Silverseren^C
            21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

and none of the above stated it was profanity. Oh and Qwyrxian is a non-native speaker living in Japan, so he is about as qualified to comment on Japanese profanity as I am. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Silver, can you give me a source? If it translates as asshole, I will remove it. All the research I have done, showed me that it meant "stupid person" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

About the same sense as retard in terms of offensiveness would you say? Ronnotel (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sennen, the problem is some users have found it offensive. I don't care what the literal translation is, that some users have found this offensive is enough for you to remove it. If you say "hell" somewhere, most users would be fine with it, since it's not really considered that bad a profanity. But if a user comes to your talk page and asks you to not use that language the correct response is not to say you think it looks pretty cool, or don't think it's offensive (it's not really yourself we're worrying about offending here, after all), it is to simple apologise and not say it again, there's no need to after all. How hard is it to say "sorry, I wouldn't want to offend anyone" (which I sincerely hope you don't want to) and remove it, at the cost of looking a little less "cool". Remember your signature isn't for looking cool either, it's for identifying you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, stronger than "retard" I've seen Koreans get pretty offended at being called crazy in any language.--

Crossmr (talk

) 23:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of offensiveness, perhaps - as for the exact meaning, there are numerous uncitable sources that go from "fool" to "dumbass" to "stupid kid" カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose/Support: He should be blocked indefinitely, with unblocking contingent on changing his signature to something else. --Carnildo (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. I assumed we were discussing an indefinite block only until he changed the signature. AniMate 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry maybe people misunderstand me and my motives. I edit wikipedia, because there are some articles that I think I can improve and care about. I'm not here to offend people or spend my time caring if people are offended or not. I will not personally attack other editors, but if my language or tone is offensive, then that is not my concern. I have used profanity in edit summaries and talk pages ie. "are you fucking joking?" and while some people might taken offence, that is not a concern of mine. There are several editors who have various nationalistic usernames that offend me, but I spend my time looking at their edits and not their names. If someone can convince me that it is profanity, then I will remove it, I will not however remove it due to a threat of an indef block, sorry I have pride and I while I will abide by the rules, I will not get bullied into changing my signature. If that means I am unable to edit Wikipedia again, I will miss it, but so be it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree: so be it. If you won't accept wikipedia policies, and you won't acknowledge the clear consensus that the word is profanity and accept the community request to remove it, then perhaps wikipedia is not the place for you. The block is not a threat, it's a means to prevent continued damage to the project by allowing an offensive signature to be permitted. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Giftiger, how can there be consensus regarding profanity? It is either profane or it isn't - consensus has nothing to do with it. I find it strange that when users requested that you change your glaring, annoying signature you ignored them, but you are so offended by mine, when you can't even read it. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A single user requested that I change it; consensus determined that my signature is per-policy and need not be changed. I decided to provide the user with a means of toning down my signature in his personal CSS as a gesture of good faith. Finally,

WP:OTHERSTUFF. End of completely irrelevant side-discussion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

22:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As for consensus regarding profanity, I find it rather arrogant that you're claiming that your opinion overrides consensus; it doesn't. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'd say that if it was something in English that, when translated, was extremely offensive, I'd say in that case "too bad". But this user is going out of his way to pick a specific Korean word that is extremely offensive to Koreans. This is like putting swastikas in your sig on the Hebrew wikipedia; sure, someone could claim that he's just a Hindu displaying their ancient symbols or whatnot, but everyone with a shred of common sense can tell that that person is being a colossal
  dick. Srsly, change the sig and smarten up. You are deliberately going out of your way to be, essentially, a troll. Tarc (talk
  ) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I love the irony in someone being so upset that I would offend someone, that they have to call me a

dick. I'm not trolling at all, I've just had enough of people caring far more about lame things such as my signature, than they do about edits and articles. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk

) 22:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support If it's offensive, (and it seems to be at least inappropriate, at least as far as my admittedly quick search goes) then a block until it is changed seems to be the best choice. Sodam Yat (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support There is far more to block this user for than just his signature as I pointed out above. I speak some Korean, and I live with a native Korean. The word is offensive. Is it profanity? Well it's not quite on the level with their version of "Fuck" which seems to be quite a bit stronger here again than in English, but it's pretty close from the reactions I've seen. I don't know if Korean has a 7 dirty words list like we do in English. The fact that he continually wants to fight it instead of change it in the face of all this opposition speaks volumes as well.--
  Crossmr (talk
  ) 23:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose- in my experience, if people want to get offended over things then it is very hard to stop them. Calling this sig offensive is a stretch, because firstly you need to decide you want to see it in a disparaging way and then you need to decide to assume it's directed at you. In other words, this is not like Sennen unambiguously making personal attacks. People need to go out of their way to read offense into this and that's their problem, not Sennen's. If I were to change my signature to "Reyk- colossal shithead" would I call down the punitive wrath of the Thought Police? Reyk _YO! 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  The word is strongly offensive in Korean. No one is going out of their way to imagine that. This is just another in a long line of disruptive behaviour from him.--

  Crossmr (talk

  ) 23:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  • If an editor uses a strong curse word in reference to himself or to nobody in particular, what business does anyone else have in going "I'm offended! I'm offended!"? None whatsoever. Reyk _YO! 23:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

    • There is no indication that he's using it directed towards himself and since the only people who can read it speak Korean and he edits contentious japanese/korean articles and is japanese himself, it isn't hard to figure out who it is directed at. His explanation that he wanted it there because it looks cool is extremely disingenuous since he refuses to change it. He could change it to another innocuous word, and since he won't it tells us that he didn't choose it just because it "looks cool".--

      Crossmr (talk

      ) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

      • I think you're missing the key point here Reyk, it's in his signature. He is intentionally leaving profanity everytime he writes to a talk page, and that is unacceptable per

        WP:SIG. Why should anyone have to tolerate profanity being used with every message the user makes? GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

        23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

        Also in answer to your question, if you changed your signature to include "the colossal shithead", you should expect an AN/I to be filed, yes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        • I get where you're coming from, but I just don't feel that this rises to the level of a blockable offense. Reyk _YO! 00:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        (ec)I disagree with you. That would be like asserting that, for example, GiftigerWunsch's user name is offensive because it means "Poisonous wish" in German. And therefore GW must have some kind of weird grudge against German people. Why else would he wish to poison them? After all, only people who understand German would know what it means and there's no indication he's using it in reference to himself. See how easy it is to manufacture offense when you really, really want to? I don't know anything about Sennen Goroshi's behaviour prior to this ANI case or if any of it have been blockable offenses but, in my opinion, this is not. Reyk _YO! 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

        • That was a pretty abstract comparison, given that my username makes no reference at all to German people, and that my user page partly explains my choice in username (albeit not very well). We're not talking about some elaborate contrived way in which the signature could be perceived as offensive. We're talking about the use of profanity in a signature, and that is quite simply disruptive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftiger wunsch (talk • contribs)

          I disagree with Reyk, "Poisonous wish" is entirely different level at all. Sennen goroshi included a direct insult to Korean-native users in his signature. That obstructs normal and constructive discussions with Korean-native users. I wonder who want to discuss normally with someone who includes an insulting word in signature. Nobody want that. Because of that, indefinite block till he change his signature is needed. Best regards. Kwj2772 (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

          I'm not really asserting anything though. Those were his own words. He originally claimed he wanted it there because it "looked cool".[63] If he just wanted any random Korean in his signature because it looked cool. He could have picked any innocuous word. He should have also had absolutely no problem with changing it since he was asserting he didn't pick the word for a specific purpose. If that were really true, why not just change it to anything else? 고양이 or 고구려, 또또로 all of which would have the same "coolness" factor without being disruptive. Why then turn around and put an offensive flag on your user page? It is quite apparent that he is trying to antagonize editors of other nationalities as Sandstein summarized below.--

          Crossmr (talk

          ) 06:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Clarification: Just to be clear, I'm not asserting that
  kancho is profanity; as the article itself point out, in Japan it's almost always considered a harmless prank. I was merely pointing out that the Japanese part was not a value-neutral word either, and, when added to the Korean meaning (which I know nothing about other than what I've read here), implies negative things overall. I express no opinion on whether or not SG should be blocked, as I've been involved with him in the past in quite contentious ways and thus don't think I can make a neutral claim on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk
  ) 00:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Is this for real? loosen up people. This seems like
  you don't like. Besides, no one can quite agree how "offensive" the actual term is, or how offended Korean people would actually get. I've met several Koreans, and none of them ever got their shorts in a knot if I said, "Are you fucking crazy?" or some variation thereof. Come on, we've got an actual encyclopedia to write here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Oh, just for fun, The Blade of the Northern Lights (あなた話すべきだ)
  • WP:CIVIL is a good one to check out.  Chickenmonkey 
    03:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Oh, I know

  WP:CIVIL, and I'm amazed at how toxic it can be at times; like right now. I'm much more worried about being able to freely speak my mind than being told I'm "retarded" or the equivalent thereof. I'm 20, I don't get all unwound over insults (and I personally don't find this signature even remotely insulting, offensive, or anything; perspective of a roundeye here) over the Internet, and anyone who does really needs to examine themselves. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)

  04:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not that I think it was needed, but I did state that the comment was not directed at other editors - hence my slight modification. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! is 또라이 (talk) 05:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

oh and not that it is important, but since it was brought up, I'm not Japanese. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! is 또라이 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef

The discussion above establishes that Korean contributors find the signature of

prohibited. In reaction, I am indefinitely blocking Sennen goroshi until they agree to remove all non-Latin text from their signature and the image from their user page. (Normally of course non-Latin text may be used in signatures, but in this case it is necessary that all users be able to understand Sennen goroshi's signature so as to prevent a reoccurrence of this episode).  Sandstein 

05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I support this and I would oppose any rush to unblock him. It is quite obvious he has been trying to game the system in various ways, as well as has a long term history of disruptive editing over all. The block log isn't good, and I linked to two more recent issues above, but there are more. He has been antagonizing Korean editors repeatedly (caspian blue and just in general with his signature and image on his page). I think far more is required than simply agreeing to change his signature and remove an image from his user page before he is fit to rejoin the community. He has been at odds with it for a very long time.--

Crossmr (talk

) 06:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with

Palestinian flag#Ban. The Palestinian flag is banned by Israel. Then should the use of flag in Wikipedia be prohibited? Such a prohibition is extremely offensive to those countries. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk

) 06:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The flag as such is not offensive and may be used on user pages. It may not be used in a disruptive manner, however, as in this case, where it is part of a pattern of disruptive conduct. If Sennen goroshi has indeed no intention to misuse Wikipedia as a nationalist battleground, he will not object to removing it.  Sandstein  07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I noticed he had changed his username to this flag and suspected that it was designed to be

WP:POINTy, but since I wasn't aware of the connotations of the flag I didn't feel like making this discussion even more convoluted. In any case I don't know if the block should be until he also agrees to remove this flag from his userpage, but there is very clear consensus above that he should remain blocked until he removes the offending korean profanity from his signature, so if there is a "rush to unblock", the unblocking admin is ignoring consensus. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

07:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect Phoenix. He changed it to the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army. While similar, they are not identical. His is the centered version, not the off-set version. As a Japanese editor I'm sure he knows the difference and the implications. Even the actual maritime defense force one would be offensive given his current behaviour, but he didn't even go that route.--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether the flag is the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army or Rising Sun Flag. Are you insisting the use of the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army should be prohibited? There is no such consensus in Wikipedia. Moreover please see this diff carefully, he just removed all but the flag (last line). He never added the flag at the last edit. How disruptive the user may be, prohibition of the official flag (regardless of current or past) is not tolerated. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be prohibited for use by an editor who has a proven history of attacking and harassing editors of other nations. Lot's of things on wikipedia aren't prohibited unless done disruptively. He's been disruptive for years. The flag hasn't been there for years. Adding non-english text to a signature isn't prohibited. Do it disruptively, suddenly you're not allowed. Random editor using a flag on their page is fine. An editor who has a history of attacking editors who can be offended by that flag? Different story. This user has a history of disruptive interactions with Korean editors both his signature and flag picture are offensive to Koreans. It isn't coincidence. And yes, he removed all but the flag, to put extra focus on the flag and draw attention to it. Making an offensive flag the centerpiece of his user page, knowingly doing so when he knows there are editors taking offense to his signature.--

Crossmr (talk

) 08:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here; no, there's no problem with using a flag on your user page. If it's a potentially offensive flag, then that's unfortunate but something other editors would have to live with. But this wouldn't be the first time than an editor blocked/banned by the community has been given additional sanctions due to that user's behaviour, and I don't think it's an unreasonable term of unblock that an editor who seems to be intentionally attacking korean users to needs to remove an image from his userpage which further provokes the same group (i.e. koreans). This is something which should probably be addressed by the community, however; there is consensus that the user should remain blocked until he changes the offensive term in his signature, but I think the community should decide whether the other conditions are appropriate or not: should he be required to remove all the non-latin characters from his signature, and should he be required to remove the flag from his userpage? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, Palestinian flag is offensive to Israeli people, and Israeli flag is offensive to Palestinian people. Such a dispute should not be brought to ANI here. For people in some country, either Flag of Japan, Rising Sun Flag or the War flag of the Imperial Japanese Army is offensive. We should not treat these flags similarly to the Korean word 또라이. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not completely with the flag, it is with it being used disruptively which he's doing. If someone wants to put the Palestinian flag on their page, that's fine. If someone is constantly picking fights with isreali editors, putting insulting hebrew in their signature and then plastering the palestinian flag on their user page, it has then become part of their battleground edits. In this case it is no longer acceptable for them to that because it is being used disruptively.--

Crossmr (talk

) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thoroughly endorse Sandstein's actions as this has now entered the phase of pure drama for drama's sake.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  10:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Indeed, good block. Disclaimer: I am Chinese. Timotheus Canens (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz (talk · contribs), Timotheus Canens (talk · contribs). Please refrain from the disruptive edit. The prohibition of the official flag has never been discussed throughout of this discussion.　―― Phoenix7777 (talk

) 10:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would love to hear how expressing support for an admin action amounts to "disruptive edit". Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's been discussed. Your responses are bordering on

Crossmr (talk

) 12:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a nonsense. Blocking for posting a flag on the talk page is assuming bad faith which is totally unacceptable. I may post the unofficial flag of the Red Army but many Polish nationalists will see this as a personal attack. That is why I completely disagree with Sandstein's actions. The same applies to a bigoted disussion over the signature. Even if the user is weird in a non-agressive way but his contributions are positive, then blocking is a net negative for Wikipedia. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the net negative theory. I don't care if an editor has a bazillion "productive" edits. If they aren't listening to the community over something like a signature or even thier user page, which are not the focus of the project, this is not a trade off. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't assume good faith blindly. This user has a very extensive history of disruptive behaviour targeted at this group of behaviours. He wasn't blocked for posting a flag per se. He was blocked for continuing his disruptive behaviour in one of many forms. He's been extremely aggressive. Look at his block log, his interaction ban, and his other harassing attacking behaviour on editors of that group. Even if he agreed to remove those things, I don't think he has any business being unblocked.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Good block. This isn't about a flag, which came into play late, this is about a signature that might be offensive( don't have a clue, nor do I care), and the following refusal to change it over some pride issue. It seems that consensus formed that it was offensive, so all the user needed to do was modify it and we all move on. But the user has dug his heels in over this, why? I had some "stuff" on my page that was questioned, so I removed it. End of story. We are here to contribute to this project in a community/civil like fashion. If enough voices chime in, just deal with it and move on. Please change signature and unblock. Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I said t above, and I'll say it again. It's the digging his heels in that belies his motives. He flat out claimed he put the text there because he thought it was "cool" but when asked to change it, he refused. If this were an editor without any history we might assume good faith, but we'd still ask them to change it ( and they probably would). But given his history and the fact that he refuses to change the text to anything else or remove it, it tells us that he didn't choose it just because it looked "cool". It was a bold faced lie and anyone who is going to sit there and try to lie to us like that just doesn't deserve to be here.--

Crossmr (talk

) 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Spartaz ^Humbug!

15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Sennen goroshi has now agreed to remove all 3 items subject to further discussion with Sandstein over the flag and the Japanese text. Agreeing to remove the source of the problem while continuing to discuss their options seems reasonable to me and I think this is sufficient to match the conditions from unblock but I'd like to wait an hour in case there are any disagreements/objections. OK?

Spartaz ^Humbug!

15:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Sig now fixed and the flag is down so ready for unblock at 16.35 UTC...
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  15:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user with this message: "You are unblocked per your agreement to remove the non-Latin content from your signature and the flag image from your user page. Be advised that you have used up all your chances, as far as I am concerned; any continued misuse of Wikipedia as a nationalist battlefield may result in an indefinite block without further warning. I will consider any use of non-Latin text in your signature, or images related to past conflicts involving Japan (such as the Rising Sun Flag) on your user page as such misuse, except if you ask for community input about such content on

WP:CCN before using such content, and if no other editor objects to that content during the discussion."  Sandstein 

15:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I entirely support that. While you stated his final chance in the unblock acceptance, you didn't really get his acknowledgment of that before unblocking. I note that you don't speak japanese and he claims he's going to discuss adding japanese text with you in an e-mail. I'd suggesting running it by editors who are fluent in Japanese, and preferably not just japanese editors, say a korean or chinese editor who is also fluent, before approving it. I'm also disheartened by his unblock request. After years of blocks and countless battleground issues, he's only "starting to worry" now. For me the obvious flat-out lying should have been any last chance this user would have gotten.--

Crossmr (talk

) 16:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

thanks for the unblock, I would really appreciate it, if someone could comment on the Japanese text that I had on my signature - while I can see the possibility for offence with the flag and the Korean, I didn't really understand why the Japanese text would cause any problems, comments please. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Is this related to

Off2riorob (talk

)

You know, it's called assume good faith, not WP:PROVEBEYONDALLREASONABLEDOUBTTOABUNCHOFANGRYUSERSYOUAREACTINGINGOODFAITH, although the more I'm around here the more I think it should just be moved to the latter. I, for one, didn't have any objections to either the Japanese or Korean text, and that hasn't changed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are, and were, clearly in the minority.

Off2riorob (talk

) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, great, users not knowing Japanese judging on Japanese-language sig. Sigh. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, users that have been disruptive and indef blocked wanting to repeat the issue, sigh, big sigh. Personally imo he is disruptive and will be again, his coming here with this request is an example of that, and that is my good faith opinion.

Off2riorob (talk

) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Artem Karimov, if you are referring to me, I know enough to know what ｶﾝﾁｮｰ is. It's pretty basic in Japanese culture (think of a "wedgie" in English), and my professor teaches us all sorts of fun neologisms. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually I was referring to those who wanted blood for the odd word in sig. :) Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured; it's kind of amazing how worked up people get. For all people know,　お兄さん　could mean "murderer". Now, I know what it means, but I'd be willing to bet that a lot of people here don't. お兄さん｜The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob, me coming here with a request is an example of me trying to find out exactly what I should be doing to avoid this kind of problem in the future, I didn't see any problem with the Japanese, but the blocking admin did, so what better place to clarify exactly what is ok and what is not, than ANI? In addition to that, I can really understand how an editor with a blemish free block history, might look at my interesting block history and come to the conclusion that I am a disruptive, repeat offender - and then I looked at your eight blocks in the last 18months, and disregarded everything you said regarding me being a disruptive editor. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not willing to be dragged any further into a non-productive argument. I will respond to anything relevant to my signature, but I'm not going to waste anyone's time with silly arguments. Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bless, is it all my fault? You have been badly treated and you have had to climb down and say sorry, and that is a disgrace in some parts of the world, you were adamant you would not do this and not do that and yet you have apologized, that is so sweet and refreshing.

Off2riorob (talk

) 19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is not quite appropriate here. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, big sigh, yawn. I am so so sorry about any perceived sarcasm you may have noticed, please allow me to apologize, my family are also sorry.

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Spam, EL, RS, and COI issues.

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

While perusing the history of

WP:RS, since one can never be sure where, in a book so labelled where the "non-fiction" stops and the "novel" begins. This link from the same site details how the author admits to combining facts with fiction. Examining Werkart's edits shows that he has done two things on Wikipedia. One is create two articles, Claus Hant (a German screenwriter who authored a recent book) and Young Hitler

(the book he authored), regarding which he has an apparent conflict of interest. The other is to edit a number of Third Reich related articles to include links to the aforementioned promotional website. I have this evening reverted all of his edits with exception of the two articles he created.

I know this probably seems rather bitey, but although this is a new user, I think the policies here are clear cut. I don't think "a non-fiction novel" can be considered a reliable source for historical fact. If there's anything useful in it, we'd be far better off citing it to an academic source. Furthermore, even if the book were a reliable source, the website is a spam link. If it's to be cited, it should be cited as a book without linking to the website. As a promotional site, it also fails,

WP:EL

.

So why am I here? Well, I'd have gone to another board, but there are so many policies in play here, I didn't know which one to go to. Also, I think this user could benefit from having Wikipedia's policies gently explained to him. Since I think he's liable to get a little mad when he sees that I've reverted nearly all his edits, he might accept that explanation with a little more equanimity if it comes from someone other than me. So, I just dropped a welcome template and an ANI notice on his talk page and came here.

Also, in all fairness, I've received a little criticism in the past for being overly aggressive in reverting spam, so I'd like to have my actions reviewed. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, PS, I had some initial doubts about notability for the articles he created, but the book was reviewed by Der Spiegel and The Sunday Express and the writer has written for some major television productions in Germany, so (I guess) they pass, but I think more policy-savvy eyes on that couldn't hurt. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is

talk

) 08:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Alfred. Nice catch. Can someone give him an explanation about what he's doing wrong and why nearly all his edits have been reverted? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I just did some work on

talk

) 08:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just the foreword, the cover of the book calls it a "non-fiction novel", so I guess that's what it is. Haven't been back to the Young Hitler page yet today, but some of the sources were very thin (trivial mentions, etc.). Also, what kind of source is the Sunday Express? It looks pretty tabloid to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Wikitruthwikitruthwikitruth duck sock in need of blockage

Resolved

 – Users and underlying IP range blocked. –MuZemike 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

the above user is a

WP:DUCK sock of blocked sock User:Wikitruthwikitruth. Active Banana ( bananaphone

16:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

And done. -- tariqabjotu 16:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana ( bananaphone 17:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also just blocked by yours truly was Wikiwikikillkill (talk · contribs). I'm going to see what a CU can do here. –MuZemike 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Also blocked: Killfreaknwiki (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

CU temporarily blocked an underlying range. –MuZemike 18:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:78.147.28.117

An SPA IP is re-adding low-grade and out of place content such as this [65] to Voltage optimisation, which is in enough trouble as it is. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (noitce posted on IP talk page)

I left a note - couldn't find any previous warnings, so it might just be an inexperienced editor. Or could be shenanigans, so I'll watchlist as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Attention needed at the recent contributions of user:Mikemikev

Resolved

 – Indef blocked for a beyond-the-pale PA.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Could an uninvolved admin please take a look at the contributions of user Mikemikev? Since he was unblocked (initial block was a 72-hour block for disruptive editing), his contributions have been anything but producive: (Here are but a few examples:[66][67][68][69][70]). AFAIK, he's been rude, dismissive, insulting, with what looks like a baiting-like behaviour and his edits are fraught with personal attacks. So, I would appreciate someone looking into this to give a second opinion.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks like Arbcom are already onto this one, see here --Snowded ^TALK 18:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That (and the block) would seem to take care of it, I believe. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Indefed for his personal attack here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kisoasd incessantly recreating deleted page Kristijan Armic

Resolved

 – article deleted and salted.

User:Kisoasd has now created Kristijan Armic four times over the last three days. The article has been marked for deletion yet again. The article is about a 15 year old soccer player from Chicago who plays for the Northern Illinois Soccer League (a youth soccer league). On one of the prior iterations of the article's talk page, User:Kisoasd defended the existence of the article indicating that this 15 year old player was just about to go professional and needed the "publisity" [sic]. I have made many, many attempts to talk with this editor, as evidenced by the content of his talk page, which deals entirely with this incident. He has refused communication at every opportunity, and continues to recreate this article. He has ignored multiple warnings messages on his talk page, the latest of which was a {{uw-create4im}} from User:Morenooso.

I'm requesting a block of User:Kisoasd and/or salting of Kristijan Armic. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• User notified of this thread; User_talk:Kisoasd#WP:AN.2FI_thread_about_you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have applied sodium chloride to the article. –xeno^talk 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Tedious IP jumper

Resolved

 – range blocked...

See: example sock Tommy! [message] 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a rather persistent IP jumper enjoying itself. Various pages have been targeted, like User talk:Tommy2010, User talk:Favonian, User:Jac16888, Justin King (businessman). Looks like the addresses are from Türk Telekom. A range block would not be unwelcome as it's getting rather tiresome blocking them one at a time. Favonian (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodness, I think it stalks me: [71] Favonian (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The IP is shown to have clearly

disruptive editing, which we will not tolerate. I agree with Favonian's suggestions about a range block. Sjones23 (talk - contributions

) 21:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I happen to have some rangeblocks handy:

• 78.176.16.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 78.179.176.0/20 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 85.108.64.0/18 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.242.0.0/16 (talk · contribs · block log)
• 88.246.224.0/19 (talk · contribs · block log)

There's about 100,000 IP addresses to catch all the recently used ones. One or two of those ranges have some respectable traffic on them. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah. That'll be why I no longer seem to be reverting-and-blocking every two seconds. ;-) Thanks! TFOWR 21:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I second that. Good job zzuuzz! Favonian (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I should add that there's one or two other ranges, but they haven't been too widely used by this vandal to date. Dilute to taste. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz is the man. Tommy! [message]

Flaw in the diff system mislead me

*Previous discussion:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive631#User:YumeChaser_and_Twinkle

Crossmr (talk

) 23:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't assume bad faith and if you look at the diffs carefully you'll see the vandalism. And I wasn't the only one who reverted the user and called it vandalism. Just be honest, you won't be happy until you see me blocked. 夢追人^YumeChaser 00:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I blame the diff system on that one, for some reason it didn't change any text to red at all so it wasn't showing anything changed at all except for position. I've struck it, even though you could have made your point without the bad faith addition at the end.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a fact as you are watching every single edit I make just to report it here and ask for community block. 夢追人^YumeChaser 00:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I couldn't care about most of your edits. Only the ones where you falsely accuse people of being vandals. Can you deny that you've done so in the past? repeatedly? And been warned for it going back quite some time? In this case, the diff system didn't properly show the change in the text and the vandalism wasn't obvious. I've struck the request and comment as soon as the mistake was identified. My only desire is to see disruption stopped.--

Crossmr (talk

) 00:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand,

Crossmr (talk

) 00:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

War crimes discussion

moved from

WP:AN by Skomorokh

00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to draw administrators' attention to a (very civil) discussion taking place at

War crimes and the Soviet Union). I am requesting that these three articles be moved back to their original location until a consensus is found regarding these articles. Thanks, City of Destruction

17:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Move back to "(Country) war crimes" simply because those titles are more accurate. The articles detail war crimes committed by the country's own armed forces etc - the "War crimes and (country)" title could imply an article on crimes the country's armed forces had committed, crimes committed on it by other country's armed forces and war crimes comitted by one third party country on another third party country that the country in the article title took action to stop - far to broad/ambiguous. This is a no brainer. Exxolon (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the matter nor am I involved in the article - I saw there was a debate regarding the exclusion of content based on the lack of a judicial ruling stemming from the article name at that time, at least that was my interpretation of the arguments, this is a bar that is not set for any of our other related articles that I am aware. There were no objections raised on my talkpage and anyone could be free to move it back. I agree with Exxolon that the choice of name could be better. Unomi (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash‼/GA1

--edit protected

moved from

WP:AN by Skomorokh

00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A user has nominated

Talk:Mario Kart: Double Dash‼/GA1 is edit protected and I cannot start the review. Could this be unlocked, please? Thanks --Teancum (talk

) 12:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, couldn't see any protection. Anyway, the page is now created. TFOWR 12:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much. Not sure what was going on there. --Teancum (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Title!! blacklist!! probably!! –xeno^talk 14:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Specifically it's the use of the "‼" character in the title -- that's the character U+203C, not a pair of exclamation points. It falls under the "Select Unicode letterlike symbols" entry in the blacklist. The article should be moved to a title that uses the exclamation point character instead. --Carnildo (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the title using two exclamation points instead of the Unicode character also trips the title blacklist (I couldn't move the page) so there's no gain there. --shoy (reactions) 04:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

CU and rangeblock needed

There's a sockfarm that's creating numerous accounts and replacing random pages with full-screen color/blanking. So far I've blocked Anon12347 (talk · contribs), AnonWeStand (talk · contribs), Ballistic717 (talk · contribs) and one IP, 84.139.196.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I think we need a CU and a rangeblock to shut this down. Toddst1 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I knew this was coming up! I discovered this too, and made an Edit filter request here. I think a rangeblock would be too large, as there are IPs from the 64.?.?.? range to the 173.?.?.? range according to this history. Minimac (talk) 06:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse (Techwriter2B sock?)

Thread retitled from "Abuse".

NOTE: The individual who started this thread, 64.252.140.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been identified as an IP sock of User:Techwriter2B, a community banned LTA.

I'm a volunteer at a church outreach center. We have computers available for the public to use. We try to be careful about how they're used. We've installed filtering software so users can't use the computers for abusive purposes. Three weeks ago one of our computer users told me that someone (Centpacrr) had placed an abusive notice on our Wikipedia page. I tried to remove it and restore what was there before, but Centpacrr kept putting it back

He kept insisting that we were placing a "false tag" on our page and said we were "identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true." I didn't understand why he was doing that. We ARE an organization. I read the Wikipedia help page on vandalism and it said if someone is vandalizing your page to put this: { {SharedIP|Name of owner} } on it. I did that and Centpacrr only got more abusive.

He said that "The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user." I didn't understand what he was talking about. All we tried to do was fix our page. We didn't make any edits at all. We've never been blocked that I know of. The vandalism help page said that if nothing else worked to file a vandalism report. So I did. Then this other Wikipedia person (Jamie) comes along and accuses me of filing "spurious "vandalism" reports on the noticeboard." I tried to explain to Jamie that Centpacrr kept putting lies on our page, saying that we aree not an organization, when we are.

It seems to me that posting lies on someone's page is vandalism, and I didn't understand why WE were the ones being accused of vandalism. Jamie's response was some computer gobbledygook that I didn't understand, and he insisted that we prove that we were an organization. Well, I have no idea how to do that. All I can say is that we ARE a church. We provide a service to the community with our outreach center, and it has computers for teens to use for homework and for adults to use for job hunting and other things. If one of our users abuses the computers they are no longer welcome at our center.

So far we've been very lucky. Things only went from bad to worse. When I tried to explain things to Jamie, he brusquely responded that "there's nothing further to discuss." He refused to explain to me what I could do to stop Centpacrr from posting lies on our page. So I continued to erase Centpacrr's vandalism. Then he wrote "Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN." I had no idea what AN was, so I had no idea how to respond. I just removed his lies again. Finally, I just posted the Beatitudes on our page. It's a beautiful piece with advice that I thought might be helpful in the situation. Centpacrr posted again, this time accusing us of all sorts of things.

Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that "the text immediately below which is not mine either." Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord. And Centpacrr's comment was placed so that it desecrated those words. The next thing I know Jamie posts a notice on our page that accuses us of "vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons." AND he removed the Beatitudes. There was no way for me to put them back because Jamie had blocked us from editing Wikipedia. Well, our two weeks is up now. I talked with one of our young people here about the situation and he told me I should file a complaint. So that's what I'm doing.

This whole thing has been a nightmare. We've been accused of doing things that we don't understand and know nothing about. It seems like anyone on Wikipedia can just post lies about anyone else and they're automatically believed. We have done nothing wrong. We have not vandalized anything. We've only tried to tell the truth on our page. And when we tried to get someone to explain to us what was going on, we only got gruff, insulting replies. We want an apology from Centpacrr for his untruthful accusations and his obnoxious attitude. we also want an apology from Jamie for his rude behavior and all the awful accusations he made. By now there are probably places all over Wikipedia where nasty things have been said about us. We want those all removed too.

Thank you for listening. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we were 64.252.0.159. I guess someone has changed our identity somehow. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that your

create an account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening. We never engaged in any vandalism. There was no reason for you to block us. There is also no reason for us to create an account because many different people use our computers. If any of those people want to create an account, they can. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that you specifically are vandalizing Wikipedia. Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use. If there is too much vandalism on that one IP address it may be blocked. This is the downside of editing as an IP rather than a logged-in user. If I choose to edit without logging in I am using any number of IP addresses that are being used by others using the same internet service. If I happen to being using an IP address that is currently blocked, even though it has nothing to do with me, I may not be able to edit Wikipedia at that time. So people using your computers may at times be unable to edit Wikipedia unless they create an account. But the vandalism warnings don't address your organization directly but an IP address that you sometimes are assigned. I don't know of any way around this. But the talk page of an IP address that you sometimes have really doesn't belong to you and the warnings placed there should be left in place to let potential editors know of any blocks and how to edit using a blocked IP. freshacconci talktalk 16:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that. I can see why you would want to block an IP address that engaged in vandalism, but I clicked on the "contribs" link for 64.252.0.159 below, and looked at the contributions, and I didn't see any vandalism.64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to look into this at the moment, but for the next person: —

talk

) 16:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• 64.252.0.159 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 64.252.140.128 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Hi 64.252. This looks like a simple case of miscommunication. The fact is, you are coming to us via an internet address that isn't owned by you or your association, but by

SBC Communications (aka AT&T). Many of our editors are overworked, and it's easy to throw around the acronyms and "wikispeak" we're used to without thinking that new users may not be familiar with it. This can be easily resolved, however: which church are you from and where is it located? – ClockworkSoul

16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer at this church-sponsored outreach center, but I'm not a member of the church or an administrator in the center. I'm just a volunteer who comes in every now and then. The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just want to respect the church's authority here and not get into trouble with the church or the center (which is why I tried to remove Centpacrr's abusive comments in the first place). I think you're right about this being a case of miscommunication. Centpacrr and Jamie both seemed to have a mindset that couldn't be changed, no matter what I said. And I certainly didn't understand the thing about the "fixed IP." (I still don't.) The notice about the IP address that Jamie put on the page seems OK - it seems like some sort of standardized notice. The one by Centpacrr was downright abusive. The block really threw me for a loop, though, and I still don't understand it. I still think an apology from both of those people is in order because they didn't even try to understand the situation. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused. As far as I can tell, the IP has never edited any church page - can you tell us what page it is that you were editing? --Smashville^talk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The dispute started when the person who was assigned to the IP at the time put up a notice saying that the IP was registered to a single organization. Centpacrr removed the notice as the WHOIS record made it clear that the IP was from a pool and not registered to an "organization." The user would not accept this explanation and became disruptive (attempting to assert false

ownership over the talk page, leading to a temporary block on that IP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk

16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamie, did you consider the possibility that the person you were talking to didn't understand the explanation you were giving them?Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• My take is that this was an absolutely pointless edit war over a tag on a talk page. I don't see a right and and a wrong here. However, the folks at the church do need to understand that they are in an ip pool, they might get messages or be blocked because of something someone else using one of the same ips did, and they do not own and cannot lay claim to the addresses or talk pages. That being said I'm still looking for the vandalism that led to the block in the history of these two ips. Where is it exactly?
  talk
  ) 16:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

They still don't understand it, so I give up. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jamie blocked them for 'edit warring' over the page template. I think he's right, they still don't understand.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As we all know, the only exception to

talk

) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think because Centerparc was removing the tag as incorrect, not re-adding it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is the diff that caused the problem. While I can't see what's wrong with the edit (it just seems to exchange two paras), Centerparcc was convinced it was a sock of User:Filmcracker. He must have put a notice on the talkpage, because the next edit is the church volunteer trying to add an organisation template to the page [74]. After that it was all downhill - Centerparc thinks he's dealing with an obnoxious sock, Jamie thinks he's dealing with an edit warrior sock, and the church volunteer can't work out what's happening, unwisely keeps going, and gets blocked for two weeks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that explains it well. (Except that Centpacrr didn't put a standardized notice on the page, he repeatedly put his own: "This IP resolves as being a Dynamic IP registered to SBC Internet Services in New Britain, CT, not a static IP registered to an organization. DO NOT place a false tag on this page identifying it as belonging to an unspecified organization. There is no proof whatosever that this is true. The ONLY edits on Wikipedia made from this IP were made by otherwise blocked multiple sock puppet user. Unless you can IDENTIFY AND PROVE what "organization" you claim to be, this will be reported to AN.") 64.252.140.128 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it. I suppose that leaves everyone with the question of "what now, and where do we go from here?" Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• A two week block for a first-time edit warrior, where the more experienced
  talk
  ) 17:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  I see no evidence of the OP doing anything that can't be explained by confusion and/or exasperation (@64.252.140.12 - OP stands for "original poster", in this case you), and no attempt seems to have been made to alleviate this. The experienced editors should have known better than to assume bad faith. I don't think the OP was at fault in any way, and that a simple apology isn't too much to ask for. – ClockworkSoul 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

  If the experienced editors had evidence/were convinced they were dealing with a sock, should they be

  WP:AGF? I am not sure what they were basing their "sock" conclusions on. Active Banana ( bananaphone

  18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

0.159 made only one edit that led to the sock accusation. The edit does not appear to be vandalism [75] so I don't know what prompted the allegation. I presume Centpacrr was being beset by Filmcracker, so just assumed the next edit was a sock of his. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can speak from experience that this is an easy mistake to make. Nonetheless, the core of our

assume good faith policy is to ensure that due diligence be taken before such accusations are made, and hopefully dampen the very human tendency to shoot first and ask questions later. – ClockworkSoul

18:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The user that started this thread, 64.252.140.128, is an IP sockpuppet of a known Long-term Abuser, wikistalker, and disruptive editor who was banned from editing by the community as User:Techwriter2B and other socks (See: Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Techwriter2B) for his/her misconduct on Wikipedia going back more than three years. He/she has been stalking me personally since early May. He/she also DID NOT advise me of the existance of this thread which is another violation of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow down there, Centpacrr. Let's take a step back and assume for a moment that 64.252 really is an innocent bystander caught in anti-vandalism crossfire. Would you expect them to know the intricacies of WP policies and procedures? Also, I'm not certain, but I think this practice is just good etiquette. Please correct me if I'm wrong. – ClockworkSoul 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No this is NOT an innocent who is not familiar with WP. I personally have been dealing with this disruptive user for four months (and other editors for more than three years) and know his/her techniques, writing style, "tall tales", and other practices VERY WELL. You will find them all described in detail on the

Stephen Ambrose page as a "school assignment" with a disingenuous screed which was quickly removed by an admin and resulted his/her community ban from editing Wikipedia.) Please READ THE RECORD. Centpacrr (talk

) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've looked over

WP:AGF isn't based on soft-headed idealism: it's WP policy because it has practical consequences. – ClockworkSoul

20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Techwriter2B. 81.145.247.239 (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• See also here and here for further evidence as to exactly who this IP is a sockpuppet of. His/her record of disruption to the WP is both legion and unambiguous. Centpacrr (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if we accept your accusations, (personally not convinced yet) why did you even bother edit warring over a template on a talk page if you really believe that? Why not report at

talk

) 20:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, can you show that the OP isn't just a person who also happens to be editing from the same general geographic location? No vandalism was actually performed by the account, after all. – ClockworkSoul 20:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Centpacrr, I'm not sure I'm seeing this at all. You list under habitual behaviour "pretending to be a church", but the ONLY example you give is this one. So it isn't habitual behaviour at all. There's no evidence anywhere that this is your disruptive stalker other than being an ATT customer in Connecticut (not in Stratford according to WHOIS). Is there more somewhere? I note you had Filmcracker blocked for editing an article that one of the stalker victims edited, even though he/she was making productive edits, on the grounds that they were building up an alibi - since when did we start doing that? Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Now I really don't understand something here. When freshacconci explained the IP address thing (above) he said, "Your IP address is not fixed which means that the numbers will periodically change, which means other individuals will be using an IP address you have used or will use." I thought that meant that since we now have a new IP address someone else now has our old one. And if our IP address changed in the past, someone had 64.252.0.159 before we did. Am I wrong about that? If that's the case, then how can you tell who is engaging in the vandalism or whatever Centpacrr is complaining about? I looked at the edits made from 64.252.0.159, and I don't see any problems. How can Centpacrr claim that those edits were made by someone else? This makes no sense at all. I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this. 64.252.140.128 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I have been forced to deal with this disruptive wikistalker since May and know his/her techniques, writing style, practices, etc VERY WELL. (The posting immediately above is a perfect example.) Look at the many Wikilinks on the LTA page and you will see that this is the same individual who has wasted hundreds of hours or my and many other editors' time with his/her disruptive editing. There is just no doubt about it AT ALL. None. Centpacrr (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Since you have failed to convince anyone here of that I would say there is considerable doubt. I also don't see how you are being "forced" to deal with them, why you chose to edit war over the tag, and why you did not contact an admin familiar with this or file at SPI when you believed you found another sock.

talk

) 20:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to deal with this user because he/she stalked and vandalized many articles on which I was a major contributor. (They are listed on the LTA page.) The issue of the false organization tag is only a very minor issue in the whole picture and was resolved quickly by an admin (whom the IP again complains about above). Once it was resolved I did not bring it up again, it was the IP user who did so by opening this thread. The admins who earlier blocked and banned this user have been notified of this thread and I will leave it up to them deal with the current issue. Centpacrr (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don’t have time to read through all the intricacies of this thread right now, but it’s clear to me that this user is the same individual as Techwriter2B, Filmcracker, etc. He has a long history of mostly using anonymous IPs to post (only occasionally using a registered ID – e.g. only one posting occurred under the Techwriter2B username). All the IPs localize not just to CT, but to the general vicinity of Stratford CT. A bunch of his (i.e. this banned user’s) prior edits were made from 64.252.*.* (he’s been using this IP range for two or three years). The IP which was blocked by Ohnoitsjamie, 64.252.0.159, was used to edit The High and the Mighty (film), in conjunction with his Filmcracker account, as part of a pattern of wikistalking of Centpacrr. He also has a long history of professing complete innocence, denying identity with his previous socks, and claiming that some terrible mistake was made. When specific information is required/requested he goes vague (e.g. “The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia.”). If you’ve dealt with him for a while, you’ll see that the tone, syntax, nature of his pleas, etc. closely matches with his posting above. The following is classic Techwriter2B: “Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that ‘the text immediately below which is not mine either.’ Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord.” He also has a long history of making frequent complaints at forums (such as this one), often claiming to be a victim of abuse by other editors. Everything here fits his long-term general pattern. Eurytemora (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Any actual evidence of this. Because I can't see it in the links I've been presented with so far. Instead I'm seeing things like a genuine problem (admittedly raised by a forum shopper and eventually agreed not to be serious) [76] with a COI concerning Centpacrr, I'm seeing this Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see [115], [116]). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See [117]) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC) - those edits don't actually seem to be against consensus [77].There is nothing connecting the 12 series to Techwriter2BWikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/12.76.155.54. All these may be the disruptive sock of one person, but I'm concerned about the quality of evidence being presented. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is plenty of evidence. Just take a look at the contributions of the accounts on the

ducky and both IPs need to be blocked for a far longer period. All of the accounts including the OP have made edits to Stephen Ambrose related pages. One of them has harassed Centpacrr before. This one claimed to be a public computer and did not want talkpage messages left (much as this one has). Here's another one that removed the WHOIS notice from their talkpage, claiming ownership. Here one claims that the IP address is shared with his "staff" which is doing the vandalism. This one calls Centpacrr a crackpot and also makes a very similar edit to The High and Mighty as our current guest did. --Smashville^talk

21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Smashville is correct. Everyone involved with him long-term recognizes that it’s the same guy. Even regarding the 12.76 series SPI – note that a 64.252.*.* IP (specifically, 64.252.28.1) was used to try to forge an admin signature to terminate the investigation. SarekOfVulcan gave an indef block to Techwriter2B since it was clear that he was the same individual as the anonymous IP editor. This has all been discussed to death previously. It seems that every time he pops back up we go through it again (now, he’s even a banned user, and it’s still happening).Eurytemora (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Dude. Just go create an account. It's not that hard, and it will solve the problems you're complaining about here. Case closed. Bye.
  spill the beans
  21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• This user is prohibited from doing so and would be immediately and indefinitely blocked as soon as identified as a known sockpuppet of User:Techwriter2B who has been banned from editing on Wikipedia by the WP community. (See the LTA page for details.) His/her starting of this thread is, in fact, just another example of his/her long term pattern of wikistalking and disruptive behavior over more than three years. His/her false claims above that he/she "doesn't understand" the difference between static and dynamic IP's, or anything about how Wikipedia works is just plain hokum. A review of his/her record and many postings under the dozens of IPs (and three named sockpuppet accounts) that he/she has used in the past in which he/she cites dozens of WP policies and guidelines to "justify" his/her disruptive behavior (and attack the WP contributions of others) clearly demonstrates his/her penchant for extreme wikilawyering. Centpacrr (talk) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I deslisted ANI a few weeks back, was unaware of this thread and was just asked by Centpacrr to comment here. That said, I must express concern regarding the discussion to date. Centpacrr has been the demonstrated target of one of the nastiest multiple socks I have encountered in my time with Wikipedia. The multiple sock has demonstrated fiendish determination to get revenge on Centpacrr by any means possible, including building up a false identity by making good edits. I think the evidence I have seen in this thread shows that it is likely that we have another attempt on our hands here. The OP is very likely this same character. Centpacrr has done Wikipedia a great service in helping to ban this character, and this CT account issue appears likely to be that same dark-souled person. Let's
  WP:DUCK. Jusdafax
  22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, and I'm willing to be presented with evidence to prove me wrong here, but I'm seeing no such thing. I've not yet been able to get back to a part of this case where actual wrong is being done to Centpacrr. The 12. series [78] did come from Connecticut, but not Stratford and don't appear to have ever interacted with Centpacrr. An IP in another investigation resolves to Stratford Public Library. Techwriter2B had disruptive edits, but other accounts were blocked before they actually carried out any disruption or attacks on Centpacrr. I find this very odd. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's wikistalking of me began on May 5, 2010, and therefore involves only a couple of IPs (mostly 75.2.209.226 and several 64.252.**.** IPs) and two named sock accounts (Techwriter2B and Filmcracker) which he/she created specifically for that purpose and led to his/her community ban from WP. The other IPs and his/her other named account (Sift&Winnow) were all used and abandoned by him/her prior to that. When he/she was banned from editing on Wikipedia as Techwriter2B, all of his/her identified socks were banned as well as a matter of WP policy. Centpacrr (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

::::You know, the more I look at that, the less I see wikistalking, and the more I see an editor objecting to someone rewriting their article, and managing to tie it (with very little evidence I can see) to an entirely different case. If I went and edited

Stephen Ambrose, would you try to get me blocked as a sock of Techwriter2B? Elen of the Roads (talk

) 23:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen, a lot of people have had huge problems with him (including other complaints of wikistalking, uncivil, disruptive editing, abusive sockpuppetry, etc.) – as others have noted, going back three years. There’s a reason why Jusdafax refers to him as “one of the nastiest multiple socks I have encountered in my time with Wikipedia”.

And as Centpacrr notes, this individual stopped using the 12.76 series before the wikistalking of Centpacrr started. The 12.76 IPs resolve to the Stratford CT vicinity [79] – geolocalization is imperfect (you can read about it here [80] and elsewhere – will generally get you within 30-50 miles or so). The other numbers implicated in the 12.76 SPI case resolve to the same vicinity[81], [82],[83]. Also, in case you haven’t gotten to these, here are two of the ANI threads for this guy:[84][85].Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Elen you are, of course, free to interpret the evidence in this matter in any way you wish. However this user was banned from editing on Wikipedia by the WP community, not by me, for his/her long history of demonstrated misbehavior including (but not limited to) disruptive editing, wikistalking, sockpuppetry, incivility, forgery of an admin's signature, deceptive and/or fraudulent postings, and many other violations of WP policies and guidelines (mostly perpetrated under multiple anonymous IP accounts) over a period of three years. By the way, when he/she started this very thread about me, he/she violated yet another WP policy when he/she did not post a notice on my Talk page ("You must notify any user that you discuss.") as required by the template located at the top of this very page.

The record clearly demonstrates that I was hardly the only editor that he/she has stalked since 2007, only the latest. The apparent reason that he/she was finally banned last month for this practice is that he/she made the mistake of finally stalking an editor who declined to be a passive victim of his/her abuse but instead chose to utilize the processes provided by Wikipedia to seek redress for both himself and the community at large. The case was presented and was supported by massive amounts of evidence, it was discussed by the community at large in several AN/I threads, and was then acted on by at least four different admins. And that's why this user is banned from editing on Wikipedia. Centpacrr (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I remember this very well, I was the one who called for his ban. Anyway, he's definitely banned from the community, and he is not welcome with any account. I am not entirely convinced that he's Techwriter though. --Rockstonetalk to me! 00:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The geolocation and identity of the ISP that owns the IP range used, and a simple objective comparison of the content, writing style, syntax, approach, and "message" of both the long original and subsequent postings by 64.252.140.128 in this thread with the known writings of Techwriter2B and his/her sockpuppets proves conclusively that they were all written by the same individual. After almost four months of dealing with this perp, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind on this at all. He/she has always reveled him/herself the very same way. Centpacrr (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Some points - the call for disclosure of the church "64" is a "volunteer" at was met with a dubious excuse not to disclose, followed by a sudden inability to talk for a week. That just doesn't ring true to me. The sudden silence is convenient and should be considered significant and quite telling to those with any continued doubts here. None of this passes the smell test. I for one, on further review, am now backing Centpacrr all the way. "64" is Techwriter2B et al. Block/ban/ignore. I would go so far as to say that Cen and Jamie are owed an apology by some here. 02:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC) (Adding sig a second time, dunno what happened there...) Jusdafax 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Observation re Jusdafax's comment immediately above: Don't anyone believe for an instant the sock's claim above that "I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this." While he/she not unexpectedly fled this thread immediately when asked to identify the apparently fictional "church" or "organization" for which he/she "is a volunteer", you can be very sure that he/she is following this discussion very closely (although I doubt that he/she has the courage to post anything further) as the starting of these threads appears to be one of his/her favorite hobbies. I believe that this is the 16th or 17th one of these that he/she has either started or perpetuated against just me in the last four months! (Links to most of the others are on the Techwriter2B LTA page.) "Thread abuse" is actually also another one of his/her "hallmark" techniques of wikistalking and wasting other users' time and effort.

Also I am not really owed an apology from any of the other good faith editors who commented in this thread who were fooled by Techwriter2B's IP sock into defending him/her as an "innocent, inexperienced, and abused" editor. Instead they are really just a few more of the dozens of "drive by" casualties who he/she has snookered over the last three years by his/her long standing pattern of deception and misconduct on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I’ll go through some of the info. First, he’s using the 64.252 range and geolocalizes to the Stratford CT area. This range (and geolocalization) match the previous IP edits. For example, a 64.252 IP was used by Techwriter2B (in addition to 75.2.209.226 and others) at

Stephen Ambrose, before he made his lone posting to the article under the Techwriter2B ID (in which he pretended to be a student doing a class assignment – posting under the heading “An Outsider’s Point of View”). Last year, 64.252 was also used to make sock edits while he was predominantly posting under his Sift&Winnow ID (identical IP, discovered by a Checkuser in an unrelated SPI investigation, at which point the Sift&Winnow account was abandoned), and to forge an admin signature in a previous SPI (two years ago). When he opened his Filmcracker account to target Centpaccr’s edits at The High and the Mighty (film)

, he also used 64.252.0.159 (in the context of wikistalking, this film was an ideal target, given Centpaccr’s long term contributions to the article, and within the film article, he only targeted text originating from Centpaccr). Edits to the article hadn’t previously occurred from an anonymous IP in this range – and popped up an hour after a series of Filmcracker edits (and resembled them).

Also, the language he is using is very similar to Techwriter2B. Just for one example, this individual’s customary sign-off is “Thanks for listening” – as in the only post made under Techwriter2B “Thanks for listening.” And in the complaint above “Thank you for listening”. There are a lot of additional linguistic similarities, but I don’t want to post them publicly (since it might better enable him to disguise his future postings).

As an aside, I’ll also note that, other than The High and the Mighty (film), the film articles he chose to edit under Filmcracker (i.e. the topic areas of the films – e.g. Judgment at Nuremberg ‎,The Bells of St. Mary's,Marjorie Morningstar (film), etc.) appear to match his prior interests (i.e. edits under the IPs and Sift&Winnow).

There’s also the question – is the complaint above in good faith. The IP claims “We didn't make any edits at all.” So I guess this[86] is not an edit. Also, simple plausibility - he claims to be the representative of a church with multiple computers that has a Wikipedia page (he keeps referring to “our page”) corresponding to a dynamic IP, but that doesn’t make any edits. Also, one of the IP 64.252.0.159 edits to the talk page both altered the language of a comment left by Centpacrr and entirely removed a comment left by OhNoitsJamie [87]. Centpaccr then inserted the following: “NOTICE TO ADMINS: The above posting by me (Centpacrr (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)) has been altered by 64.252.0.159 (See [1]) to change its meaning. He/she also posted the text immediately below which is not mine either. This user has also been twice indefinitely blocked under three different sockpuppet accounts in the last few weeks, the most recent just a few days ago. (See [2] and [3]). I expect that 64.252.0.159 will delete this comment as is his/he common practice, but it is preserved in the page's history for admins to consider.” In the complaint above, the IP writes of this “Centpacrr posted again, this time accusing us of all sorts of things. Even worse, he posted it right above the Beatitudes and wrote that ‘the text immediately below which is not mine either.’ Well of course not. The Beatitudes are the Word of the Lord. And Centpacrr's comment was placed so that it desecrated those words.” This characterization (that Centpaccr committed desecration) doesn’t pass the smell test – this individual is manipulating – and the type of (slightly ham-handed) manipulation he’s doing here is extremely familiar to me from my prior dealing with him. Also, as I noted above, posting frequent complaints at forums (such as the current ANI complaint as well as his July 20 vandalism complaint [88] is part of his modus operandi.

Quacks and waddles.Eurytemora (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The OP's evasiveness and running for cover when the worm started to turn, along with apparently unconsciously using the same tag line as the sockmaster, add up to seriously fishy. An SPI should be filed, although the outcome will depend on the whims of the CU, i.e. whether they're willing to fully do their job or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Bugs. Centpacrr, you are a better man than I am, letting some of these editors (above) off the apology hook for their above statements to and about you. Reading this thread is a textbook example of Wikipedians taking ASG too far for a supposed newbee, while not doing the same for an established editor who has done much to improve the place by repeatedly standing up to a sneaky, lying bully, and effectively shutting down their sock abuse. For shame! Jusdafax 06:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I got frustrated last summer, when I was being constantly harassed, and the checkusers wouldn't look outside the box to figure out who was behind it. Filing an SPI is tedious, and if the CU isn't going to do his job, I'm not going to bother going through that tedium. I'll just let the troll have its way and hope it gets bored and goes away after awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jusdafax. I just hope that the ongoing misconduct of this troublesome user can be quickly (and finally) resolved for the benefit of the WP community. Centpacrr (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Just my 2 cents. I am a huge fan of IPs being able to edit and being equal citizens...to a point. Can't somebody do some type of "check" is it SPI or something to resolve this? This whole thing sounds "fishy" or "ducky" or whatever. Centpacrr seems to acting in good faith, so if it comes down to "who to believe", I would "err" on the side on an "established" account. Again, I think being able to edit as an IP is a crical pillar to this project, but lets get this straight. Thanks, --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

On second thought it seems very likely that he is Techwriter2B, especially when he vanished. While the IP might be from a Church,he ought to have proven it, not run away. The fact alone that he's trolling us, from the same city as Techwriter2B, with the same IP range, seems to make it quite likely he's just quacking. So, unless he's willing to share the name of the Church, I see nothing that can clear his name, he definitely seems guilty. --Rockstonetalk to me! 19:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Telltale elements of fabrication

• Rockstone, don't expect him/her to ever reappear in this thread (unless he/she does so as another sock) or to provide the verifiable name of any such "church" or "organization" as I am quite sure that no such institution exists. As with the fictional "professor" who assigned him/her to "evaluate" the
  Stephen Ambrose article for a "writing class" which got him/her banned as User:Techwriter2B with just a single posting
  , the "church volunteer" story above was manifestly another complete invention that he/she made up out of whole cloth.

• One of the primary telltale elements that reveal such complicated fabrications is that when challenged to provide even one verifiable fact or source to support the truth of the "story" he/she fabricates a nonsensical excuse to not do so, and/or simply runs away thus becoming "mute." A second is that as the story is untrue it's hard for the fabulist to keep his/her story's "facts" straight, and so the more they are expanded upon or retold the more self-contradictory they become. A third is being "too cute by half" and thus overplaying his/her hand. (This is often the result of the fabulist's hubris and believing that he/she is so much cleverer then anyone that he/she intends to deceive that his/her deceptive practices will never be recognized for what they are.)

• In the current case, Techwriter2B (as 64.252.140.128) did all three.

• 1) As noted above, when asked to simply identify the "church" he/she responded: "I'm a volunteer at this church-sponsored outreach center, but I'm not a member of the church or an administrator in the center. I'm just a volunteer who comes in every now and then. The church has all sorts of rules and regulations about running this center that are kept in a bookcase full of binders that I'm not privy to. I don't know if it's OK to reveal information about our center or the church on Wikipedia." As the comments questioning his/her story became more pointed, he/she then ran away saying in his/her final post in the thread: "I'm leaving for the day and won't be back until next week so I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this."

• 2) For "...I guess I won't be able to see the outcome of this." to be "true" it would have to mean that he/she also only has access to the internet at the "church outreach center" and nowhere else, a truly preposterous contention as he/she has a record of making thousands of edits at all hours of the day and night and on every day of the week over at least three years and thus is a clearly a self-contradictory "fact" that he/she couldn't keep "straight."

• 3) As he/she has done many times before, Techwriter2B also again foolishly overplayed his/her hand in this case simply by starting this thread to again make his/her false charge of "vandalism" of the fictional "church's" IP talk page, a claim that had already been debunked three weeks earlier and resulting at that time in a two week block. The result of his/her starting this false thread, however, has instead been to further expose and document to the WP community the level and extent of his/her long record of duplicity and misconduct. Thus on all three counts, it's clearly been a case of res ipsa loquitur.

• I would also not expect this perp to ever attempt to use the IP 64.252.140.128 again either as it is now "toxic", although I am equally sure that he/she will attempt to "resurface" again in a few weeks using some other anonymous IP. When he/she does, you can also expect him/her to soon seek the help of "friendly editors" with another contrived story of how he/she, as an innocent, inexperienced, good faith "newbie" who just "doesn't understand" how either the internet or Wikipedia work, is being abused by a cabal of intolerant, arrogant, and uncaring veteran editors in the WP community. I think you can pretty much "bet the farm" on that too. Centpacrr (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Definently true. --Rockstonetalk to me! 22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the walkaway does seem to clinch the matter. I do feel I owe Centpacrr an apology, particularly for one comment which on re-reading seems quite unnecessarily combative (it's the one above that I have struck). I've never seen anything quite like this - one lives and learns I suppose. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology graciously and appreciatively accepted, Elen, but there is no need for you to feel badly about this. You are hardly the first good faith editor to have been snookered by this "long term abuser". Thank you for following up, and just hope you never become a stalking victim of him/her as well. Fortunately there are not many of these LTAs, but those few that are out there can cause great damage to WP by driving away the many good editors who value the project and enjoy contributing to it. (I expect he/she incorrectly figured that with enough harassment I would be one of those too.) Thanks again. Centpacrr (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm late to the party, but I also agree from both the evidence I see here, and my own personal experience with the troll, that the likelihood of 64. being a sock is about 99.99% ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Vrghs jacob subtle vandalism

Vrghs jacob (talk · contribs)

For interested admins (and observers), I'd like to call to attention this guy's talk page: User talk:Vrghs jacob. It seems that he has a pattern of disrupting articles with subtle vandalism and hiding the disruption with edit comments like "update" and marking them as minor.

He has ~1100 edits, and the damage he's done might be noteworthy if all of those edits have been following this pattern. BigK HeX (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've informed the editor, seeing as I was passing by.

talk

) 18:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this in depth right now, but this kind of edit seems typical of at least a few others. It's not incorrect, but it is less specific and it removes information. Some other edits, including ones that were rolledback by others (months ago) show removal of templates and other info. I don't have an opinion yet.

Could you provide the diffs that first alerted you BigK? Shadowjams (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. On the Peter Schiff article, he performed this edit which was marked as "minor" and had the edit comment of, "update all". You'll notice that the edit does nothing other than to remove the (useful) year when the article subject received his degree. I found that very odd, but then saw that his talk page had quite a few comments noting similar concerns from other editors across a range of articles. BigK HeX (talk) 05:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's clearly a focus here. Michigan universities and Indian articles seem to be the primary editing targets. These kind of reviews are technically very hard because the editor makes a lot of small edits sequentially over short time-frames. I'm not digging deeply into this right now, admittedly, but I would be satisfied right now to clearly explain to the editor these concerns, ask them to use an edit summary and to stop removing valid content, and if they continue to engage in this kind of behavior after that discussion, seek a short-term block. Part of the problem with these sorts of editors is that they don't appear to ever discuss anything. In fact, the only talk page edit this editor's ever made is this one: [89] which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. I'm being generous with my assesment here; if others can come up with some more indicting diffs (frankly I'm surprised by that talk page diff) then I'd quickly support a block. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

IP block requested

Resolved

 – blocked by DF67 for a month and a bit. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As this is not AIV material (due to it being fairly old edits), 110.139.101.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been vandalizing Wikipedia since mid early June this year. He has been mostly making unnecessary piped links between unrelated articles (always Gundam articles to Kamen Rider articles, or vice versa). He made these bad edits as recently as this morning (August 18, 2010). The IP seems static as the same edits have been consistently made from the same IP all summer. To prevent any further damage from this IP (even though he appears to be reverting his edits), I am requesting that it be blocked for an extended period of time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Blackout vandal hitting templates. Can't find source of problem

Resolved

 – At least this bit. No idea if the blackout vandal has stopped or been stopped.--Jayron32 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

See

WP:FALSEPOS. Some template is likely the source of the problem. --Jayron32

06:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In addition I accidentally blocked all editing by users with under 500 edits for 2 minutes while configuring an edit filter to try to resolve that problem. 121 edits were affected, by both logged in and anon users. Prodego ^talk 06:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Was that filter 139? Because AIV just got bombed by that one. --Jayron32 06:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and it works now. Sorry, especially to those who's edits were blocked. Prodego ^talk 06:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This was a very frightening page to visit. Thank you, Prodego. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:A3RO

talk · contribs) who was a user trusted enough to be granted reviewing and rollback privileges has recently started trolling at RFA — see here, here, here (oppose #3 and here; his talk page's edit notice looks like this

—.
I think he should be blocked for disruptive editing. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 19:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; it's clear that he's not taking the project seriously, in fact it appears that in most of the cases you've linked to, he has simply been trolling, opposing just to be contrary, producing provocative responses to queries, and generally attempting to hinder the process. I think a short block is in order. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few examples of the problem behavior (note the edit summaries on some):

Incivility:

[90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]

Trolling:

[96], [97], [98]

Disruption of RFA:

[99], [100], [101]

This is unacceptable editing behavior. I support an indefinite block for this disruption.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The disruption is across the board (AFD, RFA, etc.). The only constructive thing I see going on is reverts; while this is useful, it doesn't excuse the other behavior (there is certainly precedent for this). I've only blocked for a week for now, and only pending a response by the user regarding the recent behavior. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind if I indent his recent votes?

Talk // Contribs

19:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Good block, as confirmed by the recalcitrant responses. His !votes should be indented as disruptive. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

His vote is not disruptive unless you allow it to disrupt. It sets a very bad precedent to discount someone's vote after blocking them because you didn't like the way they voted.

Fatuorum

20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Malleus and see no need to disallow the vote (at Dabomb's RfA). Anyone who tallies up the vote can easily make up their mind as to how to weigh that no-comment oppose, and I think precedent here is more important than an unopposed RfA for Dabomb. BTW, I just voted 'support' without explanation--that sort of thing is never questioned. Also BTW, I don't care for this editor, let that be clear, but striking that vote is not a good thing to do. Drmies (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He also voted three times in the Steven Slater AfD. A bit of disruption there. Silverseren^C 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

And deleted someone else's comment without explanation. He marks all of his edits as "minor." I left him a polite note regarding the unexplained deletion, and also suggested that he not mark his edits as minor unless they actually are minor edits; his response (via snarky edit summary) was that he has done it that way for four years and (I assume) has no plans to change. –BMRR (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Has the editor always done this kind of stuff, or is it a sudden recent change? If the latter, it could suggest a compromised account, and should be blocked for that at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I considered the "compromised account" possibility but discounted it as unlikely due to the

Huggle activity. Others may have other opinions though. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?

) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This user has also posted nonsense on my talk page numerous times; most recently [102]. Tommy! [message] 20:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think he had his account compromised (see for instance his request for adminship). My opinion is that this user, from time to time, has fun yanking our collective chain... Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Their block log indicates that it's not a new problem. Favonian (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw one of his RFA votes indented, so indented the other two, and am just now reading this. I think they shouldn't be counted, but if consensus disagrees, fine with me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• All he is doing is being an attention whore. There's no need to encourage his behavior; either ignore him or block him. Since the DougsTech incident showed that every RFA participant is incapable of doing the former, then we should do the latter. NW (Talk) 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Removed his privileges. Agree with the block and the indenting of his votes. Feel a ban is premature at this stage; we usually give more last chances than this. --John (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• - the User has thousands of edits, as regards the removal of his reviewer rights, has he misused it in any way at all? If he has not then why remove it?
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Because he must be punished, and he must be seen to have been punished.
    Fatuorum
    21:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

He has had rollback revoked in the past, and after seeing his RFA, I seriously question his judgement.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So he hasn't abused his reviewer rights then.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No. I removed these rights on the basis that he no longer has the trust of the community. I'll be happy to reverse that if a consensus develops that I was wrong. --John (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

John, this thread was only opened a few hours ago and you have blocked him one week and removed all his rights. The reviewer right is not supposed to be removed without community support or through Arbcom.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, User:Shirik blocked him, and I removed the rights based on the block and on this discussion as denoting community support. If a consensus develops that this was mistaken, I will be happy to reinstate these rights. --John (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, excuse me. I support the week block. The reviewer right you should have opened a discussion and not removed it without community support.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ban proposal

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

Due to the revelation that this user's disruption and incivility (which likely runs away new users; see his Edit notice) have been going on for some time now, I propose a community ban to prevent any further damage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)(Amended: See comment below--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC))

Too soon. If you want to go that route I suggest you try

talk

) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral, leaning towards support His vandal-fighting is constructive, but I would support a ban if, after being unblocked, he continued his current behavior.
  Talk // Contribs
  20:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• lean Support I don't like his attitude and I don't like his behavior in general. Can't see any net + by keeping him here; especially after seeing that "edit notice" and via his block log. Tommy! [message] 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Not yet, see above. --John (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per John; I would suggest that the block be extended to more than a week (perhaps a month) but I don't think a ban is yet called for. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Not yet. If he carries on in the same way when the block expires, the next block should be indef though. We've already had incivility, personal attacks, disruption, sockpuppetry and general timewasting (per above and previous block log; many others have been indeffed for less. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've seen a lot worse go unpunished. The diffs given above are really quite tame. The current block also seemed premature, but in any case it should send the user a message.
  confabulate
  21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose; I entirely agree with Giftiger. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Consensus seems to be against an indef block at the moment. Is there consensus for an extension, decrease or should the current block remain in place? Also is there consensus for an indef block if the user continues the same behavior after the block expires?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Never will be. There's a precedent that RfA trolls who have histories of incivility, disruption, and often outright harassment, cannot be banned because they have

minority opinions. Sceptre ^(talk

) 21:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well we were finally able to kick DougsTech (talk · contribs) to the curb, but that was probably more the exception than the rule. Tarc (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment (support-ish): Previously he was blocked for a week, and apparently didn't learn his lesson from that block; what are the chances that another one-week block is going to make a difference? Seems like a longer block would not be unreasonable. –BMRR (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong oppose long-term contributor and, even recently, making lots of valuable contributions. For whatever reason, this user has been somewhat disruptive of late. The block has stopped that. But we want the disruption to stop, not the beneficial contributions. --Dweller (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Run an RfC first, then try ArbCom. —fetch·comms 21:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose essentially per Fetchcomms. Diego Grez ^{what's up?} 22:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you opposing?--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My guess would be the community ban? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus has already been determined. There is no pile-on necessary. As I stated above, "Is there consensus for an extension, decrease or should the current block remain in place? Also is there consensus for an indef block if the user continues the same behavior after the block expires?"

--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion has not been closed, so consensus may continue. This seems

WP:SNOW in favour of oppose, but since I am involved, that's not for me to decide. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I previously commented on the length of the block, and would add that if the behavior continues after the block expires, an indef block would not be the least bit unreasonable. –BMRR (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the ban. Also I suggest undenting the votes; they are more-or-less harmless. Bwrs (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Removal of reviewer rights

I have noticed a few admins have now started removing users reviewers rights, in the guidelines it says the right should not be removed like this, As in this case when they have not abused it, as part of a general punishment, is this now something that is supported by the community? The removal of the right when it has not been abused in anyway is an excessive punishment and not needed at all it simply puts the user as if unconfirmed. 21:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding

Off2riorob (talk • contribs

)

Comment - the reviewer right is about trust. Once that trust is gone, the right should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't trust him, fine , but he has not abused the reviewer right in any way. It is a very simplr right and if he hasn't abused it it is a bit excessive to remove it, rollback I understand there has been misuse but are we saying there is support that this right can be removed from anyone an administraror doesn't trust, like someone blocked for a week and because hes been a bit naughty the administrator can remove all his rights and make him basically that all his edits have to be agreed be trusted;; users?

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be removed if an editor loses a collective community trust, as in this case.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The right is not specifically about trust, its a simple right that he has not misused and it should not be removed. How do you know that the user has lost the trust of the community to have a simple right removed that he has not abused in any way? We can start the discussion, and rights removals through community discussion especially when that user has not misused them should stay open I think at least twenty four hours and a couple of days is better.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The right is completely about trust. If the community does not trust a user, they do not trust that the user will not abuse the reviewer right. With a history of disruption, trolling and rollback abuse, who's to say a user will not abuse the reviewer rights as well?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has not in any way abused this right, I trust him with this right because he has not misused it while he had it. I see you support an indefinite block but there is no support for that and removing his reviewer right is not just to be done as an extra punishment, he has not abused this right in any way and it should be returned to him.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because you trust the user to not abuse the reviewer rights despite a history of other abuse by the user, does not mean the overall community trusts him as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you see a lot of users rushing up here to say they support the removal of this users reviewer right when he has not abused it in any way?

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the only editor making an issue of this. It seems unreasonable to trust a user to not abuse a right when he's abused other rights and wikipedia in general.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have removed the rights since he hasn't abused them specifically, but it's not really a big deal; I don't see swarms of users protesting the action either. With his recent behaviour, I'm not confident he would use the tools correctly, and in any case I have no objection to him requesting reinstatement of the reviewer/rollback rights if he gets his act together. That would be at the discretion of an admin as usual. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a big deal, and is just an unnecessary policing and punishment when a user has not abused the right, and as pending looks like it is going to be rolled out widely over the wikipedia the fears of editors when the original discussions occurred that Administrators will be able to remove an experienced editors ability to edit at all are materializing in front of our faces.

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it that he would no longer be able to edit? If he is an autoconfirmed user, wouldn't his edits automatically be accepted, regardless of whether or not he's a reviewer? –BMRR (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Would they, I was thinking they wouldn't be automatically accepted?

Off2riorob (talk

) 22:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The only time an autoconfirmed non-reviewer needs to have their edit accepted is when the page is on PC1 and currently has pending changes from non-autoconfirmed users. (Or when PC2 is in place, though we don't presently use PC2 AFAIK). –

xeno^talk

23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well that not so bad but I still see it as unnecessary policing and punishment. How would a user that has allegedly lost the trust of the community to even be a reviewer ever get it back? That is just such a lot of hyperbole, ow you've lost the community's trust, really only a handful of people have even commented. He can't show that he won't misuse it because he already hasn't misused it and as I have seen sometimes once as is being claimed here the community has lost its trust in you it is not returned easily. I trust him with reviewers rights until he abuses them. Lets see if and how he manages to become trusted enough to get a right back that he hasn't abused.

Off2riorob (talk

) 00:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with you, I really don't think it matters much. All of these "rights" were designed to be useless baubles, to be granted and taken away at the whim of any passing administrator. It was always going to work this way.

Fatuorum

00:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, my explanation should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the removal of 'reviewer' which may, or may not be, justified. The user seems to be having a bit of a go at RFA and AFD participants (and I think they would do well to modify their approach in this regard), but as far as I know, they have not compromised the mainspace. –xeno^talk 12:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal opinions are that the user's tools should not have been removed, unless they are/have been used in an abusive way. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There was no reason to remove his reviewer rights. That is an irrelevant punishment. He's already been blocked, that's enough. I'm also not sure how being disruptive can result in a "loss of community trust". Just because someone is a jerk doesn't necessarily make them untrustworthy.

confess

23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewers need good judgement. I have strong convictions about this user's judgement. I think their userpage says it all. Tommy! [message] 01:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that his recent behavior is a real concern for the administrators, because they don't want to take the risk by letting him have his tools. Because of this, they can't guarantee he will not abuse his user rights, and because of that, they take the safest before the risky side by removing all his user rights. I think A3RO will only ever get his permissions back if he apologizes for his recent behavior and promises not to do it again, be serious and returns to be a good and constructive editor again. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Farrukh38

After a hiatus of almost a year, this editor has once again begun systematically adding unreferenced personal commentary to a number of articles centred on the religion of Islam. Previous to a year ago, this editor was challenged and warned on many occasions on their talk page for engaging in this practice; with a number of different editors attempting various tacts in the hope of convincing Farrukh38 that what they were doing was contrary to our policies regarding original research and adding unreferenced personal opinion to articles, apparently all to no avail. When challenged on their editing practices, Farrukh38 does not appear to understand that the material that they are adding; apart from direct quotations from the Quran, consists of unreferenced personal interpretation and opinions regarding the material; they seem to consider that the personal perspective they're offering is in some way self evident "Truth" and requires no further substantiation whatsoever. It appears that previous to a year ago, a number of editors who attempted to mentor Farrukh38 regarding these issues, eventually simply gave up and walked away from the situation and Farrukh38 ceased making these types of edits shortly thereafter. Farrukh38 resumed these types of edits in the recent past and I have subsequently added what I deemed to be appropriate warning templates 1-4 to their talk page; again, to no avail, this editor simply continues to engage in their previous practices ignoring all input. I've considered that there is perhaps an issue with English language competency here; however their past dealings with other editors appear to me to be more of a case of obstinacy in their personal position rather than anything else. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked at and undone their edits on
  Muslim and Hadith. English language competency is certainly an issue; the edits they made are so unclear that it's hard to figure out exactly what they were--but helpful they weren't. If user persists in this kind of attitude then an administrator's attention is warranted. Let's say if they come here to explain/defend themselves. Drmies (talk
  ) 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:COMPETENCE comes to mind. --Rschen7754
    06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I have edited with references of Quranic verses. you can check all edits. But most of the editors did not accept the Quranic reference as reliable source.In the Hadith i aslo gave the verse and chapter numbers along with translator name.I donot see now my last edits in Hadith.

39:23(chapter 39/Verse23) Shabbir Ahmed (Translator's name): Allah has now revealed the best HADITH, a Book fully consistent within itself. It marks out both ways (to success and failure) repeating its Messages in diverse forms. Herewith shiver the skins of those who have some idea of the Glory of their Lord, and then, their skins and their hearts soften at Allah's Reminder. This is the Guidance of Allah, and with it He guides him who seeks guidance. Whereas he who follows a path that Allah has declared to be wrong, goes astray and he cannot find a guide.

This verse contain the word Hadith and referring to Book of allah. http://www.islamawakened.com/Quran/39/23/default.htm, similarly gave more references to tell the word Hadith as per text of Quran. what is wrong in it? If this is wrong then i can improve my self to correct me for editing.please read all my comments given to editors that when we talk about Quran then Quranic text must be considered as reliable source.The claim must match with quran if we are talking about Quran. Thanks.--Farrukh38 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't use the Quran to interpret the Quran. If you want to comment on what a Quarnic text means, you need a reliable source. And islamawakened.com doesn't meet our criteria at

talk

) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Quadruplum - unusual editing

While there is nothing seriously wrong, new User:Quadruplum's[103] edits so far have only consisted of inserting a space before periods in a number of articles. I have asked the user to explain but it seems like really unusual behavior and having other eyes on the users activity may be appropriate. Active Banana ( bananaphone 13:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like edit count padding to get autoconfirmed. I wonder what for... MER-C 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While you could be right, I do remember when I first registered my account making a number of simple gnomish edits to get my feet wet.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is possible, but putting spaces before periods? Where is that ever done? Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's correct style, I'm just not sure its nefarious.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit count is moot when it comes to autoconfirmed status from my experience. I had to wait almost 5 days to get autoconfirmed. Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit harsh to bring a new user's behavior straight to ANI isn't it? (I noted it was on the uers's talk page, but not exactly with much time to respond).

Anyway, I am guessing this user was the IP user who a few days ago asked me for some help on my talk page, since my suggested wording has been [added to that article, but without the references or Wikilinks that I provided; I suppose I shall have to add those back in, but wait for any further comment or action on here. This newly registered user may also be the same user who asked for translations of reference titles (and at my partner's too). I am purely guessing from editing behavior: it seems the IP user, at least, doesn't sign post and doesn't acknowledge any reply. Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Folkishfellow

User:Folkishfellow is reverting any and all changes and left as his summary: "If you want to play this game I can keep going for weeks. I don't have a job." here at the article on Edward J. Renehan, Jr. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• From their contributions I can only see one revert; the rest all seem to be fairly innocuous minor changes. Can you provide links that demonstrate ongoing revert warring? That edit summary seems unnecessarily belligerent but I'm not sure it amounts to ongoing disruptive behaviour. Reyk _YO! 23:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• I agree. Mostly harmless, gnomish edits, and I have been aware of this editor for a while. Just don't provoke him, but please do notify him of this thread. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I have done so now. RAN, you know it is bad form to take a user to ANI without informing them. Reyk _YO! 23:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I believe that RAN thought that the large number of times that the person that xe thought this to be has been notified and blocked obviated any such need to jump through a pointless hoop one more time. Uncle G (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My first thought that this was User:Torkmann again, but the edits are not similar enough to conclude as such, i.e. lack of "deletionist rage" and all that good stuff. –MuZemike 00:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree. RAN, this isn't who you think it to be. You appear to have stumbled into the middle of a "private" slow burning edit war between two limited-scope accounts,
  talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article about someone who relates to both, over whether it should talk about folk music or document librarianship. And, of course, the usual is occurring in such a situation. One or more of the limited-scope accounts thinks that you are the other person in the edit war. Nothing more sinister. Uncle G (talk
  ) 12:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, again

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.

The disputed editing restriction has been voided, and the underlying content dispute is under discussion at Talk:Halle Berry. Any continued concerns about any party's behaviour may be better-suited to a user conduct RfC, this thread is certainly producing more heat than light at this point. ~ mazca ^talk 13:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

---

• Gimmetoo (talk · contribs) has just arbitrarily declared an editing restriction for me:
• User talk:Jack Merridew#Editing restrictions

  Within my administrator's discretion, I am now banning you for one year from changing citation styles in articles. You may, of course, make edits in the established style of an article, but you will be blocked for changing the style. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept it as binding. This is all Halle Berry, again:

• ANI632#obstruction of ref clean-up
• Talk:Halle Berry#citation style
• Talk:Uma Thurman#References, too

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merridew has a history of abusive editing, and a recent issue with WP:NPA. He is currently subject to arbcom-applied editing restrictions. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Motion to amend User:Jack Merridew's 2008 unban motion

Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Merridew is apparently disputing this, I will wait to log the ban on the RFAR enforcement. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Gimmmetoo, according to the popup I get when I hover over your name, you're a non-admin with 416 edits to your credit. Just what entitles you to impose editing restrictions on anyone? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo is an alt account of Gimmetrow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but shouldn't he disclose that on his user page, and wouldn't it be better to use your admin account for admin tasks? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. You should read the ANI632 discussion I linked above, especially the long bit about his block a few days ago. Same issue. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no RFAR basis for this; you're just pissed about the Halle Berry citation RfC. Jack Merridew 03:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

You are editing disruptively, Merridew, and you are now making personal attacks. Your behaviour needs to stop, and if no other admin has the guts to do it, I do. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

and you're miffed about being indef'd last week. and posing pointy questions about it at the active RfA's. *you're* the disruptive party: example. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• In light of this recent dispute between the parties this is exceedingly poor judgement on Gimmetoo's part. Textbook
  WP:INVOLVED. If Merridew needs sanctioning, make your case to the community or to ArbCom, and have impartial editors decide. Skomorokh
  03:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  I am only "involved" because Merridew refuses to follow existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines. But fine, I'll vacate the sanction. Please discuss Merridew's behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)'d. That's about what I was thinking. Cheers, Jack Merridew

• Please discuss Gimmetoo's behaviour. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just curious, Gimmetoo, what's the reason for the new account? Also, you haven't edited as -trow since May, which means you haven't used the tools since then. Were you going to finally log in to your admin account just to block Merridew? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't planning to log in. I would be hoping that blocks wouldn't be necessary, but if they were, someone else would do them. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. Gimmetoo is absolutely involved here and I don't think individual administrator's have the right to give these types of sanctions unless there's an arbitration case in place (ie
  WP:ARBMAC or climate change). Regardless, winning disputes by using administrative actions isn't okay. AniMate
  03:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Skomor objected so I vacated it. Now, discuss Merridew's behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Just an uninvolved party but I'm seeing points all over the place here and not from Jack. Am I the only one? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • In addition to that, unless you have the admin bit active on your account, you have (or had)
        no authority to declare such a ban. NW (Talk
        ) 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's see: Legacy admin (who for reasons unclear uses a non-admin, alternate account) tries the 'ol "respect my authoritah!" trick to bully an editor he's in dispute with. Admin in question happens to be wrong in the underlying dispute, wrong on the extent of his admin powers (don't get to unilaterally deliver topic bans), and is way out of line to try, since he was seeking to use his imagined power to get the upper hand in a dispute. He's basically standing in the way of non-controversial article improvement. I'd recommend desyssoping the guy and then ignoring him (and i'd restrict him to one account; something doesn't smell right about this alternate account business). Easy peasy.

talk

) 03:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Bali, when have I ever been in such perfect agreement with you? Not recently. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For example, why is this "alternate account" so determined that he not declare such on his userpage [104]? Did Gimmetrow get mad over something? Because this entire episode reeks of a huge game. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

He still does have the bit active, but on the other account, which he hasn't used since May. He's accumulated an impressive block log on the new account, considering it has under 500 edits. He was indeffed and asked to log in to his old account to confirm that he's the same person controlling both of them, which he never did. However, according to his block log, this was confirmed through checkuser (I think). I know alternate accounts are ok under certain circumstances, but I still don't see the reason for it. He initially disclosed the alternate status on his (new) user page, then deleted the disclosure. Curious. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest the combatants voluntarily detach from one another and have the underlying content issue (reference styles) addressed decisively in a community-wide discussion. If other editors have issues with Gimmetoo's status it would be best to disentangle that question from the interpersonal dispute. This whole affair has been highly unproductive. Skomorokh 04:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Fine, if Merridew leaves me alone from now on. But I expect him to be blocked for any personal attacks. Gimmetoo (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Merridew has been leaving you alone. The problem is you think you own a few articles, so you conflate editing of your articles with bothering you. I expect you to be blocked if you try to abuse your alleged admin status again. The fact that you refuse to make the alternate account/sock thing clear on your user page also doesn't reflect well on you.

talk

) 04:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing bad behavior here, and it's not from Jack. AniMate 04:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree; this was less than helpful however ill-advised the sanction. Skomorokh 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Gimmetoo, thank you for agreeing to detach, I presume Jack Merridew will be so good as to follow, in which case we need not worry about personal attacks from either party. Best, Skomorokh 04:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This situation is rather more that simply curious. It begs for resolution in policy. With regard to this ANI, It seems nothing less than reverse sock-puppetry to allow one user to threaten, with sanctions by another user, in conflict resolution. At no time should Gimmetoo invoke the rights of Gimmetrow. If these rights are transferable than they should be accordingly done.My76Strat 04:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a situation that does not appear to be fully covered by policy. Whether it ought to be, and how, is a broader question than this discussion can reasonably bear.

WT:ADMINS might be the best place to discuss the general issue in a depersonalised fashion. Skomorokh

04:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is covered at

Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Alternative account notification. If you have an alternative account it needs to be tagged as such. AniMate

04:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As with many policy/guidelines, wiggle room for ambiguity is written in. Gimmetoo has previously invoked the provisions which open the above; "Except when doing so would defeat the purpose".My76Strat 04:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To clarify, I (and I think My76Strat) was referring to the administrator status of the Gimmetoo account; that the two accounts are associated with the same editor has already been satisfactorily proven I believe. From what I gather of this situation, the first clause of the paragraph you link to may apply. Skomorokh 05:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment for now: Gimmetoo did successfully echo a phrase in an e-mail I sent to Gimmetrow. I still don't fully understand the reason why he feels he cannot edit as Gimmetrow, but it is apparent to me that they are the same editor. Removing the alternate account declaration seems problematic to me.—Kww(talk) 04:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is just weird. I'd really like to here from Gimmetoo about what is going on here. AniMate 04:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Even weirder. He's actually posting RfA questions about this very issue. AniMate 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that alternate accounts are not meant to be used in this manner. If Gimmetoo wants a new start, then he cannot do so while invoking the status the flag on his old account gives him; if not I don't understand this at all. Refusing to edit from his main account to confirm the alt is plain disruptive unless he is for some reason unable to log in from it (lost password/insecure network), and that has not been made clear. It seems a bit pointy to me, ignoring the RfA questions which are bizarre but legit. sonia♫ 05:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Do any of you bother to understand the history of a dispute before you weigh in here? How about, when in doubt, sit on your fingers instead of speculating? Or do something useful, instead of bickering at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Question Gimetoo, can you confirm that the admin account is yours? Specifically, can you edit here with that account and confirm it? Basket of Puppies 05:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Okay. Time out, everyone. This issue has already been addressed. Gimmetoo=Gimmetrow, already confirmed back on 14 August 2010 by me. Even without fancy tools, the evidence was easy to discern if one knew where to look. Gimmetrow has, I believe, legitimate reasons to temporarily set aside his admin bits; it's time for people to simply be happy that we have an editor who's interested in continuing in the development, improvement and maintenance of the project. The alternate account had declared itself, it was operating under the appropriate policy, and any editor who doesn't spend a lot of time at ANI or SPI or Arbcom would have had no reason to think that there would be a problem; it's only people who spend a lot of time dealing with genuinely problem users who are seeing red flags all over the place.

  The dispute being raised by Jack Merridew involves citation templates, and Jack's desire to use his preferred style in articles that others (including Gimmetoo) edit. Whether the community will decide to continue treating citation documentation as something similar to

  WP:ENGVAR] or we'll have another "Date Delinking" is more or less up to you folks. Please don't take your eye off the ball, though. This isn't about Gimmetrow/Gimmetoo, it's about citation templates. Really. Risker (talk
  ) 05:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

To get back to the original issue, it is not clear from this thread how Jack Merridew "is currently subject to arbcom-applied editing restrictions" or how any active arbitral sanction prohibits him from changing citation styles. Absent explicit ArbCom authorization, Gimmetrow has no authority to ban Jack Merridew from doing anything with citation styles. But, without having examined whether that's what happened here, I think that we can all agree that changing articles from one MOS-accepted citation style to another for no good reason is disruptive and should not be done.  Sandstein  05:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2 @ Risker) Yep, and the last time I checked, Jack Merridew was changing citation style against

WP:CITE; if Merridew wants to do that, he should gain consensus or change the guideline (and then all hell will break loose, as editors alter citation style at whim). IMO, citation style is more akin to ENGVAR than to the lame date de-linking dispute, and changing citation style should be highly discouraged. Why do productive editors have to go to such extremes to get disruption to stop, and why do we need a federal case to see the issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 05:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no disruption in getting community feedback about a proposed change, getting consensus for it, and then making the change. This is what, from what I gather, has happened at the Halle Berry page. Gimmetroo flipping out over not getting his way, arbitrarily declaring Jack disruptive and imposing bullshit editing restrictions is not on. Reyk _YO! 05:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I suppose personal attacks and WP:CANVAS are nothing wrong, eh? Gimmetoo (talk) 06:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Jack's edit history of the last three or four days and there's nothing in there that even remotely resembles canvassing, and the closest he's come to a personal attack is laughing in your face because you spat the dummy and tried to pull rank when you didn't get your way. Given that this is the first we've heard of this mysterious alleged canvassing I have to ask: are you just making shit up and hoping some of it will stick? Reyk _YO! 09:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, if you're participating here, you've read

WP:AGF? SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 11:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure I have, but WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and it does not require me to leave my brains at the door. And I have long been of the opinion that the best way to get people to assume good faith is to show it. Here we see an editor claim rights and authority that he doesn't actually possess, use them to try (laughably unsuccessfully) to intimidate someone else in order to win an article style dispute, and then pull fresh allegations out of thin air when the original ones prove to be unsustainable. I'd be an idiot to continue to assume good faith, wouldn't I? Reyk _YO! 13:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• This looks like an attempt by a hugely involved administrator (who doesn't administrate) to silence opposition in a content (and style) dispute by making threats. The underlying issue is being (correctly) discussed at an RFC, here.  pablo 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • No canvassing, no personal attacks by Jack (calling bullshit "bullshit" is a good thing), just distortions of the situation by an admin/alternate account/whatever unhappy that he's not getting his way.
    talk
    ) 11:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Presumably, since you're participating here, you've read
      WP:AGF, understand that there is a guideline principle in play here, and are not just piling on from the peanut gallery. SandyGeorgia (Talk
      ) 12:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
      • What on earth does any of this have to do with "assuming good faith?" Long-standing admin makes allegations. I look into allegations. I found that there is no merit to the allegations whatsoever. I also find the admin was trying to use his "authoritah" to bully someone else in a content dispute. At that point, i have points of information to make a judgment that he's full of it, was way out of line to try to use his adminship to silence an editing opponent, and in other words is playing a game to win an argument. "Assuming good faith" doesn't mean what you think it means.
        talk
        ) 12:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The editing restriction has been voided; I think this issue is now resolved: could someone, please, close this thread as it is generating more heat than light? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Endorse closure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 19 August 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.

RFCs need closing

There are two RFCs that need a decision making on. Both have had the RFC tag removed by a bot, but discussion is still going on at one of them. See

talk

) 05:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor‎ should be closed as well. Toddst1 (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm addressing Teeninvestor's one - just discussing with participants so that they understand where to go next. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Guinea pig warrior

Resolved

 – I'm going to controversially suggest that no one thinks my block was a bad block, and mark this as resolved. Favonian rev-del'd the edit summary, I blocked the editor for a week. TFOWR 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

{{Unresolved}} I've blocked GPW, review is invited. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)}}

{{Resolved}} Summary deleted. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to his edit summary. If possible I would like that removed as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warren_Tredrea&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eathb (talk • contribs) 10:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User notifed. Eathb, in future please notify users when you raise issues involving them. TFOWR 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I also would appreciate it being removed, but with no further action being taken. It was said in the heat of the moment and I'm sure he regrets saying it. Lets just move on from this. Sequal1 (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a very positive gesture Sequal1. However, GPW's edit summary was completely unacceptable and I've blocked them for one week. As with all my actions, I invite review. TFOWR 10:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The edit summary was awful, and based on the length of his last block, it seems in accordance. However, after just being "talked off the ledge"[105], Eathb posted this a mere 25 minutes later after having made no contributions since this. This case sticks in my mind after first commenting on it, and I'm truly neutral on the "actual" topic involved here. The article's history is "troubling". Who's more to blame in this epic battle over an Australian Football club? Stay tuned... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did not know that he was in the process of "retiring" from wiki until I looked back at my report. I had no intent on keeping him off wiki forever, I just took offense to that edit summary and wanted it removed.Eathb (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Too little, loo late, apparently. He's now...

retired again. I advise GPW to act more like a "warrior" (but not an edit warrior). You were blocked for a really bad "exit" edit summary (now deleted), and your response is to throw your hands up in the air, again. I've seen this before from a few other editors (including admins). Nobody's going to hold your hand here: so it's best to get over it and come back to edit after the block. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk

) 13:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see where we may have possibly went wrong in how we have handled things as opposed to pointing everything at him, since he was a fairly decent contributor right up until the past month, when things started to go downhill. OTOH, from looking at the less-than-mature message on his userpage, I could also be wrong. The fact of the matter is that something happened. –MuZemike 14:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

He got into an edit war at

WP:AN3 that you can look at. I handled one of them, and issued a 3-day block to both parties, since they got up to seven reverts each. He then evaded this block using an IP, and someone else blocked him a week for that. The mystery is how GPW could be a good contributor for over a year and start getting into big fights over articles only in July. Since that time, he has responded 'paradoxically' to admin warnings, just assuming that everybody is out to get him, while in reality he has many friends. If he will politely ask for unblock for this latest fiasco, I think it should be considered. Whoever lifts the block should get some promise about the edit-warring, though. EdJohnston (talk

) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

His mum died, his partner left him, he's on vicodin for a bad back, he's lost his job, his new boss is a jerk..... I can think of two dozen reasons, none of which are we going to know (unless he chooses to start blogging on his userpage). Wikipedia does not have a human resources department whose job it would be to find out. I say this only so people remember how limited our scope is. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

User Template555

moved from

WP:AN by Skomorokh

00:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned that one of our users, Template555 (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of another user. Some users raised a concern during Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Template555/Lies that it might be an account created solely to disparage one group of people. What do you think the odds are of getting an SPI done on Template555? Is there a set process for a situation like this? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but the only user who raised that concern was you. ;) I think it's plausible, but do you have any evidence that would convince a clerk to suggest a CU? The editor's contributions are pretty limited, so I don't know if there's a lot to go by. An SPI request would probably be seen as a fishing expedition. -- Atama頭 15:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right that they are a sock. However, without a suspected sockmaster, even a checkuser running a fishing expedition probably would not be able to come up with anything. NW (Talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

nu-uh, not just me! "This userbox by the same user also worries me, though I must admit that the language is a bit confusing. It does appear though that the account is an SPI that is set up to disparage atheism. SilverserenC 04:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)" Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I didn't see that. In any case, the only thing I can think of is that an editor who has had a lot of experience with various sockpuppet behavior might notice something familiar. That's a bit of a long shot though. -- Atama頭 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

We could presume that the sockmaster would be an extremely Christian user, based on the type of userboxes being created. That doesn't give us much to go by, but if any suspects do come up, that would be something you would want to check for. Silverseren^C 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Prodigious copyright violator

Resolved

I would like to call attention to the images uploaded by

Pittsburgh State Office Building.) --GrapedApe (talk

) 14:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe this user has been warned enough. I have enacted a one-month block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request review:

User:Mario1987

Resolved

 – User unblocked by Beeblebrox

Note: User has been renamed to Bine Mai (talk · contribs)

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.

There seems to be a weak consensus to unblock, I will advise Mario to find a mentor and to be very careful about copyvios.

talk

) 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

---

arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmed

)

This user was blocked for being a serial creator of copyright violations back in October of last year. It seems there were also some sockpuppetry issues. They are asking to be unblocked, and as they were blocked as a result of a discussion here I am bringing their request here for discussion: Their full unblock request reasoning follows.

talk

) 21:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all i would like to say hello to eveyone and i would like to congratulate you for doing a very good job with this project. In these past 10 months since i've been blocked i realised that i was a jerk and what i did was wrong and such behaviour is considered offensive to other contributors and is not tolerable. Yes i've been foolish and many times desperate regarding my contributions, and more specifically the amount of my contributions, trying to impress god knows who with many good/bad articles and DYK nominations. I don't know maybe it was a personal ambition to be as high as possible in the lists regarding user by edit count or by DYK nominations or was it simply madness!? Nonetheless i believe that during this time when i was inactive (with a few hickups at the beginning of the year) i was able to put my thoughts in order and release my mind from these "ambitions" and personal faults. I know that my previous block was lifted as a friendly gesture and a sign of good faith but i blew it and i would like to appologise to all those people that believed in me and got dissappointed by my actions. So in conclusion i would like to ask you for another chance to be a contributor to this wonderful project and i hope that your decision will be favorable for everyone. Thank you very much for your time.

1987

20:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The "good article" comment reminds me of what the banned user "ItsLassieTime" supposedly used as a self-motivator for creating endless socks and contentiousness. You could try unblocking this guy, but be ready to bring the hammer down swiftly if he returns to his old ways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I could probably see a case here for a limited return under strict mentorship...perhaps sandboxing changes and having them checked for copyright-propriety and approved by a mentor before being put into mainspace. Something like the conditional unblock of MisterWiki (of course, this really hinges upon a willing mentor stepping forward). –xeno^talk 21:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. It's been almost a year. I say we give them a
  2nd chance, but keep a close eye on them for the first month or two. -- œ^™
  21:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

  Please note I have just re-targeted that redirect from WP:Standard offer to Template:2nd chance since it didn't make sense (standard offer is usually more like a 6th or 7th chance =). Feel free to revise your comment accordingly. –xeno^talk 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I agree with xeno here; the user's request was polite enough and they have accepted fault, but since copyright violations are pretty serious, I would only endorse an unblock with some sort of probation/mentorship like the measures proposed by xeno. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Provided this is not ItsLassieTime, I support giving another chance to Mario1987. –MuZemike 21:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would be happy to go for an unrestricted unblock with close observation. To me this is a fairly textbook
  WP:OFFER unblock from a user who acted, to a degree, in good faith but in an extremely misguided and disruptive way. I would personally lean towards giving another chance here. ~ mazca ^talk
  21:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't see a problem with it, if they start being disruptive then it shouldn't be hard to show them the door again. -- Atama頭 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
• Question. Has this user edited on other projects in the meantime? Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 22:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• I saw that one users want to know if i made contributions to other projects and i would like to say that i have a few on the Romanian Wiki here.
  {{helpme}}, asking for it to be copied over, which I've done.  Chzz  ► 
  08:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to thank you both. However, almost all of their 'tribs ere made before the block here on en.wiki; before supporting this unblock, I'd like to see that this user understands the reasons why they were blocked and that they have learnt from their errors. Therefore, I'll be glad to support after this user can show us a good track record on a sister project. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 12:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Unsure - Whilst the user seems genuinely sorry for having been disruptive, and whilst a very long time has passed since he was blocked, I am wary of the prospect that he may unintentionally (through incompetence) again violate our copyright policies if unblocked. Has some kind of re-education taken place, or were the violations that led to the block committed knowingly?

  I too would like to see the user enter into mentorship, with the understanding being that his freedom to edit would be withdrawn if problems again arose. On balance, I cannot support nor oppose without further thought—which renders this comment useless, I guess, but there may be food for thought in here somewhere. Also, I would thank Mario1987 for expressing an interest in returning to the project; we are always looking for more editors.

  AGK
  23:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the user was not only blocked but community banned for massive copyright violations. If there's some evidence he edited productively at a sister project and will agree to mentorship then I may be willing to change my mind. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose until he demonstrates understanding of the copyright policy. This is his second ban for copyvios, I don't think much will change if he is given a third chance. MER-C 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support. This seems to be a case where "forgive and forget" should apply. I think close mentoring is in order, including making sure they understand copyright policy. Triona (talk) 05:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• As blocking admin, I'm not really confident that an unblock is wise. The unblock request does not address in any way the reason for the block, i.e., serial copyright violations. But if an admin wants to closely monitor and thereby take responsibility for Mario1987's contributions, I'm fine with an unblock.  Sandstein  05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As well as trying to get out of the block or a ban he needs to at least understand the policies on not only copyvios but sockpuppetry too. Minimac (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As everyone above has already said, the unblock request doesn't directly address the issues for which he is banned (copyvios and potential sockpuppetry) and they need to demonstrate a solid understanding of these two policies. elektrikSHOOS 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support- This user seems to be sincere, remorseful over the way they've behaved, and says they're more than happy to be mentored, so I think letting them return would be a good idea. If Mario acts up again he can be blocked again. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support I am always for giving the editors a second chance. If the offense will repeat, the user always could be blocked again. Maybe the user will benefit from having a mentor, and of course there should not be any socks--Mbz1 (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - User has not addressed the actual issues which led to his original block, are there has been socking.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 16:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support giving another chance, to be monitored by mentor, with the full understanding that a ban doesn't have to be that far away, if he screws up. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose until such a time as the blocked user posts a detailed explanation in regards to why he was blocked, what policy caused him to be blocked, and how he intends not to engage in the same behaviors that got him blocked in the first place. Seth Kellerman (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per those asking why the blocked user does not attempt to explain the core issues of socking and copyvios, which are pretty darn major. Instead I see a lot of hand-wringing about edit count and DYK's. Apology etc. is meaningless if it fails to addess the big-ticket reasons for block, and the blocking admin himself says he's not convinced it is wise, which to me is the final nail. Mentorship is too little, too late. Jusdafax 03:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Comment and Question: some of the supports have said something about a mentor, but it's not clear to me that any editor has offered to mentor the user. Is there anyone who is willing and able to mentor the user? Also, if no editor is, would this affect support/oppose in this discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If nobody comes forth in this discussion he has indicated he is willing to enter the

talk

) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the same... might be a good place to seek a mentor though. –xeno^talk 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. One FL and two GAs and a block that was instated more than 9 months ago. I think we should give him a second chance. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 13:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• In response to the requests for a more detailed explanation of thy he was blocked he has posted the following statement.
  talk
  ) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. First of all i believe i was indefinitely blocked in October because of massive copyright violations regarding many pictures i uploaded to the project from a wide range of fields and places and claimed that they were made by me which obviously wasn't true. The only pictures made by myself were the ones from a HP Photosmart M537 digital camera, the other ones were from various websites, forums and other online places. My second problem was related to sockpuppets or as one user called it in the past operating a sock farm :). I admit i created many socks in the intent of helping me with various FPC's and other content. Another reason why i created socks is to evade my block because i simply couldn't realise in my mind that a ban is intended to stop a user from contributing poor referenced articles or stop disruptive behaviour. I can say that i was addicted to contributing almost anything to Wikipedia and since the ban stops you from doing just that i tried to evade it by all means without thinking and without realizing the consequences involved. These were my actions in the past for whom i don't have any excuse and for whom i deeply appologise and i hope that i detailed enough for you all. The rest is up o you. Have i nice day/night.

1987

19:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support With a mentor to keep a close eye, and zero-tolerance for future copyvio/sock issues. The Rhymesmith (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Has a willing mentor stepped forward? –xeno^talk 20:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

  Not as far as I can tell. Choose an optional user, it doesn't mean who it is or what type of user it is, it can be me or an administrator, for example, but preferably an administrator, which makes blocks faster to do. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support – Everyone are worth a second/final chance, whether they've been previously banned or not, as long as they haven't recently been sockpuppeting since the block. The latest (and current) block occurred 10 months ago. I think a new chance is justified. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock -- he appears to have received clue in the interim. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 18 August 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:Tube Bar Red and their Tube Bar prank calls A bit of back-and-forth over the opening sentence of Tube Bar prank calls, for which I posted a notice at Wikipedia:Content_noticeboard#Tube_Bar_prank_calls, led to some name calling in an edit summary, on my talk page, and on their own talk page--Tube Bar Red really means it, apparently. I had to look up "twit" and realize that I've been called worse. Anyway, that's not really what this is about.

I did a little bit of work verifying stuff in the article, and ended up removing a large bit of the supposed "names" because they were unverified, and I changed the spelling of one of them, based on a reference I added, here. The article's history shows TBR's response--it isn't polite, helpful, or in accordance with our guidelines re: verifiability and sourcing.

But beyond a knee-jerk reaction and some bad editing decisions, TBR's problem is ownership: their edit history and the history of the article makes it clear that they think they own Red, his bar, and the prank calls. I have no proof, though I have a suspicion, of a connection with www.bumbarbastards.com, which sells the stuff; another editor did suggest, at the Content Noticeboard, that a COI existed and that TBR might be reported as having a promotional user name. And within that context, I find it odd that a brand-new account, User:Tyros1972, would come along and make one single edit--to our article. Maybe that's a coincidence, and this is probably way too early for a CU.

I would like someone to look at the article and its history with an open mind. I personally think that TBR has ownership and civility problems, and I think that the article is not very good, but TBR's attitude gets in the way of improvement, in my opinion. (I also think that the template (at the bottom of the article) and all the individual articles on the tapes and CDs need to go for lack of independent notability, but TBR's hostility has deterred me so far. At some point I want to bring those to AfD.) Thank you. Drmies (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the similar names of the user and the article the user is editing, this is probably a

peacock term and should not be used. Truthsort (talk

) 18:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Legendary" was my peace offer, so to speak. As for bothering to discuss it on the talk page of the article, we did discuss it on our own talk pages, so this isn't some grand edit war fought between parties who are incommunicado; I have tried to discuss these matters and will gladly move that discussion to the talk page, but thought that a message on the user's talk page, especially if that user is so involved with the article, was a good way to go. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

POINTY AFD !votes from Carrite

Resolved

 – No apparent

WP:POINT being made. --SarekOfVulcan (talk

) 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that

WP:DICK

. Take a look at their recent contributions to Articles for Deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kung_Faux — "Nice presentation and powerful external links. It's fanboy but it's well done and should be of interest to WP users. Worthwhile content, Use Common Sense."
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mary Tyler Moore Show opening sequence — "Very well done article about a well established part of American popular culture."
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marilyn_Kittelman — "In short: Wikipedia has a real world function for many users, providing a neutral venue for the presentation of political candidate biographies. This is a valuable service, not to mention the fact that such biographies are apt to be linked off other pages dealing with specific elections. Why settle for redlinks? Why not document the candidates in real time?"
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Challenge Records (1920s) — "Tag for no refs and let it go. This is just a stub, like tens of thousands of others. Hopefully it will be developed over time."

In short, Carrite is arguing repatedly

WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 19:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Hammer is a deletionist, I am an inclusionist, and this is not an "incident." His ongoing series of "Non-Administrative [Premature] Closures" on AfD seems to indicate a strong desire to become an administrator and I suppose his making mountains out of molehills here is part of that program. Ho hum, I've got content to create... Carrite (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It is too an issue. It's you blatantly ignoring

WP:N and making borderline disruptive !votes in AFDs not unlike Kmweber. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer}

) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

"Powerful external links" - that's a new one on me. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like his attitude on his talk page is dismissive, and not willing to work with others. Heck, one of his comments is for an article that HAS no AfD in place! Please explain that one. Whose Your Guy (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with working with others, I do it all the time. If you all really want a dismissive attitude towards the views of others to investigate, how about taking a gander at disruptive premature Non-Administrative Closures at AfD like This One or That One. Carrite (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Both of them were asking for merge, which has nothing at all to do with AFD. The closures were fine, and the nominator even agreed with my closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any specific behavioral issues outside of the tone of some of Carrite's comments. I think the user should probably knock off the disrespectful attitude toward other contributors, but I don't know if this should require action at this time. Nothing has been a blatant direct insult or threat to any specific user or group from my perspective. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

His very dismissive, anti-social, snappy attitude isn't helping. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Not saying not to watch the behavior for escalation.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't think there's anything for admins to do here, but if you continue to have problems

WP:WQA might be helpful. -- Atama頭

21:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between being lame and being disruptive. If he were spamming every open AfD with "keep per five pillars" then there would be something to talk about here, but simply having a lower threshold for notability than the community norm and offering arguments that that effect is not disruptive at this point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

This has been at ANI a few days ago, resulting in Balagonj786 (talk · contribs)'s third block. Now, there's a new SPI, Jailbreaker212 (talk · contribs) who basically picks it up where Balagonj786 left off. Common sense tells me that there's some socking going on, but I don't think I have enough evidence to file a case yet. I have requested article protection. More eyes are needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I opened a case since there are too much

duck feathers on the way. Tbhotch^{Talk C.}

00:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: Balagonj786 just vandalized this thread. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

And I blocked for 2 weeks, since the last block was 1 week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• it's pretty clear Jailbreaker is a sock. They both misspell 'bias' exactly the same way and they're editing exactly the same articles/ HalfShadow 01:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ugg boots

Resolved

 – not much to do besides walk the dog. Toddst1 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This article has reached a point where an editor is making false accusations about myself because I took photographs of Ugg boots being manufactured, closed an RFC opened by a sockpuppet and nominated for meging product article after they had been tagged without any response for almost two months. I had initially tagged those article and was not going to do any further followup but one of them was deleted as POV fork so I then went back to and merged them. In the last 9 hours(though I havent been on) I have been the subject of personal attacks by User:Phoenix and Winslow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I requesting that someone take a look at the situation, User:K10wnsta had aready looked at the article and given an opinion about the situation which didnt suit P&W pov, that was the trigger for this last attack. Gnangarra 00:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that cuts both ways. User:Gnangarra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has falsely accused me of making legal threats. And I made no specific accusation, but just raised the possibility that he might have a COI. He has a pattern of editing that is detrimental to a dominant American boot manufacturer, and very helpful to the marketing departments of its Australian competitors. His contacts with one of the Australian competitors, combined with these other factors, raised a red flag IMHO. That's all. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, please show us the diffs of "falsely accused me of making legal threats" as well as that detrimental pattern.

Gnang, how about those diffs of personal attacks? Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First edit this one directly identifies me, and accuses me of being paid marketing employee of one (or more) of the Australian manufacturers. Then this edit accuses me of dishonesty, the this edit accuses my of a systematic attack on Deckers. Then User:Bilby comments about P&W attacks asking him to stop. Yet P&W continues to attack the Photographer, then User:K10wnsta offers up more detail in his independent opinion yet P&W ignores this expanding the photographer of monumental dishonesty Gnangarra 01:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

diff is that a legal threat follow the diff you can see P&W point that Deckers defends their product in courts I just request P&W to clarify if that is what I'm facing inthe future if continue to edit Gnangarra 01:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I had a look, and I see ugly and insulting accusations against Gnangarra and Bilby, suggesting that they are party to some kind of corporate conspiracy:

• "one of the counterfeiters was an Australian manufacturer... They're dishonest. I suggest that their dishonesty, in addition to their corporate marketing efforts, may be percolating onto this page."
• "Gnangarra has been quietly deleting every WP article about Deckers product lines (
  Deckers Outdoor Corporation article, in effect making it the way that the Aussies want Ugg boots
  to look: lots of material that helps Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments, and no material that Australian boot manufacturers' marketing departments might find inconvenient. And look, what a surprise! Both Gnangarra and Bilby are Australians. Fancy that."

diff Personally, I say these are personal attacks. I can't act here as Gnangarra is a friend of mine. But for the record, I can affirm that these accusations are a load of crap: Gnangarra has nothing to do with any of these corporations, and is not the kind of guy who would stooge for them if he did. Hesperian 01:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the legal threat (spell it out for me?). I do see confrontational comments, but not

serious personal attacks. Still reviewing... Toddst1 (talk

) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There was no legal threat. Here's the diff.[107] Yes, I've been a bit defensive because I'm being falsely accused of making legal threats etc. But no, I haven't made any personal attacks, I'm just questioning the motives of my accuser. He refuses to withdraw his false accusations or apologize. I think this mention on ANI is a good idea, because the more eyes on these articles, the better they'll become IMHO. I encourage anyone who thinks I'm making personal attacks to read the Talk:Ugg boots page, so that all these snippets can be seen in the proper context. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I see: Phoenix is being very confrontational, accusatory and rather territorial about the

WP:COI. Gnangarra has gotten tired of this belligerance and has become frustrated. I really don't seen any serious wrongdoing here and certainly not any administrative misconduct. I recommend both of you find a dog, and be nice to her and approach this with good faith when you return. You're both too charged up about this. Toddst1 (talk

) 01:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Bulk changes to sports articles without explanation

I recently ran across User:NBAfan321 who has been updating sports articles (baseball and basketball from what I've seen). Some of these edits involve updating ERA and batting averages, and others just involve updating the date. I asked the editor what the edits were about and I was met with this response. While I don't have any reason to think these edits are incorrect, the lack of explanation after I brought it up, and then again a second time, is bothersome. Another editor, User:Stricken83 brought up similar concerns about an hour later (that editor seems to be commenting on the actual content), and yet NBAfan321 continued on with the edits. None of these edits have an edit summary and all told there've been over 300 of these in the last 7 hours.

I don't know what a solution is right now but I do know this editor doesn't appear to take my, and others' concerns seriously, and I'd appreciate some more eyes on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Let me explain myself; I had no intention to cause any conflict at all. I am just trying to update these articles. Some of the infobox stats are more than a month old, and I'm just trying to improve the articles in question. The stats are all correct (they come via ESPN.com), so I don't really see how there's much of a problem. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • If its what you want, fine, I'll start adding edit summaries. NBAfan321 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this is another example of the problems that can be caused when editors don't leave edit summaries.

talk

) 08:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to explain my angle on the issue.I have updated stats up to a certain date, and at least in the entries I was talking about - NBAfan321 has only changed the date (by one day!).Maybe I'm the one that's not seeing things correctly, but I just don't see the point of updating the date by one day without any changes to the stats themselves, especially if the player in question didn't even play on that date.One more thing that bothers me, I'm not sure that this is the proper place to ask the question but I'll give it a shot anyway - in a sports article, when stats are supposed to be updated up to a certain date - should they include the same date? For example - the stats for a certain baseball player are mentioned to be updated until today, does it mean that they should include today's games, and if they don't - I should write the update date as yesterday's? Please advise me, because I'm not sure where to ask, and this is a major key for me in the dispute between me and NBAfan321 Stricken83 (talk) 08:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably best to update it to the actual day, rather than the day played, but it's not really something we discuss here on ANI. Best to contact a relevant Wikiproject and form some policy, if there isn't some already. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'm new to all this stuff so I didn't really know where to ask... Stricken83 (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not actually a project issue. The infobox clearly states that the stats are "through" a date, which specifically means that the stats include the games of that day. On that one particular point, you are correct. However, I have to agree that folks were getting quite

the baseball project talk page and bring things up. -Dewelar (talk

) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a way to

drive away a new editor. Thankfully you failed. Seven hours of updating stats and this is the thanks. This is a waste of ANI's time over a non-issue. Vodello (talk

) 13:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Don't exaggerate, Vodello, and this is not a non-issue. Facts need to be cited, edits need to be explained, and this editor was asked quite nicely (a few times) and answered quite dismissively. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think this is an AN/I issue, but rather one that we handle routinely on the baseball project talkpage. And if the edits were accurate, I thank this new user for his additions. As far as updating by one day, that's fine -- I see zero harm in that.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Roux Unblock Request

Resolved

 – Roux (talk · contribs) unblocked by East718 (talk · contribs). Consensus was an unblock. /HeyMid (contributions) 10:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

arb · rfc · lta · socks

)

As can be seen

BWilkins ←track

) 09:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I vaguely support an unblock - any problems can be managed with cooling off periods. Roux just has a temper - it's not something insurmountable, and he is a good contributor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good news. Welcome him back ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Long overdue. This was basically a burnout issue, and said burnout was at least partly caused by an editor who won't be coming back. The increased scrutiny that comes with this kind of unblock should be sufficient to prevent any disruption should there be any future problems. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

For the rest of us, could someone link the reasons for the indef in the first place (or was it just that he swore a lot...)? I've looked through some talk pages but I don't see the discussion... maybe I'm too lazy. Shadowjams (talk) 10:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at his most recent contributions... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk • contribs) 10:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well yeah, I saw that. That's why I said he swore a lot. Clearly he was blocked before that though. So what's the deal? I hope we're not blocking just for language these days (6 months ago). Shadowjams (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we do block for constant violations of

WP:NPA. In this case, I believe the straw that broke the camel's back was calling User:A Nobody a "rabid inclusionist".--Atlan (talk

) 10:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to support this, if Roux accepts a six-months' civility parole. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 11:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Could somebody please provide a link to the discussion, if any, leading to the block?  Sandstein  11:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I oppose an unblock. I am for second chances, but according to the block log this editor's second chance is long, long past. The unblock request is also inadequate, not addressing the reasons for the block and generally casting himself as the victim ("when I am being abused, as I have been many times by other users").  Sandstein  12:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm hearing myself say such a thing, but I agree with Sandstein here. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

• Discussion containing Roux's edit summary, Block discussion. Uncle G (talk) 12:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• This from 1 March from the blocking administrator is worth noting... Doc9871 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – Roux has not shown any signs of promising to be more civil, which makes an unblock inappropriate. /HeyMid (contributions) 12:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Heymid: the user's unblock request seems to focus more on how wikipedia has problems than how (s)he has caused them, and hasn't indicated that they will cease the behaviour that led to the block. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Weak support- seems that the editor who got under Roux's skin the most is permanently gone, and that Roux is promising to take his grievances through the proper channels rather than getting mad and lashing out. So he's addressed that part at least. I'm not quite happy with Roux wringing his hands and crying victim but I don't think that is the point. The point of keeping people blocked is not that they fall to their knees, grovel and meekly conform, but to prevent disruption. In my opinion Roux can feel as hard done by as he likes; he's said he'll stop acting up and I am prepared to
  believe him for now. Reyk _YO!
  13:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• I would disagree with Bwilkins summation of Roux's contributions to date as "typically positive" – I have found his attitude to be abrasive, mistrustful and generally unpleasant. The unblock request indicates that nothing has changed in that respect. So I oppose an unblock under current circumstances, and suggest that if the editor is eventually unblocked, it is with restrictions on negative interaction with other editors. Skomorokh 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support — Roux is a decent person and certainly will not go off, as before. It's been six months. Let him return. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support, provided that... he's watched closely, as he has been too quick to pull the trigger in the past. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose...for now We've handed out too many "second chances" to this guy. What makes this one any different? I'd like some more re-assurance that he'll stop what got him into this hole in the first place before I'm willing to see him unblocked.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 14:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Generally supportive of an unblock. Burnout or no, the original block was warranted and six months on it is possible we can accept him back. Protonk (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Roux was a productive editor before he burned out. Six months with no socking or other disruption makes me hopeful he can return to editing productively once again. Of course he'll be closely monitored, as all editors unblocked after lengthy amounts of time are. AniMate 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - I like Roux, he was very helpful and it was a shame when he blew up. If he can keep his cool it would be great for Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Roux has served his time and has explained how he intends to deal with any future episodes of the sort that got him into this mess. It is unseemly to demand that he falls to his knees shouting mea culpa. There are too many here who see incivility in the behaviour of others, but are blind to it in themselves.
  Fatuorum
  17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral I haven't read his unblock request. I only hope he's given up his siege mentality & excepts some of the blame for his getting blocked. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • He did... sort of. His request wasn't very repentant, in fact it was somewhat defiant, but he did predict that his request to be unblocked would be controversial (whether that's from a feeling of persecution or an acceptance of personal wrongdoing, I don't know) and he did state that he'd behave differently if he felt like he was being harassed ("abused" in his words). -- Atama頭 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
    • If he's unblocked, I hope he'll have better self-control. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: unblock request is fair, and I wasn't supportive of blocking him for the "rabid inclusionist" comment either. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional Support If he promises to behave and cut the Civ and PA out. I see no reason not too, He's a good editor hopefully six months have taught him something. Worse case we block him again later Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support too. A decent and intelligent editor that needed a time-out; seems well worth a try. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Decent person, decent unblock request, and it's been six months. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Burnout was at the heart of the dispute between Roux and a now-community banned editor. I would encourage him to throttle back the temper, though. Horologium (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support: You should be unblocked. However, in the future, don't let your temper get the best of you. -
  talk
  ) 17:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Shadowjams (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I don't expect any grovelling or abasement (though it'd be nice ;-) but I do expect a commitment from Roux that future problems will be handled differently: Roux's undertaking to raise problems with a third-party is sufficient for me. TFOWR 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional support - Only if he agrees to a 6 month mentorship. If he stays out of battles and refrains from losing his temper in that 6 months, then the mentorship ends and he is free to resume as normal. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if that will be necessary or at all helpful. Roux is very far from an inexperienced editor, he doesn't need a mentor to help him with Wikipedia. Roux has had problems dealing with conflicts with other editors, and he has pledged to take those problems to someone else for help, so that has the same effect as having a mentor (you're getting help from someone else to keep you out of trouble). -- Atama頭 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Blocked for "a rabid inclusionist"? Talk about potty mouth. Mr. Bowlder, you are wanted on line number two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Support – I'm willing to give Roux another chance in the understanding that he will handle future conflicts better. Airplaneman ✈ 18:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support an unblock. It's been 6 months now. With civility being the only problem, I think that's a long enough block.--Atlan (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment – Six months is
    WP:OFFER. /HeyMid (contributions
    ) 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. A 6-month block for comparatively mild incivility is quite long enough.
  talk
  21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair to the parties responsible, the reason for escalation to indef was due to said incivility going beyond "mild". Still, the standard offer allows for far worse than burnout rage. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock of Roux the editor - "Roux le Rage" will need keeping an eye on, though. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Productive. Passionate. Had a tendency to get pissed off when confronted/taunted, and he intends to work on this. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Good person; like me, he may get a little testy at times but he says he'll work on it, and I trust him there. Agreed that he's been gone long enough if civility is the only issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support with... a mentor. I was given one when I came back from block (actually had two mentors) and they were very helpful in letting me know where I should be editing and not, what I should be doing and not and keeping me in line. It helped. I think Roux is a good editor, but needs the help of a mentor to stay on track. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support with all regard for the qualms of Sandstein and Bishonen. Let's give them another chance, what have we got to lose? --John (talk) 22:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Last chance tho.. -- œ^™ 23:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support unblock. Going out in a "blaze of glory" shouldn't stop him coming back. Fences&Windows 00:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Get the guy back to work already. I expect he'll try to avoid similar problems in the future. Jafeluv (talk) 01:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support Connormah 01:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I've only had good experiences with Roux, even when he was upset or angered. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Ok. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is pretty clear here. Can someone take the next step please. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This has been sitting here for a few hours. I'll go ahead and unblock Roux. — east718 | talk | 10:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive632&oldid=1166568710"