Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive637

Okay, I am being advised to offer evidence of the attempts I have made to resolve the dispute. First of all I have given a reference (Which is what this mess is about according to Zaspino). Second I gave a reference of my reference and then I decided to continue that argument on the users talk page. Finally I repeatedly asked the user not to repeat our steps. After that I took some time off in the weekend and arrived right back into the same mess. Seeing as it is withholding me to edit here with any kind of nice feeling or idea that this will end at some point I decided to ask for a block. The examples are only taken from the morality article. It is the first case ever that I have heard of a reference being needed for a reference... If evidence is needed of this mess on the nl.wiki, just ask..

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

NOTES: 1)I have requested both FTOWR and Shell Kinney for advice and help, but both seemed to be too busy to assist. However, in the emails I sent I predicted this chain of events. That fact, I think, counts strongly towards my point. 2)For me the primary reason I feel harassed is because this very same activity has been going on on nl.wiki. Since no realistic points are made by the users and no recognition of sources is shown there is no more reason to discuss matters further to me. --Faust (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, by "FTOWR" do you mean me? We've talked a bit recently, so it's possible, but I don't recall anything about this. Do you have a diff? I'll have a dig through my talkpage archives but a diff would greatly help. TFOWR 21:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I went look at the
  not a battleground. Going by your posts on their talkpages, apparently you regard this ANI posting as a "request for blocks". I don't think Zaspino nor Theobald are in the slightest danger of being blocked. But you might be, if you carry on in the same way for much longer. Bishonen | talk
  21:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

@TFOWR, Yes, I meant you, apologies for the miswrite. I sent you several mails, but never got a reply. I also alerted Shell Kenny, but she is short on time I think. @Bishonen: I can understand your opinion, but I ask you to bear in mind that I knew I was being harassed from Zaspino's first edit here since it was a continuation of events on nl.wiki. That simply makes me lose my patience. Apart from that neither Theobald, not Zaspino are knowledgeable in the field, as is obvious from ALL comments they have made. They are only good at rhetorics. My case is made by the fact that I alerted TFOWR and Shell Kinney to what was going on at the very first post Zaspino made and predicted this chain of events. --Faust (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So you were in battle array from the very start? No... I'm afraid I don't see that as making your case. Bishonen | talk 23:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah, email! That would explain it. Let me have a dig... apologies for not looking into it, I suspect yours isn't the only email I've missed. TFOWR 23:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, caught up with me email. Faust sent me two emails on 27 August and 30 August which raised concerns Faust had with one of the editors discussed here. Faust subsequently sent me two emails on 2 September which additionally raised concerns with a second editor discussed here. Basically, I can confirm that Faust's comment above re: alerting me is correct. Beyond that, I'm way out of my depth: this is - as far as I can see - a content dispute involving philosophy. If I were to reply to Faust's emails now I'd basically say: ask the experts. TFOWR 16:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bishonen: Actually, it proves that I am not the one who was in battle array from the beginning and that I have been very patient without any reason for that. In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding. This explain his unreasonable denial of my references and his continual stating of falsities quite clearly. It shows that no matter what he will never accept anything other than his POV and is not interested in building an encyclopedia based on truth. Since Zaspino and Theobald are in a tagteam together, continuing a dispute from nl.wiki here I cannot understand why this would reflect negatively on me.--Faust (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

IP'S 157.242.159.225 and 76.168.95.118 and 79.182.17.168 and 173.58.234.86

I would like to report the Ip's stated above, which are used by the same user. This user insists on places his personal definition in the morality article, without reaching consensus. I have undid the revision four times now and I think an edit-war is just not done. Although a majority is in favor of a revision, I am not convinced this should be done since the thoughts outlined in that revision are POV's explained elsewhere in the article, now being trumped as a general definition. I cannot escape the thought that they are in a tagteam with Zaspino and Theobald, since I can think of no good reason why such a user who would be interested in moral ethics would not have a user page, but suddenly come to the rescue of Zaspino and Theobald. --Faust (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The revisions I undid are 1, undone because of a POV posited as a definition, 2, undone because of the same reason and requested to discuss first on the talk page, 3, same reasons, 4, same reasons. Although the IP's vary I think this is the same user, if not, it is a tag team.

NOTE: if you want them, ask for the 'whois' queries I did. They are seperate companies, but the user has acknowledged to be at least two of these IP'S and any more random browser appearing saying the current version is not correc after months of never being under dispute just when there is a dispute with is transferred from the nl.wiki would make this story even more (if possible) unlikely. --Faust (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I can clearly see Faust's indignation, but I fail to see what I actually did wrong. As far as I know I have broken no policy here and I have treated Faust respectfully. My concerns are with the content of en.wiki and I cannot help but notice that Faust's edits and proposals often show faulty reasoning and wobbly and untidy wording. The last few days my criticisms have been directed at precisely those defects. I have been careful not to refer to nl.wiki issues. I am not here to quarrel as my edit history amply testifies. I am definitely not the same editor as any of the above mentioned IP's (I have never contributed to en.wiki anonymously) - the anons actually know a lot more about the taxonomy of ethics than I do. By saying "In an attempt to get through to Theobald, for instance Theobald clearly states that he has no intent to get to an understanding" Faust refers (without my consent) to an e-mail exchange with me. His conclusion is an outright lie. Furthermore, I do not form a "tag team" with Zaspino or with any of the anons mentioned above. On his talk page Faust states: "I am a horror at following policies, but a miracle at seeing what is going on..." To cut a long story short: I think Faust's ability to see what is going on as well as his ability to communicate leave something to be desired, to put it mildly. Theobald Tiger (talk) 08:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I am just an anon IP, so I ask you to

WP:3RR violation for edit warring at least if I am figuring out the times correctly and good faith is assumed. I wish to state that I only edited the part in question a single time.--173.58.234.86 (talk

) 14:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, Faust never warned me with {{subst:ANI-notice}} upon my mention at the noticeboard and only mentioned seeking blocks in passing in the Talk:Morality page. I had to dig this page up myself and I find this the wrong way to offer constructive criticism of a user on Faust's part.--173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though. Tag team comes to mind. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do take note of my RfC however, which I do hope can eventually solve this problem once and for all. You don't have to believe me if you choose, but know that I am trying to do good.173.58.234.86 (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If indeed you are none of the other IP's and you arrived at the page by sheer coincidence I owe you an apology. I find that hard to believe though. It would be a one in a million chance, but even those occur. Your argument that one IP is an IP from somewhere else on the globe is one I do not take seriously since you might as well have a server somewhere. Since you are making the exact same -incorrect- claims the others do and wish to make your case by ad hominem remarks I must remain at my prior conclusion though, especially since you seem to be watching my edits, as is the MO of the others. There are just too many similarities to be a coincidence, also the MO you are displaying is one that can easily be considered harassment. Tag team comes to mind, but, as said, I may be mistaken, in which case I apologise. --Faust (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Faust, your pomposity seems to be very much out of proportion when compared to the quality of your editing and your comments. Your user name gives rise to the suspicion that you are aware of that fact. If you are roleplaying, please stop. This is an encyclopedia, not a game. Hans Adler 16:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I think further escalation of the conflicts between me and Faust can no longer be avoided, I have asked an administrator who has been involved to a certain degree in conflict resolution for advice. (I am prepared to leave the judgment of Faust's edits and proposals to the en.wiki community minus myself, as did one of the anons.) See Ask for Advice. Theobald Tiger (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Of course, I could have simply quit the scene without bothering an admin. I am not important, and though I am not completely unfamiliar with ethical and philosophical issues, I am not a specialist either. The reason that I doubt whether my exit is desirable or not is that an extremely mild-mannered, well-read and knowledgeable editor as Pfhorrest, who writes clear, unambiguous and with precision about ethics and philosophy, is left alone in fighting the dragon (if not supported by the community). See for example [23]. Theobald Tiger (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained to Faust that this IP and 157.242.159.225 are the only connected with me. He continues to accuse me of edits made by different IPs. I and several other IP-users have already complained about his grouping us together with some conspiracy theory to do with nl.wiki, which I have never even visited. Now he's doing whois lookups and still alleging we're the same people? Mention this again and I will report you or harassment. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I think this is getting ridiculous. The users Theobald and Zaspino have no interest, nor knowledge on the matters discussed. They are merely trying to block well referenced edits on behalf of their own POV. I can understand that some people share that POV and that, perhaps an objective statement on the subject is undesirable to them. However, I will need at least ONE source to support this POV. As to the knowledge of Pfhorrest, I do not think this is so tremendous. The only thing that I was happy with, until recently, was his ability to argue his points. However, he has chosen to edit an article which is in dispute without giving a source as well, which disappointed me greatly. --Faust (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There are now five sources, and clear consensus. If an admin reads this, can you please advise as to how I can prevent Faust from harassing me and vandalizing the article at morality? See that article's history and talk page for clear evidence of Faust's single-POV filibustering against a consensus reached by at least half a dozen other editors, with sources. 76.168.95.118 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Further discussion on this isn't going to help. Disengaging and de-escalating is what is needed here. Fences&Windows 01:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Cailil (talk · contribs) posted to my talk page on 8 September to warn me – quite correctly – for borderline incivility in this post to another editor. I immediately struck the offending comment, but I felt that the language used in his warning – "please avoid ad hominem remarks...This kind of comment is unhelpful and violates WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG" – was totally disproportionate for the rather mild phrase "behave like a grownup", not to mention the incorrect use of "ad hominem", and I told him so.

Cailil responded with a "second warning", telling me that my comment was "tendentious and uncivil" and adding, "I would suggest that is not the best idea to test the limits while operating in an area under probation (as the British Isles naming dispute is)." Now, first of all my comment, while certainly brittle, was not uncivil, and the assertion that I was "testing the limits" was unfounded and unfair, but more importantly, in commenting on his post on my talk page I was not operating in any area under probation, so the implied threat of sanction under Wikipedia:General sanctions is, not to put too fine a point on it, an abuse of admin privileges.

I protested strongly, but in moderate language (not, for instance, using the phrase "abuse of admin privileges"). Cailil responded with an even more outrageous post, telling me I was "repeatedly behaving in a tendentious manner (after being warned for such behaviour)" and that my reply was "inappropriate and would be worthy of a 3rd warning - but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt not issue a 3rd warning for it." Now, as long as I have been a user on WP it has been accepted practice that an editor may speak freely to another editor on his or her own talk page (as long as it's not outright abuse) without being threatened with sanctions. There is also – I hope and firmly believe – a tradition that admins do not use their position to place other editors at a disadvantage. There's a word for that, but I daren't utter it or I'll be blocked for sure.

Since Cailil concluded by saying, "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy", I wish to save him the trouble by asking sysops on this page to review his conduct. I needn't tell you, I am most unsatisfied with it. Scolaire (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Read

WP:STICK and then go do something productive. Cailil has said they will get a second opinion. Your conduct may have been borderline uncivil and not quite meriting the strength of warnings (or maybe there is more background here that hasn't been discussed yet), but it is silly to argue over a mere warning. Go behave properly and you'll have nothing to worry about. Jehochman ^Talk

20:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no history between Cailil and myself, or any other background that I am aware of. Second, he did not say he will get a second opinion - that was contingent on "this" continuing. Third, I have said up front that my problem was not with the "mere warning", but with the increasingly heavy threats to block me if I don't kowtow to him. "Go behave properly" is every bit as bad as the phrase I was warned about in the first place. I hadn't expected to be worse abused by the admins here than by the admin I am complaining about. Scolaire (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Scolaire I'm just going to echo Jehochman. I said I'd get a second opinion - you've already afforded my that opportunity by bringing it here - so thank you for that.
  To be clear there is no exemption from WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TPG just because it's on a userpage.
  This is your third escalation of a simple, short to-the-point and accurate warning[24] (for this). In and of itself that is
  battle-ground mentality--Cailil ^talk
  21:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Point of order: the word groveling was not a description of Cailil's warning but a description of the kind of response Scolaire supposed was being looked for by Cailil. At the beginning, Scolaire's "act like a grownup" remark was judged rude by all and it was retracted. Cailil's second and third warnings on Scolaire's talk page were two too much; they were bullying and should be retracted. Binksternet (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet just for clarity there was no 3rd warning. In fact if there is a portion or a phrase you can evidence as inaccurate or inappropriate (considering Scolaire's actions) please do so. As I said to Finn earlier I don't see how I belittled (or bullied) Scolaire. If you can't evidence exactly how you attest I have bullied Scoaire I will ask you to withdraw that remark. Thanks for pointing that out about "groveling" - my mistake--Cailil ^talk 22:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Your second warning ("And I'm afraid I have to warn you once more for misuse of the talk space. Please modify that behaviour") is something I interpreted as "stop being a smartass on your own talk page", but I was under the impression that one's own talk page was where one had the most leeway in that regard, and I did not see anything harmful in Scolaire's smartass response. What I take to be your third warning is in your third post to the talk page section, where you end with "If this continues I will have another sysop review my conduct and unless they contradict me I will then proceed to continue to enforce site policy." To me, this statement feels like a third warning, and the pointed absence of a specific named policy enforcement action (page protection, blocking, ARBCOM) made it a veiled threat, and to my eye it constituted bullying, in that the unnamed is the most fearful. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Binksternet, but I interpreted Scolaire's "smartass" response as tendentious and making a mockery of WP:NPA (ie they stated that as their remark to LB worked that they were happy with it). WP:TPG still applies to one's user-space - there is no exemption from site policy as users don't actually own their own talk space the rules still apply there. Scolaire described my short warning as "lazy" because I didn't wikilink policies that I expected them to know - I interpreted that as incivil. What I saw was incivility and tendentious after being warned for incivility - hence warning 2.
Re the third post I clarified at the top of that post that it wasn't a warning (perhaps I should have said "I'd AGF" rather than "give the benefit of the doubt" but that's what was meant) - I would be happy to apologize if that passage, the part you mention, came off as offensive (but this dispute was going with my first warning so that cannot be the point of conflict & Scolaire has never specified what exactly was wrong about my warnings or subsequent post).
To reiterate - that remark wasn't a threat, but I can see how if taken out of context it can be seen as such. However what I said is what I meant - if the behaviour continued I would have asked another sysop's opinion and input on it and then enforced policy accordingly, that's all. There's a bit of a leap to make (even though I agree I could have couched that line better) to saying that that's a threat, or that it could be called bullying--Cailil ^talk 00:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• • • (e/c) No, Cailil, it was you who escalated. My response to your original warning was not excessive, or even unreasonable. You could just as easily have said "thank you for your feedback" and let it go. You didn't. You "warned" me simply because you took exception to the tone of my response. That is not acceptable; it is ultra vires, and it is petty. And, for the record, there was a very clear, if veiled, threat. It is there in the diffs for all to see, and to say there was not is less than honest. And (though I forgive you for saying it) if I have a battle-ground mentality, what have you got? You must have seen within hours that I was not continuing any war on the British Isles Task Force or anywhere else, so where was the need for you to be increasingly belligerent in your posts to me over the following days. It comes across as a personal vendetta, and that is not acceptable from an admin. If admins are to admonish others for immoderate language, it is incumbent on them to be moderate in their own language. And thank you, Binksternet, for daring to use the word that would have got me blocked. Scolaire (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

No Scolaire you brought it here, you made an issue of the first warning and the second.
And now, I must ask what language exactly is either inaccurate or inappropriate in my posts - how did it infer anything about you? And how is it inaccurate to say that the post you were warned for is in an area under probation?
You intervened in a highly fraught atmosphere with a remark that you have admitted to being inappropriate. When warned you were incivil to me and responded in a tendentious manner - you were warned for that, not for "failing to kowtow"--Cailil ^talk 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The "behave like a grownup" is more of an inaccurate statement, then an attacking one. Why? No 2 grownups behave alike. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem remarks like that in a probationary topic area are inappropriate - Scolaire should have addressed the edits not the editor--Cailil ^talk 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Should any authorities (Secret service?) be contacted about edits like this? The IP does geolocate to the phone # given. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Probably just a tin-foil-hatter but it never hurts to check anyway. Secret Service, and FBI crime tip form. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Might be tricky to report the edits, as they're now deleted. Fences&Windows 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

On that note, is there a simple way to get from a suppressed diff to the suppression log? In a case like this it might be handy to get ahold of the oversighter hiding the revisions and I don't really know how to do that. Protonk (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You would have to contact an individual functionary or their mailing list. If it is fully suppressed, the log action will be hidden as well. NW (Talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Protonk (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all,

Done. You might've got a better response at

WP:SPI, to find any other sleeper accounts. Fences&Windows

00:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Slp1 revdeled the edits. Fences&Windows 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think an admin may want to hide/delete the history of a couple of derogatory edits on the article Antisemitism [33] and [34]. If this is not please redirect me to correct page to post this. Thank you for your time - Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 00:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just garden variety vandalism by an illiterate bigot and not really eligible for

talk

) 00:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I've both revision deleted and blocked indefinitely. --Slp1 (talk) 00:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... okay then. —

talk

) 00:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi DRD, I certainly respect comment and your "Hmm", but I'd say that it meets the "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value" criteria for revdev. BTW, I've always loved your username. A good linguistic joke is a good linguistic joke!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick response, was this the right area to ask for this or is there an area that deals directly with RevDel requests?- Mcmatter (talk|contrib) 01:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the dire warnings that came with the extra button, I tend to be overly cautious, but I don't dispute your judgment. Thanks for the username comment! —

talk

) 01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No edit warring apparent, appears a significant article revision is being discussed. --

talk

) 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that some Windows Phone 7 fan sites have been putting out a call for fans to go to the Windows Phone 7 article to "fix" it or remove text perceived as being negative.

The largest of all Windows Phone 7 sites is WMPoweruser.com, which recently wrote this article, asking fans to edit the Wikipedia article. Yes, the fan site attacked me, labelling me a troll against Windows Phone 7.

Recently, there have been more attempts at removing referenced content in the article, often by editors who edit no other articles or subjects. So I ask for advice on what can or should be done. Can some admins keep the article on their watchlists for a while?--Lester 16:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about the external article, but if edit warring happens on the article, it can simply be semi- or fully-protected as appropriate. In the meantime though, I'd just ignore that article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a major reconstruction beginning on the article. The only obstacle is lester (talk · contribs)--intelati^(Call) 18:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

the community agrees with CalumCookable (talk · contribs) but he's afraid of a edit war with Lester.--intelati^(Call) 18:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There has obviously been a content dispute going on for some time. Which of the processes at

WP:DR have you been through? David Biddulph (talk

) 18:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Calumcookable has just begun the community consensus part. So far me and one other editor, have agreed with his changes.--intelati^(Call) 19:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm that other editor. What are we supposed to do if there aren't many people (including Lester) contributing to the discussion of changing the article? We already posted up templates that gives the readers and other editors indication that there are multiple issues with the article being discussed on the talk page. Our ultimate goal is to simply make the article have a neutral point of view, and actually have the article discuss the product itself in a NPOV. Currently, that isn't that case. --Interframe (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

'Interframe', you can't complain about not many people coming to the talk page when you make uncivil comments such as this one.--Lester 05:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that Lester is reversing many of the changes I and some other reader made. There are lot a of people actually edition the article, but it's being reverted. If I reword the section, Lester would revert it right away. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Templates on the page itself help, but only catch the attention of people visiting the page. -- Atama頭

21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Now we wait. (

Jeopardy theme song:)--intelati^(Call

) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed changes are in the talk page. can someone change the wording (of the

WP:RFC) so that it is a place for the people to place their views on the article and the changes?--intelati^(Call) 01:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC) never mind. :)--intelati^(Call

) 02:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible for fan websites to change the consensus out of shear numbers? Does Wikipedia have any defenses to avoid this sort of thing? --Lester 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't meant to be based on numbers. - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not a windows 7 Fan. Right now, the article's title SHOULD be called "Criticizem of Windows Phone 7" The only thing I have read of the windows phone 7 is on www.maximumpc.com. Thanks.--intelati^(Call) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to do is to get uninvolved editors in the conversation and remove the fancruft and Balance the article for a Neutral POV. (added later) Ok, now this is a user problem is now that CalumCookable (talk · contribs) is threating lester (talk · contribs) to revert back his additions until he is blocked. I want someone to intervene on the conflict before it is out of control.--intelati^(Call) 15:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been involved in editing this page and consider it to be very biased (against the Windows Phone 7 platform). Many changes to improve it are promptly reverted. A lot of the controversy has been because of a "missing features" section that some insist has to be there. It's a phone and a feature can't be "missing" if Microsoft knew of it and decided to not put it in the device. For instance, the phones don't transform into a jet and fly you to an island they create for you even if some tech reviewer somewhere thinks it should. My proposition is that there should be a section for announced features, features removed from Windows Mobile 6.5, and a reception section (this has been added but is very poorly structured and written). I'm tired of contributing because most of what I add gets removed in hours. This article needs someone to step in. CaptainStack (talk) 18:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is very biased against Windows Phone 7. In fact, it's more of a list of what Windows Phone 7 isn't rather than what Windows Phone 7 is. More emphasis is being placed on what WP7 doesn't have than what WP7 does have. Illegal Operation (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

'Illegal Operation', it may help your credibility if you were not making derogatory edit summaries such as this one.--Lester 04:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The only thing is that with Lester, is that his actions are very annoying.--intelati^(Call) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly stupid comment by myself.--intelati^(Call) 02:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He didn't call himself a troll, it was just an IP edit; nothing to see there. Ryan Norton 22:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I haven't been commenting on WP7 because Lester (and occasionally some confused or SOCK random IP) just reverts a lot of productive changes made and is a classic case of

WP:OWNing this article. He's just completely ignoring the countless people who have changed and commented about that article. Also, "missing features" - that is all. Ryan Norton

20:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been commenting either because of Lester. I have absolutely no problem with mentioning "missing features" in the article, but many of the points are debatable and whenever we try to discuss things like this, Lester is often the only editor to disagree with changes. Now I'm sure Lester has good intentions, but he believes everyone editing the article is a fanboy, and there have been many cases of this, but some editors only wish to have a NPOV in the article, and have the article just actually discuss the product instead of focusing on other things, like the Android and [Apple iOS]] articles. --Interframe (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to close this out, I don't see any major edit warring going on, there was a disagreement about one section being removed it was put back and being discussed. Review of the discussion appears reasonable on the talk page, I encourage the editors working the article to continue the work there. --

Request Administrator Oversight

Can this case be re-opened, please? The article needs administrator oversight. Talk continues, but it is not in good faith. Entire sections get blanked, even though discussions continue. One editor (User:Salilshukla) in those discussions has resorted to repeated vandalism of the article:

• Vandalism 1
• Vandalism 2
• Vandalism 3

Thank you for your assistance.--Lester 08:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That is better dealt with over at

chat!

) 08:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): Agreed, nothing there seems to need Oversight or even RevDel. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure he's using "oversight" in the normal, English sense of the word, not in the specific and confusing Wikipedia sense. ~ mazca ^talk 12:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That user blocked 24 hours that's intentional vandalism I will have a look at what else is up on the article. --

Last night an admin made this block of the IP account that made this edit directed to me on a talk page: "I didn't, you fucking piece of garbage. I hope you get shot in the face."

At about the same time, the articles from which this all arose (the PA gubernatorial election and candidate Tom Corbett) were protected by other admins: here and here and here

Page protection (and perhaps the block) forced the blocked IP user to emerge from his IP sockpuppets and begin using his registered account Gypsydog5150, and he has resumed the abusive behavior - despite the block imposed by an admin.

He's done a 3RR on the Tom Corbett page: here and wiped out the talk page (reverting again to the wipe after I restored it) here

These are clearly all the same editor, based on the edits on the articles in question, his various other editing patterns, and his location in Pittsburgh.

All of the IP addresses (which appear to be dynamically assigned) trace back to Verizon in Pittsburgh.

Note Gypsydog5150's contributions show an interest in:

Greensburg PA (a suburb of Pittsburgh)

A Pittsburgh company called Owens and Minor

Van_Halen

Poison

The Pittsburgh IP accounts in question show some of the same interests (and even at least one of the same edits):[35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

I note Gypsydog5150 has a history of abusive editing: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

It seems to me that it would be appropriate to take some stronger acction and perhaps a permanent ban, regarding this editor. I take the "I hope you get shot in the face" comment pretty seriously.

I suspect you don't want to get into the substance of the editing dispute, but I'd like to point out that after he was blocked and the pages protected, I restored the Tom Corbett page to a version closer to what he wanted than the revert imposed by the admin. here. I was trying to be fair about it.

His alteration here of the election polling numbers was pure vandalism.

Thanks. John2510 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Umm, you are accusing me of things I didn't do. And somebody saying "they hope you get shot in the face" is not a threat or illegal in any way. Do you realize how many people are on the internet? And also why didn't you bring up you edit wars that you started? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsydog5150 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Gypsydog, to say in an edit summary what was said using the ip account is a gross insult, a violation of WP:NPA, and a threat of violence--you are presumably saying the violence was only a metaphor, but we tend to take statements as wildly excessive as this as written. No conceivable editing dispute can justify it. I gather you are also denying that you are that ip. The only question in my mind is do we need Checkuser before blocking you, or whether the behavioral evidence is sufficient. If any other admin will agree with me that the behavioral evidence is sufficient, I will do the block. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done an indef block based on my own review of the situation. This was simply not vaguely OK behavior, and there's little doubt that the IP and editor are one and the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

He's not getting the basic message. See his responses here and here. He's now involving family members of admins addressing his behavior.

On the first one, the IP traces back to the same Pittsburgh Verizon origin per here.

Thanks for getting involved in this. I'm thinking my blood pressure would be better served if I stuck to editing... I dunno... geography articles, and steered clear of political articles. I doubt I'll follow my head on that. John2510 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I also got a phone call claiming "This cost me $6,000" and a large number of incoherent threats before I hung up. I have disabled talk page access and revdel'ed the threats against myself and my wife on his talk page, and blocked the IP for a year.

The claim that this cost six thousand dollars is interesting - do we have known paid editors in Philadelphia? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I will note that the IP range Gypsydog5150 is on is fairly busy, but I would say that the edits are mostly his. If this continues to become an issue file and

SPI case and we can look into the option of rangeblocks. Tiptoety ^talk

04:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to get this involved. It really makes you wonder sometimes if it's worth it... John2510 (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have stepped up to handling problematic and potentially vengeful Wikipedia problems with the full knowledge that I'm using my real name, that my contact info is out there, etc. I didn't do that by accident or without expecting a certain level of stuff to come flying as a result.

With that said, the particulars here are most unfortunate. The apparent paid editing, the on-wiki abuse against a number of editors, etc.

If there's more onwiki problems I concur that a rangeblock is reasonable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – It was a mistake in vandalism patrolling, thanks for flagging it up, though you can simply revert such mistakes if you explain what you're doing. Fences&Windows 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are sources being removed from an article about a living person? [45] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.167 (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Probably because the previous edit was made without rationale or explanation, and was tagged "(Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)". If one wants to make major changes to a BLP article, one should at the very least use the edit summary to explain or justify the change. ~

talk

) 21:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That previous edit added sources, is not that ideal for an encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.19.167 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The IP has a legitimate point. Their additions appear to be good-faith attempts to add references to a BLP that was previously sourced to only a single article. I see no vandalism. The editor who reverted should be more careful to look at edits before reverting just because the version tag brings up "possible vandalism or BLP violation". Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry folks, that was a big my bad on that one. Burpelson was right, I must have just seen the tag, I'm usually pretty good at these things. Thanks for catching that anon, good save. - Schrandit (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem, none of us is perfect! Burpelson AFB (talk) 12:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Clear troll. Attempts to intimidate with false claims of being MP, threats of outing, racist and homophobic trolling, lots of lies, etc, etc, etc. Indef is clearly warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 11:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Problematic edits and behaviors

• Republic of Texas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Let me start off by saying that I know this user is(at the time of this post) already blocked for 24 hours. This ANI thread is about a pattern of disruption overall, and how the behavior does not back up the claims.

Incivility/Personal attacks

This user claims to have a Law degree from Harvard, to be 44, and to be an officer in the military. However, their lack of civility with regards to other users causes concern. I would think a lawyer would know not to say such things, such as being held in contempt in a courtroom, for disrupting the purpose. It's the same thing here, insults and incivility do nothing but disrupt. Here are some examples(in no particular order):

• Hypothetical threat of privacy violation and helping in identity fraud(post in their SSN for instance)

What is more concerning about this, however, is that someone who claims to abide by the law, and enforce the law, would shatter the law in such a way.

• Trying to justify said threat, along with other things

• [46]

Self explanatory.

• [47]
• [48]
• [49]
• [50] Racial slur to refer to a person specifically.

BLP violations

Title self-explanatory:

• [51]
• [52]

Restoring the above after having been reverted.

• [53]
• [54] Horrible BLP comparing subject to hitler.

Concerning edits

As I have said, this user's behavior does not back up the claims they made above. Looking into their edits, I find several things of note that concern me:

• [55] (m removed minor typos)

This edit does not 'remove minor typos', but two maintenance templates from the article. A false edit summary, plainly.

• [56] Internet speak.

Referring to the internet as 'internets'. Not something I would expect from a Harvard graduate.

• [57]

Same thing above, again using 'internet speak', such as 'ur' and 'luz'.

• [58]

This is concerning because I've grown to not trust any of the stories they have told regarding their background. But, AGF'ing, this of course could be a typo.

• [59] Inappropriate comment, violating
  WP:FORUM
  as well, although I am sure there are others.
• Copyright violation. See history of article and user's talk page.

Looking at this user's talk page, post-block, they don't appear to show any remorse for their behavior, or any understanding why it is problematic, and why it needs to stop. A 24 hour block doesn't seem long enough. In any case, this user's behavior needs to be discussed more in-depth.

The section directly below this is a transcluded statement from the user's talk page, should they wish to address others here during the duration of their block.

User notified.

Please discuss.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's response

User talk:Republic of Texas

Discussion of RoT's edits

RFC/U is probably were you need to take this Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC) On Second look this seems to need immediate attention Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Knowing nothing of the history here, this comment seems to be enough to warrant an immediate indef for

personal attack—even if it was "humor" it was in such poor taste that it is grotesque.   Thorncrag 

01:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Per
  WP:OUTING, I support indefinite block unless that threat to post personal info to sites is revoked immediately, strike the above - I support full indefinite blocking for racism, threats to out repeated attempts to justify abuse of the talk space, other users and this project. Agree with rob below--Cailil ^talk
  01:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite restriction on this user. User seems to not be listening to any advice that has been offered to him and I am very doubtful he intends to edit in a manner constructive to the community. Unless he was to change his position I don't see anything but disruption and a indefinite block on his near horizon. IMO wikipedia would benefit from a longer restriction on this user.

Off2riorob (talk

) 01:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. I assumed good faith on his earliest edits to the talk page of Wifey's World but I could see from subsequent activity on his talk page that he sadly just doesn't get it. Should the current block stay? Yes? Should it be extended? Yes. Indefinite block? Sadly, yes. As long as he displays that lack of civility and willingness to follow the rules and regulations that govern Wikipedia, he's not going to be a productive contributor. Tabercil (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, can anyone point out a single one of his 238 edits that is clearly helpful, constructive, positive, or in any way a benefit to the project? If (as I suspect) not, it seems to me that an indef is obviously the best move here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

To RoT, you can clearly post a response fine. To your age, given your edits, it seemed a reasonable assumption that you were lying, you certainly weren't acting it when you insulted people instead of discussing content. To your 'shorthand'. Why is this the first time I've seen you say anything about your mobile? Even if you did that with your phone, it doesn't justify the taunt-like post in reply to that page's AfD.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Referring to subjects as "homos" or "negroes" is clearly unacceptable. AniMate 06:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RoT's User page

Is all of that information on their User page appropriate? Especially the tags that refer to IP accounts, not logged in accounts. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

this is regarding a video game,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.222.32.64 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:94.8.49.182

I am trying to explain that a certain source is WP:CIRCULAR by quoting someone (jcbuilder) on a message board that is frequented by those who play the game. jcbuilder is somewhat active in the game's community and another person/people (above IPs) who apparently thinks I am this jcbuilder and apparently does not like him is throwing a wrench into the issue at hand on the talk page.

I don't know what to do, but this guy is pissing me off by editing my posts on the talk page.

67.248.251.103 (talk) 13:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AN

Hm, keeps reverting him. Issue warnings (see {{

registering an account so if this persists, the talk page can be semi-protected. –xeno^talk

13:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Xeno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.248.251.103 (talk) 13:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)