Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657

A few days back a prolific sock master Shinas/Anwar Sadaat was banned Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive after a check user. Now he has popped up again using an open proxy in Germany. He was earlier using an IP range 117.193.32.0/19 to edit articles and is currently using the 84.19.160.0/20 open proxy range to edit the same articles. Comparing edits from known IPs ([1] with [2] and [3] with [4] [5] with [6] indicate this is Shinas/Anwar Sadaat. A google search reveals 84.19.160.0/20 (Keyweb AG IP Network) is a open proxy used for spamming. I am reverting his additons.

My question is what do we do with open proxies like this? do we block them? (if yes i request a range block on this)--Sodabottle (talk) 07:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Also FYI: he has opened a new account in Commons; compare [7] with [8]). I have posted in the admins notice board there.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If they're properly open proxies, yes we'll rangeblock them, usually after it's been confirmed and the range properly determined. This range appears to belong to

WP:OP, as well as list some of the IPs being abused, that would help speed things up. -- zzuuzz ^(talk)

09:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded Cyberghost as suggested. It is using the server 84.19.165.217 to connect as anonymous. Which is the same as the IP used today by the sockmaster. On December 8 he used 84.19.169.163. How do we identify the range from this?--Sodabottle (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the rangeblock calculator: "Range 84.19.160.0/20 (up to 4096 users would be blocked)" --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!!. So dear admins, can someone please block this range (or should i go through

WP:OP?)--Sodabottle (talk

) 12:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've proxyblocked 84.19.169.160/28 pending more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't block today's IP - 84.19.165.217. shouldnt it be a /20 block instead of /28?--Sodabottle (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a variety of network providers in that range. Personally I'd rather target the blocks on abusive known proxies, and so I've now blocked the 84.19.165.208/28 and 84.19.169.224/28 CyberGhost ranges. Feel free to mention any other examples and/or (admins) adjust the blocks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The organization delegated those ranges also seems to own 217.114.211.240/28, according to RIPE. Anomie⚔ 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

LAz17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lunalet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Issue

.

Desired outcome

Lunalet (talk · contribs) will desist in making personal attacks against SMasters (talk · contribs) and will stop harassing SMasters.

Background

On December 1st, SMasters sent out a large number of neutral messages to all of the

users informing us that there was an election going on. The purpose of this election was to elect new coordinators for the Guild. The election was by simple affirmation voting in "support" sections, with another section for comments or questions. He also sent out ~18 neutral messages to other users who have actively used our services, encouraging them to vote too. (This was acceptable since non-GoCE members were permitted to vote in the elections.)

Development

On December 3rd, 01:36 UTC, Lunalet makes his first post to the election page asking about SMaster's AWB run. [9] On December 4th, 00:01 UTC, Lunalet makes his first canvassing accusation. [10] Just after this, he makes a post containing the edit summary "support the only good candidate" (supporting Diannaa). [11] I then read this and ask were SMasters was canvassing, [12] and he answers "see question 4". [13] Suspicious of canvassing, I then struck my support, [14] but reinstated it when I noticed Lunalet's talk page was full of

I would also recommend reading the page since there is a great deal more I have not mentioned here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Without commenting on the issue at hand, you don't need four sections for this. To minimize how much longer this lengthens the table of contents, I've removed them, and replaced them with markup that has the same effect in terms of bold.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 05:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed a large quantity of civility issues from this user. I first became aware of their behavior at an AFD (

07:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea about the stuff re SMasters, but endorse N419BH's comments; Mjroots, will, too, I expect. This is an obvious returned problematic editor; wade through the evasiveness on their talk and you'll see. I did last week. Bzzt. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a self-admitted sock, and I reported him 2 weeks ago and nothing was done. Maybe they will this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Between trolling, he has some odd habits, like moving stub tags[26][27][28]. Seems to use AWB or some similar program, correcting "dashes" and such. Doc talk 10:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(ears burning) FWIW, I don't buy Lunalet's assertion that they can't remember their previous username. I agree with N419BH that the user is probably a sock, and the puppetmaster is probably under active sanctions. I'm not sure whether suspicion of sanction evasion is sufficient grounds to indef the account. However, sock or not, the editors behaviour is open to scrutiny and may be grounds for action in itself. Mjroots (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The account's most recent edit as of now says it all[29]. For me, "Knowledge of policy" coupled with a deep misunderstanding of policy = Possibly Frustrated Troll. And that is not a "personal attack", mind you. The forming consensus seems clear that this is a disruptive account and one that may need a "wake-up call". This[30] edit is also "interesting" and may give a clue to the account's identity. Doc talk 11:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Doc. And thanks to LHvU↓ and

Google Chrome OS for sponsoring the free in-flight wifi. Cheers, Jack Merridew

21:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may well be onto it, as the one editor's last edit was shortly before the other editor's first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

AIV wouldn't do anything, just like 2 weeks ago, but hopefully an admin here will take care of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked LAz17 for 3 months and, if I recall correctly, declined to block Lunalet - since it was not obvious socking - when reported by Baseball Bugs. I think I suggested an SPI request, should there be sufficient grounds, because if positive it would mean the editor is evading a block which is an indef on the sock account and possible repercussions for the master. It seems to me that there is sufficient evidence now to present in an SPI report, and I suggest that option again - any evidence of disruption from a block evading sock will likely result in strong sanctions being applied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I declined Bugs' most recent AIV report, in spite of a strong itch in my banhammer hand. Concur with Less that there is an SPI case in this. Favonian (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock or not, he's been attacking other editors from the get-go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That edit to Laz17 looks like their only slip-up. I don't see any reason why Lunalet would visit that talk page unless they were previously familiar with it, and the timing is extraordinarily coincidental (Laz17's last edit was a mere 4 hours before Lunalet's first). Anybody see any other behavioral links? I also think it likely that this isn't the only sock we're dealing with. I bet he's created another account due to the extensive heat on the Lunalet account, as the contributions, quick at first, have slowed to a trickle. Looks like Lunalet is now a SPA for Guild of Copyeditors. I bet there's another one out there now working in other areas. Just a hunch.

N419BH

20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SMasters does not have any overlapping edits with LAz17, so it is unclear why he as been selected as a target. Sarek has removed the most recent post as a personal attack. Any further attacks by Lunalet and I would like to see a block for harrassment/disruptive editing. They are not here to improve the encyclopedia. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea why Lunalet has singled me out as a target. Lunalet is not a member of the

) 23:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Lunalet was informed of this ANI by Reaper Eternal on 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC) [31]. Lunalet chose to ignore this and SarekOfVulcan's revert on 05:03, 14 December 2010 [32], and continued the attack by posting on the GOCE voting page on 00:08, 15 December 2010 [33]. This was then reverted by The Utahraptor [34], who was probably not aware of this ANI. The Utahraptor then posted a warning against personal attacks on Lunalet's page [35]. So, the attacks have continued despite several editors telling him not to do it, as well as several reverts, in addition to knowledge of the existence of this ANI, which he has chosen to ignore. – SMasters (talk) 08:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Lunalet for 3 months, the same as LAz17 who I suspect is related, for their disregard of the concerns, requests and warnings from other editors. I still think an SPI is warranted, but perhaps it might wait for the next forgetful new account to start posting. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard vanU for your time in looking into this. I hope that any forgetful "new account" will not hound me. – SMasters (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have filed an SPI case at

20:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Improper removal of speedy deletion tag

Ben_Henderson_(fighter)

Needs temp protection

The page on requesting protection recommends speaking to an admin before doing anything, and that's what I am attempting now. The issue is minor, but is vandalism none the less. The fighters record has been modified to show him loosing to a fighter in an event that has not been held yet (the event is tomorrow night.) I recommend and request the page be protected until 11PM EST US (after the event is scheduled to end.)

Sdamon (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place for this request. Page protection requests are made here -->

WP:RPP. Whose Your Guy (talk

) 00:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Something Unusual

I've got this my discussion reverted[36] and an unusual legal threat[37] from 69.31.68.51 who has a dynamic IP address. I think this is rather unusual for removing a sentence in Public opinion on climate change and posting the accompanying reason on the talk page. Maybe you can have a look and offer your opinion, because I'm a little taken aback. --CaC 155.99.230.249 (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just someone puffing out their chest in an intimidation attempt. I wouldn't worry too much about it. Stuff like this happens every day here on Wikipedia. Whose Your Guy (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Just revert, warn, ignore. If that IP user (69.31.68.51) keeps making legal threats, he is asking to get blocked. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned IP 69.31.68.51 with {{uw-legal}}. Whose Your Guy (talk) 01:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Captain Occam

It would be very helpful if another admin or two could review that appeal request and give their opinion. I provided my take on the situation. Another voice or two would sort things out. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Among other disruptive actions,

) 09:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I just asked you to have break, that was intended to calm down your aggressive and editing. "Need some break" is not abusive statement rather accusing someone wrongly of abusing other editors is an attack of accusation. You even claimed in the headline that abusing other editors, can you bring any abusive word which I used in front of us? I am in discussion with admin Dab here[47] where is the edit warring? - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked this on the article talk page, but someone needs to explain to uninvolved parties why the website is so bad as to not be a usable source.

I see that it seems to be a mildly advocative "Shia and Sunni aren't so different" site, on first impression, but I suspect there are levels I am not understanding on reviewing it briefly.

There appear to be very vehement feelings about it - those need to be explained.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO comments of [[ASE were more abusive as they tend to encompass whole community and definitely those comments point that per se user's comments, Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs in addition those comments tend to defile dignity of Shi'a community by accusing them of forging lineage links.

But, imo, everybody should stick to the point and refrain from attacking believes, communities, nationalities, individuals, etc.

Finally, al-islam.org can be relied upon as it contains reliable articles such as [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], etc which are work of reputed Shi'a, Sunni & Western scholars. May be we should be cautious while referring to it as this website is an online library and all content at this website may not be NPOV or academic (as in the case of physical libraries) but that does not discredits importance of the website as source.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 19:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Who made the comment "Indo-Aryans are some what inferior to Semitic-Arabs", and where is the diff? A per se attack on another editor's culture/ethnicity/*ism is not acceptable, and editors really ought to keep such opinions to themselves while on WP.

Xavexgoem (talk

) 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Did I use "per se" right? I love needless latin.

The term per se means "by itself". Not sure that applies here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I also have a question: Why is it that the Arabic word for God File:Dcp7323-Edirne-Eski Camii Allah-ds.svg resembles a Viking ship? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

i have no answer to bugses question but i think per se is correclty used here. "per se" might mean "in itslef" but it is generally used to mean "without reservation or explicativeness", such as the legal term "negiglgly per se" which means "to negligct without reservation or reason". you could say that the attack was "per se" because he didnt say "SOME iNDO-aRYANS" were inferior but NOT all of them since the remark itself was unqualified. however, you might have done better to use another greek Phrase, ad hominem which means 'against the homan' or against the person you is talking to. User:Smith Jones 03:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ad hominem ("toward the man") would seem to be the proper phrasing here. Per se means "by itself" or "in itself"; separated from the rest of a particular discussion.

Can you provide the diff for Indo-Aryan being inferior to Semitic-Arabs? I'm not seeing it. I did find one reference to the theory that Iran's Muslim leaders are Indo-Aryan and hence not descended from Muhammad's family. If he made a broad and seemingly racist comment, I must have missed it. Although much of his argument has to do with sourcing, so he might have been talking about the quality of sourcing rather than the ethnic groups. But without the diff, I can't tell. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the comment was made, then I conclude that "per se" was correct. Even if it's in a religious context, it can easily be misconstrued. And if not misconstrued, then whoever said it could have been making a point outside the religious context. In other words, hypothetical person who made that comment: don't do that.

Xavexgoem (talk

)

AladdinSE made the comments which I pointed out in my previous comments which can be found here, notably after I pointed out this I was reported for SPI by ALY which may be point out that these users if not SPs are working in collaboration and are not in Good Faith. I'll try to respond any further queries but my responses may be slow as I'm too much busy in my real life (I'll be back, may be after more than 12 hours). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That was what I saw. The actual quote is, "In fact, all the mullahs and Ayatollahs around the world, especially in Iran, claim de[s]cent from Muhammad and Quraysh when statistically they are not even Semitic Arabs but Indo-Aryan people and therefore cannot be descendants of the family of the Prophet." Where are you seeing anything about "inferiority" there? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a clear case of being the same person, despite the latter IP being blocked for a month. Do i need to go through SSP? Simply south (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism 24h; seems to be dynamic IP so not matching the earlier 1mo block. Pretty obviously the same guy. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, changed it to 1 month based on further research. I don't know if it'll change faster than 24h. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

What if i encounter them again under another IP which i think will happen judging what's happening? Simply south (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV or ask for a rangeblock here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/

03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 reverting Binksternet

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

His disruptive edits: [60], [61]

This user has been reported on project pages mutliple times for tendentious edits and for creating problems, Now, without any support from

. It appears that he has decided that his next major battle on wikipedia will be over this topic. As far as I can tell, from his past editing history, he has no interest whatsoover in the content of the article or WikiProject France.

The same "argument" (whatever it is) would presumably apply also to

.

On the talk page of Marseille—and I will not repeat the arguments or the links here—it has been carefully explained that most major English-speaking newspapers, the Encylopedia Britannica, British airlines, travel guides in English and the British and US consulates in Marseille all now adopt the spelling without an "s". This has made no impression on Pmanderson - it seems that he believes that he is simply

conduct.

I have reported this bizarre activity here in the hope of nipping it in the bud. It could be the straw that breaks the camel's back, from the point of view of ongoing problems with this editor. It certainly seems to be "his style". His block log speaks for itself.[62] In this case he has made an unsupportable but hardly very interesting claim seemingly devised to waste other editors' time. I am unable to see any possible benefit editing of this kind could have to this encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Marseilles and Lyons are perfectly normal English spellings, as used in the Oxford Dictionary of the World, for example. DuncanHill (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Not only "normal", but also common in English. Pmanderson has only himself to blame for acquiring a reputation that allows bringing his actions here based on a vague handwave toward his past problems, but in this content dispute he would seem to be correct, even in the argument that you have invented on his behalf without asking. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) True, but that is hardly the point. As with

Kolkota, things change. The US government is not pedantic.[63] [64] Tagging in the way Pmanderson did was clearly not a helpful approach to improving this encyclopedia. It does not quite rise to the level of tagging articles like Europe, for example, but it was not far off. Mathsci (talk

) 20:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually the U.S. Government is pedantic; the Board of Geographic Names tends to prefer systematic forms to what English-speakers actually use (as

the guideline on geographic names

explains) and in principle their decisions are binding on the Federal Government.

But this complaint is another effort to settle a substantive dispute by false claims of misconduct. As the move discussion on Talk:Marseille would indicate, the fundamental issue here is my unwillingness to simply accept the opinions of a major contributor to an article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. Pmanderson's edits today have nothing to do with calm and reasoned discussion. He has chosen to adopt a battleground attitude on an article, in which, until today, he appeared to have absolutely no interest. I am currently on wikibreak, so have only a few articles on my watch list. Pmanderson's edits today on Marseille are amongst the most dire I've seen in almost five years of watching the article. Mathsci (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Recommend

) 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that Marseilles is now being spelled "Marseille" in English. This must also come as a bit of a shock to the citizens of Marseilles, Illinois, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As my recent edit at Talk:Marseille will show, the (current) French spelling seems to be catching on with the sort of columnist who laces his prose with malfamé and bistronomie. It is still a less common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the POV-title tag. There may be a good-faith discussion of which spelling should be used, as happens from time to time with many geographical names, but this cannot reasonably be framed as a "POV" issue: no "point of view" is promoted by using the spelling "Marseille" as opposed to "Marseilles" or vice versa, except on the sharply limited issue of which is the correct spelling. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

But there are two - which is why dispute resolution will be welcome: The point of view there are no distinctive English forms of names - and even more seriously, that the anglophone Governments do and should determine English usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate article title/requested move issue that is subject to dispute resolution on the basis of which title better comports with our guidelines on geographical names. Appropriate dispute resolution seems already to be well underway with the RfC/RM discussion that is now taking place on the article talkpage. Adding the "POV" tag does nothing to advance a decision as to which article title should be used. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Little enough in all honesty; but if we cannot even protest the entrenched territorial cliques which seek to use articles to promote a political or (as in this case) a linguistic program, we have very little hope of checking them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What "political programme" is this here to promote? Who are these ""entrenched territorial cliques"? What is wrong with my "grasp of the English idiom"? Mathsci (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For third parties (and on the off-chance that this is ingenuous):

• As I said, "in this case a linguistic program": that the characteristic English forms of names should be downgraded, and English be subjected to Government standards.
• Well, to begin with: "grasp of the English idiom" isn't idiomatic; neither is "dire" (unless you're writing Tolkien parody); nor is Marseille; the reactions of anglophones in this thread alone should have been enough to make the last clear.
• And as for the clique entrenched on the territory of the article: I invite any curious reader to look through Talk:Marseille and see how the self-declared "most frequent editor" has been behaving. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting now that English might not be my native language and that is why I have not agreed with your point of view? Mathsci (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

If English is your native language, you have an abominable grasp of idiom; if it is not, you have an abominable grasp of idiom, but this would be explicable. I believe l'idiotisme anglais would be correct French; but I will defer to a literate native speaker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But really, if having a tag added twice is "amongst the most dire" things to happen to the article in years, the real complaint here is that I have not immediately conceded to Mathsci's opinion and his grasp of English idiom on his article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

See above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My Webster's, dated 1994, gives Marseilles as the preferred and Marseille as a secondary spelling; Lyons as the preferred and Lyon secondary; and Rome (not Roma) as the English name for the Italian city. So it seems that the "Marseille" and "Lyon" spellings, without the "s", are the ones that writers have actually tried to impose on us, to override the traditional English spellings "Marseilles" and "Lyons". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This input is welcome, but would be better placed on the article talkpage, where the requested move discussion/RfC is in progress. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson's continuing disruption on Marseille

Pmanderson's conduct continues to be disruptive. As well as adding various other drive-by tags and dramatic notices of innacuracy, [65][66] he just tagged a reference to Thucydides in the article, claiming that Thucydides did not mention Massalia. But that claim is wholly inaccurate, since I checked the reference directly in Thucydides and also in a secondary

) 03:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed before that Pmanderson is quick to tag. It would be helpful if he could use the tags as a last resort only (i.e., when prolonged discussion has failed, or when he has looked for sources and found none, but removal is being reverted), and then only if the text leaves verifiability or neutrality issues. We shouldn't use tags to signal that we personally dislike something. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for intervening SV. The Peloponnesian war is one of the texts that has been studied to death (we had to read book IV at grammar school in England) and there are numerous commentaries. The particular seven word sentence referring to the colonisation of Marseille has generated pages and pages of comments. Here is one example that runs over three pages (310-312). [71] More modern ones place the history in the context of recent archeological discoveries and in fact are unsurprisingly in agreement with most of what is in the article. The ancient history of Marseille seems to have some kind of fatal attraction.[72] Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This appears to match a textbook definition of

WP:POINT

- I have asked PMA to explain his reasoning and intent.

As a rule, not the sort of behavior a recently blocked, historically multi-blocked editor under all sorts of additional scrutiny should be engaging in. At all. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This statement is another effort to settle a content dispute by spurious conduct charges. In addition, it alleges that I said things I did not say, and do not hold.

While waiting for the RM to settle itself, I read through the article, and found the ancient history section seemed most implausible. It cites three sources.

• Thucydides is claimed to support the settlement of Marseilles in 600 BC. He does mention the Phocaean settlement at Marseilles, but gives no date. (I have now said three times that he mentions the settlement; all this is on the talk page; therefore Mathsci's assertion above is false.)
• A book called Vintage; the History of Wine is cited for trade between Massalia and Rome in 500 BC. It actually discusses the trade around 125 BC.

These claims, therefore, I tagged as failing verification, and added Talk:Marseille#History to discuss them.

The proper response to such tags, I thought, is to answer them; to fix the article, to convince me I am wrong, or to convince a consensus that I am mistaken. Mathsci did none of these; instead he reverted; so I restored them until one of the three appropriate means of resolution can be done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tagging can often be seen (rightly or wrongly) as simply a way of signalling that we didn't get to make the edits we wanted. It's best to do it only after trying everything else, including prolonged discussion, and looking for additional sources yourself. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the the existing sources don't support the text, and my relatively careful phrasing has been read to assert something I have never said, I doubt additional sources will do any good. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows several sources for the founding date, including this from George William Cox, published in 1874 (p. 156), which helpfully cites its sources in a footnote. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another footnote in a more recent text dating the founding of Marseille to c 600 BC. [73] It is one of many. What is interesting here, and a reason for administrators to keep tabs on Pmanderson, is that this time he has chosen to disrupt in a disproprtionate and uprovoked way a neutral and uncontentious article, amongst the main wikipedia articles on France. I made a simple edit modifying "historically" to "in antiquity" in the lede [74]; then very shortly afterwards Pmanderson appeared to tag the section of the article concerned with classical antiquity. Pmanderson appears to be more interested in other editors than in content. Mathsci (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this date is likely taken from Jerome's Chronicle, which provides the date of 598 BC.[75] Whether or not it was the actual date... Well, that requires performing a source criticism of Jerome's work & an archeologist's interpretation of the numerous excavations of the city. But to determine that requires someone to pursue that angle in the secondary literature. -- llywrch (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Who was right and why in this dispute is beside the point here - all that can be resolved at the talk page. What is relevant here is how the dispute was handled.

If you add a tag in good faith and that tag is removed, especially with someone with whom you're already disputing, I suggest presuming

and proceed with D. Do not engage in yet another edit war, no matter how sure you are that you are correct. This is an edit war

(cur | prev) 18:08, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) m (77,945 bytes) (Reverted edits by Mathsci (talk) to last version by Pmanderson) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:50, December 14, 2010 Mathsci (talk | contribs) (77,826 bytes) (Undid revision 402439004 by Pmanderson (talk) tagging seems inaccurate) (undo)

(cur | prev) 17:21, December 14, 2010 Pmanderson (talk | contribs) (77,945 bytes) (→Prehistory and classical antiquity: not really.) (undo)

Again. No matter how sure you are that you are correct... don't edit war. Just don't. Take it to the talk page. I've learned that lesson without ever being blocked; how many more times does PMA need to be blocked to learn that lesson? --Born2cycle (talk) 06:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

As this kind of information about the early origins of Marseille is copious and freely available in academic sources, there was no rationale beyond simple disruption for the edits of Pmanderson. At least PHG did his research properly even if he was at that stage pushing Greek colonistation of Provence a little too far. I would hope that Pmanderson might take note of what NYB, SV, GWH and Maunus have told him and drop this habit of disrupting wikipedia to make a

WP:POINT. Mathsci (talk

) 10:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Please note the participants in the Franco-Mongol case; I know all about PHG. This continued series of personal attacks, to defend an innacurate rendition of a local history of a century ago, is indefensible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to block Pmanderson for removing sourced content and continuing his tagging campaign

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

This editor has been warned for tagging the article by four administrators, Newyorkbrad, SlimVirgin, Maunus and Gerogewilliamherbert. He has now added tags and removed a substantial amount of sourced content. [76] What he has written contradicts one of the main sources,

• Duchene, Roger; Contrucci, Jean (1998), Marseille, 2600 ans d'histoire, Fayard,
  ISBN 2213601976

I have no idea why he is behaving in this way after the mutliple warnings he has received, but his block record speaks for itself. Mathsci (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I have, as requested by SlimVirgin, on Talk:Marseille, found other sources; I have added them, with input from third parties; my sources may be seen in this exact reversion, which looks like Mathsci's fourth in the last 24 hours; see the history of the article. (There are better sources, which I could add shortly; but why bother when they will only be reverted.)

Please deal with this disruptive

WP:OWN violation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

18:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I have reverted Pmanderson's later "essay-like" additions because they conflict with known sources. The legend of Protis and Gyptis was removed, despite being sourced. The legend has the same status as that of

Chateau of Vauvenargues but fr:Église_Saint-Jean-de-Malte_d'Aix-en-Provence has no English equivalent: that would be an article that I would normally consider writing, although not if I'm scared off WikiProject France by hostile editors like Pmanderson.) In the case of major cities, the French language articles can provide a useful guide to missing content. When the two corrsponding articles become widely divergent and contradictory (as was the case with Pmanderson's personal essay on the history of Marseille), alarm bells will normally ring. That is just common sense. Mathsci (talk

) 18:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson is misrepresenting his own actions. He removed a lot of sourced content that he didn't happen to like. His actions are as disruptive as those that have resulted in previous warnings and blocks. He certainly didn't seem to like the legend of Protis and Gyptis, which he removed, That is a short section that I rewrote and sourced. Certainly SlimVirgin was not suggesting that he remove content that he didn't like, that he restore his tags and that he rewrite the ancient history section as a personalised essay from fragmentary sources. Pmanderson is not righting a great wrong. He is just attempting to manufacture a

WP:POINT, as others have already commented. Mathsci (talk

) 18:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci is telling great and small untruths. As his revert-warring will show, I retained the fable of Protis and Gyptis; what this good soul omits is the consensus of the sources that it isn't likely to be true - whether or not Massalia was founded in 600 NC, it wasn't founded like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this be resolved by sticking closely to academic secondary sources? It would make sense to write up a brief suggestion for that section, together with the sources, and post it on talk for discussion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

PMA and Mathsci both blocked for 48 hrs for edit warring

IMHO - Both stepped clearly across the line. PMA backed away incrementally from his prior behavior but not from disruptive editing of the article. He did engage on the talk page, but kept butting heads with people. Mathsci kept reverting without adequate talk page involvement.

Both parties are longtime users with extensive experience with dispute resolution. They both know what we expect of editors participating in a content dispute. Neither chose to act in accordance with our policy and community standards. Both are blocked for 48 hrs.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with the Mathsci block, George. It seems to be a "pox on both your houses" response, which can often be unfair. PMA has a history of this kind of approach, and a long block log as a result. I'm less familiar with Mathsci's editing, but looking at the diffs, he seems to have reverted three times between Dec 13 and 15, [77] [78] [79] and he brought the issue to AN/I to request help. I can't see how those reverts alone can fairly trigger a 48-hour block. He has only two previous blocks, both in 2008 and both regarding the same issue, as I recall, and it had nothing to do with edit warring. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that George blocked Mathsci and PMA for 48 hours, then went offline. So now at least one of them (perhaps both) is arguably unfairly blocked with no one to sort it out. I'm reluctant to unblock Mathsci, because I would also have to make a decision about PMA, and as he's someone I've disputed issues with in the past, I don't feel uninvolved enough. But I'm not happy about seeing Mathsci blocked for 48 hours for three reverts in three days, accompanied by talk-page discussion and considerable provocation (in my view) from PMA. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Review and additional input on Mathsci's unblock request would be useful at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to grant Mathsci's unblock request. After review of this thread and the Marseille talk page, I'm not seeing any grounds for blocking him. Courcelles 04:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence#Mathsci_.28conduct.29, Mathsci's engaged in "borderline edit warring in May [35][36][37][38] and June.[39][40][41][42] This editor was also formally reminded not to edit war in the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration." To simply say that there was nothing to do with edit-warring or there was no grounds for blocking is questionable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said, Ncmv, I'm not really familiar with Mathsci's editing, but I do feel this is a long block for a small number of reverts, and without warning that I can see, especially as he was making other edits that appeared to be improving the article by adding sources, e.g. here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If there is an unfamiliarity with the user's editing, then obviously it's going to seem like there are no grounds for a block whatsoever. I think the fact that he was warned in an arbitration ruling, the fact that the behavior was identified again in a more recent arbitration ruling with clearer terms (borderline) is quite sufficient to the point that you would expect the editor to avoid doing the same - without yet another warning. His restriction from that recent ruling was in the process of being lifted so he should be especially mindful of what not to do. What I am saying is that it is incorrect to assert that a block was unjustified (which is what you seem to be saying - according to Mathsci). GWH was familiar with the user's editing, and with the arbitration, as far as I am aware. All that said, Pmanderson did misuse rollback as well, and does seem to have been making pointy edits, so on the grounds that the block has served its purpose (as time served) and that per his unblock request, he will be more mindful of his reverts (and avoid that behavior in the future), I'd support Mathsci's unblock. (I'd oppose an unblock on the grounds that the block was unjustified.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the narrower picture here, with some awareness of the wider one, but it was justified here specific to the recent incident (IMHO).

PMA took the issues in good faith to the talk page, but kept doing things very nearly alike what he'd been warned was disruptive and told to stop.

Mathsci did less disruptive stuff, but kept doing it and didn't go to the article talk page to discuss it in good faith. He was engaged in other discussions there, but not with PMA on the key disruption points over the period he was reverting. Mere participation in talk page discussion (which Mathsci did over that time period) doesn't mean he was discussing what he was reverting enough to avoid it being at least marginally a sterile revert / edit war. PMA's larger disruption explains but does not justify Mathsci responding with repeated reverts rather than engagement.

Mathsci has responded reasonably and deescalated. He was seeking outside review prior to the last actions. Reduction to time served would be reasonable. I'm going to do that now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Confirming - Mathsci is now unblocked, reduced to time served. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been around Mathsci for a long time. He is an extremely good content contributor (I'd go as far as to say one of Wikipedia's best) who is mostly sensible but has a tendency to get prima donna-ish in some situations, and whose approach to DR isn't always the greatest. I'm less familiar with PMA but I think I've seen him/her around the mathematics refdesk and s/he is also pretty good. I didn't even try to read this mind-wobbling dispute much, so I can only think of this. Can't those two have WP:TEA instead of fighting? Anyway, I'm all for unblocking Mathsci if (without having to admit fault for edit warring) he says he's ready to edit again and that he can maintain calm discourse going forward. On general principles, that's probably also the right approach for PMA. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC) OK, Mathsci is unblocked now, which is good. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• @ GWH: Thanks for unblocking me and responding to other administrators promptly.
• General comment Slimvirgin's comment about secondary sources is a key point here and very well made. Most detailed material concerned with the history of Marseille is not surprisingly in French, since it is the history of a place. Writing about
  WP:RS. I cannot see any merit in using outdated texts from around 1900 to write history, Again that problem arose with Auguste Pavie, in connection with PHG, and although Pavie's own journals are available on the web, these are primary sources which can only be used in conjunction with secondary sources. In that particular case there was a recent illustrated monograph on French explorers (in french) which I used as the principal source for writing the article. The book is not available on the web except for snippet view.[80] Mathsci (talk
  ) 07:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 58.106.54.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) temporarily for legal threats. However, I am concerned that they may have true concerns regarding article content. I would request more experienced editors to take a look at the recent flurry of edits to determine if any of them need to be reverted to avoid trouble for Wikipedia. I have e-mailed the foundation and will notify the IP of the post. Thanks Tiderolls 03:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems closer to AFD or Speedy Deletion than anything. It looks like some legit concerns The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article and removed the unsourced negative stuff. I agree with TRA that we probably have a deletion candidate on our hands here.--

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a retraction of sorts on the IP's talk page. If another admin wishies to unblock I won't scream. However, I don't think this would help the present situation. Tiderolls 03:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's still a legal threat (against the "poofters"). --

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Article at AFD see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerchip The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just waded through the page history. What a mess. I've made two revision deletions but other admins might find cause to do more. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 03:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I took out six more versions. No way am I going to let that stay in the history. - KrakatoaKatie 05:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) The AfD is being hit by anon IPs and SPA accounts, one of which is making "statements" about someone's wife. Can someone look into that and block as necessary? One of the IPs is clearly also double voting as an SPA account. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I just speedied it -- it appeared purely promotional to me, and the opinion on the AfD was unanimously for deletion anyway. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've also salted the founder's bio, since it was created today for the purpose of attacking him. If notability is established, it can be unprotected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Don't forget chip tuning, where that same person is mentioned. Uncle G (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I removed that and linked to here from talk:chip tuning. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Made by user RubinAttorney at Harry M. Rubin.[81] Edward321 (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, advice to contact the WMF at their contact page. Don't think there is anything else to do here. --Jayron32 01:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does that article look really socky? And if RubinAttorney is an actual attorney, I'll eat my hat. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked both User:RubinAttorney and User:RabidMelon as obvious socks of one another. RabidMelon restored the legal threat after it was removed. --Jayron32 01:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, maybe the page could be SPed for a bit? An awful lot of "new" account activity there. HalfShadow 01:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There are 2-3 other accounts (then I stopped looking) with a similar MO in the last few months, and with no edits to other topics. I suppose since they're serial, rather than concurrent, it isn't a huge deal. But if they show up again now that the most recent accounts are blocked, then semi-protection or an SPI for an IP block might be in order. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• Another sock was created, so I've protected the article for a week. This looks like a long-term problem, and evidently they've found the IP reset button, so we might be looking at long term semiprotection. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The article in its current form appears to be very neutral; if anything, it's largely positive. Perhaps the complainant is of the impression that BLP's require their subjects' "permission". Otherwise, if the complainant could state what specific objections he has, that would help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Article looks spammy to me. I always want to delete such articles, but I know how hard that is. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
      • It could always be modified to cut out the spam and/or nominated for deletion. Not by someone threatening to sue, though, but by someone challenging notability or whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't edit the article due to protection, and I hate getting sucked into such things anyway. But I notice it is currently sourced mostly to press releases and what I'd consider to be primary sources. If you AfD it, I'll support deletion, but WP practice in this area is so screwed up that it's likely a lost cause. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I changed C. M. Rubin (about Harry M. Rubin's spouse) to a redirect. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
          • If you take out the questionable stuff, how much would be left? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
            • You're basically asking what it would take to make that guy's advertising page acceptable to Wikipedia. I'm much more interested in deleting it on the grounds that we don't do advertising, than in spending probably 2 or more hours cleaning it up for him for free (and it would still be an ad, even after that). There's basically nothing in it sourced to high quality RS, but on the other hand, most of it is just fluff rather than being really contentious, so wiping the content indiscriminately (leaving a minimal stub) would be a bit pointy. I'd instead have to carefully weigh and research each bit of fluff for possible relevance/retention, rewrite stuff carefully to tone down the spamminess, check around for better sourcing, etc. I think we're not here for that, or at least we shouldn't be. The article is IINFO, a COI vehicle, and a drama magnet all at the same time, and it's just not worth it and we're better off without it. IMO, articles like this should be speedy-deleted and if an unconflicted editor later wants to write a neutral article about the person from scratch, they can do so. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 09:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Samuel_Adams_(beer) (partly about same guy, and his buddies) needs cleanup too. I hate Wikipedia sometimes. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 11:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent) There seems to be quite a bit more at play here. The "RubinAttorney" account was created on the 16th. The "RabidMelon" account was created Sept 11, 2009, and has edited almost exclusively... articles about a children's author named Cathy Rubin and a book she wrote... which Harry M. Rubin is named as an editor for, as well as the Harry M. Rubin article. Going back through the history of Harry M. Rubin shows a looooong history of SPAs, probably all related to these same accounts. I'm going to file an SPI on them, but I'm wondering if we have either someone with a COI here or someone who has an unhealthy obsession with this family? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI concluded quickly, puppeteer and sock all blocked. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest PROD or AfD for the article. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be able to quickly stop what's going on here - sorry I'm a bit busy, and don't have time for a proper 3RR and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Closer look - it looks like there's been a continual edit war going on since the end of October! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected the page to expire in 1 week while the situation is discussed here. Made sure to protect the wrong version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As you were doing that, I was blocking one user for violating the username policy (impersonating a username). TNXMan 17:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that James.DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) gets a message pointing out policy on edit warring and dispute resolution and that we leave the protection on the page to expire in the hope that things will calm down in the interim. Off to eat, I'll take care of it if nobody else has by the time I get back. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor made aware of policy and dispute resolution. Warned to not engage in further edit warring when protection expires. I've watchlisted the article and would encourage a few more admins to do likewise. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, folks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:SantaColemanFan is probably another sock for the list at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ECW500/Archive. (He helpfully left me a hint at my Talk page, here) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes this editor needs to be blocked. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

did hea ctually TAG HIMsELF!? as a sockpuppet? i gues that saves the checkusers some time!! User:Smith Jones 14:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I tagged the socks userpage. The sock put a sock tag on someone else's talk page. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he tagged my page to suggest I was one of his socks - kindly leading us straight to the ducks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the ColemanFans (other than my account, of course) are created to harass me. I guess I was one of the first (if not the first) to give him a vandalism warning, so this has been going on for a couple of years or so. Thanks for blocking him. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There's something of a conflict of interest at

), both of whom seem to concentrate their efforts on Talib-related articles , are connected to IbnAmioun, but that's speculative at this point.

The general editing pattern is to praise Talib to the point that the hype becomes embarrassing. I've tried to dial the hype back a bit. I've only made 3 small edits to the article itself, all of which have been reverted. The discussion on Talk:Nassim Nicholas Taleb, though, is amusing.

There's a

problem. Part of the problem is that Talib uses many neologisms in his writing, and IbnAmioun objects to use of the standard terms. ("Taleb, let me insist again, ran "protection protocols" rather than funds.") There's also a long-running controversy in the financial press over whether Talib's funds actually made much money for the investors. (This is a generic problem with hedge funds, incidentally, because they don't have to report their results to the SEC. It's not just Talib. But it offers an opportunity for hype, by focusing on the "up" years.) Mentioning Talib's detractors in that context, even on Talk, gets IbnAmioun very upset. And then there's just pure hype, like the infobox reading "Fields: Aphorist, essayist, epistemologist, statistician, risk engineer and trader". I changed that to "Hedge fund manager, essayist, statistician", per a New York Times references, and Talib's team had a cow.

Taleb is a noteworthy character, but the hype level here has been cranked up to 11 by his team and needs to be turned down a bit. Help from Wall Street types would be appreciated. --John Nagle (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What a mess. Tagged with Advert, Cleanup, and COI for now. Needs going through with a fine-toothed comb to remove all the puffery. I can't even figure out who the guy is because of all the flattery.

N419BH

21:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a horrible mess. Most recently, IbnAmioun tagged an edit as "VANDALISM" in an edit summary because the editor was trying to maintain an NPOV. I've blocked the guy for 31 hours for NPA violations and his years-long history of other inappropriate behavior, ranging from

21:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

hello mike,

IMHO this vandalims case is a good example. The success in 2007 is a widely reported news piece, with no one ever arguing it wass untrue. Now user Nagle edited this never doubted piece of news to "claimed success". I cannot argue whether it counts to vandalism exactly, but it seems to be out of line, and i can emphasize with someone seeing it as unacceptable Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a veiled legal threat?

N419BH

21:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I chose to assume that it was not when I reverted that edit. I do, however, think that there's a long term problem with the Taleb article and IbnAmioun's edits there; see previous discussions of various isues:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive544#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545#Nassim Nicholas Taleb
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive551#Legal threats on talk page of Taleb

At the very least, IbnAmioun has a COI on the subject of Taleb, and he should be encouraged to follow policy when editing that article. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a legal threat, but it's sure as hell evidence of a

severe "OWN" problem of the sort we can't continue to ignore. --Orange Mike | Talk

22:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) IbnAmioun is requesting to be unblocked, reasoning: "Representative of person under DANGEROUS smear campaign." I take that to mean that he claims to be Mr. Taleb's lawyer. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that this situation has been going on for years. IbnAmioun is currently blocked for 31 hours; it seems very likely that he'll go back to POV-pushing in this article as soon as the block expires. It also seems that this isn't the first time he's been at ANI, with no significant change or improvement. Personally, I think that a much stronger hand is called for. I've added the article in question to my watchlist, and I'm perfectly happy to do the 'escalating series of blocks' thing on his very next biased, uncivil, or

WP:OWN edit... but would it be easier, given the history, to just impose a topic ban now? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The conflict on Taleb's page can be traced to a few finance professionals who seem to be particularly incensed about Taleb and his success. I am a finance professional myself, and I have edited many other pages. The amount of vandalism on Taleb's page is astonishing, either through simple profanity or through the dispute of facts, even when the links to stories are clearly provided or are easily accessible on the web. Nagle itself seems to have an issue with Universa, ignoring articles like the one published by Bloomberg on Oct 14 2008 (available on the Bloomberg terminal, and copies of the text are available on the web). That kind of selective edit is more like a personal attack than a concerned effort for style and substance. MCarr (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to hype or discredit anyone here. Its obvious that Taleb evokes strong sentiments of all kinds from all kinds. The man has been under smear campaigns and even threats (death threats as well)- Nagle's behaviour seems to border on obsession ( and I do admit it concerns me) the way he seems to discredit and obsessively ask for "audited numbers".such information might be private or only specific people might be privy to it. All I say is if there are issues with the article- lets discuss it in a civil manner. The guy keeps screaming for "numbers" and "proofs" when the article itself does NOT refer or include them. Lets solve this silliness and move on.

talk

) 22:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC) Asim

To be fair, the subject area seems to be infested with SPAs of many sorts, not just those promoting Taleb. See the fun at this afd from a few months ago. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems that I was tagged as a SPA by you; I have edited articles since 2006, and although my day job has not allowed me to dedicate enough time to diversify my edits, the aggressive editing on the related subjects does attract my attention. MCarr (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make a few edits on that page but quickly backed away because of the fan club protecting it. I have enough of this type of behaviour to deal with on other pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, a thread on this subject has been open for a day or two at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard.[82]. I was not aware of the prior ANI history with this article, and recommended dispute resolution.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

ANY neutral involvement in the taleb entry is desirable. The more people from here editing the Taleb entry the better, anyone coming from this page has no prior opinion, making the whole thing balanced and neutral Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(Ibnamioun is paranoid and he may have reasons as some cases were looking as if editors have a direct want to degrade taleb. In this case, for example an old case of reporter error was digged up in an argument that felt pretty much anti taleb. As the saying goes, every paranoia has its source) Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Amioun is frequently irritating certainly, but in his defence I think we need to take into account cultural factors: I suspect there is a lot of pride in Taleb's home town, as well as in Lebanon generaly, that someone from the region has achieved such prominence on the global stage. It is fair to say that often the Western media presents the Middle-East in a negative light, as a sort of Medieval backwater, and perhaps the fierce support given to Taleb may be a defensive reaction to this negativity. Anyway this is the sense I got when dealing with Ibn Amioun. I had some sympathy for him, despite his overly aggressive conduct.

I think Ibn Amioun should be given a fair go, keep in mind that at least he did disclose that he was from Taleb's home town. Inchiquin (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please delete this revision? It is outrageous and very disturbing. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Also removed the link from your post. Nakon 01:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Nowyouseemetalk2me 01:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the revdel, but blocking the IP was sort of useless since the nasty vandalism occurred 2 years ago and the IP hasn't edited since then. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed that, sorry. Unblocking. Nakon 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

CAT:RFRD. Especially for an old thing like that, email discretion is probably preferable to ANI urgency. Rd232 ^talk

02:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

) 07:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Drake discography is an example of what I'm talking about in the other chart songs section. Unlike Harout72, I've been always checking the billboard charts every single week that's they're updated, I've seen those chart positions before and when I add or update positions on wikipedia I usually include in my edit summaries that I'm updating it or adding it in because of what I saw. Also I would advice this guy to actually start check billboard charts every thursday when they're updated and stop heavily depending on the the verifiability of the sources provided. Thanks.Hometown Kid (talk

) 14:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly advise you to read up on

Wikipedia's verifiability policies, before you get yourself in trouble. --Carnildo (talk

) 00:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Question to administrators

What is the next step I need to take, because Hometown Kid keeps on making the same exact edits, again leaving all his inserted peaks unverifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at "All I Do Is Win" and it peaked at #8 according to the article already cited in the article. It charted twice according to the that list, first in February peaking at #89 and again in June peaking at #8. Mattg82 (talk) 13:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Copied from

:

"*GageSkidmore (

) 05:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly where he attacked another editor(s)? Also, you are taking the deletion of that article too personal (create two AFD) Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 05:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Check Ctjf83's talk page and Jj98 was attacked on the New Kidney in Town deletion page. Both are clear personal attacks. The only reason for him not to br blocked for a limited time is the lack of warnings he had (but I doubted he would've listened even if he was warned considering he deleted my warning with the summary "I don't need to be lectured") JDDJS (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This edit here [83]

and here [84] and this one here [85]. JDDJS (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

that is not vandalism for say "vandalism after final warning" (even the word with "v"). Also link 1/2 is not a personal attack, tell someone is not welcomed is not an "attack", and for the link 3, is a sarcasm, which is not an attack, just is a strong irony, why you don't take this to ANI innstead?Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 06:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :::Here he denies doing anything wrong [86] and here he shows he doesn't care about being warned. [87]. I believe this shows that he needs to be blocked to learn a lesson. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess ANI is a bit more appropiate. JDDJS (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)"

And so now the discussion continues here. JDDJS (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The comment on Ctjf's page was not a personal attack. He and I are close friends, and I was only expressing my distaste with his voting to redirect the article. Additionally, I'd like to retract my comment about the other editor.

talk

) 06:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• No vandalism or personal attacks have been made. Request this be closed posthaste as unnecessary and no admin attention is needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How have no personal attacks have been made? I understand that only one counts now and it's not enough to block him, but the one attack still happened. JDDJS (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll let the Ctjf comment go (unless of course he says he took it as a personal attack), but doesn't it seem a little late now to retract what you said about Jj98 when both here [88] and here [89] you didn't. If it was up to me you'll be blocked for 24 hrs, but it is not up to me. Most likely you won't get blocked. However be careful what you say and how you say it in the future. If you attack someone again (especially in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Kidney in Town (2nd nomination) you probably will be blocked. JDDJS (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't threaten people with blocks when you're not an admin.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see "probably" as a threat...just throwing it out there.

chat

13:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remain mostly neutral on this, it takes a lot to offend me, so "knowing" Gage, I wasn't bothered by it, although *bites tongue*, he isn't always the most tactful user, but for the record, I strongly detest him saying JJ98 isn't welcome at

chat

13:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Unreasonable block topic ban

socking allegations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved as best it can be. Someone can re-open if they disagree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

---

This needs to be announced, even though the discussion has been closed: the checkuser has confirmed that Dylan Flaherty is not a sock, of Benjiboi or of any other user. Since there was a good deal of discussion about this, I wanted to make sure everyone is aware that the sockpuppetry speculation was unfounded. Horologium (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Alison did not say DF was not a sock of any other user, though socking was never my worry here. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated socking accusations have been one of the many tools used against him by some Dylan's opponents, many of which look from my perspective as attempts to get him silenced for what are really internal American political reasons. The allegations were wrong, but they have won, and suffered no consequences themselves. I do wonder how those editors would respond if they saw such behaviour in Discussion on an article about another country? HiLo48 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I too would like to see retractions from the editors posting such false allegations. If not here, where is the appropriate place to ask this? -PrBeacon (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

• Would this also be the appropriate place to ask for one over the implication of some sort of conspiracy made in this edit? [101] Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No. -PrBeacon (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sorry. Did you post the wrong diff? There is no apology there. There is a strike through, where nearly 4 hours later, you decided to quietly try to act like you didn't make the allegation. But I don't see an apology or a retraction. I mean if it's ok for you to ask for them, it should be equally ok for you to give them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, again. I made no accusation against you. You claimed to not want to be included in this 'drama' yet you keep replying. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• You implied a comspiracy or some sort of collusion between us. You can sit here and act like you didn't, but everyone can see you did. I've shown what I wanted to show about you, so now you can have the
  last word that you crave so much, then cut and paste it all over to your talk page and have yet another conversation with yourself there. But thank you for the entertainment. Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 07:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I didn't imply that, you inferred it. But I'm sure everyone else here is as happy to hear that you've gotten what you wanted, including a silly dig about my talkpg (really?) because your nonsense is unwelcome there. Do you need a shovel? -PrBeacon (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

en.WP is riddled with socks, editors would be startled to learn who runs some of them. The posts about socking were made in

good faith and taken to CU, where no socking was found. This happens at ANI, it's not so untowards. Speaking only for myself, I was happy to hear CU did not link DF with Benjiboi. Meanwhile, as ever, DF is welcome on my talk page, to talk about the topic ban and find a means to lift it before the two weeks are up. Gwen Gale (talk

) 21:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, its not bad faith to have a good faith claims that edit history , etc a possible sock report, its part of how wikipedia works. Alison has said that the user is not a sock of any of the users on the Benjibo case, and that is a simple checkuser fact.

Off2riorob (talk

) 21:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Good faith? Maybe. Maybe it's my evil mind, but I really can imagine some editors using it in bad faith. And it was while those allegations were still active that the block under discussion was decided upon. Did the "good faith" strategy achieve its goal? Hmmmm. Anyway, as PrBeacon has suggested above, an apology or "I was wrong" from the accusers would be a real sign of good faith. 22:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Horologium, for taking the time to announce it here. The claims of sockpuppetry were made as tho it was a fact. What was unknown was WHO Dylan was a sock of. What I foresaw yesterday was a scerario where, in two weeks, two months, etc. some editor would start to claim that DF was a sock and the proof could be found here. The admins involved said as much! It was all to ambiguously worded for my taste. But now we know...all of us...that DF is NOT a sock! And, Gwen, even when I re-read the sock accusations above, Im having trouble finding good faith. But I'll get over it.Buster Seven Talk 22:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor's immediate familiarity with wikipedia upon creation August 30th suggest to the average reader that he was not brand-new to wikipedia. If the checkusers did not find anything, then the question has to go on the back burner until or if new evidence arises. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence is not evidence. Evidence is evidence. There isn't any. Buster Seven Talk 00:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound like I'm a sock just waiting for a foot to be found, sort of a Cinderella story with cotton instead of glass and an unhappy ending. The reality is that there was never a credible basis for claiming I was a sock. It was, from the start, a combination of paranoia, wishful thinking and just plain malice. I'm not going to ask anyone to apologize, because no amount of

WP:AGF can convince me they're sorry, and my reputation here will never recover from this smearing. This whole thing has been a lynching held during a witch hunt, and it reflects poorly upon the entire "community". You should all be ashamed of yourselves, doubly so because you're not. Dylan Flaherty

00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You were created at 1:00 and within 2 hours you were messing with your monobook stuff. That kind of thing looks fishy, though it may be totally innocent. But the typical editor comes to wikipedia to edit articles first and foremost. You made a couple of changes to an article about a turtle, and then did something with the monobook thing. I'm just curious when it was you first learned about that technical detail? P.S. Don't be closing threads that are about yourself and which someone else opened. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, one of the life lessons that was dearly bought but I now hold in high regard is that, if you want to know why someone did a thing, you must ask. Until you ask, it is foolish to speculate. Dylan Flaherty 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a question already. What's the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you never asked me. You talked about me, but that's not the same thing. Dylan Flaherty 02:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I distinctly said "You", but perhaps you missed that. One "life lesson" I learned about during the Watergate era is the "non-denial denial". So, let me ask you again: At what point in time did you learn about the monobook thingy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I remember Watergate, but this is no Watergate. This is just you still making assumptions when you should be asking questions. In this case, the right question to ask is not when did I learn about the monobook thingy, but whether I ever did. And the answer is no.

My oldest son, who's a good deal more technical than I ever will be, introduced me to Wikipedia, signed me up and walked me through some of the basics. The reason my first edit was to Bog turtle is that it was the article of the day. Before the end of his visit, he also configured the account for my needs, set up a bookmark for the watchlist and fussed with some sort of Javascript addon for a bit; that last part would be your mysterious monobook. He couldn't get it working and I've never tried.

I think you'll find that life is both simpler and more complex than you make it out to be, but until you learn to ask instead of assume, you will forever be a prisoner of your own premises. Dylan Flaherty 07:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So... he's basically wrong about everything in life and you're right? Your posts are often so pompous-sounding that it's a small wonder that you are constantly defending yourself. Everyone is wrong sometimes Dylan, even you. Yes: even you. Doc talk 08:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My first year or so of using Wikipedia was under another name which I decided to abandon for personal reasons, so when HiLo48 began posting he was already fairly familiar with the place. (Although I still stuff things up often enough.) But the name change was innocent. HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I smell a fish, too. But I don't jump to conclusions about the source. I was also hounded and stalked just after I started to edit. The stalker made the same kind of claims and I considered a new identity. So, maybe, some of us are more sensitive to false claims and unfounded innuendoes than others. Buster Seven Talk 00:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions is risky. Raising questions is fair. I've been accused of any number of things, but I don't worry about an allegation here unless it's true. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This stuff about using sock accusations to somehow "weaken" or "silence" an editor is absurd: the accuser has the egg on their face if they are wrong, not the accused. Most editors that get accused of socking have "disruptive tendencies" to begin with, so it's usually not a complete accident that someone in that position might find themselves accused of it. When you're a regular subject at "misconduct" boards, accusations often fly around. If you two are looking for apologies from every editor that mentioned the possibility of socking going on, I doubt that's going to happen. I'm sorry if I'm wrong about you two, but no CU has been conducted on these two accounts. Seeing that a CU has somehow cleared Dylan of any socking, I'm not going to press for one. Cheers: and remember that the drama isn't really worth it so much... Doc talk 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If he addresses that one loose end about the monobook, it would be fair for him to box up this section as being resolved. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"I edited WP as an/several IP/s, but didn't want to register at that time. Then I created the named account. I actually don't remember any of the IP numbers or the articles they edited." I'm hoping he does better than that... Doc talk 04:54, 18 December 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.

Review of appeal closure

• A recent appeal from an topic ban extension by Captain Occam (talk · contribs · email), closed by me.
• The thread where the sanction being appealed was imposed.

Could a few more administrators put eyes on this and share their thoughts here regarding Captain Occam? The matter about MathSci is being discussed

at an arbitration clarification thread. Thanks! Vassyana (talk

) 20:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Vassyana for posting this thread. One other discussion that I think admins ought to look at is here.

Although I didn’t state in that thread which arbitrator I was referring to, the context should make it should be fairly clear. Relevant diffs are here (describing the personal connection between these editors) and here (in which the arbitrator makes a proposal about the editor to whom he has this connection.) According to HJ Mitchell’s comment in the thread in Jimbo’s user talk, Roger Davies should have recused himself about this. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Will you give it a rest, please? Go do something positive, edit an article, upload an image, contribute something to the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite know why Captain Occam chose Jimbo's talk page to reenact his version of the

Shootout at the OK Corral. The script could be improved but the cinematography is stunning :) Mathsci (talk

) 09:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales offered his opinion in the thread in his user talk: that even though there probably isn’t an actual conflict of interest, it would still be best for Roger Davies to recuse himself in order to avoid the appearance of bias. Getting Jimbo’s opinion was what I was after by posting there, so I’ve basically got what I wanted from that thread. How much you want to drag out the argument there beyond this point is up to you. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam is locked in a dispute with ArbCom at present. He has made a series of unfounded accusations over the past 12 hours which seem to be fairly serious personal attacks. I hope for the sake of his own future as an editor on wikipedia that he can somehow manage to find a way of deescalating his dispute with ArbCom. One way might be through a private dialogue with members of ArbCom, as at least one of them has already suggested in a slightly different context. Mathsci (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Moot now [102] Mathsci (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

So is this issue over with now? You’ve agreed not to participate in race and intelligence related articles anymore, and this is the condition under which your topic ban was lifted. I obviously won’t be participating in them either. The articles I’m intending to edit are articles you probably don’t care about, and the articles you’ll be editing are articles I probably don’t care about. So there’s no reason we should have to interact with one another anymore.

I’d prefer that we didn’t. I’ll be glad to leave you alone if you can return the favor, but this will have to involve you not following me to discussions about my sanctions that don’t involve you, or making apparently frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry against me. (I say your accusations about this were frivolous because during the month since you claimed it, no one else has appeared to agree with you that this claim was justified, and none of the alleged socks have been blocked or sanctioned.) I think it’s best for everyone, ourselves included, if we stay away from one another from now on. Can you agree to that? --Captain Occam (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to make a small correction here, the accusations of meatpuppetry seem quite well founded indeed as you should know since I emailed you to discuss the information privately. They've not been blocked because we want to give them a chance to become editors in their own right as we initially did with Ferhago, but if they continue with your disputes or other issues in the topic area, they will be banned from the topic area as well. Shell ^babelfish 14:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Shell, for clarifying that. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Shell: you e-mailed me asking me what I knew about these editors, and in response I answered your question and asked you what your suspicions were based on. You never got back to me again after that. If there actually is evidence of meatpuppetry, that’s news to me, since you never replied to my e-mail asking you about it.

I’m also confused by your comment about Ferahgo. The whole time Ferahgo was involved in race and intelligence articles, they were never the focus of her involvement in Wikipedia. At this point they only make up around 2% of her contribution history. The reason she was topic banned by NuclearWarfare wasn’t because she was acting the same way I had been, but because she and I

share an IP address, and NW decided that this meant my topic ban should extend to her also. (And he stated this when he topic banned her.) Is what you’re saying that even if these editors participate in race and intelligence articles only as much as Ferahgo did, they’ll still be considered meatpuppets and I’ll be assumed to be the puppeteer? --Captain Occam (talk

) 15:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually my first email explained the evidence and where the connection came from; you disclaimed any knowledge of these editors and offered the suggestion that the connection was simply a coincidence, a response I didn't find credible. You seem to misremember the various comments made regarding Ferhago and her eventual topic ban including those which pointed out her only contributions to the topic area (and her first edits here) were simply to bolster your position or continue identical arguments in remarkably similar language. It's difficult to fathom how three editors, related to you via an external site would appear of their own impetus immediately following both of those topic bans, posses in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia, the dispute and the arbitration case, continue your arguments on the topic and immediately move to a properly formed user RfC in under two weeks of activity here. Nevertheless, in an attempt to give them the benefit of the doubt, they were not immediately blocked in the hopes that they would develop their own interest in Wikipedia. The amount of participation (or lack thereof) has little to do with the issue; behavior will be the deciding factor. Shell ^babelfish 15:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, it’s three editors? The only editors I know about who were under suspicion are Woodsrock and Sightwatcher. Who’s the third one?

You told me in your e-mail that there was evidence that Woodsrock and Sightwatcher are members of the DeviantArt community that Ferahgo and I run. You didn’t tell me what that evidence was, or what names you think they’re registered under there, when I asked you about this. I would still appreciate an explanation about this. You seem to think I already have a perfect understanding of all that’s going on regarding this, but I’m really in the dark here, and now I’m worried that at some point in the future I’m going to get hit with an additional sanction for supposedly using meatpuppets without ever understanding what it’s based on. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

TrevelyanL85A2. Please read

WP:BEANS to see why you could not be shown the evidence. Mathsci (talk

) 17:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

All right, fine, I can’t make you or Shell tell me what evidence there is about this if neither of you want to. And I guess it isn’t really necessary at this stage anyway. ArbCom hasn’t sanctioned any of these accounts, and it doesn’t accomplish anything to argue over the merits of a decision that ArbCom might make sometime in the future but hasn’t made yet. I just hope that if at some point in the future I get sanctioned under the assumption that these accounts were my meatpuppets, ArbCom will be willing to tell me what evidence this sanction was based on, as well as how it was determined that these accounts were my meatpuppets and not someone else’s. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Anybody can work out the connection between TrevelyanL85A2 and Ferahgo the Assassin, once it's been pointed out. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Will this ever end. It seems that every decision is an excuse to start a new discussion or manufacture a new controversy with the usual long walls of text. The amount of hand holding and attention seeking is getting out of hand. We shouldn't lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians, that is to build an encyclopedia. It is my opinion that users who are a constant distraction and constantly diverting time and energy from building an encyclopedia are disruptive. If such users are unable to demonstrate that they can contribute meaningfully to the encyclopedia, then it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia if such users were shown the door. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we wouldn't want to lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians while people are being banned due to spurious charges and secret messages. Flobbably (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just reported the above user on

WP:SPI as a suspected sockpuppet of Mikemikev. Mathsci (talk

) 17:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

How can you know so quickly that this is a Mikemikev sock? I’m not saying it isn’t, but I really don’t see how you can tell this when he’s only made one edit, and it’s not to any of the articles or talk pages where Mikemikev used to participate regularly.

I think the unique problem here is the general atmosphere of paranoia that exists in discussions about controversial articles. (This is mostly an answer to Coren’s question.) Based on the ruling from the recent climate change case, the same problem seems to exist there also, particularly with regard to the number of editors who’ve been blocked under the mistaken assumption that they were Scibaby socks. In this case, I get the impression that the efforts being made to identify and block suspected sockpuppets are causing more disruption than the accounts themselves are causing. At the very least this was true of User:TisTRU, who was blocked four days ago as a Mikemikev sockpuppet despite having edited nothing but art history articles. (The blocking admin eventually reconsidered their decision and unblocked him.) --Captain Occam (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Groan. Mathsci (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And confirmed as a sockpuppet of Mikemikev.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mikemikev So much for Captain Occam's statements about "paranoia". Mathsci (talk) 18:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment mentioning that I’m impressed you figured this one out based on a single edit. But you know, I really think this is a Scibaby-like situation. The estimate of how many editors were falsely blocked as Scibary sockpuppets was around 20-40% of the total. (40% early on, and with enough effort it was lowered to 20%). If the same principle applies here, then TisTRU was one of the 20-40%, while Flobbably was one of the remaining 60-80%. In either this case or climate change, you can’t point to a single correct block and say that it means there isn’t any problem with editors being falsely accused. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have not so far been wrong with Mikemikev. However, since honesty seems to be the issue here, I believe that your current conduct, including the remarks addressed to Roger Davies (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on Jimbo's talk page, warrants an indefinite community ban. Just my 2 cents worth. Mathsci (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

My original suggestion to you in this thread was that we go our separate ways and leave each other alone from now on, and I asked you whether you could agree to that. You didn’t reply to my question, but it looks like you’re answering it in a different way. In response to my suggestion that we both walk away from this issue, your intention is to begin lobbying for me to be site-banned now? --Captain Occam (talk) 19:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It was only my 2 cents worth, no more. It is time to draw a line. Please try to take responsibility for your actions and stop continually blaming others for your own weaknesses or failings. Everybody has their weaknesses, including me. Once we've recognized them, we can move on. Mathsci (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I’m just sick of thinking about these issues in general. Right now I don’t feel like analyzing my own weaknesses or anyone else’s. What I feel like is taking a Wikibreak until sometime after Christmas, and then when I come back, editing an article that has nothing to do with race or intelligence. I’ve had more than enough Wikipedia drama for one year, and I hope that at least for me, 2011 will contain a lot less of it than 2010 did. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I wish both you and Ferahgo a happy festive season. Be careful of the bones if you are considering

pterodactyls for dessert :) Mathsci (talk

) 21:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It will always remain interesting to me how thousands of editors work every day on Wikipedia without running into all those horrible systemic flaws and the evil admin secret police, yet the same couple of dozen editors keep stumbling onto the vast conspiracy over and over and getting into trouble through no fault of their own. It's also amazing to see how the "spurious charges and secret messages" seem to affect only a microscopic fragment of the editorial corps. But of course, the problem couldn't possibly lie with the poor victimized heroes. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

That's sort of where I am on this. Some people are willing to invest in any idea, however far-fetched or paranoid, except for the possibility that they might be wrong. MastCell ^Talk 22:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the outdented statement above, "We shouldn't lose sight of our main purpose as Wikipedians, that is to build an encyclopedia. It is my opinion that users who are a constant distraction and constantly diverting time and energy from building an encyclopedia are disruptive." I had a good time at last week's International Society for Intelligence Research conference in DC meeting scholars who in some cases disagreed quite starkly with one another on issues of fact but who in all cases were civil in dealing with one another and thoughtful in discussing current research studies. There is a lot to learn about many of the subjects related to the articles under dispute. There are many good examples in the scholarly community of authors who gather statements about the agreed conclusions of research into reliable secondary sources, while making clear what issues have yet to be completely resolved by primary research scholarship. As Wikipedia's role in the worldwide process of informal education is to be an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should mostly deal with the agreed statements found in reliable secondary sources. The conduct of actual, grown-up professional scholars is a good guide to all of us on how to verify factual statements in reliable sources and how to edit an encyclopedia collaboratively. Happy New Year wishes to all wikipedians. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Eickman

User:Eickman has repeatedly added a link to his personal webpage into the Son of perdition article. He was questioned about it here and here, advised against it here (which he responded to here), and then warned here and here. And yet he has added the link repeatedly, the most recent occasions being here, here and here. StAnselm (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

All this is sectarian nonsense from two individuals--StAnselm and Tawain Boi--to try and suppress the full release of factual information on Wikipedia representing all viewpoints on the given topics, including those of various Jewish groups, higher critics, minor Christian movements like the Unitarians and Idealists, etc, etc. And if you don't believe it, take a look at the articles before I started editing them versus after. (Better yet, take a look at what these two characters did after my last block for fighting with them over minority viewpoints--they immediately moved in to reduce the articles back to their sectarian positions.)

The pages are "Son of Perdition," "Historicism (Christian)," and "Book of Daniel."

Ike Eickman (talk) 08:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As the diffs provided by StAnselm demonstrate, this has nothing to do with sectarianism. A range of editors have objected to your idiosyncratic POV edits and your repeated breach of Wiki policy. One of your sources was rejected as a

WP:RS, you continued to include it, along with a link to your own book, which you advertise on your talk page. You are also blocked more than once for repeated abuse of other editors.--Taiwan boi (talk

) 09:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

1) This is all about sectarianism.

2) I have included no "idiosyncratice POV edits" anywhere on Wikipedia--I've represented all groups and all points of views.

3) The finding of the "reliable sources" was unreliable, as the reviewers nor the requesters knew anything about Unitarian or Idealist theology or the significance of the source.

4) I have included no "link to my book;" I linked to a sound definition of triunism which is obtuse or overly complicated in the other sources listed.

5) You have repeatedly demonstrated that you know little to nothing about the subject matter, as per your latest questions regarding typology, declaring that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" when that is precisely what "typology" is, i.e. a prototype points to a FUTURE person, object, or action.

Why you're still meddling is anyone's guess.

Ike Eickman (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I pointed out that none of the sources say anything about "multiple applications in multiple contexts" with regard to the son of perdition. You really need to address the numerous problems with your edits, and start adhering to Wiki policy.--Taiwan boi (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eickman you have been repeatedly asked for sources to support your various positions by the other editors. Linking to your own website and advert for your book simply does not cut the mustard. If you are sufficiently notable and mainstream as an academic in this field then your book could be a secondary source, but you would need to demonstrate that degree of notability. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not about sectarianism, this is about

citing himself in a clear conflict of interest. If Eickman can't be civil and can't abide by other Wikipedia policies then there is no place for him or his edits here. Elizium23 (talk

) 20:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So now we have four independent editors reporting this issue, and a number of diffs proving it. What next? I'm interested to know, since Eickmann is continuing to edit pages repeatedly inserting his idiosyncratic POV, continuing to add a link which directs people to his book, and continuing to use sources which have already been rejected as failing

WP:RS.--Taiwan boi (talk

) 16:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobody seems to be interested except me. I suspect that is because of the dense and particular nature of the subject matter. It's not something most people, including me, could even have a pot shot at getting the hang of without a lot of work. It's always a worry in case the person being complained of as disruptive in a dense content dispute is in fact the lone GF editor losing his cool against a sea of POV pushers. I'm not for a moment saying that is the case here, but it's difficult to get to the bottom of. However, it does seem to me that using his own webpage as a source is inappropritae. I should also say that I googled "Triunism" and on the first two pages, what came up where it was being used in the religious sense was Eickman's webpage and discussion boards where the participant using the word as usually someone called "Ike".Fainites barleyscribs 17:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just that single link, it's the fact that he consistently, blatantly, ignores Wiki policy and even insists that Wiki policy is wrong. I added the statement "The "city on seven hills" in Revelation is understood by the majority of modern scholarly commentators as a reference to Rome.", and provided thirteen references supporting it. Not only did he revert this, he claimed that the majority view has no place in Wikipedia. His words:

• ""Majority" and "minority" are fairly irrelevant in an encyclopedic reference." (diff)
• "First sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "Majority opinion is what this encyclopedia insists on," then refers to other opinions as "fringe," meaning any group not in the mainstream, i.e. Unitarians, Mormons, JWs, minority Catholic opinions (like those of the Jesuits), etc, etc." (diff)
• "Second sectarian-driven blatantly false statement: "The majoriy of scholarly commentators understand John to be referring to Rome." "Scholarly opinions" are like genitals--everyone has them, but it's rarely a good idea to discuss them in public. That's why every sect has their own "scholars."" (diff)

This is not the first time he has displayed willful disregard for Wiki policies, which he insists are simply wrong. He is currently tying up the time of three editors. I do not understand why he is permitted to continue like this. All the rest of us do our best to follow Wiki policy, and what's the point in me taking all the time to provide 20 or 30

WP:RS for an article if in reality Wiki policies aren't going to be upheld? The lack of enforcement of Wiki policy (including admins who refuse to act because they can't be bothered, or tell people they're not interested in that subject so they won't get involved, or say "too long; didn't read" when you post a report), is the worst aspect of this unruly mess of an "encyclopedia". What do we have to do to get Wiki policy enforced around here?--Taiwan boi (talk

) 23:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what we have here is an out-of-control editor who is not interesting in following Wikipedia policy or submitting to Wikipedia consensus. He was blocked for one week for rudeness, and that hasn't changed his behaviour. I suggest he be blocked for a month now. StAnselm (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Eickman. Please stop using your own website as a source. If what you say is a mainstream or recognised or accepted viewpoint then it should be capable of being sourced from notable secondary sources. This does not include your website. If you continue to try and use your website as a source - that would be

disruptive. In addition, your manner of editing is becoming increasingly aggressive and offensive again. It is not acceptable to call editors who disgree with you liars or the like. Fainites ^barleyscribs

21:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

In case it isn't clear yet, he isn't listening to you. Telling him "Eickman, don't be naughty" doesn't work. It didn't work the first five times he was told, and it doesn't work now. After his first block he simply repeated his previous behaviour. After his second block he simply repeated his behaviour. He will continue to repeat his behaviour because he is being allowed to get away with it. He has learned that he can do as he pleases and there will be no consequences.--Taiwan boi (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I was giving him a clear warn ing with a view to taking it further if he ignored it. I see however Elen has beaten me to it.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Eickman indefinitely for inserting material and links from his own website (which is only a reliable source for the contents of his own brain, and does not belong on the 'pedia) and for using misleading edit summaries (particularly the very last one here to disguise what he is doing. That last ploy moves him from the merely annoying and into the disruptive. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Now we can all get on with improving articles.--Taiwan boi (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

On question, has Eickman ever been conclusively proven to be the person who wrote the book, and officially given copyright permissions to Wikipedia? As if not then User:Eickman is a copyvio as well. Canterbury Tail talk 13:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Dunno how you'd "conclusively prove" it on Wiki. It's a not unreasonable assumption given the name, contents of the website and discussion boards. Nobody else seems to be talking about triunism in the same way other than an author called Eickleberry, an editor called Eickman and a contributor called Ike.Fainites ^barleyscribs 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio or not, it was definitely shilling for the book, so I've G11'd it. It's no different to someone advertising anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wuhsuohwey

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

 – For now... I am going to speedily delete the articles the user created, as I am now convinced that they are hoaxes. I will not block the user for the time being since he/she stopped editing after warnings. (Sockpuppetry might have been involved as well as has been pointed out by one of the AfD commentors, but the prior account had not been blocked nor had it been under threat of block, so it wasn't a case of block evasion.) If the user resumes editing and does so in a vandalistic fashion, he/she will be blocked. --Nlu (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wu-speaking peoples-related POV forks that are probably hoaxes (as they are yielding no Google hits). I've opened an AfD on one of these articles, and since then the user has added more. In light of the user's behavior, I am now inclined to block and speedily delete the articles he/she created, but I'd like some second opinions before doing so. --Nlu (talk

) 14:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Go with your instinct. Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Also (in case you forgot) I notified the editor of this thread.  :) Whose Your Guy (talk) 14:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that the interwiki links he placed on his new article Goetan actually correspond to Wu Chinese. (If you follow the "English" link back from them, that's where they take you.) Misleading, if nothing else. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he can't be blamed for that; he linked the Chinese Wikipedia article on Wu Chinese to his new article of Goetan; I reverted it over there. --Nlu (talk) 00:13, 18 December 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.

Carl Truscott

Carl Truscott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of a low-speed edit war that has left the article that includes both peacock language and vague statements of misconduct, in the variations that it has. As I am completely unfamiliar with the subject, I would appreciate it if someone who is more familiar can look into it and hand out appropriate warnings and/or take additional actions on it. (As it stands right now, I feel I can't hand out warnings since I can't distinguish between edits that are accurate, good-faith but inaccurate, good-faith but POV, defamatory, and vandalism as to this article.) --Nlu (talk) 14:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons DVDS

Here there is some edit warring going on here by

hockey10^e-mail

00:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked The Ultimate Koopa for 24 hours for extreme incivility. --Jayron32 00:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone remove the summaries please? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Under what grounds? --Jayron32 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

He called Sergecross73 a "f*ing hypocrite", along with some other disgusting words. I deleted the edit summaries, not the edits, but if you feel it's okay to have that visible you can restore it. KrakatoaKatie 00:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out that this isn't the first time The Ultimate Koopa has used edit summaries extremely inappropriately. Examples include the following: A, B, C, and D. I have addressed this to him on his talk page but he didn't acknowledge his behavior in any way. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand this is not my place but would a longer block (1 week) be more appropriate to get our point across? --

hockey10^e-mail

02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If he comes back and does the same thing, I suspect his next break will be much longer than a week... Bobby Tables (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I wasn't "edit warring". I merely undid one of his edits once because his rationale for his past edit was something along the lines of "it's not available in stores around me so it's not released". Something like that. I have randomly run past him in the past though, and his edit comments can indeed be inappropriate. (Usually profanity, or attacking users instead of ideas.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to cause trouble, but I'm unaware of any attempt by either of you to resolve this problem with dispute resolution. I could be wrong, but it's what I saw. --

hockey10^e-mail

04:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that, you only undid once. For some reason I thought you had undid twice, my apologies Sergecross73. --

hockey10^e-mail

04:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you now know what happened. It took me a while to figure out what was even going on when I got the alert on my talk page, because I wasn't aware of any disputes I was involved in. I was wondering aimlessly on wikipedia, undid an edit, and kept moving. I didn't even realize Ultimate Koopa had responded to me at all until I came here... Sergecross73 msg me 16:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing

lay off the dead horse, even after four people have told him specifically the username is not a violation. Since I don't think any further interaction on my part is going to help, could I ask an addie to intervene? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!}

) 10:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there was an edit conflict here, but you must have missed this where I have basically given up because I am outnumbered and also felt things were gettting out of hand over there. I apologize sincerely to anyone who has seen my honest opinion about that user name as any kind of an affront. SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

MHO impersonation is when someone 'might' be the real person, so impersonation is possible. Not I think a risk here - if the person claimed to be Zara Phillips, one of the Queen's granddaughters it could be a problem (well, she might be interested in editing wikipedia). --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed she might, and so might a semi-anonymous representative of the Queen, or at least so many readers probably suspect (no matter how foolish they might seem to suspect it or wonder) when they see that name. That was my good faith point. SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Balkan edit-warring only account

[103], removes refs and sourced text without discussion, and reverts incessantly. Any help would be appreciated.

talk

) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Problematic, but you have not notified

WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein 

20:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Recreation of a deleted page, sort of.

Resolved

I don't know if this really belongs here, or if there might be a better place to report/request intervention. It would appear that the deleted page Francisco Coll García has been recreated or, more precisely, its talk page has been with, i presume (not being able to see the deleted page), the same information. I imagine that this gets immediately redeleted, which is why i've come here. If not, a word to the wise will let me know for next time.... Meantime, i'm going to tell the recreator of this note. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Article talkpage deleted, and ip blocked for 31 hours for attempting to evade the earlier deletion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow quick work ~ so quick, what with the computer freeze-up, i didn't even get a chance to go to the IP's page. Thanks for the help. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 19:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars

User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars has been going around removing succession boxes from song articles, despite multiple editors asking him to stop.

I first encountered Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars when I created an article with a succession box [104], which he then removed [105]. I didn't think the change was an improvement, but I didn't revert; instead, I went to his talk page to ask about it, where I discovered that multiple editors, including

User:TheRetroGuy, who reverted the removal and told him to knock it off (diff

). Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars then reinstated the change TheRetroGuy reverted, and continued removing boxes from other articles.

I found Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' changes irritating, but having no desire to get into an edit war (especially over something as trivial as succession boxes), I left his changes alone. Today, however, I noticed a budding edit war on Hungry Like the Wolf. I had added a succession box there on October 20 (article history), before I was aware of the whole debate. It remained in the article for two months, until Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars removed it today. Another editor didn't appreciate the removal, and undid it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars responded by removing it again.

I would like Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars to stop going around removing these. Since he's ignored multiple requests from multiple editors along those same lines, I feel I'm forced to bring it here. At the very least, I would like him to stop reinstating his changes when other editors undo them.

Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars and the other editors mentioned have been notified of this thread. 28bytes (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The stylistic question of whether song articles should have succession boxes seems to be undecided, judging by the discussions at

WP:RFC

to determine whether some consensus can be arrived at with the input of more people.

Nonetheless, in analogy to

WP:STABILITY, editors should not make controversial mass style changes unless there is consensus about which style is preferable. If Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars continues to make such mass changes, and edit-wars about them, they may be blocked from editing.  Sandstein 

20:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Sandstein. I think an RFC for this would be a good idea and will start one when I return from vacation, if no one beats me to it. 28bytes (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This has been a battle for sometime now. I've been trying to keep the succession boxes on the pages, but the user has kept asserting that the consensus was to remove these boxes in favor of "See also" lists. So there are probably hundreds of music articles on #1 songs that no longer have these due to this user's biased opinions. I do remember a discussion about this, but there was never any consensus, and this user is the only one pushing it for some odd reason. Candyo32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 20:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

1. I have had follow-up conversations with many of the editors who have contacted me. I never infer consensus has been reached, but refer them to the long-running discussion on various Wikiproject songs/albums/chart pages, a history of which can be found archived at
   Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (record charts)/Archive 11
   , to make up their own mind.
   • User talk:Candyo32/Archive 3#Reply: succession boxes. User:Candyo32 did not comment on the record chart talk page and has never warned me again.
   • User talk:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars#Succession boxes. Conversation with User:L-l-CLK-l-l revealed concern was with my replacing the boxes with a long list of links, not removal of the succession boxes.
   • User talk:Yong#Succession boxes. I responded with my reasoning as did another editor, separately. User has never warned me since.
2. If someone reverts my change of such removal, I am allowed to revert it back if I disagree with it, offering my reasoning or often referring them to the link above in the edit summary.
3. There is no "budding edit war" on
   WP:3RR
   . Country songs, in particular, seem to be off limits by a few select editors, and I've avoided remove them from those.
4. There is no consensus either to have or not to have succession boxes for #1 songs and albums. Thousands of articles have them, I've removed them from hundreds that haven't been reverted since. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Accusation (mine) of personal attacks, uncivil behavior I would like uninvolved editors to have a look at a dispute I managed to get into at

Talk:Theoria. I was alerted to that talk page by this edit, which passed by while I was watching Recent changes; my curiosity got the better of me. I'll not say more, not wanting to stack the deck; please look for yourself. My first substantive comment was this, and you can see what happened. There is a note on my talk page as well, by one of the involved editors, and I asked User:PMDrive1061 for their advice, on their talk page--I believe that is full disclosure.

One more note: there is a content dispute, apparently, but I personally am only interested in the behavior. I'm placing an ANI notice on the talk page. Thank you in advance for your time and interest. Drmies (talk

) 04:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've given various parties to this advice at various times, and I have my doubt that the problems are remediable while the current editors are involved, which is my general position on the interaction between content disputes and personal attacks. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Batphone boy

Resolved

 –

MuZemike (talk · contribs) indef blocked both as sockpuppets of Wiki brah (talk · contribs

)

WT:WPTF. Can we get a block and checkuser to figure out who the hell is behind this? --6Shot (talk

) 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Batphone boy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 6Shot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am going to close this discussion since

MuZemike (talk · contribs) blocked both as socks of Wiki brah (talk · contribs). Reaper Eternal (talk

) 23:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

 Jarkeld (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I created two templates today. I was intending to create a third when I discovered a repeated typo in the name of my subject, the subject of the templates. I am asking for Admin assistance to rename: Template:Roger Krodsma M55 Pentathlon to: Template:Roger Kroodsma M55 Pentathlon and: Template:Roger Krodsma M60 Pentathlon to: Template:Roger Kroodsma M60 Pentathlon Notice the extra "o" Thank you. Trackinfo (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a request for AN/I.

WP:REQMOVE would have been the correct venue. Templates have been moved. Jarkeld (talk

) 00:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Range block request

A

long term vandal I'm tracking is currently active on the range 76.203.72.0/22. His last two used IPs are 76.203.72.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (blocked when it was used last week) and 76.203.75.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (in use within the past hour).—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 04:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The individual is now editing on 76.203.72.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The range above would indeed prevent this vandal from continuing his editing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Celibacy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved

 – we cool --Jayron32 03:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I got a negative response on my talk page from an IP that I warned for (what I believe to be) vandalism of Celibacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Dear Nlu,

I spent about an hour of my personal time to rewrite the intro of Celibacy. In comments, I have specifically stated that articles must be written in an encyclopedic manner, i.e. "Celibacy means having no partner" is very lame. Moreover, definitions were wrong. Yes, I also removed a source request there, which was not needed anymore anyway since I rewrote it.

You reverted my edit, came write about vandalism on my page, moreover, jumped to the last warning right off. I demand explanation within the next 24 hours, or I will a) revert YOUR edits and b) complain about your behavior to an administrator.

Thank you,

184.163.123.4 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This was my response:

Read

WP:NPOV. Your "definition" of celibacy is not in accordance with neutral view of what the term means. If you continue to do what you've been doing, expect to be blocked. --Nlu (talk

) 19:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, I re-read 184.163.123.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)'s edits on Celibacy, and I still believe that it was vandalism. However, I would like a second opinion on it. I'd also like a second opinion on whether I 1) should have given no response at all; 2) gave too harsh of a response; 3) gave too lenient of a response; 4) should reword my response. --Nlu (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits are not vandalism. They may have not belonged in the article, but vandalism is very narrowly defined as intentionally trying to degrade the quality of the encyclopedia. Insofar as the IP believes his edits to be improving the article, they are not vandalism. See

WP:VANDALISM. Now, that does not mean that the edits are allowed, or should stay in the article. There are many things a person can do to run afoul of Wikipedia guidelines or policies, and only a small subset of that is vandalism. Please do not call things vandalism when they are not, because it leads to undue bad feelings all around. --Jayron32

20:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I notified 184.163.123.4 of this thread. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron32, I believe it is vandalism because they were edits that the IP editor should have known to be not acceptable and still wrote anyway; note that

WP:NPOV, but had done so without knowledge that his/her actions are violative. The edits were clearly made to provoke and to make an unwarranted point, and therefore count as vandalism as far as I'm concerned. --Nlu (talk

) 21:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Nlu, but I have to totally disagree. I don't see how the IP's edit counts as vandalism, by any stretch, so you'll have to explain your stance more. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I've already explained — I believe the edits are vandalism because they were done in bad faith — and I believe that I also have indicated that I believe reasonable minds might differ on this. But in any case, what I am still not hearing is any additional thoughts on what should be done (if anything) as to this IP's edits. I am hearing no disagreements that the edits are inappropriate, so whether vandalism or not, the question now is what to do with them. --Nlu (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP in question took the "lame" definition of celibacy (the kind of explanation you would give to a child when you don't want to get into the gory details), and expanded it in an inaccurate direction. But it doesn't look like bad-faith, it just looks like the IP doesn't know what he's talking about, and that's not vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how bringing my comment to a general discussion would resolve Nlu's incompetent action. Please explain to me how you consider my edit being of "bad faith". To me "bad faith" is intentional mischief on an article, which perfectly suits the definitions of vandalism. As I mentioned, I was rewriting the introduction, and unless you consider, among other things, me bringing in original research, unsourced material and claims, or subjectivisms, I see no way of you interfering with my edit. On a side note, none of your arguments, justified or not, can possibly explain why you jumped to a warning straight off, as on no occasions to my knowledge does Wikipedia have a final-warning-first policy, unless it is an edit consisting of vocabulary relating to the word "penis". And by the way, you have 12 hours left. Thank you, 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP, reading your edit, it is clear to me that you are trying to redefine celibacy to mean 'being unmarried' - you even explicitly state that celibate people might have sexual intercourse, which is pretty much in contradiction to the standard definition of celibacy. While I don't think I'd call your edit vandalism myself, I can certainly see how it could look that way. You are clearly distorting the definition of the term to an exceptional extent, and it is only through a conscious effort of will that I can give the benefit of the doubt that you might actually believe what you wrote (which is the only thing saving this from actually being vandalism). --Ludwigs2 02:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs, I would call this "original research", however only if what you refer to as "standard" definition comes from a well-known dictionary. I was willing to include a paragraph that would state "do not mistake celibacy for sexual abstinence", as to my belief, and I do believe in logic and common sense, a celibate person can freely engage in a one-time sexual relationship with an individual, or to say so, lead a life of constantly engaging in sexual relations with different individuals. The key element of celibacy, to my point of view, is the absence of civil union, even if that union extends to the terms "boyfriend" and "girlfriend". Also, a person deprived of sexual relations is not necessarily celibate, which proves by deduction of the contrary that thinking so is wrong, as many relationships within a civil unions can be of asexual nature. 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

IP must gain a consensus on the talkpage, before implimenting changes to article-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Why do you treat IP like dirt? Maybe I'm just too lazy to log in. Geez, go outside sometime, people! 184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Your status is irrevelant, IPs & registered editors must get a consensus on a talkpage, so as to impliment such changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please indicate what policy you are referring to and since when is such a policy in effect? Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD - You Boldly made changes to the article. Your changes were Reverted & now you must Discuss why you wish to make the changes. GoodDay (talk

) 02:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I will henceforth inquire on this policy before editing other articles. Thank you,184.163.123.4 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I do not belive that the IP user was truely vandalising or acting in bad faith. From the way the edits look to me, I think that the IP was acting in good faith and trying to improve the article (regardless of whether any of it is the absolutely right definition or whether it follows the style guidelines), which is not vandalism, nor is it in bad faith. Vandalism and bat-faith edits mean that the edits are being made to disrupt, cause problems, etc. Trying to make the article better, whatever the style of the edits, is acting in good faith and is not vandalism. The IP user made the edits to the article, and Nlu reverted them. This may be a content dispute, so thus the matter needs to be taken to the talk page, so that the involved parties (and other editors) can discuss the changes, and come up with a consensus on whether to implement them or not. Is this not the way that we should properly handle content disputes? This is most likely something that needs to be discussed over at the article's talk page, as I do not se where any real administrator action is required. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 02:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no vandalism, things are cool now. GoodDay (talk) 02:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legal threats at User talk:Skovalinsky

WP:DENY matter, should anything be done about the legal threats? Goodvac (talk

) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats cannot be tolerated. The user must either withdraw the threat or face an indefinite block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Even before seeing that I started a thread at

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#Wrong name concerning this issue. While the legal threat is unacceptable, this is an actual problem which we should address.   Will Beback  talk

  23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is more a case of

Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Archives/Archive9#Wrong name. Petrosianii is the older account, so it shouldn't be a big fuss to list him/her as the sockmaster. TNXMan

23:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the sock tags are changed now. User:Smkovalinsky still has a tag, but as a sock instead of a puppet master. Since the username belongs to a live person, and other factors, I could see deleting that page outright.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This account claims to be a named living person, but provides no proof. This account has now posted the full name and address of that living person on their talk page, along with a lengthy rant about the purported misdeeds of another living person, again with no proof. Every post above assumes that this poster is who they claim to be, but without a molecule of evidence that it's true. The account should be blocked, their pages blanked, and the poster referred to OTRS. Only OTRS can adequately verify their identity. If this person is who they say they are, the OTRS volunteer can take the appropriate action; if they're not (if this is a joke, or a

Joe Job) then we'll have done the right thing by removing the material that the real living person could, quite reasonably, find defamatory. Either way, BLP applies to user and talk pages too, and new accounts that appear and declaim "I'm XYZ and I'm mad as hell" shouldn't blithely be taken at their word. 87.115.159.188 (talk

) 01:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. How do we know you're really 87.115.159.188? You might also be spoofing. ;) If the user, real or otherwise, has further problems we can address them. I agree that blanking the two user and talk pages is reasonable, given all the circumstances.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with deleting the page as a possible outing attempt, and leaving a message advising the person to contact OTRS if they have a problem. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeated Socking and other baseless allegations by User AllahLovesYou

Please mind reviewing the activities of User AllahLovesYou, this User is very disruptive for nothing. He accused me of socking twice and his allegations were rejected here[108] for the first time and here [109] for the second time. Also when I asked this User to take a break he allegedly again accused me of abusing him as well as other editors here [110] when this user's actions were not echoed by others then he resorted to sock puppetry accusations. Also, time and again this user identifies others by religion and not by user name. He keeps on calling me Shia though I have never said what's my religion? Humaliwalay (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• "Humaliwalay" translates to "I'm a Shia of Ali" in Indian languages. The word "Shia" translates to "Party" in Arabic language. Someone who creates such a user name wants to be proudly known as a Shia and I only mentioned this one time in the SPI which is ok when helping admins for investigation purposes, and I don't see why in such a circumstance mentioning this would be considered wrong?
• I have not filed a single SPI on Humaliwaly. User:SyedNaqvi90 was using socks and was constantly reverting my edits at a time when Humaliwalay was also constantly reverting my edits in the same articles for the same reasons so there was lots of suspecions about them being the same person, and I filed that report on SyedNaqvi90.
• While I'm improving articles, I wanted to share my opinion so I left a comment for the community to read at a talk page.[111] Humaliwalay responded to that comment of mine by telling me "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." I think anyone can notice the rude tone in that, it's basically saying 'stfu you idiot, and go to hell'. I believe that such talk should not be tolerated in Wikipedia. Humaliwalay is reporting me everyday and filling my talk page with bogus warnings, etc. I told him this was annoying but he said too bad. I feel that Humaliwalay is obsessed with me in a negative way, he probably doesn't like me because I'm not a Shia, and anytime I leave a general comment to the community somewhere he thinks I'm writing to him. I constantly advise other editors to learn to accept everyone regardless of race, religion, belief, nationality, etc. That's how I grew up.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

HUMALIWALAY no where contains the word "Shia". "Shia" when translated in Urdu means "Dost" "Friend" No where in my User name is the word DOST. Now this User is translating my Username as per his convenience. This makes me feel that I am discriminated [So far I have never revealed my Religion] I don't think that's needed here. - Humaliwalay (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that whatever Humaliwalay or Hum Ali Walay translates to, it doesn't matter much anymore (unless there's some suggestion the name is offensive or used in a disparaging way). If it's true that it can be translated as 'I'm a Shia of Ali' then AllahLovesYou can be forgiven for thinking that Humaliwalay is Shia and happy or proud of it to be identified in that way. However now that Humaliwalay has stated they do not translate their name in that way, there's no reason why AllahLovesYou should continue to translate it that way and in particular if Humaliwalay has no desire to talk about their religion AllahLovesYou should stop talking about or referring to it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't name Humaliwalay a Shia, instead I stated in a sockpuppet investigation "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" and that was needed to make the case strong. As I stated above, the word

Shia is Arabic (not Urdu) and it translates to "Party" (not Dost). It refers to the party or followers of Ali (cousin and son inlaw of Islamic Prophet Muhammad). Hum Ali Walay can translate several ways, and one is "I'm of Ali's Party". User:Humaliwaly revealed his name on his user page [112] as "Mohammad Sajjadali Rizvi", and any Muslim who is familiar with the name "Rizvi

" knows that it belongs to Shias in the Indian subcontinent. Other editors who know or have knowledge about Humaliwalay stated in the SPI case:

• User:Faizhaider: "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a"
• Aliwiki: "Rizvi Sayyeds of India are wel-know in all Shia world like Ali Asghar Rizvi"

This is not descrimination. Majority editors in Wikipedia are non-Muslims, and if they mentioned somewhere about me belonging to Islam I don't think I will be rioting about it because anyone can clearly see this in my name, my user page and the articles I edit. Humaliwalay telling me this "AllahLovesyou - You need some break, as you are talking in air without any logic." is unacceptable in Wikipedia per incivility and personal attack.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Basing assertions about someone's faith on their name is not only discriminatory, it is illogical if one truly believes in a 'world religion' as I understand Islam claims to be. Or does one's name predetermine whether on can follow a particular faith? In any case, the fact that someone is Shia rather than Sunni is of no consequence to Wikipedia, I'd hope. I'm not sure of the exact quote, but doesn't the

Qu'ran say something like "let us compete in good works"? AndyTheGrump (talk

) 04:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrumo, I'm afraid you're mistaken. Me mentioning to an admin at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Faizhaider "Both belong to the minority Shia sect of Islam" is not discriminatory because I was only trying to convince the admin that both accounts were used by the same person. The editor whom I filed the SPI on (Faizhaider) has stated "I and User:HumAliwaley share same surname i.e. Rizvi are Indians and Shi'a". You can't be going around calling every time someone mentions someone's race, religion, or sect an act of descrimination. For example, when a black man robs a 7-Eleven store and later a witness tells police the robber was a black guy that is not descrimination.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, all participants for their just opinions. Now I hope the brother AllahLovesYou does not label me with any religion. I do not feel the necessity of Religion here. I am here to take what I do not know and to share what I know. I am a learner and want this to happen in acquaintance rather than sectarian division. I hope I won't be let feel discriminated henceforth. Thanks in anticipation to brother User AllahLovesYou. - Humaliwalay (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Humaliwalay, you're welcome. Just so you know I also belong to Sayyids, I have nothing against Shias, a people who I view as educated and progressing. But when it comes to religion, we all have different opinions so let's try not to force our opinions on everyone.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks at User talk:Dylan Flaherty

With this edit by Anarchangel (talk · contribs). I think it sets a record for most admins/editors attacked in a single posting, hitting Gwen Gale (talk · contribs), KillerChihuahua (talk · contribs), Fcreid (talk · contribs), Collect (talk · contribs), and myself. Anarchangel has already been warned several times about making personal attacks,[113][114][115] and here also appears to be trying to stir up trouble with an editor (Dylan Flaherty (talk · contribs)) who was recently topic-banned from Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 21:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Undo, maybe RevDel, block, move on. That's uncalled for.

N419BH

21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think RevDel would be a good idea. Kelly ^hi! 21:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the section for now per

N419BH

21:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NPA blanking is appropriate, revdel is not, given the way that diff documents aspects of a long-term edit dispute. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree - those are personal attacks and there's no 'documenting aspects' of anything. It has no place anywhere on this project, and I've deleted the edit under

WP:RD2. KrakatoaKatie

22:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Katie - I see it's still in the history for the two subsequent revisions but I don't know if anything can be done about that. Kelly ^hi! 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The next revision needs to be revdel'd as well, and my blanking might need to be revdeled as well to get it completely cleared from the public archive.

N419BH

22:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they are certainly personal attacks deserving NPA blanking and maybe blocking the poster, but per

WP:CFRD which says "not 'ordinary' incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations" (emphasis as in original), revdel is inappropriate. The message made a bunch of disparaging comments about the editorial judgment and personalities of various users and admins, and it included a bunch of links to various news articles (cnn.com, washingtonpost.com, etc.) which had apparently been proposed for inclusion in the Sarah Palin article but rejected by opponents, i.e. it documents a content dispute. It did not contain any profanity, threats, wishes for anyone's personal misfortune, or anything like that. It just called people things like "arrogant tool", "major timewaster", etc., which is what I'd consider "ordinary" incivility of the type WP:CFRD specifically says not to revdel. So I think the revdel should be undone. 67.117.130.143 (talk

) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted it, as I didn't see that it rose above ordinary incivility. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad call, Sarek. That fully met the RD3 criteria, and to overturn another admin's actions without the slightest hint of discussion? In one edit we have grossly insulting four editors, and libelling a BLP. Courcelles 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It really, really didn't meet RD3. Nor are the BLP accusations of misconduct (with sources waved around, which may or may not substantiate them) obviously BLP violations when discussed on a talk page, never mind BLP violations warranted RD2 deletion. Rd232 ^talk 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The post sets a record -- hitting BLP gross violations, including charges which would have to be instantly removed from any BLP, hitting NPA gross violation, and asserting that "every brain cell (I) have is turned towards evil" which rather reduces the amount of AGF I can provide the poster (heck - I am known for routinely opposing draconian punishments - which I would not feel obliged to oppose in such a case as this). Indef, I say. And mean it. BTW, it does, indeed, rise well above "ordinary incivility." Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was even a way to turn individual brain cells towards evil. Now of course I want to learn how to do it. ;-) 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care much if the comment is stricken or not. The main thing is to prevent such gross incivility in the future, and a block would be a good start. I've been blocked for a hell of a lot less than calling other editors "evil" and "stupid". By the way, Anarchangel wrote: "Thank the stars Ferrylodge gave up WP." Anarchangel, if you're watching, please visit my user page.

:-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't rev-del it. It's a silly rant that serves to illustrate the editor's true colors. If rev-del'd, the editor's attitude might be harder to discern. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Anythingyouwant, I'd support a 1 or 2 week block. Indef is excessive, as it is not a throwaway account. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the RevDels: We seriously need to back off on RevDeleting personal attacks. Personal attacks only reflect badly on the attacker, and there needs to be a public record of these things so that people who are not admins are free to read and judge for themselves when commenting here. This is twice in about a day that an ordinary, run-of-the-mill personal attack was deleted from the record, which is unacceptable. This is a clear over-application of the RevDel policy, and needs to stop. Because RevDel removes information so that non-admins cannot see it, it should be used VERY sparingly; overuse sets up a situation where non-admins are made to feel like second-class citizens, whose opinion doesn't matter. For that reason alone, it shouldn't be used in cases like this. --Jayron32 00:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Super-strength-family-size agree with Jayron32. Any trend to RevDeleting things which don't absolutely have to be RevDeleted (when blanking suffices, as here) should be stopped in its tracks. Rd232 ^talk 00:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with not revdeleting this and with a much more sparing use of revdelete. It's useful to have this sort of thing on the record when an editor becomes a continuing problem. Revdelete should be saved for the kind of thing that really makes even an experienced and jaded editor's eyes pop out of his head. I've had some personal attacks made against me that I certainly don't want revdeleted, in case I ever have more trouble with the same editor and need to show the community what sort of discourse he favors. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• - Support - one week block, user needs to be aware comments such as that are personal attacks and will result in a removal of editing privileges, why some passing administrator hasn't seen the diff and just blocked for a week or so is hard to imagine.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 01:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment JW responded at [116] in reply to my query. Collect (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

JW is right. Anarchangel pulls this kind of personal attack all the time. You can go to his/her talk page (not talk page archives) and see warning after warning after warning for personal attacks. Anarchangel accuses one editor of "paranoid antii-UN fantasy", and says about another editor: "I just have to say something about the mental or moral competence of Biophys. One or the other is in critical shortage". Now this, and still no block.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "all the time" is overstated, but yes, those two PA's are there on the page. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• In light of this discussion I've blocked for one week with this proviso "Having reviewed the discussion and comments by various users, I have blocked you for one week. This block may be shortened if you give an unambiguous indication that you understand the reasons for it and won't engage in that type of abuse again. Alternatively, the block may be lengthened if your attitude is otherwise." Let's wait and see if the user clues up, adn then decide what to do.--Scott Mac 02:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, an indication like that would be most welcome from Anarchangel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good block, given the past PA history visible on the user talk page. I started to think 1 week was a bit much for a 1-time incident, but I see there's already been a build-up. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism

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.

That's enough!! Any more bickering regarding this issue here will result in blocking. –MuZemike 09:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Resolved

 – Likewise with the above. This waste of time should never have been brought to ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Just now,

Charles G. Koch

. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. The tags claim there are
   WP:NPOVD
   . Essentially, he is abusing tags to permanently mark the article with a badge of shame.
2. The edit comment reads "Reverted 1 edit by Dylan Flaherty (talk) identified as vandalism to last revision by MBMadmirer. using TW". This is an abuse of the Minor status, an abuse of Twinkle, and a violation of
   WP:NPA
   . This is entirely unacceptable under any circumstances, as it insults me by calling me a vandal.

I would like this dealt with promptly. Dylan Flaherty 05:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - Promptly? Its a template removing spat - Usually it is better at ANI in cases like this where there is no immediate issue that is desirous of administration, it is better to take a little time for a look at the overall situation, there is discussion on the talkpage but no consensus that I can see for Dylan's removal of the templates, and it's not as THF claimed, vandalism to remove templates without consensus, its closer to disruption.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 06:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Rob has it right. If there's debate going on, the usual procedure is to leave the template in place until consensus is achieved; and reverting and re-reverting of potentially valid content is not "vandalism", it's edit-skirmishing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're all agreed that it's not vandalism, which leaves the issue of THF calling me a vandal, twice. Dylan Flaherty 06:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he should not have called your edits vandalism. Now, what do you want done? --Jayron32 06:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the misuse of the term "vandalism"; the correct characterization of the problem is slow-motion edit-warring. Four editors have added the tag, and Dylan persists in

WP:NPOVD. The extensive discussion on the talk-page demonstrates that there is not drive-by tagging by any stretch of the imagination; Dylan, however, several times a week, issues a demand that editors restate what has already been stated about problems with the article. THF (talk

) 06:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm removing the tag due to

WP:NPOVD, which does not permit leaving a tag on indefinitely as a badge of shame. Now that you've apologized, you can redact your accusation. Dylan Flaherty

06:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Removal of maintenance templates is considered a type of vandalism (there are even warning templates especially for that issue), but yeah, this seems more like a content dispute and possible disruption by DF than a vandalism issue. It is bad form for Dylan to be removing the templates while the issues are being discussed, and I can see why the other editors' frustration level is rising. Kelly ^hi! 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly, please be careful not to misstate the facts. It is bad form to leave tags on for weeks at a time without any clear list of items to be corrected. Thank you for trying to help. Dylan Flaherty 06:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• This is actually the same type of

  WP:IDHT behavior that led to Dylan's recent topic ban from Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi!

  06:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See, now you're going from misstating facts to making inaccurate generalizations. Consider that multiple attempts[117][118][119] over the span of days were made to get THF to provide a list of issues, and all of them have been resisted. Clearly, if anyone is guilty of

WP:IDHT, it's THF, and perhaps you. Dylan Flaherty

06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a personal thing, DF. Baseball Bugs is right on target. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused you of vandalism and called for a topic ban, that would be impersonal, right? Think it through. Dylan Flaherty 06:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• - As a note,
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 06:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say to that, as it has no bearing on this discussion. But thanks for trying to help. Next time, you might want to do some research first. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you unable to look up and see what you reported at this noticeboard just above, that , "This is an example of tendentious editing and a violation of

Off2riorob (talk

) 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let me add the DF was involved in a conversation about an edit war to remove a similar tag. Here is the evidence: User_talk:The_Four_Deuces#Removing_warnings where Magog the Ogre said: "There is no reason you should have been removing a tag placed on the article in good faith. Edit warring to do so is even worse. If you can't see the problem with that, then the problem is with you". --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC is misrepresenting a separate incident -- one in which he (LAEC) was blocked for edit warring over a bias tag. He was attempting to use the tag as a bartering chip against talkpage consensus, and in bad faith. The quote from Magog was directed at TFD (who is not THF, though LAEC makes the switch below). LAEC's posts here are more examples of inappropriate piling on. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "in good faith". Excellent catch, there. Dylan Flaherty 06:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so we have an admitted

WP:OWN the page against consensus that his edits violate policy. That he's brought his one-man editing dispute to ANI and wasting editors' valuable time with this is further disruption. THF (talk

) 06:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please provide the diffs for bad faith. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't ask for what is already provided. Dylan Flaherty 06:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You mean where he called you a vandal? He already apologized for that. Is there any evidence besides that? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An apology without a redaction is worthless. And, to be frank, it's not much of an apology, as it then falsely accuses me of edit-warring.

User:MBMadmirer is a big fan of Koch and has repeatedly brought up issues that he has with the article. Not everything he asked for was acceptable, but we've worked together to resolve the issues he's found. I mention this as a classic example of good faith editing.

MBMadmirer has joined me in asking THF to please list any open issues. We've tried for days now, with no effect. It's almost as if THF wants there to be uncorrected issues so that the tags remain indefinitely, as a badge of shame. I posted diffs of some of the more recent requests, as well a diff of the sort of evasive answers THF gives. Dylan Flaherty 06:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

THF says above, "Anyone who thinks that I haven't discussed the reasons for adding the tag should simply review the talk page. Two other editors agreed with my assessment and readded the tag....; others agreed with me on the talk-page." Is this not substantially accurate? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree: it's not substantially accurate. More accurately, THF is currently alone in claiming the tags belong, and he has been uncooperative in terms of offering any hint of what might induce him to join in the consensus against the tags. Dylan Flaherty 06:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

TFD, care to respond (if you are not on vacation yet)? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC, Dylan is lying: [120] [121] . See also the talk page, where I repeatedly listed my concerns with the article, editors agreed with me, and Dylan then claimed that I hadn't justified the tag. His 06:50 claim demonstrates his

WP:IDHT. He actually left a remark on my talk-page thinking that this ANI discussion vindicated him, which shows how far he just doesn't get it. THF (talk

) 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for proving that you are still unwilling to follow

WP:NPA. Your argument ignores the diffs I posted, in which you are asked again and again and again to just post a list, and you have refused to do so. So, while I won't say you're lying, as that implies intent, I will certainly say that your argument is false. Dylan Flaherty

06:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just read the Kock Talk page for the first time, I think. I see TFD raising substantive concerns numerous times, e.g., in "POV tag redux". I'll have to agree with THF at this point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LEAC, then maybe you can help him out by doing what two of us have been asking him to do for days now. Take his "substantive concerns" and turn them into an actionable list. Until then, you'll have to pardon me for not taking that claim very seriously. Dylan Flaherty 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you asked me several times to post a list after I posted a list on 12 December, and while I was on a business trip. I then responded by pointing you to multiple threads that remained unresolved, something I have done a second time in a new thread. Your repeated demands that I repeatedly post a list that you then refuse to discuss is simply

WP:CTDAPE when I have to spend hours on meta-conversations with vexatious accusations Dylan makes. THF (talk

) 07:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting. Dylan Flaherty 07:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF, we are talking here about your removal of tags. You say he has provided no justification and applied them in bad faith. I have determined that he has provided justification and apologized for the vandalism claim. Game other. The tags stay, per my understanding of the Magog the Ogre quote I gave above and for other reasons. There is no additional hurdle TFD needs to jump to package them up into a list that you are demanding. Let's move on to addressing the issues raised. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC you're in no position to judge this situation. You misrepresented the quote above by implying that it was directed at Dylan. You (LAEC) were eventually blocked for that dispute over a tag. -PrBeacon (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Casting this as being about my removal of the badge of shame is a fine example of trying to boomerang this by blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 07:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, PrBeacon, I was banned for restoring a BIAS tag I placed that several people edit warred to remove. I learned my lesson. So I have direct experience here. DF is wrong to remove the tag in this case. I base that on the discussion we had and my reading of Koch and my previous experience on exactly this topic. I supported that with direct quotes for the blocking admin directed to the one removing the tag I placed. Now DF is removing the tag. I am providing him with the benefit of my experience. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there wasn't much benefit. You were blocked [122] not banned. Then you continued to argue at the article's talkpage for several weeks. There are plenty of other more experienced editors who can judge the merits of this case, your presence here is more heat than light. It seems like you're only here to keep

poking him. -PrBeacon (talk)

08:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. Yes, I was blocked, but as to your heat/light comment, the SPLC page to which I had added the BIAS tag because it looked like an SPLC advertisement turned out to be --- an advertisement. Numerous cases of massive direct copying from the SPLC were identified by me. Other problems of a lack of any criticism have been identified and addressed by numerous other editors. The page is substantially better now as a direct result of my adding that BIAS tag. I'm not poking--rather, I'm making effective changes and working with the community to make more. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong again. The bias tag has nothing to do with copyvio problems, as others already told you. No one's adding criticism because of the tag dispute. Your continued attempts to take credit for current collaboration there are absurd. And rehashing it here is further disruption. If anything, it shows a parallel between the two cases, not the disconnect you keep repeating. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You are spinning again. The page looked like and was an advertisement. I added a BIAS tag for that reason. True, there was a better tag to add. But the purpose and the end result were the same and the page is vastly improved. I take credit because if you look at Talk you'll see others tried to do what I did for the same reasons and failed because of the buzzsaw of people protecting the advertisement. I simply persisted and broke through. As to disruption, you admitted on DF's Talk page that you are only writing here to spin me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Repeating it over & over doesn't make it true. And you don't get credit. I did not say I what you claim at his talkpage. I am challenging your baldface lies because no one else is. Perhaps it's time we take the issue to WQA because you can't keep accusing other editors of this crap. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do. It may be the only way to stop your spin machine that you wrote on Dylan's page you will continue to do until others join you. In the meantime, I am signing off for the night and will not be able to respond to your spin further. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's your head that's spinning, because now you're just a broken record. What you see as 'spin' is what others are seeing as a collective reality -- which you've shown little regard for here or anywhere else. Apparently your book banning campaign spills over to other areas of censorship. -PrBeacon (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Waiting

I'm still waiting for this to be redacted. Dylan Flaherty 06:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Coming to ANI, starting vexatious threads, and making demands in a tone of righteous indignation is not going to go well. You'd do best to let this drop. --Jayron32 06:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Does that mean you'd be fine with my using

WP:NPA as a justification for redacting his insults? Dylan Flaherty

06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, what I mean is walking away from the entire issue, taking a few days to let things cool off, and then approaching the discussion at the article talk page with a cool head is what you should do. This entire thread is nonproductive. --Jayron32 06:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and how many days do you usually take off when someone falsely accuses you of vandalism and won't redact it? Dylan Flaherty 06:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's never happened to me, which should tell you something about how I tend to interact with other users. I also don't make demands for other people to redact anything. Things have never been said about me that I have felt need redacting. --Jayron32 06:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you've lived a charmed life. Great for you, but I'm not sure if it's provided the perspective necessary to understand this situation. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, even if you have the "right" to have the statements redacted, (I don't say that you do, I am merely conceding it for the point I am about to make), it doesn't make you look better by demanding that right. It only makes you look petty. If you want to come off looking better than people you are in conflict with, then don't act indignant and don't make demands. In fact, you look best when you ignore perceived slights, and move on with things. Even if you are in the "right" here (and I don't say that you are, I am merely conceding that you may be, just to make my point), then you overcome your own rightness by your behavior. Being right becomes less important in the face of the way you are acting. Eventually, people will stop coming to your defense even if they agree with you, solely because of the way you behave. --Jayron32 07:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble parsing this. It sounds like you're suggesting that I should simply allow people to slander me and do nothing about it. But you can't be saying any such thing. Dylan Flaherty 07:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

If what other say about you isn't true, it only reflects badly on them... --Jayron32 07:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't believe that at all, and it doesn't matter what I believe because the rules are quite clear on this. He abused Twinkle, he was uncivil and launched personal attacks. He needs to be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. In my humble opinion, your refusal to do that reflects poorly upon you. Dylan Flaherty 07:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You have the rights to your opinions. It would not be the first time that someone has felt that I had done something which reflects poorly on myself. --Jayron32 07:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, I have the right to request that admins enforce the rules. I am asking that he be blocked and have his Twinkle removed. Are you refusing? Dylan Flaherty 07:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

To do what you demand, merely because you demand it? If there is a consensus to sanction someone, via comments made by several editors, which indicate that someone deserves to be sanctioned, then admins will act. Admins don't block people just because one person makes a demand, no matter how forceful the demand. No, I will not block anyone because I don't see where there is any consensus among others that there needs to be a block. --Jayron32 07:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my demand or with consensus. This is a straightforward enforcement of the rules you are sworn to uphold. Admins do block people because they personally noticed that the editor broke the rules. Are you now claiming you lack the authority to block him? Dylan Flaherty 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that this conversation is going nowhere, and I am disengaging now. I can do no further good here. Other admins will read this and come to their own conclusions on how to proceed. Vaya con dios, Dylan Flaherty. --Jayron32 07:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you should be really careful about asking for a block, which would clearly be inappropriate here. Blocks are not punitive; per

unclean hands. THF (talk

) 07:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I am, more than anything, reminded of how rape victims are treated on college campuses. They're told that pressing charges never works and will only make them look bad. In fact, the college just wants to hush things up so that it doesn't look bad. In the meantime, rapists escape to rape again. Dylan Flaherty 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed,

Off2riorob (talk

) 06:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall one time when I demanded an apology from a user. I don't do that anymore. It's about as likely to succeed as... as edit-warring. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

So far, I've been called a vandal and a liar. I fail to see why I should sit back and accept such treatment. Dylan Flaherty 07:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It's the price of fame. But if they call you an "upstart", then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer a more serious response at this time, or none at all. Dylan Flaherty 07:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Um, folks, with this edit here[123], Dylan has once again done something he has been told repeatedly no to do: refactor (in this case removing) the comment of another editor, LAEC. I'm tired of correcting him on it, so someone else should probably restore the comment... Doc talk 07:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF. That was not something I did; it was a merge error by Wikipedia. Dylan Flaherty 07:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given the above, it's rather difficult to, especially since edit conflicts are in regards to two editors editing the same section, and there is usually(re, always), a notice that comes up speaking of said edit conflict. Given this was in a different section, it's difficult to see that happening. Further, if there was an edit conflict, it comes into question why you chose to let the comment be deleted.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LAEC restored it. It was there before your edit and it was gone after your edit. And you are known for refactoring comments. Sheesh... Doc talk 07:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

DF's comment came at exactly one minute after LAEC's, so I can see an edit conflict happening, however, that does not explain why DF decided to not restore LAEC's comment, as as we all know, the Edit Conflict notice displays the new text and your text, showing you what was there, and giving you the chance to add in your edit again as well as the text of the person you came into conflict with.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 07:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Please consider assuming good faith on the comment removal. It is a problem with the edit conflict handling part of the MediaWiki software, I believe. I had it happen to me once, and almost warned the user for it, but another user had already asked if it was an 'oops', and it was. Accedential comment removal can be easily mistaken as a bad-faith edit. If the user was adding a comment in seperate section from the removed comment in the same edit, then it may very well be an accendential removal, and not a bad-faith edit. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 07:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Daedalus969, from what I remember, I had come back and discovered that my comment had been accedentially removed. The problem can easily occur without the user even knowing that they accedentially removed the other user's comment, especially if the latter comment is in a seperate section or thread from the former (when it happened to me, the otheruser was editing in another thread. It happened right here at waaaaay-too-busy A.N.I., also). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is something that has come up quite recently with Dylan[124], however. This isn't about failure to AGF on my part: he has a habit of removing the comments of others. Doc talk 08:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright; I'll resume AGF'ing for now.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the many edit conflicts, Doc. I got two edit conflicts when I posted my first comment, the second one containing Daedalus's comment. I continued with posating my original comment, and then did a seperate expansion in reply to Daedalus. When I then posted it, I noticed that there was no newline, so I fixed it. Then I noticed a typo, which I then corrected. I had no more edit conflicts in those 3 edits after my original comment. There was also another user who commented in the midst of my edits. They really need to add a feature to the MediaWiki software that shows whether someone else is currently editing or not (especially on a waaaaay-too-busy page, like here at A.N.I.). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 08:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this sure is taking WP:BOOMERANG to new lengths! I have a solid track record of taking full credit or blame for what I actually do, as opposed to what happens due to bugs. The fact that even this is pounced on just goes to show how far the blame-the-victim mentality of bad faith pervades this page. Dylan Flaherty 08:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is against you, just drop it now. As to your track record, I wouldn't say that's entirely true, and you know exactly why.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have no idea, but I'm not asking, either. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Dylan: I think you confuse

WP:BOOMERANG with something else. Only an editor can "shoot themselves in the foot": it's not about the perception that others are doing it to you or "turning things around" on you. You opened this report, and it is not going your way. You can blame others, but this is a "boomerang"... Doc talk

08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, and what's happened here is that I walked in and was shot in the foot. Dylan Flaherty 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what that means. It means you walked in and shot yourself in the foot. Really, just stop.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Time to close this conversation

I think "Drive-by tagging and false accusations of vandalism" has proven to be false or has been apologized for. Perhaps someone should close this conversation. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for LAEC to be asking for this closure? He has a dog in the fight. -PrBeacon (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's wildly inappropriate, but this whole report has been mishandled from the start, so just let it go. Dylan Flaherty 08:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

But wait!

WP:IDHT, and then throwing a disproportionate fit when they step a toe over an imaginary line, despite having been warned multiple times by multiple administrators that this is counterproductive. THF (talk

) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be clear to anyone that it is not accurate to suggest that I compared you to a rapist. I'm also not shocked that you're eager to close a report that is, as hard as it may be to believe, against you. Dylan Flaherty 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The report has been proven false, and one particular incident has been apologized for. Time to move on. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no, that's not true. But thanks for trying. Dylan Flaherty 08:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × (edit conflict × (edit conflict)))Partly true, actually; it's time to drop the stick. You aren't going to get your demands.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that your report of THF's "drive-by tagging" is true? We know your report of being called a vandal is true, but THF apologized for that. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nether of those are true, but for people who claim they want this dropped, you sure are verbose. It's obvious that the admins here are not going to follow their own rules. Dylan Flaherty 09:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply claiming something doesn't make it so; consensus is pretty obvious, and if you don't drop it, Dylan, it will surely boomerang on yourself.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I love it when you threaten me. Never stop. Dylan Flaherty 09:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, claiming there is an "intentional boomeranging""[125] here again shows that you are not understanding what "boomerang" means. Or that blocks are not punitive. Read the essays/guidelines/policies: don't make up your own interpretation of them. Doc talk 09:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Might want to stop pushing your luck sometime soon, Dylan, before it bites back. Sooner or later, if you keep going, some admin is probably going to go rogue on you. And I mean that in the either the most threatening way possible or the least threatening way possible, whichever gets you to disengage. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I didn't threaten you, I just told you what you were already told by an admin; drop it or something will happen. Do I really need to cite the diff, when it is so clearly posted above?— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting

At this point, I've been falsely accused of edit-warring, vandalism, lying and removing other editor's words. Does anyone assume good faith? I know I certainly assumed the admins were acting in good faith, but they've collectively chosen to endorse this feeding frenzy by allowing THF to go unpunished. Dylan Flaherty 08:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This isn't going to stop unless something is done,

Per the above; this user has been told several times now to stop beating the dead horse, but they continue drag it on and demand something they won't be given. Given they were already warned to stop, I believe they need a stern-er reminder.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. -- This may surprise you, but I don't recommend blaming the victim. Dylan Flaherty 08:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The only blame that exists is the blame on yourself; only you are dragging this on with your demands, and there are only two ways to stop it; you do so voluntarily or you are made to do so.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 08:35, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to Agree. This page is a "Dylan sandwich", with lengthy bookend threads devoted to him. And now no one is assuming good faith here? This is getting kind of obvious... Doc talk 08:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Really now, this is ridiculous...I only read the bottom half third of this thread (so I don't even know what started this) and still got a good enough glimpse of Dylan refusing to lay off that I would agree with Daedalus here. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What's ridiculous is that this thread has been dead since the admins refused to enforce the rules. I wrote "Still waiting" and walked away, only to find these people still talking, and mostly just talking trash. This will go away when they let it.

In any case, if you've only read the bottom half, then you're not in any position to comment. We have enough trouble here with hasty conclusions; let's not add to it. Dylan Flaherty 09:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Correction, you were told to drop the issue after you created the 'waiting' sub thread by several users and an admin or two; instead, you proceeded to create another thread on the exact same matter. That is not 'walking away'. That is continuing to beat an already dead horse, a dead horse that by now is pretty much a smudge on the grass.— Dædαlus^{+ Contribs} 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not making hasty conclusions; I saw the dead horses you've left in your wake, so to speak, and had a large enough body count to make my own conclusions as to this point (I read starting at the bottom and moving up). Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 09:14, 19 December 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.

Alleged inappropriate use of rollback

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

Resolved

 – Barts1a has helpfully brought up some editing restrictions, by which he says he'll abide and moreover, has sought out and gotten himself a mentor. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I just had a reminder I sent to them about

WP:NPA rather rudely reverted by Ryulong. Isn't rollback only supposed to be used for clear vandalism and not things like this? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me

| Merry Christmas to all! 08:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And another one... this time removing their notice of this ANI report. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryulong&curid=10736166&diff=402988351&oldid=402988332 Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but you invited his wrath by deleting his entry at

WP:AIV, which was totally inappropriate. As I said on your alternative talk page, it is not your place or mine to decide whether an AIV entry is "stale", unless it's an entry you or I created ourselves. That decision is to be made by the admins. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

→ 08:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback can be used for other "problematic" edits, where the reason for having done is clear, such as was rolling back that unhelpful edit of yours. You've been told before, you don't understand enough about the policies here to be making edits like that. At least, you've shown little or no understanding of the policies. You're becoming disruptive again. If it carries on, you'll be blocked again. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And how is informing them of this AN/I thread a "problematic" edit? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, you triggered this entire incident by removing someone else's AIV entry, which you had no business doing. Learn from it, and don't do it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The entry in question was over 2 hours old at the time, having not been replied to and no action taken on in that time. While other reports were being handled. Clearly it was stale and would have been removed anyway. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was 2 weeks old. That page is for the admins to manage. Let them do their jobs in a way they deem appropriate in a given case. Don't mess with others' entries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, you're lucky you got away with just getting yelled at by the user. I would have taken you straight here and asked for a block for disruption. Ryulong actually showed some restraint. I recommend you box up this section and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I agree with Baseball Bugs, its no wonder why Ryulong left you some

uncivil comments but Ryulong, please remain calm when making comments. Bidgee (talk

) 08:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing one's user talk page is generally not subject to the general rules of the rest of the project, at least the last time I checked. And honestly, you're the only person to ever pick up on this and give a shit. Your track record, Barts1a, when it comes to the interpretations of Wikipedia policy are tenuous at best, which is what I told you in admittedly much harsher words on your user talk page in this comment and in this comment, neither of which are personal attacks as you believe they are.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Second point here[126]: "To revert edits in your own user space." Not a misuse of Rollback. Doc talk 08:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already had one Admin threatening to misuse their Sysop tools over removing comments from my own talk page. Bidgee (talk) 08:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I always like to point to

WP:BLANKING. If this guideline segment is incorrect, then that should be clarified. An editor in good standing can do what they want (within WP's rules) on their talk pages, I always thought. Doc talk

08:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That is my thought also but I've pointed the involved Admin about the discussion in this thread/topic. Bidgee (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This diff is presented without context. This was the previous edit. The "Cut it out" I would have thought was obviously in respect to the acions for which I had just wanred him? - brenneman 10:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's "actions", not "acions". It's "warned", not "wanred". We try to sign our posts here, too. Welcome back, Secret... Doc talk 10:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a, I've asked you before, have you ever read a policy page here, or do you only try to, say, kind of copy what you think others are doing as you stumble along? Gwen Gale (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have read the various policies of wikipedia and thought I was editing within them (With the report at AIV being over 2 hours old with nothing done and all). But clearly I wasn't Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart, this comment[127] is totally off the mark. YOU CAUSED THIS INCIDENT. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an opportune time to add something similar to my user talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't do something like that until you see how this turns out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball; regardless of who caused it: 1. It's my talk page and 2. Ryulong made the uncivil comments. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

If you had not deleted the AIV stuff, which was more uncivil than anything he said to you, this would not have happened. You're starting to sound like the guy who killed his parents and then asked for the court's mercy because he was an orphan. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what happened: It is still MY talk page! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 08:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not "own" your talk page. If you want an editor not to post on your page anymore, you ask him politely. You don't post a so-and-so is prohibited banner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It could be "Wabbit Season" for you after this. Doc talk 08:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's DUCK season and I insist that you fire! Whose Your Guy (talk) 09:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be da foist time, Doc. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"This doesn't look like Pismo Beach! I shoulda taken a left at Albacoicke!" Doc talk 09:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was flood season? No wonder why people are trying to sand bag me! ;) Bidgee (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice photo, taken from a Bridgee over the Bidgee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Like a Bidgee over troubled water..." Okay - I'll shut up now. To the rest of you: "Shut Up! Shut Up! I'll sue you! I'll sue all of you!!!" Totally kidding, BTW, so don't try "reporting" me. "Andy Kaufman and the wrestling match... yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah..." Doc talk 10:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late, I've already indefinitively blockaded you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself sued "Mister Lawlor"! Duhhhh! I'm from Hollywood: I've got the brains. I'm not some dumb hick from Nashville, Tennessee! You'll never see me again in Nashville! I shall return!" Doc talk 11:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Enough joking. Is Barts1a allowed to keep this up, even if he no longer singles me out?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It's essentially an "enemies list", and that is usually not allowed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's a baiting list. I shall ask the user to remove it, but I believe we should remove it ourselves should he decline. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it. Would you mind harassing this guy for having one as well? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Please don't edit my page" is far more civil than "you'll be reverted on sight if you edit my page". Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the normal practice, and if the user won't comply, then WQA can come into the picture. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

For both, it would be best to cite a specific rule violation before triggering another incident. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that such lists shouldn't be existing anywhere, it's like users setting up their own interaction bans. Leave it to ArbCom, and don't advertise it to each other as a bright red flag to a bull. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Normally a request not to edit one's talkpage serves as a disengagement notice, to de-escalate a situation. Barts1a's notice violates NPA, as it accuses people of stuff. Regardless of whether it is true (and in Ryulong's case I don't think it's justified), Barts1a should not have that on his page. The other guy is just requesting certain people not to edit his talk page, which is acceptable. ALSO, Barts1a should know that while he can request another editor not edit his talkpage, he cannot enforce the request if the communication is reasonable (eg it's an ani notice which the other editor is required to give him). Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

List has been removed. Next time i'll just state who and not why... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 12:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a

OK, I'm going to throw this out: Why are we putting up with this? Barts1a has already been blocked for disruptive editing in the past, and now he's at it again. He's inappropriately removed a report from AIV, he's brought a user here for using rollback on his own talk page, and he's made a shitlist on his talk page (removed now, but still). I think this guy should be shown the door for an appropriate period of time in accordance with previous blocks. I'd do it myself, but I'm about to go to sleep and I don't like making blocks I can't answer questions about. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Because he's enthusiastic, and it would feel like beating a puppy? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but however cute a puppy was, if it kept tearing things in your house to pieces, surely you'd restrain it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Bart has actually been on wikipedia for a good stretch now, so the trouble he keeps getting himself into is a bit hard to figure - but it mostly seems to come down to ignoring the good advice he's gotten from quite a few users. My first brush with him was at AIV on November 29,[128] in which he interposed himself into a complaint I made about the user "Lunalet" (who has since been sent to the phantom zone, but that's a side show). I advised him that he shouldn't be telling admins how to do their job, and that led to him posting a complaint here (sound familiar?) The current situation was right much mind-numbing: doing something way out of line, and then taking it to ANI when the editor became understandably livid about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• I am in favor of blocking him for a long time. The benefits of his Huggling are overwhelmed by the disruption he causes and the amount of other peoples' time he wastes. If I felt there was any chance that he was learning from past mistakes, and all of the advice he's been getting from lots of different people, I wouldn't feel this way. But coming off a 1 week block, it only took him a few days to resume disrupting multiple places, and the problem is not only lack of knowledge, but lack of desire to learn. I think there's enough evidence now that he is unwilling or unable to modify his behavior, that we really need to ask him to find somewhere else to spend his time. This is simply not working out.

  If someone disagrees, now is the time to speak up, because I'm leaving, but if he's not blocked when I get back, and no one has given a good reason not to, I'm going to block him indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support block - Barts1a has been clearly disruptive in the past and now. His disruptive editing has caused us to be exhausted with our patience. So with that said, enough is enough.
  Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions
  ) 17:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block - the amount of energy that multiple editors have sunk in to trying to help Barts1a learn to edit collegially and within guidelines has crossed the line from "useful input" to "giant timesuck". I thought perhaps with time Barts would catch-on, however, given that his editing style shows zero sign of improvement despite the daily stream of advice and assistance of others, I now believe this editor and Wikipedia are simply incompatible. Barts1a can always request an unblock in the future should he have an epiphany and is able to commit to editing in a non-disruptive, non drama-mongering fashion. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:57, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution noting this is my consistent position, and one of the issues raised is not consistently applied, as Dylan Flaherty appears to have copied the these people are enemies of mine type of list. [129] which, oddly enough, includes Bart1a. If the "shitlist" is grounds for a block for one user, ought it not be grounds for another user? Collect (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The "shitlist" is merely the straw that broke the camel's back here. Barts1a has an extremely recent history of not having a fucking clue about what he's doing when it comes to various guidelines and policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think "extremely recent history" is not entirely correct. A "continuous unabated history" is perhaps more accurate. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Barts1a said a couple of days ago that he was going to stop trying to be a wikipedia admin, and take photos for commons instead, which he seems to have done [130]. If he would only contribute more to articles here, it would be much less problematic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Standard offer if he continues to do well on Commons. The amount of uncluefulness I've seen is blockworthy IMO; thses threads are a waste of time. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block for a reasonable period of time I am afraid. Barts seems to almost wilfully ignore advice and cannot resist the temptation to go around ticking people off, telling them what to do, scattering inappropriate templates around and removing other peoples edits. He also removes complaints/advice from his talkpage. I'd have more sympathy if there was a GF content issue but content does not really figure much in Barts career. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With very narrow exceptions, there's otherwise no rule against deleting stuff from your user page, as it's assumed you've read it. Although in this case, I wonder if that's a safe assumption, since the advice he gets seems to go in one ear and out the other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know there's no rule against it but given his inablility to absorb and act on advice, despite his complaints page, it's a worry at how selective he is about what he does and does not keep.Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

This may sound crazy, but if the complaints and criticisms were posted on his "complaints and criticisms" page, maybe they would be better received. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

• Lengthy comment: Taking another look at Bart's history, I have to say that Ponyo is onto it. Bart created his account in October of 2006. It sat idle until June of 2007 when he made 4 edits. He then made 1 edit in August of 2008, and then 9 edits in February of 2009, including nominating himself for adminship. He was quickly persuaded to withdraw it, but it's clear he's had his eye on adminship almost from the get-go. He edited sporadically during the next 1 1/2 years until this past summer, in the June-July time frame, and has been pretty much full time since then. Now, the point of this megillah is that he's been on here off and on for 4 years, and has accelerated from valid corrections and vandal-hunting to where things are today. Around mid-November he nominated himself for the ArbCom, and proceeded to argue with the editor who had rightly told him that he didn't have enough mainspace edits, partly chiding the editor for being "unfriendly",[131] when the editor was merely being factual. A pattern begins to emerge, and keep in mind that was just a month ago, and it seems longer somehow. Soon after, he began began escalating his "playing-admin" approach, which is when he and I first crossed paths and when he started attracting a lot of attention, especially during early December, when he managed to get himself blocked 3 times in the space of 5 days. I thought things were getting better after that, but then this outrageous, and frankly laughable situation today, where he deleted someone's AIV entry and then complained here when the user got mad at him for it, has really made me wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment from the accused I do hope that people have watchlisted my talk page on commons because if this proposed block goes ahead; that will be the only place where I can post photos I have taken for articles. If nobody has my talkpage listed on commons and I am blocked indef here; there will be no point in taking photos as they will never get to be used! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I strongly suggest you respond to the issues presented here rather than worrying about your photos not being used. A little explanation and apologies, along with changes in regard to the worrisome behavior expressed here, will go a long way toward resolving this thread favorably in your regard.
    N419BH
    22:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he said something a week or two back about how everyone dislikes him or something. That completely misses the point. Nobody dislikes him. They dislike his approach to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Sorry about that; just needed some time to formulate my response. Firstly I would like to show the diff that triggered this whole mess, the AIV report and it's removal. As you can see there were 16 revisions and 2 hours during which the report was neither commented on or acted on. I honestly beleived that it was a stale report and that I was acting within policy to remove it. I didn't realize I'd be getting a rather stubborn response from Ryulong for it. When I tried to communicate with him after he left this message on my talk page, I was rather rudely reverted which is what bought this here. I will admit that I didn't realize the rollback policy was way more lenient on use within userspace.
    • I would like to issue an apology to everyone involved in this dispute for wasting their valuable time putting up with my bulls**t over the past few months or so, I voluntarily forfeit my rollback and reviewer rights as clearly I do not deserve them at this time. I hope that I can redeem myself in your eyes. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:08, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'll repeat here what I said on your talk page: You keep talking about "policy" at AIV. What policy? I looked at the AIV guidelines and didn't see anything that resembled "non-admins are free to remove reports they consider to be stale."
      • And adding here: And stop already with the apologies. Just stop doing stuff that admins are supposed to do. Article-correction and vandal-reporting are good things for editors to do. Just stay on this side of the line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Maybe that's part of the problem; there isn't one. When I say "policy" I mean the sum of the various policies as a whole. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
        • As I have said on my user talk page; I think a good solution would be a page ban from the various noticeboards; this way I can still contribute positively to the encyclopedia while having a very good incentive to stay out of problematic areas. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
          • You can impose your own "page ban" by simply taking those pages off your own watchlist. That's how I stayed out of trouble at the political pages, for example: I simply stopped seeing them. But I'm still curious to know, where did you get the idea it was appropriate to remove someone else's entry from AIV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
            • See my talk page for a response to this question Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support block. Well everyone makes mistakes sometimes, but he has gone a little too far. Block for a good amount of time, but not indefinite (maybe 6 months to 1 year). Or as an alternative, maybe we could try mentoring him?
  csdnew
  23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose draconian solution - If we had a rule against hit lists, then it would presumably apply to those kept by admins. This looks like selective enforcement of a non-rule to cover for general irritation. I am not Bart's #1 fan, and it's rare to see Collect and I agreeing on, well, anything, so take this as a hint that perhaps the feeding frenzy here is wildly inappropriate. Do not block. Dylan Flaherty 00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O_O I honestly did not expect that! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 00:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• (
  talk
  ) 01:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposed and accepted

Barts1a and I appear to have come to an agreement; even though I was one of the people above with a pitchfork and torch, if it's OK I'd like to give this a chance to work. Unfortunately, I'm logging off for the night, but I'll check in tomorrow morning. Although I guess I can't call dibs on how things are worded, I would appreciate it if people didn't decent en masse on his talk page with more ideas for other restrictions. Let's give this some breathing room. Only a request, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Barts1a's proposed restrictions

• a topic ban from all noticeboards (I think it a good sign that you thought of this independently)
• not using Huggle (I've gone back and seen several times you've reverted something as vandalism when it wasn't)
• avoiding contentious articles and their talk pages
• accepting a 1RR limit (ie you can only revert someone once in any dispute)

copied from my talk page, I have indicated that I will accept all of the above. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 01:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm encouraged that Barts1a has agreed to these restrictions, but I do think that having a mentor would help him to stick to them, and I would recommend he find one. In the meantime, I think it's worth seeing how things work out, so I oppose the suggested block and support the editing restrictions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this over an indef. I would like to make the addition of

• may appeal these restrictions at ANI(?) after [time period, maybe two or three months?]
• any breach of these restrictions will result in an indef block with the standard offer

• Does this sound reasonable? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, sounds reasonable, possible request for a degree of relaxation after ten weeks.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 03:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• I'd like to see this tried - I keep hoping each time that Barts1a will finally modify his behaviour to avoid these problems, only to see that he hasn't. Maybe this one will work. If not, I guess we'll be out of alternatives. - Bilby (talk) 03:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Fetchcomm's proposal sounds very reasonable to me. 28bytes (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• And to me. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 04:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support The fact that Barts has already agreed to this strongly encourages me. I would add that Barts should seek out a mentor to help guide his development as an editor. In particular, what defines a "contentious article"? A mentor will be able to help him make that determination, and a second set of eyes will help put out any embers before they become fires.
  N419BH
  09:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support these restrictions (and, that being the case, Oppose a block) --
  talk
  ) 09:55, 19 December 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657&oldid=1147947743"